Athletes stop at nothing to enhance performance; many utilize drugs in order to do so. The average person already has a stable option on this issue. The world is rapidly changing; specifically our morals. Mark Sisson and Joe Lindsey examine opposing perspectives on the issue of legalizing drugs in the sports realm.
Mark Sisson and Joe Lindsey have different literally styles as well as how they approach the topic at hand. Both of these literarily works have a casual tone, Sisson frequently uses words such dope. Additionally, the writers speak directly to his reader. Both authors include medical perspective to back up their argument as well as the legal implications. Undoubtedly, these two authors show their readers that this issue is three …show more content…
Sisson uses personal examples, details, and facts to lay a steady foundation for his argument. “I also own my own supplement company and have done extensive research on performance enhancement in pursuit of natural, legal alternatives” (Cooley, 597). He provides his readers with credibility as well. "Nothing does more to establish your credibility with your reader than to persuade them that they are listening to the words of a moral and ethical person who shares their values and understands their concerns" (257). As a writer, connecting with the reader is essential. Sisson also appeals to the readers emotions as he challenges ‘common knowledge.’ “In the old days if you ate a poppy seed muffin before a race, your urine could easily show above-threshold levels of metabolites of opium and you could be disqualified” (597). This statement examines the flaws in medical testing. Additionally, allowing the reader to question flaws in athletics in general. Could shady medical testing being putting athletes at risk? “These days many athletes avoid taking high- potency multi- vitamins out of fear that contaminants in their supplements could destroy their careers” (600).
Examining Joe Lindsey’s article from an ethical point of view, an individual might be included to agree with him based merely on the title, “Why Legalizing Doping Won’t Work.” However, investigating this from a literally perspective changes everything. Lindsey has a vigorous subject, but does not do it complete justice. The author overviews his main points such as ethics, without including needed details. Joe Lindsey would have had an unshakeable argument if he would have included the medical ramifications, psychological contamination, and establishing a bond with the
Mark Sisson and Joe Lindsey have different literally styles as well as how they approach the topic at hand. Both of these literarily works have a casual tone, Sisson frequently uses words such dope. Additionally, the writers speak directly to his reader. Both authors include medical perspective to back up their argument as well as the legal implications. Undoubtedly, these two authors show their readers that this issue is three …show more content…
Sisson uses personal examples, details, and facts to lay a steady foundation for his argument. “I also own my own supplement company and have done extensive research on performance enhancement in pursuit of natural, legal alternatives” (Cooley, 597). He provides his readers with credibility as well. "Nothing does more to establish your credibility with your reader than to persuade them that they are listening to the words of a moral and ethical person who shares their values and understands their concerns" (257). As a writer, connecting with the reader is essential. Sisson also appeals to the readers emotions as he challenges ‘common knowledge.’ “In the old days if you ate a poppy seed muffin before a race, your urine could easily show above-threshold levels of metabolites of opium and you could be disqualified” (597). This statement examines the flaws in medical testing. Additionally, allowing the reader to question flaws in athletics in general. Could shady medical testing being putting athletes at risk? “These days many athletes avoid taking high- potency multi- vitamins out of fear that contaminants in their supplements could destroy their careers” (600).
Examining Joe Lindsey’s article from an ethical point of view, an individual might be included to agree with him based merely on the title, “Why Legalizing Doping Won’t Work.” However, investigating this from a literally perspective changes everything. Lindsey has a vigorous subject, but does not do it complete justice. The author overviews his main points such as ethics, without including needed details. Joe Lindsey would have had an unshakeable argument if he would have included the medical ramifications, psychological contamination, and establishing a bond with the