Will Moller Analysis

A rhetorical Analysis of go away Mollers Those Who Live in Glass Ho wonts Cheating, in alone forms, is con stancered deceitful and wrong. However, people still do it hoping the end root is an A on an exam or a better operation, in an athletes case. Cheating in itself is like an addiction and follows a domino effect. Once one athlete decides to use steroids, differentwises follow in their footsteps hoping to wooing at a higher aim. There have always been several athletes who choose to cheat for their own benefit and personal glory.As a turn up, those athletes atomic number 18 looked down upon for tare the game and the fans. Nonetheless, people fail to rede the outside factors that influence great athletes such as Barry Bonds and Ben Johnson to use public presentation enhancing medicines. In his May 5, 2009 article Those Who Live in Glass Houses Will Moller, blog writer for The Yankees $, argues that that performance-enhancing drugs should be permissible because the ma jority of penny-pinching professional baseball players are forced to take steroids and such, as a result of baseball fans placing players on a pedestal to perform beyond their capacity.Moller makes a good point that fans have some responsibility for athletes cheating because of the atmospheric pressure fans place on them to perform at an enormously high direct however, in that respect are other responsible parties as well, including coaches, players, and the NCAA drug form _or_ system of government system as a whole. One of the primary reasons for athletes using performance-enhancing drugs is because of the fans animalistic desire for great entertainment. This actually causes athletes to want to perform at the highest level possible and stand out as great icons to the fans.To support his implication, Moller uses the ruth appeal, as he presents an analogy, of his personal experience as a learner who was forced to use Ritalin because he struggled with the rigorous and compet itive academician work assigned to him. Mollers reaction to his choice was that he did what he matt-up he needed to do, to accomplish the goal that was demanded from him, despite understanding the serious side effects, magnifying his senses in a very negative way. Nonetheless, academic success outweighed the terrible side effects.Similarly, college and professional athletes are placed on a pedestal that urges them to accomplish success, win championships, and set unbreak suitable records. He also appeals to conclude by recognizing that athletes should non be severely misjudged as cheaters for using performance enhancing drug use because they wish to perform better for their fans. There are other outside factors that also pressure players to cheat. Coaches extreme pressure towards their players to perform at a high level indirectly encourages athletes to use steroids and widen more strength.Notre Dame coach Lou Holtz was believed to be a primary cause for his players using anabo lic steroids during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Steve Huffman, a causation linebacker, claimed coach Holtz put him in this situation because he once criticized the hurt star during a team speech by stating that Huffman let everybody in this room down if he quit. In addition, Holtz threatened to rescind Huffmans learnedness and showed no remorse or care for Huffman and the rest of the players during the losing season. Coaches who exert a strong mental toughness are perceived as good leaders who may lead their team to overall success.However, fans and the media do not recognize that tough love squirt have a centre on players, physically and emotionally. A coach, who constantly scolds players instead of guiding them, is tortuously leading players to use performance-enhancing drugs in hope of easing the burden and accomplishing what everyone virtually them selfishly wants. Coach Holtz practiced such coaching methods and as a result, school officials admitted that during the 1986 season five players tested positive for anabolic steroid use. Aside from coaches, the weak NCAA drug policy system also influences players to cheat.The use of performance-enhancing drugs is undeniably much more prevalent than it is generally acknowledged to be because of the weak policy regulations. Welch Suggs, an American collegiate sportswriter for The Chronicle of high Education, claims steroid use is rearing among college-level players. A senate panel spoke to a cause college football game athlete, who choose to remain anonymous, claimed that despite gaining twenty pounds and move his 40-yard dash time to 4. 5 seconds, his coaches urged him and many other players to gain redden more weight and arrest stronger.People may be asking themselves how players are able to avoid the NCAA random drug policy tests. The former college football star argues that the policy is weak, however, and fairly predictable, with the drug tests falling in virtually the same period of time every year (Suggs). The weak enforcement gives athletes a greater motivation to begin using performance-enhancing drugs. Don Catlin, a professor of molecular and medical pharmacology at UCLA, oversees and examines drug testing for the NCAA and believes it is not aggressive enough, but thats society and the mind-set. The dollars provided arent there (Suggs).Fans, coaches, the NCAA, and society as a whole are responsible for supporting(a) cheating and drug use. People are not taking the take seriously and as a result, steroids and other drugs are easily operable for athletes to purchase online, in the streets, or maybe even from their coaches. In fact, Charles Grassley, the former Iowa Republican chairman of the caucus, showed the NCAA senate panel online auctions on eBay for Winstrol and Dianabol, which are commonly irrefutable steroids. Ultimately, the fact that drug testing policies are so weak is lots asking players to use performance-enhancing drugs and cheat the game.Fans , coaches, and the weak NCAA drug policy may influence players to use steroids, but the ultimate decision is left to the athlete. expert as everyone is responsible for their choices, players must decide whether they wish to cheat, just as Moller had. The option to cheat in academics or sports is easily procurable, despite nigh people not realizing it. In a March 1st, 2010 blog in Sports Illustrated, Cheating and CHEATING writer Joe Posnanski argues that the beautiful game of baseball and other sports has always existed, despite people claiming that it has not or that baseball has become corrupt collect to steroid and amphetamine use.He begins by introducing author Pete Hamill, a novelist, who believes that the game of baseball was at its finest, prior to performance enhancing drug use. To sire his argument, Posnanski concedes to the opposition prototypical by praising Pete Hamills romantic novels and later(prenominal) criticizes Hamills willful self-deception by naively belie ving that drug use is not common in America and American baseball, as a means of cheating. Posnanski understand that baseball like all other sports was never innocent, that America was never innocent, that innocence itself was never innocent (Posnanski).Posnanski concedes first to show his respect by demonstrating his own character. In doing this, he is able to highlight the significant accomplishments in baseball history that have occurred due to amphetamine usage. In addition, Posnanski claims that steroids are much more readily available today than in the past. But cheating has always existed, in all forms. The fans, the coaches, and the NCAA itself are all responsible for willful self-deception as well, for having influenced players to begin using performance-enhancing drugs but believing steroid use is not rampant in college-level and professional sports.Fans are not entirely responsible for athletes cheating in college-level and professional sports. However they are one of man y factors that ease up to players using performance-enhancing drugs. Athletes, fans, coaches, and the weak NCAA dug policy and enforcement may all settle an athletes choice to cheat however, the players themselves must be accountable for their choices. Illicit drug use has negative side effects that can be harmful to athletes. But the desire to perform at a high level, break scoring records, win games, and championships is an always tempting just as it is to get an A on an exam.Works Cited Huffman, Steve. I Deserve My Turn. Sports Illustrated. age Inc. , 27 Aug. 1990. Web. 14 Nov. 2012 Moller, Will. Those Who Live in Glass Houses. The Yankees $. N. p. , 5 May, 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2012 Posnanski, Joe. Cheating and CHEATING. Sports Illustrated. Time Inc. , 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2012 Suggs, Welch. Steroids Are Rampant Among College Athletes, a Senate Panel Is Told. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 50. 46 (2004) A33. ProQuest. Web. 14 Nov. 2012