In today’s game of baseball, it is sad that no player can accomplish something great on the field without the question of: “are they on the juice?” This is a slang term for had the player been taking steroids or more scientifically classified as performance enhancing drugs (PED’s). A lot of arguments come up about how players who are caught using these drugs should be punished, and how their place in history should stand. I looked at two online articles that both offered their own opinions and solutions to the problem of steroids. The articles were very different in the way they presented their cases and ideas and here is what I noticed about them.
The first article was a very in-depth article about the topic and was published by the Owlcroft Company. This article talks about everything from the claims of how steroids make you perform better, the claims of how the records are tainted, health risks and effects of using steroids, in-depth analysis of hitting charts and trends over-time, and proposed solutions to testing for, and being caught with steroids. The article does a great job of not being just tons of text with arguments written in there. This article uses many different colors of text to emphasize certain points and headings within the article. The article also uses very many visuals such as hitting charts and graphs of power hitting throughout time. Many calculations are used to help prove the point and tons of statistics are thrown in the article. Whenever the article talks about something commercial such as Wheaties or Skoal chewing tobacco, there is always a picture of the product off to the side as well. This article definitely appeals to a more visual crowd and is loaded with statistics and studies done over time to help progress the article along.
The second article I looked at was a very traditional article. It was written by Robert Schlesinger and offers his opinion to the issues of steroids. The author commonly takes controversial questions about the subject and quotes them in his article. He then gives his opinion on what they debate is over and then moves on to the next quote. The author tries to build up support for his opinions but only really offers one side of the issue. The article is written very traditionally with just black text from top to bottom.
After reviewing the two articles, the clear-cut article that I would prefer would be the first one. It’s use of charts and statistics really helped the reader see what they author was referring to in the text and the change of color in the text kept it more exciting. The first article covered every single issue and point one could think of and even brought in issues that didn’t have to do with steroids but could still be used in the argument.
The first article can be found at http://steroids-and-baseball.com/
The second article can be found at http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/26/steroids-baseball-and-the-hall-of-fame.html
I feel that baseball is too worried about keeping the "tradition." They don't want the game to be tarnished and are kind of turning their heads on this subject. I think that one way to stop young kids in high school from taking 'roids is to show them before and after pictures of the people that have taken them. There are some scary pictures for sure.
ReplyDeleteI am actually suprised to hear about how big of a deal steriods are in baseball. I know that steroids have a presence in all sports, but I would think that they would be a bigger deal where performance strenuity is greater, such as in football. These articles definately opened my eyes on the subject.
ReplyDeleteSteroids seem to be the common issue nowadays in sports. Compared to the first article, it seems like the second one was simple and vague in information. The first article was successful in explaining the issue and researching the number of statistics within the society. Research is always useful and helpful for a reader because he/she can have a better idea of what is being stated.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. When I read really long articles, I really want to go to sleep—not learn about what it’s teaching me. However, when the article pulls in interesting visuals PARTICULARLY those that directly apply to the writer’s intent, not only do I like them better but I am 100% more likely to retain the information. And I like this topic too. Steroids in baseball is such a hot-button topic. I’m just glad it isn’t up to Congress to write baseball law, or it would never get done.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not agree with baseball players using steroids, I think baseball would not have as much interest from the public if nobody was using steroids. When McGuire and Bonds had there homerun chase, the amount of people who watched the games skyrocketed. This would not have happened if steroids were not involved
ReplyDeleteWho's to say how good baseball players would be if they didn't use steriod. There were still great players back when steriods weren't used. I think it's just a bad example to give. Showing that what you are born with isn't enough.
ReplyDelete