Will Moller Analysis Free Essays

A Rhetorical Analysis of Will Moller’s â€Å"Those Who Live in Glass Houses† Cheating, in all forms, is considered deceitful and wrong. However, people still do it hoping the end result is an A on an exam or a better performance, in an athlete’s case. Cheating in itself is like an addiction and follows a domino effect. We will write a custom essay sample on Will Moller Analysis or any similar topic only for you Order Now Once one athlete decides to use steroids, others follow in their footsteps hoping to perform at a higher level. There have always been several athletes who choose to cheat for their own benefit and personal glory. As a result, those athletes are looked down upon for cheating the game and the fans. Nonetheless, people fail to understand the outside factors that influence great athletes such as Barry Bonds and Ben Johnson to use performance enhancing drugs. In his May 5, 2009 article â€Å"Those Who Live in Glass Houses† Will Moller, blog writer for The Yankees $, argues that that performance-enhancing drugs should be permissible because the majority of good 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 pressure fans place on them to perform at an enormously high level; however, there are other responsible parties as well, including coaches, players, and the NCAA drug policy 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 pathos appeal, as he presents an analogy, of his personal experience as a student who was forced to use Ritalin because he struggled with the rigorous and competitive academic work assigned to him. Moller’s reaction to his choice was that he â€Å"did what [he] felt [he] needed to do, to accomplish the goal that was demanded† from him, despite understanding the â€Å"serious side effects, magnifying [his] senses in a very negative way. Nonetheless, academic success outweighed the bad side effects. Similarly, college and professional athletes are placed on a pedestal that urges them to accomplish success, win championships, and set unbreakable records. He also appeals to reasoning by recognizing that athletes should not 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 develop more strength. Notre Dame coach Lou Holtz was believed to be a primary cause for his players using anabolic steroids during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Steve Huffman, a former linebacker, claimed coach Holtz â€Å"put [him] in this situation† because he once criticized the injured star during a team speech by stating that Huffman â€Å"let everybody in this room down if [he] quit. † In addition, Holtz threatened to rescind Huffman’s scholarship 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 can have a burden 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 around 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 Higher Education, claims steroid use is rampant among college-level players. A senate panel spoke to a former college football athlete, who choose to remain anonymous, claimed that despite gaining twenty pounds and dropping his 40-yard dash time to 4. 5 seconds, his coaches urged him and many other players to gain even more weight and become 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 â€Å"the policy is weak, however, and fairly predictable, with the drug tests falling in roughly 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 â€Å"aggressive enough, but that’s society and the mind-set. The dollars just aren’t there† (Suggs). Fans, coaches, the NCAA, and society as a whole are responsible for encouraging cheating and drug use. People are not taking the matter seriously and as a result, steroids and other drugs are easily available 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 prescribed steroids. Ultimately, the fact that drug testing policies are so weak is practically 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. Just 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 available, despite most people not realizing it. In a March 1st, 2010 blog in Sports Illustrated, â€Å"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 due 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 develop his argument, Posnanski concedes to the opposition first by praising Pete Hamill’s romantic novels and later criticizes Hamill’s willful self-deception by naively believing that drug use is not common in America and American baseball, as a means of cheating. Posnanski understand that baseball like all other sports â€Å"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 many factors that contribute to players using performance-enhancing drugs. Athletes, fans, coaches, and the weak NCAA dug policy and enforcement may all determine an athlete’s 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. â€Å"I Deserve My Turn. † Sports Illustrated. Time Inc. , 27 Aug. 1990. Web. 14 Nov. 2012 Moller, Will. â€Å"Those Who Live in Glass Houses. † The Yankees $. N. p. , 5 May, 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2012 Posnanski, Joe. â€Å"Cheating and CHEATING. † Sports Illustrated. Time Inc. , 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2012 Suggs, Welch. â€Å"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 How to cite Will Moller Analysis, Essay examples