Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Well Deserved Punishment? Steroids in Baseball

Mark McGuire


"Baseball Officials Announce Tougher Steroids Policy"



"Bonds Testified That Substances Didn't Work"



"Palmeiro Docked Ten Days for Steroids"



"Clemens Implicated in Steroid Scandal by Trainer"



Baseball. It’s one of America’s most cherished pastimes. For many, there is nothing quite like a Saturday or Sunday afternoon sitting in the warm spring air, eating a hot dog (or chili dog - - whichever you prefer), drinking a cold drink and enjoying a baseball game while the sun beats down. This sport has become so popular among the American people that “Little League” baseball teams have been established so that young boys and girls have the chance to participate in the great game. Little boys and little girls look up to those playing in the Major Leagues, like Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, etcetera, and many want to grow up to play baseball just “like the big boys do.” Ask a kindergarten or first grade class what they want to be when they grow up. I’d say it would be a safe bet that at least one little boy will declare he wants to play baseball just like so and so when he gets “big.” We all smile and say, “Oh, how cute!” Sadly, however, what little Johnny doesn’t know is that his hero may be on suspension for suspicion of “juicing up.” The illegal use of steroids for performance enhancement has plagued the Major Leagues and is causing that heroic reputation of baseball players to quickly fade.

Recently, several baseball players have been under scrutiny because they have been accused of using illegal steroids in order to heighten their performance abilities. One person that immediately comes to mind concerning steroid use is Barry Bonds. According to Bonds, he was given “the cream” and “the clear” steroids by his trainer. In court, Bonds, who has been indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury, said that he was told that the two substances were to help lessen the severity of the pain from playing numerous games. Barry Bonds more than likely knew what he was using, but the question arises whether players should be allowed to legally use steroids. Should a person have the right to abuse his or her own body if he or she so chooses? Maybe so. In sports, however, the use of synthetic steroids gives players an unfair advantage over those who are “playing by the rules” and abstaining from the use of steroids. If steroids were legal, baseball would no longer be a game of skill and athleticism; rather, it would become a competition of who could inject the most “juice” before the next game. Would the “heroes” still be the same if everyone was playing on the same level (drug free)?

Yes, many agree that steroids are bad and can ultimately have fatal results, and according to USA Today, several baseball officials have declared that they will enforce “a stricter steroid testing program that includes random, off-season testing and ten day suspensions for first-time offenders.” Off-season testing? Ten day suspensions? Is this really punishment for the players, or is it a mere slap on the wrist? Testing for the use of steroids during the off-season– who are they kidding?! Cameras, photographers, and millions of fans are not watching to see if a player hits that record breaking home run during off-season! Games are not on the line during off-season! Raphael Palmeiro was suspended for ten days in 2005 for “accidentally injecting” steroids. I do not believe that players should be completely banned from the Major Leagues for a first time offense, but is a ten day suspension enough? That’s almost like telling a sixteen year old to go to time out for five minutes! Marion Jones, a premier Olympian track and field athlete–who, was also found to have lied under oath- -, confessed to using steroids for performance enhancement was stripped of five Olympic medals! Additionally, Roger Clemens has been brought under Congressional speculation for suspected illegal use of steroids after his name was included in the Mitchell Report, a document detailing the results of an investigation led by former Senator George Mitchell. Clemens claims the accusations are incorrect, but several members of Congress question the validity of his testimony.

As previously discussed, baseball players (and other professional athletes, as well) are always in the public eye, and have many younger children and fans who look to them as role models. Because so many high school athletes have seen how steroids have affected professional players’ abilities, many have taken up the use of steroids as well. Unfortunately, I personally know several young people who, in an attempt to enhance their performance level , used steroids while playing high school sports. In fact, one of my friends tore ligaments in his knees in the last game of his high school football career because of the side effects of steroid use. Not only was this the end of his football career, it also precluded him from participating in basketball in his final year of high school. Also, another high school football player was stripped of his college scholarship because he was found to be using performance enhancing drugs. The sad thing is both of these young men were very talented and could have had post high school careers in sports. Was the use of steroids worth giving up what might have been a promising future in sports? We see so many professional players punished because of steroid usage, but does the punishment fit the crime? Would a more severe punishment, such as a suspension for the rest of the season, give the players a much needed “wake up call”? If they see one player lose millions of dollars because they cannot play for half a season, other players would probably be discouraged from using synthetic steroids. Because our society is so consumed with and influenced by public figures in the media, younger players (both high school and college age) would see that steroids are not necessary to excel in a particular sport and the use of them doesn’t pay. In order for little Johnny to have a professional athlete as a legitimate role model, drastic steps to discontinue the use of illegal steroids must be taken- - not only for little Johnny’s sake, but for the health of the athletes, as well as, the reputation of America’s favorite pastime.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Voter Identification


National Conferece of State Legislatures Website- http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/taskfc/voteridreq.htm
Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles Website-
A "hot" political debate that is currently taking place across the nation and in Washington, D.C., concerns the issue of voter identification. Today, no national law requires voters to present any form of photo identification when going to the polls to vote. Opponents to voter identification view a requirement of presenting photo id before casting votes as a public act of discrimination. On the other hand, those in favor of adopting legislation to make voter identification mandatory believe that this requirement would decrese the amount of fraud and illegal voters in political elections. In some elections across the country, politicians offer incentives to the voters who will cast multiple votes in favor of them. How can this be done? Simple. The voter casts one vote under his or her real name, but because there is no requirement to present photo identification, that same individual can go to the polls later that day and vote under another name-- often the name of a deceased person. This strategy sounds immoral and "dirty," doesn't it? Well, that's politics!
According to the National Conference of State Lesiglatures, twenty-five states require some form of identification before casting a vote at the polls. However, only seven of the twenty-five actually require a photo on the identification. Mississippi falls in the 50 percent of states that do not require any identification at the polls. In the states that require identification, but not necessarily with a photo, polls accept Social Security cards, hunting licenses, or even credit cards. Many who are opposed to voter identification argue that requiring people to identify themselves before voting is discrimination. How someone may ask? I'm not too sure; it's a good question. Everyone would be required to present identification, not just select groups of individuals. Unlike poll taxes and the Grandfather clause, voter identification is not intended to keep people away from the polls. Instead, voter id would ensure that American voters do not abuse their privilege to vote, and it would prevent politicians from carrying out illegal campaigning methods.
When considering the requirement for voter identification, most think of showing a driver's license as the proof of identification. Opponents believe that requiring voter id would keep those who are unable to drive away from the polls. However, other forms of photo id other than a driving license are available to the public free of charge. For example, in Connecticut, if you do not possess a vehicle and do not drive, you may obtain a non-driver id. Also, photo identification is required to do several daily activities. We must present id to board an airplane, buy alcohol, use credit cards, write checks, the list could go on and on, yet we don't feel we are being discriminated against when we get asked for these specific purposes. Take boarding an airplane as an example. After September 11, 2001, airport security cracked down and now requires every individual to present a ticket and a photo id before entering the terminals and before boarding the actual plane. We don't complain, however, because we feel as if our safety is being ensured from possible terror attacks. In fact, we would probably be extremely irritated and frustrated with the airport security if they just let people board planes freely without any photo id.
If this is actually the case, how could we be against voter identification? Hopefully, people want those elected officials who are chosen to serve the public to be truthfully elected. Maybe I'm crazy, but I do not particularly care to have an elected official who used illegal and immoral methods of campaigning to represent me in office. Without legislation requiring voters to have photo identification, officials who have bribed voters or offered incentives to individuals to vote for them have a lesser chance of getting caught and a higher chance of being voted into office. When the United States was founded, the government was set up to be a democracy, in which every person would have an equal vote in the election of government officials. Sadly, today, politics has become so "dirty" that politicians are encouraging individuals to illegally vote twice. Not only are the politicians encouraging voter fraud, but also, the individual (in a sense) is practicing identity theft by proclaiming to be someone else and taking their vote. Because there is no requirement for voter identification, we let people get away with these dispicable and crooked acts. Making photo identificaion mandatory should not offend those politicians who are honest and want each individual to be equally represented. Requiring photo identification is not discrimination; rather, if a person who cannot drive does not take the time (or if they do not care enough about exercising their right to vote) to get a photo identification card, then they should not be voting in the first place.