/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55963159/98022866.0.jpg) |
| Baseball Hall of Fame, Cooperstown, New York |
For our blog on Friday, September 14th, please submit a comment during our class time, 12:00-12:50 or 2:00-2:50 p.m. depending on your section, of at least two well-developed paragraphs. A well-developed paragraph is about 8-10 sentences.
In your comment, please answer the two questions that were on the whiteboard in class on Wednesday about Zev Chafets's "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fall, " pp. 253-255 in our textbook. Here are the questions:
- What is the organizational pattern in Chafets's essay? (Does he arrange the essay's examples by chronology, complexity, or importance?) Explain.
- Are Chafets's examples sufficient (ample) and representative (relate-able and fair)? Explain.
After you submit your comment, please submit a reply of one well-developed paragraph to at least one of the other students' comments. Please reply thoughtfully to the selected comment (rather than just stating that it is a good comment).
Here is how to submit your comment and reply:
- Click on the “sign in” link in the top right corner of this page. Then, type in your ASU email and password (or your gmail address and password would work). Submit your comment and reply by clicking on the comment link at the bottom of this post and on the reply link under the comment to which you would like to respond.
- As I mentioned in class, you should compose your comment and reply in a Word document first, and copy and paste them into the comment box and reply box, respectively. You will be able, by using this method, to avoid having to rewrite your comment and reply if any problems occur when you try to submit them.
Reminder: Please read pp. 81-93 in our textbook before class on Monday, September 17. And please bring your textbook to class with you that day (and every class day).
Have a great weekend,
Dr. K
I think Chafet organized his essay by chronological order. I say this because Chafet starts when baseball was created. He goes through time and uses the most famous baseball players. An example in the essay was "1889, the pitcher Pud Galvin ingested monkey testosterone," then goes to the time of "prohibition, Grover Cleveland Alexander, also a pitcher, calmed his nerves with federally banned alcohol." Chafet also jumps to present day. He says that todays media knows how to use the internet to get the scoop on famous baseball players. Chafet also states that "kids today use Adderall and Ritalin for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and college students use Provigil to help study.
ReplyDeletethe examples that Chafet use are sufficient and representative. Chafet uses the examples to show that major league baseball is a battle field for the players. He also says that that players use performance enhancing drugs to have an advantage over other players. For example, Grover Cleveland Alexander drinks alcohol to enhance his pitching skills. Chafet also makes a point that in professional sports their always going to be drug use. Chafet states that baseball players have used drugs cense the beginning of baseball. I agree with Chafet, they should allow players to use drugs on their own free will. It is a very competitive world today, you have to fight to make it through.
this is great insight to what the writer was thinking, really thought provoking! Love the last line: "It is a very competitive world today, you have to fight to make it through."
DeleteI agree with your comments. I do not think substance use would take away form the sport. If anything, I feel it would add another level of competition to the sport!
DeleteThe essay is arranged by complexity Chafet's essay begins with a small case of baseball players being caught using drugs. A more neutral approach by just stating facts rather than saying why its wrong. After the 7th chapter, he claims "purists say that steroids alter the game" and "baseball led by the hall of fame, needs to accept this and replace mythology and spin with realism and honesty". Using these responses, Chafet is saying why its OK to use drugs since everyone else is using them and let them become legal in baseball. This part of the essay reflects on why he believes its right, giving more reasonable examples. Paragraph 11 gives another argument about why its wrong, just to give a counter with more importance than the first examples. Most readers, when reading long essays, tend to remember the first and last parts of an essay. So the first and last examples are the most effective when supporting and argument.
ReplyDeleteHis examples are strong in a matter of fact way. His first example is who uses them and if they were a major name in baseball. to provide who has used them rather than just saying everyone in the baseball league. Then how statistics against drugs are not that reliable to variables that were only available in that era. Explaining that just allowing them can give more benefits to all players instead of badgering every drug user. Ending the essay with a exaggerated point like "what about the kids" since people with weak points use these tactics to make it look like kids are so innocent and can be a "jab at the heart". Chafe disproves this fact using the law system because drugs are already regulated as problems.
Definitely agree with you on it being arranged by complexity. His examples also very strong as well.
DeleteI believe that the essay could be written in Complexity order too. The examples really do go into a lot of detail about the use of drugs in the essay. The examples also have a very strong impact on the essay as a whole. And the examples are extremely strong to support the fact that a lot of baseball players use drugs to help enhance their skills. The quotes that you used are really good and support the fact that Chafet believes that using drugs is okay. And you are right that most readers only remember the first and last paragraph of an essay. Making the writer end on a strong and make it very memberable. I like when you said "jab at the heart" because he was using to use kids today to give an excuse so that baseball players can use drugs too.
DeleteI believe Chafets essay “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame” was written in chronological order. Chafets starts off by talking about the beginning of baseball when “Paul Molitor and Ferfuson Jenkins were busted in the 1980’s for using cocaine” he provided more examples as the years went on about other players continuing to use substances during their playing time in the league.
ReplyDeleteI agree that "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame" is written in chronological order. The examples definitely go through the years rather than getting more important or complex.
DeleteThe organizational pattern in Zev Chafets's "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fall, " is very much complexity. For example, Chafets’s essay opens up with how two great baseball players weren’t allowed to play in the “field of dreams” for their use of cocaine. Although this drug isn’t necessarily a performance enhancing drug it has been know that other players on their team were in fact using drugs to help them “perform better, heal faster, or relax during a long and stressful season.” As the essay continues Chafets’s examples go deeper and deeper between the debate of why performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in baseball. A later example is how he compares students using Provigil which is used as a study aid. Which is even more complex because that in itself is its own debate. Throughout the flow of the essay the author moves quickly and very assertively on why it’s not so bad. This topic is very complex already, without its examples, because so many people have an opinion and want their opinion heard. It’s not such a bad thing that athletes use the steroids or speed, but it is bad that they lie and hide the fact they are using instead of just being honest.
ReplyDeleteMoving straight to the next question of are his examples sufficient enough. Even through the organizational patterns of complexity you can see how wide and complex these examples are. Giving more details of why drug use should be allowed in baseball. Various examples of athletes like, “Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez [and] Mark McGwire,” using different types of drugs. He then goes on to ask the question “what great players haven’t been linked to drug use,” which really puts it into perspective of how often and how many players were using. The author argues that people aren’t upset about them using, but rather they’re upset about then lying or covering up their drug use. Some of these “purists” think it might set a bad example for children so his rebuttal for that is how monitoring these drugs just like police monitor alcohol for teens is a way to keep it under control. I cannot personally relate to this topic, but I can see why many people, athletes specifically, would use performance enhancing drugs. But I can also see the reason it could be a really bad thing to make legal since these drugs can be addictive it could cause athletes to hurt themselves instead of help themselves.
I agree with you that Chafets essay is organized by importance. He goes in depth later in the essay of who was using what drug and most of the time gave the reason for the usage of that specific drug.
DeleteI think Chafes arranges the essay’s examples by importance. He states that steroids have to be accepted in the baseball game. First his example is, in the baseball game history, there are a lot of players who use drugs and it makes the remark sound quaint. And second his example is that it is hard to punish them strongly, because they have plenty of money and lawyers. Third example is that chemical enhancement is here to stay, like college students who use Provigil as a study aid. And last, he gives an example of fans who accept anything (even drugs), so that he asserts chemical enhancement won’t kill the game. Those examples are arranged by importance which he wants to stress.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think Chafets’s examples are sufficient and representative. He states that “chemical enhancement won’t kill the game.”, and “the players are not children, so use of performance-enhancing drugs should be up to them.” However, those examples are not sufficient, because I think that if the player who uses drugs makes great scores and wonderful games, it’s just because of the drugs, not because of the player himself. So, it ruins the real meaning of the game. Also, he ignores the problem of the drug abuse. Even if most baseball players are adults, drug abuse hard to be controlled.
Good point on saying it's organized by importance. I could only see the complexity of the examples as he moved through the essay, but they are in fact organized by importance too.
DeleteI do agree that he ignores the problem of drug abuse. He did have examples in his essay, but they are not leaning towards the drug abuse. I also agree that with you about how the drugs are making the players' do well in baseball rather themselves doing preforming well without any drugs. I think they should work hard and earn the reward sober and clean. Drugs shouldn't be the reason why you are good in sports. The reason you should be is that you worked and practice your hardest on and off the field. Nice point about telling us that it is importance.
DeleteI think the pattern in Chafets’s essay leans towards more on complexity. The essay starts off with simple examples. Just like how two of the five Hall of Fame players, Paul Molitor and Ferguson Jenkins, were busted for cocaine in the 1980s. He also writes “Molitor later said he was sure he wasn’t the only player on the team using drugs,” to show the audience the beginning of the whole thing. Chafets then writes examples about the effects of drugs and how the players use whatever that useful for their game. For example, Chafets writes “Since the dawn of baseball, players have used whatever substances they believed would help them preform better, heal faster, or relax during a long and stressful season.” Then Chafets uses more complex examples about college students being on drugs to help them study or young people taking Adderall or Ritalin. Whether people like it or not, chemical enhancement can not be taken away. He starts writing more complex thoughts like how the chemical enhancement will not hurt the game; it is just the a coverup that can be fatal at times.
ReplyDeleteI believe there are enough examples to have satisfactory and they can relate to someone. He provides evidence about how drugs can also affect your game so badly that you don’t even get to play. He states that today’s superstars have lawyers and plenty of money, therefore they can’t necessarily be punished for their actions. Chafets tells us whether we like it or not, the chemical enhancements are here to stay. Also he says that fans will accept anything except sense that they being lied to. He stated evidence in statistics change of the baseball player, Ed Walsh, pitching 464 innings while C.C. Sabathia led the majors with 253 innings. I have nothing to argue against any of the examples that Chafets’s tells us about. I think all of his examples provide good evidence and agree that performance-enhancing drugs set a bad example for young athletes. However that is the player’s decisions to make, so it should be up to them about what they want to do in order to get better besides from working your hardest.
I would say that Chafets essay is organized with complexity. His first example is stating that "... five of the will play on the national field of dreams. At least two of them - Paul Molito and Ferguson Jenkins - were busted in the 1980's for using cocaine."(Chafets 1). Then in paragraph three, he states that "Grover Cleveland Alexander, also a pitcher, calmed his nerves with federally banned alcohol" which gives a different reason than other drug users because others use steroids to become physically better, but in this case, one of Grover's teammates stated, "Alexander was a better pitcher drunk than sober".
ReplyDeleteI most certainly feel that Chafets points over the topic of "steroids in the hall of fame" are both sufficient and representative. He states who was doing the drugs and what drugs they were using and even some examples of why they were using the drugs. He also basically said that there are a ton of famous baseball players that people remember not because of the drug usage, but because of what they were able to accomplish, with or without them. There are always going to be people on either side of this debate, but chafets gives us points that the people that we know of, might have been so good because of the drug usage, or maybe not.
I think the organizational pattern used by Zev Chafets in “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame” is chronology. I think it is chronology because the examples used do not get more or less complex nor important as the essay progresses. However, all the examples do have dates telling when it happened and who it happened with. The importance of the examples are all pretty even because it is almost the same thing happening with different people. I do not think that the examples get any more complex either, again they are all pretty much the same situation recurring with different people. But, the dates are there throughout the examples showing the time frame of these events and making the essay flow through them.
ReplyDeleteI think that Chafets’ examples are sufficient. He goes into great detail on who these players were and points out that there are more of them on steroids and other drugs than you might think. He gives times and dates for all of the examples and makes sure they all relate to the essay and flow well together. They represent the topic well by pointing out that though many people think that this is new it has been going on for a while. He even goes as far as to mention the specific drug that each different player had used. The only part that I thought could have been done without was the part about the different drugs that were being taken even by the fans, I can see where he was coming from I just thought it was a little unnecessary for the topic of steroids in athletes.
Chafet's essay was organized by importance. He started out with what he felt like were solid points but the end of his essay shows that he does not agree with the beginning. Chafet makes valid arguments on both sides. However, legalizing use of prescription drugs for any professional sport would be catastrophic. The fans would lose interest knowing hat everyone on the field is hopped up on cocaine or speed. Chafet has both valid and invalid points on both sides. He states "since the dawn of baseball, players have used whatever substances they believed would help them preform better". But, that isn't true in all cases, yes there has been drugs involved in every sport but that does not mean every player wants/needs to use them.
ReplyDeletebaseball itself is the drug that helps most players get through a tough season or injury. Most of the professionals made it pro because of their drive to succeed, not some drug. Chafets examples on why it would be a good idea to legalize some drugs are not sufficient at all. "The Purists' last example is that players' use of performance enhancing drugs sets a bad example for young athletes." That is very true, kids look to the best of the best for guidance, looking up to a bunch of drug heads is not what we need our kids looking up to. "if everyone has access to the same drugs and training methods,... than the field is level" yes that is a true statement, however why would we as fans want to watch our favorite players out harmful things into their bodies?
Definitly agree, there are a lot of athletes that have been strongly affiliated with drug use. However, i don't think he had many accurate claims.
DeleteI'm glad you didn't pick chronological because the way you think it was written goes along with your examples. I fully agree that drugs should not be used. The strive that made people want to go pro was all they need, not steroids. The fact that he says the bit about how kids don't want to look up to a bunch of drugheads counteracts his whole essay. valid points within your response I thoroughly agree.
DeleteGood point, i didn't actually think of it like that when i first read it but now it does bring a new perspective. I at first only saw it as complexity but importance is also just as good.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the organizational pattern in Zev Chafet's essay "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fall" is arranged very much in "complexity." The reason why I would say this is mainly due to the fact that he is trying to bring out positivity in drug use, such as steroids, for athletes, or in this sense athletes who play baseball. Zach Chavet even claims that it is basically inevitable to avoid steroids or some kind of drug use in baseball and even says its actually common! The next question also asks "are Chafets's examples sufficient and representative?" Personally, I don't think he really talks about many of the negatives of the drug use and steroids until later in the essay, but mainly explains that it is "almost inevitable" to not use drugs as an athlete or in baseball and I feel he doesn't have that much information to back his claims up.
ReplyDeleteZev Chafets organized "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame" by importance giving his counter arguments with examples to the Lear important to most important arguments against letting steroids into the Hall of Fame. He starts by saying "since the dawn of baseball, players have used whatever substances they believed would help them perform better, heal faster, or relax during a long and stressful season" countering people's argument that players back them didn't use substances to help them perform better.His examples for this is a pitcher named Pud Galvin, in 1889 he ingested monkey testosterone and during prohibition Grover Cleveland Alexander also a pitcher drunk alcohol to calm his nerves.Chafets second counter is that not only have baseball players of old have use substances to improve but people who are in the stadium for instance, he points out young people in the stands could be on Adderall and Ritalin, stimulated used to treat ADHD and college students that use Provigil, an anti narcolepsy drug, to help them study. He's stating that chemical enhancement can't be taken out of the game of baseball because it has been used since the beginning by players and is being used by the audience making it apart of the game.His third counter is that steroids don't change the game because the game has always been changing. Batters wear protection, bat have more "pop", expansion have altered the geography of the game, the demographic have changed to be unrecognizable. His final counter argument to the most important and most frequent argument against steroids is that it doesn't set bad example for young athletes because not only because of the previous points given but that baseball players aren't children, they're adults in a stressful, competitive environment. If they want to use steroids to improve it's their decision. I believe his examples were sufficient enough to back up his counter arguments and also told a perspective that challenges the other perspective that's against steroid use in baseball
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you on the stance of saying his organizational method was by importance. Yet in the beginning of your comment is stating that Zev claimed players in the past simply used these drugs for other reasons than enhancing their performance, but then you list Zev Chafets statement literally stating that indeed they did use drugs to help them play better. So it leaves me wondering your exact thought on your opinion or reasoning behind it better said. Other than that minor confusion I had, your view on the essay was able to comprehend.
DeleteI believe that Chafets uses chronological organization in "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame" . He starts off his examples with the beginning of baseball as early as 1889 with the pitcher, Pud Galvin. He eventually goes on to talk about drugs in todays sports and how they should be seen as just part of the sport.
ReplyDeleteChafets examples do well to represent the usage in stars that we have come to love. Legends in the sport that we believed to be pure in baseball we find out were out using drugs and narcotics to ease the stress and pain that comes with playing. He continues with saying that even though they used these substances, they shouldn't take away from their accomplishments. He backs it up with saying that every athlete has the same means of acquiring these substances and getting the same training.
I agree with the chronological order and the fact that his examples are sufficient.
DeleteZev Chafet chose to write his essay on “let steroids into the hall of fame” by complexity and importance. I say these two types of organizational patterns because throughout all his writing he uses various examples of different baseball players and different times which those players accorded to. These examples make it complex because of the variety, yet the importance which he refers to quite frequently is based off baseball has altered many things throughout the past to the now future in order to enhance the players ability to play better and for the game to be better suited for all the viewers. To think he didn’t have enough examples would be like saying it’s cold out during the winter. Zev stated many examples giving the reader a better understanding on the topic. Depending on the type of person you are depicts your stance on the situation, I for one do not agree on allowing players to use these drugs for whatever reason it is they chose. Even after his examples and arguments. Drugs are drugs there is no changing that. Normalizing them for the sake of “it’s inevitable” is without a doubt not justice enough to allow it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the organizational pattern in Zev Chafets essay "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame" is arranged in chronology. He begins his essay talking about the beginning of baseball and the use of steroids and then throughout the essay he addresses players and the later uses of steroids. The dates in his essay are in order which also cause the organization to be chronology.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe his Chafets examples are sufficient and representative. In the essay he gives multiple real examples of players using steroids. He addresses the uses of steroids in baseball as an issue and he also talks about how a lot of baseball players use steroids. The examples are sufficient and representative because he does a good job of informing people about the use of steroids in baseball even if the reader has no previous knowledge about the subject.
I could only see the importance of the examples as he moved through the essay, but through your opinion, I can see that they are organized by chronology too. It's a good point on saying he begins writing about the beginning of baseball and then through out the essay he addresses later uses of seroids. Also I didn't see the dates in his essay, and it casue the organization to be chronlogy.
DeleteI do believe that he wrote his essay in chronological order, and that his examples were very sufficient.
DeleteZev Chafets structures his passage by complexity of the issue. He throws out a couple of dates, but as the passage continues he’s breaking down his opinion. He listed examples of players on substances and some of the consequences that came with them. Though after reading the passage I don’t feel his supporting details adequately backed his ideals. The thought process of because many top tier baseball athletes do it so it’s okay is a weak way to defend a opinion. Adding onto that, the examples that were given built a stronger case against his ideas.
ReplyDelete“It is the cover up that could be fatal” is poorly thought detail on behalf of the writer. The substances that are used are harmful to a players physical and mental health. So slowly killing themselves is fine for competitive edge. The abuse of these substances can lead into even more problems affecting at home life as well. Addition to that fans of the game have to watch as there favorite players slowly throw there life away.
Jaren I agree with your statements about the complexity and the thought process. And your answer for the examples was well thought out with describing the side effects of abusing those drugs.
DeleteIn the essay “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame” by Zev Chafets, he highlights the use of performance enhancing drugs such as steroids or testosterone boosters. I believe he organizes this passage in chronological order mainly because of how he starts from the early years of drug involvement in baseball to the times like now. He states that “since the dawn of baseball players have used whatever substances they believed would help them perform better” which will start the beginning of the timeline. Also it tells the true story of the Home Run race of 1961 where Mickey Mantle actually grew a abscess from a needle that benched him for a while. As you progress more into the essay he starts naming more recent players and the cases they had on them such as players like Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez and also the development that the drugs have had on the sport and players to this day. He closes by telling the problems and occurences of it that still happen today and how he feels.The essay states that performance enhancing drugs have had a big effect and they will only continue to. He talks about today saying that no matter what time era we are in baseball will always be baseball and Americans will always love it.
ReplyDeleteThe author Zev Chafets went for a approach I wasn’t expecting when reading this essay. He actually agreed to just letting the use of steroids and such just happen, which is odd because most of the time you read something like this it is usually an author disagreeing and trying to get other people to disagree also. That is clearly not the case in this piece. He backs up us opinion with how it's practically normal for the drug usage to happen or how it has occurred so much. I agree with this part because it has gotten to a norm and I don’t believe it will completely stop either, whenever you have money anything is possible. He also says that baseball hasn’t “stopped changing” and I believe that in the means of drug use also because there is still steroid suspensions to this day. His main points give us all a timeline of the drug situation since the beginning of baseball and with time this problem will only extend. So I do believe all his examples and points are relative to his opinion and to his main point.
I believe that the organizational pattern used in Chafets' "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame" is chronological and a bit of importance. He starts off by using a scenario that happens in the 1980s and then goes on 2003, after he does so he begins he body paragraphs starting in 1889. So, the little part of importance is when he starts at a later time, however goes back to chronological. I do believe that his examples are sufficient, when he talks about the specific substance abuse issues they are all different however have the same result. He uses examples from very early years when baseball first started, and then talks about how it's stayed consistent throughout the years. The drugs are unnecessary and he makes that clear, however he does say that they have been used since the beginning.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was in chronological order. I think the amount of examples he provided were very sufficient.
DeleteThe organizational pattern used in "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame", is chronological. He starts his first body paragraph off in 1889 by talking about the pitcher, Pud Galvin, who ingested monkey testosterone. He then moves to 1961, talking about Rodger Maris who developed an abscess from an infected needle. He goes on to talk about scenarios that go on today. Chafets' examples are very sufficient and fair. He talks about different situations in great detail and proves his point. He also explains how steroids have been used since the beginning of baseball, and he provides details in great depth to back up his main point.
ReplyDeleteThis was my response.
DeleteI believe the organization pattern in “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame” by Zev Chafets is complexity. Chafets uses different players on professional baseball leagues along with examples of these players. This is where it becomes complex because of the various people at different years. Chafets is trying to put readers in a positive position about the use of steroids. One of the players that was mentioned basically claims that it is kind of impossible for some athletes to stay awake from drugs such as steroids.
ReplyDeleteHis examples are sufficient and representative. I mean he doesn't really say anything to steer readers in a different direction of the uses of these steroids. In the reading, Chafets says adults should be able to use the steroids but have an age restriction on children who want to use, due to the influence of the players children look up to. He states that most professional athletes use them because of what can be accomplished with them in their systems. People might agree to Chafets points, some simply won't.
I agree that the author's examples are sufficient because of how many he includes in the the article "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame". Each example that is given is very detailed and informative to the reader, that is also another reason they can be considered sufficient.
DeleteI agree in that Chafet’s organizational pattern is complexity. He shows this by going back and forth with time based on whatever he needs out of the example. Along with such patternization, he does lean heavily towards the side favoring drugs. The way he puts it, they’re adults and should be allowed to use drugs to deal with the tough sport they play. He gives a little off-hand comment about his writings not being meant to steer kids in such a direction, but only the adults who play the game. I definitely don’t agree with Chafet here because he continues on about how this wouldn’t be legal for kids until they were at the proper age. This raises the question, would all drugs be legal for baseball players or would they draw a line? If they don’t draw a well defined line, then how would they be able to monitor if it was only baseball players taking part in this?
DeleteIn the article “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame”, by Zev Chafets the author organizes the article by chronology and importance however the events he includes are not in order. The reader is able to identify the pattern of organization is used because throughout the story Chafets arranges dates or times one after another by the importance of the events of baseball players consuming drugs. He uses In the first paragraph the author adds that “...in the 1980s…” two baseball players were caught “...using cocaine”(Chafets 253). Zev Chafets started the article with an event that happen almost forty years ago to let the reader know that baseball players have been using drugs for a while now. In the third and fourth paragraph Zev goes back to events that occurred “as far back as 1889...” and “in 1961…”(Chafets 253). The authors goes back to introduce more incidents of a baseball player“[ingesting monkey testosterone” and another player that sat on the bench due to using “...an infected needle...” to inject himself with “...Mantle with a home-brew containing steroids and speed” (Chafets 253 & 254). Zev includes this because it is an important occasion that happen that has to do with the topic of the article. Later on in the article Zev Chafets includes that, “...baseball has never stopped changing” because players from the past and present are still dealing with the use of drugs.
ReplyDeleteThe range of examples that Zev Chafets are sufficient because of how many he includes in the article. However they are not representative because not everybody can relate to being a baseball player or an athlete that uses steroids or any other type of drugs. Zev adds in the fourth paragraph that “...Willie Mays, kept red juice, a liquid form of speed, in his locker”(Chafets 254). Another example that is in the article “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame” represents baseball players consuming drugs is when “...Sandy Koufax admitted that he was often half high on the mound from drugs he took for this ailing left arm”(Chafets 254). Both players were using drugs while playing baseball, having said that they were not consuming the same drug. The range of examples that Zev includes are sufficient because he lets the reader know that each player in the article used different drugs. Although there is plenty of examples it is hard to relate to baseball players because “...they want to use anabolic steroids, or human growth hormone or bull’s testosterone…”(Chafets 255). Everyone has a different view or belief on drugs that is why the examples are not representative.
I agree that he includes sufficient examples. Before reading this article, I had no idea how prevalent steroid use was in baseball, but he has certainly convinced me that it is fairly common. You also make a good point that it is hard to relate to baseball players and their use of steroids. Do you think this impacts how we read this essay? If I'm being honest, although I was very surprised by the information in this article, I don't particularly care about baseball, so my interest ended when I closed the book. Do you think it would it be easier for a college athlete to relate to this article, or do you think this is really only something professional athletes would care about? More importantly, do you think this is something the general public should care about? One thing that I did end up thinking about was my lack of interest in this topic. Since I'm not interested, I'm not really motivated to do anything. However, if most people react like this--maybe we're shocked, but we're not going to really do anything--then we ultimately don't get to have a say in how this plays out in the world of baseball. Do you think it is important for the general public to be involved in this decision, or should it be left up to those who are actually involved in the MLB?
DeleteTo me, Zev Chafet organizes his writings by complexity. He begins his writing talking about the 70th anniversary of the Baseball Hall of Fame and how at least two out of five members of the exhibition game were busted for cocaine in the 1980s. This leads him into discussing the multiple players who have been found to be drug users. He makes it sound as if these -often insane- drugs are no big deal. There were people found to use monkey testosterone, speed, and anabolic steroids with some of these people being major players of the game. As he goes through the paper, it becomes more and more clear which side of the drug use argument Chafet is on. This is easily seen in his quote, “If they want to use anabolic steroids, or human growth hormone or bull testosterone, it should be up to them”. For the most part he saves his more controversial and side-taking thoughts until the end of the writing when he’s stated his thoughts thoroughly.
ReplyDeleteI find the amount of Chafet’s examples to be quite thorough. He speaks of at least ten players known to have been using drugs during their career, and goes into depth on probably half. This amount of examples in a paper only about two pages long is honestly pretty surprising considering the depth on most of them. The amount that he speaks about and the way in which he writes about them almost makes them seem normal. Therefore, I can see how Chafet’s writings would be relatable to some. To those that don’t believe drug usage to be a big deal, or those who just intensely love their sports no matter what, I can see why they would agree with this piece. I can’t say I find drug usage in sports to be fair though. While some players may want to use supplemental drugs to boost their performance, this make it an uneven playing field for those who simply don’t like or want to use them. When you don’t have a bar firmly set for the standard, it’s all too easy for people to exceed for artificial reasons.
I agree with you when you say the organizational pattern being used is complexity. The way the author uses these examples of multiple drugs and examples of many players who have been busted, shows a complex organization that gets the topic across. This shows support for what the essay is about, while also showing the reader that the author has knowledge on the subject he is writing about. I also agree with you when you say that "the amount of Chafet's examples are quite thorough. The author uses examples of a multitude of situations that seem endless while reading the essay, this to me shows that the authors examples are sufficient. I also see how you would think that the article can be relatable and agreeable for some, while other readers may disagree completely. It all depends on the audience the author is reaching out to. You make a strong point in your closing statement that I agree with very much. The statement "When you don't have a bar firmly set for the standard..." is the part of your comment I can relate to the most and share the same beliefs as. Great job!
DeleteYou echoed my thoughts exactly! I can see where Chafet was coming from, that perhaps banning performance-enhancing drugs is simply old-fashioned, and we need to get with the times. However, as you said, this makes it nearly impossible for anyone to anyone to make it as a professional athlete without using supplements. Not long ago, this exact thing was happening in Russia. According to several athletes, they were told to start using steroids at a very young age, simply because that's what all athletes did. They didn't even see it as cheating; it was merely trying to keep up with the competition. When this becomes the norm, though, it likely eliminates the possibility of being able to compete without using these drugs. People may have very legitimate reasons for not wanting to subject their body to steroid use, and this puts them in the position of having to choose between two very difficult paths.
DeleteTo play the devil's advocate, though, what would you say to the argument that this is just like any other sacrifice a professional athlete has to make? They put their bodies through painful training regimens, they give up their personal lives and family time--is steroid use just another sacrifice to add to the list?
I agree with your opinion on the article. Chafet does use complexity to get his point out. Many players used drugs so they would not fall behind in talent from other players. This give an good argument on the issue of should drugs should be allowed in baseball.
DeleteIn the essay “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame” Chafets organizes it into complexity order. The first example he uses in his essay is the decade of the 1980s. He then goes on to explain how two people were busted for using drugs, Paul Molitor and Ferguson Jenkins, in those years. Couple of words into it he uses another date to compile his story. In 2003, Sammy Sosa tested positive for performance enhancing drugs. He then goes back as far as 1889 when he says Pud Galvin ingested monkey testosterone. By the end of the story he uses Ed Walsh and C.C. Sabathia, but these two were totally different eras. He explains that it's not the use of the drugs that gets affected but rather how they play and the stats that are finalized. We see that he started the essay with just the use of the drugs and then get into a more complex system of what they affect and how it differentializes the game.
ReplyDeleteChafets examples are adequate but they aren't relatable. Every other sentence has an example so he has backed up most of his case. The best one used is the one said “They are adults… as for children, the government can regulate,” although I do somewhat agree, most of me says no. Being that that is his best response Id say there's nothing else to bring to the table. All games should be played fair, if not scores are not accurate then who is to say whos the best. Steroids or drugs should not be allowed at all. Its should be all raw strength so there's an even playing field.
I agree, there should not be allowed at all to use steroids. It is completely unethical and the game should be based on raw skill and talent
DeleteThe organizational pattern of Chafet’s essay, “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame”, is complexity with a mix of chronology. I say this in the sense that the story is told using the time periods of each example, although not in a specific order. The story uses a complex pattern of a multitude of examples that support the author’s view on the topic. The use of examples and key details in an almost sporadic, yet on topic pattern, makes the organizational pattern of this essay complexity. All of the events the author speaks of are related, but they are not told in an order specific to their occurence. For example, the author writes about an incident that occured in 2003 (Sammy Sosa tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs) on page 253, then goes on to give details about an example from 1889 (pitcher Pud Galvin ingested monkey testosterone) in the following paragraph.The author then goes on to give examples from 1961, 1908, and 2008. The organization in some cases almost seems a bit chaotic, but is made well to grab the reader's attention and show that the author has knowledge on the subject.
ReplyDeleteChafet uses sufficient details and examples in this essay. He uses examples that include different players over different years throughout the league. In the essay the author gives an abundant amount of examples and players that readers can connect to. Some of these examples are about the league's most notable players. Throughout the essay the author is never lacking in giving examples. The examples are fair to a certain degree. The author gives many examples that a lot of readers can relate to. On the other side of things, the author gave no evidence of some of the league’s most memorable players who did not use substances to make them perform better. A lot of people may believe that using performance-enhancing drugs or chemicals is okay based on what they know and what the article says. A vast number of people however, would disagree and say that it is wrong for players who use the substances to be allowed into the hall of fame. Given this, I find the essay and examples within it, can be relatable and fair to some readers.
I agree when you say that Zev Chafets does not include players that did not consume drugs while they were playing baseball. I also agree that many people believe that it is not fair for baseball players who use drugs to be part of the hall of fame.
DeleteWhile reading Chafets essay “Lets Steroids into the Hall of Fame”, I realized that he arranged the essay using complexity. Rather than putting things chronologically or writing by importance, he gives in depth examples about the use of steroids in Major League Baseball. He talks about famous MLB players such as Sammy Sosa and Grover Cleveland Alexander, which he uses as key points to support just how big performance enhancing drugs are in the industry. He then goes on to give his thoughts on the subject, backing it up with personal opinions and very biased facts. One example of this is where he speaks about how not only the players use these drugs but so do the audience watching the game. This is generalizing a group of people based off little to no information. Which is why it leads me to believe that Chafets examples are not sufficient and representative of the subject. He uses too much personal opinion and not enough fact to back up his idea that performance enhancing drugs, such as steroids, should be allowed in the Major League Baseball industry.
ReplyDeleteI thought his facts were biased as well! I couldn't really get a feel of what his feelings were about the whole "drug situation" though. I wish I would've thought about that maybe his opinions were a little too personal because they really were now that I think of it.
DeleteThis essay uses a mix of complexity and importance. The author talks about how PEDs and other drugs are against the MLB rule book but even then players still continue to use them. As a result of baseball players being so rich and having great lawyers they don’t really have anything to worry about except for not getting a spot in the hall of fame. He then goes on and gives examples of famous players such as Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez who have been caught using PEDs. The author uses these examples because of the importance that these men have had in the history of baseball. The detail that the author shows when writing about the rules of the MLB and what players have to do shows the complexity in the style of writing. Whether or not the players should be allowed to use drugs is an interesting topic because since the founding of baseball players have been trying to do whatever they could to improve their game.
ReplyDeleteThe author uses several good examples in the essay about hall of fame caliber players who have been caught using illicit substances. He uses several examples from all eras of baseball. Chafets talk about how players all the way back in 1889 when the MLB was only 20 years old. Pud Galvin used monkey testosterone to enhance his performance. The number of examples that the author uses is sufficient because he uses examples from all through history. In addition to using the examples about people abusing drugs he also uses the example of people who weren’t competing against black people. They never had to face a black pitcher or go against a black batter. As a result of this author giving these examples, I feel that the number and quality of examples is sufficient and reliable for this essay.
I would have to agree that that the essay did use complexity and importance. I like how you used examples to show how the essay was complex. There is one problem through, you didn't show how the essay showed importance. Over all , you show great work with this essay.
DeleteThe organizational pattern that I think Chafets uses in his essay is a mix of complexity and importance. The reason why I chose complexity is when reading the examples Chafets use different times of drug use. As you read closer to the end, the examples start to be organized by importance. Near the end of the essay Chaft uses examples of why it is bad to use steroids which are organized by importance.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I say that Chafets uses sufficient examples for the essay. The reason I say this is because he use lots of examples to cover why steroids are bad. As for the question if the examples are relatable and fair, I would have to disagree. The reason I say this is because not many people overdose them self on steroids to be able to relate.
Zev Chafets starts this essay off with an anecdote about two players, Paul Molitor and Ferguson Jenkins, that were busted for using cocaine. Nearing the end of the passage he has advanced on to talking about how the entire league uses these performance enhancing drugs. In this sense, I believe the pattern of organization the writer is using is Importance. In paragraph two, Chafets talks about how in 2003 significantly more players are being found using performance enhancing drug and then raises the question: What great players haven’t been linked to drug use? In paragraph seven, Chafets takes a turn to the stands; talking about the people in the stands, “youngsters” who’re using performance enhancing drugs to help them focus, college students who’re using Provigil to stay awake to focus. Stating these examples expresses to the reader that these drugs are everywhere, and here to stay.
ReplyDeleteIn this passage, Zev Chafets consistently gives a sound range of examples that, in my opinion, answers many, if not all, questions I had. In paragraph eight, he states that purists say that these drugs are changing the game. Chafets states that performance enhancing drugs have been around since the beginning of the game. That the players that play baseball as a career should be able to make the decisions for themselves if they want to use the drugs or not. Because if all players have access to steroids or alcohol or whatever works for the player, they should be able to use said enhancements. The writer states that whatever drugs the players use, whatever enhancements are in their system, Americans will continue to love the game. Nearing the end of the passage, Chafets says that the baseball Hall of Fame used to just be a tourist attraction. But now has become a “field of dreams – and now, a battlefield.” Stating that people are living in the past if they think they can eliminate these drugs from the game; because at the end of the day, these players will do anything to get the upper hand, even if it means risking their career.
ReplyDeleteI believe Chafets used a chronology and importance pattern for “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame” because, he gives examples of baseball players who have used “performance enhancers” during the history of baseball. He makes sure to use specific dates and places to make the reader understand that these players have been using drugs or illegal substances since the very beginning to heal their aches, relieve stress or even just because they believe it will help them perform better. Also, he includes the times when players were trialed for the use of drugs, and the ones on trial claimed they were sure they weren't the only ones using drugs. Chafets gives a short but detailed summary of the background on steroids stating that in 1991 steroids where on the list of banned substances but in that time there was still a “no testing policy” in the baseball industry. Baseball has a reputation of drug use and he goes on to say “ what great players haven’t been linked to drugs? “, given how we always seem to see they’re the ones being busted for drug use. He even go to say in the past we were able to shame and punish baseball players by them being trailed or by the media attention but now it’s not so easy because they know how to use the media to their advantage and they have money and lawyers who seem to get them out of these types of “punishments”. Even the owner of several major league teams claimed that one of his players performed better when they were under the influence of alcohol. He honestly put a lot of effort and thought into trying to explain his thoughts.
I honestly couldn’t tell if Chafets was for or against the use of performance enhancers. Although, I do believe his examples were sufficient and representative because he says that we’re all so against the use of drugs and illegal substances but still continue to be head over heels for baseball and their players whether or not they are using drugs. I think he is leaning towards not really caring about these players personal lives, because his title is “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame”, which makes me think that maybe he just didn’t care? Although, I had a hard time deciding his opinions on the situation, I do believe that his examples were clear on giving information and explaining the history of drug use in Baseball’s history. He says states “like it or not, chemical enhancement is here to stay” because he believes that people claim to want to “turn back the clock” but they don’t really understand what they’re asking for. He gives examples of how this has been a problem for a very long time and to ask the players of this age to change would be nearly impossible due to the money, fame and lawyers on their side. Everyone in the Baseball industry is grown and what they use to enhance their game is obviously really bad for them, there is nothing any of us could do to stop this from happening. Again, I believe his examples were, for the most part, relatable and fair.
You make a very interesting point! Based on the title, I had just assumed he was advocating for allowing steroid use in baseball, but I can see what you mean. It isn't so much that he loves steroids and is strongly in favor of legalizing their use; his argument seems to be more that we are fighting a losing battle, and it makes more sense to simply stand back and let things happen. In my opinion, this is an even more controversial argument than merely advocating for steroid use. What if this argument becomes the standard by which we continue to determine what is or isn't allowable in sports? Rather than holding players to an ethical code (though that may be a hopelessly idealistic way of thinking...), we instead make our decisions based on whether or not we think we can actually hold players to the rule. What if this standard started being used in other areas? Would schools have to allow plagiarism simply because they can't prevent students from doing it? Would stores have to allow shoplifting simply because it keeps happening and it's impossible to catch everyone? Obviously these are extreme examples, but it's something to think about.
DeleteZev Chafet’s article “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame “, Chafet uses an organizational pattern of complexity to get his opinion across on how steroids should be allowed in baseball and that players that used steroids should be allowed into the Baseball Hall of Fame. He first begins to explain how baseball players have always used drugs to either have an advantage on the field or to help with an ailment. Chafet gives an example of this by including pitcher Pud Galvin who in 1889 used monkey testosterone. He also goes on to explain that players would cheat during prohibition by drinking alcohol, during the 1960s Mickey Mantle was caught using steroids while Koufax admitted after retiring to have been using drugs for his ailing left arm, in the 1980s players getting caught with cocaine, and up to 2003 with multiple superstars being caught with steroids. Throughout all of this, Chafet explains that the Baseball Hall of Fame knew that the players were using drugs all along to save the players from “scrutiny.” Once the news came out, it spread like wildfire. It would become a huge controversy that could have been avoided if they didn’t hide it from the public. Through this he able to show complexity on the issue by explaining that baseball players have always been using drugs. Chafet then begins to give his opinion on the question of do players who used steroids be eligible in the hall of fame. In most cases if caught, the player is banned from entering the hall of fame. Chafet argues with this by explaining that almost everyone uses chemical enhancement whether it is college students or singers.
ReplyDeleteChafet’s article shows representative information in his article. He can do this by explaining that it is fair to him because most players were using drugs anyway. Through those years there hadn’t been any for change in fan viewership. Even though baseball has changed through the years in technology. It is agreeable that many fans don’t care only if they are lied to. Covering up drug use is the most fatal thing for baseball. Through this Chafet is able to bring up a agreeable point that they should let those players in the hall of fame because most players throughout baseball have used drugs.
I like how you used examples showing the organizational pattern.
DeleteIn “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame”, Zev Chafets organizes his essay by complexity. Throughout the essay, Chafets writes different examples of drugs used in baseball by multiple well known players. Each example after the other seems much more complex than the last because not only does he mention steroids but he also brings up monkey testosterone, alcohol (which was banned at the time used by the players), “...a home-brew containing steroids and speed.”, and amphetamine, which is just naming a few. Chafets goes much more in depth with examples of drug use throughout his essay which presents a complex organized pattern.
ReplyDeleteI would say that Chafets examples are more than sufficient to his main point and has given his readers an understanding of just how much enhancement drugs are used in baseball. Although to myself, personally, the essay was not relatable I can understand the importance it can bring to those that are actually interested in the sport. As for being fair, he does bring up good examples that prove the history of drug use in baseball. Examples that cannot simply be ignored but should be accepted and be used as a different point of view in such a controversial subject as, “should enhancement drugs be used in sports?.”
I believe that Chafet’s way of organizing his story is by complexity because he starts out with the example of two of the five players being caught in the 1980’s for using cocaine. Then he moves on to more players who became popular in their time playing baseball while using drugs. For instance, “This week’s report that Sammy Sosa tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003 is only the latest in a long string of revelations.” This quote shows that Sammy Sosa was one after the many popular baseball players before him that used drugs. From there it goes on to saying some players have even used federally banned drugs like, Grover Cleveland Alexander.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Chafet’s examples are good examples because, he goes from the beginning of baseball to now. For example he talks about in the beginning of baseball a pitcher named Pud Galvin ingested monkey testosterone, to Sammy Sosa using performance-enhancing drugs in 2003. Another reason is he uses a wide range of offenses anywhere from an amphetamine tablet to a federally banned alcohol.
I totally agree with your statement about Chafet's way of organization. I think Chafet is making a very important point about how drug use has been a crucial problem throughout history ranging from Grover Cleveland Alexander in the 1920s and 30s all the way to Sammy Sosa in 2003. I think that the quote really outlines the essential problem at hand and you do a nice job of analyzing the quote and connecting it back to the point of the story. However, you seem to also be repeating the fact that Sammy Sosa used a performance enhancing drug which only goes on to be repetitive. To conclude, I understand your argument of Chafet's message about drugs in sports.
DeleteThe organizational pattern used in Zev Chafets’ essay, “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame”, is written in order both by importance. At the beginning of the essay, Chafets provides small examples and facts of baseball players who have used drugs. He seems to be against drug use, but he also understands that it would be nearly impossible to completely stop sport players from using drugs to get an advantage. The essay has several good examples for his point, the starting paragraphs give the reader a sense of how commonly drugs are used in sports. The ending examples describe how, whether we like it or not, baseball is a constantly changing sport, and it would be difficult to change that fact. Chafets’ essay could have used more examples that oppose his point, as well as more supportve examples.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Chafet’s essay "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame" I decided that the pattern of organization he used was Importance and chronology. His examples were sufficient and representative telling about the use of performance enhancing drugs such as steroids or testosterone boosters. He states “since the dawn of baseball players have used whatever substances they believed would help them perform better” He gave examples from the begging of steroids use in baseball talking about Mickey Mantle in 1961 and named some more recent players and the drug problems they had such as players like Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez. Chafet makes valid arguments on both sides but letting them use performance drugs would destroy the game. Growing up as a boy you always dreamed about playing in the major league. Parents don’t want their child looking up to a cheater. The players need to be a good example to young athletes and show how far hard work will take you. A lot of pro athletes made it because they drive to succeed. He believes that the drug problem won’t ever end since it’s been around from the beginning of baseball.
ReplyDeleteI think the pattern of organizations that is being used is chronology because the essay "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame" is giving specific dates of when the example happened. Another one that I think could be, is complexity because it's talking about examples but giving specific details about them. They both can go into this essay because of how much detail they give and the times when the steroids were being used and by which player. The essay also told us about other players using drugs not just steroids.
ReplyDeleteThe range of the examples aren't sufficient in my opinion because the use of steroids are illegal and boost your ability to do anything. I mean come on if you are good enough to even get in the MLB then you should be able to handle everything that comes with it. That includes using PED's, some of the greatest ball players use them which is sad because one of those players were on my favorite baseball team. Alex Rodriquez is very known for hitting homeruns but before he started using PED's he was really good anyway so he should have never used them in the first place. The author stated that the players are adults and they can choose to use steroids if they wanted to, that is indeed true but another point the author said is that, it teaches kids that are watching that it is okay to do drugs. I'm not a representative because I have never used steroids nor will I ever, in my opinion it's basically killing yourself because of all the side effects that come with them. People make their own choses, you can't stop them but there will be consequences either in the MLB or in their bodies.
During the 1980’s and the 1990’s drug abuse was very common among many famously known baseball players. From using steroids, cocaine and even alcohol. The entire point of these now illegal substances in the sport was to heighten their performance on the field. Players performed exceptionally well during games. The now legal drugs have changed the players and the game. For as long as baseball has been around the game has changed do to the people and the environment keeping the fans interested. Chafet’s pattern is to keep the reader interested in the history of baseball by talking of the issues in drugs and past performers played by the players. Speaking about Babe’s home run record or the newly broken records of today. He speaks of his own opinions but as well gives both sides of a view. For example drugs among pro players can be a poor example towards young athletes, Chafet says this is true but gives the point that adults make their own choices while the government controls young kids there supply of prescriptions. Baseball Baseball has always kept the fans interested from the beginning while even keeping lies from the so they don’t know the truth about illegal substances but there will and has always been competition.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame" the writer Zev Chafets organized his article by complexity. I say this because he starts the article about the background of steroids in baseball. Which is a simple subject to most people. Then he goes into MLB Hall of Famers who have taken steroids. Which that shifts the article into a little bit more of a complex stage. Then he goes along and talks about the various acts and drugs that some of these hall of famers have been caught with. Which makes the article a little more complex. Then he talks about how the media gets involved trying to cover a story about famous MLB player was caught using PED’s. After that he brings up how if the baseball players get caught they have a whole team of lawyers and a union to back them up. Which that makes the article a lot more complicated because the reader has to deal with the idea that an athlete can sometimes get off the hook when using drugs while in reality the athlete would be punished in some kind a way. SUch as a fine and/or being suspended for a couple of games. Then he wraps it up by saying that if the athlete does get caught with drugs then he would be excluded from making the hall of fame in baseball. Which is somewhat complicated because Chafets could have just started out with that to begin with.
ReplyDeleteChafets examples are sufficient. I say this because the points he makes are real world examples that actually happened. In the article he talks about countless times when a player got caught using drugs. For instance when he said “Hank Aaron admitted to taking an amphetamine tablet during a game.” This was a real world example that actually happened. He also mentions how these situations could affect the people who watch MLB. He doesn’t want a kid to follow in a players footsteps who got caught with PED’s. This is mainly because the kid could end up doing the same thing. SO he sees that the government should still make sure kids do do drugs and consume alcohol, but let the MLB players do what they want.
Chafets’s essay expresses complexity throughout his whole dilemma. One of the encounters he talks about is drug usage some athletes consume in MLB. He explains the use of steroids and other enhancing drugs and their effects on the body. Baseball players use these drugs to improve their performance on and off the field. Many players such as Pud Galvin and Zach Chavet support steroids and think that it should be something that should be looked upon as normal. I think they are right, and the use of the drugs won’t stop because athletes; specifically baseball players are always looking for ways to get better. Baseball players have been using drugs/steroids for a long time now and won’t seem to decrease. So, his main points generally conclude that there are is a wide spread of drug use and contributes to baseball players in a big way.
ReplyDelete