What is the purpose of this blog?
Now, more than ever, extra emphasis has been put on sports and its place in society. We idolize athletes as if they are superhuman. It often seems like we get so caught up in cheering for our teams and favorite players that when they lose, we actually take it harder than them. It is this same passion that causes us even more pain when we find out that the athletes we adore so much have been cheating by taking performance enhancing drugs. Anobolic steroids and other “masking agents” (used to prevent steroid detection) are currently banned within the sporting world. A detailed explanation of masking agents can be found here:
http://www.health24.com/fitness/Diet_Supplements/16-481-513,20910.asp
Unfortunately, testing for certain substances (such as Human Growth Hormones) cannot be done, even though they are considered to be harmful just the same way that steriods are. Furthermore, in sports such as baseball, they have a “3 strikes” rule where only if an athlete tests positve will they be suspended by the league. But why should we have to wait 3 times for an athlete to be suspended? Why can’t action be taken after the first positive test? Is testing positive once any better than testing positve 3 times? Should we be spending our hard-earned money to watch a bunch of athletes who claim to play by the rules but in reality are breaking them without any regard? A successful team can unite an entire city (as is evidenced by when the Canucks were in the playoffs this year), or it can tear a city apart (the 1994 riots after the Canucks lost in the Stanley Cup Finals to the New York Rangers). This being said, this is a social problem because it concerns something that can have a big impact on a city and its people…the purpose of this blog is to inform people of what really goes on with regards to testing and enforcement of banned substances in sports.

Hi!
Interesting subject – the problem of sports and performance enhancing drugs. The challenge you have is making the case that this is a social problem and not just an individual one. You have to demonstrate the scale of this problem and explore the social consequences without getting caught in soundbites. For example, to state that “Young athletes are always looking for a quick way to get better” is something you can’t substantiate and weakens your argument. I would adopt a more open mind at this stage – and think about what drugs are currently banned and why these drugs and not others, the system of testing, the broader issue of addiction, and perhaps explore differences between sports that are associated with drug use (eg cycling) and those that have managed to avoid these issues (any why?!). Does that make sense?
Cheers
Graham
I wanted to wait until it was done before I got back to you…..so now what do you think? I went through your comments and broke them down and tried to create a blog that would best fit it….