Hi guys, wondering if someone could please give me feedback on this essay I wrote. Be as critical as you want... I just want improve in my language analysis
Articles:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-12/berg-a-history-of-doping/4513996http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-doping-out-of-sports.html?_r=0In response to a recent report from the Australian Crime Commission on performance enhancing drugs in Australian sport, an online opinion piece on ABC news, entitled “Forget drugs – there’s nothing natural about modern athletes” (12/2/13) written by Chris Berg contends that doping in sport should be legalized given the already synthetic nature of competitive sports for entertainment using a disparaging and embittered tone. Berg’s opinion piece specifically targets the advocates for anti-doping laws in Australia and is also accompanied by an image of a prepared kit of doping equipment. Correspondingly, an opinion piece titled “How to Get Doping Out of Sports”(11/8/12) featured in The New York Times written by Jonathon in response to the constant doping scandals seen in sports such as cycling, baseball and the Olympics which has garnered much debate in recent media, Vaughters informally contends in a prudent and considered manner that doping in sport is unfair for honest athletes and forces these athletes that have dedicated most of their life for sport to dope to level the playing field. Vaughters’ article was accompanied by an image depicting three cyclists in which two are using steroid and leading the race reinforcing that uneven playing field which can only be resolved by tougher anti-doping enforcement.
Adopting a forthright tone, Berg directly seeks to notify the readership that the blame must stand on everyone, “the Government”, “the press and public” that the anti-doping campaign has transformed into a “quasi-religious battle between good and evil”. From this Berg attempts to engender guilt amongst the readership to emphasize a call to action that we have made this issue into an unnecessary debate of morality therefore the readership is inclined to be more lenient towards Berg’s opinion to dispel their shame. This notion is supported by the accompanying image of prepared kit for doping in a sterile environment suggesting that in the right hands such as a medical practitioner doping is also a safe practice. In addition, the black background depicts the negativity about doping of the Australian public against the reality of the safe use of doping further strengthening the statement aforementioned of the recent hypocrisy of the Australian public. Berg then moves on and shifts to a considered approach devoting some space outlining the position of the opposition presenting that doping may be a direct attack on “modern ideals of purity” intending to build his reputation a considerate and reliable figure. Berg following this acknowledgement builds a strong case against anti-doping laws supported by logical reasoning through a historical context.
Berg argues that performance enhancing drugs is just another way to get an edge in competitive sport through gaining historical credibility. Berg takes an extract from the book “A History of Drug Use in Sport” attempting to show the readership that even in the past performance enhancing tactics such as “oxygen, altitude, or even testosterone” were used to “destroy” the playing field in competitive sport suggesting that doping is “just another way to get an edge” stated by Leslie Knighton further strengthening the argument. (DO I HAVE TO SAY EFFECT HERE?) Contrastingly, in the opinion piece “How to get out of doping” Vaughters’ repeatedly utilizes the word “destroy” regarding the open availability performance enhancing drugs “destroying dreams”, “destroying people” and “destroying our finest athletes”. The use of repetition along with the inclusive noun “our” depicts performance enhancing drugs as evil inclining the readership to preclude from readily accepting the legalization of performance enhancing drugs.
In contrast to Berg’s formal approach mainly using a historical evidence, Vaughters’ adopts an informal line of attack using a personal anecdote allowing the readership to understand what it is like to be an amateur athlete striving to a become a professional athlete, exposing the harsh reality of the situation they have face. The personal anecdote also serves to increase the writer’s credibility as it shows that he has first-hand knowledge of doping. (DO I HAVE TO SAY EFFECT HERE). Additionally, Vaughters’ own career ruined because of the “guilt” and “regret” of the inability to compromise with his own morals by taking performance enhancing drugs may incline the readership to condemn doping as it is seen to be mental cause of suffering for athletes.
Furthermore, Vaughters’ goes on and says that “every athlete that [he has] met who has doped will say they did it only to level the playing field” providing the solution of eliminating the environment where the decision of doping is up to the individual by increasing anti-doping enforcement. The accompanying image at the top of the article depicts three cyclists, two of which have been injected with steroids and have a significantly larger muscle mass in comparison to the cyclist without steroids. The cyclist without using steroids is coming last illustrating a significant and unfair advantage between non-drug users and drug users. This supports the notion that with drugs there is an uneven playing field compelling the readership to agree with the author’s agenda that performance enhancing drugs should be abolished to level the playing field.
Generalizing that all Australians are advocating for anti-doping laws, Berg contends that Australia’s negative attitude towards doping must stop, denigrating any that disagree such as advocates portraying them as hypocritical and impractical. Conversely, Vaughters’ advocates for anti-doping laws and believes in the equality of athletic competition of sport by enforcing stricter anti-doping laws.
Not under timed conditions
Home
Help
Search
Login
