The article “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame”, written by Zev Chafets, was interesting; although, I don’t agree with Chafets stance on performance enhancing drugs, I do like the article. The amount of known players using drugs for enhancement was surprising to myself. I like how Chafets mentions possible enhancement use clear back to 1889, then continues to give examples in a time line through current times. Also, I understand, Chafets reasoning behind legalizing sport enhancements in order to create a “level playing field” for all baseball players. Anybody can win by cheating, but when all players have the same opportunities and access to the same drug enhancements somehow the field is evened out so that the audience can see the talents of individual athletes; I don’t buy into it, it just sounds like “drug-ball” to me. Chafets article was entertaining and informative, yet he didn’t convince me of his ideas on professional sports and how they should be governed.
In the article, written by Zev Chafets, “Let Steroids into the Hall of Fame”, Chafets discusses some great points about sport enhancements. Not only does Chafets use great word selection, but he really makes his writing flow well in order to suck the reader in. Chafets has a way of making illegal activities sound like second nature to his audience. The writing has influences of both persuasive and informative techniques combined. Chafets gives many examples and information on the subject, yet the article still seems to argue the writer’s opinions. Chafets easily persuades the reader into believing enhancements should be legal in order to even the “playing field”, yet if enhancements weren’t used the “field” would already be even. Chafets writing talents are apparent and this article was well written and informative. I will probably try to use some of his techniques that make a argumentative possibility seem to disappear.