Choose one of the articles linked below and read through it carefully at least twice. The point of
this paper is to accurately articulate someone else's position (the article's author), and also present a viewpoint
or opinion on the topic which is different. Make sure you choose an article with which you can disagree (at least
in writing, if not in reality). After introducing the topic and stating your thesis, present the article author's
viewpoint, making sure the author is cited in APA format, whether information is paraphrased or quoted. If
direct quotes are used, include page numbers. In the second section of the paper, articulate an opposing
viewpoint; reference (and cite) the article as it provides contrast to the opposing position. Construct a
conclusion which provides closure; no new ideas should be introduced in your conclusion. The last page will
contain a properly-formatted APA Reference page.
HERE IS THE ARTICLE I HAVE TO GO OFF OF.
Making sense of fairness in sports
From the steroid scandals of major league baseball to analysis of Oscar Pistorius's cheetahs to the sexverification test of Caster Semenya, questions today about what constitutes fairness in sports are wide-ranging
and varied.
It's easier to see what's unfair in sports. Suppose that the judges award the Olympic figure skating gold medal
in Vancouver because of the skaters' wacky costumes--all feathers, sequins, and teasing glimpses of skin. Or
that they choose based on their views on the skaters' countries of origin, or because they were bribed, or by
tossing a coin.
All these are unfair (and some have been documented, or at least suspected, in past competitions). How do we
know they're unfair? Because everyone who understands figure skating--or alpine skiing, or bobsledding, or,
for that matter, baseball, cycling, or any other competitive sport--knows what's supposed to separate winners
from also-rans. Among the countless differences between competitors, from eye color to favorite food, only
certain differences are meant to be highlighted in each particular sport.
Successful short-track speed skaters possess explosive strength, finely honed technique, and the courage to
face the possibility of serious injury from razor-sharp blades. Nordic skiers must have astonishing stamina.
Each sport calls upon its particular mix of physical talents. Every sport requires the commitment to perfect
those talents and to learn how to employ them skillfully and strategically. It may not be easy to say exactly what
fairness means, but the ease with which we can call out unfairness suggests that the task is worthwhile and far
from hopeless.
A match that should never happen is a one-on-one basketball game between LeBron James and me. When
LeBron trounces me--as he assuredly will--it may be uninteresting, probably comical, perhaps even
YouTubeable, but it will not be unfair. He is simply a superior player, not merely to me but probably to every
other person living on this planet. (Kobe Bryant is likely to disagree.) The playing field, or court, is level. Talent
and dedication determine the winner.
Then there are times when we choose to level the playing field by multiplying it. In the 2008 Paralympics there
were thirteen distinct finals for the men's one-hundred-meter dash, twelve for the women's. The varieties and
degrees of impairment among Paralympians in no way detract from the talents and dedication that competitors
bring to the games. But the variety also requires that the playing field be made level so that every athlete is
competing against people with similar levels of impairment. In that way, talent and the many things we admire
about dedicated athletes are on display and shape each athlete's performance.
The first thing to note is that a fair sports competition does not require that athletes be equal in every
imaginable respect. Some basketball players are taller, stronger, quicker, or more agile than others. No one--
well, almost no one--regards such differences in natural talents as unjust or unfair. Some have better coaches
or more favorable training environments. At what point such differences cross the line from inevitable and
acceptable to iniquitous and deplorable is something to be debated and settled by the people who participate
in, understand, and love that sport--not by distant and disinterested philosophers. Debates such as this go on
regularly in sports over new equipment, rules, strategies, and the like. Take the recent kerfuffle over the superslippery, buoyant full-body swimsuits. After initial dithering, the Federation Internationale de Natation (FINA)--
the international governing body for swimming--last year banned many suits on the grounds that they changed
the nature of the sport by allowing bulky athletes to float on top of the water rather than having to push through
it. Whatever one thinks of FINA's ruling, it was right to focus on the meaning of the sport and on what
characteristics lead to excellence and success.
Then again, the most gifted, hardest-working athlete or team does not always win. A random bounce, a slip, a
hesitation can give victory to the side that might lose nine of ten matches. That's why we play the game.
When it comes to performance-enhancing drugs, gene doping, and the panoply of manipulations banned
widely in sports, the challenge is less about fairness than about meaning. If the rules ban performanceenhancing drugs, then using those drugs to gain an advantage over athletes who refuse to cheat is unfair.
Simple enough. Antidoping skeptics, however, often proclaim that the problem isn't with the drugs, but with the