Silcox 1

Tate Silcox

Mr Gardner

Milky Jalapeños

7 October 2019

Annotated Bibliography

The Economist, "Doping in sport: why it can't be stopped." ​Youtube​, The Economist, 25 Oct.

2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=z466itSHE58. Accessed 28 Oct. 2019.

This Video, Doping in sports: why it can't be stopped by The Economist, started by explaining

the doping scandal by Russia in the Olympic games in 2016. It then asked the question, why

can't doping be stopped. It then uses a study where they asked athletes anonymously if they had

doped. 44% said that they had but only 2% of samples tested positive for performance enhancing

drugs. After they go into why the IOC (International Olympic Committee) created WADA

(World Anti Doping Agency). They wanted to create an independent organization with the sole

task of caching doping and preventing it from happening. This sounds like a good thing but

WADA wasn’t given the power to do much as it is still up to the IOC to determine what happens

in the games. The example they use is WADA recommended to IOC that no Russian athlete

should be allowed to compete in the 2016 Olympic games. The IOC let individual athletes repeal

their suspension and be allowed to play. This meant that two thirds of the Russian athletes were

allowed to compete at the games. They then also listed a bunch of people that held positions of

power in the government and in the IOC or WADA for Russia. The analogie made for this is you

can't have the president of the united states also be on the supreme court. It just wouldn't work

like it is supposed to.

 Silcox 2

This Video by the economist was very well done. The people that they interviewed were very

credible and helped to build their ethos and logos to the audience. For example the interviewed a

former vice president of WADA and one of the sport lawyers that fought against Russia. These

were people that have seen this doping in the olympics first hand. This brings up the first fallacy

in the video. There is anecdotal fallacies with interviewers because they are telling their story.

Even though this is considered a fallacy it actually makes their argument a lot stronger. They

also used multiple studies and facts from the IOC and WADA along with other outside

independent sources that help build logos. This also has a bandwagon fallacy in that they are

against doping as most of the world is. Another thing that builds the ethos is that they list all of

their sources for all of their information. They show you where the study came from so that you

can decide for yourself if their trustworthy.

I will use this video in my essay to show how hard it is to stop doping. It also offers some advice

on how to help the issue that would be really beneficial in my solution part of my essay. This

video also has a lot of statistics that can be used to show just how big a problem doping is. This

video has changed my views on doping. Before I thought doping should be allowed but regulated

because it is so hard to stop entirely. However, in this video they had some good ideas on how to

stop dropping that I think would actually work.

Egelstaff, Susan. “Becoming a doping cheat not always a black and white issue.” Herald

[Glasgow, Scotland], 3 Oct. 2019. Gale OneFile: News, Web. Accessed 7 Oct. 2019.
 Silcox 3

The article, “Becoming a doping cheat not always a black and white issue” by Susan Egelstaff,

starts by defining what doping is. Doping is “An attempt to gain an edge over their rivals.” After

it goes in to why it's not as black and white as the news articles make it seem. Even though

athletes are responsible for their own actions there are a lot more things at play with athletes and

doping. It then gives an example of how a coach was banned because he was pressuring and

administering performance enhancing drugs. This coach was named Salazar. He then goes to say

that he, personally, never was pressured into doping but he did hear things that other coaches

were. He goes on to talk about the role of coaches and how they have a lot of power over an

athlete. It gives another example of Graeme Obree being terminated for not joining the teams

‘medical program’. It ends by saying in the end it is the athletes choice but it's not hard to see

why athletes fold when it is their livelihood on the line.

This article build ethos by using multiple different accounts and times when people have doped

to get an edge. However there is an anecdotal fallacy when he tells us about how he was never

pressured into doping and also when he tells us that he had a gut feeling that there were some of

his competitors were doping. This is a fallacy but it also helps build pathos and ethos. He knows

what he is talking about. His purpose is to try and bring light to the issue of doping and how it

isn't just the athletes choice. There are alot of factors that go in to doping.

I am going to use this to show that pressure doesn't just come from the competition itself. There

are a whole lot of things that go in to doping. This will also be used even though it is anti doping
 Silcox 4

it shows how it it already in sports. I believe that we should allow doping but to regulate it. There

are a lot of different sports out there and they all have a doping problem.

Gerberg, Mort. "I can't decide whether to turn pro first or go directly into rehab." ​New Yorker​, 2

Nov. 1999,

This cartoon by Mort Gerberg called I can’t decide whether to turn pro first or go directly in to

rehab, is a picture of two football players sitting on the bench of a college team. One of the

players is saying to the other, “I can’t decide whether to turn pro first or go directly into rehab.”

He is saying this because there are a lot of professional players that take drugs to help them

perform better than they otherwise would be able to. This may lead to drug abuse problems down

the road for these players. That is why the player is saying should I go pro and take the drugs or

just go to rehab because that is where a pro career will land me.

This Cartoon has some pretty major flaws. First it makes the assumption that all professional

football players take drugs. This isn't true. It also takes the drugs to the extremes and that it will

lead to rehab. This is a bandwagon fallacy and a single cause and effect falice. This has a strong

pathos argument because no one wants to go to rehab. However it is lacking a strong ethos and

logos argument because you can't really provide a lot of facts and reason into a cartoon.

I am going to use this article to show that there are negative effects for the athletes that use these

drugs so making the legal would be a bad idea because they would hurt the athletes. This has
 Silcox 5

some bias but it makes a point that it can harm the athletes. This is a valid point and I will use the

cartoon to show that side of the argument.

Jacobs WE, Newton H. Counterpoint: Athletes Have the Same Rights as All Other Citizens.

Points of View: Drug Testing for Sports​. September 2016:3. Web

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=23699182&site=pov-

live. Accessed October 13, 2019

This article, “Athletes Have the Same Rights as All Other Citizens” by jacobs WE. and

Newton H., starts by listing the rights that the everyday citizen of the United States. On the street

you will most likely walk by someone who has illegal drugs a concealed weapon a warrant out

for their arrest or other things. He then goes on to describe what sounds like a police state.

Police stopping you and having the right to do a full body search. Or to have airport security at

all malls and stores. He then goes on to say that this is how it is like an athlete. You can be tested

at any time for drugs. They will test you with even just a rumor. This is wrong. It then goes to

describe your constitutional rights that protect you from this. You have the right to only be

searched with probable cause. A rumor is not probable cause.

This article is a counterpoint article. It is arguing that the drug tests aren't legal. It uses examples

from people in multiple different sports that were accused and lost money and deals but were

then later found clean when they had actually run the tests. This build his ethos because this

hasn't just happened once it has happened multiple times in multiple different sports. It also

quotes the constitution which build logos. The constitution is one of the most respected
 Silcox 6

documents in the United States of America. Using the constitution as one of your points is what

stands up in the supreme court.

I am going to use the article to show why they should let athletes use drugs. There are a lot of

athletes that would have been saved a lot of problems if they didn't so strictly regulate drugs.

This article has some very good points with US constitution. It uses a super strong source that I

will use in the same way in my essay.

John, Derek, and Stephen J. Dubner, producers. "Has Lance Armstrong Finally Come Clean?"

freakonomics, episode 342, Stitcher and Dubner Productions, 5 July 2018,

freakonomics.com/podcast/lance-armstrong/. Accessed 21 Oct. 2019.

The podcast starts by introducing Lance Armstrong. It talks briefly of his life. It then lists his

accomplishments. He won the tour de france 7 times. It then goes on to explain what happened

with the allegations of doping and how denied it for a long time and when the results finally

came out that he had been doping he went on oprah to admit to it. It goes on to say how everyone

was cheating. It wasn't just him. It brings in other guests who believe that he shouldnt or should

have had his titles striped of him. It goes in to what the hardships are that lance had because of

him doping in the Tour de France. It goes in to how people treated him, what it felt like to be on

the drugs and so on.

This article presents a strong pathos argument. This is because it is lance armstrong telling his

story. This also means that it is full of anecdotal fallacies. There are a few cyclists that go on the
 Silcox 7

show and they all pull from personal experience. The podcaster is a trustworthy person because

he does mass amounts of research before he does a show. He will talk to specialists read books

and try his best to become super knowledged in the topic before he talks to his guests.

I will use this in my essay to help push my point of that if doping was regulated you would know

that is happening and you wouldn’t get the huge backlash that Lance Armstrong had. They

would still have a level playing field and it would be more entertaining. I will also use this to

show that athletes that do dope are still amazing athletes even though they took these drugs.

Lance was an amazing athlete. He had the ability to get rid of lactic acid really quickly. He

would go down a hill and his legs would be alot less sore then the rest of his field. Lance got

more people on a bike like no other athlete had ever done before. Lance had a good impact on

the world around him but all we can remember him for is cheating.