Steroids in the Baseball Hall of Fame

When it comes to players who have tested positive for performance enhancing drugs being considered for the Hall of Fame, there is many factors that go into it. I think that the fact that Major League Baseball was so far behind in the testing process for PED’s that some of the blame lies on them. I do believe that players who have had a positive test should be allowed in the Hall of Fame and a whole career should not be tarnished because of a positive test. Some Hall of Fame voters are convinced that the period known as the steroid era should be used against certain players. The fact that the MLB started its strict testing so late, there was a strong chance that players who played in the steroid era used and did not get caught. For example, an article on USA Today Ted Berg says, “Some voters have said, quite reasonably, that they will vote for players from baseball’s so-called Steroid Era but not those who have been found guilty of cheating”. I think this definitely makes sense, but there is such a gray area that they have no idea who actually used and who just got caught. The Hall of Fame is in place to honor great players and those that were able to do something special during their career. In an article on bleacher report by Nick Caso, he details and makes a case for Barry Bonds being inducted. He states that Bonds was a hall of famer before the steroids and this is probably true because he was the first player ever with 400 home runs and 400 stolen bases. I think that baseball is trying to use certain players as an example and to prove a point, but most of the responsibility lies on them in the first place and now they are trying to save face.

References:

4 reasons the Baseball Hall of Fame should include steroids users

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/661176-mlb-is-it-time-to-let-steroid-users-into-the-hall-of-fame

 

 

Advertisements

Is Cheer leading a sport?

This is the post excerpt.

The debate about whether cheer leading was a sport did not offer too many differing opinions. The overall feeling was that competitive cheer is a sport, meanwhile sideline cheer is not. One article I read on teenink.com gave support for why it is a sport and one thing that stood out to me was that it said regarding competitive cheer that  “It is a physical activity that is governed by rules under which a winner can be declared and its primary purpose is to compare the skills of participants”. To me this is the basic foundation of a sport and people often underestimate the amount of physical activity that cheer requires. They put in a lot of practice time and training just like other sports, and sometimes the risk of injury can be greater depending on the type of cheer they are doing. In an article on livestrong.com they detailed some of the required physical tasks. For example it states, “at the University of Alabama: all cheerleaders, at the very minimum, must to be able to do a standing back handspring and a standing back tuck, which is a flip with no hands”. This is an interesting fact and something I believe a lot of people overlook. I have been an athlete my whole and train year round, but could not even come close to doing this. I think that a main reason why cheer is not seen as sport by some people, is simply due to the fact that what they see is mostly sideline cheer and girls just standing on the field or court cheering for players. The competitive side of cheer is not very well known by the general public and does not get a lot of notice by the casual sports fan.

References:

http://www.teenink.com/nonfiction/sports/article/15172/Cheerleading-is-a-Sport/

http://www.livestrong.com/article/435894-reasons-why-cheerleading-is-a-sport/