http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695732/
In this piece Michael Lardon explores the medical implications of performance enhancing drugs. Lardon acknowledges that drugs can have negative health effects, however the key is in "understanding the evolving power of medical science." In other words it is necessary to really understand the new medical technology and regualting fair drugs in the sports world. The line between advantages and positive health imporvements in the way a person feels must be distinguished in order to understand drugs in sports. He points out the serious problem with drugs in the baseball culture, although there has never been any formal studies to prove the drugs really helped athletes with an unfair advantage. Also, some drugs have legal purposes outside sports, so he raises the question of when are these drugs allowed and should they prevent a person that takes them legally from participating in any sport? Lardon says that the judgement belongs to the health professionals and sports companies to decide what is fair.
I think this is a relevant aspect to this debate because the difference between an unfair advantage and a simple medical help is pretty blurry, and Lardon brings attention to this issue. I think that his point about the responsibility falls on the health professional to call waht is unfair makes sense as they continue to understand these medical technologies in greater details as more research is conducted.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Drugs Ruin Rugby
http://frenchrugbyclub.com/Pro-D2/Drugs-In-Rugby-PartI-000294.html
In this article Paul Dearlove focuses on the negative effects of performance enhancing drugs in the sport of rugby. His main argument is that a huge percentage of players are using these drugs that create a very uneven playing field for the sport. He says that using these drugs can result in a difference of speed as little as 0.6 seconds, yet this could be the difference between "being a good player and a star," as well as a drastic difference in income. These drugs should remain to be illegal because not only are they unhealthy, they mainly encourage unfair play in the world of sports such as rugby. Therefore, Dearlove is making his main argument that these drugs provide both a athletic and advantage to users and should therefore remain illegal.
I think that this point is very relevant because I hear so often about the outrageous incomes professional athletes earn, and if these drugs are drastically affecting these even more, I think that's one more reason they should not be allowed. Also, I think there is some potential for more research concerning the real advantagesthat the drugs give athletes, and whether or not these drugs really do cause such a drastic difference that is recognizable to legislate.
In this article Paul Dearlove focuses on the negative effects of performance enhancing drugs in the sport of rugby. His main argument is that a huge percentage of players are using these drugs that create a very uneven playing field for the sport. He says that using these drugs can result in a difference of speed as little as 0.6 seconds, yet this could be the difference between "being a good player and a star," as well as a drastic difference in income. These drugs should remain to be illegal because not only are they unhealthy, they mainly encourage unfair play in the world of sports such as rugby. Therefore, Dearlove is making his main argument that these drugs provide both a athletic and advantage to users and should therefore remain illegal.
I think that this point is very relevant because I hear so often about the outrageous incomes professional athletes earn, and if these drugs are drastically affecting these even more, I think that's one more reason they should not be allowed. Also, I think there is some potential for more research concerning the real advantagesthat the drugs give athletes, and whether or not these drugs really do cause such a drastic difference that is recognizable to legislate.
Drugs in Sports
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=28
In this article, columnist Alastair Endersby addresses various aspects of the debate concerning performance enhancing drugs in sports. This has been a debated subject for some time, as drugs in the sports atmosphere are not only dangerous, but perhaps create an unfair environment of competition. However, Endersby also addresses various pros to legalizing such performance enhancing drugs. He makes the case that by legislating the use of these drugs, doctors can make the competitive atmosphere safer and end up leveling the playing field more by providing everyone with the same channels for improved performance. Also, he points to the flaws of the current restrictions and how it is basically impossible to legislate morality. This column starts to build some serious questions concerning whether or not these otherwise considered dangerous drugs, actually have some practical benefits for the world of sports and the performances of adult athletes.
In this article, columnist Alastair Endersby addresses various aspects of the debate concerning performance enhancing drugs in sports. This has been a debated subject for some time, as drugs in the sports atmosphere are not only dangerous, but perhaps create an unfair environment of competition. However, Endersby also addresses various pros to legalizing such performance enhancing drugs. He makes the case that by legislating the use of these drugs, doctors can make the competitive atmosphere safer and end up leveling the playing field more by providing everyone with the same channels for improved performance. Also, he points to the flaws of the current restrictions and how it is basically impossible to legislate morality. This column starts to build some serious questions concerning whether or not these otherwise considered dangerous drugs, actually have some practical benefits for the world of sports and the performances of adult athletes.
Monday, January 9, 2012
All Together Now!!
James Surowiecki is definitely a columnist focusing on finances. In all 3 of the columns I read, he described different current economic problems, and why they were so significant to the country as a whole. By doing this he definitely shows his credibility as a finincial expert. He also seems to develop more conservative and capitalist views. In his article entitled the "Year of the Yo-Yo," surowiecki offers advice to preserve the struggling capitalist society in America. The idea of a strong capitalist economy and the success of bigger investors is a more republican view generally, therefore Surowiecki seems to lean right a little.
Also, Surowiecki seems to offer a path towards solution in all of his columns. This shows his consistent goal to really bring the economic problems to light and to evoke positive change in America and other countries. He notices that real problems are prevelant in society and is not afraid to point fingers and do whatever it takes to push for improvement as a observatory as well as a constructive columnist.
Also, Surowiecki seems to offer a path towards solution in all of his columns. This shows his consistent goal to really bring the economic problems to light and to evoke positive change in America and other countries. He notices that real problems are prevelant in society and is not afraid to point fingers and do whatever it takes to push for improvement as a observatory as well as a constructive columnist.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Year of the Yo-Yo
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/01/16/120116ta_talk_surowiecki
This column by James Surowiecki is an analysis of the not very promising coming year in the stock market and financial situation in America. Surowiecki starts by describing how bad the market is currently in America, with the high persentage of lass for investors and the volitile nature of the up and down stoock values. Surowiecki also offers somewhat of a solution to this problem. He suggests that investors put their money in index funds, but this is imporbable because the market is so risky. So, instead many investors are simply removing their money as a whole, and this hurts the market too. This applies the overall well-being of the country because this volitile market will negatively affect peoples' retirement funds and therefore hurt a capitalist society. Hopefully, the coming year's economy is not as bleak as Surowiecki predicts here in his article.
This column by James Surowiecki is an analysis of the not very promising coming year in the stock market and financial situation in America. Surowiecki starts by describing how bad the market is currently in America, with the high persentage of lass for investors and the volitile nature of the up and down stoock values. Surowiecki also offers somewhat of a solution to this problem. He suggests that investors put their money in index funds, but this is imporbable because the market is so risky. So, instead many investors are simply removing their money as a whole, and this hurts the market too. This applies the overall well-being of the country because this volitile market will negatively affect peoples' retirement funds and therefore hurt a capitalist society. Hopefully, the coming year's economy is not as bleak as Surowiecki predicts here in his article.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
An Unavoidable Crisis
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/12/05/111205ta_talk_surowiecki
In this week of James Surowiecki's blog, he focuses on the failing economies of European countries such as Spain and Italy. James feels that the main problem with the economies in these countries is the FEAR of default, rather than the threat of it itself. Because people are afraid the country will default, the interest rates raise and therefore default becomes more possible. Surowiecki feels that this problem can be fixed if the European Central Bank were to simply commit to backstopping Italy and Spain by buying their bonds, and then the interest rates would fall and, therefore, the chances of default would also lower. Surowiecki then goes on to say that the only reason this quick fix isn't happening is because it is a "dramatic move" for the ECB to take since there is idealogical restraints holding the bank up to be a tough power rather than a supportive one. Also the overwhelming fear of inflation, described as a "sweet poison," is also so large that it holds the ECB back from getting involved.
Surowiecki has a very clear position on this problem with his idea for an easy fix to the dire situation in Europe. He mainly shows this by presenting his view fairly early in the 3rd paragraph, then goes on to explain why this plan hasn't happened. Surowiecki states that "The obstacles are ideological and, you might say, psychological," meaning that it is simply the European people's own fear of default holding them back from economic success. Surowiecki says that if the ECB doesn't make a move soon, it will "protect the euro right out of existence."
It is his view that the ECB should help out the countries and this would automatically fix the dire problems they now face.
In this week of James Surowiecki's blog, he focuses on the failing economies of European countries such as Spain and Italy. James feels that the main problem with the economies in these countries is the FEAR of default, rather than the threat of it itself. Because people are afraid the country will default, the interest rates raise and therefore default becomes more possible. Surowiecki feels that this problem can be fixed if the European Central Bank were to simply commit to backstopping Italy and Spain by buying their bonds, and then the interest rates would fall and, therefore, the chances of default would also lower. Surowiecki then goes on to say that the only reason this quick fix isn't happening is because it is a "dramatic move" for the ECB to take since there is idealogical restraints holding the bank up to be a tough power rather than a supportive one. Also the overwhelming fear of inflation, described as a "sweet poison," is also so large that it holds the ECB back from getting involved.
Surowiecki has a very clear position on this problem with his idea for an easy fix to the dire situation in Europe. He mainly shows this by presenting his view fairly early in the 3rd paragraph, then goes on to explain why this plan hasn't happened. Surowiecki states that "The obstacles are ideological and, you might say, psychological," meaning that it is simply the European people's own fear of default holding them back from economic success. Surowiecki says that if the ECB doesn't make a move soon, it will "protect the euro right out of existence."
It is his view that the ECB should help out the countries and this would automatically fix the dire problems they now face.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Columnists Ahoy!!
I chose to highlight James Surowiecki, a columnist for the New Yorker who posts his columns every few days reagrds "business, the markets, and the economy." I think I chose this column over others because I am increasingly clueless about all things economic!! Surowiecki looked credible and presented a chance for me to undertand the mechanics of our economics a little bit better.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/jamessurowiecki/2009/10/notes-on-this-weeks-column-big-banks.html
In this column entitiled "The Big Banks Get Bigger," Surowiecki is questioning the status of big banks and how they seem to maintain their excessive amount of power in the economic world by increasing every year. He first starts by offering a view that the government bailing out big banks and the consistent mergers of large companies only make the situation worse by creating larger banks with even more power than before controlling the economy. He then goes into 2 reasons how banks maintain their power. One of which is how expensive the "switching costs" are for people who wish to choose a different bank, so therefore only a small percentage of people actually do change their bank in the first place. The other case Surowiecki makes is that larger banks tend to have a more prestigious reputation, and therfore draw more customers and deals easier than smaller companies.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/jamessurowiecki/2009/10/notes-on-this-weeks-column-big-banks.html
In this column entitiled "The Big Banks Get Bigger," Surowiecki is questioning the status of big banks and how they seem to maintain their excessive amount of power in the economic world by increasing every year. He first starts by offering a view that the government bailing out big banks and the consistent mergers of large companies only make the situation worse by creating larger banks with even more power than before controlling the economy. He then goes into 2 reasons how banks maintain their power. One of which is how expensive the "switching costs" are for people who wish to choose a different bank, so therefore only a small percentage of people actually do change their bank in the first place. The other case Surowiecki makes is that larger banks tend to have a more prestigious reputation, and therfore draw more customers and deals easier than smaller companies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)