Trouble for Women's Sports if NCAA Loses Suit

Viewing college sports has been an American pastime for decades. Many regard college sports as the purest form of athletics, because without all of the contracts, bonuses and payouts, the athletes are allowed to focus on the heart of the game, competition. It is true that television coverage of men and women's athletics is increasing through NCAA.  It is also true that watching men's college events on television is significantly more popular and receives double the coverage than women's. But right now, the NCAA is currently in a legal battle that could change the very face of college athletics, and ultimately lose that special competitive spirit that student athletes are known for. The O'Bannon vs. NCAA licensing case has been an ever-growing thorn in the NCAA's foot since 2009. Ed O'Bannon, a former Cincinnati student athlete, was one of the first to file this lawsuit stating that his likeness had been used in commercial, video games, promotions and other footage without his consent. To Ed O'Bannon and others, "The plaintiffs argued that the NCAA violated antitrust law by failing to compensate former student athletes for using their likeness in a variety of forms." (Landes, Baran). As the thorn grew, so did the the number of people involved on the case. The still ongoing case more recently had begun to include current college athletes in the same violations. If the NCAA loses the case, set for early 2014, it would mean that students athletes are now going to be individually compensated for media income the NCAA receives through television, video games, etc. Current athletes would not be paid during their time in college, but athletes would receive a trust fund after their college years for compensation. All funds to athletes wouldn't be equally divided either. It would depend on the revenue the department brings in. Ever since the activation of the Amendment Title IX in 1972, Women's athletics has been thriving in the NCAA with exponential growth, but this licensing case could prove to be the most disastrous for female student athletes in the NCAA.

      

How would gender affect the NCAA if this case brings the financial change it is looking for? Because gender plays a big role in Media and the NCAA, I believe the women's athletic program would suffer greatly from this change in more than one way. The money coming to the athletes would come directly from the revenue of college athletic departments, creating a smaller budget for their programs. If this new compensation for NCAA players takes effect, the two major compensations would come from television and video games, bringing a huge disadvantage for females in the NCAA. The O'bannon v. NCAA article states, “the appropriate allocation of broadcast and video revenue between student athletes and athletic departments is 50-50, while video game revenue is split 2 to 1 in favor of athletic departments" (Landes,Baran ). Given that men's sports generate much more air time on television, it would mean that their ratings and popularity would bring in more revenue than women's sports. While the video games industry is big business, it does not seem likely that women's sports would benefit from it at all. NCAA video games only target male consumers, with males always on the cover. All of this money now going to athletes has to come from somewhere and it does the athletic departments. "It all comes down to who brings in the big bucks, and who doesn't. Women's sports are a drain on almost all athletic department budgets" (CSNBBS.com). The money needed then could be even harder to find to fund women's programs because due to being not as popular, money just wouldn't come their way. Consumer Popularity would matter greatly in the funds athletic departments receive, and women's sports revenues don't nearly equal the men's. I'm sure if this happens to the NCAA, Women could also just plain lose interest in sports, seeing popular male athletes reap the benefits while the workload would still be equal. Overall, the O'bannon vs. NCAA lawsuit would be the worst possible outcome for women's sports, which right now, is still gaining popularity. If money becomes divided between players and departments, for women, it would be like having the legs sweep right from under them. It would be a slow, crippling blow to the entire NCAA.

Sources

Landes, Phil. Baran, Peter."O'Bannon v NCAA: Potential Financial Consequences of a Student- Athlete Trust Fund".Winthropintelligence.com.4.Feb.2013

"O'Bannon Suit, If NCAA loses, 50% Revenue to all players?"CSNBBS.com. 2. April.2013

Steroids: The Notorious Drug

Men and women can both be excellent at playing sports, but when it comes to who does it better and why, any biased person would jump in to the men defense. Why do people in general consider men to be better athletes? Is it because they tend to be stronger (well, not in general, but that’s what society makes people think) or is it simply because they are men? Well, it is not! Instead for many years society has made us believe that it is because most men know the sport, love the sport and feel pressured to do good in the sport. Pressure can cause athletes to do a lot of things, and when you’re recognized for your good plays, you never want to lose that recognition, so what happens…. drugs happen. Athletes fall into the use of drugs and the most popular one… STEROIDS!

A Steroid is a drug used to enhance the performance in your body while at the same time treating a variety of medical conditions. This drug has been banned from the use of any athletes and within sports like the NBA and NFL (to name a few) because it tends to help the person taking it pump up and perform better within their sport. But why do men athletes have a higher percentage of taking steroids in comparison to female athletes? Some of the biggest notorious steroid users in sports history are mostly men, with one women somewhere down the line.

Alex Rodriguez was considered one of the best baseball players in baseballs history, he was so good, he even got to sign one of the largest contracts in the history sports with the New York Yankees, until in 2009, when he admitted the use of steroids from ’01-’03 and got caught in ’03 after he being drug tested.

Another heavy hitter in the steroid history is Mark McGuire, became well known for his home run streak that took him to the top of the list of best MLB players, but when the fans and the people surrounded him and started watching his plays, they then began to question the use of steroids, which he denied, until early 2011 when he came clean to everyone and admitted to using steroids for over a decade.

As mentioned before and to everyone’s surprise, women athletes do to use the drug to enhance their performance in their sport, in October 2007, Marion Jones a well known female track and field athlete, competitor in the Sydney Olympics in 2000, three gold and two bronze medalist winner, admitted to the use of steroids and was stripped down from all her medals. Jones had for many years denied the use of the drug, until she admitted lying to federal prosecutors who were already investigating her case.

Regardless of the reasons and of who uses the drug, this should not be allowed for anyone to use. This drug and any use of other drugs should definitely be banned from sports in general, if the athlete is good, he/she should be good without the use of any substance.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/155381-top-ten-notorious-steroid-users

http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/facts/drugssteroids

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/sports/baseball/12mcgwire.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Drug Abuse in the NFL

         The Detroit Lions drafted had the second overall draft pick in 2003. The Detroit Lions drafted Wide Receiver Charles Rogers from Michigan State, and signed him to a six year contract that was worth over 50 million dollars. 14 million was guaranteed of the contract that he signed with the franchise. The lions could have drafted Andre Johnson who turned out to be a major dominant Wide Receiver for the Houston Texans. The Lions could have easily taken Carson Palmer and solved their Quarterback problems for decades even though they had drafted Joey Harrington a year before with the 3rd overall draft pick for the 2002 NFL Draft. When the Lions selected him when General Manager Matt Millen was available, the city of Detroit was happy. He was a former Michigan high school standout in high school for track and basketball. His home town was Saginaw, which is less than an hour away from Detroit. It couldn't have been a better scenario to play for your home team. Charles Rogers added after he was drafted, " I thought by me coming to Detroit I could get fans what they were missing, a winning program, a winning team."

     When an organization does draft research and scouting on a player, they always look at the physical aspect and not always the mental part. The General Manager of any organization is supposed to look up a player history of any type of encounters the player had with the law. Charles Rogers had red flags surrounding him during the draft process. Matt Million highly ignored them. Rogers was tested twice positive for marijuana early on at Michigan State. There was a test that indicated excess water, which the NFL considered a possible masking agent in Rogers' system. Rogers was seen by the NFL as an explosive threat down the field who was highly compared to Randy Moss. He had the size of 6 foot three and ran a 4.34 at the combine. That is considered thundering speed for a wideout. Lions hoped he would be part of a compliment to the former Quarterback Joey Harrington. His first NFL season started off good until he broke his left collarbone in practice against cornerback Dre Bly. His season was ended after that injury. He started off really well catching two touchdown passes against the Arizona Cardinals in his first game. The next season he came back stronger and was ready to make a comeback during the 2004 season. The season opener against the Chicago Bears, he dived for the ball that was intended towards him. He fell awkward on his other right shoulder, and broke that collarbone. His season was once again cut short. The next season he was not seen as the same player. He gained weight to get stronger but he lost his speed. Matt Millen said something didn't look right with him. He was slow getting off his brakes and not looking the same promising player like he once did. His season also didn't look promising because he was suspended for four games due to drug abuse.

    According to Millen, " He fell victim to a far stronger addiction, the toughest one to overcome... and that is peer pressure." Rogers downfall in his NFL career could be seen as the blame on a number of different things. Injuries made him depressed and he admitted when he broke his collarbone the second time, he was depressed and abused his drug prescriptions. Lack of discipline, immaturity also came to the table. Rogers just didn't how to deal with failure. He couldn't cope with it. When he came back for his third season after back to back injuries, he couldn't cope with how his first two seasons being drained by injuries. Being away from the team and meetings, he started smoking marijuana daily. Rogers noted that, " I was like in disarray." He looked average in his third season. Something looked clearly wrong and it was the impact of drugs that he was using. During his fourth season, he was cut by the team right before the season started. The new coaching staff just wasn't impressed with him. His speed wasn't the same anymore and his attitude just looked bad for a team that was rebuilding. His last stint with an NFL team was in the summer of 2006 during the preseason. Ever since then no team gave him a contract. Nick Saban his former coach, gave him a tryout with the Dolphins. Unfortunately, he was not impressed by his workout. That was it for Charles Rogers. His NFL career was cut short due to injuries and lack of discipline.

Bibliography

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=090814/rogers

http://blog.mlive.com/its-just-sports/2009/08/interview_espns_jemele_hill_ta.html

Out of the Ballpark

The sporting world within Major League Baseball has been overshadowed by the cloud of steroid use and suspicion for decades. Records broken during the steroid era have been tainted in the minds of fans across the country. Each major statistical feat that has been accomplished ever since the surge in suspicion in the 1990s has been devalued with the possibility of performance enhancers playing a role. Fans simply have been unable to know for certain whether their favorite players have dabbled with a banned substance. The purity of the game has been diminished and the backlash from the Game’s continued oversight on the problem has produced the delayed formation of what is now the toughest drug testing program in American professional sports.

                The current testing program was amended this past January. It was only days after the Hall of Fame voters were given the opportunity to turn down steroid era poster boys Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds in the 2013 Hall of Fame inductions. Professional ballplayers are now subject to in season blood tests for Human Growth Hormone (HGH) along with the other substances previously listed on the banned substance list. This new step into HGH testing is something to note in part because it is still not seen even in the National Football League.  

                The steroid era officially came to a close over a decade ago when the preliminary attempts at a drug policy were put into action. It was a reactionary measure to the aforementioned backlash from a consumer fan base that was gradually turning away from the juiced up product on the field. Steroid testing developed a search for offenders that resembled a modern day witch hunt. The media has put a lot of the blame on the players that were caught cheating, while allowing the owners to skate by unharmed and outside of the spotlight. The role that the players played in their own demise should by no means be overlooked. However as Dave Zirin explains in his book “Bad Sports,” Commissioner Bud Selig and the owners were allowed to plead ignorance. For the player’s numbers to inflate with their arms and head at such a rapid pace and the Owners that pay them to not realize it; speaks to either stupidity or indifference. No matter the case this should be seen as a multilevel organizational concern and not one reserved for the players.

                The fact that these performance enhancing drugs do not have a place in the game is not up for debate. Anything that disrupts the competitive balance to this magnitude has to be driven out for the sport to ultimately flourish. In the end this epidemic that the game is still recovering from speaks to the greed of players and owners alike. The players were motivated by success on the field and the owners were willing to let that happen because of the success off of it. Fans want to pay for the real thing though and baseball is at last willing to respond. As players are forced to react, one would hope that those behind the scenes look in the mirror and see their role as well.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/sports/baseball/baseball-and-union-agree-to-in-season-blood-testing-for-hgh.html?_r=0

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/01/10/major-league-baseball-expand-drug-testing-program/DxnaETsL8AzMDwPp5A4j9M/story.html

 

Zirin, Dave. Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love. New York: Scribner, 2010

 

For Medicinal Purposes

            Marijuana use has always been a huge controversy in the USA. Some may argue that it is a gateway drug, and some may argue that marijuana causes no harm. Statistics show that the use of marijuana is less harmful, compared to tobacco and alcohol substances. The drug was even passed in 18 states for medicinal purposes. The use of marijuana can help increase appetites for those with eating disorders, as well as patients dealing with the stress from an illness. So if the substance is safe enough to help treat patients, why can’t athletes with the similar issues use medical marijuana to cope?  

            Over the semester, in my Sociology and Sports course, we have depicted the physical and mental pain that athletes face. Dealing with the stress from fans, coaches and trying to meet everyone’s expectations of them, this can take a major toll on a person’s well-being. Over the years sports players have be caught using steroids to maintain the image and capability to be a good athlete. Not to mention, the Vicodin and other addictive drugs that they consume on a frequent bases to heal their pain. Using these addictive medications can possibly cause other long term issues, rather than marijuana that causes little to no long term complications. A good example of an athlete that used marijuana is Michael Phelps. Michael Phelps is one of the top Olympians ever who used or uses marijuana. His accomplishments alone should change the negative stereotypes of a person who uses marijuana as a “pot head” or a person with fried brain cells. A person, including athletes, can still be functional and add value to society, even though they use marijuana for recreational purposes.

            I am aware that sports players that use marijuana may send a negative message to their younger fans. But does this mean that they have to be excluded from the option to use marijuana for medicinal purposes? I will argue that this can be another aspect of an athlete’s life that they can sweep under the rug to maintain a positive image for the young audiences. I am not saying that athletes can be seen in interviews with a joint or even verbally expressing the fact that they use the drug for personal reasons. Some things a better left out of the media, that’s like a reporter asking Beyonce’ what birth control does she use. It’s their right to keep their legal prescriptions private.

On the other hand, the view of marijuana is changing rapidly. It is starting to become as common as an alcoholic beverage in the media, except it’s less damaging and it carries positive value to certain people lives. With the rapid growth of marijuana in the media, it is to the parents and teachers digression to educate young children on the effects and advantages of marijuana use. With states passing the law of the substances medicinal use, children are already going to become accustom to marijuana, so why can’t athletes benefit from it?             

Steroids in Sports: Worth the Risk?

            In his book Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love, Dave Zirin states that when you press fans about what disgusts them about sports, they invariably speak about steroids and performance enhancing drugs. Unfortunately, steroids and performance enhancing drugs have become something all too familiar to us as sports fans. Major League Baseball has been at the heart of the issue with players like Mark Mcguire and Sammy Sosa, amongst others admitting to their use of steroids but many other major sports are often overlooked in the matter. MLB players are hit with sanctions that may last their entire seasons while NFL players are hit with only a few games, it is pretty remarkable considering an MLB season consists of 162 games while the NFL season is a mere 16.

            Steroids have hit college sports as well, most notably College Football. Jason Scukanec, a former lineman for Brigham Young University, told the Portland Tribune that steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs are common in Division I football. The NCAA began testing in 1986 at championships and football bowl games after steroid use became more common in locker rooms across the country. Do the NCAA’s random drug tests work? Some believe it does not because only slightly more than three percent of all student-athletes will be tested annually by the NCAA’s random drug-testing program. (http://dailyemerald.com/2006/06/09/steroid-prevention-the-ncaa-way/)

            The most important question in the matter of steroids is it worth the health risks? First, why do athletes feel the need to take them? They believe that anabolic steroids can improve competitiveness and performance, uninformed or misguided athletes; sometimes encouraged by coaches or parents, abuse these drugs to build lean muscle mass, promote aggressiveness, and increase body weight. Athletes such as Sammy Sosa and Mark Mcguire have enjoyed much success while using steroids but have seen their reputations tarnished and their stats, much less their abilities questioned after their steroid use became known. What has steroid use done to their bodies? Anabolic steroids can cause serious health problems such as high blood pressure and heart disease; liver damage and cancers; and, stroke and blood clots. Other side effects of steroids include: nausea and vomiting, increased risk of ligament and tendon injuries, headaches, aching joints, muscle cramps, diarrhea, sleep problems and severe acne. (http://www.health.ny.gov/publications/1210/)

            So, is steroid worth the risk? Many athletes believe it is due to the volume of players admitting to steroid use but the matter of whether they will live long enough to wreak the benefits of their use is another matter. In short, steroid use heightens performance which can lead to bigger and better contracts, endorsements, and so on but is all that fame and fortune worth a person’s life? Many athletes are willing to pay the price during their careers, not until after they are done playing do they realize that the price they paid might be the ultimate one.

Zirin, Dave. Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love. New York: Scribner,

2010. Print.

The Great Case for Frank.

Americans have love sports for decades. The Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Basketball Association, and National Hockey League have strict drug policies and punishments. As these have been going on, the nationwide issue involves the use of performance-enhancing steroids. Dave Zirin explains in his book Bad Sports that steroid-users are viewed by fans as cheaters. The problem, steroid enforcement in baseball only punishes the individual that took the steroids. Teammates, coaches, and owners may be well aware of the use and distribution of steroids, but take no action. Should they be punished as well?

After the lockout of 1994 in the MLB, the media and fan base of baseball decline drastically. This called for players to come back with big muscles and powerful hits. Fans began taking interest in the long ball and higher scores then focusing on the skills of baseball itself. Found on Web MD, some side effects of steroids include reduce sperm count, shrinkage of testicles, high blood pressure, and increase chance of liver cancer. Players are sacrificing their bodies by abusing steroids just to get fan interest back in baseball. After the Mitchell Report and other investigations revealed the Steroid Era of baseball, many players came out announcing they used steroids, such as Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire. It is easy to assume Barry Bonds was a user, but no "conviction" and proof of use has been brought up. Should he get to keep his shattering home-run record?

However, non-using players are gaining benefits from steroid-users. ESPN's Padilla brings up the advantage Frank Thomas has in his case for trying to be inducted in the hall of fame. While Frank Thomas high numbers of hits and home-runs while he played are little compared to Bonds and Sosa, the fact he played the game straight without steroids makes his chances of entering the Hall of Fame his first time on the ballot very high. Frank Thomas played sixteen years seasons with the Chicago White Sox, registering 521 home-runs and 1704 RBI's over his nineteen year career. Accomplishing this during the steroid era with out the use of steroids makes him a great candidate for the hall of fame.

picture: http://students.cis.uab.edu/af72/Steriods%20in%20Sports.html
http://men.webmd.com/guide/anabolic-steroid-abuse-topic-overview
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/8884458/frank-thomas-former-chicago-white-sox-great-says-hall-fame-denials-fuel-pride
Dave Zirin, Bad Sports (2012)

Fall From Grace

Lance Armstrong was my personal hero for many years. I did speeches and reports about him all the way back since elementary school. I was a huge fan of his; I read all of his books. I wore the Livestrong Bracelet everywhere I went, and I would get into fights with people while debating who the greatest athlete of all time was. Anyone that said someone other than Lance was WRONG. I connected with him because of his huge success after overcoming cancer. I was a young athletic child, but I also faced many health issues. I knew that I could be like Lance, maybe not an Olympic athlete or world record setter, but I could be like him in that I wouldn't let my disadvantages hold me back from what I loved.

 Thankfully, his Livestrong organization will continue to thrive separately from Lance. They do amazing work for people suffering from cancer and their families.

 Lance's "Fall from Grace" has been in the headlines for quite a while. I, like many others, ignored them and continued to believe in him. Not only because I thought he was innocent, but because I didn't want to lose everything that he stood for. He had never tested positive in any of the hundreds of tests he had taken. He had just as many people saying that he was clean as there were people saying he was a cheater. I believed him when he directly addressed his fans and said that he did not dope. However sad it is that Lance did indeed dope, he still beat cancer and trained his body to ride against others who were doing the same thing. He may not be a hero right now, but he is still an amazing athlete.

 Bill Strickland was another huge fan and friend of Lance Armstrong. He is a journalist and even wrote a book about Lance. He wrote an article that talks about Lance’s admission and his feelings on it: http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,4

This article shows the effects that Lance had on many people.  I was most concerned about what people would think about everything Lance stood for, overcoming illness, beating the odds, and not losing hope. Would his fans believe that if he couldn’t do it for himself then they can’t either?

 There is another side to this whole story though: it's not just Lance. Cycling has been found to be part of the biggest doping ring scandal in sports. Doping is a problem in all sports, and with all athletes. The effects of blood doping have been studied and I have come to the conclusion that maybe it wasn't all Lace that had all of the victories, he had some help. You can see a study here: http://www.setantacollege.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal_db/Effect%20of%20rhEPO%20administration%20on%20serum%20levels%20of%20sTfR%20and%20cycling%20performance..pdf

 Drugs in sports make the field uneven for the players. How can you be the best if the best are all cheating? Not only is it not safe for the athletes, but it puts them in situations where they either have to become part of the circle or compete in unfair circumstances. Most people think about baseball when drugs in sports come up; however cycling executed the most sophisticated ring of doping in the history of sports.

DEDICATED DOPERS

                As a child, I remember always being told that Barry Bonds, along with several other professional athletes, was a cheater. I was told that he did performance enhancing drugs, but I never really knew what that meant. Going to a Giants vs. Cubs game with my dad in 2007, I was surrounded by people who were giving him verbal abuse in the stands, which I did not understand was such a big deal at the time. The recent story of drugs that really put everything into perspective for me was Lance Armstrong being caught doping.

                Lance Armstrong overcame cancer, and motivated millions of people to keep pushing through whatever they are struggling with, as he also always bragged about being dope free. There is a Nike commercial that shows Armstrong training, and in the background talking about how he is drug free, to advertise his “Livestrong” brand. When he was caught doping, his credibility was immediately diminished, as millions of people felt cheated. Thousands of people were out of jobs and hope because of him, which is when I realized how detrimental doing drugs in sports can be. With all of this being said, it is also important to mention that all of Armstrong’s opponents were also cheated by this scam, as he had variables helping him improve that other athletes did not.

                Looking at Armstrong’s story, as well as looking into how strict the World Anti-Doping Agency is, it is astonishing to imagine the lengths Armstrong must have gone through in order to get away with these drugs being in his system for such a long time. As learned in class, athletes are often tested for drugs monthly, or within a very strict time period, leaving very little room for professional athletes to remove the illegal drugs from their system.

                There is often controversy over whether drugs in sports should be made such a big deal, as many can agree with. Personally, I feel strongly that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs should not be used in sports. For one, players who dope are putting harm on their bodies, which most people can attest to. Also, if only a few athletes are using the illegal drugs, then they are taking the once in a lifetime chance that someone else may have deserved. Look at Lance Armstrong, for example. Other elite athletes trained for the Tour de France, and could have won the race if Armstrong was not doing steroids that were allowing his body to do more. Finally, professional athletes are paid an extreme amount for being the best at what they do; every young girl or boy dreams of becoming a professional athlete, but a miniscule amount actually make it there. If so many people aspire to become a professional athlete, then it does not make sense for the competitive sports and society to pay the individuals who take short cuts to reach their goals rather than the players who work hard to reach their goals.  

 

Bearded Women: The Myth of Female Steroid Use

When steroid use is mentioned in the media it is almost always in reference to male athletes.  Recently, Lance Armstrong stole the spotlight when it became known that he had been doping.  A slew of other successful male athletes have also admitted to “juicing” in order to become bigger, faster, and stronger.  Dave Zirin (2012) argues in his book Bad Sports: How Owners are Ruining the Games We Love that steroids are incredibly common and are often ignored by coaches looking for a stronger team.  But are male athletes the only ones using steroids? I would imagine that many people have wondered how in the world some female body builders have such massive muscles; I know I have wondered if it is possible to do naturally.  While female body builders are what come to mind when thinking of women on steroids, the Association Against Steroid Abuse argues that most women who take steroids are not body builders but rather models or women who simply enjoy fitness (http://www.steroidabuse.com/Women-on-Steroids.html).  This brings up an interesting point.  In our society, the women we consider beautiful are typically very thin with little muscle mass.  Femininity is defined by daintiness whereas masculinity is defined by being strong.  Therefore, it seems illogical for women who are looking to have the ideal female body to take steroids that will give them large muscles.  However illogical it may seem, a recent study found that 5.3% of teen girls admitted to using anabolic steroids.  The girls were not likely to be athletes, but rather engage in a slew of risky behaviors including promiscuity and drug use.  The researcher that lead this study, Linn Goldberg, argues that teen girls take steroids to get a lean physique and to become stronger in order to protect themselves. However, the jury is still out as to whether or not this study accurately measures the steroid use of teen girls.  While Goldberg feels it is a serious problem, other experts feel the figures this study came up with are hugely exaggerated (http://www.steroidabuse.com/Women-on-Steroids.html).  While it is debated how big of a problem steroid use is among teen girls, it is a problem none the less.  I argue that instead of assuming females won’t engage in steroid use, we should assume that they might.  Therefore, curriculums that provide females with information on drug use should include steroids.  Such information needs to include the dangerous side effects of steroid use, specifically for women.  Female steroid use can result in irregular menstruation and possibly even amenorrhea, in which menstruation stops.  If this occurs, the woman may have become infertile.  In addition steroid use can result in severe acne, increased chances for liver cancer, and unhealthy cholesterol levels (http://www.livestrong.com/article/197919-side-effects-of-steroids-for-women/). Women on steroids do not look like the stereotypical image in which a woman grows a beard and develops a deep voice.  Instead, most women on steroids look completely normal and healthy.  Although they may appear healthy, they are actually putting their health at great risk.  Therefore, it is crucial that steroid use is considered a risk for teenage girls.  Although only a few teen girls may be engaging in steroid use now, it is important that education on steroids be provided so that the number of female steroid abusers does not increase in the future.

 

Association Against Steroid Abuse. (n.d.). Women on steroids. Retrieved from http://www.steroidabuse.com/Women-on-Steroids.html

McLaughlin, A. (2010, August 08). Side effects of steroids for women. Retrieved from http://www.livestrong.com/article/197919-side-effects-of-steroids-for-women/

Reinberg, S. (2013, March 23). Many teen girls use steroids. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4507434&page=1

Zirin, Dave.  Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love. 2012

STRONG WOMEN IN THE MEDIA—NOT IN THE MEDIA

It was the big play off basketball game against my High School’s rival: The Bartlett Hawks. The players warmed up, doing several drills and stretches led by the coach of the team. All of the players developed an adrenaline rush that could not be soothed by anything except for the whistle that started the game. For such an important game, the stadium was less than half full to capacity. Parents of the players filled the stands, and spoke to each other about the Booster club, or when their next game night would be. As some may have guessed, this important basketball game going on in front of the few fans in attendance was a female team.

            The boys’ basketball team at my High School got attention that was similar to the devotion the fans of the Permian Panthers gave to their players in Friday Night Lights. Every Friday, the bleachers would flood with students, faculty and parents who would come in body paint posters attached to their hands. The crowd went wild, and cheered for every foul, travel and point that our team had committed. Though I never realized how much more attention the boy’s team got than the girls, looking back, it is quite astonishing to analyze the differences in experiences that males and females have in the realms of sports.

            I will often have conversations with some of my male friends, who will make comments and jokes like, “want to hear a joke? Women’s sports.” Female athletes get much less media coverage, as well as respect than men’s sports do. To top that off, male athletes can earn up to 20 times more money than female athletes. Seeing that female athletes put in the same amount of work as male athletes, this media coverage and pay gap should be eliminated.

            Many female athletes are addressed in the media, but most of them are given the attention and publicity due to their sex appeal, when many people strongly believe that female athletes can be thought of as fantastic role models for young girls. We see several female celebrities in the media that young girls look up to, like Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton, who show our future generations of women that being dainty, sexy and wild is something that will get you attention. If we change the way media represents women, and start to give female figures, like Mia Hamm and Lindsey Vonn more attention in the media, it is possible that young girls will start to see that strong women with passions and goals are what they should be looking up to.

            Gymnastics is a popularly female focused sport, which most of us can acknowledge if we tune into the Olympics. Gymnastics has never been looked at to be an overworking sport, but as our class has read in the book “Little Girls in Pretty Boxes,” gymnastics is one of the most dangerous, life consuming sports out there. Personally, I find that I am rarely exposed to hearing about gymnasts, or women as a whole for that matter, who become injured. The media, as well as society have focused their attention on male sports, and have given women the impression that they will never be good enough in the world of sports. If my Female High School Basketball team would have gotten the same respect as the Male Basketball team, then it is hard to imagine how much more we could have excelled.

Bissinger, H.G. Friday Night Lights. United States of America: H.G. Bissinger, 1990. Print.

Business As Usual in Jersey

For my final blog I had a little trouble finding an article that I wanted to write about. My topic is on the NCAA and, I didn't want to write on the same old articles. I happened to come across a new chapter in the Rutgers basketball controversy. “New Jerseyans unhappy with Rutgers basketball scandal payouts, poll finds” was the article that I found from a local New Jersey newspaper. It just so happens that the head coach Mike Rice received a settlement from Rutgers totaling 475,000 dollars just so he wouldn't sue the university. The same went for the athletic director Tim Pernetti who received an even more shocking amount totaling 1.2 million dollars to set down from his position. There were other officials that received money as settlements totaling around 450,000 dollars. So this means that over two million dollars were given to the men and women who did wrong.  What kind of message is this sending people? It tells me that there people are getting rewarded when they should be getting punished.

In order to truly understand why I find this so crazy I wanted to recap what went down at Rutgers.  The coach Mike Rice was verbally and physically abusing his players.  He in particular was using homophobic slurs with his players not only when they did something wrong in a game or at practice but, in everyday occurrences.  He would demonstrate defensive techniques by shoving his players in a violent manner. With much more force than they would experience with a normal foul.  It was also normal for the players to have basketballs violently thrown at their heads and legs when they would do something wrong at practice.  The word faggot was commonly used like and verbal abuse was the norm.

What’s more disturbing is that is that there is speculation that some of the higher up administrators had heard complaints about this behavior and not a lot was done to try and remedy the situation.  What I have a hard time understanding is how Rice what not brought up on criminal charges. He was hitting his players and throwing balls at them in my mind that sounds like some form of assault.  The only outcome that Rice has to worry about is how to spend his 475,000. However it is very interesting that in scandals like this there are always ripple effects that have far reaching consequences. Let me explain, there were many people that were either fired or were asked to leave. So Rice was the person that was abusing the players but there was a total of like six administrators that were also let go. This includes the athletic director and if it was a larger scandal even the president of the university like in the case of Penn State.

            While reading the article on Rice I noticed that there was a hyperlink for a related article to another Rutgers abuse article. Ironically this article was not about Rice but, about the lacrosse coach. It said that Rutgers had suspended the lacrosse coach for verbal abuse.  The article goes on to say that many people believed that it was unusual that allegations of abuse would come up with only two games left in the season. Many also doubt the accuracy of these allegations however; Rutgers didn't think twice to suspend him.  My point is that this whole issue with Rice will have far reaching consequences for many years to come.

Works Cited

Heyboar, Kelly. "New Jerseyans Unhappy with Rutgers Basketball Scandal Payouts, Poll Finds." The Star-Ledger. N.p., 25 Apr. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.

Staff, Star-Ledger. "Rutgers Suspends Men's Lacrosse Coach for 'verbal Abuse'" The Star-Ledger. N.p., 19 Apr. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.

This Title is Brought to you by the NCAA

 

                The landscape of college sports has grown into a multi-million dollar a year industry. Driven by its two cash cows of men’s basketball and football, the NCAA has generated profit margins that rival its professional counterparts. Even over a decade ago in 1999, ticket revenue for men’s basketball and football games were at $757 million; which trumped major league baseball, football, and hockey that year (Kahn 2007).  However despite these large growing profits, the current system has not allocated any extra compensation to the athletes that drive the business. Athletic directors, coaches, and Universities alike are able to benefit from the success while the “student athletes” can only hope for the possibility of being offered a non-guaranteed athletic scholarship. The profit is shared as the NCAA sees fit, and they obviously do not see it as a fit for the athletes that attract the customers to their NCAA approved merchandise.

                This disparity in compensation has produced numerous examples of athletes receiving under the table payment from boosters or others associated with a given University. One of the most infamous accusations came from the Fab Five scandal at Michigan. Then student athlete Chris Webber was accused (along with several other former Wolverines) of receiving money from a man named Ed Martin. Webber’s alleged participation led to the Michigan NCAA tournament banners being stripped down as if the games were never played. Also Webber and the other alleged beneficiaries were alienated out of the program and have not been welcome on campus since. The specifics of the case are not my focus however. The Fab Five example illustrates how the NCAA punishes the individuals that would dare try to capitalize on the NCAA brand that they provide the free advertising for. The very existence of such instances of illegal payment to student athletes is a product of the power dynamics within the NCAA business model. The Fab Five was a group of individuals that helped usher the hip hop culture into college basketball. Their baggy shorts and black socks became best sellers as kids all over the country followed the trend. Unfortunately though for the Jalen Rose’s and Chris Weber’s of the world, they were not allowed to receive a fraction of the profits they were responsible for.

                College players are systematically exploited for the good of the brand they represent.  Many have refuted these claims by arguing that the athletes are still students first and the education they are offered should be payment enough. This just seems as another bourgeois entity trying to maintain the status quo. As long as the NCAA is granted the power to regulate its product without being regulated itself, the rich will continue to get richer and the students will continue to line those pockets and be punished accordingly if they ask for their piece of the metaphorical pie.

               

 

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/fab-five-legacy-tainted?page=0,1

http://www.pitt.edu/~mtb32/cs134/history.html

                Kahn, Lawrence M. "Markets: Cartel Behavior and Amateurism in College Sports." The Journal of Economic Perspectives 21.1 (2007): 209-226.

               

           

Is USC... A Cartel?

Many of us can remember in 2005 when Reggie Bush was awarded the Heisman trophy for his outstanding performance during his college career at the University of Southern California. Reggie Bush carried the ball for 1760 yards with an average of 8.7 yard per carry…USC won 34 straight games and two national titles during Bush's sensational three-year career. (ESPN.com)  Many of us can also remember in 2010 when the NCAA decided to remove Reggie Bush of his Heisman Award because he was receiving improper benefits while he was a student athlete. In 2010, Bush decided to hand over his Heisman Trophy which made him the first and only person to ever do so in the 75 years of the Heisman program.  Reggie Bush and his family appear to have accepted financial benefits worth more than $100,000 from marketing agents while Bush was playing at the University of Southern California.  (Yahoonews.com) Unfortunately situations like this one happen way too often, and most of the time the player is being exploited for the benefit of the school’s sports programs. Bush’s eligibility as an athlete was considered questionable which lead to him losing his Heisman Award and putting the 2004 USC national championship as risk of being rescinded. Colleges tend to weigh the benefits of breaking NCAA agreements higher than the consequences when they get caught doing it. In this case USC was forced to vacate the last two wins of the 2004 national championship season but, Bush was affected the most. “As in any cartel, the payoff to an individual school for cheating on the agreement can be considerable. By attracting star-quality athletes, institutions can improve their performance on the playing field and draw more fans, make more appearances on television, increase opportunities for merchandise licensing and corporate sponsorship, and make lucrative postseason appearances, all of which increase revenues directly and indirectly by increasing the prestige of the institution. (Humphreys and Ruseski 3) For all these reasons we see NCAA accredited schools deciding that it is worth being corrupt if it benefits the institution. The incentive for any institution is high to attract the best possible student athletes. Brown (1993) estimates the marginal revenue product of a premium college football player to be over $500,000 annually.( Humphreys and Ruseski) The Reggie Bush scandal at USC is a perfect example of how NCAA institutions can exploit their athletes for the financial gain of the college or sports team. While bush was playing for USC he brought many fans and other attention to the football team. More people wanted to watch USC football because of the entertainment that players like Reggie Bush brought to the field. In the three years he started at USC, Bush made the school around 1.5 million dollars and that is why they decided to provide him with finical benefits to keep him making money. The USC/ Reggie Bush situation supports Brad R. Humphreys and Jane E. Ruseski’s notion that USC and the NCAA can be viewed as a cartel.     

http://weekly.blog.gustavus.edu/2011/11/17/ncaa-pay-to-play/

www.wou.edu/~leadlej/college_sports/Chapters/Chapter%203.doc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Y5k-L7Eyk