I am interested in this research question because I have played sports my entire life and am very interested in every aspect of them. The topic is what is "fair" or not intrigues me because I have always been a person who is against cheating and thinks everything should be earned. This research does affect my values because as I talked about above honesty and earning what you are given are important values to me. The topic of steroids brings up the issue of cheating and having an unfair advantage. I do not have any personal experience with the use of steroids. However, as an athlete I have felt the pressure collegiate and pro athletes especially face to be the best and out perform everyone else no matter the cost. I think I am qualified to write about this because I have experienced the pressures athletes face which could lead to the use of steroids. Being able to relate to why athletes would consider using steroids can help me in my argument. 

The central claim in this article suggests that steroids in sports should be accepted and drug tests should be stopped all together. Some evidence used in this article includes the fact that there hasn't been a study showing steroids cause certain extreme disease. Evidence was also given about how drug testing is very subjective and often times targets the best players when in reality a majority of the other athletes are doing the same thing. In addition, if steroid use is regulated it will be safer for the athletes. The major values and interests at stake in this article are the health and safety of athletes. If the use of steroids is allowed they can be regulated in government facilities with fewer risks involved. Another interest at stake is the integrity of the game, regardless of which sport. What exactly is seen as cheating and do steroids take away from the game. Also, the honesty of athletes and the fairness of the drug screening process. The author seems to have a bias for allowing steroids in sports. For all the information provided on why these drugs may be bad, it all seems to be countered in some way. The author and source is credible seeing that the author has written for many large companies such as USA today, Fox sports, and CBS.

The main claim in this article is that athletes should be allowed to take PED's if they know the risks and want to go through with it anyways. An interesting piece of evidence was quoting a professional cycler who said he could either inject himself with these drugs or not be able to compete as a professional cyclist. This indicates the popularity of the use of these drugs in cycling alone. The fact that when the level of play is higher, more money is made and players receive more accolades is also brought up, along with the fact that many of the athletes' doctors can help them pass drug tests even if they are not clean. A major interest at stake here is the players' health again. This article says it is okay to risk their well being if they are willing to do so too. Honesty is also a value at risk when the article talks about ways players deceive drug tests. The author has a bias for the athletes and for the right for them to choose. He is a credible source because he has had articles in the New York Times, on ESPN.com, Vice, and other major journalism platforms. 


This article provides many different reasons why PED's shouldn't be allowed. The first is obvious, that it is considered cheating. The author brought up how PED's mirror an obsession with perfection and make success too easy. Another point made is how it creates an "arms race" similar to how countries are always trying to evolve during war especially. In the end, most countries and people are better off before this race took place. A major value at stake in this article is having to earn what you are given. When athletes use PED's it makes success very easy, thus eliminating the challenge of working hard to succeed. Another value at stake can be self worth and respect since athletes are willing to do anything it takes to be the best no matter the cost or repercussions. The author definitely has a bias towards not allowing PED's in the sports world. He is a professor of philosophy at York University in Toronto which adds to his credibility.

The research question is arguable because the use of PED's in the sports world has been an ongoing debate. There are stances that can be taken such as why they should or should not be allowed. In some ways I agree with the second article which talks about how it should be the athlete's choice. However, I disagree with the first article which tries to say that they aren't many risks associated with the use of these drugs. The point I agree with most is in the third article where the issue of the pursuit perfection in society is brought up. The biases of the articles definitely affect my own perspective. Originally, I was completely against the use of PED's, but while reading the first two sources I found some good points made and it swayed me a little bit. I can revise my research question by possibly exploring the root or deeper causes for the athletes desire to take these PED's. This can include societal expectations and pressures. I can also explore the effects they would have on sports and users. 
