How exciting was it when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa in 1998 were chasing the record for most home runs in a single-season? How exciting was it when Barry Bonds broke the single-season homerun record in 2001? As Bonds approached the record, TV sports stations would interrupt scheduled programs and would go live to watch Bonds waiting to hit homeroom number 73 and break the single-season record. Although Bonds, Sosa and McGwire have all been accuses of using steroids, other athletes have been caught using them as well for high performance. Critics have ruined the reputation of most athletes who did use steroids and now most sports are designing rules that prohibit athletes from using them and I believe this is ruining the game and the fans experiences of watching the games. Fans go to games to be entertained, and we are not being entertained.
Some athletes feel that the use of steroids is cheating and is not fair to the other players who do not use them. Although most doctors would recommend not using them, steroids made the game fun to watch and put fans in the seats. In 2004 when the Red Sox won the World Series, two players were eventually called out on using steroids in later years, Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz. These two power hitters for the Red Sox put fans in the seats at Fenway Park every game because of the way they hit the ball. These two players were providing entertainment for the fans and this is ultimately what fans want to see. Homeruns and exciting plays were constantly occurring between the two players. Every time I go to a baseball game, I get excited for Manny and Ortiz to step to the plate because I know there is a good chance they are going to hit the long ball. This is why we pay the expensive ticket prices, to see players perform at their highest level. Since the banning of steroids, professional baseball player’s numbers have gone way down and the game is not as fun to watch as it used to be. No one has come close to beating Barry Bonds home run record of 73 in 2001.
Fans go to games to see big plays, homeruns, and fancy goals. I believe if athletes perform at their highest levels by injecting steroids into their bodies, then that is their choice. According to major league baseball, TV ratings for the All-Star game and the World Series were way down. Also, stadium attendance is plummeting. Fans go to games to watch pitchers throw no-hitters and hitters hit home runs. Today, it’s rare to see a player hit over 40 homeruns where back in the steroid era of 1995-2001, there were more than 15 hitters who hit over 40 homeruns in a season. Players such as David Ortiz who set the single season record with 54 homeruns in 2006 has not come close 40 homeruns in 4 years. Fans go to games to see big plays that will excite them and by not allowing players to use steroids is ruining fan attendance and hurting the game itself. Everyone was buzzing and paying attention to baseball when Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa were approaching the all time home run record. This is why fans watch the game, we like to be entertained.
The fans go to games to be entertained by professional athletes and they are not being entertained because of the banned use of steroids. If an athlete believes they will perform at their best level by using steroids, then why should that athlete be ridiculed by media critics? Fans will pay the ticket prices, and fans will fill the seats when they know they are going to be entertained. When Barry Bonds came to Fenway Park in Boston to play the Red Sox, everyone wanted to go to the game and ticket prices skyrocketed because everyone wanted to see Barry Bonds play. Bonds simply brought entertainment to the game of baseball and that is what fans like to watch.
Should death sports, such as a gladiator fight between two willing participants, be legal? I'm sure fans would pay the ticket prices, and fans would fill the seats when they would know they were going to be entertained.
ReplyDeleteOr should society have the ability to decide that the health cost to the participants outweighs the desire to pander to an audience?
Or are you writing a satire in the model of Jonathan Swift?