Rhetorical analysis essay

Joe deLannoy
Elaine Turner
English 1010
In his essay entitled, Performance-Enhancing Drugs Should Be
Legalized, author Stephen Wang supports the legalization of Performance
Enhancing Drugs (PED) in sports. Wang address an audience of sports
enthusiasts and doping officials, persuading his readers to share his opinion
that doping is inevitable and an acceptable aspect of athletic competition
(Wang 1). Wang uses examples from cycling and baseball to show that
athletes continually beat the system, endangering themselves in the
process. He argues that allowing doping would enable doctors to regulate the
safety of PEDs, protecting athletes. The tone of the essay is formal and
logical. The author uses direct quotes from athletes, and others with
prominent social standing such as physicians, lawyers, and academics to
support his argument.
Wang starts out the essay with a quote from Lance Armstrong when he
was asked if it was possible to win without doping. That depends on which
race you wanted to win, The Tour de France? No. Impossible to win without
doping. Wang goes on to say that these athletes, cycling in particular, take
PEDs because it is a necessity for them to make a living and compete at the
highest level.

The clich, cheaters never prosper, is far from the truth in

cycling. Doping always prospers is a good mantra for cycling because from

1991-2001 all the Tour de France (2) winners either admitted to or were
exposed to using PEDs. The effectiveness of the drugs created a very large
demand, resulting in the emergence of a high functioning black market.
Wang uses the word rampant throughout the essay to describe how
common it was to use
PEDs. Rampant means: flourishing or spreading unchecked. Using that word
influences the reader to be concerned about the severity of doping in
professional sports, creating a sense of crisis and a need for immediate
action. Wang makes the argument that the past/current methods for
catching users is ineffective and will always be ineffective, so therefore the
best way to ensure athletes safety is to allow the use of the substances
under controlled conditions. Wangs argument is persuasive to the reader
because of the examples he cites of cyclists using blood doping to achieve
outstanding, but illegal results, to the extent that every Tour De France
winner from 1992-2001 was caught doping (2). These examples bring to
mind the excitement and energy of those amazing wins, which for sports
enthusiasts, Athletic achievements like those resulted in public acclaim for
these athletes. Their subsequent public reprimands only partly diminished
the outstanding nature of their physical feats. Wang is counting on his
argument to bring those doping- assisted athletic accomplishments back into
a positive light.
The Idea of regular people doing extraordinary things through hard
work and determination is a main reason why people watch sports. People

like to believe that success is achieved with honesty and dignity. The goal of
the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), to make all sports honest and fair. But
the tests that the WADA creates to find the drugs become obsolete almost as
fast as they are released. (4) Wang offers a solution to combat the market;
dropping the restrictions completely, incenting athletes to receive legal PEDs
from physicians, who could protect athletes from back room black-market
substances of unknown quality or safety, by designing protocols for safety as
well as performance. (5) Wang quotes Gary Roberts, whose rhetorical
authority derives from his position as editor-in-chief of Sports Lawyer. Home
runs are only hit because the player has great skill swinging the bat. Skill
over size is the key point of this argument because you can be as big as you
want but you wont be successful if you cant hit the ball. Wang cites
Roberts view that skills are not improved by PEDs, yet his argument ignores
the reality that baseball players such as Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire
experienced improved batting averages during their doping years.
Wangs position on PEDs is a convincing one. As an athlete, I see the
appeal of enhanced endurance and strength. As a fan, I can appreciate the
greater drama of more home runs, faster times, and broken records. During
the PED era of baseball, the sport was at its most popular, resulting in higher
revenue for the league, bringing in a broader audience of fans. Why not have
this environment for professional sports while also having the athletes
safety in mind and eliminating a PED black market. Although I am persuaded
by the argument, I feel Wangs position fails to examine some important

risks. Wangs argument ignores the potential risks that PEDs could have for
athletes if they were allowed. It is not just clandestine substances that have
risksall pharmaceutical substances have risks, which must be outweighed
by the benefits for doctors to prescribe them to patients. Additionally, how
would allowing doping for professional athletes impact the college, high
school, and childhood athletes who are currently competing and hoping to
emulate these potential super-athletes? Would children and young adults be
influenced to use PEDs? Wang also doesnt address the counter-claim that
use of PEDs in professional sports would re-level the playing field at a higher
level of performance, but still a level playing-field, reducing the perceived
benefit of doping for individual athletes.
Wangs position is that the main concern of the WADA should be on the
health of the athletes. By abolishing the rules against PEDs, physicians could
regulate and administer the drugs safely instead, reducing the health
hazards of illegally made drugs and allowing for an equal playing field in all
sports.

Works Cited
Wang, Stephen. "Performance-Enhancing Drugs Should Be Legalized."Performance-Enhancing
Drugs. Ed. Roman Espejo. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. of
"Is It Time to Legalize PEDs?" 10 Aug. 2013: n. pag. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 18 May
2016.