Pay for Play

Many reformers want colleges to pay athletes to play in sport. I don't think athletes should get a salary for playing in intercollegiate athletics. Working out, training, and playing games seem like a full-time job. But players already receive scholarships to get a free education, free room and board, and sometimes free allowances. It's true that many athletes don't make it to the professional level, and many do not even graduate from college. The universities make revenues from basketball games and football games, but intercollegiate athletics are not very profitable. Only a handful of schools makes a profit from athletic programs. I do believe that some coaches are overpaid and agree with the author of "College Football Players deserve pay for play" that maybe by cutting back on unnecessary spending such as high salaries in staff, a fund for athletes should be created. This fund would benefit those who put hard work in their sport during college, and for those who could not advance to the professional level. They can use some of this money to advance their education in graduate schools or to start their next chapter of their lives. I think this would be a good idea, maybe there must be some requirements that players must meet in order to receive some of the money from the fund after graduation. I do think this is a good idea, but I disagree that intercollegiate athletes should receive a salary such as the NFL players.

Helmet-to-helmet hits

Many helmet-to-helmet hits occur every week in football from high school to the NFL. This issue has come to surface again with the NFL fining players who commit "vicious hits". 

I think as a paternalist and agree that we should protect athletes for many reasons, and of them is because of the new research on brain trauma from hits. 

I've always known about football players suffering concussions, but I did not know the effect of concussions/hits in the long-term. In the article, "How different are dogfights from football?", there's evidence that hits and concussion affect the brain and deteriorate it in the long-term. A protein Tau has been found in the diseased brains of football players; this protein shuts down neurons in the brain. Researchers such as Ann McKee that showed those brain that present this characteristic are from people suffering a type of dementia called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (C.E.T), which is caused by trauma/injury to the head. 
 
The article has a lot of evidence to relate hits to the head in football as a cause for C.E.T later in life on those players. I believe that hits can be dangerous and all that, but I don't think they are ever going to be eradicated from football, that's the nature of the game. 

I think that better helmets can help, but they are not going to prevent the effect of the collisions. People cheer at football games because it is a very physical game, they like the intensity of it. With physical games come injuries. I don't have a solution for this, but I do think some measures should be taken to prevent dramatic trauma to head.

Politics in the Olympic Games

Olympic Games in Beijing 2008

The Olympic games is a global event where politics should be set aside. But the history of the Olympics has shown that nations and athletes use the games as a stage for political protest. 

My position in this topic is that the Olympics or international competitions should be kept out of the influence of politics, because it seems that politics tarnish the purpose of the Olympics. I believe that the Olympics should be a sacred competition of honorable conduct where athletes show their incredible talent. I think that Olympics should be a stage to show athletic statements, to set world records, to admire the athlete's achievements, etc. It should have the same mission as in ancient times.

Some athletes and countries have boycotted the Olympics in numerous time due to political scandals and controversies. Athletes and the nations where they came from used to Olympics to demonstrate their power in the world, to gain prestige, and to spread their ideals.

Today's lecture with Dr. Hunt was very interesting, I liked how he talked about the politics and the history of Olympics. This afternoon I decided to learn more about each Olympic of modern times, and see how politics influenced each one. I want to share with y'all my findings:

1936 Olympics

• 1900 - The second modern games were to the first -- modern or ancient -- to feature women athletes (two sports only, golf and tennis).
• 1916 - No games due to World War I
• 1936 - The Berlin (Germany) games. Hitler allowed only "Aryan" athletes to represent Germany, but his attempt to demonstrate racial superiority ran headfirst into U.S. athlete Jesse Owens, an African-American who ran away with four gold medals. The U.S. had considered, and then rejected, boycotting the games. However, some individual athletes chose not to compete.
• 1940 and 1944  No games due to World War II
• 1956 - Attendance at Melbourne (Australia) was marred by the Suez War (Israel, the United Kingdom, and France invaded Egypt). In political retaliation, Egypt, Iraq, and Lebanon announced a boycott. After Soviet troops quashed a revolution in Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland also decided to boycott the Games.
• 1968 - At the games in Mexico City, two American athletes spoke out against racial segregation and provided visual support for the Black Power movement while being awarded medals (gold and bronze) for the 200-meter race. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) suspended the two Americans.
• 1972 - The Munich (Germany) games were the first marked by violence. Eight Palestinian terrorists took Israeli athletes and coaches hostage. Five of the terrorists, the 11 Israelis, as well as a West German policemen were killed.
• 1980 - When the games were in Moscow (Soviet Union), the U.S. led a boycott (62 countries and regions) of the games because the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan.
• 1984 - The Soviets boycotted the Los Angeles games in retaliation.
• 2000 - North and South Korean athletes marched under a single flag during opening ceremonies at the Sydney (Australia) games, although they would compete separately.
• 2008 - The Beijing, China games are haunted by the Free Tibet movement and also marked by Russia's contemporaneous invasion of Georgia.

The Consequences of The Amateur Sports Act of 1978

My opinion is the Amateur Sport Act should be reformed. Nowadays, elite competition is still important, but we are faced with many problems such as obesity and physical inactivity. We should go back to the times of Eisenhower and Kennedy, who promoted mass participation. We need to promote physical fitness and athletic opportunities to everyone. We would be a healthier society if the Amateur Sports Act did not emphasize or promote "elite" athletes only.

During the Cold War between the Soviet Union and The United States, the American government believed that losses at international sport competition in the Olympics detracted from American prestige abroad. It was a competition against the Soviet Union for world dominance, to see which country could get more medals at the Olympic games. This gave rise to elite athletes to represent the United States in international games. This excluded the notion of encouraging the entire population to participate in sports. Sports was not longer geared towards mass involvement. The rising percentage of obese people shows that American lead a sedentary life, and lack opportunities to participate in sports.

Jackie Robinson

Jackie Robinson and Martin Luther King, Jr.

I think that Jackie Robinson was a great hero for many African Americans. He was the first black to play in Major League Baseball. He was an important figure because he catalyzed the integration of baseball, the end of segregation in professional baseball. Jackie was very talented in sports, and he also had a great personality and character. He was loved by the black community, and he supported and promoted the Civil Right's movement. 

I think that his charismatic personality made him a great role model for other black people to follow. He talked about racism, he was also humble and calm, and he persevered and reached goals. He was sincere and had a great heart, and that's why he should be recognize as a great hero. Many young African Americans look up to him, and follow a career in sports because of him. He left a great legacy.

I found very powerful quotes from Jackie Robinson which portray his good personality:

Jackie Robinson stealing home

• "A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
• "I'm not concerned with your liking or disliking me... All I ask is that you respect me as a human being."
• "There's not an American in this country free until every one of us is free."
• "The right of every American to first-class citizenship is the most important issue of our time."   

 

Jordan/Nike Nexus

Michael Jordan is a sports icon known all over the world. I'm from Venezuela, and everyone there knew about Michael Jordan, the best basketball player. We always heard and read about the "good things" Michael Jordan had accomplished; he always seemed to get really positive publicity. Jordan became very wealthy with million-dollar contracts with the Chicago bulls, and advertisement contracts with sports manufactures such as Nike.

In the article, The Sports Spectacle, Michael Jordan, and Nike: Unholy Alliance?* By Douglas Kellner, I learned how " Jordan brushed off questions about whether Nike, which pays him $20 million a year in endorsement fees, was violating standards of decency by paying Indonesian workers only 30 cents per day". His attitude towards Nike practices just tainted his "good image" for me. He did represent a good role model for many young people who wanted to pursue sports. On the other hand, he never took interest to see if Nike was doing the right thing in those Asian countries. Nike supposedly pay less than $2.00 a day to workers to produce the Nike's Air Jordan Shoes. Michael Jordan said he was just endorsing the product, but that product was made by people who worked under bad conditions and were paid less than the minimal wage, which in some case was just $30 per month.

As the article says: " While Michael Jordan tries to present himself as the embodiment of all good and wholesome values, he is clearly tainted by his corporate involvements with Nike in the unholy alliance of commerce, sports spectacle, and celebrity. His symbiosis with Nike is so tight, they are so intertwined with each other, that if Nike is tarnished so too is Jordan". I agree with the author, and Michael Jordon is a great athlete and serves as inspiration for others, but he also signifies wealth, greed, and competitiveness.



I like how this cartoon portrays the Jordan/Nike nexus and links it to Nike's inhumane practices in the Asian factories.

nicholsoncartoons.com.au

 

Ethics Approach

Today's topic about different approaches when dealing with an ethical dilemma is very helpful. Especially, we need to have different perspectives and approaches when we discuss ethical issues in modern sports.

I think they are all great approaches, but my favorite (or must used approach) is The Fairness or Justice Approach which states that all equals should be treated equally. I like this approach because it basically implies that all humans should be treated equally. In history, many of the ethical problems and consequences have occurred because some people treat other unequally such as in slavery.

In this approach, benefits and burdens may be distributed based on what a person needs, deserves, contributes, etc., or may be distributed equally to all.
The principle states: "In distributing benefits and burdens, treat people the same unless there are morally relevant differences between them." http://www.ee.scu.edu/eefac/healy/approach.html

I agree that making a good ethical decision takes time because we got to figure out the ethical problem, the values at stake, the people involved, and reflect on the issue in order to act (decision).

Salute

Today in class, we watched a great great documentary, Salute, about the 1968 Olympics in Mexico. After the 200 meter final, Tommie Smith and John Carlos (two African-Americans) were on the victory dias. They took this opportunity to show their support and commitment the human right's movement by doing the black salute. It represented the union and strength of the black community.

This documentary also tried to show how important was the role of Australian athlete, Peter Norman, in this social/political statement. He also stood in the victory dias backing up the black athletes, and he was wearing a human right's movement pin/button on his track suit.


I find sad and unbelievable how Australia and its Olympic authorities prevented Peter Norman from participating in the next Olympics because of his participation in the "salute" in 1968.
 I admire how he was so honest and humble to support the black movement in America, even though he wasn't from the United States. But he saw the all men were created equal and gave up his glory that day at the victory dias to support the cause of racial equality. He was a great man!

Olympics '68

The Ideal Feminine Body

Today’s article by Molly George, “Making Sense of Muscle: The Body Experiences of Collegiate Women Athletes” was very well-written, and provided a lot of information about how some athletes are self-conscious about their bodies because of how society portrays the ideal body for women.
Some of the athletes did not like that weight lifting increased their muscles, they did not embrace this "bulk-up" image. Others saw the benefits of strength from lifting and how this improved their performance in the field.  The author concluded, that even though soccer has become more competitive thus requiring lifting, "most of the women remained somewhat ambivalent about their self-performance, but predominantly chose to participate fully and enthusiastically in training and competition, regardless of the effect on their bodies."


Today we discussed about our opinions on the ideal feminine body:
I agree that a too muscular figure, made a woman look "manly" physically. The problem is that the ideal woman's body by today's standard, and a very muscular body are two extremes. Most average women lie in the middle. This is a problem that we should give a lot of attention, because many women suffer internally about their physical image causing many self-esteem problems. I think that the "ideal feminine body" is an abstract concept that is constantly changing, and women just change their bodies constantly to please society or the media who are constantly showing pictures of how women are supposed to look.


I've looked at some pictures in the web about different body types of women. There's not such thing as a "perfect body". People also differ in how they perceive other bodies and what attracts them physically. 

Anna Kournikova - Tennis Player

Lenda Murray - Ms. Olympia (Bodybuilder)

Different Athletes

Average Women from Dove Commercial

How To Combat The Obesity Epidemic?

People have prejudice towards fat people and think of them as lazy and impotent. It might be true that some fat people have enough health literacy to make good decisions about their life, but they still choose to eat junk food and lead a sedentary life. But I don't think that health education has been widespread across the entire population of the U.S. There are still people who don't know much about calories, recommended food portions, different food alternatives, etc. They lack health literacy in order to make better decisions about their health. Most of them know that vegetables are healthier than a McDonald burger, but if they have limited resources (money), they are going to buy the burger instead, since it's cheaper.
Most people in the middle class and upper class have read magazines about health, have seen a T.V show about health, or have found more information available about it. They can afford a nutritionist, and a gym membership. It seems that most health programs are advertised towards those with higher socioeconomic status; they are the ones that can afford all those health services. The poor population in this country, especially minorities, lack the knowledge and skills necessaries to make good health choices with their limited resources. It's harder for them to be healthy since they do not have the health literacy, nor the resources available that wealthier people do. I think that when health promoters teach health to the public, they should focus on individual groups or races, because it's hard to tell someone to eat better and exercise if you do not know what that person goes through everyday.
I don't have a solution to eradicate obesity in this country, but I do think that it should start by targeting the kids and get them away from the vicious cycle of overeating and inactivity. Parents should be targeted too, so they can teach and support their kids in their new path to health and well-being.

I also found this good article about minorities' health: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21252.php
I was shocked when I watched this video: A 7-yeard old girl who weighted 400 hundred pounds!

http://socialpsychologyeye.wordpress.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Muscular Christianity & The YMCA

I found very interesting the role that Christianity played in the development of athletics. Christians affirmed that humans consist of three elements—mind, body & spirit. Therefore, these elements have to be maintained in balance. Consequently, exercise and fitness were ways to recruit young people. Muscular Christianity was a Christian Outreach in the 19th century. 

I think that the role of Muscular Christianity is still very important in modern times. People still try to find that balance between body and soul. They put their kids in sports so they can learn how to be a good team player. I do believe that sports can teach some values, but there are other values that sports can taint such as honesty. Therefore, it's important to know that not all good values come from sports. I think that even though athletes are more dishonest than the average people, sports can also teach people many important life lessons -- to learn that sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but you got to persevere to obtain your goals. 

"The ideals of muscular Christianity entered America, and especially American schools, during the Civil War era. At that time recreation and athletics were becoming a fixture in a public education system driven by the ideals of such evangelical reformers as Lyman Beecher and his family. At the nexus of muscular Christianity and college education stood the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA)". 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2003/aug15.html?start=1

Drawings of the first international between England and Scotland in 1872 show some of the virtues of the burgeoning British style (photo: Wikipedia)

History in Sport

Sport History is important because it tells us how sport used to be, how it is in the present, and how it might be in the future. It shows how sport has developed throughout the centuries.

Sports used to be religious and part of rituals in ancient times. Nowadays, sport is part of the American culture. It's secular, but there are cultural aspects and traditions attached to each sport.
We, Longhorns, wear burnt orange and white to represent UT's sport teams (I found this link about the history behind it: http://www.texassports.com/trads/burnt-orange-white.html).

I have noticed that since the 20th century, sport has come to focus more on winning and records. My reasons are that: it's all about breaking a record and beat the previous winner. Heroes are those athletes that reach the top, we value more what they achieve as athletes than what they achieve as human beings. They can't be "morally wrong" in their daily lives, but as long as they win games, they will be considered heroes. (Heroes of modern American sports --> http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/heroes.html)

First televised U. S. sports event, May 17, 1939. 

Super Bowl (2010)

"Steroids are just a side effect of being American" - Chris Bell

The documentary Bigger, Stronger, Faster directed by Chris Bell portrays how common the usage of enhancements is in the American culture. These people live in a society where competition is everything, they are always trying to be better than the next person. Million of trophies are not enough, Americans are never satisfied. It seems like pursuing personal goals mean nothing unless there's a public praising that success. They do whatever they need to do to win, to obtain fame. For athletes, steroids facilitate their success.

I believe that it's hard to predict the future of doping. My reasons are that: for a lot of Americans, competition is everything. The motivation to be number one is stronger than honesty and integrity. Achieving more and more is part of the American culture, and this desire to always thrive to be the best is going to be passed from generation to generation. Will people keep using steroids to reach their goals?
Maybe people will stop taking them, after genetically changing their DNA to make their muscles twice as big.

 Steroids --> Gene Doping --> What's next?

Bigger, Stronger, Faster*

The Dilemma of Doping in Sports

Each year, more athletes are found guilty of doping. For those who use enhancements, their motivation is winning at all cost. Anti-doping organizations believe that doping goes against the integrity of the game. Winning is more important than a natural performance. But again, what's natural? There's not a fine line.

Everyone complains about doping in sports, especially in baseball. But truth is that a very high percentage of athletes are using enhancements (legal or illegal) to help with their strength and endurance. Some say it's unfair for athletes to get singled out for using performance enhancers. One simple and very logical solution would be to test every athlete. After all, it doesn’t make much sense to test anybody if you don’t test everyone. Athletes train together and if one does, others are going to follow the same path. So called doping rules and regulations as well as drug testing seems more like an act of the league commissioners to appease the fans and the media rather than a solid, well-regulated drug policy. They say they are testing for dopers, but they know that they don't test everyone and that a lot of underground "doping" is going on in their leagues. It seems like commissioners try to make the public believe that doping is under control, but in reality, it's getting worse.

My opinion is that it would be horrible and non-ideal to not test anyone. In some sports, for example, they are a lot of positions and players. Different skills are needed for each position, it's not all about getting strength for some players; it won't make them play better. Some players might feel forced to take steroids just because their opponents do. It would be ideal if every single player from all-levels would be tested for doping. I am in favor of Anti-Doping if it's done right, money should be invested, so drug testing becomes uniform.

Coach Paul Brown

I think that Paul Brown was very smart and ingenious when he took footballs cut in half and put them in players jerseys. It was not against the rules. I mean I wouldn't have liked it if I was the coach of the opposing team; nevertheless, I would have felt a little dumb for not thinking about it first.

It could be argue that it goes against the integrity of the game, and it would probably be a totally different sport if each team in football wore jerseys like that.  Paul Browns innovation was very questionable to the public, and rules were made how the uniform ought to be.
But the point I want to make is that it's all about strategies in sports.  I don't think it was morally wrong, it was a strategy, an opportunity to win a game. In a competition, you have to be clever to find new ways to surprise your opponents and earn a victory.