Throughout the article written by Leigh Cowart she describes how Performance enhancing drugs are not only bad for the sports themselves, but also very harmful to the players that use them. The author uses many arguments including how athletes already push their body to the limits, so intaking an outside substance will tear the body down rather than build it up. Cowart also denies the thought that Steroids make sports an even playing field by stating that they will only help the strong and make the weak weaker. In the article Leigh Cowart uses strong tone to help her get the point across that drugs do not benefit the athletes in any way. She uses an example from the book “Man and Superman”, the example involves a strong opinion that PED’s would make the sport more even for the competitors. Cowart then flips it to a personal point of view asking how they could only worry about the sport and not the well being of the human beings that happen to be playing. This is very effective because it causes people to put themselves into the shoes of an athlete on steroids. Once the consequences have been evaluated people realize the awful effect that drugs, designed for helping people, can actually be dangerous. For this reason the authors arguments support her claim and enhance her work. …show more content…
Now Cowart brings in a sympathy effect for the athletes, this is done saying that a person who plays a contact sport has other peoples lives in their hands. If the are artificially enhanced they could potentially have no control over their own actions. A strong statement such as that could be considered effective because a powerful phrase like this puts attention on the area. This really makes the paper better and as a result, is a successful attempt at downgrading