Essay 4.1- Young and Stupid: A Personal Experience With Drunk Driving

With the warm spring night air streaming through the half open windows of my blue Toyota rav-4, I animatedly belted out my own version of Sublime’s What I Got.  I tapped my fingers rhythmically on the steering wheel, head bobbing away and really letting it loose, “Lovin’, is what I got, I said remember that. Lovin’, is what I got!”  Checking the time, the small green lines on the dash clock told me it was 2:30 AM; late and past my curfew.  Zoning back in on the road, I saw my best friend flick on his left blinker signaling our turn out of street-lit cop territory and up into the darkness of the hills.  We were carpooling home from a Friday night of hanging out with the guys, and once again it had came time for us to make our 12 mile return to our homes in the woods.

            The call of our own beds, and Mama’s pancakes in the morning had made us forget about the few beers we had drunk earlier while playing in that “epic” game of beer pong.  We were by no means drunk, but being under 21 we were definitely violating the “zero tolerance” drunk driving policy.   A slight miscue on the roads could end up with a run in with the police, and then we’d really be in trouble.  That was mistake number one.

            As I tugged the wheel to the left, my body leaning with the force of the turn, I felt home free.  We were in our territory now.  No local cops would be out at this hour (they always went off-duty at 11) and we knew these roads like the back of our hands.  The only chance we had of a police encounter was the rare state trooper making his late night rounds, but that was a real longshot.  Being our young and stupid selves, Julian and I knew what this meant; it was race time.  Mistake number two.

            The red orbs of his taillights grew smaller as he rapidly quickened the pace, then disappearing all together as he flew around the next curve.  “It’s on,” I thought, as I pushed in the clutch, downshifted into third and gave it some gas.  The engine churned harder, pressing me back against my seat.  “This old jalopy has still got a little pep,” I thought as I glanced at the little orange needle approaching the 60 mph mark.  We zipped along through the fresh spring night approaching one of our well known straight-a-ways where we both knew I was going to try and pass him.   Flying around a corner right on his tail the road opened up in front of us; more that a quarter mile of straight, level pavement.

            Faster and faster we went, the sides of the road a whizzing blur as we stupidly flew through the night.   Approaching 80mph with the engine screaming and the end in sight, I knew I wasn’t going to catch him.  I backed off, braking hard as the road ended it’s straight course and veered sharply left then snaked backed to the right.  Looking up I saw Julian’s taillights weave around the first corner, and then all of a sudden disappear into blackness.  Surprised and confused I quickly switched on my high beams.

            Then I saw him.   Ripping the wheel to the right, I narrowly missed crashing head on into his mangled black sedan that now sat straddling the double yellow line, facing the opposite direction we had been traveling.  I screeched to a stop, flung open the door and sprinted back to the scene.  Horrified, expecting the worst and still not completely aware of what was happening, I was more than relieved to see Julian alive and in one piece.  He was standing there, not a scratch on him, staring in disbelief at the tree that had just almost killed him and ruined his car. 

            Once I knew he was okay, our situation truly began to sink in.  Here we were, two 17 year-old kids technically over the legal limit, in the middle of the night with a totaled car stuck in the middle of the road.  It was then, as I looked at the specks of car debris scattered about the road and the flashing of my emergency lights from my vacant vehicle that I realized how truly stupid and ignorant we were.  We never thought something like this could happen to us.  We were your typical “invincible” male teenagers; oblivious to the dangers we were putting ourselves in. 

            I believe that it was this feeling of invincibility that got us in trouble that night.  Partially natural, but also partially a product of our society, it is this feeling that drives teenagers like Julian and I to take risks and test limits.  We must break this “cloak of invincibility” that shrouds American teenage youth.  It is not only until a monumental and life-changing event that kids like us will snap out of this immature trance and realize the stupidity, and potential impacts of our actions.

            Statistics gathered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) show that a “teenage boy with a blood alcohol content of .05 (under the legal limit for an of age drinker), are 18 times more likely to experience a single vehicle crash than a non-drinking teenage boy (“Statistics of Teen Drunk Driving”).  While my buddy and I may have not been wasted behind the wheel, it is probably true that alcohol played a part in our decision to speed recklessly down that familiar rural road. 

            On to mistake number two: racing.   Again, how stupid could be we?  Even though driving on these roads was second nature, it only took one little patch of sand and driving to fast to send Julian hurtling into that tree.  The NHTSA says “motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 16-20,” and that out of 1,000 people who participate in street racing, 49 will get injured (“Illegal Racing Stats”).  That means that almost twenty percent of participants get hurt while sliding, and screeching around corners at high speeds.  I would say that those odds are too high to take the risk.

            So what needs to happen?  All of us remember being told that drunk driving is bad, and to make smart decisions behind the wheel.  We’ve been shown videos and read horrific stories about what can happen if we do these types of things.  It became clear to me that night that even though we had heard these messages many times, they were not powerful enough to sink in.  It took a terrifying event like this to make us realize how lucky, but insanely stupid we were at the same time.

            I argue an event like mine is preventable.  We must use stories in graphic detail, and have speakers who have lost loved ones talk to our youth about these decisions that they will face.  In 2002 in Granger, Texas, 19-year-old Amy Wolf was killed by a drunk driver.  Her parents have since dedicated themselves by using her story to educate local high schooler’s about how to make good decisions (Chiodo, par 2).  Author Lauren Chiodo, then discusses how many students wished that they were given this type of information in high school.  Here is direct evidence that we are not doing enough as a country to educate our youth on the impacts of their actions and how to make better decisions.  Even though some may disagree, I think the brutal truth is the best way to undermine the teenage sense of “invincibility” and get them to be smarter, safer and make better decisions.  High schools and driver education institutions must show the gruesome images and mother’s wailing because the loss of their children.  Maybe if I had been taught and shown some of these alarming images, I would have seen that mangled car that DARE had brought to school to show and tell, before I slammed on the gas and sped up.   But I didn’t.  I had not been forced down my throat hard enough and I chose to make the stupid decision anyway.

            I got lucky that night.  Julian got luckier.  But it was not until then, after making these stupid decisions many times earlier that we realized what we were getting ourselves in to.  Let’s as a country ramp up our efforts to educate our youth, even if it means telling and showing them disturbing and upsetting things.   I wish I had been exposed to this type of information, as it could have prevented me from almost killing my best friend.  I am older, wiser and slightly less stupid now but this night will be engrained in my mind forever.

           

Works Cited

Chiodo, Lauren. “Local tragedy used to each drug, alcohol awareness.” The Taylor Daily Press.  Sept 1 2010. Web. 19 April 2011.

“Illegal Racing Stats.” Street Legal Drags. 2003. Web. April 18 2011.

“Statistics of Teen Drunk Driving.” Car Accident Advice.  2008.  Web. April 19 2011.

Essay 3.2-The Steroid Debate: Should Users Be Considered For The Hall of Fame?

I love the game of baseball.  I have been playing since I could barely walk, and possibly my favorite thing to do in the entire world is to pitch a baseball game.  As I have watched the game evolve throughout my childhood and teenage years, the use of steroids has tarnished the reputation of the game that I love.  Playing on team after team, I had the values of integrity and respect for the game instilled in me.  The use and abuse of steroids by professional players directly contradicts the very nature of America’s pastime.  With this said, the issue at hand is if these players who have either been proven, admitted to, or suspected of using performance enhancing drugs should be eligible for hall of fame induction.  I believe that such players have undermined the true spirit of the game, broken an inherent promise to the game of baseball and therefore should not be considered for enshrinement in baseball history.  However, having played the game I realize the level of difficulty that playing professionally entails and therefore have extreme respect and admiration for the accomplishments of some of these men.  In light of their extreme talent, and impact on the game of baseball I would agree however, that some of these players may deserve a second chance when considering hall of fame induction.

            Some say that arguably hardest thing to do in all of sports is hit a baseball.  Even though I may be slightly biased, I agree with this statement.  Therefore I do understand when people argue that even though some of these players used steroids, they should still be considered for the Hall of Fame. Even though a player such as Barry Bonds may have used steroids, he still possessed the hand-eye coordination to blast 762 baseballs out of the park over his illustrious career (“Major League Baseball”).  While these drugs may have made him stronger, there are plenty of Venice Beach juiceheads that could not hit a baseball if their life depended on it (Tobin).  Strength plays s role, but skill plays a larger one.  It is this fact that I find it hard to dismiss when thinking about these players; they are undoubtedly and irrefutably extremely skilled.  Should their use of steroids be overlooked because of their exceptional talent?  It is a valid point that must be considered.  To consistently perform successfully at the highest level of competition is an accomplishment that deserves recognition regardless of what the athlete has put into their body.

            Even though many of these athletes are exceedingly talented, I argue their personal decision to use steroids puts them in another category.  They cheated, and they should be punished.  The current MLB steroid policy states that players will be suspended 50 games for one positive test, and 100 games for a second.  A third positive test results in a lifetime ban from the game.  The original policy, which was in effect during the “steroid era” (1990’s-early 200’s), established penalties of a 10-game suspension for a first failed test, 30 games for a second, 60 games for a third, one year for a fourth, and a fifth positive test would be up to the commissioners discretion (“Major League Baseball”).   While the current restrictions more harshly discourage steroid use, these players still put banned substances into their bodies.  Some of these athletes claim that these supplements were ingested unknowingly, but this is just a petty excuse.  Any professional athlete should have, and would have full knowledge of what materials were going into their body.  A study by the Physics Department at Tufts University also shed some light on the steroid issue.  They found that a slight increase in bat speed due to increased physical strength from steroid use could result in 50%-100% more home runs (Tobin).  This is an alarming statistic that just goes to show how potentially unfair steroid use can be.  It is cheating.  After all, this is their job and how they support their families.  Why would they want to undermine their livelihood? 

Also, I think that another factor in many players steroid use stemmed from a financial viewpoint.  If they perform better, they receive more money.  And to perform better they must use steroids (Hill, par 5).  Roger Clemens, one of the greatest pitchers of all time, made 119 million dollars throughout his career, and made 53 million of them in his final five years of playing.  Consequently this is right during the time period that he is alleged to have used steroids (Hill, par 6).  Another example is Barry Bonds, who made $115 million of his total $187 million over the last seven years of his career—right when his connection to steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs was the strongest (Hill, par 7).  This is an unfair and selfish attitude to have, and disrespects all the players who play the game cleanly, fairly, and strive to be the best they can be without the help of modern day medicine.  I believe that steroids have helped to boost the salaries of professional athletes to the astronomical figures that are exhibited today.  The bottom line is that even though these are extremely talented human beings, they made the choice to unfairly get the upper hand, and take their game to the next level artificially. Not through hard work, determination, and pure skill like their predecessors to the HOF.

            While the two sides do have different opinions they also overlap, creating an interesting conundrum.  As stated above, these athletes are the best of the best; the cream of the crop.  They are able to do something, that only a tiny, itsy, bitsy fraction of the world’s population can achieve.  This does deserve some sort of recognition even if they made the wrong decision to use steroids.  People make mistakes, is this one simply to large to forgive?  Some players have come out publically and admitted their steroid use and apologized to fans, fellow players and the game itself.  These men arguably deserve more respect than players who continue to deny use.  Also, both viewpoints would agree that the Hall of Fame immortalizes players into the game’s storied history.  It is a greatly respected, and sought after accomplishment that represents a player’s commitment and dedication to the game.  It is a place for the best of the best and only the truly deserving should be inducted.  But should steroid use be grounds for exclusion?

            While using steroids is cheating and banned by MLB, I think that a compromise is necessary to address this issue.  The current MLB steroid policy should be enforced with full effect, no questions asked.  Current players need to have learned that these actions are unacceptable, and that nothing of the sort will be accepted in the future.  Steroids are intolerable, and people who use them will be punished. 

As for past players, who played when regulations were more lax, I suggest that a situational approach is necessary.  Players like these should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and there should be an overarching committee that either deems them eligible or ineligible for consideration into the HOF.  Perfect instances are players like Alex Rodriguez and Andy Pettite who have admitted their drug use, and are sorry for what they have done (Hill, par 8).  They knew they were wrong, apologized to the public, and gained back a lot of the respect that they could have lost by not admitting or denying their use.  They should be looked at in a different light than somebody like Barry Bonds, who has been accused of steroid use multiple times but continues to deny it.

 Furthermore there are rare situations where it may be true that a player was given and unknowingly took a supplement, or was prescribed drugs by a doctor that contained banned substances leading to their positive test result.  While cases like this are rare, they can happen and it would be unfair to punish a talented player for something that truly wasn’t their fault.  Also, I believe that all players should be considered innocent until proven guilty.  Just because a player has been suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs, doesn’t automatically cast them out of running for the Hall.  Exclusion from the ballot must be based on hard evidence that undoubtedly depicts the player as a user.

In conclusion, players are voted into the HOF based on the following criteria: ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contribution to the team or teams on which they played or to baseball in general (“Major League Baseball”).  The use of steroids directly undermines some of these very qualities that Hall of Fame players are supposed to epitomize.  As a result, I believe that these players should not be considered for the HOF.  However, I am willing to compromise, and examine players on a case by case because of their exceptional talent, contributions to the game, and hard work and honesty regardless of whether they decided to use steroids or not.

Works Cited

Hill, Jemele. “Do Steroid Era Players Value the HOF?”  ESPN.com. (28 Mar 2011). 28 Mar 2011.

“Major League Baseball.” WikipediaOnline.  (25 Mar 2011). 27 Mar. 2011.

Tobin, R.G. “On the potential of a chemical Bonds: Possible effects of steroids on home run production in baseball.” American Journal of Physics.  January 2008.  Volume 76, Issue 1.

3.1-The Steroid Debate: Should Users Be Considered For The Hall of Fame?

The Steroid Debate: Should Users Be Considered For the Hall of Fame?

I love the game of baseball. I have been playing since I could barely walk, and possibly my favorite thing to do in the entire world is to pitch a baseball game. As I have watched the game evolve throughout my childhood and teenage years, the use of steroids has tarnished the reputation of the game that I love. Playing on team after team, I had the values of integrity and respect for the game instilled in me. The use and abuse of steroids by professional players directly contradicts the very nature of America’s pastime. With this said, the issue at hand is if these players who have either been proven, admitted to, or suspected of using performance enhancing drugs should be eligible for hall of fame induction. I believe that such players have undermined the true spirit of the game, broken an inherent promise to the game of baseball and therefore should not be considered for enshrinement in baseball history. However, having played the game I realize the level of difficulty that playing professionally entails and therefore have extreme respect and admiration for the accomplishments of some of these men. In light of their extreme talent, and impact on the game of baseball I would agree however, that some of these players may deserve a second chance when considering hall of fame induction.
Some say that arguably hardest thing to do in all of sports is hit a baseball. Even though I may be slightly biased, I agree with this statement. Therefore I do understand when people argue that even though some of these players used steroids, they should still be considered for Hall of Even though a player such as Barry Bonds may have used steroids, he still possessed the hand-eye coordination to blast 762 baseballs out of the park over his illustrious career (“Major League Baseball”). While these drugs may have made him stronger, there are plenty of Venice Beach juiceheads that could not hit a baseball if their life depended on it (Tobin). Strength plays s role, but skill plays a larger one. It is this fact that I find it hard to dismiss when thinking about these players; they are undoubtedly and irrefutably extremely skilled. Should their use of steroids be overlooked because of their exceptional talent? It is a valid point that must be considered. To consistently perform successfully at the highest level of competition is an accomplishment that deserves recognition regardless of what the athlete has put into their body.
Even though many of these athletes are exceedingly talented, I argue their personal decision to use steroids puts them in another category. They cheated, and they should be punished. The current MLB steroid policy states that players will be suspended 50 games for one positive test, and 100 games for a second. A third positive test results in a lifetime ban from the game (“Major League Baseball”). While the current restrictions are slightly more harsh than policies during the “steroid era” (1990’s- early 2000’s), they took substances that were not allowed to be put into their bodies. Some of the athlete’s claim that these supplements were ingested unknowingly, but this is just a petty excuse. Any professional athlete should have, and would have full knowledge of what materials were going into their body. After all, this is their job and how they support their families. Why would they want to undermine their livelihood? Also, I think that another factor in many players steroid use stemmed from a financial viewpoint. If they perform better, they receive more money. And to perform better they must use steroids (Hill, par 5). Roger Clemens, one of the greatest pitchers of all time, made 119 million throughout his career, made 53 million in the last five years of his career. Conseuquently this is right during the time period that he is alleged to have used steroids (Hill, par 6).This is an unfair and selfish attitude to have, and disrespects all the players who play the game cleanly, fairly, and strive to be the best they can be without the help of modern day medicine. I believe that steroids have helped to boost the salaries of professional athletes to the astronomical figures that are exhibited today. The bottom line is that even though these are extremely talented human beings, they made the choice to unfairly get the upper hand, and take their game to the next level artificially. Not through hard work, determination, and pure skill like their predecessors to the HOF.
While the two sides do have different opinions they also overlap, creating an interesting conundrum. As stated above, these athletes are the best of the best; the cream of the crop. They are able to do something, that only a tiny, itsy, bitsy fraction of the world’s population can achieve. This does deserve some sort of recognition even if they made the wrong decision to use steroids. People make mistakes, is this one to large to forgive? Also, both viewpoints would agree that the Hall of Fame immortalizes players into the game’s storied history. It is a greatly respected, and sought after accomplishment that represents a player’s commitment and dedication to greatness and perfection. These are undisputed facts amongst baseball players and fans, but should steroid use be grounds for exclusion?
While using steroids is cheating and banned by MLB, I think that a compromise is truly necessary to address this issue. The current MLB steroid policy should be enforced with full effect, no questions asked. Current players need to have learned that these actions are unacceptable, and that nothing of the sort will be accepted in the future. Steroids are intolerable, and people who use them will be punished. As for past players, who played when regulations were more lax, I suggest that a situational approach is necessary. Players like these should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and there should be an overarching committee that either deems them eligible or ineligible for consideration into the HOF. Sometimes, it may be true that a player unknowingly took a supplement, or were prescribed supplements by a doctor that contained banned substances leading to their positive test result. While cases like this are rare, they can happen and it would be unfair to punish a player for something that truly wasn’t their fault. Also, I believe that all players should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Just because a player has been suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs, doesn’t automatically cast them out of running for the Hall. Exclusion from the ballot must be based on hard evidence that undoubtedly depicts the player as a user.




Works Cited

Hill, Jemele. “Do Steroid Era Players Value the HOF?” ESPN.com. (28 Mar 2011). 28 Mar 2011.

“Major League Baseball.” WikipediaOnline. (25 Mar 2011). 27 Mar. 2011.

Tobin, R.G. “On the potential of a chemical Bonds: Possible effects of steroids on home run production in baseball.” American Journal of Physics. January 2008. Volume 76, Issue 1.