Throughout the United States, it is obvious how our society exposes sports to children. In most countries other than the U.S., extracurricular sports are not part of the school system. Naturally, with the kind of emphasis on sports we impose on our children, they are going to tend to idolize major sports figures. But are those sports icons a positive role model who deserve special recognition, are they just ordinary people who have worked hard to reach their status, or are they people who have a God-given talent that they take for granted? It seems that there are plenty of examples that would fall under that last category. Some that come to mind include NBA superstar Kobe Bryant, NFL hero O. J. Simpson, and the Atlanta FalconsÃÂ star quarterback, Michael Vick.
The arrest of Kobe Bryant is one that certainly comes to mind. The indictment claimed that Bryant raped an employee of a hotel in Edwards, Colorado, while he was staying there for knee surgery (Corliss).
BryantÃÂs defense was that the victim was lying. Bryant, a married man with children, claimed that he and the victim had consensual sex (McCallum). Eventually, the victim dropped that charges. No-one may never know what happened in the hotel room that night, but it is known that Bryant admitted to have sex with this woman, thus cheating on his wife.
Another example can be seen in the highly publicized case of O. J. Simpson. In June 1994, SimpsonÃÂs ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman, were found dead. Simpson was subsequently arrested for their murders. After a nine month long trial, Simpson was found not guilty. This shocked most people, as it was universally believed that he was, in fact, the murderer. Considering the fact that Simpson was and still is one of...
Not an all-star performance
The writing is reasonable, but careless.
"society exposes sports to children." More accurately, our society exposes children to sports.
"are those sports icons a positive role model" Icons is plural; role model is singular. Oops.
"Bryant admitted to have sex with this woman" I think what he admitted to was having sex with this woman.
As for the discussion of the O.J.Simpson case, the writer is sadly mis-informed about the reaction to the verdict. While many of those who had followed this media circus on television and through the media felt that the verdict was unjust, most observers who had studied the record said that the prosecution did such a wretched job of letting everything get out of control that the outcome was not at all surprising. The prosecution lost because they did a louzy job.
So Simpson went from being an icon to an icon under a cloud. But the nonsensical media circus that has followed his recent arrest in Las Vegas indicates that Simpson has not achieved obscurity.
Of the discussion of Michael Vick, perhaps the writer will explain why if Vick could have been sentenced to up to six years in prison if he had taken the case to trial, and he got 18 months (max), how did he not get a lighter sentence? Eighteen months is not six years.
Finally, why all the grief about how much money Michael Vick will lose. Whether Vick, Barkley, and the other superstars like it or not, by making themselves superstars -- and nobody made Charles Barkley play professional basketball -- they accept certain perquisites of their status. They get paid money beyond what most mortals will every even consider making. How many people are ever offered a "signing bonus"? How many people are in their entire life-time offered a signing bonus is eight figures? (I've signed a lot of contracts, and the most I ever got was a T-shirt for signing up for a credit card.) They are role models. Andif they are so reckless or foolish as to shatter the faith that the public has put in them, why should the public not take away thier multi-million dollar endorsements and make them come down to earth with the mortals.
In short, the writing is not that good, the argument weak.
0 out of 1 people found this comment useful.