As those of you that have read my previous posts know, there are many controversies involving professional athletes. Some of the classic examples are Michael Vick and his dog fighting, Kobe Bryant and his rape case, and probably the most popular are Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds with their steroids issue. If you look back on the cases, one question may arise…how were those athletes still allowed to play with those charges against them?
Take the Kobe Bryant example. He was on trial for rape charges, which you can see the situation at http://lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/kobe_bryant.htm. If a man is being tried for rape, how is he still allowed to participate? He did get off and was found innocent, and let’s face it, if a woman comes to the best basketball player in the worlds hotel room, she obviously knows that they are not going to sit down, talk about the economy, and eat tea and crumpets. That is why it was not considered rape. Regardless, he was still traveling from Eagle, Colorado to L.A. for playoff games, and playing amazing. The question that pops into many people minds is, “How are they letting this man do this? He is a possible rapist, and he is still being allowed to play basketball in front of millions of kids…kids who look up to him.”
Another example is the baseball/steroids situation. Roger Clemens was still allowed to pitch, and Barry Bonds was still allowed to swing the bat (because he doesn’t play defense) even though they were both being tried for the use of steroids in baseball. If there is even the slightest possibility that these men used steroids, and compromised the sport of baseball, then why should they get to play? It pretty much comes down to the “innocent until proven guilty” line. Regardless of the law, should the ultimate decision not come down to the law, but rather our morals as human beings? There are some things that are legal, but not right. These men are role models! If kids see them getting away with this stuff, even if proven guilty, then many kids will think that they can get into trouble, and be fine until they are proven guilty.
It even happens in high school. If a kid has bad grades, then they have two weeks to get them up…that is two weeks for their team to mold together, rely and trust one-another, then get pulled apart when the kid gets the boot. It is not right.
Pretty much what should happen, is that there should be suspension until proven innocent, because that can still abide by the “innocent until proven guilty. Rules were meant to be broken, or just bent, but that doesn’t mean that they can only be bent the wrong way, let’s stick to these morals and bench those who deserve it.
http://www.popmatters.com/sports/features/images/040107-sports2003-kobe.jpg Kobe Image
http://lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/kobe_bryant.htm Roger Clemens Case
0 Responses to “Should They, or Shouldn’t They?”