To do it or not to do it. If I do it no one will know. Scared people get nowhere. The risk Is worth the reward. We have heard all of the clich’s and have often second guessed our decisions as to If we should or should not do a certain action. Is the risks always worth the rewards? Can we go against or better knowledge and try something? Most honest people have that moral compass inside and lets them know if a certain action should be done or even tried. We will examine our emotions using he utilitarian approach and the correct or policy guidelines in the deontological approach.
Which one is correct? How do we Judge ? We explore the utilitarian ethics approach we can see how the ethnical use of steroids Is debated. Let’s look at It from the risk versus reward aspect. Was the risk of using steroids worth the consequences of being punished to receive the reward? It is easy to see that both parties, Melky Cabrera and the San Francisco Giants were rewarded handsomely with revenue beyond what would have been gained if he had not used them. Cabrera and the Giants were going through contract negotiations as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (2011).
Cabrera needed to distance himself to make himself more profitable and better that the other Players that he were competing against. This reason probably drove him to use steroids to get the “advantage” that players speak about. The happiness or gratification that both sides were seeking was additional revenue and recognition. One can state the argument also that steroids should not be banned due to being in the same category as upplements and nutritional aids. Medscape Reference points to the fact that they are derived from the same molecules only being that steroids have stronger characterlstlcs.
McCaulay Samuels Sellers has done extensive research Involving creattine and its effects in healing and rehabilitation. One excuse that Melky Cabrera and Bartolo Colon used was that the substance that they were using was an aid in healing their injuries and speeding up the process. The trainers and the San Francisco Giants and Oakland A’s had to have some type of knowledge that these layers were using a banned substance. By them allowing and not acknowledging it they are rightfully at fault for trying to let everyone be happy and the result was something that everyone could benefit from.
Evidence Is that Cabrera signed a $16 million dollar contract after his suspension. So we can see the use of steroids helped Melky Cabrera and also Bartolo Colon as he only received a 50 game suspension and was still allowed to receive his contract money. Melky Cabrera and Bartolo Colon are still looked as cheaters and any team that pays those players should also receive uspension or some type of penalty. The argument from the deontological view is steroids. In the players defense is the substandard and unequal penalties given to certain players.
The more high profile and marketable players are allowed more leeway and extra opportunities to represent themselves and give excuses of why they tested positive. These players are allowed to give extreme reasons and public relation marketing to help the public and the commissioner agree with them. Major League Baseball rules state: The first positive test would result in a fifty game uspension. The second positive test would result in a one-hundred game suspension. Finally, the third positive test would result in a lifetime suspension from Major League Baseball.
If these are the rules why do some players are allowed to have their suspensions overturned because of factors or things they say affected the positive result? Ryan Braun was allowed to overturn his ruling but Melky Cabrera was not so now the deontological approach does not seem to be correct because of bias and favoritism. The New York Times reported (May 2011) That Bartolo Colon nderwent a procedure that used Stem cell replacement and not testosterone or any other banned substance. Major League Baseball still upheld his suspension and did not take into account the report the doctor provided.
Colon later apologized for the failed test but was still suspended. Shouldn’t the policy extend to all players and no concessions made for high profile? In an article from (USA Today 8/23/2007) stated that Major League Baseball drug Policy is broken and falls short of its intent. Long time managers Joe Torre and Tony La Russa have made very stern statements oncerning the policies, Tony La Russa stated, “Just make the risk so punishing that we can eliminate this. ” In conclusion which theory gives the best answer or result? In the utilitarian approach the Feeling of accomplishment and the player being more productive is the result.
All parties Benefit from increased revenue from the players getting higher contracts to the teams having a larger ticket sales due to fans wanting to see a great player to MLB receiving more attendance and exposure from marketing. In the eontological approach the image and integrity is lost due to suspensions not being administered fairly. When it comes to performance and revenue fans and management want to bend the rules to allow excitement or a higher level of activity being seen. With this compromise we lose out on the true integrity and following rules and policies so that even one has the same equal chance.