Arguing Cause Lb

Supporting Supplements in the NCAA

Athletes in the NCAA should be given the opportunity to make themselves better at their sport however they want, even if it is consuming supplements to improve themselves physically in a safe way. Over the past few years the Board of the NCAA made a ruling that banned almost every supplement that athletes can take to improve their game. Pre-work out, during work-out and post work-out supplement methods have all mostly been taken away from players because it gives athletes the upper hand physically. Most athletes would be against the NCAA because most of these supplements like post work-out protein and pre work-out amino acids only take the soreness out of your body and enables your muscles to grow quicker. Both of these two "drugs" are banned by the NCAA, and the reasons for doing so seem to be very broad and most athletes aren’t given reasoning why.

  • Is it clear what I mean exactly?
  • Where might the reader be confused? What could be misleading or muddled?
  • How does the claim(s) in this paragraph relate to my main claim?
  • What support have I used to argue this claim? What links this support to my claim? (for these last two, you can underline the support and make bold the linkage if it is explicitly stated. If the linkage is unstated, write it out in this quote box.)

When addressing the main issues the NCAA and professional doctors have with substances can vary from the athletes health, mood, performance, safety of others and future health effects. If taken the wrong substances there can be negative side effects sometimes even death. “L-tryptophan, for example, an amino acid used by strength-trained athletes, was associated with eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, which caused 38 deaths” (Supplement Use by Female Athletes). L-tryptophan is considered a bad amino and is big reason why the NCAA is so strict, 100% amino acids on the other hand can be very healthy and beneficial. The reasoning behind the NCAA being so strict is understandable if the supplements are abused and over used, but if taken care of properly by educating student athletes correctly most of these issues can be taken care of. “Uneducated athletes need to gain a better understanding of the safety, eligibility, and efficacy concerns associated with choosing to take dietary supplements. The athletic trainer is a valuable athletic team member who can help in the educational process” (National Athletic Trainers). Being educated along with the help of athletic trainers will make the process of taking supplements and what to consume be a big help to student athletes when trying to get better and stay healthy at the same time.

  • Is it clear what I mean exactly?

Yes its clear, im talking about the health risks and that education could help with athletes knowledge with supplements.

  • Where might the reader be confused? What could be misleading or muddled?

The types of supplements.

  • How does the claim(s) in this paragraph relate to my main claim?

the claim in the paragraph is that if students can educate themselves about safe and unsafe supplements it can really benefit them and teach them how to use supplements in a healthy way.

  • What support have I used to argue this claim? What links this support to my claim? (for these last two, you can underline the support and make bold the linkage if it is explicitly stated. If the linkage is unstated, write it out in this quote box.)

Trying to improve yourself as an athlete in a safe way should not be taken out of the hands of athletes, there are too many restrictions. Hard drugs and street drugs have an obvious reason for being taken away from athletes, because they are used solely for the purpose to feel a rush of being high. There is a safe way to use supplements to improve your game and a not so safe way, moderation and the right kind of supplements is key to making yourself better and keeping your body healthy. ”Health professionals working with athletes must determine which supplements are used, and the prevalence of use and dosage, to develop appropriate intervention strategies to counteract misinformation” (Supplement Use by Female Athletes). A lot of the time intervention methods are simply finding a new healthy replacement. For example, 100% Whey Protein and 100% Amino acids are a very safe and effective way to gain size, speed and endurance and still stay healthy.” Twelve percent reported amino acid/protein supplement use and 17% used an herbal/botanical supplement. The most frequently cited reason for supplement use was “good health”” (Supplement Use by Female Athletes). There are many different supplements that are banned by the Board of the NCAA that could arguably be heathier when consuming them in a safe dosage. Besides having the upper hand in competition, the NCAA also banns some of the supplements for health reasons. There can be so much done to prevent these issues of health and dominance because of supplements and still let the athletes take the safe and healthy road without being threatened by the NCAA to lose their spot on the team.

  • Is it clear what I mean exactly?
  • Where might the reader be confused? What could be misleading or muddled?
  • How does the claim(s) in this paragraph relate to my main claim?
  • What support have I used to argue this claim? What links this support to my claim? (for these last two, you can underline the support and make bold the linkage if it is explicitly stated. If the linkage is unstated, write it out in this quote box.)

The testing for drugs and supplements is in the form of a urine sample and can test for anything, caffeine is even a banned substance and can show up in a urine sample if you have caffeine prior to the test. In a nut shell the NCAA is far too strict and won’t allow athletes to reach their full potential. The health concerns along with the risks of future aliments because of supplements is a very understandable reason for the NCAA to be strict. But when it comes down to it, instead of banning it completely there should be an understanding that athletes want to become stronger and better at the sport they play, and only ban what can cause extreme harm. Rather than being addicted to street drugs and alcohol, wouldn’t it be better if athletes were addicted to making themselves better at the sport they are competing in? If educated and understanding about what and what not to consume, athletes shouldn’t be so restricted to what supplements they can put in their body to improve themselves physically in a safe way.

  • Is it clear what I mean exactly?
  • Where might the reader be confused? What could be misleading or muddled?
  • How does the claim(s) in this paragraph relate to my main claim?
  • What support have I used to argue this claim? What links this support to my claim? (for these last two, you can underline the support and make bold the linkage if it is explicitly stated. If the linkage is unstated, write it out in this quote box.)

Arguing cause peer review LB
Final Draft

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License