Issues in Sport
195 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Elle Smith
Scoop.it!

Should you fake your arch?

Should you fake your arch? | Issues in Sport | Scoop.it
With the development of commercially available prosthetic arches, it is now possible to enhance the shape of one's foot. Is it cheating?
Elle Smith's insight:

Do you think that the use of sporting equipment to enhance performance will eventually replace 'hard work'?

more...
Ricci Amoils's comment, May 6, 2013 8:56 PM
Technology will not ever replace the hard work put in to become a good dancer. To become recognised as a good dancer you will always need to be talented whether it is naturally or through lots of hard work and training. Even though I believe the technology will never REPLACE the hard work put into dancing, I still believe that the use of the fake arches is very unfair. However, in the long run, when and if fake arches are banned, those who do not use fake arches and put in the work will turn out to be the better dancers and their hard work will be worth it.
Rach Jeddy's comment, May 8, 2013 5:31 AM
I believe that sporting equipment to enhance performance will eventually replace 'hard work' which is a bad thing. Sportsmen need to learn how to play the sport not by having cheats long the way, they need to show there real talent and what they are made of, but with the use of the technology we have today it is very likely that this will soon start to be a problem.
Greg Levine's comment, May 16, 2013 8:14 PM
I think that the use of sporting equipment to enhance performance will definitely replace hard-work eventually. I think this is bad because if you play or perform a professional sport you should love and treasure it and keep it the way it should be.
Scooped by Elle Smith
Scoop.it!

Armstrong cheated in all seven Tour de France wins — MSNBC

Armstrong cheated in all seven Tour de France wins — MSNBC | Issues in Sport | Scoop.it
"I didn't invent the culture, and I didn't try to stop the culture." In his interview with Oprah, Armstrong admitted doping. But he didn't seem to understand the depth of his betrayals.
more...
Natalieeeee's comment, May 6, 2013 9:26 AM
The cyclists are forced to take drugs because they have no other choice.. they have viewers, their rep, the pressure to stay and better to the absolute best. Others take it so it would be a slight disadvantage if they didn't take it.
Rach Jeddy's comment, May 8, 2013 5:48 AM
I think in general a lot of sportsman are under pressure to prove to the world that they are better than what they are, which is why they turn to drugs. There coaches put a lot of pressure onto the cyclists and advice them if they take drugs it will help them win races.
Greg Levine's comment, May 16, 2013 8:43 PM
I think professional cyclists are being forced to take drugs because their coaches believe it will help them. It does help them by making them quicker, stronger and more energy but at the end of the day you will get caught and get into trouble so it is a bad thing to do.
Scooped by Elle Smith
Scoop.it!

Challenges with the tennis challenge system - Web Exclusive Article - Significance Magazine

Challenges with the tennis challenge system - Web Exclusive Article - Significance Magazine | Issues in Sport | Scoop.it
more...
Aaron Frack's comment, May 6, 2013 5:30 AM
The hawk eye was introduced to give those extra angles and accurate calls that could be mistakely called. It is very effective as players and umpires avoid negativity and argumentative behaviour
Natalieeeee's comment, May 6, 2013 9:39 AM
The hawk eye was introduced to focus on the ball and result in better calls by enhancing camera zooms and angles. Its very effective and useful as it helps the umpire to make the right calls and it makes the game a whole lot fair and accurate
Rach Jeddy's comment, May 9, 2013 3:38 AM
I think the hawk eye was introduced to help the umpire out with close line calls. It saves the umpire having to deal with the players arguing and fighting over the calls, instead they are able to use the hawk eye. The effectiveness of the hawks eye has overall been good all though players only get a certain amount of calls per set which can be a disadvantage. If a player was to run out of challenges and a bad call was made it would be a disappointment to the spectators and to the player. I believe the hawks eye can be a good thing overall.
Scooped by Elle Smith
Scoop.it!

Sharks up in arms with former trainer

Sharks up in arms with former trainer | Issues in Sport | Scoop.it
Cronulla players and officials believe former head trainer Trent Elkin has informed the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency about the drug and supplements program which was in place during his time at the NRL club.
more...
Natalieeeee's comment, May 6, 2013 9:49 AM
It is the players fault if they take peptides. Players can have many influences and temptation but they are the ones to take it in the end being aware of consequences that can backfire.
Rach Jeddy's comment, May 9, 2013 3:55 AM
I believe it is the players fault if they take peptides, their coaches most likely spoke with them and discussed whether they wanted to take it or not, they know the consequences and they wanted to risk it to "become" a better player. Even though they are denying that they took it and blaming it on someone who "gave it to them without knowing" i think is a load of rubbish.
Ricci Amoils's comment, May 15, 2013 1:15 AM
It is the players fault if they take peptides. If they didn't want to take the drug then they could of said no if they felt strongly about not taking it but if they took it, even if their trainer made them take it, they have to face up to the consequences. I think that the trainers should however have more faith in their team to do it without drugging them. Even if the trainer feels like everyone is doing it, they should not be pressured into cheating. Rather do the right thing because those teams who do the right thing will have more support from the public in the end and the team that puts the hard work in to do it without the drugs will become the better players.
Scooped by Elle Smith
Scoop.it!

Technology for Cricket

Technology for Cricket | Issues in Sport | Scoop.it
Cricket Technology articles and information - using technological changes to the game that will impact cricket players and spectators
more...
Greg Levine's comment, May 6, 2013 6:14 AM
1. I agree with the use of the third umpire, because it ends up giving the best result possible, by showing more replays on all different angles. 2. The third umpire has increased the enjoyment for the viewer by showing more replays and making it easier to see the correct result of the play.
Natalieeeee's comment, May 6, 2013 9:31 AM
I agree with the use of the third umpire b/c they can give a close look on the replay and give the most accurate decision.

The introduction of the third umpire has increased enjoyment for viewers because it can be a topic of conversation
Rach Jeddy's comment, May 8, 2013 7:04 AM
I agree with the use of third umpires because i believe they play an important role, even though they are not on the field they are basically the main decision makers. They have the ability to stop, pause, rewind, fast forward etc the play to watch an observe carefully the hard decisions like run outs or no balls. I think the introduction to the third umpire has increased the enjoyment of the viewer because it keeps them in suspense whilst the decision is being made, they put suspenseful music in the background which puts the audience in suspense making them want to know the answer more, when the decision has been made the audience either cheer or boo the decision which creates an amazing atmosphere. The audience is able to watch replays and discuss amoung themselves what they think of the decision.
Scooped by Elle Smith
Scoop.it!

Women at the Olympic Games

Women at the Olympic Games | Issues in Sport | Scoop.it
History of women competing at the Olympic Games
more...
Rach Jeddy's comment, May 8, 2013 5:37 AM
I believe that the statement is true. It is only recently that women have been able to compete in the olympics with a sport that they are good at. In the 1900 Paris Games women were only allowed to play lawn tennis and golf which proves that women were not respected. Over the years it has gotten better all though men are still more respected. Men sport is broadcasted on live tv and is very popular whilst women sport isn't as much
Ricci Amoils's comment, May 15, 2013 1:06 AM
I disagree with this statement. In the past women were not allowed to play sport and when they first started playing sports they were not treated fairly. However now women do play sports and some are really good at it. I believe that women are respected just as equally in sports as men are. Sports are even split into male and female so that the women are not disadvantaged. The truth is, generally men athletes are better than women. Also, the reason that men are more popular than women on television is because in most sports men are better than women. They are more popular due to public demand, not because women are being treated unfairly. Nower days I believe women are treated just as fairly as men.
Greg Levine's comment, May 16, 2013 8:34 PM
i disagree with this statement because later on throughout all the years women were accepted into the olympics and all sporting events, it had to happen eventually. Men and women should be equally respected and one day it could all be reversed.
Scooped by Elle Smith
Scoop.it!

The Rider News » Speed suit ban forces athletes to take it off

The Rider News » Speed suit ban forces athletes to take it off | Issues in Sport | Scoop.it
more...
Rach Jeddy's comment, May 9, 2013 3:46 AM
I don't think swim suits should be banned. Everyone has the opportunity to buy them and use them, its your choice if you want to buy one and use it. Even though swimming is physical ability i don't think the swim suit will effect that. To be able to use the swim suit i would say you would have to be a pretty strong swimmer therefore i don't think they should be banned
Ricci Amoils's comment, May 15, 2013 1:10 AM
Speed suits definitely should not be banned. Everyone has access tp them and most advanced swimmers wear them. If the speed suits help you swim and you feel more comfortable racing in them then you should be allowed to wear them. If you are a swimmer and you are against the use of speed suit then you don't have to wear one, your disadvantage. If you do not want to wear a speed suit then you can not blame your race on the speed suit if you do not do well. I think that the speed suits are the total opposite of cheating and they are a good form of technology. The should not be banned.
Greg Levine's comment, May 16, 2013 9:07 PM
Swim suits should not be banned as it doesn't effect your swimming abilities. All swimmers have access to these suits and the majority of them use the suits. Swimming is about your own abilities and the suit shouldn't be banned.