McKenney
1
Joseph McKenney
Ms. Gillhespy
Composition II
5 February 2013
Doping In Golf: Singh Broke Rules By Taking Banned Substance.
On January 30th, 2013 news broke on the Golf Channel that one of the greatest golfers to
ever set foot on the course admitted to using a substance banned by the PGA Tour’s Anti-Doping
Policy. Vijay Singh had admitted to using Deer Antler Spray, which contains the chemical IGF1 that in 2008 was banned by the PGA Tour. In the end he claims that, while Vijay Singh did
actually break a rule, but he did not ”cheat” and should only be punished for the broken rule.
Jason Sobel’s article “Singh Broke Rules By Taking Banned Substance, Deserves Punishment”
provides many logical points, and uses pathos to touch on the reader’s emotional side, but does
have the occasional fallacy that could undermine his own argument. In his article, “Singh Broke
Rules By Taking Banned Substance, Deserves Punishment” Jason Sobel effectively argues that
Vijay Singh deserves punishment by appealing to Pathos and consideration of audience.
According to Jason Sobel of The Golf Channel, “Vijay Singh has used deer-antler spray
that contains IGF-1, a chemical banned under the PGA Tour’s Anti-Doping Policy, observers
will be trying to differentiate between whether he cheated or simply broke a rule” (Sobel, 2). In
their hearts the observers, like Jason Sobel, can believe that Vijay Singh did not intend to cheat
but in reality, by breaking a rule set out in 2008 by the PGA Tour, he has in fact placed himself
in the company of men like Roger Clemens, and Lance Armstrong; he used a drug that could
enhance his performance so that he could compete at a higher level. Singh released a statement
McKenney
2
after the accusation saying, “When I first received the product, I reviewed the list of ingredients
and did not see any prohibited substances. I am absolutely shocked that deer-antler spray may
contain a banned substance…” (Sobel, 3), which means that Singh is either completely ignorant
and did not realize the banned substance in the deer antler spray was on a banned substance list,
or did in fact notice that the spray was banned and had hoped to get away with it.
Jason Sobel of TheGolfChannel.com appeals to ethos by believe that Singh was genuine
in his response to being caught and that it was nothing more then a simple mistake. Sobel
believes that the second part of Singh’s statement is the reason to believe that he separates
himself from the likes of Clemens and Armstrong and shows his genuine side by saying, “I am
absolutely shocked that deer-antler spray may contain a banned substance and am angry that I
have put myself in this position” (Sobel, 3). Sobel uses pathos throughout his article, but more so
in choosing his position with this statement from Vijay. He uses raw emotion to choose his side
and then tempts the readers with the same raw emotion to side with him and feel as though
Vijay’s mistake was nothing more then an honest mishap.
In Sobel’s decision he does provide some ethos and logos, but in very minimal amounts.
He appeals to ethos by providing his readers with a well-written article and appears to have good
character or morals by having faith in Vijay that it was just a simple mistake and nothing more.
As for logos, Sobel’s only logic provided to side with Vijay Singh comes from the emotional
side and the logical flow that he uses to describe why he feels that Singh did not cheat. This is
exemplified in the following statement Jason Sobel himself made in his article for The Golf
Channel, “Singh’s confirmation may be viewed as a breath of fresh of air, his quick compliance
proof that he didn’t cheat” (Sobel, 4). This not only helped to show Pathos and Logos but it was
also a fairly large fallacy.
McKenney
3
Jason Sobel provides solid reasoning and an efficient argument but undermines it by with
fallacies as made in his statement “his quick compliance proof that he didn’t cheat”, it seems to
be a hasty generalization as well as faulty causality. To be so sure about the truth that just
because of the “quick compliance” seems to be a hasty generalization by just simply believing in
Vijay, who may have just been giving the press what they wanted to hear. Sobel then just glances
over the fact that Singh consumed a banned substance, and acknowledges that his quick response
is admirable and “a breath of fresh air” which shows faulty causality. Sobel believes that a quick
response is enough reason to show that Singh didn’t cheat, which is essentially a textbook
example for faulty causality.
Jason Sobel makes many valid points and does so quite eloquently through his article.
His fallacies, poor, or over use of pathos, and almost school girl love for Vijay Singh ultimately
lead to the downfall of the article. As Sobel covered well in his article, whether Vijay Singh
intended to use deer antler spray as a performance-enhancing drug or not is irrelevant. Singh still
used a substance that was banned by the PGA Tour’s Anti-Doping Policy, and therefore cheated.
Which in today’s media can be the ultimate downfall of an athlete. With all of the recent drug,
doping, and performance enhancing, that has been busted in major sports with in the last 10 or so
years, a simple mistake could lead to the end of players career and a lifetime of hate from the
general public. Sobel believes that because Singh did not intend to use the deer antler spray as a
performance enhancer and did not know it was on the banned substance list, he is not guilty of
cheating, just simply breaking a rule, and therefore should be punished for the rule he broke.
Sobel makes is clear that sadly it does not matter how the cake is cut, Vijay Singh broke a rule,
and rule breaking must be punished.
McKenney
Works Cited
Sobel, Jason. “Singh Broke Rules By Taking Banned Substance, Deserves Punishment.” Golf
Channel. Jason Sobel. Golf Channel, 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 1 Feb. 2013
4