I believe the writer was very effective in explaining the gist of the topic because through the topic he wanted us to inform about the new drug that athletes has been taking and this writing of his wasn’t clear enough to explain the main topic of the story.
Somewhat I agree with the writer, as according to his vague writing, he was trying to inform us about popular people face charges differently, which is not a right as law should be equal to everyone.
The writer seemed very irritated about the way people has been treating famous people and the way their crimes are forgiven just because they are famous or popular. That isn’t the right way to judge human based on their job.
The three words or phrases the author used in order to affect the tone of the text to the reader are immediate aftermath, fallen victim, and villainous face. When he referred about immediate aftermath he was trying to tell to the reader that the immediate reaction people are going to see why famous people did a heinous crime and based on the reason for their action, they are remarked. Whereas, if someone not popular, kills for self defense, then he will be treated differently than the rest. Then when the writer mentioned about fallen victim he was trying to tell to the reader that these people who are being killed by these famous people are considered to be the victim and they deserve a fair trial for their death, regardless of the murder being performed by anyone..Finally, when he told in his writing about villainous face, he was trying to say that people have been seeing the face of their famous whom they had never considered to be the victim on their hand.
I don’t think athletes should be allowed to receive reduced crime sentences to fit their schedule because law is equal to everybody and everyone has to pay for their crimes no matter who they are. Media should raise this issue and talk more about it and bring those people in front of the court to face their crime.