Athletic aggression: An issue of contextual morality. The ARU is no doubt justifiably concerned with the extent to which infringement of these clauses might cause reputational damage to the game and impact upon its viability as a sport and as a commercial enterprise.
Although an athlete may not want to continue on with the game, they stick with it, they stay committed. But what are these crowds there for?
This seems a more reasonable understanding of the role model argument than the obligation interpretation.
Our only choice is whether to be a good role model or a bad one. These two cases are just two of the more serious problems that athletes get into. Freedom of speech and conscience already protect and support this.
This, again, is too strong. For example, Cass Sunstein, whom I cite as one source for the trend of increasing polarization, sees this polarization as a result of filtering that could be overcome, for example, by more spontaneous exposure to divergent views.
Bredemeier, B. It was TV advertising at its best, stirring interest and a great debate. The Michigan State University athletes are involved in a program in which they go to kids in the classroom to talk and hang out with these younger students.
It cannot be the case that the fact of having an ability means one has an obligation to use that ability. We don't choose to be role models, we are chosen.