Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?

Performance Enhancing Drugs are defined as substances used to improve performance in a variety of fields. We're talking about steroids, lean mass builders, stimulants, nootropics, painkillers, sedatives, blood boosters, etc- not caffeine and green beans.

Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports.

Accepted.

I accept

Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports

Just go by popular definitions.

1. Athletes should be able to use whatever means they would like to improve their performance. If that includes steroids, then let them use it. 2. Steroids' risks are clear, and an athlete has a right to choose whether or not he would like to use them. 3. Steroid testing is not efficient, and new types of steroids are being released that often pass screenings.

Extend.

Thanks to my opponent for a fun challenge! Good luck! :)

THW allow performance enhancing drugs in sport

Extend the argument.

PEDs should remain illegal. The idea of a performance enhancing drug is to improve immediate ability. This gives and unfair handicap to the players of that particular sport that are not using a drug. This in turn cheats the capitalist system by placing someone who is unfit to be at the top at the top.

Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman

Protecting young and vulnerable athletes

permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports

Protecting the health of athletes

Improving safety standards in sport

Performance-enhancing drugs (PED) are substances used by athletes to improve their performances. These drugs are addictive and if we use it for a long time it will be affect our heart-health. And these regulation will not appropriate with the purpose of sport which is Be Healthy By Natural Ways. Because if the athlete use these PED it will insist them to do more than the energy they have. And of course it is not healthy.

Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament

Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use

Athletes should be free to take risks when training and competing

Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport

Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport

I graciously accept Actionsspeak's concession. I greatly appreciate his willingness to debate this with me, and I think it's very big of him to concede, despite the fact that he made points that I felt were reasonable points of debate on this contentious subject. I hope that we will have another opportunity to debate in the future, but for now I honor his concession, and I urge voters to duly respect it by awarding him a conduct point in their votes.

WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues

Said drugs should stay illegal for use in sports, for a few reasons. 1) Negative effect on the steroid user Steroids, as we all know, speed up protein synthesis to enhance performance. However, there are some harmful side effects to using them. They include: - higher blood pressure - higher cholesterol levels - higher risk of heart disease - liver damage - premature growth - testicular cancer - abnormally large amounts of acne - breast development in men This, obviously, is not good for the steroid user. Furthermore, exercising normally can avoid these problems, and regular exercise is better for physical and mental health. 2) Negative impact on children When children start to get into sports, they normally treat their favorite player as an idol, an image of what they want to be when they grow up. How would they feel if their idol essentially cheated by using drugs so they didn't have to work as hard? Furthermore, what if they decided to use steroids too, because their hero did? 3) Unfair advantage Most professional athletes work hard every day to stay in shape and sharp at their sport. Why should some players get to skip this hard work that everyone else is doing? That's all for now.

Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.

But, in this case, we talk about the athlete whose have so many fans. For example, the football player, they have so many fans all around the world, from those who already old, mid-age, or even the children. If the using of PED is allowed in this case, of course what the athlete did is being adapted by their fans. For example, Child "A" said "Oh, my idol use that drugs to improve the energy during the match, I will try it too" Isn't it will be dangerous for the children under age? And for your information, eating healthy diets and exercising more efficiently = Is natural ways :-)

I affirm that PEDs should be permitted in sports. Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing, despite efforts to stop them (1). So, the statistics clearly indicate that those who obey the rules and do not dope have a relatively low chance of performing well. If those who did not not use Performance Enhancing Drugs in the Tour de France were instead allowed to dope, those racers would have had the same advantages as those who currently dope illegally, and the playing field would have been more even. One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports. This would thus make achievements in sports seem even more unthinkable and impressive, which would thus make more people attend these sporting events. As described in Forbes, "A huge part of watching sports is witnessing the very peak of human athletic ability, and legalizing performance enhancing drugs would help athletes climb even higher (2)." This shows that Performance Enhancing Drugs can raise the level of sports, which can make sports even more of a spectacle. For example, during the 1990's, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa used steroids, their respective games were usually sold out with people who wanted to see their heightened abilities (2). I will now refute my opponent's arguments. My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs. In the year 2013 alone, the NFL reported at least 152 concussions, and was forced to spend up to 765 million dollars to settle claims of traumatic head injury brought by former players (3). So, PEDs do not provide with a large injury risk compared to the inherent risk of professional sports. My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. Hitting a home run, for example requires excellent timing and a perfect swing. Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision. So, performing in sports requires intricate skill, no matter what. It is thus clear that PEDs do not take away from human achievement. As such, I affirm. 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.forbes.com... 3- http://www.pbs.org...

"Your "Part one arguments," to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution "Should you use steroids? " Or "Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment? "" . http://en.wikipedia.org... They do apply to the resolution, "Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports". They show that using these drugs is unsafe. "Your part two arguments apply to "Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models? " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. "Your part three argument applies to "Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play? " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. "The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs. " Uh, no, it's whether "Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports. " "Allowed" and "legal" are very different. "Allowed" means allowed within the sport's rules; "legal" means allowed within the law.

oh

As am I, thank you for accepting Pro! PEDs should not be permitted for use in professional sports (or sports at any level) for a number of reasons. First and foremost, PEDs present an enormous health risk for athletes that use them. They lead to many severe health problems, including but not limited to heart and circulatory problems, psychiatric disorders and inhibited growth and development (http://www.mayoclinic.org... and http://www.livestrong.com...). The law, in the broader view of things, aims to generally protect people from making poor decisions. If all people are treated as equals under the law, it is the duty of the law to aim to protect athletes just as it aims to protect drug users. It is therefore the responsibility of the law to warn athletes away from taking performance enhancing drugs. In the broader scope of sport, it can be appreciated that teenage athletes who train among adult ones or share the same coaches would also turn to PEDs used by the people around them (were PEDs legalized and accessible), which would not only pose even more serious health concerns but also set trends about drug culture in general, spreading the reach of recreational drug use even further. Sports are enjoyed by people because they are a visual demonstration of what human beings can achieve, individually or collectively. They are designed to amaze and put on a show, and we watch them to celebrate this human achievement. If athletes took PEDs, we would be celebrating chemical achievement, instead. Thus, PEDs could be appreciated to undermine the central philosophy of sport. Finally, a counterargument could be that not all athletes would need to take PEDs and some may choose not to without consequence- however, this is not true. Even if some athletes uphold moral or health standards to not take PEDs, they have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to be successful, they will also have to take drugs. Allowing any athletes to take PEDs means no longer protecting any athletes, even ones that don't want to use dangerous drugs, from these things. This is exemplified in the American Scientific Magazine: "Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a "clean" rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team" (http://www.scientificamerican.com...). Two more websites consulted: http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org... http://www.usada.org... Your move! :)

Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.

Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport

A ban is not the way to deal with addiction and health issues. Addiction is a personal situation that must be handled properly, meaning between the user, his doctor, and those affected by his behavior. The drugs being unnatural does not prove that they should be banned. If a certain activity should be banned for giving an artificial advantage, then shouldn't athletes logically be banned from eating healthy diets and exercising more efficiently? Because after all, these are unnatural processes.

PED (Performance-Enhancing Drug) gives disadvantages for the sportsman. PED should not be legalized by everyone for the sportman. PED gives disdvantages, specially in terms of health!

1. Athletes should NOT be able to take whatever they want, it's not fair, Athletes should do there best by doing it naturally. there are some things in steroids that can make people sick. 2. Steroids do have a psychological effects on a person, its been proven by tests and any health website weather major or minor would tell you the same. "roid rage" has been proven to be true. 3. liver damage kidney damage increased blood pressure and cholesterol (risk for heart disease) headache and stomach ache severe facial and body acne decreased joint flexibility 4.breast enlargement shrunken testicles lowered sperm count increased sex drive decreased sexual performance - difficulty getting and maintaining erections these effects of steroids are true and could be permanent to the user.

" They do apply to the resolution, "Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports". They show that using these drugs is unsafe." Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies. " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. " Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force. " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. " "Have to?" No one "has to" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena. " Uh, no, it's whether "Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports." "Allowed" and "legal" are very different. "Allowed" means allowed within the sport's rules; "legal" means allowed within the law." This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote (emphasis mine:) " Said drugs should stay ILLEGAL for use in sports, for a few reasons." That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. You made your bed now argue in it. "and not actually presented an argument, you vote CON at this point." Read second paragraph from the bottom of my Round 1. I did in fact present an argument, as relates to the resolution as you clarified it's meaning at the beginning of the debate. If you are going to state the resolution is anything other than what I have stated it is, you will be forced to admit the statement at the beginning of your Round One argument was deliberately dishonest.

Consisten? You're pro in this topic. so you agree to legalize PED. But ur argument ask to make PEDs remain illegal for sportman.

x

Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports

x

Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use surrounds every sport and every successful athlete, and those competitors who don’t take performance-enhancing drugs see themselves as disadvantaged. Some drugs can’t be tested for, and in any case, new medical and chemical advances mean that the cheats will always be ahead of the testers. Legalisation would remove this uncertainty and allow everyone to compete openly and fairly.

Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use surrounds every sport and every success...

To refute my opponent's arguments and his responses to my own, one by one: 1. "Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing" Response: Not only should they not be legalized, there should be more enforcement to keep them out of sports. It's not a strong argument to say "some people are doing it anyway, we might as well make it legal so everyone can". Some people do cocaine! Furthermore, rich athletes from wealthier countries will have access to the latest, highest-quality PEDs while poorer athletes from poorer countries which don't have the same medical or scientific advances will not be able to keep up. As long as PEDs are available (or even legal), the playing field won't ever be level. PEDs are one of the largest factors that make the playing field not be level, because they give a foothold to wealth and country of origin as deciders of athletic performance. 2. "One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports." Response: Allowing PEDs would raise the level of competition in an extremely uneven manner, and we would showcase chemical achievement instead of human achievement (as outlined in my first argument). 3. "My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs." Response: I would call it an invalid argument to say that, because what they do is dangerous already, it doesn't matter that PEDs could make their lives more dangerous. All people are under the law and the law should protect all people. Welders have a more dangerous career than teachers, but it isn't any less against the law for them to use cocaine. 4. "My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. [...] Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision." Response: I agree that there is a side of sports not affected by PEDs, but I think that this argues my side of the debate more than it does yours- we will celebrate the same skills, changed or unchanged by PEDs, as human achievement. The use of PEDs therefore does not increase this human achievement and should not be celebrated, it only adds chemical achievement to what is already amazing. This is not something we want to celebrate, as it is outside of the central philosophy of sport, and it is certainly not worth the health risks or other disparities (as outlined above) the PEDs would bring to sport at any level.

I now assume that Con has conceded all my points, as they have forfeited two times in a row.

Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs

"Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies. " Did you not see what "allowed" refers to? Rights or not, steroids are not allowed in professional sports. "Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force. " I didn't say that. Obviously, an athlete should be expected to be a role model for children, since many kids will look up to him/her. This does not dictate the way they live; it simply means they should not do stupid things, cheat, etc. because that will negatively influence kids. This is why, for example, Michael Phelps got a lot of crap for doing drugs. ""Have to? " No one "has to" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. " Do you see any unconditioned professional athletes? They all have to do some sort of tough conditioning to stay sharp at their sport. And most people consider steroids cheating, or do not use them because of the aforementioned side effects. Professional athletes who do not use steroids HAVE TO work hard to stay in shape and up to expectations. "And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena. " EXACTLY - one party still has to go through hard work, while the other can just take drugs. "This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote . . . That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. " Well, first, if something is illegal for use in sports, then it is not allowed for use in sports. So I can relate these arguments to the resolution even if you were right. Second, you just contradicted yourself. First you state that I conceded that I was talking about what the law should allow. But then, you say I "explicitly clarified [it] as being allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league". But really, I was laying the latter all along. The very first sentence says "illegal for use in sports". That means that their use is punishable by law if used in sports. Now before you start saying that we should not jail people for steroid use, that's not what "punishable by law" means. Loitering is punishable by law; do you get thrown in jail for it? What about littering or violating curfew laws? =============================================================================== My opponent has spent all of his arguments attempting to not relate my arguments to the resolution. However, I have showed how he has misinterpreted all of my arguments. Furthermore, he has not attempted to argue with my position, and is giving contradictory and misleading "reasons" on why I have "not" supported the resolution.

I will use this speech to further strengthen my constructive, and refute my opponents refutations. My opponent argues that it does not make sense to legal PEDs with the intention of leveling the playing field. However, I have provided evidence that says that a majority of athletes in some sports use PEDs. Because of this, it is incredibly difficult to eradicate PEDs. This has been seen recently in sports such as baseball. Despite continuous effort by Major League Baseball to take PEDs away from the game, PED use is still widely present. This shows that it would simply be less cumbersome to allow everyone to use PEDs than to attempt to remove them entirely. My opponent also observes that PEDs increase chemical achievement instead of human achievement. However, I have shown that professional athletes still are incredibly skilled, regardless of whether or not they use PEDs. Furthermore, I have shown that people do in fact celebrate "chemical" achievement. An example of this would be the MLB Home Run races in the 1990's, when a majority of the contenders used PEDs. During this point in MLB history, there were more fans and spectators than ever before, which shows celebration of what my opponent dubs "chemical achievement." So, it is clear that PEDs do not eliminate human achievement, and any chemical achievement that they provide is still celebrated. My opponent refutes my argument regarding the inherent dangers of sports by comparing it to teachers and welders who use cocaine. This argument cannot be weighed in this debate for two reasons. First, Professional Athletes are paid much more than welders or teachers. Second, PEDs are much less dangerous than using cocaine. Professional Athletes are being paid much more than teachers or welders, and they are also submitting themselves to the inherent danger of their sports. And I would observe that this argument was mainly put into my constructive speech to show that the dangers of PEDs do not come close to outweighing the inherent dangers of sports. Because of this, the contention regarding the dangers of PEDs cannot be weighed highly. My opponent finally argues that chemical achievement will never be celebrated, as all that people celebrate is human achievement. I do accept that people embrace human achievement in sports, as I even said that in my constructive speech. However, I have also shown that chemical achievement can be celebrated, which increases the appeal to watch professional sports. So, it is clear that PEDs do in fact level the playing field, make sports more appealing, and should in fact be legalized in professional sports. So, I affirm the resolution that Performance Enhancing Drugs should be permitted in professional sports, and I urge a pro ballot.

Thanks to Actionsspeak for clarifying his case and for his opening remarks. This looks to be an interesting debate. I ask the audience to recognize that even his case is a departure from status quo. He would like to afford the capacity to decide whether steroid and hormone usage is allowed in any given sport to the sporting leagues themselves, and thus take it out of the hands of legislators. Con's third contention made it clear that the league, not lawmakers, should have the right to determine how a sport is played. So what we're really discussing here is whether or not the option should be available to individuals or to sporting leagues, not whether their usage should be legalized or not. This is an important distinction, and one that should be kept in mind that the American legal structures [1] aren't going to be an impediment in either of our cases as this debate goes forward. Now, onto my rebuttals. On Equality: 1. Sports aren't about equality. If it was, we wouldn't have winners and losers. The system of competition is meant to elevate those who are better at what they do, whether that's as a result of inherent capacities or how well they use their resources. No one is entitled to play professional sports " it's a privilege requiring enormous sacrifice and massive risk, whether they use steroids or not, and most walk away. If Con wants equality, sports isn't the place to find it. 2. Sports aren't equal. Recall two things I said in R2. First, I discussed what athletes do in order to get in shape. Flying into the mountains to thicken the blood and increase the flow of oxygen through their bodies isn't something everyone can do before competitions, nor can they all find training facilities above a certain altitude. Even among those that can, not all of them will have access to top of the line equipment, masseuses, trainers, or all the other expenses required to build muscle quickly and efficiently. They don't all have access to the same megadoses of vitamin pills, dietary supplements, equipment, clothing, or medical treatments that are allowed to everyone in status quo. Hell, things like hyperbaric oxygen chambers, which increase the rate of recovery for players, are being purchased by many teams and players at tremendous costs, providing them and only them an appreciable advantage.[2] and would continue to be allowed in Con's case. Why are steroids so special? Second, I talked about how some people just have higher inherent capacities. They produce more testosterone, HGH or erythropoeitin, they can endure a faster heartbeat, or even the fact that they produce normal blood cells. Not everyone has those advantages, and Con has provided no way for anyone to make up for any such deficiencies. Only my plan seeks to solve for these concerns. 3. Con's case is worse for equality. Black market drugs are more expensive, harder to find,[3] and more dangerous, but more on that last point later. But you can look at this point one of two ways. You can accept that steroid usage causes more steroid usage, in which case Con's case is more detrimental there's already a system in place where athletes feel the need to use steroids and hormones to succeed. The only difference is that they can't use the cheapest, safest, and most well-known steroids prescribed directly by doctors at specific doses and lower cost. Con provides absolutely no reason to believe that legalization will increase usage over status quo. Even if he does, recognize that equality is only a larger problem within his case and in the status quo. The only reason why an advantage such as steroids would be considered unfair is if they're unequally distributed, but as I pointed out in the previous round, the distribution is currently as unequal as it gets. Using basic steroids and hormones instead of what's available on the black market will lower, not raise, the barrier for entry, and increase fairness to all athletes. Or you can notice that this argument has no warrant. Con asserts that steroid usage among some athletes will spread to other athletes who want to compete. This is nothing more than an assertion, and one which is not well explained. Mandatory testing programs among MLB players have revealed that a whopping 5-7% of athletes were using steroids[4], which means 93-95% of athletes were able to play at a very high level without coercion. There's no reason to believe that legalization will cause these numbers to balloon out of control. The uncertainty regarding who is using steroids/hormones in status quo, if anything, creates more impetus to use than a transparent system where everyone who does use does so openly. 4. Con also allows sports leagues to create their own barriers to entry for those with anemia, low testosterone production, reduced muscle growth, and anything else that puts them at a marked disadvantage. He allows individual leagues to discriminate against these groups, harming any sense of equality by denying access to those who could easily keep up if they had access to the available resources. On Health Concerns: 1. Athletes are already forced into an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle and die young. I made this clear in the previous round, but there's no significant difference between any of the health harms presented by Con and the ones I presented in R2. Con will have to address my point that these harms are non-unique and my hypocrisy arguments as well in the next round in order to win this point. 2. Health concerns are worse in an environment where black market drugs are the only ones being used. The reality is that the health concerns are far more excessive using designer steroids and gene doping, as I pointed out last round. Worse yet, his case only exacerbates these harms by legalizing their usage in the general community, but not in all sports. In my case, incentive to use designer steroids and gene doping is erased due to their expense and ineffectiveness by comparison. Con encourages the legal usage of the most dangerous doping substances. 3. Each athlete accepts these health concerns the moment they take these drugs. There's no reason why athletes shouldn't be able to take these concerns on themselves, especially if they know about them in advance. Since Con's case encourages athletes to pursue drugs with unknown health harms, his forces a lower capacity to consent than mine does. On "The league's rights": 1. There's no impact here. Con doesn't explain how changes in the way sports are played is actually harmful. Even if this is certain to happen, the lack of a harm makes it unimportant. 2. There's no warrant for this claim. Con doesn't explain how a change in one rule affects another one. The only possible warrant is a slippery slope fallacy, which has no rational basis in this debate. Worse yet, even if it was true that one rule change could link to another, the rules he's trying to link have nothing in common. The rules of what an athlete can do to their own bodies have no effect on whether any player can disregard the basic rules of how a sport is played in competition. 3. The league doesn't have a right to deny access based on any person's characteristics, training regimen, or nutritional intake. This is one of the very few influences they have on what athletes can take and use for playing their sports, and it's done with extreme hypocrisy based on shaky reasoning. Leagues should not be allowed to spurn athletes who they think have an unfair advantage based on other characteristics, and yet Con wants us to believe that this is crossing some special line. With that, I leave it to my opponent to rebut my case and respond to these arguments. 1. http://www.steroidabuse.com... 2. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... 3. http://www.theguardian.com... 4. http://mlb.mlb.com...

I still hold out hope that Con will make a last round appearance. I believe in you Con. I believe that we can have at the very least a decent conclusion to this debate.

There is no distinction between "natural" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement

" Did you not see what "allowed" refers to? Rights or not, steroids are not allowed in professional sports. " Again, you are ignoring your own statement at the beginning of the debate. You conceded the point about which meaning of "allowed" is to be used. " I didn't say that. Obviously, an athlete should be expected to be a role model for children, since many kids will look up to him/her. This does not dictate the way they live; it simply means they should not do stupid things, cheat, etc. because that will negatively influence kids. " You're contradicting yourself. The ability to do "stupid things" is part of the ability to choose how to live. Either you dictate how they live or you don't, there is no middle ground here. Respect their rights, or treat them as slaves. That's it. If you dictate that a person acts as a role model, this means you are dictating that they live as one. " Do you see any unconditioned professional athletes? " Yes, actually, in baseball for example, at some of the positions that are specialized, it is possible to just have a good technique down for pitching and hitting and not actually do much in the way of conditioning. Not optimal but some people do it with success. And you are ignoring the fact that being a professional athlete is a choice. They are free to be one or not to be one. So no, they don't HAVE TO do anything, even those whose sports do require conditioning, are not forced to choose that sport. " EXACTLY - one party still has to go through hard work, while the other can just take drugs. " Again that "Has to," which is false, and the false assumption that the first party can't use the drugs. And if you'll notice, exhbit A, the most successful steroid users also work the hardest (See Barry Bonds' extensive workouts.) The steroids simply allow the workout sessions to last longer and be more productive. " Well, first, if something is illegal for use in sports, then it is not allowed for use in sports. So I can relate these arguments to the resolution even if you were right. Second, you just contradicted yourself. First you state that I conceded that I was talking about what the law should allow. But then, you say I "explicitly clarified [it] as being allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league". But really, I was laying the latter all along. The very first sentence says "illegal for use in sports". That means that their use is punishable by law if used in sports." You are twisting logic here, and it is you who contradict yourself. You state that i contradict myself by declaring you were talking about the law, and then declaring you were talking about the law? That is the opposite of a contradiction! Meanwhile you contradict yourself by stating you are talking about the sports league's rules, and then stating "PUNISHABLE BY LAW." "LAW" is not what a sports league makes. It is what congress makes. A sports league has every right to forbid participation based on such grounds as steroid use... but such a rule is not a "law," does not make participation "illegal." Only that which is forbidden by a government body, Congress, is "illegal." Unless you were trying to say I stated you were arguing it "Should be allowable by the law, not the sports league," which means you misinterpreted my statement. I stated the debate, you clarified, was about "What is allowable" by the law, rather than "what is allowable" the sports league, which means you are dropping the context and thus altering the meaning of my statement. Either way I have not contradicted myself, either you misunderstand the term contradiction or you are dropping the context of a statement (Your summary of my supposedly contradictory arguments was so ambigous I have a hard time telling which.) " Now before you start saying that we should not jail people for steroid use, that's not what "punishable by law" means. Loitering is punishable by law; do you get thrown in jail for it? What about littering or violating curfew laws? " You are given fines, which if not paid result in jail. The end that lies down the road is the same, there are simply more steps. The point is that the penalty is government administered, and active, as opposed to the passive penalty of being refused employment if the prohibition were private. Jail and government-mandated fines are morally equivalent. Where one is morally unjustified, so is the other. " My opponent has spent all of his arguments attempting to not relate my arguments to the resolution. However, I have showed how he has misinterpreted all of my arguments." And I have shown how you have misinterpreted mine, and thereby not shown how I have misinterpreted yours. "urthermore, he has not attempted to argue with my position," Your explicit position, explicated in Round 1, is that it should be, again, ILLEGAL for athletes to use steroids. Not, grounds for a private entity to not hire, but, ILLEGAL. If you think I haven't been arguing with that position, you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention. "nd is giving contradictory and misleading "reasons" on why I have "not" supported the resolution. " I already demonstrated I have not contradicted myself. I hope you can do the same. It isn't my fault what you chose to open the debate with, had you not, the meaning of "allowed" would still be open to discussion, but your inclusion of the term "illegal" made certain it is not, and you have not responded to my arguments against it being illegal (or, since i am Pro, in favor of it being legal, though there is no difference between the two terms).

Players that are convicted of using Performance Enhancing Drugs (or PED's) should have their records, accomplishments, and titles (if in a single player sport) stripped from them. The use of PED's is cheating. The most recent case about this has been Lance Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong was found guilty of using a PED and was stripped of all of his Tour de France victories. This was rightfully done because, if he had not used them, then maybe someone else could've won. The use of PED's has become an infamous problem in sports and it shouldn't go without real consequences.

players found guilty of using PED's should have their records and accomplishments stripped

wait, sir. you're not consistent with your position. Disadvantages : - Performance enhancing Drugs could have an impact on the body if left or the sportsman quits sport. - Any sport is expected to be fair and based on your natural talent and training. - There are athletes that can"t consume performance enhancing drugs. This makes their chance of winning, bleak. - A sport is usually considered as a passion. The essence of the sport is lost if performance enhancing drugs are legalizes - Be legalizing such performance enhancing drugs, athletes could be motivated and get addicted to other forms of drugs. - The athletes can take it for granted that these drugs will enhance their performance and thus, the hard work that could be put otherwise can be hampered. and it can kill the sportman who consume it. For example, some German athletes who took anabolic steroids in the 1970"s and 1980"s are having health problems now. A famous NFL player, Lyle Alzado, died at the age of 43 after having taking steroids for more than 2 decades. And the sciensist's research : "Performance enhancers, like steroids and other forms of doping, have a negative effect on long-term health. For then users of these enhancers are hurting themselves in the long run without on the average improving their short-term rewards from athletic competition, as long as competitors also use harmful enhancers. This is the main rationale for trying to ban steroids and other forms of doping from athletic competitions." Gary Becker, PhD Professor in the Departments of Economics, Sociology, and the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago "Doping in Sports," Becker-Posner blog Aug. 27, 2006 THINK MORE !

I question what you mean sir, I am consistent with my position.

Is there any evidence of the behaviors of athlete's replicated by their fans? In the aftermath of the Lance Armstrong incident, there has not been an epidemic of people using steroids. People turned away from Armstrong, and he will never get his reputation back You have given no evidence that eating healthy and exercising more efficiently are any more natural than steroids. A smiley face does not count as an argument.

I contend that professional sports leagues should legalize steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. I understand that this position may initially be considered blasphemy, but there are multiple reasons that leagues should legalize performance-enhancing drugs. First of all, throughout history, humans have been trying to stretch the limits of what is possible. This includes through the use of any available technology. The fact that humans cannot physically fly did not stop the Wright Brothers from building the first airplane. Yes, legalized use of steroids would create frequent changes in the record books, but those are all part of human achievement. Furthermore, comparisons between eras are already moot, considering the differences between the rules of today and those of 50 or 100 years ago. Also, it benefits the sports economically to allow performance-enhancing drugs. In 1999, when Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire both broke Roger Maris's single-season home run record, interest in baseball soared. Many casual fans found their accomplishments fascinating, as those men were going to a place no human had been before. A comparable analogy would be when the oldest person ever, Jeanne Calment of France, died at the age of 122 years. She would never have been able to live that long with primitive technology, but people were fascinated by her shattering the record (no other human has even lived to 120). Why should a different standard be applied to sports? Baseball was always the sport most impacted by performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, it saw the biggest excitement around new records. Today, players normally are caught and suspended when they take other performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, there is less opportunity to have the excitement of breaking records. Consequently, baseball's ratings have slipped in a time where football and basketball are basking in rising ratings relative to the average TV show. Thus, steroids should be legal in sports.

Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports

I have no other arguments at the moment, and thus will wait until my opponent provides rebuttals.

i think sterids should be ban from all sports. its very unhealthy for the body. Those who oppose the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs say that the athletes who use them are breaking the rules and getting an unfair advantage over others. Opponents of the drugs say the athletes are endangering not only their own health, but also indirectly encouraging youngsters to do the same.

steriods in sports

What is sport, but entertainment? And what is entertainment, without pain? We don't care when football players experience debilitating injuries as early as high school, and even worse, long-lasting injuries at the professional level. An estimated one in three NFL players experience brain trauma of some sort, with life-long effects [1]. We don't care. We still watch football. From that, it can be concluded that the negative health effects of PEDs are irrelevant to the discussion of whether professional athletes should use them. It could even be argued that these negative side effects are preferable if it prevents brain trauma or other terrible injuries from the dangers of a sport itself. And so now, the only points of contention are the facts that it is unfair to athletes that do not use them, and that it is illegal. The first point may be justified easily enough. Sport is already an unfair sport. While you may practice thousands and thousands of hours, a person who's practiced half that but has a natural biological advantage can still win. Thus, it can be argued that PEDs can be used to actually level the playing field, between those who do not have as much of a natural biological advantage and those that do. It is a good point that the risk of losing their entire career may not be worth the above advantages. However, it is the choice of the athletes to take that risk, and not for us to judge them. As well, if enough athletes begin to use PEDs, it will eventually become legal nevertheless, or else the sport industry will die down. [1] http://www.nytimes.com...

Oh, than simply, sir, LOL. I disagree with what I accepted to, but it is their own damn fault for using performance enhancing drugs, if they know the effects, both long and short term, than I guess it should be legal because they are stupid, the end.

In todays world the temptation to use performance-enhancing drugs is too great for too many athletes. Performance-enhancing drugs are self explanatory, it is a drug to enhance physical performance. Usually associated with professional athletes striving for perfection. There are many risks that come with taking performance-enhancements there are many types of PEDs, all of which are illegal. The United States Anti-Doping agency should keep performance-enhancing drugs illegal to keep professional athletes safe. Breaking the law is not worth the risk. when a professional athlete uses performance-enhancing drugs, they have got a lot to lose. The wrong choice almost brought an end to many athletes careers. One tragic example is Lance Armstrong, stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. Jim Thorpe was denied two gold medals in the olympics, The list is endless. Athletes do not only lose their awards but it destroys their reputation that they have built. Life for professional sports organizations focused on managing the anti-doping policies would be easier. That might be true, but the people who manage the organization would no longer have a job there. Legalizing PEDs would not only negatively affect the athletes, but the people around them. There is an overwhelming amount of negative side effects that can occur from using performance-enhancing drugs. "Simply put PEDs have the ability or potential to drastically alter the human body, and biological functions, including the ability to considerably improve athletic performance" These drugs, however, can be extremely dangerous and in certain situations, deadly" (USADA). Other negative side effects include muscle weakness, hallucinations, liver abnormalities and tumors, etc. Yet, with all those factors in play, many still choose to go down that dangerous road. Professional athletes are already risking a lot when playing the sport, so why does it matter if they use performance enhancements? If athletes are already taking so many risks, then they should absolutely try to keep themselves as safe as possible. The danger of using PEDs outweigh the gains in muscle mass or strength. When an athlete uses PEDs, it defeats the purpose of the competition altogether. "Success in sports takes talent...using steroids is a form of cheating and interferes with fair competition"(littleleague). There are other ways to improve performance; train safely, eat healthy, and get plenty of rest. To be a truly great athlete you have to work hard. There is no shortcut to success. "Steroids and doping will help pitchers to throw harder, home runs go further, cyclists to charge longer and sprinters to test the very limits of human speed(Smith).In the moment that might be exhilarating, but it can cause a whole lot of problems later in life. using performance-enhancing drugs is not worth the risk at all. To keep athletes safe, performance-enhancing drugs should stay illegal.The bottom line is professional athletes have too much to lose, the risk is too great, and it is cheating the game."Life is full of grays, but sports are black and white. There is always a clear winner in the end and everyone expects that the winner achieved the success in a fair and ethical way"(little league).It is important to understand the facts about Performance-enhancing drugs. Works Cited "Fitness." Performance-enhancing Drugs: Know the Risks. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. "Why Steroids Are Bad for Major League Baseball." Why Steroids Are Bad for Major League Baseball. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. "Effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency USADA." US Anti Doping Agency USADA. Web. 28 Nov. 2014. .

Unfortunately, I have to say that your arguments apply to a few related resolutions, but not the resolution at hand. Your "Part one arguments," to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution "Should you use steroids?" Or "Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment?" Your part two arguments apply to "Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models?" (and I note they also have a flaw, how would the child feel about his uber-clean athlete role model if he found out the athlete was only being uber-clean because he was forced to? Kind of disillusioning no?) Your part three argument applies to "Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play?" The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs. That is, whether Johnny McSuperStrong's use of steroids is a justification to send a man with a gun to his door and stick him in a cage, shooting him if he doesn't cooperate. This raises questions of "What are proper social limits (rights)?" Since human beings require the application of their own mind to their own actions to live, and need to produce goods with those actions, and this is a universal need, it holds that each human who wishes to live should find it proper that others not interfere with this (the rights of liberty and property). In order to pursue this, it is of course necessary that they themselves not interfere first, for interfering with one who does not interfere removes the incentive for that other to not interfere. Thus the question in whether to violate someone's liberty or property is "Have they violated yours?" I await your proof that the injection of steroids into one's own body, or between consenting parties, somehow violates anyone's liberty or property.

Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years’ time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs. An example of the pressure is cycling. The American Scientific magazine explains: “Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a “clean” rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team.” (1)   Michael Shermer, The Dopping Dillema, 03/31/2008, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma accessed 05/15/2011

Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use

Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs.

Freedom of choice. If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do s...

I will accept your challenge, and I will argue on the pro side: doping should be allowed in sports. While it may be unfair currently, where athletes are strictly forbidden to athletes and only those who are willing to win by cheating will dope, if the practice is open for everyone, it will create a fair, level playing field since every athlete will have the ability to use the substances. Sporting events are spectator events, meant to showcase the most athletic individuals in the world for the entertainment of the viewers. If there is a substance that is able to enhance the performance of an individual and therefore make the spectacle more impressive, and the athlete consents to using it after being educated on any possible ill side effects, then they should absolutely be allowed.

Doping should be allowed

Performance Enhancements are Putting Athletes in Danger Athletes are cheating more and more now by taking performance enhancements for their professional sport. An athletes health could be at risk while taking performance enhancement drugs, we already have the great technology to support them, plus the athletes are playing their sport for the determination it takes, and the love of the game. Therefore, Performance Enhancement Drugs (PED) in professional sports should remain illegal for the players to keep them safe. Athletes already have great technology to help them with their performance while playing their sport. Athletes will use scientific diets, and oxygen tents as a healthier way of helping them improve. Sports have the technology to push the athletes bodies to extents. "Athletes already use technology to push their bodies to the edge of human capability. Scientific diets, oxygen tents that stimulate high altitudes and supplements that fine-tune already genetically superior bodies are all simple-- and legal"examples." (Duncan). None of those examples are illegal to use for the athlete to help improve their performance. On the other hand, when using PEDs for the extra technology it will help them become better, faster, stronger, then it will make the sport more interesting for both the players and the crowd. "Scientists and engineers have recently developed devices that bump up cognitive performance by dousing the brain in low levels of electricity and using magnetic fields to stimulate the brains nerve cells." (Duncan). This is saying that now because of the help of scientists and engineers athletes can use certain devices to encourage the brain to keep going. Instead of risking their health, they have other ways to improve their performance. PEDs could cause multiple health problems that could be very dangerous. The website of the World Anti-Doping Agency gives warnings on what steroids could do to the athletes ad their body. "The website of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for example, warns that steroids increase the odds of mood shifts, reduced sperm counts, damage to the heart, and masculinization in women." (Duncan). There are many different problems that could occur while taking PEDs, they only list a small amount of possible health risks. If a player were to have one of these problems, then they could be taken out of the sport because of the damage to the body. Yet, athletes could want to use these in order to get stronger to help prevent any injury that could happen while playing. Some athletes are willing to take the chance to help with making the sport safer for the player. The purpose of having the sport is for competition. When an athlete uses PEDs, that purpose is no longer there and with competition the love of the game remains. "Any thoughtful person who plays a sport understands the connection among talent, dedication, and excellence. Every sport sets limits." (Murray). While the athlete is playing the sport each time he/she plays the love of the game should grow. The determination and competition will still be there, but when taking PEDs the athlete forgets about why they are playing in the first place. But, when the athlete uses PEDs it does make them become stronger and better at their sport making it a little bit easier on them, the athlete will then be able to play longer and practice longer because of their strength. To have athletes remain safe, PEDs should remain illegal. Athletes have amazing technology to help them improve in their sport, and there are many different health problems that can occur. Lastly, athletes are playing for the love and competition of the game. Hard work and determination will get the athlete farther than risking the athletes career with taking PEDs.

Laws should in general protect people from making uninformed decisions. Due to the potential severe consequences the ban has to be upheld. An analogy with the seatbelt can be used: the government forces people to use them, because of the possibility of severe injury in case we do not use it.    The use of performance-enhancing drugs is the opposite – use can lead to severe health problems.   Thus, if all people are treated as equals under law, then the law should equally protect athletes as the law does other would- be drug users. Equality before law also means athletes can’t be exempt from the moral standards we have for others. Firstly due to value of life and secondly because many times athletes themselves are not aware of the severe consequences of performance enhancing drugs.   BBC Drugs and Sports (GCSE Bitesize):  http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/pe/performance/1_performance_drugsinsport_rev1.shtml , accessed 05/15/2011

Protecting the health of athletes

Sport is also about the spectacle for spectators. Sport has become a branch of the entertainment business and the public demands “higher, faster, stronger” from athletes. If drug-use allows world records to be continually broken, and makes American Football players bigger and more exciting to watch, why deny the public what they want, especially if the athletes want to give it to them? The criterion that athletes should only be applying their ‘natural abilities’ runs into trouble. The highly advanced training technologies, health programs, sports drinks, use of such things as caffeine pills, and other energy boosters seem to defeat the notion that athletes are currently applying only their 'natural abilities'. Performance enhancing drugs would not go too far beyond the current circumstances for athletes.

Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport

I would like to address the debate, however my opponent ask me to clarify the side I will support and it's quite simply the literal opposite of yours. My side is apparent simply based on the title of the debate and our positions, I will be arguing that performance enhancing drugs shouldn't be legal in every major sporting league. Also it seems you have taken care of the basic definition needed to begin the debate and I see no need for additional definitions atleast while the debate is still somewhat simple. Onto my argument 1. Equality As these drugs became allowed in sporting leagues, they would increase player production meaning in order to compete you would have to take drugs in order to win. One great example of this would be in cycling many cyclists's resorted to doping to boost their production in order to win the tour de france. So in order to stay equal to the competition Lance Armstrong took drugs alongside them, all may appear equal but in truth the drugs are expensive and discriminate on players on the league who are too poor to acquire the quantity needed to stay on par with opponents. [1] 2. Health Concerns Their are many bad health effects of anabolic steroids such as[2]: 1. Changes in liver function 2. Infertility 3. Growth of male breasts 4. Retardation in fetus's 5. Death 6. Increased aggressiveness 7. Sleeping disorders 8. Confusion 9. Paranoia 10. Hallucinations 11. A weaker immune system 12. Hair loss 3. The league's rights The league has the right to determine how the sport is played, for example in the NBA only 5 players may on the court at a time. The league itself should be able to determine drug limitations, as the league determines the game rules. [3] Sources: [1] http://www.cyclingnews.com... [2] http://www.sportsci.org... [3] http://www.nba.com...

Hello again. I have done a bit more research and found at least, 150 sports Halls of Fame worldwide. As I do not know if you are specifically referring to one particular sport. I will proffer a brief reflection on the use and issues surrounding the use of performance enhancing drugs, in sport generally. A quick analysis indicates that worldwide, there is now a total ban on the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. Also testing for steroid abuse, especially at a professional level is now very vigorous. I would therefore suggest that it is unlikely that, any one inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame today, is unlikely to have slipped through the drugs testing net. It is fair to assume that a sportsman/woman inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame in the past, especially in the latter half of the 20th century was using performance enhancing drugs. Though we must pay regard to the fact, that the use of steroids to enhance sports performance, was not always considered inappropriate or illegal. Would it therefore be just, to retrospectively impose bans on our veteran sporting heroes and as a consequence, strip them of their Hall of Fame status? Con. Would suggest that we let bygones be bygones. Move forward and put our trust and faith in the ability of our sports governing bodies, to thoroughly and rigorously police our modern professional sports organisations.

HOF Players that used Steroids

Athletes should be punished for using performance enhancing drugs

Should Athletes using performance enhancing drugs be subject to harsh punishment

As he has not yet explained his case, I hope that he will take the next round to clarify it as I have in the first, but for now, I will focus on providing advantages for my case. The current system for athletes is such that they already put themselves at great physical risk in endeavoring to be the best. Just as a result of training, athletes suffer intensely. High altitude training is a must for many athletes, as it leads to a much higher production of red blood cells and therefore more transport of oxygen through the body, increasing endurance. However, acclimatisation to high altitude leads to the production of too many red blood cells, making the blood thicker and reducing blood flow. This stresses out the heart, and deprives parts of the body of oxygen. High altitudes also lead to intense weight loss (both from loss of appetite and the body eating itself), risks of weakening the body's immune system, and lengthened times of recovery from muscle damage. That's not to mention the expansive list of altitude illnesses that can result from pressure changes and oxygen deprivation. [1] Pro athletes train for 5-6 hours a day 6 days a week, training intensely the entire time. Typical athletes have to maintain incredibly high heart rates for long periods of time, stressing their hearts in the process. [2] This all comes in part from the extremely unhealthy diets that these athletes ingest, as well as excess stress. [3] What are the results of all this? Cardiomyopathy, enlarged hearts, wearing down of heart valves. [5] This leads to a much higher likelihood of early and sudden death. [4] This is played out in football, where the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 58 years. [6] Overtraining can lead to massive systemic issues, such as imbalances in the brain, nervous and hormonal systems, upper respiratory illness, compromised immune function, and chronic inflammation. [3] The basis for this harm actually plays out as a result of free radical production, which causes chain reactions that destroy cells in the body. [4] Athletes push themselves through pain and injury, and are expected to do so in order to achieve glory, thus perpetuating health harms, and spurning treatment and prevention efforts. [3] But the hypocrisy goes beyond training. Athletes are allowed to use any number of dietary supplements, equipment, clothing, and medical treatments to enhance their performance. Vitamin pills are commonly used, megadoses of which have been shown to cause a number of deaths among athletes and significant health harms even at regular doses. [7][8] Many use whole-body Lycra suits, and the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit is thought to be responsible for breaking world records in swimming, increasing the costs required in order to succeed. [9] Steroids will not significantly add to these harms. More than that, it's hypocritical, and the legal structure of any organization should always endeavor to be consistent. If they're going to allow athletes to engage in practices such as I've detailed above (and, in fact, encourage it), then they should allow similarly damaging practices that the players take upon themselves to engage in. These athletes are allowed to put themselves in harm's way in dozens of other ways (not to mention the numerous ways in which they're made vulnerable to physical injury), and I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to use of drugs. Why are these allowed while steroids and hormones remain problematic? It's really just a perceptual thing " steroids are viewed as cheating, whereas all of these are effectively reasonable, despite the health harms associated with them. But the reality is that the current system is the one that encourages cheating, not one in which these are legalized. Why is that? The main reason is that athletes and the organizations behind them have found ways to outwit the system. Athletes pursue alternatives to the usual anabolic steroids and hormones that allow them to fly under the radar. Designer steroids are "manufactured to closely resemble existing known compounds, but with sufficient chemical diversity to ensure that their detection by the WADA accredited laboratories is more difficult. "[10] We manage to find the ones we know exist, but lack detection mechanisms for new designer steroids, detection cannot keep up with the rate of development. Gene doping is a newer system based on gene therapy, which is meant to insert a gene into a given site in the body, where it will then produce large amounts of steroid/hormone endogenously. It's not safe, and it's untested in humans, yet athletes have already begun to pursue it. [11] They may even already have been used at Sochi. [12] There are three major harms to this system 1. It's classist. It allows only those who are capable of affording these expensive alternatives to engage in this type of cheating. Only those who can afford the increased expense can rise to the top, something that legalized, cheap steroids could demonstrably improve upon. 2. It damages the credibility of sporting leagues, who often don't detect these for years and even decades, and of athletes and their organizations, who are forced to hide their usage. They can acquire any number of medals over the years, be idolized and immortalized by their records, and then have to be torn down much later, much to everyone's embarrassment. This also ends up damaging the organizations they're associated with. A great example is Lance Armstrong, who started the Lance Armstrong Foundation. They were forced to change their name to Livestrong, and lost the very helpful endorsement of Nike, thus reducing valuable contributions to an organization aimed at supporting cancer victims. 3. It's more dangerous for athletes. At best, they're getting these from reputable sources, where they've only been lightly tested, and thus they're using the athletes as guinea pigs, causing major harms. [10] Since they are normally less effective than what is detectable,[13] they have to take more, exacerbating the problem. And the reality is that most of them won't come from reputable sources, and any number of dangerous substances may exist alongside their choice doping agent. These athletes are far less likely to pursue the far more dangerous, less effective, and more expensive route to success in the absence of a ban. They will be taking thoroughly tested steroids and hormones, often prescribed by doctors and health officials who can monitor them. Here's another benefit, though it may seem counter-intuitive " steroids provide an opportunity to level the playing field. Individuals produce different levels of testosterone, which can dramatically affect muscle growth. [19] Those with anemia are effectively handicapped by the lack of oxygen shuttling through their bodies. The presence of hormone injections and compounds that control red blood cell production like erythropoietin make it possible for these athletes to keep up. Con, you have the floor. 1. www. altitude. org/altitude_training. php 2. health. india. com/fitness/a-professional-athletes-fitness-regime-an-insiders-guide/ 3. www. philmaffetone. com/files/20158/Athletes-Fit-But-Unhealthy. pdf 4. . http://imbodybuilding.com... 5. . http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com... 6. . http://strengthplanet.com... 7. . http://whatstheharm.net... 8. . http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org... 9. . http://www.economist.com... 10. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 11. . http://www.bbc.com... 12. . http://www.businessinsider.com... 13. . http://www.steroid.com... 14. . http://www.livescience.com...

Extend all my points. ..

Anabolic steroids should not be allowed for use in professional sports.

The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of those who take them to meaninglessness. New drugs such as the growth hormone EPO are very difficult to detect, but the Olympic authorities are doing little to overcome the problem. The President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch, has been notoriously reluctant to put his weight behind attempts to beat doping.

The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th...

I believe steroids should be allowed in sports. It would maximize the skills of most players and is the next step in advanced training. The primary reason steroids get a bad rap is because they are against the rules and viewed as cheating. Players who don't want to take steroids can be free to make that choice, just as some players don't choose certain training methods now. Players who want to take the health risks associated with steroids should be able to do so.

Steroids in sports.

The use of performance enhancing drugs is based on advances in science. When new drugs and therapies are found, athletes turn to them and as a result are much of the time ahead of the anti-doping organizations, which need to develop methods of athlete testing whenever a new drug that is meant to be untraceable is created. In 2008 it was a big shock when Riccardo Ricco (a cyclist) was caught using the performance-enhancing drug Mircera, which had been considered undetectable for a number of years. The fact is that a ban of performance enhancing drugs enables mainly athletes from wealthy countries and teams that can afford the newest technology to go undetected, whilst others are disadvantaged (1). So because it gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy one who can pay for the undetectable drugs, we should legalize it.   Millard Baker, Riccardo Ricco Tests Positive for Undetectable New Drug Mircera at 2008 Tour de France, 07/18/2008, http://steroidreport.com/2008/07/18/riccardo-ricco-and-mircera-pegylated-epo/, accessed 05/20/2011

Very bad for athletes. The use of performance-enhancing drugs leads to serious health problems, including “steroid rage”, the development of male characteristics in female athletes, heart attacks, and greatly reduced life expectancy. Some drugs are also addictive.

Hello, and thanks for opening this discussion. I will be countering these specific claims made by my opponent: 1. Use of PED's destroys the spirit of competition and love of the game. 2. Hard work and determination are all that is needed to make athletes "elite." 3. PED's are too dangerous to be used. I wish to make it clear that I do not advocate the unrestricted use of all PED's. I will instead make the case that PED's are not significantly different than other performance enhancing measures, and that the controlled allowance of PED's will make sports both safer and more competitive. 1. Use of PED's destroys the spirit of competition and love of the game - Quite the contrary, PED's increase the spirit of competition. Nature has it's own performance enhancing drug called "genetics." Genes are attained by pure luck, and it is undeniable that some genes bestow natural advantages for some sports. For example, superior eyesight is proven to be a natural advantage in baseball. Slender legs are proven advantages in distance running. Long torsos are a natural advantage in swimming. The list goes on and on [1]. If no performance enhancement was ever allowed, elite sports would only be accessible to a few genetically lucky people. As a result, performance enhancement allows more people to pursue their love for the game who may not have naturally bestowed advantages. For example, the pro baseball player Tommy John was bestowed by nature with an inferior tendon in his arm. In 1974, he underwent surgery to replace his tendon and went on to win, on average, 20 more games per season than he did before he surgery [2]. Since eyesight is so advantageous in baseball, many baseball players routinely get laser eye surgery to artificially enhance their sight [3]. This could definitely be considered artificial performance enhancement, which may be considered unfair. Yet without access to such measures athletes would be subject to a different kind of unfairness - the genetic lottery. In many ways, performance enhancement allows the genetic playing field to be more level. Sports would actually be LESS competitive if the genes bestowed by nature were the only PED's allowed, because less people would be able to compete. If certain PED's were available to everyone, then people with less advantageous natural traits could overcome them and there would be more competitors. 2. Hard work and determination are all that is needed to make athletes "elite." - This ties into the last point. Hard work can definitely make you better, and it is important. But when genetics come into play, no amount of hard work can overcome natural gifts. Consider the example of Stefan Holm, a world-class Scandinavian high jumper. Stefan was the epitome of an all-natural athlete forged through hard work. He began practicing high-jump in his back yard at the age of 6. As he got older, he followed a very strict diet and weight lifting routine to strengthen his legs. He was obsessed as a teenager and practiced for hours each day, taking thousands and thousands of practice jumps. After years of practice, he won gold in the 2004 Olympics. Two years later, a college student named Donald Thomas was dared by a friend to take a high jump at a track practice. In the first jump of his life, with no training, he cleared 6'6". Two days later, in flat high-top shoes and basketball shorts, he cleared 7' and broke the university record. 8 months later, with only mild amounts of practice, he went against Holm at the world championships and defeated the man who had been training obsessively all his life. Donald Thomas was born with an abnormally long Achilles Tendon which allowed him to jump extraordinarily high with little effort [4]. Clearly, hard work and determination was not enough to give Holm an edge over such a genetically lucky individual. Once again, with equal access to PEDs, all athletes would truly be able to reap the rewards of hard work while avoiding the futility of genetic disadvantage. 3. PEDs are too dangerous - no doubt some are, and they should be banned. But some are not. They are no more dangerous than other performance enhancing measures such as eye surgery, tendon replacement, or self-imposed anorexia (wrestlers). What is more dangerous is the current system, where PEDs are illegal but still widely used. In the current system, those who play by the rules are indirectly punished and outmatched by those who do not and avoid getting caught. This creates a "cat and mouse" game atmosphere where athletes do not stop using PEDs, they merely devise new ways to avoid detection. It also blurs the line between what is truly a PED and what is not. Athletes are people who naturally want to push limits, and it creates a more dangerous climate where they try to experiment with PEDs that are potent enough to be questionable yet barely legal enough to be legit. Banning all PEDs is hardly the best solution to the problem of sportsmanship and fairness. [1] All examples taken from David Epstein's book "The Sports Gene." [2] http://gladwell.com... [3] Ibid. [4] David Epstein, "The Sports Gene"

Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalized for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country, something which would be problematic for sports that are global. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressures to use drugs, if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalization. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.

Protecting young and vulnerable athletes

I'm sad, Con. I'm so sad. I believed in you. I believed in you so hard. But you let me down.

I'd like to welcome Actionsspeak to this round of the Group B Round Robin debate in the World Cup Debate tournament! It is my pleasure to debate with him, as I have not yet had the opportunity to do so and look forward to it greatly. I wish him luck in this and his other debates. With that, I'll move into explaining my policy to uphold the above resolution. Before I get into it though, I'd just like the audience to realize that this will not be a debate of my policy versus status quo, but rather one of policy versus policy. Con will present a policy as well in his opening round, and we will debate the merits of those two policies. So, my policy is pretty self-explanatory. The U. S. will legalize the use of anabolic steroids and hormones of all sorts in major sporting leagues. This will remove any current infrastructure based on detection of their usage in sports, though health examinations and basic protective measures will remain in place. Brief definition analysis: "Anabolic steroids, technically known as anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS), are drugs that are structurally related to the cyclic steroid ring system and have similar effects to testosterone in the body. They increase protein within cells, especially in skeletal muscles. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... Hormones " In this case, we'll mainly be discussing the usage of major groups of hormones like erythropoietin and human growth hormone. I'll clarify each: "Erythropoietin. .. , or EPO, is a glycoprotein hormone that controls erythropoiesis, or red blood cell production. It is a cytokine (protein signaling molecule) for erythrocyte (red blood cell) precursors in the bone marrow. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... "Growth hormone (GH or HGH). .. is a peptide hormone that stimulates growth, cell reproduction and regeneration in humans and other animals. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... As we are both discussing policies, the burden of proof is shared, as each of us must defend our individual policies while providing reasons why the others' policy is harmful. The debate will consist of 4 rounds, 8,000 characters a round, with 72 hours for us to make our arguments.

It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. First, to protect athletes from harmful drugs. Secondly, to preserve the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness. Eating a balanced diet and wearing the best shoes are clearly in a different category from taking steroids and growth hormones. We should continue to make this distinction and aim for genuine drug-free athletic competitions.

Natural/unnatural distinction untenable. Already athletes use all sorts of dietary supplements, exe...

What about the children? Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalised for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressure to use drugs if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalisation. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.

Current rules are very arbitrary and unfair:e.g. cold remedies denied to athletes, even in sports wh...

Drug use in sports poses a negative effect on the user's health. Enacting the legalization of drug use in sports seeks an unfair advantage towards other athletes and sets a bad perception on how athletes should compete in sports. Drugs I am talking about are: stimulants, Anabolic-androgenic steroids, Erythropoietin, And 'blood doping' (practice of increasing the number of red blood cells in one's circulatory system). But I'm open to HGH (human growth hormone) ONLY if it is prescribed to them and they do not use it with anabolic steroids or testosterone.

Drug Use in Sports

I personally do not condone the use of Performance Enhancing Drugs and/or Supplements whether they are illegal or not. But, I believe that in small quantities they are not harmful to teenagers. I look forward to further informing you on this topic.

Performance enhancing supplements are not necessary and absolutely harmful for teens

with that being said, drugs should be allowed in sports because it is just another means of trying to get ahead. Over training can be unhealthy and result in death but that isn't being stopped. Simply think of it this way, every athlete (to my knowledge) wants to do the best that they can in their particular sporting event/ field so why shouldn't they be allowed to make their own choices as to how they get to where they want to be?

Drugs in sports

Doping: administering drugs to an athlete in order to enhance sporting performance.If doping were to be permitted (I will refer to it as legal), this would mean unrestricted use. The drugs would not be allowed to be regulated, the use would be unrestricted. Since the topic is normative (“should”), the BoP is shared. My case for why doping should not be permitted in all sports is as follows. HealthIt is truism that doping enhances sporting performance. Already, 14-39% of athletes dope [1]. If it is legalized, this number will undoubtedly increase. The sports industry is extremely competitive, athletes are pushed and constantly pressured to go out there and perform, if they fail in that aspect, they are benched, or worse, dropped from the team. Also, if doping were made legal, then those who dope will have an advantage over those who don’t, and thus those who don’t will have to dope in order to stay in the athletic industry. From this we can conclude that in order to keep their jobs, and their fame, athletes are going to take all opportunities to increase their performance. Thus, if doping were to be legalized, there would be a very large increase in the amount of athletes that dope. The most popular doping drug is anabolic steroids. If doping was to be made legal, the usage of steroids would have a tremendous increase. This is bad, as steroids are very dangerous. The use of steroids can lead to baldness, infertility, impotence, prostate gland enlargement, severe acne, increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture, liver abnormalities and tumors, increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (the "bad" cholesterol), decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (the "good" cholesterol), high blood pressure (hypertension), heart and circulatory problems, aggressive behaviors, rage or violence, psychiatric disorders, such as, drug dependence, infections or diseases such as HIV or hepatitis, inhibited growth and development, and risk of future health problems in teenagers [2]. Use of steroids can also cause severe depression, which leads to suicides [3]. This is devastating for the families of the victims, and anyone around them. “Brenda Marrero came upon her son Efrain surfing the Internet one day last October. When Efrain hid what was on the screen, she asked what he had been looking at. He turned and said he wanted to tell her something: He was using steroids.She called her husband, Frank, and they told Efrain he needed to stop, because steroids are dangerous."But Barry Bonds does it," his parents remember Efrain saying."That doesn't make it right," his father responded.To please his parents, Efrain retrieved a dozen pink pills, a vial of liquid and two syringes. His mother flushed the pills and kept the vial. Efrain, who played football, promised to stop using steroids. It was a promise that no one doubts he kept.Three and a half weeks later, Mrs. Marrero found Efrain in a bedroom at home, a bullet in his head, a .22-caliber pistol in his hand. He left no explanation for his suicide. He had no history of depression or mental illness. He was 19.” [4]There are thousands more stories like this. If doping were to be made legal, this would increase drastically. As well as the other health related issues associated with it. Unfair AdvantageEveryone responds to steroids differently [5]. If doping were to be legal, this would give athletes an unfair advantage over others, based not on skill, but on doping.Ruins Purpose of SportThe meaning of sports is in the values that it exhibits. The forms of human excellence it promotes, and how each athlete strives to perfect his or her skill. Doping ruins this purpose, and thus should not be permitted.[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] http://www.mayoclinic.org...[3] http://www.evolutionary.org...[4] http://www.nytimes.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...

That doping should be permitted in all sports

In light of recent events in all sports, I believe that there is an easy solution. Allow doping.DefinitionsDoping = Use of (currently) banned performance-inhanced drugs in sportsSports = Can mean 'an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.'- but for this debate sports shall be taken to mean athleticsAthletics = The sport of competing in track and field events, including running races and various competitions in jumping and throwing.RULES1.) No Wikipedia2.) No trolling3.) No kritks/semantics4.)Begin in 1st round.5.)FF is concession unless same numberThanks!

Okay this normally isn't my style but I decided to give it a try this time. If steroids become legal, it would be something anybody else has the option to use, such as a better shoe or style of swimsuit. The user would know the risks. In order to buy the steriods, what would be wrong in making the person pass a test before getting the drug, that says [s]he knows the risks, and then sign a paper that [s]he understands the risks that could come from it. People do alot of unhealthy things, some of those people the children look up to. Should every health risk be illegal, because children might look up to the person that takes the risk? Should the military be banned because by joining you have a risk of dying any day, at anytime, and children might want to join? So why should anaboolic steroids be banned?

Sports are not about the practices. If they were, then they would be televised a lot more. What matters are the games. Those are what everyone wants to see. If a professional athlete took the right amounts of the right kinds of steroids, then his game performance would be better and the team would do better. If I were a coach, I would allow my players to do just that so we could beat the other team.

Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes

What kind of message would we be sending our children if we allowed doping. A young boy with dreams of becoming a professional athlete would feel he has to use drugs in order to compete and pursue his dreams. We as a society should not promote the use of drugs. And you can't compare a special swimming suit or an oxygen tank to a chemical that has negative side effects on an athletes body. We should encourage our athletes to be as healthy as possible. Just because it is hard to screen every athlete for PEDs and the results havn't been perfect doesn't mean we should give up.

As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban

We should have some sympathy with athletes: very often, they are compelled to take drugs by their team’s coach. There are stories of Chinese swimmers eating steroid-laced noodles. To overcome this, the IOC Conference in February 1999 recommended that coaches should take the Olympic Oath as well as athletes. Techniques to detect new drugs are being developed and being embraced by the Olympic authorities. A new mass-spectroscopy unit was installed for the first time at the 1996 Atlanta Games, and a technique that can detect the taking of growth hormones up to 6 months earlier was introduced at Sydney. An Independent Anti-Doping Agency was also established for Sydney. Samaranch declared himself to be fully behind the drugs war as early as 1998. The battle is being won: 12 cases of doping in 1984; two in 1996. The IOC is coming down hard on those who take drugs: a two year ban for the first offence has been introduced.

It is unfair for athletes to take drugs. It is like getting a free 48 hour workout by just taking a pill. You get into professional baseball or any other sport because you practiced hard, and that you are good. Protein shakes are like eating healthy. That's what people have to do to stay fit. In steroids there are many chemicals to boost what ever it boosts. It is just unreasonable to have steroids legal in professional sports.

The argument is whether or not a person should have their wins taken away. Im not saying that every person that does use a PED wins. thats not necessarily the case, what im saying is, that if they win, they didnt deserve to win. Like when playing a board game as a kid, you always yelled at the cheater. whether they won or not they either got kicked out of the game and/or banned from playing it again. Sports are becoming corrupt because of performance enhancing drugs and cheaters should not be rewarded if they win, if they lose they still deserve some type of punishment.

If legal then drugs can be controlled and monitored by doctors, making them much safer. Athletes on drugs today often take far more than is needed for performance-enhancement, running needless health risks as a result, simply because of ignorance and the need for secrecy. Legalisation allows more information to become available and open medical supervision will avoid many of the health problems currently associated with performance-enhancing drugs.

If legal then drugs can be controlled and monitored by doctors, making them much safer. Athletes on...

There is no such thing as a forced decision. Everyone has complete control over their own body and their own decisions. Everyone has an absolute right to possession of one’s own body. If you own your body then you can choose what to do with it, and any exchange, such as money to an employer in exchange for use of your body (labour) is justified, because it was a voluntary exchange and you still possess yourself.  If you choose to take drugs, you have not been forced into it no matter the peer pressure you may be under or that other having taken the drugs may make you uncompetitive.

Extend.

Everything should be legal unless the arguments against it are stronger than the arguments for it. No arguments against steroids are stronger than the arguments for it so my position is that steroids should be legal. I will debate anyone on this topic.

Steroids should be legalized in sports.

Said drugs should not be used in sports, for a few reasons. 1) Negative effect on the steroid user Steroids, as we all know, speed up protein synthesis to enhance performance. However, there are some harmful side effects to using them. They include: - higher blood pressure - higher cholesterol levels - higher risk of heart disease - liver damage - premature growth - testicular cancer - abnormally large amounts of acne - breast development in men This, obviously, is not good for the steroid user. Furthermore, exercising normally can avoid these problems, and regular exercise is better for physical and mental health. 2) Negative impact on children When children start to get into sports, they normally treat their favorite player as an idol, an image of what they want to be when they grow up. How would they feel if their idol essentially cheated by using drugs so they didn't have to work as hard? Furthermore, what if they decided to use steroids too, because their hero did? 3) Unfair advantage Most professional athletes work hard every day to stay in shape and sharp at their sport. Why should some players get to skip this hard work that everyone else is doing? That's all for now.

A team should be punished if it is discovered and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire Olympic team has been involved in illegal ‘organized cheating’. However, this does not mean that just because only one athlete was accused of using performance enhancing drugs, the entire team should be held responsible. You cannot punish someone for simply being affiliated with a person who has cheated. That is akin to arresting someone because their brother stole a car. You cannot punish someone for the bad decision of another. It is an individual’s right to make their own decisions about what they do to their bodies. Even if a convincing argument is made as to why performance enhancing drugs are a god idea, it is ultimately that athlete’s decision whether or not to use them. If the teammates did not also take the drugs, then they should not be punished. Why should we penalize the whole team for making the wrong assumption that their teammate would think twice before doping because s/he will have the entire team to consider? Some athletes are willing to cheat even if they know they are risking their career. Then, here is quite obvious question, is an athlete going to prioritize their career or their team's career? Assuming that their team's career might 'increase the risk' is not going to necessarily prevent any athletes from dope usage, and this is because each individual are even willing to sacrifice their own. Thus, our opposition has also stated that there is ‘peer pressure’, which would apparently make the athlete ‘uncomfortable’, which is illogical. At the end of the day adding pressure to someone will not guarantee that they will make a decision one way or the other. The choice ultimately rests in the hands of the athlete.

There's no I in team

Steroids should be allowed in SOME sports. All of the below scenarios negate all arguments my opponent has placed 1Steriods should be allowed in any sport that steroids will not have an impact on performance, such as the sport of darts or billiards. 2Steriods should be allowed in sports that nearly every participant already uses steroids, such as body building (not the same as weight lifting) 3Steriods should be allowed in sports that are simply played for fun and not professional, such as a game of touch football with family. Further every private sports association should have the right to determine their own stance on steroid use, whether that be banned or not. My opponent says"...It is against the law to participate in sterood use." Not all steroids are illegal in all countries. I assume my opponent means the United States of America. Even in the United States of America human growth hormone is Legal.

Steroids should be banned in all sports.

Schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent performance enhancing drugs. These drugs give you a higher advantage on the field and can get you disqualified from a game or season. it is the schools responsibility to regulate drug tests too prevent drugs and be a legitimate team in a conference. Also drugs tests will allow coaches to warn and inform athletes about the effects of these drugs on their bodies and mind and prevent them from using them in the future.

Resolved: That schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent drug use.

what do u mean when u say that its rampant and so be made legal. .. .rapes are also rampant so do you mean to say that they should also be made legal? Another point in my view is that if doping is made legal then whether the spirit of sports will give up to the circumstances. Then sports will transform from competition between the skills of the players to the wars between the pharmaceutical labs and industries of the two countries. The country which possess the advanced medicine will have a straight win and advanced medicines could only be achieved by the countries which have a hefty budget amount to support the industry. This will directly lead to deprive the economically weak countries to even dare to challenge the the so called developed countries and will be completely overshadowed by them. the world will then be confined to these rich countries which will snatch this very chance of the poor countries to make their presence felt. Use of steroids made legal will make the strong even stronger and weal negligible. I would like to make you recall the real motto of organizing sports to bring countries or organizations together together not to demean anyone. Yes winning should be the main thought, but the path used for achieving it should also be kept in mind. The steroids will also have a degrading effect in the health of the sportsmen which will make them succumb to the particular drug and may even take his/her life . Winning the game at the cost of someones life is not that should be done.

should doing be made legal in sports

The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th...

Olympic Dream Is Dead

Hi! I would like to debate on the issue of dopping which has been destroying the spirit of sports. Athlethes look more like robots than humans and it is unfair that some people win medals and competitions only because they consume substances that give them an artificial boost.

Doping should be allowed

Today sportsman in order to achieve greater results decide to take drugs stimulating both stamina and power. This on the other hand can resolve into serious problems to one's health. Recent situation at the football match where a young defense player died during the game has unveiled the importance of this problems. I personally believe that sports it about human natural mental and psychical power but not about cheating yourself and others and more especially cheating the nature.

Steroids should e legal in some cases

First, I would like to point out that the debate says "Professional Athletes." High schoolers taking steroids is a completely different debate than this one. Anabolic steroids are a substance that boosts your testosterone levels in your body. There are different kinds of steroids that have different effects on your body. Some increase your stamina, others your muscle mass, and so on. These substances are like other kinds of technology we see on the sports field. For example, a shoe that increases running speed, or a swimsuit that increases your aerodynamical position and your ability to freely move all your limbs. These are both examples of technology on the playing field, just like steroids. Taking steroids is just like drinking a protein shake, it increases your athletic ability, and it should be allowed in professional sports.

Inducting these below average players would not be representative of one of the most profitable, successful, and enjoyable eras in all of baseball. Yes, in hindsight, it was an unfair advantage, but virtually everyone was doing it. To leave out Bonds, A-Rod, Clemens, and Pettite would be leaving out four of the best players of all time (just to name a few). And most doctors have agreed with the point that PED's have a rather low plateau in terms of improving overall game, and that they act more as a longevity helper. Skill is there, PED help keep it going longer. You can't leave out an entire era of baseball, just because the players did what was inherent of the time; take PED's.

Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame

I accept but please give in your first arguement examples of suggested drugs so I can understand fully thank you. I hope for an enlightened debate.

Performance enhancing supplements are both un-necessary and potentially harmful for teens