The Instigator
sccrplyr40
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
kvaughan
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Baseball players who were discovered to use steroids shouldnt be in the HOF and their records erased

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,381 times Debate No: 1707
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (11)

 

sccrplyr40

Pro

First, anyone who used steroids cheated and cheaters shouldn't be awarded by being allowed into the HOF.

Second, Do we really want our kids to look up to someone who used steroids to get ahead? what does that teach our kids.

Third, it creates a deterrent for not using them instead of just a suspension.
kvaughan

Con

You'll have to forgive me for being a little bit of a grammar lawyer here: you use the past tense a lot in you argument. The topic is "players who WERE ..." and you use the term "used". I assume that this means you are referring to players who have been shown to use steroids previously.

There are a few problems with removing them from the HOF:
1. For a long time, steroids were not banned by baseball, but were illegal in the US. You cannot restrict a person's HOF status for something that baseball did not make illegal.
2. There is no hope of reliable evidence about who used and who didn't use in the past. Even the Mitchell report only produced hearsay and speculation. Since we cannot retroactively test players for steroids, we can never know who used, so we can't ban anyone from the HOF.
3. If many in the media are to be believed, steroids were rampant. They are usually a problem because they give players an unfair advantage, but if everyone's using, then you get no more of an unfair advantage than lifting weights. This means that the records are still important because while batters may have been juiced, so were pitchers.
4. it is unfair to give players a penalty that they did not know they would face. It's like if when you got a speeding ticket, the policeman said "oh yeah, and by the way, you're also going to jail for the next 10 years". If you had known about the jail time, you wouldn't speed, the case for baseball is similar. If you want to add new rules that say records will be removed, that's fine, but doing it retroactively is unfair.
5. under your proposal, if I accidentally am injected by my trainer once with a steroid and never use again, I lose my HOF record. That would be absurd.

onto your points:
1. "anyone who used steroids cheated and cheaters shouldn't be awarded by being allowed into the HOF". I answer this above, but additionally, it does depends on waht record they broke. Steroids don't really help you improve batting average or fielding percentages for example.
2. "Do we really want our kids to look up to someone who used steroids to get ahead? what does that teach our kids" The incident will teach kids whatever parents decide to teach them. Removing HOF awards to help "teach kids" is absurd. Run PAs or something, don't give unforeseen consequences to players.
3. "it creates a deterrent for not using them instead of just a suspension". The current system does a fine job of being a deterrent. People who use will get caught and they will not play anymore.
Debate Round No. 1
sccrplyr40

Pro

First, your grammer error that you corrected was only because I had to shorten the topic to the correct amount of characters, and I apologize for that.

Second, It is possible to test players for steroids. We would be able to find out by spiked stats (HR's for example in Barry Bonds' case). We would also be able to tell if they were under oath. If they lied at that point and were later discovered to have done that, they would be convicted of perjury and sentenced to jail time on top of the dismissed HOF bid.

Third. Sure steroids weren't illegal until a certain point in baseball's history, and therefore we could make the rule apply to anything after that.

Fourth, the Mitchell report was based off of hearsay, but it still had insight into steroid use and is most likely correct in most cases (here's a brief example since this isn't part of the topic: Roger Clemens denied the steroid allegations 10 days after the report came out with his name in it. Had he actually not done steroids, shouldn't he have IMMEDIATELY responded to incorrect allegations and sued anyone connected on terms of libel accusations?)

Fifth, sure there were pitchers AND batters using, but not all of them used. Those who stayed away from them were not rewarded for their moral decision but rather were put down because of it. Their batting averages went down and were paid less in return for their 'poor' performance.

I now await your response.
kvaughan

Con

I was not correcting your grammar, although it does seem to need it. I was instead pointing out that according to your topic and opening statement, the scope of the debate is restricted to players who used steroids in the past. I'll address the arguments in the order I gave them because your responses are sort of all over the place.

1) I claimed that we cannot punish players for steroids because they were not illegal for a long time. Your response is to concede this point, but argue that we should restrict the HOF for future players. First, this is in direct contradiction with your use of past tenses in the topic and opening statement. Second, this absolves Bonds, Sosa, McGuire and the majority of players that are discussed in the 'roids conversation. I wonder if this is really what you want.

2) I claim that we cannot know who used steroids in the past and you respond by saying that we can test steroids by spiked stats and under oath admissions.

Clearly spiked stats are an absurd way to test because there's no way to know the difference between steroids and good old fashion improvement. Second, no one is going to admit under oath that they used because as you admit there's no way to retroactively test steroids so there's no means of enforcement.

As a side note, you are dead wrong in claiming that Clemens denied the allegations 10 days later. He was denying them the day they were released. Watch ESPN buddy.

3) This argument was a poor one on my part and while so is your response, I'll drop it.

4) You COMPLETELY IGNORE this argument and it's a brilliant one. There's no way to justify adding a penalty that didn't exist when people make the choice to use. And, since your topic and opening statement only deals with the past tense and thus these kinds of cases. You lose almsot automatically.

5) Another DROPPED ARGUMENT. Accidents happen, that's why the current policy doesn't ban players for life after one offense. Banning them from the HOF is way too harsh.

CONCLUSION: read argument 4 and read my opponents complete lack of response. I win on that alone. Also, the debate is about the past tense, not what should happen to people who use in the future. THis makes arguments 1 and 2 amazing as well.
Debate Round No. 2
sccrplyr40

Pro

ok so my window closed on my whole argument and I don't want to type it all over again. here's the main gist of my argument.

The Clemens denial was 10 days after the report came out, so check ESPN, you should watch it a little more. the report came out on the 13th and his denial was on the 23rd. there's a video on ESPN,

http://sports.espn.go.com...

McGuire, Bonds and Sosa indefinitely used steroids after the league made them illegal.

Stat spikes I was referring to were ones like Bonds' HR total after 2000 when he hit 43 (ESPN, can't remember exact #) and 73 the next year, followed by it dropping off into the 40's again the following year. the only explanation: steroids.

I shall respond to your 4th point in the form of analogy. You are saying that if murder was legal, and someone went out and killed another person for no good reason, you would find it OK to let them walk even though they knew it was wrong? It's the same kind of philosophy.

Banning them from the HOF is NOT too harsh. If it is, you better give Marion Jones back her 5 olympic Gold medals. They knowingly cheated, and should NOT be rewarded for their actions/behavior.

My original argument was better but I didn't want to spend the time retyping it all. I apologize for that.
kvaughan

Con

I could spend an hour or so on the net trying to find the exact press release the day of the Mitchell report, but instead I found this: http://www.csmonitor.com...

"Through his lawyer, Rusty Hardin, star pitcher Roger Clements vehemently denied the steroid charges against him in the Mitchell report. The report contains testimony from Mr. Clemens's personal trainer that he administered steroid shots to the pitcher at least 16 times. But Mr. Hardin claimed that the trainer had been told by federal authorities that he had to produce names, or face prosecution himself." DATELINE December 15, only 2 days after the report was released. His most public denial came when you mentioned, but he denied it many times before that. You are wrong. Sorry.

Now, unfortunately, I can only respond to arguments you actually made, so while your original post may have been better, I can only respond to the post you made and that post leaves the vast majority of my arguments untouched.

You only respond directly to my fourth point. First of all, if you wanted to respond, you should have done that the round after I made the argument. It's too late to do it now. But, additionally, my argument is that legal consequences must be stated ahead of time and should not increase in severity retroactively. Find me a single case in all of US law history that contradicts this.

5) I was claiming that banning players for a single steroid injection that may have been accidental and that was not stated in the rules is unwarranted. The Olypic rules state that players lose their metal if found using steroids. Jones knew this, so the consequences are just

Look, if you want to debate this, let's do it. This is not a debate, it's a random sputtering thoughts that do not really interact with my arguments for example arguments 1 and 2 are still untouched and your responses on every other point leave a lot to be desired.
Debate Round No. 3
sccrplyr40

Pro

I'm going to start off by stating, Clemens' lawyer may have well denied the allegations for him, but had in fact Clemens NOT used steroids, he should have been screaming at the top of his lungs the DAY OF the mitchell report instead of going through his lawyer. He should have filed lawsuits that day (or the day after since the report was issued mid-afternoon), not a couple weeks later.

Now, I personally enjoyed how you responded to my analogy. Oh wait, you didn't.

I'm now curious as to how you can have someone 'accidentily' inject you with steroids. I know that I would notice if a needle was inserted into me, but that's just me. And if you are going to refer to pills, you can't just accidentily swallow a pill.

Sure there may not be a case in US history that changed a law after the crime had been committed, I shall concede that point. However, you CANNOT reward anyone who has used steroids for an advantage. My opponent here has repeatedly stated that punishing someone after they cheated but before the rule was put into place is wrong. I don't believe it would be because it tells the people you can bend the rules until someone finds out what is going on and stops it.

Conclusion:

Those named in the Mitchell report, used steroids and here's why. Andy Pettite, a star pitcher for the New York Yankees, was named in the report and is probably the second biggest name besides Clemens in the report. He admitted to using steroids. Chuck Knoblauch, a star player for the Minnesota Twins in the 1990's, admitted to using steroids after being in the report.

Those are just 2 examples of the names in the report, but nobody besides Clemens and Barry Bonds, have denied using steroids. Anyone know why? It's because they are the two players with the most to lose if they don't try to clear their names. Bonds is in a huge trial for perjury and obstruction of justice (prosecutors believe he lied about using steroids). That leaves ONE name left over who is 'vehemently' denying steroid allegations, Roger Clemens. I'll let you decide if he is guilty or not.

By allowing professional athletes to set records even while steroids were legal in baseball, you are making these records esentially 'untouchable' by the future players because they wont have the same advantages. Therefore to make it 'fair', their records should be disallowed. If their records are disallowed, they can't be allowed into the HOF. Plain and simple. I would have asolutely no problem with Bonds' HR record if it was real, but it isn't.

Players should have been able to see these consequences if they actually took a step back at what they were doing. My opponent here says, "Removing HOF awards to help "teach kids" is absurd." I don't know how that is absurd, because kids look up to these players who are expected to set good examples. These kids would say, "hey, he used steroids and got better, he didn't get penalized for it, so I'm going to try them."

I have two questions for you to respond to directly in your final response.

1. Do you ACTUALLY believe players who used steroids should not be allowed into the HOF, or are you just debating?

2. Do you believe Clemens used steroids or not? (yes or no answer)

Thanks for the debate.
kvaughan

Con

I'll answer your questions first

1. I think that players who we are not 100% sure used or who used when they were not illegal should be in the hall of fame. I also think that you must make exclusion from the hall part of the consequences before you do it.

2. I don't care if Clemens used and I don't know.

All I need to do to win this argument is to point out my first few arguments. They are strong and I do not need to do much more than I have already done.

Now, my opponent mentions that records set in this time are unfair. Let me remind you that mount height has changed, making strikeout records 'unfair', bat technology and knowledge of physiology has changed, making home run records unfair. Times change. We deal with it.

Good debate. Enjoyable
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
I dont care when the laws were put into effect; performance enhancing drugs boost your performance in a way that doesnt involve hard earned training, self-discipline and love for the game. In short, cheating is cheating.
Posted by aredcard4u 9 years ago
aredcard4u
"legal consequences must be stated ahead of time and should not increase in severity retroactively. Find me a single case in all of US law history that contradicts this." yep... that sums it up... victory to the negative.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"You are saying that if murder was legal, and someone went out and killed another person for no good reason, you would find it OK to let them walk even though they knew it was wrong? It's the same kind of philosophy."

If it were legal, you would have no grounds to arrest them, because no crime would have been committed. You can not punish someone AFTER the law is enacted.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
MLB has no say whatsoever on who gets into or doesn't get into the Hall of Fame. The HOF is a privately owned and operated museum that has nothing at all to do with MLB.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"McGuire, Bonds and Sosa indefinitely used steroids after the league made them illegal."

That's quite a feat since McGwire retired after the 2001 season and baseball didn't test for steroids prior to 2003 and didn't have a punishment system in place until 2005.

As for the other two, neither one ever failed a steroid test, hence you have no proof they used after baseball started punishing the use. It's quite likely they haven't.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"Third. Sure steroids weren't illegal until a certain point in baseball's history, and therefore we could make the rule apply to anything after that."

You just absolved Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa. I'm sure all three will be glad to hear you approve of them being elected into the Hall of Fame and let their records stand.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jmanstar 9 years ago
jmanstar
sccrplyr40kvaughanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
sccrplyr40kvaughanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
sccrplyr40kvaughanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by stevster 9 years ago
stevster
sccrplyr40kvaughanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by erkifish26 9 years ago
erkifish26
sccrplyr40kvaughanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by thegreatdebator 9 years ago
thegreatdebator
sccrplyr40kvaughanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by aredcard4u 9 years ago
aredcard4u
sccrplyr40kvaughanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by olympianfootball73 9 years ago
olympianfootball73
sccrplyr40kvaughanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sccrplyr40 9 years ago
sccrplyr40
sccrplyr40kvaughanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
sccrplyr40kvaughanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03