The Instigator
betinap
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rikomalpense
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
rikomalpense
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 926 times Debate No: 66908
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

betinap

Con

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. .
rikomalpense

Pro

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...
Debate Round No. 1
betinap

Con

betinap forfeited this round.
rikomalpense

Pro

I have no other arguments at the moment, and thus will wait until my opponent provides rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
betinap

Con

betinap forfeited this round.
rikomalpense

Pro

I now assume that Con has conceded all my points, as they have forfeited two times in a row.
Debate Round No. 3
betinap

Con

betinap forfeited this round.
rikomalpense

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 4
betinap

Con

betinap forfeited this round.
rikomalpense

Pro

I'm sad, Con. I'm so sad. I believed in you. I believed in you so hard. But you let me down.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Hybrid_Chaos 2 years ago
Hybrid_Chaos
Clearly the person against this topic, then you get a win, doing it is wrong and thats about it
Posted by Harold_Lloyd 2 years ago
Harold_Lloyd
How about an 'unlimited' class of athlete, with their own leagues, etc.
And no limits on what they do to their bodies to become more competitive.

Existing organizations would be labeled as 'natural', and no performance enhancing medical techniques would be allowed.
Posted by intellectuallyprimitive 2 years ago
intellectuallyprimitive
Steroids are not a form of cheating. Cheating pertains to violating or exploiting given rules or stipulations of any respective sport. Steroids are exactly what the formal title is, performance enhancements.
Posted by intellectuallyprimitive 2 years ago
intellectuallyprimitive
I may accept, but I want to review the first round before I do. Also, on a s side note, it should either be that everyone uses or no one uses, to level the playing field, pun intended.
Posted by intellectuallyprimitive 2 years ago
intellectuallyprimitive
Lance Armstrong by far was not the only performance user. He was prominent so his investigation was prioritized.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
betinaprikomalpenseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited nearly the entire debate. This is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to provide any rebuttals to Pro's remaining arguments. Due to Pro remaining unchallenged, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Both utilized sources properly, neither lacked quality. Clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
betinaprikomalpenseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
betinaprikomalpenseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
betinaprikomalpenseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture