The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Should the list of 103 MLB players who tested positive for steroids in 2003 be made public

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,334 times Debate No: 8923
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




In 2003 Major League Baseball conducted a survey to see how many players took steroids if enough players did than they would start a drug testing policy. 103 players tested positive but they were told that they would not be punished and their names would not be announced publicly (2 players names were leaked Alex Rodriguez and Sammy Sosa), but now people want to hear those names.

I don't think their names should be made public simply because they were told they wouldn't when they participated in the survey.


Yes, their names SHOULD be made public, and they should get in trouble for it.

Before they were told they wouldn't be made public, their was a rule set into place that says you aren't allowed to take place in playing in the MLB if you're on steriods. Because that rule was set into place before they were told this... they had authority to say that. This said, it should be overseen that they weren't going to be revealed. Better yet, it doesn't matter.

If a policeman says, "Come here, let me scan your fingerprints. We've had many break-ins and just need more fingerprints to go into the data-base for future purposes. You're not in trouble." But then they scan you and find out your prints match up with a previous break-in and arrest you, oh well.

The conclusion shouldn't be, "Oh, but you said you wouldn't tell." It should be, "Oh, well, don't take drugs." Not only are steroids against MLB rules, they're against the law. If you don't want to get in trouble, don't take steroids. Simple as that.
Debate Round No. 1


cbass28 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


cbass28 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


cbass28 forfeited this round.


Fun posting
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by C-Mach 7 years ago
There are congressional hearings about baseball players using steroids. It has been the be all and end all, something it shouldn't be.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
<"Seriously: WHO... THE HELL... CARES?!?!?!">

Plenty of people -- many baseball fans, I'd imagine, care very much.
Posted by C-Mach 7 years ago
Seriously: WHO... THE HELL... CARES?!?!?!
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
Rob, the main concern I'm seeing is the horrible side-effects of PEDs. Forcing everybody to torture their life to play baseball is a bit off.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
I'm a little torn over the pro-sports steroid thing. Like the Ultimate Warrior said in his Hannity interview, none of us can relate to what it's like to be an elite athlete and to perform at that level. If there was a pill one of us could take to be better debaters, better at our career etc. who could say we wouldn't take it? On the other hand those athletes made a concious choice to be in the lime-light, and they have an indirect role as role model to the youth of the nation. Also, how can a non-using athlete stay clean and still compete? Changing hands one more time, none of us can predict what performance enhancing abilities we will have in the future. Most likely we will all end up as cybernetic at some point anyway (I believe there is no way we will be able to avoid enhancing ourselves in the future, whether it be electronic, chemical, or biological), so maybe we should be looking forward and trying to incorporate artificial enhancements in the best way possible instead of just trying to ban everything we are scared of.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
Don't make it public, because we're just getting too worked up over a non-issue.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
Same here.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
Agree with person below.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
I think they SHOULD be made public.

But if they were told they wouldn't then that must be upheld.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by snelld7 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07