The Instigator
Double_R
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Shawn613
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Steroid users should be allowed in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Double_R
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,719 times Debate No: 17379
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

Double_R

Pro

Resolution: As Pro I will show why the National Baseball Hall of Fame should take a strong stance that Hall of Fame voters may not vote against a players induction into the hall of fame based solely on steroid use. Con must show why it is justified for steroid users to be denied a Hall of Fame vote.

Steroids: Includes all banned substances recognized as performance enhancing drugs. (Steroids just sounds so much more controversial)

National Hall of Fame: located at 25 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY 13326

http://baseballhall.org...

Challenger:
Please be serious. No semantics.

Rules:
Standard debate rules apply. Round 1 for acceptance only. No new arguments in round 4.

I wish my opponent good luck and look forward to a good debate.
Shawn613

Con

I accept your terms of debate. I wish you luck in expressing your opinions.
Debate Round No. 1
Double_R

Pro

Thanks to Con for accepting.

As my resolution made clear, I believe that a players history of use concerning performance enhancing drugs(PED’s) should not disqualify them from induction into the Hall of Fame which has been the case for many players so far. The following 5 contentions will outline my case.

1. PED’s have been around for over a century:

PED reports and allegations have nearly always been a part of baseball history. The first account of PED’s in baseball dates back to 1889, when a pitcher named Pud Galvin was widely known for his use of a substance called elixir which contained monkey testosterone(1). In the home run race of 1961 Mickey Mantle developed an abscess from an infected needle containing steroids and speed, also Hank Aaron admitted to once taking an amphetamine tablet during a game in his autobiography(2). Former pitcher Tom House admitted using steroids in the 60’s and 70’s when he played, estimating that about 6 or 7 pitchers per team were experimenting with some type of steroids or human growth hormone at that time(3). Even Babe Ruth has been said to have missed a game from falling ill by injecting himself with sheep’s testes(4). There are far more examples to list but I believe my point has been made clear. To suggest that this is a new phenomenon is simply wishful thinking.

2. There was no policy against PED’s until 2006:

One of the biggest reasons most people use to justify why steroid users should not be allowed in the Hall of Fame is because of the allegation that they are cheaters. However in order to be a cheater you must break the rules. Baseball did not officially ban PED’s until the spring of 2006 so although it may not be considered “right”, it does make a very tough allegation to justify denying a hall of fame vote(5).

3. Hall of Fame votes should be consistent:

While the Hall of Fame does have guidelines on how to vote, they are very vague and leave it up to the voters to interpret what criteria to use in making the decision. It has always been done this way but this is the first time in baseball history that there has been such controversy and differences in opinion on a particular criteria. This has made the process very unclear, unpredictable, and extremely biased. It is virtually unanimous that there should be a clear guideline on any topic as controversial as this one. My contention is that the only clear guideline is to establish that steroid users who have met all other criteria be voted in, as my next point will continue to illustrate.

4. There is no reasonable place to draw the line:

The ever lasting problem for those who decide that users should be denied induction, is that no matter what criteria is used to make the decision it will in one way or another, be an improperly biased vote. The only positive tests of any significance prior to enactment of MLB’s drug policy were in 2003 when 104 players tested positive for some type of PED. But there was a strict agreement between MLB and the players union that the players who tested positive remain anonymous. The list of these players is currently under a federal court seal(6).

Besides that there is little basis for decision beyond choosing to deny only admitted users, or to include highly suspected users. If you deny only admitted users then you are punishing players for coming out and telling the truth, while allowing players who obviously lied to get in. If you include highly suspected users then you will wind up denying a player’s induction on the basis of “a hunch” as it is nearly impossible to establish who was guilty of use.

There is also the concept of denying all players who played during the “steroid era”. My next point will go more into why this concept is unjust, but even if this argument is accepted then where would you draw the line? There is no way to determine exactly when this era began, and there is also the problem of the players who played part of their careers during this era. It seems pretty ridiculous to set a rule disqualifying any player who played X amount of years from 19XX to 2005 just for being active during these years.

5. Sanctity of the Hall of Fame:

I agree with the common argument that the Hall of Fame is “sacred grounds” and that allowing known or even highly suspected users into it, will ruin that sanctity. However the sanctity of the baseball Hall of Fame comes from the sanctity of baseball history. Controlling this problem was the responsibility of Major League Baseball and they failed in that responsibility by turning a blind eye to what was clearly going on. It is shameful that players had to play during a time when refusing to take PED’s would leave them at a disadvantage over their competition but like it or not, that is what happened. We can not deny our history, and the sanctity of the Hall of Fame can not escape the steroid era.

Conclusion:

We all wish that steroids were not a part of baseball history but there is nothing we can do to change the fact that it is, nor is there any way to accurately distinguish between who is guilty of using them and who was not. Because of this and the reality that these players were mostly a product of the era they played in, there is no reasonable justification for denying any player a place in the Hall of Fame based on the fact that they had admitted or were suspected of using steroids.


(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.nytimes.com...
(3) http://www.usatoday.com...
(4) http://www.thenation.com...
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(6) http://articles.nydailynews.com...

Shawn613

Con

Shawn613 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Double_R

Pro

Argument Extended.
Shawn613

Con

Oh sorry I missed the debate. My family is in town and I won't have time. My apologies to the Instigator.
Debate Round No. 3
Double_R

Pro

Con has obviously forfeited this debate and will be expected to do the same in his final round as he has not provided an argument for me to refute.
Shawn613

Con

lol did you really need to point out I forfeited?

I think you're taking too much pride in winning a debate that never really took place.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by deever 3 years ago
deever
Great debate. I don't think that steroid users should be allowed. Double R stated that it would be very diffcult for us to find out who took steroids. Well, just because it is hard doesn't mean we can't try.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
"I think you're taking too much pride in winning a debate that never really took place"

It took 10 seconds to type. You would be surprised the way some people vote when you fail to point out the obvious.
Posted by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
Great topic, I support allowing them in, but giving them an asterisk next to their name.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Interesting topic. Steroids probably dont help players in baseball as much as they would in basketball or football, but it would seem to increase a batter's striking distance, so who knows.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
To also clarify I am not talking about denying users after they were banned from baseball
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
"Does the level of usage matter?"

No
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Does the level of usage matter?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
Double_RShawn613Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's only counterargument was that his "family was in town". Where he keeps his family and/or families should have no place in a civil debate.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Double_RShawn613Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and no argument.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
Double_RShawn613Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: blah blah blah
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Double_RShawn613Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Insert RFD here.