Legalizing Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Major League Sports
This persuasive speech argues that the ban on performance-enhancing drugs in major league sports is counterproductive and potentially more dangerous than regulated use. Drawing on comparisons to alcohol and tobacco — both legal despite documented health risks — the speaker contends that prohibition pushes drug use underground, discourages disclosure to medical professionals, and creates greater long-term harm for athletes. Rather than calling for an immediate lifting of the ban, the speech advocates for the development of clear regulatory policies and oversight mechanisms before permitting controlled use, so that athletes can receive proper guidance and medical support.
- Introduction: The Hidden Problem: Introduces PED use in major league sports
- The Case Against the Ban: Argues ban hides use and prevents oversight
- Prohibition Drives Use Underground: Historical precedent shows prohibition backfires
- A Regulated Alternative to Prohibition: Proposes regulated legalization with clear rules
- Conclusion: Toward a Managed Approach: Calls for policy framework before lifting ban
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The speech opens with a memorable proverb ("Vice seen is better than vice unseen") and returns to it throughout, giving the argument a cohesive rhetorical anchor.
- The analogy to alcohol and tobacco is well-deployed: it forces the audience to confront an inconsistency in how society regulates substances, making the argument feel grounded rather than extreme.
- The speaker wisely moderates the conclusion — not demanding an immediate ban repeal, but calling for a regulatory framework first — which increases the persuasive credibility of the position.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This speech demonstrates the use of analogy as a persuasive device. By aligning performance-enhancing drugs with legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco, the speaker undermines the moral and legal exceptionalism applied to PEDs without denying their risks. The technique is effective because it redirects the debate from "are these drugs harmful?" to "why are harmful substances treated differently?" — a harder question for opponents to answer.
Structure breakdown
The speech follows a classic problem-solution structure: it opens by identifying the issue, presents the counterargument (health risks, unfair advantage), dismantles it through analogy and historical precedent, and closes with a policy recommendation. Each section builds on the previous one, maintaining a clear argumentative through-line appropriate for a live audience.
Introduction: The Hidden Problem
Good day, ladies and gentlemen! There is a saying that goes, "Vice seen is better than vice unseen." I mention this to frame a problem we have long faced in major league sports: the use of performance-enhancing drugs — "such as anabolic steroids, androstenedione, human growth hormone, erythropoietin, diuretics, creatine, and stimulants" (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2010). The problem is not new and has persisted because of the gravity of the situation. There is no shortage of cases and statistics documenting how many major league players have been caught using these banned and illegal substances. But the central question I raise is this: why are these drugs not allowed?
Those who oppose the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs argue that athletes who use them are breaking the rules and gaining an unfair advantage over others (Katz, 2008). In addition, the use of these drugs poses major health risks, and there are documented long-term and irreversible side effects. That is true — but so does alcohol and tobacco, and yet those substances are entirely legal and have proven to be significant sources of tax revenue for governments.
The Case Against the Ban
I believe that all the hysteria surrounding performance-enhancing drug use should be reconsidered and the ban repealed. My reasoning is straightforward: I would rather know that athletes are using these substances so that their usage can be better monitored and controlled. Because these drugs are illegal, athletes have been concealing their use and, as a result, often do not realize they are consuming doses that far exceed what their bodies can safely handle.
Consider the parallel with alcohol and tobacco. People who use those substances do so openly, and those around them are aware. They can be advised, counseled, and offered help to ensure that consumption is managed properly — or given assistance if they wish to stop. This is precisely what I mean by "vice seen." Right now, athletes are hiding a dangerous habit, and by the time serious problems emerge, it may already be too late to help them.
Prohibition Drives Use Underground
To further the argument about the dangers of "vice unseen," history has already demonstrated that "government bans on consensual activity — from alcohol to gambling to cocaine to prostitution — prohibitions not only do not work, they make the activity in question more dangerous by pushing it underground" (Balko, 2008). Indeed, an underground network already supplies performance-enhancing drugs to major league athletes, and there have been cases of athletes who became seriously ill or even died after taking tainted performance-enhancing substances.
Another damaging consequence of the ban is the barrier it creates between the athlete and their physician. An athlete using banned substances is highly unlikely to disclose that use to a doctor, preventing proper medical oversight. A negative chain reaction follows: one problem continually leads to another, and the prohibition itself becomes a driver of harm rather than a safeguard against it.
Conclusion: Toward a Managed Approach
To be clear, I am not calling for the ban to be lifted immediately. Rather, I am arguing that "cut-and-dried" policies and regulations must first be put in place — clear rules of engagement — before permitting the legal and supervised use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. The status quo is not working. Prohibition has not eliminated use; it has only hidden it and made it more dangerous. A transparent, regulated approach offers a more honest and ultimately safer path forward for athletes, sports organizations, and the public. Thank you very much.
References
Balko, R. (2008, January 23). Should we allow performance enhancing drugs in sports? One argument in favor. Reason Magazine. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/23/should-we-allow-performance-en
Katz, J. (2008, January 23). Should we accept steroid use in sports? NPR. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18299098
Mayo Clinic Staff. (2010, November 5). Performance-enhancing drugs: Know the risks. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.