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.
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.
I believe that all the hysteria surrounding performance-enhancing drug use should be reconsidered and the ban repealed.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.
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.
"Proposes regulated legalization with clear rules"
The key is the development of sound policy before any change is implemented. Allowing these substances without a robust regulatory structure in place would be irresponsible. What is needed is a clear set of rules — defined parameters governing dosage, medical supervision, and eligibility — before any form of legalization is introduced. Once a rigorous framework is established, the system can be implemented with the proper controls in place to protect athletes' health and the integrity of sport.
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.
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
You’re 87% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.