Rebuttal Essay – Marty Bell

A Greater Upside

The use of anabolic steroids has become a topic often talked about in major league baseball. Steroids have ultimately advanced the abilities of the players and quality of baseball for the fans.Many critcs say that the use of steroids in baseball is cheating and hurts the sport’s popularity. Another opinion of critics is that steroids are too harmful to be allowed in baseball. The reasons these arguments are wrong have piled up over the years.

The argument that using anabolic steroids in baseball is easily proven wrong. If using steroids in baseball was no longer illegal than it would not be cheating anymore. Although, some critics would say that even if it was legal it is still cheating and would take fans away from the sport. But, is evening the playing field really cheating. According to Canseco, up to 85% of MLB players currently playing today are using performance-enhancing drugs (“Why the Use of Steroids Is Bad for Baseball “). This is coming from someone who was in the locker rooms of major league baseball for many years. The fact that so many people around the league use steroids make it necessary to allow everyone in the league to have the opportunity to enhance their performance the same way. If those who obey the rules had the chance to take steroids like most of the players already do it would allow the players with greater natural talent to shine and become the stars they should be (“Why Baseball Players Take Steroids”). There is an immense pressure to use performance enhancing drugs in baseball (“Why the Use of Steroids is Bad for Baseball”). This means that allowing anabolic steroids in major league baseball is actually the way to get rid of cheating and even the playing field for all the athletes.

It is known that anabolic steroids have negative effects that go along with its positive effects. Critics say that they are far too dangerous to be allowed in professional baseball. Long-term anabolic steroid use may weaken the heart more than previously thought and may increase the risk of heart failure, according to research reported in Circulation: Heart Failure, an American Heart Association journal (“Long-term Anabolic Steroid Use”). It is also associated to mood swings. This is referred to as “roid rage”. These are some reasons that steroids is illegal. Some players around the league do not want to take the risk and use anabolic steroids.

It is true that steroids can be harmful to abusers but that should not be enough to make them illegal. If everything that could cause harm to users who abuse the product was banned then there would be more things banned than not. Major league baseball athletes are mature adults and have the capabilities to make their own decisions. If they decide to take steroids it should be their choice. It would be the same if they decided to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or use chewing tobacco. The negative effects of all these substances are severe but they are not illegal so anabolic steroids should be no different.

Anabolic steroids have health benefits that go along with its side effects. Men who suffer from low testosterone will benefit from steroid use and the increase fertility (“Steroids Health Benefits”). When someone has too little estrogen in the body it can cause bone loss. Steroids increase estrogen which will help prevent bone loss. Estrogen therapy has been proven to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease (“Steroids Health Benefits”). This means that steroids can help reduce the risk of cancer or heart disease. Steroid use also helps reduce blood pressure and bad cholesterol. Having all these benefits should be enough to prove people who say they are harmful wrong. Compared to most of the substances that are legal steroids are no where near as bad. Anabolic steroids bring numerous benefits and help professional baseball much more than it hurts professional baseball.

The critics of steroids have many arguments to why they should stay out of baseball. The two strongest points are that it is cheating and hurts baseballs popularity and they are harmful to users. The critics do not see all the positives that come from steroids and how their arguments can be proven wrong or not as strong as they believe. They need to realize that anabolic steroids are being used all around the league and would help the sport even more if they were allowed to be used without punishment.

 Works Cited

Long-term Anabolic Steroid Use.” Escience News. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.

Why the Use of Steroids Is Bad for Baseball.” Cheap Red Sox Tickets. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.

Shaw, Russell. “Why Baseball Players Take Steroids.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Mar. 2008. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.

Steroids Health Benefits.” IHealth Directory. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.

This entry was posted in x Rebuttal Essay. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Rebuttal Essay – Marty Bell

  1. langer278 says:

    You make the comments of how steroid use can help prevent bone loss and fight cancer. You use the talk about increase of estrogen to back that up, but where is the proof that the steroids helped decrease their chances of cancer compared to some one who didn’t. You have no evidence on the subject just assumptions. There could be other reasons for the cause of the cancer to the person. The steroids also hurt the heart which could cause different health issues and risks to the person. We stop drugs that are a huge risk to our health and ban them, so doesn’t it make sense to do the same with steroids. Otherwise shouldn’t every drug be allowed for use no matter what the cost. I think you should also look at the perception people hve of steroid use and how this may affect people on voting for certain players into the hall of fame. There should be some evidence on this in players that have used and admitted to it after retiring and how their voting for the hall of fame has been affected. Maybe someone that had great numbers isn’t put in because voters feel they don’t deserve to be in the hall of fame because of steroid use whether it is legal or not. Looking into this argument for not using them could also be a good part of your topic. That’s all I have to say on the matter respond back to me mart.

    • davidbdale says:

      I think your point about the health risks is more persuasive than the one about players worrying about their Hall of Fame eligibility, Brett, but you could use that controversy as evidence that there’s widespread disfavor among fans (and the writers who do the HOF voting) for use of performance enhancers. What fans want may not be the best reason to make a health-related policy decision, but it’s certainly one the sport takes seriously.

  2. davidbdale says:

    Be sure to have someone carefully read your essays before you move them into your portfolio, Marty. Things like this should never appear in your final work: The argument that using anabolic steroids in baseball is easily proven wrong. I know it’s just an oversight, but leaving the verb out of your sentence makes you sound a lot less credible than you want to.

    Also, you quote material that is very outdated for the current state of this conversation. Canseco’s (you really should identify him as Jose Canseco the first time you mention his name) quote from 2007 is completely irrelevant today, don’t you think? Now, if you were doing research to prove that despite random drug testing and close scrutiny of athlete behavior, 85% of ball players in 2012 are taking steroids, that would be relevant!

    The Definition essay was pretty early in the game, Marty, but still, your sources are very thin and popular. Is there any academic sourcing and research here at all? The Red Sox Ticket guy is not exactly peer-reviewed. And instead of trusting E! Science News to accurately summarize the Heart Association study, you could at least have followed that lead back to the original study and used it as your source. Russell Shaw’s Huffpost blog article is even older, 2005, (and older than your citation says it is). Has the conversation not progressed at all since 2005? Is the pressure on young Dominicans to use the same now as it was then?

    The analogy to cigarettes and alcohol is pretty weak, Marty, unless nicotine were a performance-enhancer. Pressure to not use something harmful is not sufficiently the same as pressure to use something harmful.

    Fails for grammar at least a couple of times, Rules 7 and 8. There may be others.

    This is not logical: Having all these benefits should be enough to prove people who say they are harmful wrong. Also, the fact that “estrogen therapy,” to take an example, has a positive health benefit, does not mean that juicing for competition is “estrogen therapy.” Finally: I could just as easily say drinking to excess lowers the blood pressure for those with high blood pressure, without proving that hypertensive kids should immediately take up drinking.

    Grade Recorded.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s