The pro side is for keeping the records. I am siding with this side. They believe most of all that steroids don't actually make a difference. While they do add muscle, they do not help a hitter hit the ball any better and may actually slow down a hitter. They also believe that there has always been cheating in baseball, and there has also never been anything done about it. Why should we keep the records of cheaters from earlier, but penalize these players? Whether it be bats, helmets, or steroids the precedent is set. Also, doing things to better yourself in today's society is normal. Society thinks it's okay to get plastic surgery, take vitamins, and cheat in other areas of society. So why is it not okay with baseball players? Also, even though there was a surge in homerun records of the 90's and a surge in steroid use the two are not directly related. The surge in home runs is most likely due to smaller ball parks and hitter -friendly strike zones. Furthermore, performance enhancing drugs like HGH were not banned by MLB, when most people used them, only steroids were banned. Most people who are for keeping the records also believe that there is no way to tell how many people used performance enhancing drugs, or when , and we will never be able to tell. Because of this they believe that MLB should move on set new rules and make the consequences clear, but leave the past to the past.
The cons have a viable argument as well. But, I still feel pros are right. The main argument for cons is the message it sends to younger players. Performance enhancing drugs have become a major issue in all sports and on all levels. They believe the use by professional athletes and the acceptance of it, is a bad example for young players. Simply put: they aren't being good role models. The cons also believe that the use is unfair to other players who played clean. ( But the pros counteract it by saying there is no way to know who did what, also older records and "cheaters" were allowed to keep their records). Furthermore, the side effects of steroids and performance enhancing drugs are not completely known. But, it has been declared that they have the potential to be very harmful, if not physically, mentally. But most importantly, steroids are and were banned in major league baseball.
I chose to side with the pro side for mainly two reasons. The first is I believe that the records should be kept. I believe what happened happened; there's no way to know who did what when. I believe MLB should keep the records, set new rules, and move on. It would be the best for baseball. My second reason is I believe the con argument while valid is repetitive and not as strong as the pro. While sending a bad message ( drug use), this can be overcome by moving on with new precedents.
1 comment:
I like you idea a lot, though I'm not sure that I agree completely. I think you're right in saying that records of past users should be kept, but I don't necessarily think that the past should be left to the past, particularly because that alone is not going to stop the problem. What kind of ways do you think MLB should prevent the use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs?
I agree with what Molly said earlier about developing the con side further, but I don't really know so much about the topic, so I'd be interested to hear more about what you've found.
Post a Comment