Before I present my argument, I would like to clarify that my advocation for this argument was assigned to me and does not necessarily reflect on my personal beliefs or views. My claim is that performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports because it enhances the competitive aspect in both individual athletes and the general sport in which they professionally participate in. According to the National Library of Medicine, athletes that took PEDs experienced an increase in muscle size, strength, agility, and fat-free mass indexes in comparison to non-using athletes. Additionally, this same source reports that most side-effects of PEDs only subtly alter physical appearance and do not measurably downgrade physical health. This evidence demonstrates that PEDs offer a positive trade-off to enhance the physical competitiveness of a sport and the athletes within it which is a significant deciding factor in the appeal and popularity of a sport.

While you provide a valuable point that the competitiveness introduced by performance-enhancing drugs questions the personal freedoms of athletes, you say "Once one athlete starts using, everyone else has to just stay to competitive" which doesn't prove that PEDs disrupt the sport or athletes; facing an increase in competition and the need for adaptation is inherent in professional sports and does not negatively impact athletes or the sport in which they participate in. While it is true that risky combinations may carry risks without careful consideration from teams, a reasonable approach would be to allow PEDs and add regulations that prevent the usage of PEDs not yet approved by the sport's governing body instead of banning PEDs altogether. Young athletes wouldn't have to change their perspective on succeeding because PEDs wouldn't be available to the youth. Introducing PEDs doesn't imply that it has to be more influential on the sport than training and tactics, that's an assumption you made without substantiating your argument with relevant and concrete evidence. You didn't make any objective or definitive progress towards disproving my argument.

Using the argument that rich teams with the financial advantage would have more access isn't a valid argument towards disproving that PEDs should be allowed because this is already a problem in modern sports and it always has been. Rich teams have always had more access to better players, better coaches, better stadiums, etc. You can't state that PEDs introduce a problem that already exists. As I stated in my previous rebuttal, the governing body of the sport can set standards and regulations for PED usage to ensure controlled and moderate use of PEDs. You (once again) assume that PEDs would be the deciding factor in games without backing it up with evidence, you're effectively ignoring the tactics and training that teams already do and assuming that PEDs would be the winning factor over everything else.