Few things I'd do differently.
1. I'd stress the financial aspect of taking steroids. How the cause of taking steroids isn't necessarily for personal satisfaction of success at the major leagues, but for money. You can turn this into a sort of treatise about human's priorities; personal wealth over integrity.
2. I'd discuss the long-term effects of steroid use. You can discuss how McGwire could have possibly played longer had he not used steroids. You can discuss Giambi's crash since his 'admittance'. Caminiti may be a stingy subject, since his recent death, so I wouldn't speculate about how it affected him in the long-term.
3. Parallels number 2. Although Congress has stepped in, which undoubtedly has led to most of the increase in steroid penalties in MLB, you could potentially argue that the downfalls of some of the leagues admitted steroid users has some sort of power in convincing Selig to endorse a new policy (like in good will).
4. If this isn't supposed to be a completely observational speech, I would outline both sides of a baseball fans' opinion on steroids. Discuss its deterence to the casual fan and how former baseball players, who were not on the juice, feel about it.
Overall, I think you just need to elaborate more on your topic and analyze what you have already outlined.
And, for the record, the sentence should read "Steroids may help the athlete hit the ball further", not 'farther'. Sorry, I'm some sort of perfectionist.
EDIT : I just re-read your post and I'm unsure about whether or not farther can be used in this instance. It certainly is more pleasing to hear 'further', at least in my opinion.