PDA

View Full Version : Baseball/'Roids...Really any worse than the rest of the sports world?



Pages : [1] 2

ChrisLDuncan
10-23-2006, 03:57 PM
Today San Diego Chargers LB Sean Merriman was caught roiding up, last season he was the defensive RoY and made the Pro Bowl (All-Star game for those of you who don't watch football), the media covered it but it wasn't that big. For example on PTI it wasn't even the front story (the WS was...but still), it didn't even get it's own segment they just briefly mentioned it when they were talking about the Chargers. I guess my point is that one of the bright young stars of the NFL was caught using roids and most people seem to kind of blow it off, imagine if Albert Pujols were to be caught roiding. Imagine if he tested negative for steroids. It would no doubt be the front page sports story, but in the NFL (the most popular sport haveyou) it's not even mentioned. I just think that this is horrible and that baseball is unfairly judged.

W_Marone
10-23-2006, 04:10 PM
thats why one of my seahawks, Lofa Tatupu should have been ROY last year baby.

Ubiquitous
10-23-2006, 04:31 PM
It isn't the media that decides what is an issue and what isn't. It us the fans that decide what is and isn't. We as fans have a very very long history of not caring how and what football players do to get an edge or play. We don't care if they kill each other, or stuff themselves full of pills to do it. But Baseball has history, baseball has romance, and all that other jazz. We view it as an institution therefore it must be pure. Whereas football is an entertainment and we must be entertained.

W_Marone
10-23-2006, 04:35 PM
thats the problem with football and basketball, full of thugs, everyone thinks they can get away with anything they want to, basketball more than football though. I'm not meaning this as black people, just football or basketball players in general.

racosun
10-23-2006, 05:17 PM
Today San Diego Chargers LB Sean Merriman was caught roiding up, last season he was the defensive RoY and made the Pro Bowl (All-Star game for those of you who don't watch football), the media covered it but it wasn't that big. For example on PTI it wasn't even the front story (the WS was...but still), it didn't even get it's own segment they just briefly mentioned it when they were talking about the Chargers. I guess my point is that one of the bright young stars of the NFL was caught using roids and most people seem to kind of blow it off, imagine if Albert Pujols were to be caught roiding. Imagine if he tested negative for steroids. It would no doubt be the front page sports story, but in the NFL (the most popular sport haveyou) it's not even mentioned. I just think that this is horrible and that baseball is unfairly judged.

I agree. Shouldn't it be that 'roids are 'roids no matter what the sport is? I'm guessing that when people hear the word "steroids" they think of Barry Bonds first. Steroid abuse is certainly front and center in the sports world, but it's magnified even more in baseball because of the Senate hearings and all the other stories involving baseball and it's players. Baseball and steroids, if not yet married, are definitely engaged. Wait until the World Series is over, and you'll see the government step up it's attack on Bonds and his pursuit of the home run record, and that'll be the only thing you'll read about baseball until a major FA signing or ST starts. Unfair, but true.

hubkittel
10-23-2006, 05:35 PM
It isn't the media that decides what is an issue and what isn't. It us the fans that decide what is and isn't. We as fans have a very very long history of not caring how and what football players do to get an edge or play. We don't care if they kill each other, or stuff themselves full of pills to do it. But Baseball has history, baseball has romance, and all that other jazz. We view it as an institution therefore it must be pure. Whereas football is an entertainment and we must be entertained.

i understand the point you're making and to a certain extent i agree. however, i disagree with your point about the media's ability to drive the agenda of the nation.

one example of their ability to do this is somolia and rwanda. in the 90's, the us put troops into somolia to try and quell a humanitarian crisis largely because of the media attention that the crisis received. the genocide in rwanda was largely under reported until after the height of the crisis, therefore it never became an issue that the us govt had to deal with. the same is true with dufar today-if the media focused on it and drove home the genocide that is happening there, it would become a huge issue and our govt would be forced to respond.

if the media wanted to make an issue out of ped usage in football, they could. if they gave as much ink to the issue as they do to bonds, mcgwire, sosa, palmerio, giambi, et al, what do you think would happen?

the media loves to attack institutions. i think it's a mentality installed in a generation of journalists that came of age after vietnam/watergate. they habitually attack institutions such as the presidency (nixon, regan, clinton, bush), the catholic church (priest scandels, the roll of women in the church, their stance on abortion, contraception, etc), and baseball (steroids, ratings, labor relations). it's in their nature to view large institutions with scepticism and to look for flaws.

that being said, i still really don't understand why football gets a pass on the ped issue. there is more than enough recent evidence to suggest that their drug testing regime isn't working (romonowski, the panthers, this most recent thing). maybe it's because there is such a long history of ped use in football-it's a nonissue because it's an old issue. or maybe it's because all they ever catch are def and off linemen-if they caught a skill position player then i think all heck would break lose. but football is as big-if not bigger-institution in this country as baseball and so i think it's only a matter of time before the media really jumps on this with both feet.

but i don't think disintrest among fans plays much of a part in this. baseball fans-based on the number of people attending games, watching on tv, listening on the radio, buying merchandise-in general don't really seem to care about the steroid thing. i think in large part they're just ambivalent to it.

hubkittel
10-23-2006, 05:42 PM
Wait until the World Series is over, and you'll see the government step up it's attack on Bonds and his pursuit of the home run record, and that'll be the only thing you'll read about baseball until a major FA signing or ST starts. Unfair, but true.

i guarantee you that this going to happen. especially if the dems take control of one or both houses of congress (im not bashing the dems; i'm just saying if a new party controls congress, you'll have new commitee chairmen, and they'll want to take a crack at the issue, get their face on tv, etc). but it won't happen until after the new congress takes it's seat next year. you can bet the farm on it happening sometime in late march, early april. hmmm, what else happens at that time next year? congressional subpoenas for everybody just in time for opening day!

Ubiquitous
10-23-2006, 05:48 PM
The media focuses on issues they think will be popular issues. Now perhaps this is a bit of a chicken or the egg type debate or perhaps once wishes to view the media as a bunch Hearst's running around but those are debates that would be very hard to have in this forum.


The media didn't create the outrage to steroids in baseball. We created that we reacted to that news in a way that caused steroids to be a huge issue in baseball. We bought the newspapers, we called into the radio, we watched it on the TV. We also created the non-issue of steroid use in football. The media reports it, it is up to us to react to it.

ESPNFan
10-23-2006, 05:59 PM
Uh the difference here is that The NFL has had a testing policy since the late 80's and has not been afraid/unwilling/indifferent about suspending top players for their infractions, when new substances become known retesting old tests for said substances and reworking the CBA/substance abuse policy to address problems like HGH without having congress drag them in and scold them like disobediant children. They are proactive and aggressive in their policy and suspending Shawn Merriman just shows that even the next heir apparent to LT is still not above the law.

Baseball let it's problem get out of control and is reaping the media harvest from what its sewn with years of ignorance and non-action.

hubkittel
10-23-2006, 06:14 PM
Now perhaps this is a bit of a chicken or the egg type debate

The media didn't create the outrage to steroids in baseball.

i respect what you're saying. it's logical and makes sense. but i still don't really agree with it. :laugh i think you're right about the chicken and egg thing though. does the media create public opinion or does it report it? in all honesty, it's probably a little of both.

while it's true that the media didn't create the steroids in baseball issue, they have given it an extraordinary amount of ink (for lack of a better word in a digital age). for some reason (those that i touched on in my first post), the media has focused on ped use in baseball rather than ped use in other sports such as football, track and field, and cycling. all of those sports have as much ped use, if not more, than does baseball. but barry bonds is the face of steroids.

i think it is possible that the issue is too large and complicated for the modern media. it's not explainable in sound bites or 30 second segments on news channels. to do justice to the entire issue of ped in modern sports would require a week long series of articles in a newspaper-and who's willing to do that and who's really going to read it?

in the end, i think this issue really comes down to star power. everybody knows who barry bonds and mark mcgwire are. not too many average sports fans can tell you who shawne merriman or floyd landis or c.j. hunter is. if they ever catch tom brady or peyton manning doing peds then football will have a serious pr nightmare on their hands, equaling the one that baseball is currantly dealing with now.

ChrisLDuncan
10-23-2006, 06:16 PM
Uh the difference here is that The NFL has had a testing policy since the late 80's and has not been afraid/unwilling/indifferent about suspending top players for their infractions, when new substances become known retesting old tests for said substances and reworking the CBA/substance abuse policy to address problems like HGH without having congress drag them in and scold them like disobediant children. They are proactive and aggressive in their policy and suspending Shawn Merriman just shows that even the next heir apparent to LT is still not above the law.

Baseball let it's problem get out of control and is reaping the media harvest from what its sewn with years of ignorance and non-action.

Well there are several things wrong with that statement, first off the NFL does have a policy but that's just a figurehead...it doesn't really for anything and there are numerous ways to get around the tests. Look at half of these players do you think that just Merriman is the only player roiding in the NFL? You think that AJ Hawk's forehead is that out of proprtion with his head? Second Merriman is not the heir apparent to LT, plus LT got away with what ever he wanted he did blow and crank before games.

ChrisLDuncan
10-23-2006, 06:20 PM
in the end, i think this issue really comes down to star power. everybody knows who barry bonds and mark mcgwire are. not too many average sports fans can tell you who shawne merriman or floyd landis or c.j. hunter is. if they ever catch tom brady or peyton manning doing peds then football will have a serious pr nightmare on their hands, equaling the one that baseball is currantly dealing with now.


You can add Marion Jones and her husband to that list. Bonds wasn't HUGE untill the roids thing, but than again baseball is VERY under the radar.

Ubiquitous
10-23-2006, 06:22 PM
Uh the difference here is that The NFL has had a testing policy since the late 80's and has not been afraid/unwilling/indifferent about suspending top players for their infractions, when new substances become known retesting old tests for said substances and reworking the CBA/substance abuse policy to address problems like HGH without having congress drag them in and scold them like disobediant children. They are proactive and aggressive in their policy and suspending Shawn Merriman just shows that even the next heir apparent to LT is still not above the law.

Baseball let it's problem get out of control and is reaping the media harvest from what its sewn with years of ignorance and non-action.


Yes the NFL has a nice window dressing that cause people to go ooh and aah and then go back to cheering their roided up gladiators.

Shawn got caught and he got punished. That will show him, next time he will do a better job of concealing it. NFL players are drugged, and whatever system the NFL has isn't working to keep them from being drugged. What it is doing is keeping the government of their backs and the fans going ooh and aah. So in that regard it is a great policy. But in terms of actually curbing drug use, it has failed miserably.

hubkittel
10-23-2006, 06:24 PM
Uh the difference here is that The NFL has had a testing policy since the late 80's and has not been afraid/unwilling/indifferent about suspending top players for their infractions

do you believe that the nfl has a bigger or smaller ped problem than mlb? do you think a higher % of nfl players or baseball players use peds? i know we don't have the evidence but if i had to guess, i would say that football, even with a drug testing regime in place for a generation, has a bigger problem with ped than does baseball. if that's true, why isn't football getting dragged through the mud in the way that baseball is? if that's true, doesn't it mean that their testing program isn't effective?

yes, it's true that baseball is reaping what it has sown but football, going back at least to the 50's, has had a serious drug problem. it took them 30 years to begin to address it and with the recent news about the panthers and merrimen, it doesn't look like they have a very good handle on it.

hubkittel
10-23-2006, 06:27 PM
You can add Marion Jones and her husband to that list. Bonds wasn't HUGE untill the roids thing, but than again baseball is VERY under the radar.

my point is proved! :laugh c.j. hunter was marion jones' husband. sorry chris. or are you talking about her "partner" tim montgomery?

edit: i didn't mention marion jones because i figured everybody knew who she is. she's too good looking to forget or ignore. :cool:

ChrisLDuncan
10-23-2006, 06:40 PM
my point is proved! :laugh c.j. hunter was marion jones' husband. sorry chris. or are you talking about her "partner" tim montgomery?

edit: i didn't mention marion jones because i figured everybody knew who she is. she's too good looking to forget or ignore. :cool:

Who's that next fastest man in the world? He just got caught and I forgot his name, and yes I was thinking of Tim Montgomery.

ESPNFan
10-23-2006, 06:56 PM
Well there are several things wrong with that statement, first off the NFL does have a policy but that's just a figurehead...it doesn't really for anything and there are numerous ways to get around the tests. Look at half of these players do you think that just Merriman is the only player roiding in the NFL? You think that AJ Hawk's forehead is that out of proprtion with his head? Second Merriman is not the heir apparent to LT, plus LT got away with what ever he wanted he did blow and crank before games.

If you want to think the NFL does nothing ask the players who got caught up in the Balco scandal about it. Ask Dexter Manly about it, ask Onterrio Smith, ask Rickey Williams, ask Travis Henry, ask Koren Robinson, Ask Chris Henry or Odel Thurman, ask Todd Sauerbrun. Also Merriman is one of three players who were caught this past couple of weeks. And if you knew what you were talkign about you would know that LT was suspended for drug infractions. Its also evident that you are not aware that the NFL has different standards for punishing recreational drugs and PED's. PED's mandate an instant 4 game suspension where as substances of abuse require entering a rehab program on the first test and a 4 game suspension on a subsequent positive test.

And if its just a figurehead as you assert why are they catching players?

I never said that the NFL doesn't have a drug problem, it does just like any sport. But unlike baseball the NFL hasn't spent the last 10-15 years dragging it's feet and counting money while pretending that it didn't exsist.

ESPNFan
10-23-2006, 06:56 PM
Who's that next fastest man in the world? He just got caught and I forgot his name, and yes I was thinking of Tim Montgomery.

Justin Gatling.

ESPNFan
10-23-2006, 06:58 PM
Yes the NFL has a nice window dressing that cause people to go ooh and aah and then go back to cheering their roided up gladiators.

Shawn got caught and he got punished. That will show him, next time he will do a better job of concealing it. NFL players are drugged, and whatever system the NFL has isn't working to keep them from being drugged. What it is doing is keeping the government of their backs and the fans going ooh and aah. So in that regard it is a great policy. But in terms of actually curbing drug use, it has failed miserably.

So if Fottball has "failed miserably" what is your opinion of the MLB? :noidea

ChrisLDuncan
10-23-2006, 07:01 PM
I mean the story is at the bottom of the front page on the football section of ESPN.com
http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/nfl/index?lpos=globalnav&lid=gn_NFL_NFL

If this was baseball, it would be on ESPN.com's front page not just the baseball part.

ChrisLDuncan
10-23-2006, 07:01 PM
Justin Gatling.

Didn't he get caught too?

ChrisLDuncan
10-23-2006, 07:03 PM
If you want to think the NFL does nothing ask the players who got caught up in the Balco scandal about it. Ask Dexter Manly about it, ask Onterrio Smith, ask Rickey Williams, ask Travis Henry, ask Koren Robinson, Ask Chris Henry or Odel Thurman, ask Todd Sauerbrun. Also Merriman is one of three players who were caught this past couple of weeks. And if you knew what you were talkign about you would know that LT was suspended for drug infractions. Its also evident that you are not aware that the NFL has different standards for punishing recreational drugs and PED's. PED's mandate an instant 4 game suspension where as substances of abuse require entering a rehab program on the first test and a 4 game suspension on a subsequent positive test.

And if its just a figurehead as you assert why are they catching players?

I never said that the NFL doesn't have a drug problem, it does just like any sport. But unlike baseball the NFL hasn't spent the last 10-15 years dragging it's feet and counting money while pretending that it didn't exsist.

Those were drug/dui/other arrests. Plus Sauerbrun was still an all-star punter even AFTER the alleged roiding.

hubkittel
10-23-2006, 07:06 PM
Who's that next fastest man in the world? He just got caught and I forgot his name, and yes I was thinking of Tim Montgomery.

i'm not sure who you're talking about but the last person i can think of who got caught other than jones and montgomery is christine ohuruogu, the women's 400 meter champ at the commenwealth games. she claims she's innocent and is appealing her year long suspension.

and before we scoff at these claims of innocence (as i usually do), i just found a great article about steroids being found in nutritional supplements and vitamins. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/track_field/wires/10/01/2080.ap.run.doping.supplements.0451/index.html i guess the lesson is that even when you're careful about what you're putting into your body, sometimes you just never know. :(

Skin & Bones
10-23-2006, 07:07 PM
I mean the story is at the bottom of the front page on the football section of ESPN.com
http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/nfl/index?lpos=globalnav&lid=gn_NFL_NFL

If this was baseball, it would be on ESPN.com's front page not just the baseball part.


Yep, and this is thanks to Barry Bonds and the BALCO case. This issue is so grossly overblown by the casual fan, it's not even funny. Most don't have any knowledge of what steroids do for an athlete, other than what ESPN tells them, or what Jim Rome rants about on his " show ". To be realistically honest, if Bonds didn't exist, this probably wouldn't be an issue discussed time after time, with misinformed information spewed out about the drugs daily.

Ubiquitous
10-23-2006, 07:11 PM
I never said that the NFL doesn't have a drug problem, it does just like any sport. But unlike baseball the NFL hasn't spent the last 10-15 years dragging it's feet and counting money while pretending that it didn't exsist.


Oh really? Is the NFL drug policy effective? Does NFL have the power to make their policy more effective or just plain effective? Do they choose not too? The NFL makes boatloads of cash off the steroided backs of their players. Heck it is practically requirement nowadays to compete in the NFL to be taking something.

I personally love when draft day comes around and everybody is saying this guy needs to add 30 pounds of muscle or that guy needs to bulk up to compete in the NFL, and then poofda they do. Where do you think that bulk that muscle is coming from? Whoppers from burger king?

ESPNFan
10-23-2006, 07:11 PM
Those were drug/dui/other arrests. Plus Sauerbrun was still an all-star punter even AFTER the alleged roiding.


Uh you may want to check your facts, Todd Sauerbrun is currently unemployed. http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/10/10/ap3081218.html

Robb
10-23-2006, 07:12 PM
Probably has to do w/ public perception of football players ("they're warriors and it should be ok if they use steroids") & teh fact that baseball players are probably more known/personal to the average fan.

ChrisLDuncan
10-23-2006, 07:14 PM
Uh you may want to check your facts, Todd Sauerbrun is currently unemployed. http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/10/10/ap3081218.html

Now he is, however he had a job for a while after it was found out that he was roiding.

hubkittel
10-23-2006, 07:16 PM
justin gatlin-yeah, i forgot about him. that was in july. and dominique blake got nailed in june. track and field has a serious, serious problem.

which leads to an interesting question: how would you rank sports based on their ped problem?

i'm thinking it's something like this:

1 cycling
2 track and field
3 everybody else

Skin & Bones
10-23-2006, 07:17 PM
Probably has to do w/ public perception of football players ("they're warriors and it should be ok if they use steroids") & teh fact that baseball players are probably more known/personal to the average fan.

Who really knows. For some reason, steroids are the ONLY drugs out there that make baseball players " not pure ". Not Amphetamines, not creatine, not any of the many other PED'S out there that have been proven to be effective performance enhancers. It's just steroids. When some think of steroids, they think of Ivan Drago from Rocky 4 mutilating the Apollo. Apparently, they are the only PED that works, and it's a wink wink for football players, but totally immoral for baseball players. And especially immoral for Barry Bonds. Boy the outcry when Game of Shadows was written was unprecedented. Never seen before, and won't ever be seen again. Even if T.O. had a book written about him using steroids, we wouldn't see an outcry like that.

ESPNFan
10-23-2006, 07:28 PM
Oh really? Is the NFL drug policy effective? Does NFL have the power to make their policy more effective or just plain effective? Do they choose not too? The NFL makes boatloads of cash off the steroided backs of their players. Heck it is practically requirement nowadays to compete in the NFL to be taking something.

I personally love when draft day comes around and everybody is saying this guy needs to add 30 pounds of muscle or that guy needs to bulk up to compete in the NFL, and then poofda they do. Where do you think that bulk that muscle is coming from? Whoppers from burger king?

I'll take effective and consistant right now and they are looking to improve the policy as well. The is NFL is also looking to make their policy better.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/15680976.htm

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-sp.dopingside08oct08,0,1217950.story?coll=bal-sports-football

And of course Football has a bigger problem in terms of Steroids given the nature of the sport, nobody is arguing that. The point I'm making is that MLB's lack of any action at all caused their steroid issue to get out of controll both on the feild and in the press where as football as at least put forth an effort to deal with the problem since the late 80's.

ESPNFan
10-23-2006, 07:35 PM
Who really knows. For some reason, steroids are the ONLY drugs out there that make baseball players " not pure ". Not Amphetamines, not creatine, not any of the many other PED'S out there that have been proven to be effective performance enhancers. It's just steroids. When some think of steroids, they think of Ivan Drago from Rocky 4 mutilating the Apollo. Apparently, they are the only PED that works, and it's a wink wink for football players, but totally immoral for baseball players. And especially immoral for Barry Bonds. Boy the outcry when Game of Shadows was written was unprecedented. Never seen before, and won't ever been seen again. Even if T.O. had a book written about him using steroids, we wouldn't see an outcry like that.

Your example is flawed. Football has a policy in place and baseball did not when Bonds was breaking records. If say, Tiki Barber broke the single season rushing record and was on his way to beating Emmit Smith's life time rushing record while allegedly roiding while the league twidled its thumbs with no testing then you could make an example. BTW the only thing T.O. and Bonds have in common is a public dislike for their persona's.

ESPNFan
10-23-2006, 07:43 PM
justin gatlin-yeah, i forgot about him. that was in july. and dominique blake got nailed in june. track and field has a serious, serious problem.

which leads to an interesting question: how would you rank sports based on their ped problem?

i'm thinking it's something like this:

1 cycling
2 track and field
3 everybody else

Pro bodybuilding would be my top choice.
I'd say next its a toss up between cycling and track and feild.

Skin & Bones
10-23-2006, 07:44 PM
Your example is flawed. Football has a policy in place and baseball did not when Bonds was breaking records. If say, Tiki Barber broke the single season rushing record and was on his way to beating Emmit Smith's life time rushing record while allegedly roiding while the league twidled its thumbs with no testing then you could make an example. BTW the only thing T.O. and Bonds have in common is a public dislike for their persona's.

I never said T.O. took illegal PED'S, I just pointed out the distinct difference when it comes to the outcry when a football player or baseball player is caught using steroids. T.O., as loathed as he is, IMO, if ever to be proven to have used illegal PED'S, wouldn't take all the heat Bonds does, and that has a lot to do with him playing in a sport where apparently drug cheating doesn't piss off the fans like it does in baseball.

Let me ask you this, how come nobody is calling for the six Carolina Panthers football players who used steroids ( in the superbowl, nonetheless) to have their numbers removed, or placed with an * ?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2563563

Where's the outcry, why isn't Jim Rome bashing them day after day ?

Comeon man, it's fricken obvious, drug cheating in football is widely accepted by the fans, where as in baseball, it's viewed as despicable behavior.

hubkittel
10-23-2006, 07:47 PM
Pro bodybuilding would be my top choice.
I'd say next its a toss up between cycling and track and feild.

no doubt but i was thinking more along the lines of actual sports. :laugh i bet they have a serious ped problem in pro wrestling too. and those ultimate fighting things. but i don't count those.

Skin & Bones
10-23-2006, 07:50 PM
no doubt but i was thinking more along the lines of actual sports. :laugh i bet they have a serious ped problem in pro wrestling too. and those ultimate fighting things. but i don't count those.

Don't count out Boxing. I'm sure Ivan Drago wasn't the only one drugged up :waving

hubkittel
10-23-2006, 08:03 PM
Don't count out Boxing. I'm sure Ivan Drago wasn't the only one drugged up :waving

that's a really good point-i forgot about boxing. what's interesting is that you never hear anything-not a peep-about ped use in boxing. with the kind of shape those guys are in, with the speed and strength-you think it would come up. but i guess with all the other problems the sport has, it's in nobody's interest to bring it up. it's just another reason to have a national boxing commision.

and while i just said that it was in nobody's interest to bring it up-that's not true. it's in all the athlete's interests that this stuff be exposed and eliminated. nobody knows what kind of serious long term health problems this is going to bring. it does seem that a lot of nfl players-especially lineman-die young. heart attacks, cancer, that kind of stuff. it's ancedotal but it seems possible that this was caused by ped usage. and what about ken caminiti? i don't think the money is worth killing yourself over.

Skin & Bones
10-23-2006, 08:07 PM
that's a really good point-i forgot about boxing. what's interesting is that you never hear anything-not a peep-about ped use in boxing. with the kind of shape those guys are in, with the speed and strength-you think it would come up. but i guess with all the other problems the sport has, it's in nobody's interest to bring it up. it's just another reason to have a national boxing commision.

and while i just said that it was in nobody's interest to bring it up-that's not true. it's in all the athlete's interests that this stuff be exposed and eliminated. nobody knows what kind of serious long term health problems this is going to bring. it does seem that a lot of nfl players-especially lineman-die young. heart attacks, cancer, that kind of stuff. it's ancedotal but it seems possible that this was caused by ped usage. and what about ken caminiti? i don't think the money is worth killing yourself over.

A hell of a lot more killed Caminiti than steroids.

hubkittel
10-23-2006, 08:09 PM
A hell of a lot more killed Caminiti than steroids.

sad but true.

ESPNFan
10-23-2006, 08:17 PM
I never said T.O. took illegal PED'S, I just pointed out the distinct difference when it comes to the outcry when a football player or baseball player is caught using steroids. T.O., as loathed as he is, IMO, if ever to be proven to have used illegal PED'S, wouldn't take all the heat Bonds does, and that has a lot to do with him playing in a sport where apparently drug cheating doesn't piss off the fans like it does in baseball.

Let me ask you this, how come nobody is calling for the six Carolina Panthers football players who used steroids ( in the superbowl, nonetheless) to have their numbers removed, or placed with an * ?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2563563

Where's the outcry, why isn't Jim Rome bashing them day after day ?

Comeon man, it's fricken obvious, drug cheating in football is widely accepted by the fans, where as in baseball, it's viewed as dispicable behavior.

You made an example comparing a hypothetical situation with T.O. and what actually happened to Bonds which was flawed and I pointied out how a similar situation would have to unravel in the NFL with Tiki Barbar as the hypothetical offender... Find where I said you accused T. O. of doing steroids? You can't? Oh well.
BTW T.O. wouldn't take all the heat that Bonds did because in terms of Football he is no where as good historically as Bonds is. Thats incredibly obvious. :rolleyes:

Nobody is calling for Carolina to be asterixed because they LOST the superbowl in question LOL. I'll explain it to you again, Results + League indifference = Outrage. And the NFL is always trying to impove the testing and policy to prevent this type of thing from happening again.

Is Jim Rome your gold standard for whats right in sports? LOL Maybe you should raise your standards a bit to Gene Wojohowski or Skip Bayless?
:laugh :laugh :laugh

And IMO its not that fans believe that using PED's is acceptable in The NFL its that they think the NFL does enough to catch the offenders. If that is just good PR by the NFL or an actually effective policy is another subject.

ESPNFan
10-23-2006, 08:20 PM
Don't count out Boxing. I'm sure Ivan Drago wasn't the only one drugged up :waving
Yes Combat sports have a huge problem with PED's

Boxing has had positive tests as well. Fernado Vargas and James Toney are two recent noteables. Boxing has bigger fish to fry however as its credibility is at an all time low and is bleeding fans who are increasingly going to MMA for their combat sports fix.

EvanAparra
10-23-2006, 08:23 PM
Every time there is a steroid thread I always know you two will be in it. :)

ESPNFan
10-23-2006, 08:30 PM
Every time there is a steroid thread I always know you two will be in it. :)

It's not an easy job but someone has to state the facts. :D

chrispw1
10-24-2006, 07:33 AM
I agree that people aren't as outarged about the NFL. Since 1989 they've suspended about 65 players for steroids. Now that would mean that in 17 years that less than 1% of players have used steroids which I doubt highly. I hear people rail on baseball all the time for not having HGH blood tests yet I never hear anyone ripping on the NFL for a lack of HGH blood testing. I mean Bill Romonowski wrote a book where he bragged about being able to beat the testing without very much outcry, imagine if years from now a prominent retired baseball player wrote a book about beating the testing and how much outrage there would be. Imagine of 4 or 5 members of a recent world series team were found to have gotten ilegal steroid perscriptions. I think one factor is in baseball the numbers are so important. With all these outcries for asterisks by Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, I don't recall any outcries for asterisks by Mark Gastineau's single sack record he held until 2001. Even casual fans know of 714, 755, 56, 2130 yet many die hard football fans don't know the exact number of Dan Marino's career touchdown pass record or Emmitt's career rushing yard or touchdown record. Also, I do feel the reason for the NFL getting a free pass somewhat is that over the last several years it ahs had much better pr all around with things such as labor peace, revenue sharing, parity, and other stuff.

ChrisLDuncan
10-24-2006, 10:04 AM
Also if you have noticed whether or not Kenny Rogers used pine tar is a bigger story than Merriman roiding up

Rookie1914
10-24-2006, 11:56 AM
Hello, great topic. I think America cherishes the history / recordbooks of baseball far greater than any other sport. With this being said, that is why we expose baseball players moreso than any other sport. Will there be an asterisk beside McGwire, Sosa, Bonds names in the books like there is for 1994? I doubt it, because nothing was "proven" even though you can look at them and know.

Also, football players are "supposed" to be huge and provide a certain level of entertainment, we expect hard hits etc. We turn our heads and really don't care too much, I say "we" meaning everyone, people that aren't as savvy as us in this forum. Someone 6'6" 250 lbs that runs a 4.3 40 is natural?

On the other hand, if you are exposed in baseball for being on the juice. All you have to do is semi-apologize like Giambi and you will be forgiven. America loves to forgive. That is why "we" hate Bonds, he denies everything. Fess up Bonds and it will be much easier.

mwiggins
10-24-2006, 12:50 PM
I mean the story is at the bottom of the front page on the football section of ESPN.com
http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/nfl/index?lpos=globalnav&lid=gn_NFL_NFL

If this was baseball, it would be on ESPN.com's front page not just the baseball part.

Merriman's story would have been the lead story on the front page of ESPN.com (it WAS at the top the of the main page yesterday, not just the football section) if the Kenny Rogers thing wouldn't have gone down. And it's not like he's been suspended, it was just an allegation from Mort.

And Merriman is not one of the NFL's biggest stars. He's one of the best players, sure, but in terms of baseball he's about the same level as Freddie Sanchez or Brandon Webb.

If it would have been a star skill position player on offense, it would have topped the Rogers deal. The difference with the NFL is that the players most likely to be using PEDs are lineman and defensive players, not the glamour positions. Whereas in baseball, the players most likely to be using them are power hitters and pitchers, which ARE glamour positions. MLB has had the best players of the last 25 years involved in PED allegations (Bonds & Clemens), along with superstars like Sosa and Giambi and McGwire. While none of the big NFL stars have so far been linked to PED's. The day a star QB, RB, or WR is involved, PED's in the NFL will become a huge issue with the media and fans.

mwiggins
10-24-2006, 12:52 PM
Also if you have noticed whether or not Kenny Rogers used pine tar is a bigger story than Merriman roiding up

Because it's the World Series. If the Merriman allegation would have came out the week before the Chargers were playing in the Super Bowl, it would be a bigger story than the Rogers deal has been.

ChrisLDuncan
10-24-2006, 12:54 PM
Merriman's story would have been the lead story on the front page of ESPN.com (it WAS at the top the of the main page yesterday, not just the football section) if the Kenny Rogers thing wouldn't have gone down. And it's not like he's been suspended, it was just an allegation from Mort.

And Merriman is not one of the NFL's biggest stars. He's one of the best players, sure, but in terms of baseball he's about the same level as Freddie Sanchez or Brandon Webb.

If it would have been a star skill position player on offense, it would have topped the Rogers deal. The difference with the NFL is that the players most likely to be using PEDs are lineman and defensive players, not the glamour positions. Whereas in baseball, the players most likely to be using them are power hitters and pitchers, which ARE glamour positions. MLB has had the best players of the last 25 years involved in PED allegations (Bonds & Clemens), along with superstars like Sosa and Giambi and McGwire. While none of the big NFL stars have so far been linked to PED's. The day a star QB, RB, or WR is involved, PED's in the NFL will become a huge issue with the media and fans.

Actually he was suspended for four games. Plus Merriman is a big star in football people who watch football know who he is he was the Def RoY last season may have even been the defensive PoY this season. Plus I'd put Merriman on the Ryan Howard level.

ChrisLDuncan
10-24-2006, 12:55 PM
Because it's the World Series. If the Merriman allegation would have came out the week before the Chargers were playing in the Super Bowl, it would be a bigger story than the Rogers deal has been.

Well it was one inning too, I mean MSN even had a front page story about baseball cheats A DAY AFTER AN NFL STAR TESTED POSITIVE FOR STEROIDS. All I'm saying is that baseball gets the shaft when it comes to cheating, I guess that is the thesis of what I'm trying to say. I mean so now is there going to be an astrisk on the 2005-2006 Def RoY? I mean there are other players in the NFL that roid up besides Merriman and most of them are huge and bulkly, so it's not like there shouldn't be suspisicon. Football also has the built in luxuary that most of it's stars are skill players, the non-skill position skill guys that I can think of are Ray Lewis, Deion Sanders, and LT, and steroids isn't going to help a QB read a defense, nor will it help a guy thread a ball between two cornerbacks. Roids will give an RB extra power and a little bit of speed, but it won't help his vision or help him make cuts. Roids won't help a WR get better hands. So with those players there isn't as much of an incentive to roid up. But the guys in the trenches the LBs, they don't get any face time (well Sapp did for a bid but that's besides the point) and there is incentive for them to juice up...but since they are largely faceless they aren't as big of stars.

mwiggins
10-24-2006, 01:16 PM
:D
Actually he was suspended for four games. Plus Merriman is a big star in football people who watch football know who he is he was the Def RoY last season may have even been the defensive PoY this season. Plus I'd put Merriman on the Ryan Howard level.

Yeah, he's a big star to hardcore football people, but not the casual football fan. Ryan Howard's an offensive star who puts up big numbers, even non-baseball fans know who he is after this season. Steve Smith and Chad Johnson are more on the Ryan Howard level, but he's probably closer to a Shawn Alexander.

When Bonds and Clemens and Giambi were involved in PED allegations, those were huge media stories. If equivalent football players, say Vick, Manning or Brady were involved in PED allegations, those would be huge media stories as well.

mwiggins
10-24-2006, 01:24 PM
Football also has the built in luxuary that most of it's stars are skill players, the non-skill position skill guys that I can think of are Ray Lewis, Deion Sanders, and LT, and steroids isn't going to help a QB read a defense, nor will it help a guy thread a ball between two cornerbacks. Roids will give an RB extra power and a little bit of speed, but it won't help his vision or help him make cuts. Roids won't help a WR get better hands. So with those players there isn't as much of an incentive to roid up. But the guys in the trenches the LBs, they don't get any face time (well Sapp did for a bid but that's besides the point) and there is incentive for them to juice up...but since they are largely faceless they aren't as big of stars.

I agree totally. Most of the football PED users are going to be the 'faceless' offensive lineman and defensive players. Fans aren't going to get as upset about guys like that. If it was just middle relievers and light-hitting middle infielders getting busted and linked to PED's, nobody would be that wound up about baseballs roid problem either.

RB's COULD benefit the same way as home run hitters, but with sluggers, it's easy to see their HR totals go up. With RB's, their stats are so dependent on line play and how they're used, that when a guy like Curtis Martin has a big year late in his career, you don't instantly look at his stats and think "he must be on roids'.

Skin & Bones
10-24-2006, 01:27 PM
I agree totally. Most of the football PED users are going to be the 'faceless' offensive lineman and defensive players. Fans aren't going to get as upset about guys like that. If it was just middle relievers and light-hitting middle infielders getting busted and linked to PED's, nobody would be that wound up about baseballs roid problem either.

RB's COULD benefit the same way as home run hitters, but with sluggers, it's easy to see their HR totals go up. With RB's, their stats are so dependent on line play and how they're used, that when a guy like Curtis Martin has a big year late in his career, you don't instantly look at his stats and think "he must be on roids'.

Mwiggins, the biggest benefit of steroids is faster recovery from workouts and injuries. So that alone could benefit any football player, or athlete for that matter.

ChrisLDuncan
10-24-2006, 01:32 PM
:D

Yeah, he's a big star to hardcore football people, but not the casual football fan. Ryan Howard's an offensive star who puts up big numbers, even non-baseball fans know who he is after this season. Steve Smith and Chad Johnson are more on the Ryan Howard level, but he's probably closer to a Shawn Alexander.

When Bonds and Clemens and Giambi were involved in PED allegations, those were huge media stories. If equivalent football players, say Vick, Manning or Brady were involved in PED allegations, those would be huge media stories as well.

Well I guess the Ryan Howard comparison for me was after winning the RoY and Merriman was on his way to having a huge season he allready had 5.5 sacks in only what? six or seven games. So I mean that's a pretty big season...if he had that I think he could find his way into the mainstream.

Rookie1914
10-24-2006, 01:56 PM
Rogers is a big deal as he is in the World Series, whereas Merriman is in the first half of his season. I think "Wiggins" brought up that point. I can't believe I overlooked that point :D

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 05:19 PM
Rogers is a big deal as he is in the World Series, whereas Merriman is in the first half of his season. I think "Wiggins" brought up that point. I can't believe I overlooked that point :D

Yes and the sports themselves are very different, a pitcher or hitter can essentially cheat in a vacum during a baseball game, while a football player still has 11 players to deal with and 10 teammates that need to execute as well.

Skin & Bones
10-24-2006, 05:33 PM
Yes and the sports themselves are very different, a pitcher or hitter can essentially cheat in a vacum during a baseball game, while a football player still has 11 players to deal with and 10 teammates that need to execute as well.

But the ones who are cheating are getting a " huge " unfair advantage, right ?

Remember, football's testing policy is GREAT!!! <Tony the Tiger Voice>, and baseball's sucks, despite what a professional ballplayer on this site says.

So, if what you say is true, then it should indicate that most players and pitchers should take advantage of the supposed " weak " testing by taking all sorts of drugs, where as in football, they would think twice about it. So the few who are doing it, are getting the unfair advantage over their peers, right ESPNFan ? :cool:

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 05:58 PM
But the ones who are cheating are getting a " huge " unfair advantage, right ?

Remember, football's testing policy is GREAT!!! <Tony the Tiger Voice>, and baseball's sucks, despite what a professional ballplayer on this site says.

So, if what you say is true, then it should indicate that most players and pitchers should take advantage of the supposed " weak " testing by taking all sorts of drugs, where as in football, they would think twice about it. So the few who are doing it, are getting the unfair advantage over their peers, right ESPNFan ? :cool:

Do you even understand what I wrote? LOL

Where did I mention anything about testing in the post you quoted?

My point was simply related to the nature of each sport. If say David Ortiz wants to do roids he can and aside from the pitcher throwing to him nobody can influence his performance once that ball is on its way to the plate. If Edgerrin James wants to use PED's not only does he have to deal with 11 guys trying to defend/tackle him but if his line is awful he won't have a whole to hit or if his QB is awful he'll have 8 or even 9 guys in the Box defending him. That goes double for wide outs.

Football's testing Policy isn't great, its not WADA level, but they have shown for almost 20 years a willingness to tackle the subject and make changes when needed, something baseball has not done. People in football obviously don't think twice about trying to cheat because they are still gettign caught.
But don't let that stop a good rant right?

Oh and last time I checked a certain ballplayer didn't want you mentioning him any more did he?

Skin & Bones
10-24-2006, 06:05 PM
Do you even understand what I wrote? LOL

Where did I mention anything about testing in the post you quoted?

My point was simply related to the nature of each sport. If say David Ortiz wants to do roids he can and aside from the pitcher throwing to him nobody can influence his performance once that ball is on its way to the plate. If Edgerrin James wants to use PED's not only does he have to deal with 11 guys trying to defend/tackle him but if his line is awful he won't have a whole to hit or if his QB is awful he'll have 8 or even 9 guys in the Box defending him. That goes double for wide outs.

Football's testing Policy isn't great, its not WADA level, but they have shown for almost 20 years a willingness to tackle the subject and make changes when needed, something baseball has not done. People in football obviously don't think twice about trying to cheat because they are still gettign caught.
But don't let that stop a good rant right?

Oh and last time I checked a certain ballplayer didn't want you mentioning him any more did he?

I read exactly what you said, and I presented you with a logical scenario based on your line of reasoning.

According to you, NFL has a better testing policy than MLB, you've repeatedly defended it, while calling MLB'S a " joke ".

If MLB'S is a joke, then it's safe to say ( assuming Caminiti and Canseco's percentages were correct) that most ballplayers/pitchers today are still juicing, where as in the NFL, most wouldn't, because according to you, NFL'S testing policy is legitimate. So the ones who are cheating, are REALLY getting the unfair advantage over everyone else on the field.

After all, here's what you said:
People in football obviously don't think twice about trying to cheat because they are still gettign caught.

So if the majority don't want to get caught, the ones who are using the drugs, are really getting the unfair advantage over their peers.

Oh and last time I checked a certain ballplayer didn't want you mentioning him any more did he

Actually, from the conversation I had with him, he didn't want me linking his posts about MLB's steroid testing policy on other forums. Which I did On one Florida Marlins forum, which somehow, someone on this very site knew about it. Oh what a mystery that is:laugh

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 06:53 PM
I read exactly what you said, and I presented you with a logical scenario based on your line of reasoning.

According to you, NFL has a better testing policy than MLB, you've repeatedly defended it, while calling MLB'S a " joke ".

If MLB'S is a joke, then it's safe to say ( assuming Caminiti and Canseco's percentages were correct) that most ballplayers/pitchers today are still juicing, where as in the NFL, most wouldn't, because according to you, NFL'S testing policy is legitimate. So the ones who are cheating, are REALLY getting the unfair advantage over everyone else on the field.

After all, here's what you said:

So if the majority don't want to get caught, the ones who are using the drugs, are really getting the unfair advantage over their peers.

Oh and last time I checked a certain ballplayer didn't want you mentioning him any more did he

Actually, from the conversation I had with him, he didn't want me linking his posts about MLB's steroid testing policy on other forums. Which I did On one Florida Marlins forum, which somehow, someone on this very site knew about it. Oh what a mystery that is:laugh

When Congress has to inform everyone of a backdoor clause that allows the commisioner to fine someone instead of suspending a person yes thats a joke. MLB had to collectively bargain for testing and have "informational testing which at least 5-7% of the league failed, when it should have been a given. MLB's testing has gotten better in terms of punishment and so forth but I haven't seen any iron clad specifics about the substances they test for, what levels of testosterone constitutes a positive, improving the tests or HGH aside from the supposed research project which i can tell you professionally is infact a 100% Joke. Whats Major League baseballs policy on a missed test? Do you know? Is it an automatic positive?

Track and feild and the Olympics still have people trying to cheat, Kellie White a Balco client, was cheating and didn't test positive even though she was randomly tested 17 times over the course of a year. Is their testing a joke? The NFL has been lauded by WADA and Gary Wadler as the best in American sports but still not perfect. Its not about being perfect because no body can be in testing as the testers are always playing catch up. But when a league like MLB needs to be practically dragged kicking and screaming to test their players even as their most sacred records in the game's history are threatened by supposed cheaters yes I call that as a Joke.

And its quite a coincidence that a poster named Cyril Oreily posted the very same links on the ESPN website that you admitted to posting on the Marlins one at the same time. Hmmmm Cyril Oreily ...now where Have I heard that name before around here......:rolleyes:

Skin & Bones
10-24-2006, 08:10 PM
When Congress has to inform everyone of a backdoor clause that allows the commisioner to fine someone instead of suspending a person yes thats a joke. MLB had to collectively bargain for testing and have "informational testing which at least 5-7% of the league failed, when it should have been a given. MLB's testing has gotten better in terms of punishment and so forth but I haven't seen any iron clad specifics about the substances they test for, what levels of testosterone constitutes a positive, improving the tests or HGH aside from the supposed research project which i can tell you professionally is infact a 100% Joke. Whats Major League baseballs policy on a missed test? Do you know? Is it an automatic positive?


Track and feild and the Olympics still have people trying to cheat, Kellie White a Balco client, was cheating and didn't test positive even though she was randomly tested 17 times over the course of a year. Is their testing a joke? The NFL has been lauded by WADA and Gary Wadler as the best in American sports but still not perfect. Its not about being perfect because no body can be in testing as the testers are always playing catch up. But when a league like MLB needs to be practically dragged kicking and screaming to test their players even as their most sacred records in the game's history are threatened by supposed cheaters yes I call that as a Joke.

Alright, that's your opinion, and your entitled to it. While I agree that Baseball ignored it's steroids/amphetamines problem, I disagree that the current testing ( atleast for steroids) is a joke. I do agree however, that the drug cheats will always be one step ahead of the testing.






And its quite a coincidence that a poster named Cyril Oreily posted the very same links on the ESPN website that you admitted to posting on the Marlins one at the same time. Hmmmm Cyril Oreily ...now where Have I heard that name before around here......:rolleyes:

I don't know what a " Cyril Oreily " is, nor do I care to know. I sometimes post on the Florida Marlins Forum on MLB.COM. I had an arguement with a poster about MLB'S steroid testing policy, and posted ONE link to Hiddengem's post there. That's it. He told me not to do it, so I stopped, I respect people's wishes. Anything else I have nothing to do with, or have any knowledge of.

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 08:24 PM
I don't get the logic of saying that MLB testing is a joke but the NLF's should be applauded.

Do you or do you not think NFL players are using drugs? How many do you think are using? Do you or do you not think MLB players are using drugs? How many do you think are using?

To me I think a great many NFL players are using drugs. I think at the very least the NFL and MLB have the same % of people using drugs. They both have huge problems when it comes to drugs. Yet the NFL has had a drug testing policy in place for a very long time, and yet the NFL has just as bad a problem as baseball does.

I don't see how one can look at the NFL drug testing system and not think it is a joke. It is like looking at prohibition and declaring it is working because some copper smashed a few kegs now and then. The purpose of a drug testing system is two-fold, actually it is three fold. It is 1)A PR good face, 2) catch and punish rule breakers, and 3)to inhibit drug use. The NFL system does the first thing wonderfully, it completely and utterly fails at the second two parts.

The NFL drug testing system is a joke.

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 08:28 PM
I don't know what a " Cyril Oreily " is, nor do I care to know.

I' sure you don't :waving

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 08:43 PM
I don't get the logic of saying that MLB testing is a joke but the NLF's should be applauded.

Do you or do you not think NFL players are using drugs? How many do you think are using? Do you or do you not think MLB players are using drugs? How many do you think are using?

To me I think a great many NFL players are using drugs. I think at the very least the NFL and MLB have the same % of people using drugs. They both have huge problems when it comes to drugs. Yet the NFL has had a drug testing policy in place for a very long time, and yet the NFL has just as bad a problem as baseball does.

I don't see how one can look at the NFL drug testing system and not think it is a joke. It is like looking at prohibition and declaring it is working because some copper smashed a few kegs now and then. The purpose of a drug testing system is two-fold, actually it is three fold. It is 1)A PR good face, 2) catch and punish rule breakers, and 3)to inhibit drug use. The NFL system does the first thing wonderfully, it completely and utterly fails at the second two parts.

The NFL drug testing system is a joke.

I think MLB testing is substandard because there is minimal random testing and no guarentee of an off season test (not a preseason test). I think its substantandard because I have yet to find someone or something willing to go on the record about what punishment a missed test garners. I am sceptical of anything Bud Selig is invovled with because of the way pervious drug policys were worded and their clauses that would have allowed positive tests to be covered up.

Of course the NFL has a drug problem, any sport dealing with size as an asset will have to admit that Anabolics will be an issue. Did they do something to address the issue? Yes they did at a time when the US Government was doign the same. How long did MLB wait till after Steroids were made Illegal?
Does the NFL have people questioning the validity of a whole era's worth of statistics? Nope. Game Set Match NFL.

WADA thinks the NFL has the best testing of any of the major american pro sports. They do catch people, as the three in the last week atest to, so your observations on number 2) catching and punishing rule breakers as utter an utter failure rings hollow. As far as inhibiting use, thats a constant battle for even track and feild and they have the best testing available. The bottom line is the MLB has failed at all three of your listed purposes and if you think the NFL testing is a joke where does that leave MLB?

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 08:53 PM
Again is the NFl actually accomplishing anything besides getting patted on the back? This isn't about which is better NFL or MLB, it is about who is actually getting anything done. Neither league is getting anything done, and neither league wants too either. You honestly think the NFL thinks that no one or only a small % of players are users? Do you honestly believe that the NFL actually cares whether or not their players are using drugs? Actually I do think they care, they obviously care. I think right now through contracts, through roster spots on teams they are actively encouraging players to use drugs. Do you honestly believe that if somebody went up to a coach and said oh by the way #55 is using drugs they would be surprised? The NLF unlike the MLB has vastly more power to enact tougher and more stringent standards. They do not.

So the NFL catches players, guess what so does Baseball. Like I said this is just like Prohibtion. Hey look it works because we just found a still in the woods and smashed it up.

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 09:27 PM
Again is the NFl actually accomplishing anything besides getting patted on the back? This isn't about which is better NFL or MLB, it is about who is actually getting anything done. Neither league is getting anything done, and neither league wants too either. You honestly think the NFL thinks that no one or only a small % of players are users? Do you honestly believe that the NFL actually cares whether or not their players are using drugs? Actually I do think they care, they obviously care. I think right now through contracts, through roster spots on teams they are actively encouraging players to use drugs. Do you honestly believe that if somebody went up to a coach and said oh by the way #55 is using drugs they would be surprised? The NLF unlike the MLB has vastly more power to enact tougher and more stringent standards. They do not.

So the NFL catches players, guess what so does Baseball. Like I said this is just like Prohibtion. Hey look it works because we just found a still in the woods and smashed it up.

So if you think the NFL is a Joke and use a Prohibition refrence to make the point that catching people doesn't matter, would you use a keystone cops refrence to describe an MLB testing program who, unless I'm mistaken and I could be, caught nobody on the MLB level?

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 09:33 PM
So you want to upgrade MLB testing to a joke? That is your solution to the problem? "Baseballs system doesn't work, footballs system doesn't work. But hey people say nice things about so lets use theirs"

Palmeiro wasn't suspended?

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 09:37 PM
Alex Sanchez
Jorge Piedra
Juan Rincon
Rafael Betancourt
Ryan Franklin
Michael Morse
Felix Heredia
Matt Lawton

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 09:43 PM
So you want to upgrade MLB testing to a joke? That is your solution to the problem? "Baseballs system doesn't work, footballs system doesn't work. But hey people say nice things about so lets use theirs"

Palmeiro wasn't suspended?

In 2005 Palmeiro was suspended. In 2006 the only MLB level player I heard of was Grimsley and he wasn't caught by testing.

Look if you want to think the NFL has a joke for a testing policy thats fine that your opinion. But its still better than MLB's in the opinion of professionals, not just my own. I'd want to upgrade to simply a joke if my leagues most recent efforts had been a laughing stock.

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 09:44 PM
Alex Sanchez
Jorge Piedra
Juan Rincon
Rafael Betancourt
Ryan Franklin
Michael Morse
Felix Heredia
Matt Lawton

Again those are names from 2005, who was suspended for a positive test this past season?

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 09:55 PM
So the NFL systems works because they got 3 guys this year and baseball hasn't gotten anybody from the majors yet have snagged 16 minor leaguers and one guy coming over from Japan so far?

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 10:03 PM
So the NFL systems works because they got 3 guys this year and baseball hasn't gotten anybody from the majors yet have snagged 16 minor leaguers and one guy coming over from Japan so far?

You said yourself the NFL and MLB have in your opinion the same number of people using PED's. Why hasn't MLB caught anyone in the past season then?

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 10:07 PM
You said yourself the NFL and MLB have in your opinion the same number of people using PED's. Why hasn't MLB caught anyone in the past season then?


Perhaps baseball players are not as dumb as football players?


The only reason these football players got caught is because they slipped up somewhere. Congratulations you got a system that catches the dumbest 1% of rule breakers.

Let us say that MLB does adopt the football system, so what happens? Well MLB pats themselves on the back, acts like the problem is solved, a player here or there gets caught, and nothing really changes. So that is what you want? Because that is what will happen, because that is what is happening in football right now and has been happening for a very long time.

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 10:23 PM
Perhaps baseball players are not as dumb as football players?


The only reason these football players got caught is because they slipped up somewhere. Congratulations you got a system that catches the dumbest 1% of rule breakers.

Let us say that MLB does adopt the football system, so what happens? Well MLB pats themselves on the back, acts like the problem is solved, a player here or there gets caught, and nothing really changes. So that is what you want? Because that is what will happen, because that is what is happening in football right now and has been happening for a very long time.

Since when has football acted like the problem is solved? Just this last month Roger Goodell the new commssioner meet with Gene Upshaw to discuss imporving the current policy. but I'm sure you will just call that PR again right? So to summerize the NFL is all about PR but it has also caught more people in the last 12 months than MLB but that only means football players are dumber than baseball players. Or maybe footballs leadership is smarter than baseballs? Oh wait we already know thats completely true. ;)

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 10:35 PM
Again how many football players do you think are on drugs? Do you think the NFL drug testing policy deters drug use in the NFL? How long has the NFL had a drug testing policy? What have been the changes to that policy? Has drug use in the NFL become more common? Has it become more sophisticated and more effective?

But yes kudos to the NFL for being applauded on their system, the system certainly has done a lot to change the drug culture in the NFL.


So to summerize the NFL is all about PR but it has also caught more people in the last 12 months than MLB but that only means football players are dumber than baseball players.

Major league baseball has caught 17 players this year, and over 100 players overall in the last 2 years.

How many players has football caught in the last 2 years?

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 10:42 PM
Again how many football players do you think are on drugs? Do you think the NFL drug testing policy deters drug use in the NFL? How long has the NFL had a drug testing policy? What have been the changes to that policy? Has drug use in the NFL become more common? Has it become more sophisticated and more effective?

But yes kudos to the NFL for being applauded on their system, the system certainly has done a lot to change the drug culture in the NFL.



Major league baseball has caught 17 players this year, and over 100 players overall in the last 2 years.

How many players has football caught in the last 2 years?

Please tell me who was caught on the MLB level during the 2006 season?

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 10:44 PM
One other thing those Panther guys you mentioned above they didn't get caught because they tested positive. They got caught because of a government raid of a doctors lab. The NFL didn't catch them, yet the records showed that some of those guys were using throughout the season.

Since 1989 I believe a grand total of 113 players have been caught and suspended for steroid use in the NFL. Though that was as of two seasons ago. Baseball in two years has suspended I believe 118 players.

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 10:45 PM
One other thing those Panther guys you mentioned above they didn't get caught because they tested positive. They got caught because of a government raid of a doctors lab. The NFL didn't catch them, yet the records showed that some of those guys were using throughout the season.

Since 1989 I believe a grand total of 113 players have been caught and suspended for steroid use in the NFL. Though that was as of two seasons ago. Baseball in two years has suspended I believe 118 players.

Football doesn't have a minor league to pad its figures.

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 10:46 PM
Please tell me who was caught on the MLB level during the 2006 season?

Please tell me how many the NFL caught last year and who were they?

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 10:50 PM
Please tell me how many the NFL caught last year and who were they?
So you cant find anyone suspened in 2006 for baseball eh?

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 10:50 PM
Well you got 3rd stringer Rick Razzano who is basically is a NLF version of a minor leaguer.

John Welbourn and . . .

So does that mean that Baseball had a better policy in 2005 then the NFL's?

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 10:52 PM
Well you got 3rd stringer Rick Razzano who is basically is a NLF version of a minor leaguer.

John Welbourn and . . .

So does that mean that Baseball had a better policy in 2005 then the NFL's?

The NFL suspended a similar number of players in its first years of testing.

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 10:53 PM
So you cant find anyone suspened in 2006 for baseball eh?


What is your point? Football found 3 NFL players. Hey I guess that means it is working. Yet last year MLB found more major leaugers using then NFl did. Hey I guess that means the MLB system is working. MLB in two years has found the same amount as NFL has, yet it has taken the NFL 17 years to catch all of their guys.

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 10:54 PM
The NFL suspended a similar number of players in its first years of testing.


So out of all the players in the NFL in 2005 only some third string fullback and a linemen were using drugs?


the Panthers proved that wasn't true, yet the NFL didn't catch the panthers.


And what does that say about the policy? The first year catches people by surprise and then they adjust and make the policy a joke. Is that what that means?

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 10:57 PM
What is your point? Football found 3 NFL players. Hey I guess that means it is working. Yet last year MLB found more major leaugers using then NFl did. Hey I guess that means the MLB system is working. MLB in two years has found the same amount as NFL has, yet it has taken the NFL 17 years to catch all of their guys.

Rickey Williams was also banned and so was Todd Saurbraun. And In the NFL ampetamines/stimulants get a 4 game ban for the first offense, in baseball they do not.

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 11:05 PM
Williams got caught for smoking marijuana. Is Marijuana a steroid?


Todd was caught during the Panthers sting in 2005 by the government raid on a doctor. If you get to include Todd for 2005 then I get to include Grimsley in 2006.

Ubiquitous
10-24-2006, 11:11 PM
I take it you are talking about Todd this year in camp with the ephedra.

So we got 1 stimulant catch to 0 so far MLB.

NFL takes the lead.

ESPNFan
10-24-2006, 11:13 PM
Williams got caught for smoking marijuana. Is Marijuana a steroid?


Todd was caught during the Panthers sting in 2005 by the government raid on a doctor. If you get to include Todd for 2005 then I get to include Grimsley in 2006.

Nevermind you looked it up.

And if you look into Williams most recent suspension he was docked for a drug other than pot.

chrispw1
10-25-2006, 06:01 AM
Like I said eralier, I find it funny how people rip on baseball for lack of HGH blood tests and noone says anything about the NFL. The NFL has had better pr all around which is a factor. Also, I saw an article on espn page 2 a year or so ago that talked about how 70s and 80s records are likely tainted by steroid use like Eric Dickerson's rushing record which even if he wasn't using some of his linemen blocking and opening holes for him may have been.

ESPNFan
10-25-2006, 08:01 AM
Like I said eralier, I find it funny how people rip on baseball for lack of HGH blood tests and noone says anything about the NFL. The NFL has had better pr all around which is a factor. Also, I saw an article on espn page 2 a year or so ago that talked about how 70s and 80s records are likely tainted by steroid use like Eric Dickerson's rushing record which even if he wasn't using some of his linemen blocking and opening holes for him may have been.

First on the HGH question, players unions in both sports are opposed to Blood testing. Of the two leagues which one do you think is more likely to get blood testing if it wants it? The NFL hands down.
And at least the NFL isn't trying to sell us some utterly unbelieveable snake oil story about researching a urine based test. Thats not PR, thats insulting your fans intelligence.

Bench 5
10-25-2006, 11:09 AM
I think that one of the biggest reason why people are more upset about steroid use in baseball is because it's one of the only sports where Moms and Dads actually think that there kid has a shot to play in the majors some day. It's perceived as a game of skill rather than brawn. Most major leaguers are bigger than the average Joe, but there are plenty of average size guys and small guys that are good players. You don't need to be 6'6" 275 to play major league baseball.

I think that football has done a better job of tackling the issue from a PR perspective than baseball. And they did it much sooner. However, I tend to agree with Ubi that a much much higher percent of NFL players use steroids than the numbers would suggest based upon the % caught. Players from the late 70's through the 80's were about the same height on average as players today and they hit the weightrooms religiously. You rarely saw a player over 300. Now every team has a dozen guys over 300 and without a noticeable lack of speed. Just about every position is bulkier than they were 20 years ago. There are probably a ton of "Romanowski's" in the league that have figured out a way to beat the system.

I can see 5 to 10 years from now that baseball will be in the same boat as the NFL is now. Once the steroid policy has the appearance of strength in the public eye, people will tend to ignore the issue and won't be shocked when a few players get caught every year. For both sports I think the reality it that a sizeable % of players will still find a way to skirt the system. It's as much a part of the game as hotdogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet.

Bench 5
10-25-2006, 11:18 AM
Don't count out Boxing. I'm sure Ivan Drago wasn't the only one drugged up :waving

Same for some of the fighters from the UFC and Pride.

Drago might not have been the only one drugged up from Rocky IV either!! Rumors were rampant in the early 80's that Sly Stallone started using steroids sometime after Rocky II. His body did make a metamorphisis from the early movies to the later ones.

I won't even mention Hulk Hogan from Rocky III. :dance

Skin & Bones
10-25-2006, 01:22 PM
Same for some of the fighters from the UFC and Pride.

Drago might not have been the only one drugged up from Rocky IV either!! Rumors were rampant in the early 80's that Sly Stallone started using steroids sometime after Rocky II. His body did make a metamorphisis from the early movies to the later ones.

I won't even mention Hulk Hogan from Rocky III. :dance

I meant Drago the character in Rocky 4, I don't know if Dolph Lundgren himself ever took anabolic steroids.

As for stallone, yes there was rumors, and only rumors, the gain he seen is certainly reasonable with the workout routine he had. And for Rocky 3, he actually had to lose weigh, because in that one, he specifically trained for speed and agility in the movie to defeat Clubber Lang.

Now he did have a very impressive physique in Rambo 2, which he claims was due to a crazy workout regimen he had at the time. He has it posted on his website.


MONDAY/WEDNESDAY/FRIDAY
Morning: Chest, back, abs
Afternoon: Shoulders, arms, abs

TUESDAY/THURSDAY/SATURDAY
Morning: Calves, thighs
Afternoon: Rear delts, traps, abs

http://www.sylvesterstallone.com/

As for Hulk Hogan, LOL, well he's a given.

Ubiquitous
10-25-2006, 01:28 PM
It would not surpise me at all to find out that hollywood has a huge steroid problem. Or I should say that a lot of actors are using them, since I doubt they think it is a problem.

ESPNFan
10-25-2006, 01:35 PM
Same for some of the fighters from the UFC and Pride.

Drago might not have been the only one drugged up from Rocky IV either!! Rumors were rampant in the early 80's that Sly Stallone started using steroids sometime after Rocky II. His body did make a metamorphisis from the early movies to the later ones.

I won't even mention Hulk Hogan from Rocky III. :dance

The UFC just had Stephan Bonner form their TUF show fail a test and Former Heaveyweight Champ Tim Sylvia also failed a test. As far as Pride and K1 go I'm not aware of their specific rules but Bob Sapp would be the first person on my list to pee int he cup. :laugh

Bench 5
10-25-2006, 02:04 PM
The UFC just had Stephan Bonner form their TUF show fail a test and Former Heaveyweight Champ Tim Sylvia also failed a test. As far as Pride and K1 go I'm not aware of their specific rules but Bob Sapp would be the first person on my list to pee int he cup. :laugh

There was a movie on HBO about 4-5 years ago on former champ Mark Kerr and he admitted having a serious steroid problem. Half the movie was about the impact this had on his relationship with his girlfiend and his bad mood swings. The movie was very good. Like boxing and the NFL, I am sure that for everyone they catch, there's a bunch more that they don't catch.

Rookie1914
10-25-2006, 02:13 PM
The big thing in Hollywood is HGH or Human Growth Horomone. It also helps keep you looking young for a long time. What ever happened to taking care of your body the natural way?

Skin & Bones
10-25-2006, 02:28 PM
The big thing in Hollywood is HGH or Human Growth Horomone. It also helps keep you looking young for a long time. What ever happened to taking care of your body the natural way?

Guess it depends what you define as " natural ".

Rookie1914
10-25-2006, 02:37 PM
Guess it depends what you define as " natural ".

- No plastic surgery
- No steroids

- Go on walks, go to the gym, ride a bike, lay off the soda and chips, lay of the 3rd and 4th helpings :coffee

Mattingly
10-25-2006, 02:38 PM
Moving from Current Events to Between Innings.

SoxSon
10-25-2006, 02:53 PM
And just as fast, I'm closing this for review.
The basic premise of this thread (its very title) is not baseball-related, though I realize that some posters have been comparing situations back to baseball. I need some time to read through this, and get some feedback from other mods. Hang tight for a decision, please.

SoxSon
10-25-2006, 03:16 PM
Ok, looks pretty good to me.
I am going to take the liberty, ChrisLDuncan, of changing the title a little, though, to reflect baseball content.

Please make sure that from here on out, all conversation focuses on comparison between issues of steroids in other sports with those in baseball. Straightforward discussion of steroids in other sports doesn't belong on BBF, clearly, so just keep it comparative, ok? Thanks, everyone. :)

Rookie1914
10-25-2006, 04:08 PM
I think we've beat a dead horse here, 6 pages worth :) I'm outta this thread. :waving

ChrisLDuncan
10-25-2006, 04:57 PM
How is this between innings? THis is a current event that effects all of basebell, the title isn't comparitive....but the first post on is.

Skin & Bones
10-25-2006, 05:17 PM
- No plastic surgery
- No steroids

- Go on walks, go to the gym, ride a bike, lay off the soda and chips, lay of the 3rd and 4th helpings :coffee

What about Lasik Surgery, Amphetamines, and other Supplements ?

ESPNFan
10-25-2006, 06:39 PM
What about Lasik Surgery, Amphetamines, and other Supplements ?

We have we heard all this before and its convinced nobody.

Skin & Bones
10-25-2006, 07:00 PM
We have we heard all this before and its convinced nobody.

Convince who of what ?

I wanted his opinion if he felt the things I listed were natural. I'm not trying to " convince " anyone of anything. And even if I was, what business is that of yours ?

ESPNFan
10-25-2006, 09:49 PM
Convince who of what ?

I wanted his opinion if he felt the things I listed were natural. I'm not trying to " convince " anyone of anything. And even if I was, what business is that of yours ?

This grey area you and others who are stunningly similar to you:rolleyes: try to paint between legal scientific advances and illegal use of controlled substances for gain in athletics.

LOL what business it is of mine? Unless I'm mistaken this is a public forum where opinions are debated and discussed.

Skin & Bones
10-25-2006, 09:54 PM
This grey area you and others who are stunningly similar to you:rolleyes: try to paint between legal scientific advances and illegal use of controlled substances for gain in athletics.

LOL what business it is of mine? Unless I'm mistaken this is a public forum where opinions are debated and discussed.

Actually, it isn't your business, especially when it's directed at someone else, and you are making it into something it's not.

Nobody is comparing " legal scientific advances " to " illegal use of controlled substances ", so where you got that from is anyone's guess.

It seems to me that your in the mood to argue, So I'll just leave it at that. Have fun making nothing into something.

Ubiquitous
11-01-2006, 01:11 PM
I guess now it is 3 NFL players to 1 MLB player for this year.

Bukanier
11-02-2006, 09:32 AM
As I found on Yahoo (http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/01112006/3/pakistan-s-akhtar-asif-banned-doping.html), two Pakistani cricket players have been caught cheating and were banned for one and two years respectively.

ChrisLDuncan
11-03-2006, 01:31 PM
I just saw Trey Wingo interview Shawne Merriman on ESPNews. It made me sick, he got softball questions, and he avoided those blamed a "comtaminated supplament" and everyone forgave him even though he passed the buck. Now Guiermo Mota gets caught roiding, he takes the blame, and everyone throws him under the bus. I think that this is dispicable.

Ubiquitous
12-15-2006, 10:11 AM
Another one added:

New York Yankees pitching prospect Hector Noesi was suspended Thursday for the first 50 games of next season after testing positive for a banned performance-enhancing substance under baseball's minor league drug program.
Noesi received the 40th suspension this year under baseball's drug program. Only three of the suspensions were for violations of the major league plan: New York Mets pitchers Guillermo Mota and Yasuko Iriki, and pitcher Jason Grimsley, who was released by the Arizona Diamondbacks.

west coast orange and black
12-16-2006, 07:32 AM
Tammy Thomas, who won the silver medal at the 2001 World Track Cycling Championships, was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with her Oct. 30, 2003 testimony before the grand jury that was investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative sports doping case.
-lance williams, mark fainaru-wada, sf chronicle staff writers, friday, 15 december 2006

here's their story (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/15/MNGFON03831.DTL&type=printable)

sandlot
12-17-2006, 04:43 PM
Comparing drugs in different sports involves a lot of issues, including knowledge and understanding of the users, cultural issues, the sources of the drugs, and testing. For example, the scandal involving the Pakistani players is a huge issue in cricket and is probably the tip of the iceberg in that sport. But to what degree do these particular players really understand what they're taking or being given? They might be educated and fully knowledgeable, but they are just as likely to be guys who grew up playing cricket on city streets or dirt fields in some village. I think you can make parallels easily with baseball players from poor backgrounds outside North America. There are economic, family and social pressures, and there's the question of informed consent.

Here in Asia, the chief of China's anti-doping agency has just warned Olympic athlete not to eat any food prepared outside the athletes' compounds because Chinese farmers are loading their animals with so much steroid that anyone eating a meal -- just one meal -- in a local restaurant would risk failing the Olympic drug test for PEDs. His statement carries a lot of implications for testing (and health). E.g., anyone who eats a lot of sushi and shrimp might want to study up on aquaculture and learn what the fishies are being fed. Where I live, right now, freshwater fish have been unavailable because they've been found carrying chemicals like malachite green. People with heart trouble are being warned not to eat cereals from New Zealand that contain vitamin K. Pig lung, eaten widely in soups, has repeatedly been found to carry chemicals dangerous to asthmatics. We've had successive flu outbreaks from chickens and other fowl, involving culls of millions of birds, and we know fowl are being loaded with antibiotics, etc. Can every person who's taken a strong anti-PED stand on this forum guarantee that he or she knows what's in their food and could unequivocally pass a random drug test? The honest answer has to be no. None of this excuses people who knowingly use steroids, sometimes in complicated sequences that imply a level of understanding, in order to get a competititive edge, but it points up how hard it is to make blanket statements.

Ubiquitous
12-17-2006, 06:43 PM
The honest answer isn't no but a yes in Western cultures. There is a big difference between eating food in Beijing and eating food in Chicago. I'm not saying North American food is the purest food in the world but no I am not worried about failing a drug test because I ate some filet from a cow from Nebraska.


I would also say that I find it hard to believe that anybody could have a reasonable excuse to steroids because of eating meat. The testing at the olympic level is so thorough that they know what drugs you were taking, how much of it, and when you took it last. While I admit I am not an expert on it I again seriously doubt we are going to have some sort of Seinfeld moment where someone fails a drug test because they ate a kaiser roll.

ESPNFan
12-20-2006, 07:24 PM
The honest answer isn't no but a yes in Western cultures. There is a big difference between eating food in Beijing and eating food in Chicago. I'm not saying North American food is the purest food in the world but no I am not worried about failing a drug test because I ate some filet from a cow from Nebraska.


I would also say that I find it hard to believe that anybody could have a reasonable excuse to steroids because of eating meat. The testing at the olympic level is so thorough that they know what drugs you were taking, how much of it, and when you took it last. While I admit I am not an expert on it I again seriously doubt we are going to have some sort of Seinfeld moment where someone fails a drug test because they ate a kaiser roll.

That would have been a GREAT episode. I can see George taking tainted stiry fry into the Yankees locker room and getting half the team suspended with of course George's unfortunate co-worker taking the blame. :clapping

sandlot
12-20-2006, 07:30 PM
The honest answer isn't no but a yes in Western cultures. There is a big difference between eating food in Beijing and eating food in Chicago. I'm not saying North American food is the purest food in the world but no I am not worried about failing a drug test because I ate some filet from a cow from Nebraska. You might be unpleasantlly surprised if you took a test. The amount of preservatives in meat (and other foods) is changing the way that US undertakers do their work, as people's bodies are already in a semi-preserved state upon death. The amount of antibiotics to be found in food is also appalling, especially in fowl. As it happens, I am now researching into the exportation of chicken parts from the US, and there is a big dropoff in exports to some places because US producers do not want to do the pre- and post-mortem tests on the birds that these importing terrtories now require. Cost is one factor, but one wonders if it's the only reason. Going back a bit in history: During the Cold War, in the days before the nuclear testing moratorium, US health officials measured strontium 90 fallout by testing milk. They chose milk because they believed it was a ubiquitous food source. What they later learned was that cows have an ability to filter many things out of their milk, and in fact the strontium 90 fallout levels were several magnitudes higher than believed. This was discovered when large numbers of cows began dying from bone cancer -- caused by the storage of radioactive material in their marrow. In fact, kids of my generation were exposed to far higher radiation levels than the public was being told at the time. After the cows starting dying of malignancies, they then confirmed what was happening by testing something even more ubiquitous than either milk or cows. They began to test the grass the cows were eating. Odd, the things that science overlooks sometimes.


I would also say that I find it hard to believe that anybody could have a reasonable excuse to steroids because of eating meat. The testing at the olympic level is so thorough that they know what drugs you were taking, how much of it, and when you took it last. While I admit I am not an expert on it I again seriously doubt we are going to have some sort of Seinfeld moment where someone fails a drug test because they ate a kaiser roll.The kaiser roll maybe not, but the roast beef in it, maybe. The Chinese government two weeks ago issued an assurance to HK that "most" of the food sent here from the mainland was "fit to eat." If you find that reassuring, be sure to buy foodstuff with the Made in China label. My wife is Chinese and won't touch it. And why wouldn't one meal spike the test? A single inhalation of an asthma ventilator will register off the charts, and a doctor will tell you not to eat or drink certain foods (or sometimes anything at all) for 24 hours before a blood test. To find out whether Rasputin was in fact poisoned to death (he had a remarkable tolerance for arsenic) they exhumed his remains for tests about 80 years after his death. Anyway, point is, the tests are very sensitive yet imperfect. There are too many people who've failed tests, yet have steadfastly maintained their innocence, for every one of them to be a liar. And if the guy who's in charge of dope testing for the largest nation on earth says to skip the local kung pao chicken, who am I to argue?

Ubiquitous
12-20-2006, 08:46 PM
You might be unpleasantlly surprised if you took a test.

Actually I have taken drug tests and I have not yet had to blame my dinner for the results.


AS for the rest again I am not over there, I am in the states and I haven't heard anybody in the western hemisphere trying to blame something they ate for a positive result. I have heard people blame supplements but I have never heard anyone blame the chicken they ate. Nor am I claiming that our food is pure. Believe me when I say I am more then aware of the impurities of food. I have to deal with that everyday as part of my job.

west coast orange and black
12-20-2006, 10:42 PM
sandlot: You might be unpleasantly surprised if you took a test.

from a radio program broadcast that i heard a few weeks ago:
30 years ago: >30,000 u.s. agriculture/farm inspections annually
today: <5,000

ESPNFan
12-21-2006, 10:44 AM
sandlot: You might be unpleasantly surprised if you took a test.

from a radio program broadcast that i heard a few weeks ago:
30 years ago: >30,000 u.s. agriculture/farm inspections annually
today: <5,000

WCOAB you think that may be from the small farmer dissapearing? Just a thought, not dissagreeing.

Ubiquitous
12-21-2006, 11:20 AM
WCOAB you think that may be from the small farmer dissapearing? Just a thought, not dissagreeing.


Great point.

Fun fact: In 1950 there were 5.4 million farms in America. Today there is about 1.9 million. In 1930 it was 6.3 million.

sandlot
12-21-2006, 05:19 PM
So while the number of farms has dropped by a factor of about 2.5 (also making it harder to spot potential baseball talent throwing watermelons in the fields), the number of inspections has declined by a factor of six. Not reassuring. Also, while the number of farms has decreased (the farms of my family members and neighbors among them), the size of the remaining farms has increased -- the so-called economy of scale. At the same time, the chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides and medicines to which plants and animals have been exposed has skyrocketed -- meaning the inspectors have a lot more they need to be looking for, but they need increasingly sophisticated means of testing and more money to do it.

I, for one, would be very happy if a lot of the money being spent to develop drug testing for elite athetes was being spent to examine the quality of food being sold in the markets and brought to the dinner tables of the world. And while being "there" and not "over here" might seem to provide some protection, that's short-lived. Ask a Gilroy, Cal., garlic farmer who's about to get run over by Chinese imports what he thinks -- if he's even aware, yet, of the train that's headed down the track. His Korean colleagues know, though, and it's a painful lesson.

Before someone says this has nothing to do with baseball, let me say that drugs cross all borders and the current tests for them have faults and blind spots -- that's my real point. And some enterprising academic might want to look at the WTO's rules and see how they might apply, say, to the Japanese posting system. It would be interesting to know whether baseball and other sports somehow sit outside of international trade agreements.

Ubiquitous
12-21-2006, 05:35 PM
An example:

You have 100 craftsman each making a wooden chair in 100 different locations. Now then what is the reliability of those chairs? how many do you have to examine to be reasonably sure that all of the chairs are of good quality? Every single one of them right? So you have 100 inspections.

Okay time passes, one craftsmen creates a factory in which 100 chairs are made on an assembly line. Every single chair is made the same. How many inspections do you need to be reasonably sure that all 100 chairs are sound? 5? 10? You certainly don't need 100 right?

Okay now apply that to say the cattle industry. You have very large herds on controlled land, all eating the exact same thing. All being treated exactly the same. all being slaughtered exactly the same way. Now how many tests do you need to be reasonably sure of quality?


It isn't just about the number of farms. It is also about the standardization of raising and slaughtering animals.


I, for one, would be very happy if a lot of the money being spent to develop drug testing for elite athetes was being spent to examine the quality of food being sold in the markets and brought to the dinner tables of the world. And while being "there" and not "over here" might seem to provide some protection, that's short-lived. Ask a Gilroy, Cal., garlic farmer who's about to get run over by Chinese imports what he thinks -- if he's even aware, yet, of the train that's headed down the track. His Korean colleagues know, though, and it's a painful lesson

Except for the most part that money being spent is private money. The united states government does not fund the testing of baseball players.

As for being there or here it is already happening. A huge chunk of Americas seafood supply comes from China. You got fruits and vegetables coming from Mexico and South America, meat coming from Venezuela, heck you even got basil coming from Israel.

The point I'm getting at when I talk about here and there is that there is a really big difference between what goes on in the backwaters of China and what goes on in Nebraska in terms of the food supply. Plus there is a big difference between what we will import from say Mexico and what we won't. Take avocados for an example. Most Americans if they went down to Mexico and picked some random local farm and ate an avocado from it they would run a good chance of getting sick. Yet millions of Americans eat tons and tons of Avocados from Mexico every year and don't get sick. (Well most of them, obviously people do get sick, it is the nature of the beast) Why is that? Because we have standards and if one wishes to sell their product in America they must meet those standards.

Sultan_1895-1948
12-21-2006, 07:08 PM
Now he did have a very impressive physique in Rambo 2, which he claims was due to a crazy workout regimen he had at the time. He has it posted on his website.



http://www.sylvesterstallone.com/

As for Hulk Hogan, LOL, well he's a given.

:laugh As if anyone ever claimed that you didn't need to workout while on roids. That's the entire point. They allow you to workout longer and harder :lookitup

Keep comparing roids to lasic eye surgery and drinking cow testicles or whatever that was, lol.

ESPNfan made great points about the NLF and how they've handled their policy. The results are not perfect. No sports results will be. Athletes will always be striving to gain an edge (recently a wheelchair-bound tennis player was caught using PEDs..yes, you read that right), especially in this day and age with oodles of money and fame up for grabs. The cheaters who have the means and motive will always be one step ahead of the testers, but the NFL has had their head out of the sand for quite some time unlike MLB.

Many already hit on some key points, the biggest of which imo, is that the numbers mean so much in baseball and so little in football. The outrage regarding Bonds has quite a bit to do with him being a front-line star, but take away the pursuit of hallowed records (yes, 714 is bigger than 755 to a lot of people), and there's not much there. Couple that with his unlikable personality and habit of blaming everyone but himself..and you have outrage.

Ubiquitous
12-21-2006, 09:05 PM
ESPNfan made great points about the NLF and how they've handled their policy. The results are not perfect. No sports results will be. Athletes will always be striving to gain an edge (recently a wheelchair-bound tennis player was caught using PEDs..yes, you read that right), especially in this day and age with oodles of money and fame up for grabs. The cheaters who have the means and motive will always be one step ahead of the testers, but the NFL has had their head out of the sand for quite some time unlike MLB.

The results are not perfect? They are not even close to being flawed or smudgy? They are a downright sham. They score a zero. The NFl has their head out of the sand? Did they have their head out of the sand before or after the Panthers? The NFL comes about as close to encouraging steroid use as any public organization is ever going to get. They demand that players be big, fast, strong, and can take a punishment. Well guess what humans for the most part can't do all that, but if you want to play in the NFL you better be able too. So how do they do it? They use drugs, and they have done it for decades. The entire the league knows, the owners know, the coaches know, and the trainers know. But hey they have testing so it must mean they are on the up and up. Governments have police forces, governments have laws, governments have courts. That doesn't mean a government cannot be corrupt. The NFL can have testing, the NFL can have a policy that doesn't mean they are against steroid use or that they don't give tacit approval of its use.

sandlot
12-22-2006, 08:54 AM
An example:

You have 100 craftsman each making a wooden chair in 100 different locations. Now then what is the reliability of those chairs? how many do you have to examine to be reasonably sure that all of the chairs are of good quality? Every single one of them right? So you have 100 inspections.

Okay time passes, one craftsmen creates a factory in which 100 chairs are made on an assembly line. Every single chair is made the same. How many inspections do you need to be reasonably sure that all 100 chairs are sound? 5? 10? You certainly don't need 100 right?

Okay now apply that to say the cattle industry. You have very large herds on controlled land, all eating the exact same thing. All being treated exactly the same. all being slaughtered exactly the same way. Now how many tests do you need to be reasonably sure of quality?

It isn't just about the number of farms. It is also about the standardization of raising and slaughtering animals.Yes, which is why I wrote that farms were decreasing in number, but have increased in size. Alongside this put the declining number of persons who make their living through agriculture. To achieve the level of output we have with few people tilling larger areas has required mechanization and the industrialization of agriculture. But standardization by necessity breeds sameness -- that's a key to consistency, and consistency is essential to mass marketing -- but sameness is at odds with nature's penchant for constant diversity. So industrial agriculture has simultaneously required the development of pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers, weedkillers, genetic research, the list goes on. These, along with fuel costs, have become the major areas of resource allocation (spending) for farmers -- not labor costs, save perhaps for some very specialized crops. Sure, when you have assembly line cows and chickens you can do ransom testing based on certain statistical assumptions, but -- and this is the key point -- you now have to test for a far wider range of things than you would have looked for a few decades back, and increasingly sophisticated and expensive means are required to do it. And when you're wrong, or you miss one sick chick, the consequences can be catastrophic.

There are parallels and lessons in this for drug testing. The drugs being used by elite (or hope-to-be-elite) athletes are, by and large, becoming increasingly sophisticated -- designer drugs. The market might be small, relative to other pharmaceuticals, but those who want them can and will pay. The testing for them must become correspondingly sophisticated and expensive. And the R&D will outstrip the testing.


Except for the most part that money being spent is private money. The united states government does not fund the testing of baseball players. Whether the money is public private isn't the issue for me. It's a matter of priorities and values.


As for being there or here it is already happening. A huge chunk of Americas seafood supply comes from China. You got fruits and vegetables coming from Mexico and South America, meat coming from Venezuela, heck you even got basil coming from Israel.

The point I'm getting at when I talk about here and there is that there is a really big difference between what goes on in the backwaters of China and what goes on in Nebraska in terms of the food supply. Plus there is a big difference between what we will import from say Mexico and what we won't. Take avocados for an example. Most Americans if they went down to Mexico and picked some random local farm and ate an avocado from it they would run a good chance of getting sick. Yet millions of Americans eat tons and tons of Avocados from Mexico every year and don't get sick. (Well most of them, obviously people do get sick, it is the nature of the beast) Why is that? Because we have standards and if one wishes to sell their product in America they must meet those standards.China has a small blue-water fishing fleet when compared to Japan, the US, etc. Hong Kong funds a lot of boats. A lot of the seafood from China is either from mariculture (e.g., prawns, oysters, crabs-- see my earlier comment) or taken from places like the Great Barrier Reef and other waters in SE Asia. They have an extensive farming of freshwater fish, which are a major problem for contamination of various kinds. But in the end whather it's from Nebraska or Guangdong, it comes down to: What are you looking for? And do you have the means to find it? If the USDA didn't have the means to check what comes in with a frequency high enough to be a deterrrent, and without enforceable law, you could find anything is those avocados. We can say wth some certainty that the USDA keeps out the things it's looking for. But what about the thing's it's not yet looking for? That's the drug tester's problem.

ESPNFan
12-22-2006, 01:43 PM
The results are not perfect? They are not even close to being flawed or smudgy? They are a downright sham. They score a zero. The NFl has their head out of the sand? Did they have their head out of the sand before or after the Panthers? The NFL comes about as close to encouraging steroid use as any public organization is ever going to get. They demand that players be big, fast, strong, and can take a punishment. Well guess what humans for the most part can't do all that, but if you want to play in the NFL you better be able too. So how do they do it? They use drugs, and they have done it for decades. The entire the league knows, the owners know, the coaches know, and the trainers know. But hey they have testing so it must mean they are on the up and up. Governments have police forces, governments have laws, governments have courts. That doesn't mean a government cannot be corrupt. The NFL can have testing, the NFL can have a policy that doesn't mean they are against steroid use or that they don't give tacit approval of its use.

I find it highly unlikely that the NFL is at level of silent approval of steroid use that baseball was in the decade leading up to the public outrage that forced them to test.

If the NFL scores a Zero on their policy as you say, what does MLB score for not only letting the drugs scandalize the sport for years but for being incompitent enough in their formulation of a policy that even the two bit politicians looking to grand stand, can publicly blow holes through, making the MLB look like fools.

Also the NFL have suspended Shawn Merriman, A guy who is absolutely a SuperStar Caliber Linebacker, and just Recently Hollis Thomas on the resurgant Saints who have been the NFL feel good story of the season.

The only MLB positive test came from Guiermo Mota and it was announced after the season had ended allowing the player to participate in the playoffs.

Thats two years in a row now that players have reportedly tested positive during the season and had been allowed to play in the playoffs.

Ubiquitous
12-22-2006, 11:31 PM
I find it highly unlikely that the NFL is at level of silent approval of steroid use that baseball was in the decade leading up to the public outrage that forced them to test.

If the NFL scores a Zero on their policy as you say, what does MLB score for not only letting the drugs scandalize the sport for years but for being incompitent enough in their formulation of a policy that even the two bit politicians looking to grand stand, can publicly blow holes through, making the MLB look like fools.

Also the NFL have suspended Shawn Merriman, A guy who is absolutely a SuperStar Caliber Linebacker, and just Recently Hollis Thomas on the resurgant Saints who have been the NFL feel good story of the season.

The only MLB positive test came from Guiermo Mota and it was announced after the season had ended allowing the player to participate in the playoffs.

Thats two years in a row now that players have reportedly tested positive during the season and had been allowed to play in the playoffs.


You honestly believe that all of these football players that don't get caught are clean? Do you honestly believe that the owners, coaches, and trainers don't know who is on drugs? You honestly believe that? Because at the root of it all that is what I want to know. We can dance around this and say what is better. But what matters is do you honestly believe the sport of football is clean? Do you honestly believe the owners and coaches do not want steroids in their league? Do you honestly believe that the front office doesn't know about drug use on their teams?

SoxSon
12-23-2006, 06:32 AM
China has a small blue-water fishing fleet when compared to Japan, the US, etc. Hong Kong funds a lot of boats. A lot of the seafood from China is either from mariculture (e.g., prawns, oysters, crabs-- see my earlier comment) or taken from places like the Great Barrier Reef and other waters in SE Asia. They have an extensive farming of freshwater fish, which are a major problem for contamination of various kinds. But in the end whather it's from Nebraska or Guangdong, it comes down to: What are you looking for? And do you have the means to find it? If the USDA didn't have the means to check what comes in with a frequency high enough to be a deterrrent, and without enforceable law, you could find anything is those avocados. We can say wth some certainty that the USDA keeps out the things it's looking for. But what about the thing's it's not yet looking for? That's the drug tester's problem.

Ok...I think it's fair to say that a couple of you are drifting on this subject. I understand there's an analogy here, but let's get back to the actual topic itself, please?

ESPNFan
12-23-2006, 05:18 PM
You honestly believe that all of these football players that don't get caught are clean? Do you honestly believe that the owners, coaches, and trainers don't know who is on drugs? You honestly believe that? Because at the root of it all that is what I want to know. We can dance around this and say what is better. But what matters is do you honestly believe the sport of football is clean? Do you honestly believe the owners and coaches do not want steroids in their league? Do you honestly believe that the front office doesn't know about drug use on their teams?

I believe that The football players that don't get caught are as clean as the baseball players that don't get caught. Not very. The Owners? I don't think the majority of the Owners in Football are that closely involved in the operations of the on feild personell (with the exception of guys like Jerry Jones and Al Davis, Steinbrenner, .) GM's I bet have a real good idea as to who is clean. Take a look at the Oakland A's and ask yourself if Billy Bean didn't know what was up as he decided who to keep and who to let walk. Coaches in both leagues probably have an Idea. Trainers and Team Doctors probably know tons. Ever think about how many ligament/tendon injuries baseball has as a non-contact sport? My problem with baseball has always been with MLB's leadership and how they sat back and did nothing when it was obvious what was happening. Do you think that Mota and Lawton should have been allowed to play in the post season? Sure looks like MLB sat on those test results while they did doesnt it? How many post season games were influenced by Roided up ball players? Jason Giambi's two solo HR's in the game 7 of the 2003 ALCS look pretty legit considering he was a tumor ridden wreck in 2004 huh? And we know that Selig has hushed up resluts before, holding the Palmeiro results till after the HOF inductions. Do you find it odd that there was a clause written into previous testing agreements that allowed the commisioner to pick and choose who was fined privately and who was publicly suspended. Has fooball ever had a clause written into a Testing agrement that allows the players union the option of reverting to previous less stringent rules? Has football ever had so much bad PR surrounding a major record being broken?

Ubiquitous honestly I don't think you or I can tell which sport is cleaner right now. In the last ten years I think its obviously been football.
However there can be no argument as to which League's leadership has emerged with more credibility in working to keep players clean.

Ubiquitous
12-24-2006, 08:01 AM
You honestly believe football has been cleaner? Nor do I really understand how a league that practically forces you to take steroids has more credibility when it comes to steroids.

west coast orange and black
12-24-2006, 06:48 PM
30 years ago: >30,000 u.s. agriculture/farm inspections annually
today: <5,000

espnfan: WCOAB you think that may be from the small farmer dissapearing? Just a thought, not dissagreeing.

federal funds / "priorities" of our government / privatization

sandlot
12-24-2006, 10:26 PM
I have to say, honestly, that I am not particularly outraged by what grown men and women to their bodies in the pursuit of fame and money in a free society, but I am deeply concerned about the effects this practice -- and the industry surrounding it -- has on the rest of society. If you want outsized football players with speed and tremendous coordination, you're limited on what you can do once they are fully grown. Yes, they can bulk up and pack on muscle, but wouldn't you get even "better" results if you started them earlier on the program, when they're younger and still growing? I'm looking at high school and college-age athletes and wondering where the hell these specimens came from. There's a limit to how much we can credit improved nutrition and training; when dad's a six-footer, mom's 5'7" and little junior is 6'6'' and 280 lbs., surely someone should ask questions. I'm also distressed by reading quotes from college footballers who speak, in perfectly natural fashion, about how their intention when they hit a guy is to try to assure that he doesn't get back up. Are these guys attending classes? Are they absorbing any values off the playing field? The behavior of some footballers on the sidelines (and, occasionally, on the field) is psychotic. No other word. And does anyone remember basketballers like Nate Thurmond, Bill Russell, Pete Marovitch, etc., getting into brench-clearing brawls? There's an obvious loss of self-control and a rise in (condoned?) violence in sports. This is just accepted, it seems, as part of the entertainment industry. The real problem, it seems to me, is that the whole society is juiced. Until we address that issue, asking which sport is worse is at best academic.

Ubiquitous
12-25-2006, 06:35 AM
I seriously doubt violence in the form of brawls is up in sports. Baseball has had a long long decline of this form of violence. Almost nothing players do today can compare to the on the field antics of yesteryears in baseball.


As for basketball Rudy T would probably disagree with you on the violence in basketball going up.

What is more likely is that you are experiencing the glare of the national media. 50 years ago at best you could read about a fight if you were not lucky enough to be at the game. Maybe see a few pictures in the newspaper. Nowadays anything happens anywhere in the world and it is captured on film. Heck ESPN does slow motion replay on fights nowadays and blow by blow analysis.

sandlot
12-25-2006, 10:40 AM
I'm sorry that I don't know who Rudy T is but I'd like to hear whatever he has to say on the subject. Yes, the media do focus more on violence and the slo-mo, etc., is part of it. As I see it, it's both the normalization and the glorification of violence, like having a car crash every seven seconds in a TV drama because it's believed that this gets viewer attention. Of course it also turns many people off, but those who count eyeballs only care about the ones watching, not the ones turned away. I agree as well that there was a certain amount of self-censorhip in the past, where violence was deliberately left out, not just in sports but in other aspects of news and programming. That was as unreal and distorting as the excess today is. That said, I'm old enough to remember what's getting to be a long time back, and I'm sure that fights with fans, not to mention extremely violent brawls, were a relative rarity. I cannot ever remember while growing up an incidence of fans throwing objects onto a field or court that could hurt a player or force an interruption in the game. I can't say it never happened, or prove how often it did or did not happen, only that I cannot recall seeing or reading of such an occurrence. Yes, there were fights between players but baseball fights have, to my knowledge, always had unwritten rules. As for fans, go back and look at some of the pictures of baseball crowds right through the 1950's and into the early 60's and you'll see men wearing shirts and ties to the game, often with dress hats as well. There was yelling and verbal abuse, sure, but never to the level of coarseness and profanity you can hear today, or can even buy on a t-shirt. (Examples can be found on other threads in BBF where people quote themselves with pride for the profanities they've launched toward people sitting next to them in the stands.) I don't think drugs usage in sports is solely responsible for the decline in standards of conduct, but it plays a role. In short, it's a social phenomenon; sports, however, have become not an adjunct to our lives, but a sometimes defining feature of the society. Violence has always been integral to our culture, but now it's morphed into an attitude and a fashion statement -- the Nike whoosh on a head scarf. Fact is, we live in the Age of Rage. I would not be surprised one day to see a whoosh or some other advertising logo on the balaclava of a terrorist. Football is now the biggest American sport, not baseball, and I think it's the crucible for many of our current values.

ESPNFan
12-28-2006, 10:52 AM
You honestly believe football has been cleaner? Nor do I really understand how a league that practically forces you to take steroids has more credibility when it comes to steroids.

Absolutely football has been cleaner in the past. You can't logicly compare a sport that had a testing policy in place for years with one that had a problem and pretended it didn't exsist until they were forced to by outside scources.

And who says football forces you to take steroids?

Ubiquitous
12-28-2006, 10:59 AM
Of course you can logicly compare the two. Just because you have testing does that mean you have a better system. Football is infected with drugs. We know this, it is proven all the time, and I don't meann because of testing. We know this because retired players tell us, we know this because players get caught through other means besides testing.

The only difference between MLB and NFL is that the MLB pretends they don't exist and didn't have testing, while the NFL pretends they don't have a problem because of testing.

And yes NFL players are forced to take drugs or they will not be on NFL rosters. You honestly think these guys who are 250+ lbs and can run faster then most people, take a beating week in and week out are not taking something? You honestly think the size of NFL players is natural? Drugs have been in football for a very very long time, pain killers, speed, steroids, so on and so on. It is a grinding sport and the players have been using drugs to get by for a very long time. NFL coaches demand that players bulk up or lean down and get faster all the time. How do you think these players do that? Slim fast and lifting weights?

ESPNFan
12-28-2006, 12:11 PM
Just because you have testing does that mean you have a better system. Football is infected with drugs.

Uh yeah, I think having a system in place vs. not having anything and ignoring the problem as it expands is pretty much the definition of having a better system. :rolleyes:

Ubiquitous
12-28-2006, 01:54 PM
So if a system is in place that allows the bad things to continue all while screening said activities that is better? That is all it is a smokescreen. It doesn't hinder, it doesn't make people think twice about using, and it doesn't prevent anything. But yep it is better. The NFL has had testing in place for well over a decade and I'm willing to bet that the problem has gotten worse, and I am also willing to bet that the sham of a testing system is helping it get worse.

A system that is broken is not better then no system, in fact a lot of times it is worse.

ESPNFan
12-28-2006, 02:33 PM
So if a system is in place that allows the bad things to continue all while screening said activities that is better? That is all it is a smokescreen. It doesn't hinder, it doesn't make people think twice about using, and it doesn't prevent anything. But yep it is better. The NFL has had testing in place for well over a decade and I'm willing to bet that the problem has gotten worse, and I am also willing to bet that the sham of a testing system is helping it get worse.

A system that is broken is not better then no system, in fact a lot of times it is worse.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. I honestly feel that the leadership of the NFL has and is making a more genuine effort than their MLB counterparts at controlling its drug problem.

You say that a broken system is better than none but I don't think that the NFL system is broken. Its not perfect by any means as the Pathers incedent showed but in comparable situations they have made MLB look like enablers.

Take the Balco incident. The NFL retested its samples for THG. Do you think MLB did the same when the "informational" testing was going on? They say that 8 of the 10 Balco MLB players tested positive during that testing. What are the odds that none of them tested positive for THG? Pretty good I'd say.

Ubiquitous
12-28-2006, 02:51 PM
And the NFL isn't enablers? Why are so many NFL players using drugs? Because if they don't they won't be on the team. Who forces them to be bigger, stronger, faster, and healthier? And who has been forcing them to be that way for decades?

The owners and the coaches that is who. NFL players were not taking drugs for the records or the adulation. They were taking the drugs to play the game. That to me seems like a pretty screwed up system to me.

Ubiquitous
01-09-2007, 08:48 PM
From the Sporting News in March of 1949.

Ubiquitous
01-15-2007, 03:49 PM
From Fay Vincent about his memo

During McGwire's career (1986-2001), Major League Baseball did not have a rule in place that prohibited the use of steroids. Fay Vincent, the commissioner at the time, issued a memo in the early 1990s banning the use of steroids. But as Vincent told me in an interview last week, his memo had no authority over players for the simple reason that according to the labor agreement between owners and players, changes must be bargained.

"I sent it out because I believed it was important to take the position that steroids were dangerous, as were other illegal drugs," Vincent said. "As you know, the union would not bargain with us, would not discuss, would not agree to any form of a coherent drug plan. So my memo really applied to all the people who were not players."

Also in the article he raised an interesting point about Shawne Merriman. Shawne Merriman wins awards even after testing positive for steroids while Mark McGwire is shunned because he is suspected of steroid use.

ESPNFan
01-24-2007, 02:47 PM
The NFL wins again....

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2741136

Ubiquitous
01-24-2007, 03:16 PM
The NFL wins again....

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2741136

Yep they win the PR battle again, battle against drugs? Haven't come close to winning anything on that front.

Ubiquitous
02-27-2007, 08:29 AM
The other day the police raided a pharmacy responsible for distributing steroids to athletes. among the snippets is this

Sources also said New York Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement investigators recently interviewed a top physician for the Pittsburgh Steelers about his alleged purchase last year of roughly $150,000 of testosterone and human growth hormone.

Not a player not an individual a doctor for the team. So yeah I think the NFl has a major problem and their drug policy is a joke.

Ubiquitous
02-27-2007, 09:06 AM
Here is more


Last month, a New York investigator who has been tracking suspicious purchases from Signature Pharmacy flew to Pittsburgh to interview a top physician for the NFL's Pittsburgh Steelers about why he allegedly used a personal credit card to purchase roughly $150,000 in testosterone and human growth hormone in 2006.

The physician, Richard A. Rydze, who won a silver medal in platform diving in the 1972 Olympics, told the investigator the drugs were for his private patients, according to a person briefed on the interview. Rydze is an internist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. He also is a consulting physician for the FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration.

There are no allegations Rydze violated any laws. Many doctors are allowed under Pennsylvania rules to order and dispense prescription drugs. But investigators in New York said his orders of testosterone piqued their interest because of the large volume, his position with an NFL team and because he allegedly used a personal credit card.

``The doctors pretty much have reign to do anything they want,'' said Carmen Catizone, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy.

But Catizone, who has served as an expert witness for the DEA and other law enforcement agencies in criminal trials, said the credit card purchases raised questions.

``I've never seen a doctor pull out his or her own credit card ... it just doesn't make sense,'' Catizone said. ``Unless you are trying to build frequent-flyer miles on a credit card, I'm not sure why they'd be using a personal credit card.''

The retail value of the drugs allegedly purchased by Rydze, who tends to Steelers' players during their home and away games, is about $750,000, according to an investigator in the case.

ESPNFan
02-27-2007, 01:52 PM
The other day the police raided a pharmacy responsible for distributing steroids to athletes. among the snippets is this


Not a player not an individual a doctor for the team. So yeah I think the NFl has a major problem and their drug policy is a joke.

Uh yeah and Baseball's policy on HGH is much much better right? :laugh

Ubiquitous
02-27-2007, 06:26 PM
Uh yeah and Baseball's policy on HGH is much much better right? :laugh


And is the NFL's policy effective? You keep saying that the NFl does a better job and that they care so on and so on. Yet we constantly are finding out about massive usage of illegal drugs in the NFL. Not on an individual level but on a full scale team/organizational level.

There is no real difference between the NFL and MLB when it comes to drugs the only differene is window dressing. The NFL is putting on one of the biggest cons in the history of the entertainment industry and the sheep are buying it.

ESPNFan
02-27-2007, 06:54 PM
And is the NFL's policy effective? You keep saying that the NFl does a better job and that they care so on and so on. Yet we constantly are finding out about massive usage of illegal drugs in the NFL. Not on an individual level but on a full scale team/organizational level.

There is no real difference between the NFL and MLB when it comes to drugs the only differene is window dressing. The NFL is putting on one of the biggest cons in the history of the entertainment industry and the sheep are buying it.


Ubiquitous, neither league has a good, or even tangible HGH policy, so its oviously a wash there.

Do me a favor and go research both leagues random testing and see if you can tell me that baseball is better or even the same as the NFL.

Ubiquitous
02-27-2007, 07:05 PM
Ubiquitous, neither league has a good, or even tangible HGH policy, so its oviously a wash there.

Do me a favor and go research both leagues random testing and see if you can tell me that baseball is better or even the same as the NFL.


I honestly don't care what the policies say. I don't care if the NFL creates a rule that says every single NFL player will be tested every single day and if you fail a test you are shot. It doesn't matter, and the reason it doesn't matter is for whatever something you wish not to understand. What matters is the results. Is the NFL cleaner? Is the NFL brass committed to making their sport cleaner? They may very well have a piece of paper that says they are a better testing sport then baseball but look at the results. WE have now at least incidents in which major team wide usage of drugs in the NFL. Neither team was caught by the NFL it took outside authorities to catch them. WE have in this case a doctor who works for the team, who is paid by the team buying and supplying drugs to the players on his team. Nobody has ever yet proven that steroid use is that rampant in baseball. I'm not saying it isn't, I wouldn't be shocked if it is. But the NFL has this great policy yet do you honestly believe that the sport is more clean then MLB?

The NFL policy is window dressing for public consumption. The NFL wants steroided players, it feels they need them to continue the high enterainment value of the sport. At the same time they need the public to believe it is clean, or at least not care. Their policy allows the public to not care, the public almost always simply needs an excuse to overcome indignation. Their window dressing allows them to do that. Look at what you are doing. You are trumpeting the greatness of the NFL drug policy even though it clearly doesn't work. These guys are very good at what they do.

ESPNFan
02-27-2007, 08:08 PM
I honestly don't care what the policies say. I don't care if the NFL creates a rule that says every single NFL player will be tested every single day and if you fail a test you are shot. It doesn't matter, and the reason it doesn't matter is for whatever something you wish not to understand. What matters is the results. Is the NFL cleaner? Is the NFL brass committed to making their sport cleaner? They may very well have a piece of paper that says they are a better testing sport then baseball but look at the results. WE have now at least incidents in which major team wide usage of drugs in the NFL. Neither team was caught by the NFL it took outside authorities to catch them. WE have in this case a doctor who works for the team, who is paid by the team buying and supplying drugs to the players on his team. Nobody has ever yet proven that steroid use is that rampant in baseball. I'm not saying it isn't, I wouldn't be shocked if it is. But the NFL has this great policy yet do you honestly believe that the sport is more clean then MLB?

The NFL policy is window dressing for public consumption. The NFL wants steroided players, it feels they need them to continue the high enterainment value of the sport. At the same time they need the public to believe it is clean, or at least not care. Their policy allows the public to not care, the public almost always simply needs an excuse to overcome indignation. Their window dressing allows them to do that. Look at what you are doing. You are trumpeting the greatness of the NFL drug policy even though it clearly doesn't work. These guys are very good at what they do.

You don't care what the policies say because the NFL's is demonstrably better. That would ruin your argument. The NFL randomsly tests almost 20% of a team each week of the season. The NFL tests for EPO baseball doesnt. The NFL added a provision that fines a player a prorated portion of his signing bonus if he tests positive in addition to missing game checks.

You cant prove the NFL "wants" and "needs" "Steroided" players. Thats just baseless hyperbole on your part. The NFL will always be entertaining because of the nature of the sport. It doesn't need artificial and drug enhanced record chases to draw viewers.

There is no question however that the MLB "needed" "Steroided" players to recover from the Disaterous 1994 strike. McGuire and Sosa ring a bell? Barry's 71 comes to mind as well. Hell Peter Gammons even heard Bud Selig angrily hushing up the Palmeiro positive test till after the Hall Of Fame ceremonies that weekend. When the commisioner of your sport is caught red handed covering up a positive test till its more palatable to annouce it tend to hurt that league's and that commisioner's credibility.

I have never trumpeted the NFL as the pinnacle of Drug testing. They are however, better than the MLB. There is no argument there.

Ubiquitous
02-27-2007, 08:25 PM
You don't care what the policies say because the NFL's is demonstrably better. That would ruin your argument. The NFL randomsly tests almost 20% of a team each week of the season. The NFL tests for EPO baseball doesnt. The NFL added a provision that fines a player a prorated portion of his signing bonus if he tests positive in addition to missing game checks. No, like I said I don't care because it doesn't work. How can you possibly think it works after routinely discovering players using drugs and finding out whole teams used them and probably was known to be using them by their team? This reminds me of Lord Chamberlain coming off of a plain, holding up a piece of paper and proclaiming that we will have peace in our times. Words are meaningless if the actions are the complete opposite.



You cant prove the NFL "wants" and "needs" "Steroided" players. Thats just baseless hyperbole on your part. The NFL will always be entertaining because of the nature of the sport. It doesn't need artificial and drug enhanced record chases to draw viewers.
What do you mean I can't prove it? It isn't hyperbole. Read some bios from the players. Drugs were not some dirty little secret that you did in the corner and told no one. The teams know about the usage and has been shown repeatably they help provide those drugs. Drugs have been in the NFL and have played a major role for at least 40 years now. The NFL can simply not function at the level they produce without the aid of drugs. Football is a corpse maker.



There is no question however that the MLB "needed" "Steroided" players to recover from the Disaterous 1994 strike. McGuire and Sosa ring a bell? Barry's 71 comes to mind as well. Hell Peter Gammons even heard Bud Selig angrily hushing up the Palmeiro positive test till after the Hall Of Fame ceremonies that weekend. When the commisioner of your sport is caught red handed covering up a positive test till its more palatable to annouce it tend to hurt that league's and that commisioner's credibility.

I have never trumpeted the NFL as the pinnacle of Drug testing. They are however, better than the MLB. There is no argument there.

Really they needed steroids? Disastrous strike? There is no question that the MLB profited from steroid users just like football has profited from steroid users now for at least 3 decades, but no baseball did not need steroids. McGwire and Sosa did not save baseball, Bonds did not save baseball.

So because you say the Commish withheld announcing, not in fact covering up and ignoring but simply announcing the results baseball loses credibility. Yet when we discover that football teams routinely help in the acquiring of illegal drugs, well that is just meaningless?

I will agree that the NFL drug policy does do what it was designed to do vastly better then the MLB policy and that is be window dressing. In all probability illegal drug use in the NFL has gone up since the implementation of the policy yet nobody cares. Kudos to the NFL, job well done, Mission Accomplished!

ESPNFan
02-27-2007, 09:14 PM
No, like I said I don't care because it doesn't work. How can you possibly think it works after routinely discovering players using drugs and finding out whole teams used them and probably was known to be using them by their team? This reminds me of Lord Chamberlain coming off of a plain, holding up a piece of paper and proclaiming that we will have peace in our times. Words are meaningless if the actions are the complete opposite.


What do you mean I can't prove it? It isn't hyperbole. Read some bios from the players. Drugs were not some dirty little secret that you did in the corner and told no one. The teams know about the usage and has been shown repeatably they help provide those drugs. Drugs have been in the NFL and have played a major role for at least 40 years now. The NFL can simply not function at the level they produce without the aid of drugs. Football is a corpse maker.



Really they needed steroids? Disastrous strike? There is no question that the MLB profited from steroid users just like football has profited from steroid users now for at least 3 decades, but no baseball did not need steroids. McGwire and Sosa did not save baseball, Bonds did not save baseball.

So because you say the Commish withheld announcing, not in fact covering up and ignoring but simply announcing the results baseball loses credibility. Yet when we discover that football teams routinely help in the acquiring of illegal drugs, well that is just meaningless?

I will agree that the NFL drug policy does do what it was designed to do vastly better then the MLB policy and that is be window dressing. In all probability illegal drug use in the NFL has gone up since the implementation of the policy yet nobody cares. Kudos to the NFL, job well done, Mission Accomplished!

Please give me a break. If anyone has been Neville Chamberlain is been Bud Selig, his Drug policy has been a virtual carbon copy of appeasement if ever there was one. Only instituting it and improving it when his back was against the wall. The NFL is clearly Churchill in this comparison.

I mean you cant prove that the NFL as a League wants players to use Anabolic drugs. You said "The NFL wants steroided players, it feels they need them to continue the high enterainment value of the sport."
Its baseless and unsubstantiated hyperbole. Football is a "corpse maker" is another good line. lol

Yeah I'd call a strike that causes the cancellation of a World Series, something that not one but TWO WORLD WARS failed to do pretty disastrous.
Sorry but baseball thrived on the exploits of its Steroid fueled sluggers.
Those "Chicks dig the longball" ads look pretty foolish, from a credibility standpoint now.

You can call it window dressing, a fraud, or what ever comes to mind. The bottom line is they do it better than Baseball. Thats a fact.

Ubiquitous
02-27-2007, 09:23 PM
Please give me a break. If anyone has been Neville Chamberlain is been Bud Selig, his Drug policy has been a virtual carbon copy of appeasement if ever there was one. Only instituting it and improving it when his back was against the wall. The NFL is clearly Churchill in this comparison.

No Churchill got things done, he didn't make statements and then not back them up. If we wish to further the example perhaps we can say the NFL is Mussolini in that they make bold statements like "I make the trains run on time" when in fact they do nothing of the sort.



I mean you cant prove that the NFL as a League wants players to use Anabolic drugs. You said "The NFL wants steroided players, it feels they need them to continue the high enterainment value of the sport."
Its baseless and unsubstantiated hyperbole. Football is a "corpse maker" is another good line. lol
If the owners and administrators know, condone, help, provide, and continually hire drug users what does that say in terms of wanting drugs? We have team employees providing drugs, we have coaches telling players if you don't bulk up, if you don't put on speed you are cut, we have teams that absolutely know their players use drugs and help them to get them. Yet I can't prove that the NFL wants drugged players?




Yeah I'd call a strike that causes the cancellation of a World Series, something that not one but TWO WORLD WARS failed to do pretty disastrous.
Sorry but baseball thrived on the exploits of its Steroid fueled sluggers.
Those "Chicks dig the longball" ads look pretty foolish, from a credibility standpoint now. Yet despite the cancellation of the world series attendance and revenue were bouncing back well before McGwire and Sosa ever did a thing in 1998. Football thrives on its drugged players. The Super Bowl winners, the heros of the game were drug users!




You can call it window dressing, a fraud, or what ever comes to mind. The bottom line is they do it better than Baseball. Thats a fact.

What do they do better? Make fans happy? Sure. Curtail drug use? Nope, and you know as well as I do that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the NFL's drug policy works. Yet we have tons of evidence that it does not accomplish this task. Do you honestly believe that drug use is not a problem in the NFL? Do you honestly believe that drug use has not gottern worse or at least stayed the same since the instituting a drug policy?

ESPNFan
02-27-2007, 09:56 PM
No Churchill got things done, he didn't make statements and then not back them up. If we wish to further the example perhaps we can say the NFL is Mussolini in that they make bold statements like "I make the trains run on time" when in fact they do nothing of the sort.
Hmmmm I'd call adding meaningful changes to a existing drug policy without being embarrassed infront of congress, waiting until public outcry reached The Who concert decible levels or needing to wait for the next CBA, getting things done.


If the owners and administrators know, condone, help, provide, and continually hire drug users what does that say in terms of wanting drugs? We have team employees providing drugs, we have coaches telling players if you don't bulk up, if you don't put on speed you are cut, we have teams that absolutely know their players use drugs and help them to get them. Yet I can't prove that the NFL wants drugged players?
Kinda like the Yankees removing the steroid language from Giambi's contract right? Please. The NFL never needed steroids like Baseball did. The fact that baseball went as long as it did without a policy of any kind only proves it.



Yet despite the cancellation of the world series attendance and revenue were bouncing back well before McGwire and Sosa ever did a thing in 1998. Football thrives on its drugged players. The Super Bowl winners, the heros of the game were drug users!
You can't name one instance of a football player on PEDs that had as much of an impact on the sport as McGwire did for baseball in 1998.




What do they do better? Make fans happy? Sure. Curtail drug use? Nope, and you know as well as I do that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the NFL's drug policy works. Yet we have tons of evidence that it does not accomplish this task. Do you honestly believe that drug use is not a problem in the NFL? Do you honestly believe that drug use has not gottern worse or at least stayed the same since the instituting a drug policy?

And you have absolutlely no proof that the NFL policy is a sham, like you claim. No drug policy, not the NFL, not WADA and certainly not baseball's is perfect. Positive tests and scandals in every league/organization mentioned confirm that. But does Football do more than the other four major sports in America, thats undeniable.

Ubiquitous
02-27-2007, 10:14 PM
Hmmmm I'd call adding meaningful changes to a existing drug policy without being embarrassed infront of congress, waiting until public outcry reached The Who concert decible levels or needing to wait for the next CBA, getting things done. There is getting things done and then there is simply shoring up your powerbase. When i say getting things done I don't mean making a buck or having the public like you. I mean accomplishing real things like actually curtailing drug use. By your definition Mussolini got things done too.



Kinda like the Yankees removing the steroid language from Giambi's contract right? Please. The NFL never needed steroids like Baseball did. The fact that baseball went as long as it did without a policy of any kind only proves it.
How can the NFl not need steroids like baseball if they have a longer history of using them and it is more widespread?




You can't name one instance of a football player on PEDs that had as much of an impact on the sport as McGwire did for baseball in 1998.
Um how many players in the NFL can have an impact like McGwire in 1998? Well we have Brett Favre, we know he used pain killers at the very least. What about Lawrence Taylor? Please give me a list of names who you would view as equal to McGwire in 1998 so that if it ever comes out that they did indeed take drugs I can ask you if you have changed your stance.




And you have absolutlely no proof that the NFL policy is a sham, like you claim. No drug policy, not the NFL, not WADA and certainly not baseball's is perfect. Positive tests and scandals in every league/organization mentioned confirm that. But does Football do more than the other four major sports in America, thats undeniable. Absolutely no proof? How does at the very least two teams avoid detection? How is it that the government knows more about what NFL players are taking then the teams, even though the team is helping to supply the drugs? Perfect? I never made the demand that it has to be, but at the very least it should be effective.

So I'll ask again and I will ask until you give me a straight answer;

Do you honestly believe that drug use is not a problem in the NFL? Do you honestly believe that drug use has not gottern worse or at the very least stayed the same since instituting a drug policy?

ESPNFan
02-27-2007, 11:34 PM
Uh I hate to break it to you but Farve (I knew you were gonna mention Farve too lol) and LT weren't on things that are performance enhancing. MGwire was. MASSIVE difference.

And to answer your question, I believe PED use is a problem in every sport. I think that most of the things they started testing for have decreased but newer things like HGH and IGF-1 have popped up and caused new problems. I don't think testing will ever completely eliminate it, but to maintain some semblance of legitimacy you at least have to try to combat it. I think the NFL does that better than baseball by some margin.

Ubiquitous
02-27-2007, 11:51 PM
So . . . .Do you honestly believe that drug use is not a problem in the NFL? Do you honestly believe that drug use has not gottern worse or at the very least stayed the same since instituting a drug policy?


Can't you give me a straight answer?

You say it is a problem in every sport now then is it a problem because "hey like murder even one death is wrong" or is it a problem because a bunch of players are taking drugs? You keep giving me politician like non-answers just give me a straight answer.

So to clarify it even more.

Do you think drug use in the NFL is widespread? Do you think it is on the same level as MLB. If not either at what level do you think it is at? Do you honestly believe that drug use has not gottern worse or at the very least stayed the same since instituting a drug policy?

ESPNFan
04-27-2007, 10:06 PM
Bad Bad Mets Employee, Bad!!!! LOL

Skin & Bones
05-26-2007, 07:57 PM
Here's something interesting -
I realize I may be one of the few people watching to hear things like "epitestosterone ratio" and "custodial malfeasance," but watching the Floyd Landis hearings only reminded me how good baseball's policies for testing are. They're not perfect--there are always going to be people that beat the tests, either through creativity, cost, or brute power. After so many calls for an industry-wide policy over the years and the alterations that have been agreed to, I think baseball is second to none in the matter of its policy. The game has crafted one that will likely never be contaminated by the type of serio-dramatic problems of cycling, the crass indifference of football, or the political problems of the Olympic movement. I'd like to see baseball get to the stage where, like the Olympics, the sport is seen as keeping the cheaters to an absolute minimum by creating significant challenges of cost and creativity for the aspiring cheat. What really comes of that sort of testing regime is an atmosphere where talent will almost always wins out. Give football credit for acting early and making sure that they won the public relations battle that's a good half of the testing equation; that's a spot where baseball continues to fail. Still, baseball is further along than most sports, and it's about time the public recognized this. It bears repeating: for all of its problems, baseball has done more than I ever expected and more than any other professional sport, despite a lot of reasons and obstacles.
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6259

Calif_Eagle
07-15-2007, 12:57 PM
Using PEDS (catch all term for steroids HGH etc.) is necessary for NFL players because almost all of them (O & D linemen linebackers anyway) probably do it. If you arent drugged up, pain killers, uppers, & using PEDS you will be at the on-field mercy of those that do, (which I personally believe to be almost all of them. Professional football is a brutal physical sport. And the increases in player size over the last 40 years defies belief.). The testers are always well behind the tested in this race. In baseball, you CAN effectively compete without using PEDS, although you will be at a disadvantage in the long ball arena. And that brings up another point. In football PEDS are relative to line play, to blocking, tackling, and shucking off blocks, to the unromantic trenches of the game. Places the ball following TV coverage doesnt venture to a lot. In baseball however, PEDS are relative to the games most storied & spectacular play, THE HOME RUN. As a result, everyone watches what goes on with PEDS relative to home run hitting, & home run hitters & gets offended & turned off by the prospect by someone hitting more HR's via chemistry rather than by natural & developed by coaching, hitting prowess.

Brian McKenna
07-16-2007, 08:31 AM
I know we all love baseball here and I, for one, have really knocked the players for steriod use. Baseball is different than the other sports in the level it is examined by the hordes that love the game. Simply, baseball sparks the discussions few have the interest in pursuing in other sports.

But, is baseball really any worse than the rest of professional and amatuer sports when it comes to steriods? Is it fair to so brutally condemn baseball players when it is a path followed by so many athletes - American and foreign.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the contamination brought on by the PEDs. Steriods never really bothered me until they touched baseball. Sure, who didn't know about the abuses in football or wrestling or the Olympics? I didn't really care until it hit that oh sacred of sports.

PEDs are universal. Football, pro wrestling, cycling, track and field and all the other boring Olympic sports are teeming with 'roids and have been for decades.

That said - I don't ever want to forget and I'll never look at Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and the kind with any special reverence. I also want to know what happened - who took the 'roids and when. I don't care if it takes two decades. I want to know for a fact whether Clemens is as dirty as I suspect him to be.

Whitesoxnut
07-16-2007, 09:12 AM
Some of my favorite 'roid links. http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/ http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=3
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/feature/featureStory?page=steroids
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/03/06/growth0313/
http://www.juicedbaseballplayers.com/juicedbaseballplayers.phphttp://www.steroidsinbaseball.com/
http://www.steroidsinbaseball.net/

Is it any worse? With the exception of Pro wrestling unlimited juicing in MLB went on far longer then any of the other pro sports, this, without testing. I dont think it was "worse" per say, but it did go on longer.

And it went on longer with the knowledge of all parties involved. The players, the players union, the owners, and even the fans. The 1994 strike paralyzed efforts to clean up the sport even more because now everybody was worried about money, and about MLB losing its spot as the darling of American sports.

And then theres that. That baseball is "Americas National past-time" and hold a special place in the fabric of our society. Where'as "cycling"? I mean, who cares?

Theres an interesting story behind all this when Fay Vincent was running the show, this back in 1991.http://www.steroidsinbaseball.net/c/vincent.html I think Vincent would have instituted testing much earlier which would have limited the entire mess. Its important to note that the owners hold much of the blame for the steroid scandal too. As much, or more, then the individual players. And the one who holds the most is Buddy, their "guy".http://www.steroidsinbaseball.com/articles/baseball's_integrity_is_in_the_cellar.pdf

It was really a few non-baseball criminal investigations that blew the entire lid off this mess. Anyway, enjoy the links. Strange how many fans, even now, dont know much about this entire comedy. I guess many dont care. That, and MLBs entire machination, is geared toward diffusing, prolonging, and eventually making fans forget, or stop caring, about the entire mess.

west coast orange and black
07-16-2007, 09:15 AM
ped have been universal, bkmckenna, yer right. and, they still are. but, to a much lesser degree.
i believe that the landscape is much different today than just a few seasons ago, as far fewer players use. at the height of ped use, perhaps 3/4ths of all players used. but a real testing procedure is now in place, using more sophisticated drug tests. and then there is the everyday threat of even more-sophisticated tests ready for unannounced implementation.

cycling and track & field finally addressed the issue in real ways and those sports are much better for it. baseball has done the same and is already better for it. but curiously, mlb is still dragging its feet when it comes to hgh*. though mlb has donated money towards coming up with a detectable-by-blood hgh test, mlb oughtta be contributing much more money to that end. still, mlb is very much on the way to being about as clean as it can be.

football is about about dominating one's man, and is still a mess. professional wrestling is not a sport and will not address the issue 'til their revenue becomes threatened.

i part ways with wanting to know who, exactly, and when, though.
what i already know makes it at times very difficult for me to read about the game that i love and to attend games.


* this makes no sense. hgh, not coupled with steroid use, is practically useless for what professional athletes want to achieve.

Brian McKenna
07-16-2007, 11:47 AM
i believe that the landscape is much different today than just a few seasons ago, as far fewer players use.

I think you're right here. Hiddengem has espounded on this issue and opened my eyes about deflated bodies.

It's also noticable how some in question have found ways to take time away from the game to perhaps "tone it down"...Giambi, Sosa, Clemens, Bagwell. Maybe speculation but in the end I think it'll be part of the whole story.

cardsfanatic
07-16-2007, 12:42 PM
I don't understand why so many people care. To each their own and all... but if a guy wants to shorten his life so he can mash a ball further, then in my world he's earned the right to do so. It's not like I'd ever consider anyone but Babe Ruth the HR king anyway. I mean, it took Aaron nearly twice as many AB's to beat Ruth's record and it took Bonds about 2,500-3,000 more AB's (roid assisted, at that). So, unless A-Rod breaks the 900 plateau then I'm pretty comfortable acknowledging Ruth as the best HR hitter to ever live. And roids or not, Barry Bonds is pretty damn awe inspiring because it's not like that needle of d-bol, decca, winstrol or whatever he's shooting is taking the field.

Whitesoxnut
07-16-2007, 01:59 PM
My personal belief is that truly "beautiful baseball" is a baseball game that features low scores, great pitching and defense, and 2 great managers pitting their strategies against each other. Its seems like you see it less and less since the early 90s, or even the 80s, when the long ball took over and scores increased. To this day I am fascinated by a low scoring, fundamentally sound, baseball game.

Steroids did nothing for the game itself. It enriched the greedy and poisoned relations with the fans. But it did nothing to make the game better. Frankly it breaks my heart this game I love has come to this. Now the only way out is full disclosure, and absolutely Buddy Selig has to go.

west coast orange and black
07-18-2007, 11:57 AM
brownie31: Daryl Cagle at msnbc

uh, bonds batting from the right side?

west coast orange and black
07-18-2007, 12:01 PM
brownie31: Steve Breen of The San Diego Union.
"what steroids are you using?"

if true that bonds tested positive for amphetamines, per work agreement bonds would be tested 6 times in 6 months.

brownie, do you believe that bonds is using steroids?

Brownie31
07-18-2007, 01:32 PM
brownie31: Steve Breen of The San Diego Union.
"what steroids are you using?"

if true that bonds tested positive for amphetamines, per work agreement bonds would be tested 6 times in 6 months.

brownie, do you believe that bonds is using steroids?

Presently, with all of the attention, perhaps not. In the past? Yes.

Brownie31

Brownie31
07-18-2007, 01:33 PM
brownie31: Daryl Cagle at msnbc

uh, bonds batting from the right side?

One must allow for art!;)

Brownie31

west coast orange and black
07-18-2007, 02:25 PM
brownie31: Presently, with all of the attention, perhaps not.

uh, bonds not getting attention? when was the last time that bonds got no attention?
he pinch-hit yesterday against the cubs and the whole place came to a stop and stood up.

Brownie31
07-18-2007, 03:47 PM
brownie31: Presently, with all of the attention, perhaps not.

uh, bonds not getting attention? when was the last time that bonds got no attention?
he pinch-hit yesterday against the cubs and the whole place came to a stop and stood up.

Obviously he has gotten attention like any other major leaguer in his career. That said, I was referring to attention in re steroids. Sorry for any confusion.

Brownie31

west coast orange and black
07-18-2007, 03:49 PM
um, unlike practically any other major leaguer, brownie.

we're cool.

DownUnderDodger
07-18-2007, 08:18 PM
but in the NFL (the most popular sport haveyou) it's not even mentioned. I just think that this is horrible and that baseball is unfairly judged.

Maybe it is because in the NFL they actively pursue offenders (and not only for 'roids) and punish them accordingly, therefore it is no longer headline news, whereas in baseball the authorities continue to run with half hearted testing and have their heads buried in the sand most of the time. The fact that the Charger seems to have been found out in the off season shows how serious the NFL must be regarding use of illegal substances. No doubt if the MLB did likewise there would be outcries all over the place. :think:

Ubiquitous
07-18-2007, 08:31 PM
Actively? Hardly, the US government has done a better job of finding roided up football players then the NFL has.

brewcrew82
07-18-2007, 08:31 PM
I must have missed this topic the first time around but I definately agree that baseball is held to a higher standard than other sports when it comes to its records and the effect of PED's on them. In football it's almost accepted that those guys are juiced to their eyeballs, plus they implemented their steroid policy before there was a public outcry about therefore making it look like they are tough on it.

ChrisLDuncan
07-18-2007, 08:46 PM
Maybe it is because in the NFL they actively pursue offenders (and not only for 'roids) and punish them accordingly, therefore it is no longer headline news, whereas in baseball the authorities continue to run with half hearted testing and have their heads buried in the sand most of the time. The fact that the Charger seems to have been found out in the off season shows how serious the NFL must be regarding use of illegal substances. No doubt if the MLB did likewise there would be outcries all over the place. :think:

Well my origional point was that when a great baseball player is using roids it's a fedral investigation, and when Merriman gets caught it was barely news. He was still liked and just said "it was a mix up" and people by and large believed him. He was still liked he wasn't booed for roiding, no one threw syrenges on the field...I think that was unfair.

ChrisLDuncan
07-18-2007, 08:53 PM
I know we all love baseball here and I, for one, have really knocked the players for steriod use. Baseball is different than the other sports in the level it is examined by the hordes that love the game. Simply, baseball sparks the discussions few have the interest in pursuing in other sports.

But, is baseball really any worse than the rest of professional and amatuer sports when it comes to steriods? Is it fair to so brutally condemn baseball players when it is a path followed by so many athletes - American and foreign.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the contamination brought on by the PEDs. Steriods never really bothered me until they touched baseball. Sure, who didn't know about the abuses in football or wrestling or the Olympics? I didn't really care until it hit that oh sacred of sports.

PEDs are universal. Football, pro wrestling, cycling, track and field and all the other boring Olympic sports are teeming with 'roids and have been for decades.

That said - I don't ever want to forget and I'll never look at Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and the kind with any special reverence. I also want to know what happened - who took the 'roids and when. I don't care if it takes two decades. I want to know for a fact whether Clemens is as dirty as I suspect him to be.

That was my main point right htere :clapping :highfive:


Cali Eagle nailed it too


Using PEDS (catch all term for steroids HGH etc.) is necessary for NFL players because almost all of them (O & D linemen linebackers anyway) probably do it. If you arent drugged up, pain killers, uppers, & using PEDS you will be at the on-field mercy of those that do, (which I personally believe to be almost all of them. Professional football is a brutal physical sport. And the increases in player size over the last 40 years defies belief.). The testers are always well behind the tested in this race. In baseball, you CAN effectively compete without using PEDS, although you will be at a disadvantage in the long ball arena. And that brings up another point. In football PEDS are relative to line play, to blocking, tackling, and shucking off blocks, to the unromantic trenches of the game. Places the ball following TV coverage doesnt venture to a lot. In baseball however, PEDS are relative to the games most storied & spectacular play, THE HOME RUN. As a result, everyone watches what goes on with PEDS relative to home run hitting, & home run hitters & gets offended & turned off by the prospect by someone hitting more HR's via chemistry rather than by natural & developed by coaching, hitting prowess.

Whitesoxnut
07-19-2007, 10:54 AM
Actively? Hardly, the US government has done a better job of finding roided up football players then the NFL has.

My undertsanding is that 54 NFL players failed tests once, and an additional 57 failed twice. Tho I'm not sure if thats all for 'roids or the entire drug list.http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05277/582201.stm



And a football player is going to have an even harder time now.http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9951711

Ubiquitous
07-19-2007, 01:15 PM
[QUOTE=Whitesoxnut;951219]My undertsanding is that 54 NFL players failed tests once, and an additional 57 failed twice. Tho I'm not sure if thats all for 'roids or the entire drug list.http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05277/582201.stm

Yes the NFL has caught 111 players in 15 years. The US Government has in the last 2 years caught at least 2 teams with extensive drug programs.

ESPNFan
07-20-2007, 10:57 AM
[QUOTE=Whitesoxnut;951219]My undertsanding is that 54 NFL players failed tests once, and an additional 57 failed twice. Tho I'm not sure if thats all for 'roids or the entire drug list.http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05277/582201.stm

Yes the NFL has caught 111 players in 15 years. The US Government has in the last 2 years caught at least 2 teams with extensive drug programs.

The MLB caught over 80 baseball players in one year. And I know of one team in the NFL who had their doctor implicated but who is the other team with a drug program?

chrispw1
07-30-2007, 11:35 AM
I think part of the reason numbers are scrutinized more is not only because people consider them more important but in football and basketball,nimbers are more of a system and players around you type deal. For instance, Rich Gannon was a quarterback who was mediocre with several teams for a decade yet went into the right system with the right players and in his mid 30s put up numbers that blew away what he'd dome before and had no whispers of ped suspicion where a baseball player with that type of late career surge definitley would have, or a Curtis Martin a few years ago having his best year late or guys like Jeff Garcia who can resurect their career off the scrap heap. or in the NBA you have guys like Ben Wallace and Steve Nash who were late bloomers or guys who had one big year scoring like a Jerry Stackhouse in 2001. In Babeball, it is only the hitter against the pitcher so any jump in numbers these days is much more likely to be questioned.

chrispw1
08-02-2007, 09:35 PM
I found an interesting quote on shawnnwe Merriman when they talked about potential future NFL hall of famers from espn.com that kind of puts things in prespective when it talks about another positive test possibly pernamently tarnishing him where any baseball player with mere suspicions can have his legacy killed. From espn.com:

"Merriman possesses an unparalleled combination of size and speed, evoking memories of a young Lawrence Taylor. But in addition to the risk of injury, which any player faces, there is also the specter of last season's four-game steroid suspension. Will he test positive for performance enhancers again and have his reputation permanently tarnished? Or will he test clean from now on and have the episode blow over like with Julius Peppers in 2002? With the prospect of playing against the Raiders twice a season for the rest of his career, it's not difficult to imagine Merriman ranking among the career sacks leaders someday."

Also, I found an old Jim Caple page 2 column on esspn.com from a few years ago that helps give some prespective.

Kick 'em all out of the Hall

By Jim Caple
Page 2


All the fans, columnists and radio talk-show hosts are right. Steroid use taints every statistic in the book.

We don't know what the records really mean anymore. Because the league dragged its heels so long over steroid testing, there is a black cloud of suspicion over an entire generation of players. Because we can't know for sure who the guilty players are, we likewise can't know for sure who is completely innocent. That means every player and every accomplishment is suspect in the Steroid Era.

Thus, there is only one appropriate way to handle this. It's unfortunate, but to be fair to the great players who achieved their milestones honestly, we must paint with the broad brush the public demands. We must fill the record books with asterisks and close the Hall of Fame doors to everyone from the Steroid Era.

I'm talking, of course, about the NFL and its Steroid Era.

http://www.espn.go.com/media/pg2/2005/0819/photo/dickerson_i.jpgDickerson's record 1984 season? Scratch it from the books. (John McDonough/Icon SMI)

The NFL didn't begin testing for steroids until 1987, didn't suspend anyone until 1989 and didn't start year-round testing until 1990. New Orleans coach Jim Haslett recently estimated that when he played (1979-87) half of NFL players and all the linemen took steroids. Steve Courson, a part-time starter on Pittsburgh's 1979 championship team, admits he took steroids and Haslett charged that the Steelers' four Super Bowl championships were fueled by steroids.

So bust the Canton busts of the nine Hall of Fame Steelers from the Steroid Era. Granted, we don't know whether Terry Bradshaw, Mike Webster, Joe Greene, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Mel Blount, Jack Lambert and Jack Ham swallowed anything stronger than the Coca-Cola that kid handed Mean Joe in the commercial, but when it comes to steroids, the American public has made it very clear that you're guilty until proved innocent. And if one person points a vague finger, that's good enough.

Likewise, I don't have any knowledge that Eric Dickerson used steroids, but he set the single-season rushing record three years before the NFL started testing and more than half his career rushing total came before his first urine specimen. Put a big asterisk next to that record 2,105 and boot Dickerson out of the Hall of Fame.

True, there's no evidence that Walter Payton ingested any performance enhancer stronger than a bowl of Wheaties, but how can we know for sure? He played his entire career during the Steroid Era. That taints everything Payton did. And if Haslett's estimate about steroid use among linemen is even half right, that means Payton received blocks from players using performance enhancers. That's not a Hall of Fame performance, that's cheating. Toss Sweetness out of Canton, too.

Dan Marino holds the career marks for touchdown passes, yards passing and completions, but his absolute best seasons -- including his 48- and 44-touchdown years -- were during the Steroid Era. We're supposed to believe those marks were thanks to the Isotoner gloves he gave his receivers each Christmas? Please. It doesn't matter whether Marino never personally took steroids; if just one of his receivers or just one of his linemen did, the stats are bogus. Kick him out of the Hall.

http://www.espn.go.com/media/pg2/2005/0819/photo/marino_i.jpgMarino threw a ton of TD passes, but how many involved steroid users? (Albert Dickson/TSN/Icon SMI)

How can we consider Lawrence Taylor the greatest linebacker ever when some of his best seasons came during the Steroid Era? We already know how many other drugs he put into his system, would steroids really be such a stretch?

Face it, any Hall of Famer who played a significant portion of his career in the Steroid Era is suspect and should be removed. Howie Long, Marcus Allen and James Lofton -- that means you. Dan Hampton, Earl Campbell and Jackie Slater -- hasta la vista, baby! Ronnie Lott, Randy White and Lee Roy Selmon -- get out of here, I mean it. Ozzie Newsome, Mike Singletary and Anthony Munoz -- don't let the turnstile hit you on the way out. Steve Largent, Dan Fouts and Tony Dorsett -- turn off all electronic devices and return your tray to its locked, upright position. John Riggins, Earl Campbell and Joe Montana -- the last chopper out of Canton is leaving and your names are on the flight manifest.

And let's not limit ourselves to individual players. We need to readjust our attitudes about the most celebrated teams of all time. The 1985 Bears? Can we absolutely say that everything in Chicago's Refrigerator came from the grocery store instead of the pharmacy? The 1986 Giants? Can we really believe that it was just Gatorade in that bucket? Heck, the 49ers' whole West Coast offense might have been fueled by premium instead of regular, if you know what I mean.

Once we make a clear, consistent statement about the NFL and the tainted records from its Steroid Era, perhaps then we'll finally be in a position to make some judgments about baseball's recent statistics. Once we apply the same standard to the players from the NFL's Steroid Era, we can talk about how recent major leaguers should be evaluated by baseball's Hall of Fame. But until then, I don't want to hear anyone complain that baseball performances have been tainted or that players should be banned from Cooperstown.

After all, if it never bothered you in one sport, why should it bother you in another?

Jim Caple is a senior writer at ESPN.com. His first book, "The Devil Wears Pinstripes," is on sale at bookstores nationwide. It can also be ordered through his Web site, Jimcaple.com.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/050823

brewcrew82
08-03-2007, 07:23 AM
Very interesting article, Chrispw1. Thanks. :clapping

Bukanier
09-08-2007, 11:37 AM
I found this quite funny:


Flintoff pins hopes on steroid injection

Andrew Flintoff has had a steroid injection in his left ankle in a bid to play in the deciding one-day international against India at Lord's and be available for the ICC World Twenty20.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvind/content/story/309944.html

natsnsoxfan
09-08-2007, 12:34 PM
It probably isn't, but its the sport where its most publicized. I think part of the reason we hear so much about it is because, for the most part, there aren't any other major professional leagues in season so it attracts attention to itself due to the lack of other stuff going on.

zahavasdad
12-14-2007, 06:50 AM
Why does Baseball get a black eye regarding juice, yet almost every football player uses it. (Not every baseball player used it, but I bet the percentage in Football is Much much higher than baseball)

Football players used it first and continue to use it.

If you've ever seen a football player you KNOW they are on steroids!!

RubeBaker
12-14-2007, 07:18 AM
Why does Baseball get a black eye regarding juice, yet almost every football player uses it. (Not every baseball player used it, but I bet the percentage in Football is Much much higher than baseball)

Football players used it first and continue to use it.

If you've ever seen a football player you KNOW they are on steroids!!


What proof do you have of this?

zahavasdad
12-14-2007, 07:35 AM
The 1970's Steelers Invented Steroids for sports Use. Lyle Alzado said Steroids caused his brain cancer.

I met Fay Vincent once and he said even Division III football players were using steroids (Players who will NEVER make the pros)

If you have ever seen a football player out of uniform, they dont look normal

SamtheBravesFan
12-14-2007, 08:00 AM
I'd be inclined to agree with this off-hand, but I wish I knew how much steroid use was being done in football and baseball. That way, this statement would have more teeth.

Baseball only appears to have a bigger black eye because the government had sources to conduct an investigation (despite it not being very comprehensive). Football has had no such investigation and no news outlets jumping on the idea 24/7.

nymdan
12-14-2007, 08:13 AM
I think it's because of the RECORDS.

Baseball is a sport very closely tied to its history and records... and players using steriods are obliterating these records by putting up numbers not even close to what had previously been accomplished. Because the results of a player using steroids are very quantifiable, it bothers people.

In football, if a 350 pound lineman is accused or caught using steroids, people don't care as much because you can't really quantify what difference the steroids have made in the players' game.

But I guarantee if there were steroid allegations about a running back who was about to break the all-time single season or career rushing mark, or a quarterback who was on the verge of breaking a touchdown or yardage record, you would see people react similarly to how they react with steroid use in baseball.

mean green
12-14-2007, 08:15 AM
Football is now "America's Game." Football is just about untouchable.

Sean Casey
12-14-2007, 08:15 AM
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that baseball is a much more statistics-oriented sport, and so many records have been broken by players who have or who may have taken steroids. In the NFL, on the other hand, no matter how much steroids an offensive lineman takes, he's not going to be breaking any important records.

SamtheBravesFan
12-14-2007, 08:26 AM
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that baseball is a much more statistics-oriented sport, and so many records have been broken by players who have or who may have taken steroids. In the NFL, on the other hand, no matter how much steroids an offensive lineman takes, he's not going to be breaking any important records.

All the important records are based in the offense and in the secondary; also, the linebackers for sacks. Who's to say that any of them have not taken PEDs?

TonyStarks
12-14-2007, 08:31 AM
It's because Baseball is considered to be more of a "gentleman's" sport, where as Football is for "bruts" and violence is encouraged.

So for them it's no big deal.

zahavasdad
12-14-2007, 08:37 AM
Even CYCLING has a bigger black eye than football!!!

Nobody know anything about cycling except all the cyclists are doped up.

Frankly as bad as Roids are on Baseball Players After they are finished playing, How many Post-Football players are CRIPPLED because they were constantly tackled by a 350lbs Lineman on Roids.

hsnterprize
12-14-2007, 08:45 AM
I think it's because of the RECORDS.

...But I guarantee if there were steroid allegations about a running back who was about to break the all-time single season or career rushing mark, or a quarterback who was on the verge of breaking a touchdown or yardage record, you would see people react similarly to how they react with steroid use in baseball.

I tend to agree with this assessment. Football is more of a sport that almost "requires" players playing the non-glamourous positions like offensive and/or defensife linemen to take "something" to either help them bulk up or heal pain they suffer. That doesn't make it right, but as far as we know, the NFL isn't openly pursuing steroids users as much as MLB.

But if a big named player like Favre, Manning, Brady, or someone from the NFL's past were to admit or test positive for league-banned substances while playing, I'm assuming we'd hear the same outcry for the league to clean up in football as it is trying to do in baseball.

But as of now, it's not like a 5',10" guy weighing 275 is trying to play defensive end. How many people playing baseball who at first couldn't hit the ball out of the infield are now hitting homers like they're going out of style?

Yankwood
12-14-2007, 09:02 AM
I honestly believe that the hard core football fan doesn't even really care if it's "clean" or not. It's always been a freak show of sorts anyway, and watching the way these idiots point to themselves after completing routine, ordinary tasks, integrity flew out the window years ago. In short, steroids and HGH, or whatever, are no big deal to the typical football fan. Records aren't even known commodities to most. Baseball fans, on the other hand, cherish the records.

RubeBaker
12-14-2007, 09:06 AM
I think the difference is that football has had a good steroid policy in place for years while baseball turned its back and ignored the problem, almost promoting it.

mikemets
12-14-2007, 09:07 AM
But if a big named player like Favre, Manning, Brady, or someone from the NFL's past were to admit or test positive for league-banned substances while playing, I'm assuming we'd hear the same outcry for the league to clean up in football as it is trying to do in baseball.


Last season sean merriman of the san deigo chargers tested positive for steriods and didn't even lose his endorsments.
bill romanowski admitted to taking steroids almost all his career and that he got his steriods from balco. and noone even seemed to care at all

chrispw1
12-14-2007, 09:14 AM
Also, a few years ago a few players from the Carolina Panthers Super Bowl team were found to have gotten steroids before the game and it barely registered a blip on the radar, yet if that had been a world series team, just imaging how much uproar there would have been. Also, I hear people all the time calling for HGH bllod tests in baseball, yet I never hear anyone rip the NFL for its lack of HGH blood tests. Also, Mark Gastneau set a single season scak recird on steroids and noone was really bothered by it. I think some reasons are as mentioned, numbers mattering more, baseball being a game or romance and history, and the NFL having bttter pr all around.

Captain Cold Nose
12-14-2007, 09:51 AM
I think the difference is that football has had a good steroid policy in place for years while baseball turned its back and ignored the problem, almost promoting it.

This one gets my vote. Football has had a pretty comprehensive drug testing policy for years, including steroids. In terms of education, testing and punishment, they are light years ahead of baseball.

Brian McKenna
12-14-2007, 09:56 AM
There are plenty of 'roids in football not doubt. Those bodies weren't genetically bred to look like that.

Football tends to escape the argument to a degree because there is so many fat slobs. Baseball players are supposed to look tight and fit. So many football players look like they have bodies by Budweiser, Pepsi, Domino's and Burger King. Who gets worked up on the 'roid angle when you see all the fat rear ends and bellies gasping on the sidelines?

Ubiquitous
12-14-2007, 09:58 AM
I think the difference is that football has had a good steroid policy in place for years while baseball turned its back and ignored the problem, almost promoting it.



This one gets my vote. Football has had a pretty comprehensive drug testing policy for years, including steroids. In terms of education, testing and punishment, they are light years ahead of baseball.


How can football have a good policy if the players are taking steroids? What football has is a better window dressing. The difference between football and baseball is that football got out in front of it early and told people don't worry we are taking care of it. In reality they did almost nothing to staunch the flow of steroids but they allowed people to forget about steroids in baseball.

Ubiquitous
12-14-2007, 10:00 AM
first football and baseball steroid thread. (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=64609)

zahavasdad
12-14-2007, 10:12 AM
How can football have a good policy if the players are taking steroids? What football has is a better window dressing. The difference between football and baseball is that football got out in front of it early and told people don't worry we are taking care of it. In reality they did almost nothing to staunch the flow of steroids but they allowed people to forget about steroids in baseball.

I think Football's policy is WHAT STEROIDS???, Lyle Alzado made the accusation long before Jose Canseco. I dont know why Canseco had traction and Alzado had none, Its not Like Canseco was a popular player

RubeBaker
12-14-2007, 10:37 AM
How can football have a good policy if the players are taking steroids? What football has is a better window dressing. The difference between football and baseball is that football got out in front of it early and told people don't worry we are taking care of it. In reality they did almost nothing to staunch the flow of steroids but they allowed people to forget about steroids in baseball.

We have stiff penalties against DUI's, but people still do it anyway. The point is not whether or not people are still cheating, because they always will, it's the fact that they are actually taking a stand against it. What has hurt baseball is not only that records are being broken unfairly, but the fact that for many years it was condoned rather than condemed.

Football can at least say that if say Farve was found to be taking roids, they can say "His TD record is unfair, shame on him." If they wanted to erase his record, they probably could with a good deal of approval Baseball can't do that. The records are on the books, but the whole situation is such a mess, there's not a whole lot they can do much about it. Had they been more proactive from the beginning, there would be no doubt that Barry's home run records would be wiped clean.

ESPNFan
12-14-2007, 10:39 AM
This one gets my vote. Football has had a pretty comprehensive drug testing policy for years, including steroids. In terms of education, testing and punishment, they are light years ahead of baseball.

When the problem became clear they didnt stick their head in the ground and pretend it wasnt a problem. They also forced the union to comply with the testing. Football could very well be the gold standard for non-WADA drug testing in pro sports.

Ubiquitous
12-14-2007, 10:42 AM
When the problem became clear they didnt stick their head in the ground and pretend it wasnt a problem. They also forced the union to comply with the testing. Football could very well be the gold standard for non-WADA drug testing in pro sports.

And yet it doesn't work.

ESPNFan
12-14-2007, 10:44 AM
How can football have a good policy if the players are taking steroids? What football has is a better window dressing. The difference between football and baseball is that football got out in front of it early and told people don't worry we are taking care of it. In reality they did almost nothing to staunch the flow of steroids but they allowed people to forget about steroids in baseball.

I think Football's policy is WHAT STEROIDS???, Lyle Alzado made the accusation long before Jose Canseco. I dont know why Canseco had traction and Alzado had none, Its not Like Canseco was a popular player

And football had a testing policy in place long before baseball.

Ubiquitous
12-14-2007, 10:44 AM
We have stiff penalties against DUI's, but people still do it anyway. The point is not whether or not people are still cheating, because they always will, it's the fact that they are actually taking a stand against it. What has hurt baseball is not only that records are being broken unfairly, but the fact that for many years it was condoned rather than condemed.

Football can at least say that if say Farve was found to be taking roids, they can say "His TD record is unfair, shame on him." If they wanted to erase his record, they probably could with a good deal of approval Baseball can't do that. The records are on the books, but the whole situation is such a mess, there's not a whole lot they can do much about it. Had they been more proactive from the beginning, there would be no doubt that Barry's home run records would be wiped clean.

And yet we don't know any of that. We don't know if Favre would ever be allowed to test positive for steroids.

Yes Football took a stand. It told the american people that we won't tolerate it and then went right on tolerating it. Read the link I provided. In it you will find whole teams using steroids, you will find team doctors providing the drugs, and yet football took a stand? Football's drug testing is a sham.

Ubiquitous
12-14-2007, 10:44 AM
And football had a testing policy in place long before baseball.

That doesn't work.

ESPNFan
12-14-2007, 10:46 AM
And yet it doesn't work.

Uh news flash, no testing by anyone works totally. WADA is still trying to catch people.

Bottom line: Football did a good job and continues to improve. Baseball has repeatedly required mass public embarrasment to do anything and what they do is laughably lax and borderline corrupt.

Brian McKenna
12-14-2007, 10:51 AM
Uh news flash, no testing by anyone works totally. WADA is still trying to catch people.

Bottom line: Football did a good job and continues to improve. Baseball has repeatedly required mass public embarrasment to do anything and what they do is laughably lax and borderline corrupt.

A lot of the differences here is the relative strength of the unions.

zahavasdad
12-14-2007, 10:59 AM
A lot more baseball players have been caught than football players and there a lot more football players,

So strength of union doesnt matter.

ESPNFan
12-14-2007, 11:01 AM
A lot of the differences here is the relative strength of the unions.

Oh without question. But MLB should have taken an hangups about the drug testing program and gone public with them during those collective bargaining sessions. If you put the public spotlight on the union in terms of them stonewalling drug testing they really would have no choice but to come to some kind of agreement. It's pretty clear that MLB was content to use the drug testing issue as a chip to bargain for other things it wanted more until the whole thing blew up in their faces.

Again, neither side saw this as vital until public and goverment pressure was brought against them and forced their hand. And even they they tried to make it as loophole ridden and flimsy as possible.

Ubiquitous
12-14-2007, 11:09 AM
Uh news flash, no testing by anyone works totally. WADA is still trying to catch people.

Bottom line: Football did a good job and continues to improve. Baseball has repeatedly required mass public embarrasment to do anything and what they do is laughably lax and borderline corrupt.

That is because the public doesn't care that football is using drugs. It gets proven over and over again every time the government (NOT THE NFL) finds football players using drugs.

ESPNFan
12-14-2007, 12:07 PM
That is because the public doesn't care that football is using drugs. It gets proven over and over again every time the government (NOT THE NFL) finds football players using drugs.

Right and baseball never has the government catch anyone for them... oh wait...LOL. Seriously you are really making no sense here at all. Of course the government is going to be the one catching HGH users because neither baseball nor football can test for them. Its a nice smokescreen but it doesn't mask the fact that baseball has been, and still is a laughingstock next to football, for more than a few seconds.

Ubiquitous
12-14-2007, 06:43 PM
So let me get this straight, NFL is the gold standard, it doesn't work, they don't really catch anybody, players are taking massive amounts of drugs, but hey it works, it is the gold standard.

Then because the government also catches baseball players that somehow means football is better? Every time the government raids one of these anti-aging clinics they catch whole teams at a time of NFL drug users. But hey it is working. Less NFL players are using drugs now then a decade ago. NFL players are not bigger, faster, stronger, and more able to bounce back from injuries as the once were a decade ago.. . .oh wait never mind they are.

The NFL is on drugs and they have been all through this great drug policy. Your gold standard drug policy doesn't work, it doesn't even come close to working. It is a sham.

Brian McKenna
12-14-2007, 06:46 PM
Congress is stirring a fuss - if there is another summit, it's meaningless without the other major sports and their unions there as well.

NightHawks2007
12-14-2007, 06:57 PM
Like I just posted in another thread no more than two minutes ago, its a double standard. Football currently means more to society, so they aren't going to derail it. The problem is also lost based on the fact that the largest and strongest players are the offensive linemen, also they are the most ignored players in all of sports.

Baseball gets more attention due to the individual nature of the game. Players that are on 'roids are more visible because they act alone half the time.

VTSoxFan
12-14-2007, 07:16 PM
Perhaps people just assume that football is awash in PEDs, whereas baseball is more romanticized (cue the James Earl Jones speech from Field of Dreams). I think that Baseball in general is believed to be more authentic, more honest... but like so many of our cherished assumptions turns out to have been pretty illusory.

My dad often says about people who puff themselves off as saintly, but are found out to be less than perfect: "He is pure as the driven snow.... but he drifted." Well, baseball drifted.

runningshoes
12-14-2007, 07:52 PM
These are dark times historically.

Why would baseball be immune from the plague?

rockin500
12-14-2007, 08:02 PM
These are dark times historically.

Why would baseball be immune from the plague?
what makes these times any more dark historically than any other time?

scootermojo
12-15-2007, 11:57 AM
It is extremely disturbing and unfair that football gets a pass on PED use yet baseball continues to get hammered. Consider:

1.) Brett Favre admits being addicted to painkillers but never fails a drug test and is not suspended.

2.) Bill Romanowski is also one of the players associated with BALCO yet practically nothing is ever said or done about that. Are we supposed to think that he was a rogue element in the NFL? Are supposed to think that he would never share his little secret with anyone else in the NFL especially considering the clique atmosphere of the league? Even though I believe he retired shortly afterwards or retired shortly before the BALCO investigation he never failed a drug test and was never suspended for drug use.

3.) Information regarding steroid use by Carolina Panther players, including the punter, comes out only AFTER they played and lost in the Super Bowl. Nobody was ever suspended. I'd bet top dollar that if they won the Super Bowl nothing would've ever been said about it.

4.) The Steelers team doctor was implicated in the illegal distribution of PED's and yet that was swept so quickly under the rug your head would've fallen off. The only fallout: he was "let go" by the Steelers. Are we supposed to think he never gave anything to the team considering his close proximity and association with the Steelers? Again, when this story broke they were the defending Super Bowl champs but it was quietly shoved aside.

5.) When Pacman Jones was arrested the arresting officer asked him about his marijuana use and why would he risk being caught by the NFL. His response: He stated he KNEW when he was going to be tested.

6.) Lastly, Micheal Vick. While awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to federal charges he fails a drug test. Despite the fact that he is obviously stupid for running his little dog operation are we supposed to believe that he only started smoking pot AFTER pleading guilty to federal charges. Come on! Nobody is THAT STUPID!!!!

Obviously, MLB has/had a serious problem but all this rhetoric by Congress, the media and the fans amounts to nothing more than a witch hunt if other sports, especially the NFL, are given a free pass. There is too much evidence, even more than was in MLB, at hand to let it go.

I'm not condoning what happened in baseball and obviously something needed to be done but what's fair is fair. If Congress threatens to get involved, which I think they shouldn't, then they should come down hard on ALL SPORTS and not just baseball and not just let the NFL/NFLPA come to Congressional hearings and tell them exactly what they wanted to hear like they did in March of 2005.

I'm am actually pleased to hear others thinking that the NFL gets a free pass besides me. Living in Pittsburgh, football hotbed it is, I was beginning to think that I was the only one. You should hear how people around here blindly and sickenly defend the NFL and yet slam baseball.

Its this type of myopic thinking that has completely turned me off of football despite the fact that I used to love it. That and the fact that when someone crazed linebacker with several state charges over his head tackles a runningback after he gained 20 yards jumping up and down like he cured polio.

The arrogant sense of self-entitlement that goes with football has gone too far and is only increased with this free pass in regards to PED use in sports. If this angers you like it does me then do what I am planning to do: write my Congressman and DEMAND an inquiry into football.

ESPNFan
12-15-2007, 03:23 PM
It is extremely disturbing and unfair that football gets a pass on PED use yet baseball continues to get hammered. Consider:

1.) Brett Favre admits being addicted to painkillers but never fails a drug test and is not suspended.

Favre was taking Vicodin which alot of players take. I don't belive you test positive for it if team doctors percribe it to you but I could be wrong.
When his addiction became a noticible problem Favre was told by his team doctors to talk to league medical officals about his addiction. Ultimately he was told that if he didn't enroll in the league substance abuse policy he was going to be suspended and fined. He was not only monitored for his painkiller usage but also banned from Drinking Alcohol for two years, which ultimately lead to him quitting booze for good. His Team and the NFL were both involved in his situation from the beginning and a potentially embarrasing situation was handled openly and publicly. What's your point?




2.) Bill Romanowski is also one of the players associated with BALCO yet practically nothing is ever said or done about that. Are we supposed to think that he was a rogue element in the NFL? Are supposed to think that he would never share his little secret with anyone else in the NFL especially considering the clique atmosphere of the league? Even though I believe he retired shortly afterwards or retired shortly before the BALCO investigation he never failed a drug test and was never suspended for drug use.

Why does it surprise you that a person taking undetectable steroids never failed a drug test? Thats the point of it. Oh and just an FYI more Baseball players were linked to Balco than Football players.



3.) Information regarding steroid use by Carolina Panther players, including the punter, comes out only AFTER they played and lost in the Super Bowl. Nobody was ever suspended. I'd bet top dollar that if they won the Super Bowl nothing would've ever been said about it.


You want to question the Timing of the report? Question CBS. They are the ones that broke the story. You Think a major network isn't going to run that story after a team WINS the superbowl? Are you serious?



4.) The Steelers team doctor was implicated in the illegal distribution of PED's and yet that was swept so quickly under the rug your head would've fallen off. The only fallout: he was "let go" by the Steelers. Are we supposed to think he never gave anything to the team considering his close proximity and association with the Steelers? Again, when this story broke they were the defending Super Bowl champs but it was quietly shoved aside.


This Dr. was not "THE" Team Doctor. He was a Dr. that they had primarily on Game Days. And the government investigated him and found no wrong doing.
Given the PED enviornment now the Steelers had to let him go. The HGH he purchased was supposedly for his work with elderly patients. Again this looks bad but until there is no wrong doing proven or even alledged it's not as bad as Anderson working for the Giants even after background checks linked him to a gym that was know for steroid use.



5.) When Pacman Jones was arrested the arresting officer asked him about his marijuana use and why would he risk being caught by the NFL. His response: He stated he KNEW when he was going to be tested.

First off all I could care less about Pot. Second if Pacman knows how to beat the tests you would think someone would have tipped off Rickey Williams by now lol.



6.) Lastly, Micheal Vick. While awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to federal charges he fails a drug test. Despite the fact that he is obviously stupid for running his little dog operation are we supposed to believe that he only started smoking pot AFTER pleading guilty to federal charges. Come on! Nobody is THAT STUPID!!!!

Uh I'm pretty sure Michael vick is that stupid. The evidence supports this.




Obviously, MLB has/had a serious problem but all this rhetoric by Congress, the media and the fans amounts to nothing more than a witch hunt if other sports, especially the NFL, are given a free pass. There is too much evidence, even more than was in MLB, at hand to let it go.


Its not a witch hunt if you actually find witches and the MLB might as well have been Salem Mass on Halloween. The MLB got dragged infront of Congress because they were actively hiding their problem and were conspiring to hide positive tests.



I'm not condoning what happened in baseball and obviously something needed to be done but what's fair is fair. If Congress threatens to get involved, which I think they shouldn't, then they should come down hard on ALL SPORTS and not just baseball and not just let the NFL/NFLPA come to Congressional hearings and tell them exactly what they wanted to hear like they did in March of 2005.

The NFL just modified their Drug Policy again this past season. Without being forced to and without a public incident. They try to do they best they can but even I think the urine based study for an HGH test they are now jointly funding is a joke.



I'm am actually pleased to hear others thinking that the NFL gets a free pass besides me. Living in Pittsburgh, football hotbed it is, I was beginning to think that I was the only one. You should hear how people around here blindly and sickenly defend the NFL and yet slam baseball.


The MLB deserves to be slammed. There is no two ways about it. Compared to Football their efforts to combat PEDS have been a joke and borderline criminally ignorant at the very least.



Its this type of myopic thinking that has completely turned me off of football despite the fact that I used to love it. That and the fact that when someone crazed linebacker with several state charges over his head tackles a runningback after he gained 20 yards jumping up and down like he cured polio.


Drugs are now a permanet part of almost all sports. It sucks but thats the facts. All you can do as fans is hope that the leagues do their best to uncover users and punish those that do. I really can't help you if you have a problem with moronic showboating, which btw never happens in baseball right:confused:



The arrogant sense of self-entitlement that goes with football has gone too far and is only increased with this free pass in regards to PED use in sports. If this angers you like it does me then do what I am planning to do: write my Congressman and DEMAND an inquiry into football.

Arrogant sense of self-entitlement? Uh that might as well have been the MLB players union slogan. That investigation will probably have to wait however. They still have their hands full with embarrassing baseball. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be grilling Selig and Fehr on Tuesday and I can't wait to see them get embarrassed yet again. :D

scootermojo
12-15-2007, 10:31 PM
Favre was taking Vicodin which alot of players take. I don't belive you test positive for it if team doctors percribe it to you but I could be wrong.
When his addiction became a noticible problem Favre was told by his team doctors to talk to league medical officals about his addiction. Ultimately he was told that if he didn't enroll in the league substance abuse policy he was going to be suspended and fined. He was not only monitored for his painkiller usage but also banned from Drinking Alcohol for two years, which ultimately lead to him quitting booze for good. His Team and the NFL were both involved in his situation from the beginning and a potentially embarrasing situation was handled openly and publicly. What's your point?



Why does it surprise you that a person taking undetectable steroids never failed a drug test? Thats the point of it. Oh and just an FYI more Baseball players were linked to Balco than Football players.



You want to question the Timing of the report? Question CBS. They are the ones that broke the story. You Think a major network isn't going to run that story after a team WINS the superbowl? Are you serious?



This Dr. was not "THE" Team Doctor. He was a Dr. that they had primarily on Game Days. And the government investigated him and found no wrong doing.
Given the PED enviornment now the Steelers had to let him go. The HGH he purchased was supposedly for his work with elderly patients. Again this looks bad but until there is no wrong doing proven or even alledged it's not as bad as Anderson working for the Giants even after background checks linked him to a gym that was know for steroid use.


First off all I could care less about Pot. Second if Pacman knows how to beat the tests you would think someone would have tipped off Rickey Williams by now lol.


Uh I'm pretty sure Michael vick is that stupid. The evidence supports this.




Its not a witch hunt if you actually find witches and the MLB might as well have been Salem Mass on Halloween. The MLB got dragged infront of Congress because they were actively hiding their problem and were conspiring to hide positive tests.


The NFL just modified their Drug Policy again this past season. Without being forced to and without a public incident. They try to do they best they can but even I think the urine based study for an HGH test they are now jointly funding is a joke.



The MLB deserves to be slammed. There is no two ways about it. Compared to Football their efforts to combat PEDS have been a joke and borderline criminally ignorant at the very least.



Drugs are now a permanet part of almost all sports. It sucks but thats the facts. All you can do as fans is hope that the leagues do their best to uncover users and punish those that do. I really can't help you if you have a problem with moronic showboating, which btw never happens in baseball right:confused:



Arrogant sense of self-entitlement? Uh that might as well have been the MLB players union slogan. That investigation will probably have to wait however. They still have their hands full with embarrassing baseball. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be grilling Selig and Fehr on Tuesday and I can't wait to see them get embarrassed yet again. :D



I expected nothing less...this amounts to nothing more than another instance of someone being a football apologist.

1.) Imagine the reaction by the public and media if Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Ryan Howard, Jake Peavy, etc., admitted to being addicted to painkillers? They cries for suspension and the percieved "problem" throughout baseball would be deafening. Even after such a hypothetical suspension would be levied there would calls for investigation throughout all of MLB. However, with Brett Favre, "Oh, he needs help and we'll support him. It's an isolated case."

Obviously not the definitive Brett Favre site but on Wikipedia...nothing said of Favre's addiction despite his own admission yet anyone with even the slightest suspicion of PED or drug use in MLB has at least something written about it on their Wikipedia stubs.

The reaction to Favre and other players in the NFL who are a few of the token drug busts the NFL throws our way in regards to PED/drug use to keep the media/public off of their backs is as different as light and day. What's actually being said about Rodney Harrison of the Patriots? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! The reaction is: we believe your lame excuse, it's fine. What it should be read as is: you're a football player and not a baseball player, therefore, it's okay.

2.) Uh, HELLO!!!! It doesn't suprise me that Romanowski never failed a test. What does suprise me is that nobody seems to care that he used HGH. Do you honestly think he's the only one who used HGH in the NFL? If you do, I got some prime beachfront property to sell you in Idaho.

3.) Why does it matter that CBS broke the news late or not? What is important is that the story did break much like players in MLB using steroids yet fell by the wayside due to the lack of follow up by the media. Questions should've been asked and their should've been definitive answers.

Does Jeffrey Wigand ring a bell to you? CBS squashed his 60 Minutes interview because of less the noble reasons. News companies quell stories or push stories of questionable validty all the time...are YOU serious in the fact that you do not seem to realize this?

4.) The Steelers team doctor incident has the EXACT same kind of circumstantial evidence that other MLB players have had but, again, the reaction is different. With the MLB players it's "they HAD TO HAVE used steroids" regardless if it's concrete evidence or not but with the Steelers doctor its, once more, "okay, we believe you."

By the way, YES, he is a doctor of the team regardless if he's their when the players are practicing, on game days, commiting felonies or awaiting sentencing. He was with the team in some capacity, therefore, in laymens terms, he is a team doctor.

5.) I could care less who smokes pot or not. In fact, I think Vida Blue should be a member of the Hall Of Fame for throwing a no-hitter on LSD. LOL

However, Pacmans statements were only a blip on the news wire and was never followed up on. With the number of players in the NFL who get busted with pot each and every year this should illustrate to you one of two things: this supposed "strong" drug testing program which does test for pot among other things is not working or that they are not being reported as being caught when they actually are. Either way, it appears guys are smoking pot while playing in the NFL. Again, no big deal to me BUT....it makes me wonder what else they are using that they are either not getting caught for or not being reported as being caught for. This was the same scenario early into the PED revelation in MLB and was followed with much more veracity.

6.) Actually, I also consider Vick to possibly be that stupid. However, are we forgetting about Vick's little run in earlier at the airport with a container that had the aroma of pot still in it? I, myself, have indulged a good bit in nature's little helper so I know what pot smells like and I can tell you that there is basically nothing else that even closely resembles that. Vick was toking long before he got busted by the feds. So, it seems to me that either a) he never failed a test with the NFL because he was never actually tested; b) he did fail but nothing was said because he's "Micheal Vick", superstar of the NFL or c) He was tested and was never caught because their testing sucks.

As for the rest of your football apologistic post...

Yes, it is a witch hunt if one hunts for one witch but leaves the other witches alone which is exactly what's going on now. Football is also doing what you are claiming MLB did what with hiding test results and their problems...the evidence is right before you and you'd see it if you weren't blinded by your fascination with football.

You mentioned the NFL modified their drug policy...okay, so what? In comparison their policy is no different and may actually be weaker as compared to MLB but why no reaction from Congress on this?

I never said MLB doesn't deserved to be slammed...I just said that the NFL needs to be slammed as well. If you would wake up and stop worshiping football you would actually see that their efforts to "combat" PED's is as pathetic as it gets since they really could care less and only care about getting the public and media off of their back just like MLB used to do. The difference now is that MLB is actually trying to do something whereas the NFL continues to do the same.

Yeah, moronic show-boating does happen in baseball but not on every play, every game, every day...it's a little bit much in the NFL in that it's no longer a team concept but a "look at me" attitude. You see it after every meaningless play regardless of game situation...you can even see on TV that immediately after a play an NFL player looks to the JumboTron to see what he looks like making the play AND his resulting egocentric celebration. Say what you want and you do indeed have a few examples but in baseball you don't see guys celebrating ridiculously with dances, gang signs, whatever, when making routine plays...it's the norm in football.

Arrogant self-entitlement may have been the MLBPA's slogan as you call it in that they only wanted to be treated by their employers in the same way as all employees of every trade are treated by law of the land. What's wrong with that? Baseball is a sport but playing it at a professional level is a job and they are afforded the same rights as all of us regardless if they are on TV and get paid thousand of times more. Football players mentallity is..."we are football players, the most popular sport in the country, we can do ANYTHING WE WANT because we are football players...we don't have to abide by laws.

I can just as easily sum this up in that you can get on baseball players all they want but with the exception of a few they are only hurting themselves by using steroids and other PED's and the few who do commit crimes that hurt others are on par with the rest of the world's employees...human nature, right...there is always going to be people in any professional who stupid things that hurt others. However, in football, violent crimes against others seem to be at a much higher percentage which, again, plays into their arrogant self-entitlement mentallity in that they feel they can do whatever they want simply because they play football. I have and continue to witness that disgusting mentallity every single day.

Lady_Knights
12-15-2007, 10:53 PM
Sounds very interesting to me.

Ubiquitous
12-15-2007, 11:21 PM
One thing to note is that HGH is not some great steroid, players like football players who are trying to add muscle don't just take HGH, hgh is a better fat burner then anything else. They take anabolic steroids as well. So you can't really say "oh well Bill Romanoski didn't test positive because he was taking HGH and they don't have a test for that". That is incorrect, yes Bill Romanoswki was taking HGH but he was also taking other drugs, he was taking steroids. He was taking THG from Conte for 2 years before it was banned by the FDA and the NFL caught him using it though they did not discipline him for it, they didn't discipline anybody for it. THG was a designer drug out of BALCO that nobody knew about until a track coach provided a syringe that could be studied. Which is really the problem which is why this is all a sham. Drug tests catch the stupid, the lazy, and the unlucky. the rest get away clean. A drug test can only test what the lab knows about and all you have to do to get a negative test is to change the structure of the drug by just a little. That is why it is a sham, because the trainers, coaches, and execs know these guys are using PED's, hell they demand such outrageous things out of them that they basically force them to take it, and yet they all get to hide behind the "well, we test them" farce.

plask_stirlac
12-16-2007, 07:58 AM
Football is a war, a melee and people can better understand bulking up even chemically. Support the troops...

Baseball is more skill and people don't like their Jeters and Gwynns overshadowed by the big mean home run hitters (unless they have a gut, but if they're chiseled they suck). They also blanked on pitchers using for a long time.

Einstein'sCurve
12-16-2007, 08:27 AM
A lot more baseball players have been caught than football players and there a lot more football players,


Quite the opposite. Football has tested many more years and their steroid problem started much earlier than BB so many more players caught. Football has a lousy testing program that does little to reign in PED use at any rate. Any jr high kid could pass their testing, or BB's for that matter.

ESPNFan
12-16-2007, 05:22 PM
I expected nothing less...this amounts to nothing more than another instance of someone being a football apologist.

You know that's a very funny statement, because aside from having a drug problem like almost any other sport, comparitively football has nothing to apologise for.:)



1.) Imagine the reaction by the public and media if Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Ryan Howard, Jake Peavy, etc., admitted to being addicted to painkillers? They cries for suspension and the percieved "problem" throughout baseball would be deafening. Even after such a hypothetical suspension would be levied there would calls for investigation throughout all of MLB. However, with Brett Favre, "Oh, he needs help and we'll support him. It's an isolated case."

It's probably hardly an isolated case but I think Football's performance with Favre was excellent. He is not currently addicted to drugs and has stopped drinking. And where was baseball's intervention when Ken Cammeniti needed it. Favre is alive and Ken is dead and your questioning football? Please.



Obviously not the definitive Brett Favre site but on Wikipedia...nothing said of Favre's addiction despite his own admission yet anyone with even the slightest suspicion of PED or drug use in MLB has at least something written about it on their Wikipedia stubs.

The reaction to Favre and other players in the NFL who are a few of the token drug busts the NFL throws our way in regards to PED/drug use to keep the media/public off of their backs is as different as light and day. What's actually being said about Rodney Harrison of the Patriots? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! The reaction is: we believe your lame excuse, it's fine. What it should be read as is: you're a football player and not a baseball player, therefore, it's okay.

Actually what should be said is that "Your a football player and at least your league made attempts at solving the problem, while baseball was doing its best to surpress any information that a problem exsisted." Yeah thats about right lol.




2.) Uh, HELLO!!!! It doesn't suprise me that Romanowski never failed a test. What does suprise me is that nobody seems to care that he used HGH. Do you honestly think he's the only one who used HGH in the NFL? If you do, I got some prime beachfront property to sell you in Idaho.

HGH is probably as big a problem in the NFL as it is in any other sport. Considering that there is no test for it that is proven to work its a constant problem.



3.) Why does it matter that CBS broke the news late or not? What is important is that the story did break much like players in MLB using steroids yet fell by the wayside due to the lack of follow up by the media. Questions should've been asked and their should've been definitive answers.

Does Jeffrey Wigand ring a bell to you? CBS squashed his 60 Minutes interview because of less the noble reasons. News companies quell stories or push stories of questionable validty all the time...are YOU serious in the fact that you do not seem to realize this?

The Story broke and there was the expected fall out. Your notions of a coverup are unsupported and quite frankly football hate fueled fantasy.



4.) The Steelers team doctor incident has the EXACT same kind of circumstantial evidence that other MLB players have had but, again, the reaction is different. With the MLB players it's "they HAD TO HAVE used steroids" regardless if it's concrete evidence or not but with the Steelers doctor its, once more, "okay, we believe you."

By the way, YES, he is a doctor of the team regardless if he's their when the players are practicing, on game days, commiting felonies or awaiting sentencing. He was with the team in some capacity, therefore, in laymens terms, he is a team doctor.

It's not the EXACT anything. No players were implicated and no charges were filed against the Doctor. There was no evidence that any wrongdoing took place. Thats what law enforcement has said. The same Law enforcement that has named names before. How you can think there is a double standard when there is no proof that any wrong doing took place puzzles me :confused: lol

And you said he was THE team Doctor. Big difference, but it made your point sound so much better right? LOL.



5.) I could care less who smokes pot or not. In fact, I think Vida Blue should be a member of the Hall Of Fame for throwing a no-hitter on LSD. LOL

However, Pacmans statements were only a blip on the news wire and was never followed up on. With the number of players in the NFL who get busted with pot each and every year this should illustrate to you one of two things: this supposed "strong" drug testing program which does test for pot among other things is not working or that they are not being reported as being caught when they actually are. Either way, it appears guys are smoking pot while playing in the NFL. Again, no big deal to me BUT....it makes me wonder what else they are using that they are either not getting caught for or not being reported as being caught for. This was the same scenario early into the PED revelation in MLB and was followed with much more veracity.

Again I think your putting too much weight in what is basically unsubstanciated boasts from Jones.



6.) Actually, I also consider Vick to possibly be that stupid. However, are we forgetting about Vick's little run in earlier at the airport with a container that had the aroma of pot still in it? I, myself, have indulged a good bit in nature's little helper so I know what pot smells like and I can tell you that there is basically nothing else that even closely resembles that. Vick was toking long before he got busted by the feds. So, it seems to me that either a) he never failed a test with the NFL because he was never actually tested; b) he did fail but nothing was said because he's "Micheal Vick", superstar of the NFL or c) He was tested and was never caught because their testing sucks.

Again I think just like anything else, some people will slip through the cracks.
Why this happens I don't know, and neither do you. Its all guesses on our part. But they have caught guys like Travis Henry and Rickey Williams so it's not like they are just brushing cases under the table.



As for the rest of your football apologistic post...

Yes, it is a witch hunt if one hunts for one witch but leaves the other witches alone which is exactly what's going on now. Football is also doing what you are claiming MLB did what with hiding test results and their problems...the evidence is right before you and you'd see it if you weren't blinded by your fascination with football.

You mentioned the NFL modified their drug policy...okay, so what? In comparison their policy is no different and may actually be weaker as compared to MLB but why no reaction from Congress on this?

Football has not hidden anything to my knowledge and no evidence of such has been made public.

There is no reaction because it's not weaker. When a player in the NFL gets picked for a random test he didn't get 24 hour warning like Bug Selig admitted, he finds a tag in his locker and has to go see the tester. Better than Baseball. Ten players a week on each team in the NFL are tested randomly. Almost 20% of the roster each week. Again better than baseball.
The NFL test for EPO. Better than baseball. The NFL uses carbon isotope testing as its initial test, not just as a means of confirmation. Better than baseball. The NFL got a new agreement for improved testing done with the players union without a CBA comming due or without a major scandal requireing action. Again same refrain, Better than baseball.



I never said MLB doesn't deserved to be slammed...I just said that the NFL needs to be slammed as well. If you would wake up and stop worshiping football you would actually see that their efforts to "combat" PED's is as pathetic as it gets since they really could care less and only care about getting the public and media off of their back just like MLB used to do. The difference now is that MLB is actually trying to do something whereas the NFL continues to do the same.

Footballs efforts to combat PED's can never be as pathetic as it gets because baseball's efforts make them look like superstars lol. The NFL continues to try and improve their policy while the MLB repeatedly gets embarresed publicly. But I guess being a national laughingstocck is technically doing "something". :rofl:



Yeah, moronic show-boating does happen in baseball but not on every play, every game, every day...it's a little bit much in the NFL in that it's no longer a team concept but a "look at me" attitude. You see it after every meaningless play regardless of game situation...you can even see on TV that immediately after a play an NFL player looks to the JumboTron to see what he looks like making the play AND his resulting egocentric celebration. Say what you want and you do indeed have a few examples but in baseball you don't see guys celebrating ridiculously with dances, gang signs, whatever, when making routine plays...it's the norm in football.

Arrogant self-entitlement may have been the MLBPA's slogan as you call it in that they only wanted to be treated by their employers in the same way as all employees of every trade are treated by law of the land. What's wrong with that? Baseball is a sport but playing it at a professional level is a job and they are afforded the same rights as all of us regardless if they are on TV and get paid thousand of times more. Football players mentallity is..."we are football players, the most popular sport in the country, we can do ANYTHING WE WANT because we are football players...we don't have to abide by laws.

The NFL is a different sport and yeah there is a thug element that exsists. And then again there are people making fools of themselves in every sport. Abrey Huff's recent radio side show didn't exactly cover MLB in glory.



I can just as easily sum this up in that you can get on baseball players all they want but with the exception of a few they are only hurting themselves by using steroids and other PED's and the few who do commit crimes that hurt others are on par with the rest of the world's employees...human nature, right...there is always going to be people in any professional who stupid things that hurt others. However, in football, violent crimes against others seem to be at a much higher percentage which, again, plays into their arrogant self-entitlement mentallity in that they feel they can do whatever they want simply because they play football. I have and continue to witness that disgusting mentallity every single day.
And now we get to the main point of your problem. You hate football. Fine, but don't try and twist the facts. In terms of handling the PED problem Football makes baseball look like the corrupt fools that they are.

dl4060
12-16-2007, 05:39 PM
What proof do you have of this?

In the mid-1980's Bill Fralic stated that in his opinion 75% of the lineman in the NFL used steriods. It is not proof in and of itself, but he would certainly be in a position to know. It is pretty hard to imagine the problem being worse in baseball than in football. You don't have to believe him, but I really don't see why he should have to submit proof. I have no proof that Bonds used either, but I am pretty damn sure he did.

dl4060
12-16-2007, 05:42 PM
How can football have a good policy if the players are taking steroids? What football has is a better window dressing. The difference between football and baseball is that football got out in front of it early and told people don't worry we are taking care of it. In reality they did almost nothing to staunch the flow of steroids but they allowed people to forget about steroids in baseball.

Bingo. Is there anyone out there who really believes steroids are not prevalent in the NFL?

dl4060
12-16-2007, 06:09 PM
In terms of handling the PED problem Football makes baseball look like the corrupt fools that they are.

Neither sport has done much of a job. It used to be normal for offensive lineman to weigh 280, now it is more like 310. Football does have a more aggressive policy so far, they were called out in the late 80's. The idea that Football has never had a scrutinized issue with steroids is simply not correct. Back in the late 1980's they most certainly did. They developed a testing policy, which at the time was considered a joke. From every SI article I read the consensus was that it would not catch anyone who knew anything about steroids. Every SI article I read as a kid(80's) which addressed steroid use focused on the NFL and Olympic sports. It used to be thought that roids would not help baseball players, that big muscles and heavy lifting would make them stiff. It was considered and afterthought by many that most lineman were on steroids.

After the testing started people seemed to stop paying attention, but players have not gotten any smaller. Yes, many clearly are overweight, but I would be very surprised if the overall strength level of the NFL has gone down. Look at some of the receivers in the modern game, TO might have been a linebacker in the mid-80's. Same with Chad Johnson.

As to why the NFL seems to get a pass.....I think many of the opinions expressed are accurate. Many people seem to accept that the giants of the NFL use PED's, and that it is just normal. When steroids exploded on the national athletic scene in the 1980's it was assumed that baseball was immune. We have since learned that this sense of security was false. Who knows, in 10-15 years it may simply be accepted that a certain percentage of baseball players use PED's, much the way it is with Football today. Is there anyone out there who truly believes that the NFL's policy has resulted in a drastic reduction in steroid use?

Ubiquitous
12-16-2007, 06:15 PM
DL is right on this.

Check out the SI archives, check out the sporting news archives, I did and what you will find is that all of the talk about steroids were about athletes in the olympics and in football.

Football and the public hit critical mass in the late 1980's, which is why they now have a drug testing policy. They don't have it now because football was concerned and felt they needed to do something. They did it because the media had them in the spotlight and yes even the government. They implemented a policy and tada problem disappears, negative publicity that is not the actual drug problem. Baseball was able to last longer outside of the public scrutiny but they are feeling it now and they are doing what football did two decades ago which is implement a drug policy. That drug policy is working, people are thinking that players are getting off drugs. People are saying look at pudge he has slimmed down, or that player has slimmed, so on and so on. If baseball follows the football path somewhere around 2014 or so people will stop caring about steroids in baseball.

From about 1987 to 1995 or so almost steroid talk in magazines and newspapers were on football or the olympics, the only exception was Canseco right before the playoffs.

ESPNFan
12-17-2007, 07:05 PM
DL is right on this.

Check out the SI archives, check out the sporting news archives, I did and what you will find is that all of the talk about steroids were about athletes in the olympics and in football.

Football and the public hit critical mass in the late 1980's, which is why they now have a drug testing policy. They don't have it now because football was concerned and felt they needed to do something. They did it because the media had them in the spotlight and yes even the government. They implemented a policy and tada problem disappears, negative publicity that is not the actual drug problem. Baseball was able to last longer outside of the public scrutiny but they are feeling it now and they are doing what football did two decades ago which is implement a drug policy. That drug policy is working, people are thinking that players are getting off drugs. People are saying look at pudge he has slimmed down, or that player has slimmed, so on and so on. If baseball follows the football path somewhere around 2014 or so people will stop caring about steroids in baseball.

From about 1987 to 1995 or so almost steroid talk in magazines and newspapers were on football or the olympics, the only exception was Canseco right before the playoffs.

LOL @ Critical Mass. Seriously for a guy who picks apart others people verbiage you certainly do throw around overly dramatic descriptions pretty freely. I'd ask you for a example of what "critical mass" is in this situation, but I dont feel like arguing semantics for post after post again. Lets just say that if you want to call the issues that led to the NFL PED policy "critical mas" Then the MLB has been going triple Chernobyl for years now. :laugh


There is no evidence that Football turned such a blind eye to the situtation that baseball had. There was never the outcry from the public and from congress that baseball has earned, or the transparently corrupt policies that Baseball tried to institute.
Fact: The NFL had instituted testing in 1987. Four years before Steroids were made illegal. I believe that also went on record that HGH was against the rules in the early 1990's. Pete Rozelle (the greatest Commissioner in the history of professional sports) even said that they weren't going to catch everyone and that the number of people caught is always going to be outnumbered by those that use. But he still addressed the problem and was honest in doing so.


Baseball however drug its feet and instituted testing more than ten years after the drugs were banned. Bud Selig (on e of the worst commissioners in any sport) has been repeatedly made to look foolish over and over in this issue and has even been proven to specifically cover up the issue. He was caught covering up the Palmeiro test buy Peter Gammons during alstar weekend. He was busted by congress for having a stipulation that allowed him to pick and choose who would be publicly outed as a cheater and who would be privately fined. Again the subject of Honesty comes up. Who is going to believe that Baseball is doing everything they can to stop cheating when their own commissioner is exposed as a duplicitous spineless clown? :confused:

Look no policy is perfect. WADA isn't perfect, not even close, and their the best there is. Charles Yesalis said it himself, testing only catches the stupid, the lazy and the unlucky.
Football tries to catch more of those people than any other pro sport with its own drug policy. The more tests football conducts the unluckier the players get. It's that simple.

Ubiquitous
12-17-2007, 07:16 PM
So basically you are saying that the NFL's drug testing procedure is a sham but at least it is the best sham around, I can agree with that.

ESPNFan
12-17-2007, 07:43 PM
So basically you are saying that the NFL's drug testing procedure is a sham but at least it is the best sham around, I can agree with that.

Look if thats your take then all drug testing is a sham, WADA, Football, Baseball, all of it. The testers will never be ahead of the dopers.

I don't think drug testing is a sham. It's something that needs to be done to try and keep people honest. IMO baseball has been the absolute worst at doing so and has made football look that much better in the process.

Ubiquitous
12-17-2007, 07:54 PM
Yep football looks much better in comparison. . . .
http://forums.steroid.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=25753&d=1070674772

ESPNFan
12-17-2007, 08:07 PM
Yep football looks much better in comparison. . . .
http://forums.steroid.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=25753&d=1070674772

You know it does. LOL
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/images/photos/2007/08/07/bo99anwy.jpg
Hey at least Chris Chambers signs autographs :rofl:

Ubiquitous
12-17-2007, 08:10 PM
Posting a picture a Bonds doesn't mean football does much better if anything it means the two have the same problem and both are failing or have failed to deal with it.

PS: That isn't Chambers.

ESPNFan
12-17-2007, 08:20 PM
Posting a picture a Bonds doesn't mean football does much better if anything it means the two have the same problem and both are failing or have failed to deal with it.

PS: That isn't Chambers.

Actually it has everything to do with football addressing the problem better than baseball. If baseball had acted sooner maybe Barry wouldn't have gotten so envious of Sammy and McGwire that he decided to take them too.

And yeah you got me I can't believe I forgot about David Boston. I'm sure he was natural:shhh:

Ubiquitous
12-17-2007, 08:27 PM
Actually it has everything to do with football addressing the problem better than baseball. If baseball had acted sooner maybe Barry wouldn't have gotten so envious of Sammy and McGwire that he decided to take them too.

And yeah you got me I can't believe I forgot about David Boston. I'm sure he was natural:shhh:

Well, maybe if the NFL had acted sooner Bill Romanowski wouldn't have had to use steroids. . . oh wait.

Okay well, maybe if the NFL had acted sooner David Boston wouldn't have had to use steroids. . . .oh wait.

Okay well, maybe if the NFL had acted sooner Shawn Merriman wouldn't have had to use steroids. . . oh wait.

Okay well, maybe if the NFL had acted sooner Todd Steussie wouldn't have had to use steroids. . . .oh wait

ESPNFan
12-17-2007, 08:34 PM
Well, maybe if the NFL had acted sooner Bill Romanowski wouldn't have had to use steroids. . . oh wait.

Okay well, maybe if the NFL had acted sooner David Boston wouldn't have had to use steroids. . . .oh wait.

Okay well, maybe if the NFL had acted sooner Shawn Merriman wouldn't have had to use steroids. . . oh wait.

Okay well, maybe if the NFL had acted sooner Todd Steussie wouldn't have had to use steroids. . . .oh wait

Yes your right. It's so much better to not try at all to catch PED users and let your league become a laughingstock, than to try to catch them and fail. :crazy

BTW I think the last thing you want to be doing right now is naming names lol.

Ubiquitous
12-17-2007, 08:50 PM
So baseball isn't trying at all?

6 years ago you could get up on a stump and say football is better then baseball on the drug front. You would be right because 1 is more then 0.

Now you can still get on a stump and say football is better then baseball on the drug front but to me 1 equals 1.

Why wouldn't I want to name names? You or me listing off a bunch of baseball players who used drugs doesn't absolve the NFL and their habit of looking the other way.

dl4060
12-17-2007, 08:58 PM
Actually it has everything to do with football addressing the problem better than baseball. If baseball had acted sooner maybe Barry wouldn't have gotten so envious of Sammy and McGwire that he decided to take them too.

And yeah you got me I can't believe I forgot about David Boston. I'm sure he was natural:shhh:


Do you think that Baseball has more players using PED's than Football? That would be an absurd assumption to make. And Football, with the size of it's players was FAR more of a "Chernobyl" than baseball. It is much more obvious looking at the players that Football has a steroid problem than Baseball. The NFL does have a better testing procedure in place, but it is obvious that it is not working. For whatever reason, people can accept steroids in football. In baseball it creates much more of an uproar.

If you are defending the NFL as having made an effort, you are correct. They have not gotten results, but superficially they have made an effort. Baseball has actually had more success with the effort they have NOT made, as clearly there is less steroid use in baseball.