Cheatriots caught again - Ninkovich Suspended 4 Games
- Thread starter TSC
- Start date
So, you think it is more likely that 100% of NFL players are using illegal PEDs than < 100% of NFL players are using illegal PEDs? From a sample size of over 1500 players?
I'm not disputing, but off the top of my head I can't think of any QBs pinched for a violation. What's the 100%ers explanation for that? Better drugs? Cover up?
Here's the issue - you don't even need to cover it up. The league has set the cheating bar on PEDs so outrageously high (4x times baseline) that you need to basically go "Trainspotting" on juice before you get caught.
Marijuana use gets punished constantly because it is a normal test, similar to what you would get if you worked at a job that gave a shit about that stuff. But PEDs violations are less frequent thanks to the league's better living through chemistry approach.
I don't think it is remotely unreasonable to think that there are QBs, Kickers, Punters, and even some RBs, CBs, or WRs that aren't using illegal PEDs.
But, you know, probably all 1500 players are using illegal PEDs and I am utterly stupid and incompetent or something like that.
The argument that training and nutrition are better now and that's why people are bigger/stronger/faster is absurd. There's nothing new under the sun. People are lifting and eating now like always. Maybe guys take it more seriously now and don't drink 12 beers a day, but that's not what's going on here.
The genetic freaks that work hard thing is a marketing narrative. It's like the WWE. These guys all take tons of stuff.
The genetic freaks that work hard thing is a marketing narrative. It's like the WWE. These guys all take tons of stuff.
So, we think a player like Joe Cardona - a long snapper who is in the navy and would have legitimate legal repercussions were he to get caught - is using illicit drugs to enhance his performance of snapping a football?
Am I allowed to be a little disappointed that we all do the Dance of Death when a rival gets named for PEDs but the second a Patriot gets busted we all immediately turn to the "Everybody does if, duh" defense?
Ninkovich was an injured nobody before coming to the Patriots in 2009 (it's almost impossible to believe he's been with them for seven years). He played really fucking well in BB's system and had a huge play in the Seahawks SB. Now he's on the wrong side of 30. There are pretty much two scenarios:
1. Rob Ninkovich turned to PEDs to save his career in the wake of an injury.
2. Rob Ninkovich has used steroids throughout his career and they have been essential to his ability to stay in the league.
I'd love to believe the first scenario – the Rodney Harrison scenario as it were. But it's probably the second (as it was with Rodney too I suspect) . And Nink has been rock solid for the Pats.
Either everybody does it and we don't care or guys who do it are cheaters who deserve our scorn. It can't be both.
Ninkovich was an injured nobody before coming to the Patriots in 2009 (it's almost impossible to believe he's been with them for seven years). He played really fucking well in BB's system and had a huge play in the Seahawks SB. Now he's on the wrong side of 30. There are pretty much two scenarios:
1. Rob Ninkovich turned to PEDs to save his career in the wake of an injury.
2. Rob Ninkovich has used steroids throughout his career and they have been essential to his ability to stay in the league.
I'd love to believe the first scenario – the Rodney Harrison scenario as it were. But it's probably the second (as it was with Rodney too I suspect) . And Nink has been rock solid for the Pats.
Either everybody does it and we don't care or guys who do it are cheaters who deserve our scorn. It can't be both.
Personally I could give two shits if a player uses. I don't pass judgment on them and recognize the upside financially at the very least. I just think it's foolish to think every single player does so and I think the charade of chastising those that do, while preserving the sainthood of others is a joke. I'm not naive enough to think a large number of athletes use PEDs and I'm pragmatic enough to acknowledge that everyone has access to do it. Im also not cynical enough to think every single guy is willing to risk the health issues.
I'm unaware of nink having health issues though, do you have a link for that? I thought he just kind of bounced around a couple teams before he found a system that fit him.
I'm unaware of nink having health issues though, do you have a link for that? I thought he just kind of bounced around a couple teams before he found a system that fit him.
My roommate after college was active duty army and ran a couple cycles. I understood it's pretty common.
Humans are getting bigger and taller. It's been happening for centuries. Also, nutrition is not irrelevant, particularly when you consider the global or semi-global nature of sports.
Thinking 100.0% of NFL players dope is laughably stupid. There is literally nothing 100% of a fairly random sample of 1,500 people universally agree on. Thanks to Hard Knocks we know at least one of them doesn't believe in dinosaurs. Breathing is a horrible example as it is not really optional.
Thinking 100.0% of NFL players dope is laughably stupid. There is literally nothing 100% of a fairly random sample of 1,500 people universally agree on. Thanks to Hard Knocks we know at least one of them doesn't believe in dinosaurs. Breathing is a horrible example as it is not really optional.
PED usage and aggressive supplement usage is tremendously commonplace in the active military.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/the-performance-enhanced-military/?_r=0
Wait, why are we suggesting Joe Cardona is using PEDs? Because he is an NFL player who served/serves in the military?
It has been happening for centuries. What it hasn't done is surged at this type of rate amongst a population over a 25 year period. Tony mandarich was considered a freak in the early 90s, weighing in the low 300s. Guys over 300 were rare at that time. Just 15-20 years later, a lineman who weighs less than 300 is a rarity.
And that is just looking at weight. Look at the injury types, look at the high rate of psychotic issues, look at the rates of cancer, birth defects in children, the whole thing. It's horrifying.
Unfortunately, with the league allowing this insane 400 percent over baseline level for failure, avoiding PEDs is less optional than you would like to think.
Seriously? Even from the 80's? You would obviously know this better than me, so I'm not going to argue with you. I'm just - surprised.
I'm saying there's a range of factors that include PEDs. You're saying there's one factor and absolute compliance. That's not a good argument.
I dont think you are understanding even what you are saying and how my counter argument deflates what you are proposing.
No, but the original argument was that because he was in the military it was highly unlikely he was doing PEDs. I was showing that, in fact, it has little to no impact, that the active military has a PED/supplement problem as well.
I thought NFL was 6:1 (test to epitest). Do you have link to this? Cycling was 4:1 but I don't know what it is now
Edit: if I find out any JET player is testing lower than whatever the policy allows, I am going to be irate
You linked to a blog where someone stated there were rumors that some deployed military use. That is hardly conclusive and it completely ignores that the military likely turns somewhat of a blind eye to it, just as the NFL does and that Cardona is subject to two very different testing programs. If he were to be caught in the NFL one the military couldn't simply ignore it, because it would be public. If GI Joe tests positive it can be swept under the rug if so desired.
Which is to say nothing of the fact that there is literally no benefit to a long snapper using.
Joe Cardona makes about $600K a year in the NFL. He probably makes $30K a year in the military. There's plenty of incentive to do whatever it takes.
As to there being no benefit, longsnappers block, and have coverage responsibilities. There absolutely are benefits to increasing strength.
He's been in the league for one season. So are you now claiming that he used while at the naval academy to get to the NFL or that he needs them to keep his job? The one he's so good at he actually got drafted for it, which is unheard of? Or as soon as he got drafted he started juicing?
I'm aware they have blocking and coverage responsibilities. I am more than highly skeptical that the edge gained for a long snapper is enough to use.
P
You may well be right. The point being of course, the whole thing is a massive sham.
Do you understand what PEDs do? That is a serious question. It is about injury recovery as much as it is about taking a trip to swollesville. A long snapper is in a position that is tough on the body all day, needs to snap the ball right on the dot for over 10 yards multiple times and take a hit while doing so. Oh wait, and they are considered expendable in many organizations, so if they are hurt for a few weeks they will probably lose their job.
I feel like it is fifteen years ago and everyone is shocked that so many skinny little Latin shortstops are taking PEDs........
This is wonderful. Like a refutation from 2001. Didn't they say steroids couldn't help someone hit a fast ball either?
Yup. There's nothing body builders do today that Arnold wasn't doing in the 60s and 70s. Power lifters all either use methods from the Soviets from that time that Louie Simmons popularized here, or the same basic splits Coan and Hatfield and Pacifico used back then, and weightlifting frequency is based off Soviet and Bulgarian methods from then too.
Body builders are bigger now because they've upped doses and started using insulin and because hgh is much cheaper.
Maybe weightlifting is taken more seriously across lower levels now, but that's the only change.
So in other words if Player X's pee has more than 399x, or 599x, some baseline amount of a banned substance, then it's a 'clean' test? If that's the case, it's almost an insult to massive shams and deserves some other name or phrase all its own.
I mean, if this is the case, it's pretty obvious that the League couldn't care less about PED use and abuse, including the harmful, awful effects RBYG listed.
I think the NFL cares as much about PED use as MLB did just prior to Selig getting torched by Congress. That is to say they don't. But they need a policy and testing just in case anybody asks, "what is your policy?"
But I do not believe 100% of NFL players are PED (steroids/HGH) abusers.
About 30 players have been suspended since the end of the '15/16 season for PED usage, or about 2% of the players (assuming n=32 X 53) . Ok, maybe the benchmarks are way too high to trigger positives (I've no idea) and some guys can game the tests, but can 98% of the players beat the testing system? Maybe they can, I don't know. But just because some internet guy insists usage is 100% is far from a compelling case.
But I do not believe 100% of NFL players are PED (steroids/HGH) abusers.
About 30 players have been suspended since the end of the '15/16 season for PED usage, or about 2% of the players (assuming n=32 X 53) . Ok, maybe the benchmarks are way too high to trigger positives (I've no idea) and some guys can game the tests, but can 98% of the players beat the testing system? Maybe they can, I don't know. But just because some internet guy insists usage is 100% is far from a compelling case.
Overeem (UFC fighter) once tested like 14:1. Normal is 1:1
http://www.mmafighting.com/ufc/2012/4/5/2928198/alistair-overeems-t-e-ratio-was-14-1-in-failed-ped-test
UFC No. 1 heavyweight contender Alistair Overeem produced a testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio of 14:1 in his failed urine test, Nevada state athletic commission executive director Keith Kizer told MMA Fighting on Thursday, shortly after he learned of the final result.
The average male produces a T/E ratio around 1:1. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) uses a 4:1 standard for positive tests, and NSAC uses 6:1 as its cutoff, a number used by WADA up until 2006.
Particularly when your ignore all of the other data they presented!!! Hooray you!
I understand your argument just fine. That conditions and lax rules have made it such that it's not optional to be clean and stay in the league. You think every kicker complies because adding 2 yard to their kickoffs is worth more in money than the risk factors you listed. I think your argument is obviously flawed...because it is. Everyone but you can see that.
I've already posted I think the NFL could give a shit about PEDs other than it might muddy up the image of the league, or it might invite prying Congressional eyes.
But having said that there is scant evidence that 100% players are PED abusers.
Yammer you've presented ZERO data to support your belief that PED cheating is universal in the NFL
So anytime you want to make a case, with something other than accusations, feel free.
And hooray for you too.
What risk factors? The tests are always going to be reacting to the latest method of evasion or masking.
What are the health concerns with using steroids under doctor supervision? Are they worse than alcohol or cigarettes? Worse than playing football?
I don't know. But we all know there are health risks. And I'm not sure NFL players are exclusively using them under doctor supervision. That seems like a big assumption.
I don't even know where this is going. Do you not think health concerns (warranted or otherwise) are a deterrent to some players? Do you think 100.0% of NFL players dope. Because that's what we were discussing.
If they're hoping to pass tests, they're under supervision. Someone's checking their blood, and liver enzymes, etc.
I don't think health concerns are deterrents to athletes in general, and especially not to football players. There was a survey of Olympic athletes a few years back that showed a large amount (maybe vast majority) would take a pill that shaved decades off their lives if it guaranteed a gold medal.
From what I've read, steroid abuse has side effects. Steroid use doesn't.
Yes, I've said I think 100% dope.
I don't think it was decades off their lives but it was in the single digits and the majority did say they would take the pill.
To claim athletes care about "side effects" when 10's of millions of dollars are involved is really adorable.
Which we should all be able to agree is pretty different than being under a doctors care.
I really don't think this helps your point at all. I wasn't arguing about whether a majority use, I was merely arguing some don't. Setting aside the differences between winning a gold medal or adding 2 yards to your kickoff (neither example is originally mine), a non zero percent of the athletes didn't agree! They are not willing to subtract years from their life for any edge. We've seen players retire due to concerns over this when it wasn't about an edge, it was a much much bigger binary decision.
Has anyone seen arguments outside this board by people with expertise and knowledge argue this point? People who believe 100% (or even near 100%) use? I've heard taking heads say that but nobody with support and credibility. I just listened to Malcolm Gladwell argue the opposite about the Olympics for whatever that is worth.
im not a doctor but this doesn't at all square with what I've heard from family/friends who are doctors or have heard throughout life. I think it's known that there are potential negative side effects from steroid use. Potentially an irrelevant example, by my mother isn't allowed by her doctors to stay on steroids for her neoropathy, despite them being the only thing that keeps the pain away because of negative health effects associated with continued steroid use.
NFL kickers have a few years of the prime earning opportunity of their lives. They watch guys get cut each year for small falloffs in performance who have played football their whole lives, and often have no other job lined up. Health risks are not well known, and, anyway, are in the future. It's a sound business decision for many to take steroids and get those five extra kickoff yards.
I'm on Yammers side.
P.s. I'm willing to say 95-98% of players, not 100%. That 2-5% is a distinction without a difference.
Different steroid. Corticosteroids, not anabolic steroids. Corticosteroids have bad side effects.