Cheatriots caught again - Ninkovich Suspended 4 Games

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

The type of steroid your mother is using is very different from an anabolic steroid, and has different interactions.

This conversation is also not limited to steroids, but to the whole spectrum of PEDs, from steroids to HGH to amphetamines to prescription drugs not acquired by proper channels.

There are many voices out there saying that 100 percent of NFL players are on PEDs. If you read about PED use in high school sports you will frequently see these types of quotes.

Finally, it was not adding 2 yards to your kickoff. Read again.

Bankshot, I just don't respect you enough to bother to respond to you anymore.

 

[johnmd20]

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.

The evidence is on the field. It's the size, speed, and ability of every player in the NFL. It's the pace with which players come back from injuries. It's the money. It's all right in front of your face.

Every professional athlete is doing something. To deny this as this point is truly adorable. I am mystified at how naive people are.

 

[bankshot1]

The type of steroid your mother is using is very different from an anabolic steroid, and has different interactions.

This conversation is also not limited to steroids, but to the whole spectrum of PEDs, from steroids to HGH to amphetamines to prescription drugs not acquired by proper channels.

There are many voices out there saying that 100 percent of NFL players are on PEDs. If you read about PED use in high school sports you will frequently see these types of quotes.

Finally, it was not adding 2 yards to your kickoff. Read again.

Bankshot, I just don't respect you enough to bother to respond to you anymore.

Yammer I asked you to support your argument. I did not insult you or demean, but asked for your facts supporting your opinion. If honest debate is beyond your abilities, its not my fault, nor my concern. But seeing that asking you to support your opinions is threatening to you, I will do my best in the future from doing so.

 

[Marciano490]

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.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/choose-performance-enhancing-hugs-the-health-fundamentals-of-doping/267388/

There's the survey, half of elite athletes would take a pill that killed them in five years if it guaranteed them an Olympic medal. So, what percent would take a shot that has negligible side effects for millions of dollars?

But, really, the psychological part is tangential. The proof is in the on field performance and the size and shape of the athletes.

 

[TheRooster]

I'll make it 4 or 5 that agree with Hammer. Anyone work with guys 6-6 320? Or guys 6-3 240 who are cut like diamonds? Me neither. And the ability to take the pounding week after week for 5 straight months adds to my conviction

 

[Marciano490]

I'll make it 4 or 5 that agree with Hammer. Anyone work with guys 6-6 320? Or guys 6-3 240 who are cut like diamonds? Me neither. And the ability to take the pounding week after week for 5 straight months adds to my conviction

Yeah, that last part is important. It's one thing to spend all day in the gym focused just on getting bigger or stronger or leaner, but these guys' bodies are a secondary function. They're lifting after 3 hour practices or cross-country flights or gaining weight while still running around like crazy. It's just physically impossible. Look at the difference between Eugene Sandow or Louis Cyr and Arnold. It's not that Arnold discovered progressive overload or a 5-day split. It's that they had dbol in candy bowls at muscle beach.

 

[amarshal2]

I still don't think anyone's made a very compelling case but I'll grant the position is more reasonable than I first thought or made it out to be.

 

[johnmd20]

I still don't think anyone's made a very compelling case but I'll grant the position is more reasonable than I first thought or made it out to be.

The case is very compelling. See the gold medal question. See the players. See how they come back from injury. See how much damage they take and keep going. See the money. Follow the money. It isn't really in doubt. PED use is extraordinarily prevalent.

 

[crystalline]

I still don't think anyone's made a very compelling case but I'll grant the position is more reasonable than I first thought or made it out to be.

Read this.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/dec/08/nfl-drug-testing-policies/

Excerpts:
- Conte of BALCO, who used to provide drugs to NFL players, thinks 80% use
- Boomer Esiason thinks 60+% use
- NFL drug tests are predictable, delayed, and easy to beat. Olympic drug testers laugh at the NFL's charade.
- NFL's standard is 4:1. A boxer was found with an implanted pump that kept his blood level at 3.5:1.
- Amphetamine use is as widespread as steroids, and tests easy to beat (not tested on game days, have hours out of sight of tester before the sample must be turned over). Richard Sherman said 50% of players take them. Then Goodell talked to him and Sherman took it back.
- "a section of the NFL policy outlines the penalty for divulging too much information about a positive test — a fine of up to $500,000."
- "If I were an NFL owner and I was having bourbon with the devil, I would say, ‘No, my customers want to see bigger-than-life people do bigger-than-life things.’ The fans want violence. They want to see the big hits. That’s what they’re paying for. Given the huge amounts of money spent on the game, whether it’s attending the games or watching on television or all the advertisements, people are not paying to see normal-looking guys.”

 

[Dropkick Izzy]

.

 

[j44thor]

Why is this being labeled an NFL issue? The NCAA has less stringent testing (6-1 Test-Epi ratio) and I believe suspends less players by % year over year. These guys don't start taking PEDs when they become NFL players. They are just continuing what got them to the NFL. I'm also sure most college students, not just athletes, are using amphetamines (adderall).

 

[Marciano490]

Why is this being labeled an NFL issue? The NCAA has less stringent testing (6-1 Test-Epi ratio) and I believe suspends less players by % year over year. These guys don't start taking PEDs when they become NFL players. They are just continuing what got them to the NFL. I'm also sure most college students, not just athletes, are using amphetamines (adderall).

Nobody's making it an NFL issue. I think we were all implying that it starts in college and Yammer was discussing its prevalence in high schools.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I am shocked that so many people take issue with Yammer and Marciano on this issue. College and professional athletes have evey incentive to use PEDs but mainly money. GIven that many of these folks have done nothing else but practice/train for their sport in lieu of educational or professional development, it makes perfect sense that they would do anything to gain an edge.

 

[amarshal2]

Read this.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/dec/08/nfl-drug-testing-policies/

Excerpts:
- Conte of BALCO, who used to provide drugs to NFL players, thinks 80% use
- Boomer Esiason thinks 60+% use
- NFL drug tests are predictable, delayed, and easy to beat. Olympic drug testers laugh at the NFL's charade.
- NFL's standard is 4:1. A boxer was found with an implanted pump that kept his blood level at 3.5:1.
- Amphetamine use is as widespread as steroids, and tests easy to beat (not tested on game days, have hours out of sight of tester before the sample must be turned over). Richard Sherman said 50% of players take them. Then Goodell talked to him and Sherman took it back.
- "a section of the NFL policy outlines the penalty for divulging too much information about a positive test — a fine of up to $500,000."
- "If I were an NFL owner and I was having bourbon with the devil, I would say, ‘No, my customers want to see bigger-than-life people do bigger-than-life things.’ The fans want violence. They want to see the big hits. That’s what they’re paying for. Given the huge amounts of money spent on the game, whether it’s attending the games or watching on television or all the advertisements, people are not paying to see normal-looking guys.”

I don't really take issue with 60%. But 99.9%. That has been the only point the entire time.

 

[j44thor]

I don't really take issue with 60%. But 99.9%. That has been the only point the entire time.

I'd like to hear from our resident punter if he thinks all punters are on PEDs. That would be one position that I could see being clean. They don't really take or give hits and you don't need tree trunk legs to punt. You need power but leg speed and flexibility is probably more important.

 

[Marciano490]

I'd like to hear from our resident punter if he thinks all punters are on PEDs. That would be one position that I could see being clean. They don't really take or give hits and you don't need tree trunk legs to punt. You need power but leg speed and flexibility is probably more important.

You train the generation of speed. I'm sure our kicker was squatting with chains and bands in college.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

My comment about 'literally no benefit' for a long snapper was obviously stupid (as pointed out) but I'm not buying that literally 100% use something illicit. I understand the money, but something like a long snapper isn't looking at hitting a huge payday if he snaps awesome like. I understand that recovery is part of it and these guys have limited Windows but if we see players - and even big time money ones - retiring early for things like cte, I think it's fair to say some guys might have concerns about it. And not all 1600 players can have a guy monitoring their health and vitals.

 

[Marciano490]

My comment about 'literally no benefit' for a long snapper was obviously stupid (as pointed out) but I'm not buying that literally 100% use something illicit. I understand the money, but something like a long snapper isn't looking at hitting a huge payday if he snaps awesome like. I understand that recovery is part of it and these guys have limited Windows but if we see players - and even big time money ones - retiring early for things like cte, I think it's fair to say some guys might have concerns about it. And not all 1600 players can have a guy monitoring their health and vitals.

Again, please someone link a study about the long or short term effects of a responsible steroid cycle. Shit, all the guys from the 60s who used to gobble horse steroids are around and kicking - Arnold, Lou, Platz, Franco.

People should watch Bigger, Faster, Stronger. I think you can find it on YouTube nowadays. It's done by Mark Bell, a champion lifter's brother, Chris, and gets into a lot of the fears around PED. A lot of it was based off Reagan-era propaganda when the Soviets were doing better in the Olympics and we wanted to demonize steroids. That's when they were rescheduled and whatnot.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Again, please someone link a study about the long or short term effects of a responsible steroid cycle. Shit, all the guys from the 60s who used to gobble horse steroids are around and kicking - Arnold, Lou, Platz, Franco.

People should watch Bigger, Faster, Stronger. I think you can find it on YouTube nowadays. It's done by Mark Bell, a champion lifter's brother, Chris, and gets into a lot of the fears around PED. A lot of it was based off Reagan-era propaganda when the Soviets were doing better in the Olympics and we wanted to demonize steroids. That's when they were rescheduled and whatnot.

I'm not disputing the steroid use vs steroid abuse point you made, as it's certainly legit. I'm saying I don't think all 1600 players, plus the practice squad guys and taxi squad guys have access or means to have a doctor overseeing their intake to ensure health and testing compliance. I think a large number of them would be using far less sophisticated means of acquiring them and self dosing. And I think if that many had people we'd have heard about it sooner, like Sly (? Drawing a blank on his name) in the Manning and other guys case, if for nothing else but extortion.

Do I think the vast majority are? Yes. Do I think it's literally 100.00%? No I don't and I find the burden of that stance to fall on the side opposing me, if for nothing else than sheet statistics. And no one has made a compelling case other than speculating on earning potential and lax standards.

100% of any sample size is kind of an asinine position to take. There's a thousand reasons why a handful of guys wouldn't use and then the 100% argument falls apart on its own. If you and Yammer even backed down to 95% this conversation would be dead because it would be semantics. It's the absolute stance that has people chiming in and throwing out speculative positions or players.

As stated I don't care if they use and don't doubt almost all of them do.i would vote for all the PED guys in baseball and could care less if the sports all just said 'knock yourself out, it's a level playing field because you all can do it'. But I refuse to believe that every single one does. I don't care if it sounds naive but no one is going to convince me that 100% of the league uses. Not gonna happen. You couldn't convince me on 100% anything with a sample size that big and human beings being involved. Sorry. Call me an idiot all you like.

 

[crystalline]

This last page of the thread is mainly comprised of arguments about 95% vs 100%.

Let's be done. Those two numbers are effectively the same for all purposes we have brought up so far.

 

[Marciano490]

This last page of the thread is mainly comprised of arguments about 95% vs 100%.

Let's be done. Those two numbers are effectively the same for all purposes we have brought up so far.

Agreed. Does it matter if one or two punters or the 53rd man on the 30th best team is clean?

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Agreed. Does it matter if one or two punters or the 53rd man on the 30th best team is clean?

Yes. It means they aren't trying hard enough.

 

[richgedman'sghost]

Agreed. Does it matter if one or two punters or the 53rd man on the 30th best team is clean?

Yes it does matter because you and and Yammer won't back down. If you just said 97 or 99.9 percent of players used then it would be be believable. But there has to be at least you clean player in the league. It is just the absolute position you take that is hard to believe.

 

[Marciano490]

Yes it does matter because you and and Yammer won't back down. If you just said 97 or 99.9 percent of players used then it would be be believable. But there has to be at least you clean player in the league. It is just the absolute position you take that is hard to believe.

How is our position any less absolute than those insisting there must be ten good men in Sodom? Nobody has offered any persuasive reason why someone wouldn't use. The health risks are negligible. As are risks of detection. And we're not dealing with the most risk-averse folks in the world, either. Anecdotally, if anyone knows someone they're sure isn't using, say so, because the guys I know in the NFL all ran cycles.

 

[Van Everyman]

The idea that there isn't an incentive (or less of one) for punters to use PEDs is ludicrous. Exhibit A: Pro Bowl Punter Todd Sauerbrun who had a long illustrious career and was busted for PED use near the end. Exhibit B: Zoltan Mesko, who went from being near-Pro Bowl caliber to being pretty much out of the league almost overnight.

Being a professional punter means having perfect mechanics and balance. The second either of those are thrown off, you are out of a job. I spoke to a college punter who tried out for an NFL team once. He was set to make the team out of training camp when he got a small, minor injury that threw his mechanics off and meant he couldn't get as much height on this punts. He was cut and ended up never playing a down in the NFL.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Yammer I asked you to support your argument. I did not insult you or demean, but asked for your facts supporting your opinion. If honest debate is beyond your abilities, its not my fault, nor my concern. But seeing that asking you to support your opinions is threatening to you, I will do my best in the future from doing so.

You've ignored all of the information presented.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Here, how about this.

It seems really important to some people for there to be 2 or 3 super great humans in the league who have never done steroids, HGH, amphetamines or illicit prescription drugs. Papelbon's Poutine named a guy who surely couldn't be on anything and we pretty rapidly shot the logic behind that one down.

There are 1600+ players in the NFL. You "I just can't buy this 100 percent!!" Folks put your heads together and Name 5 who you guys think have never done anything and we will present arguments and hopefully some good data to cite why we feel they have. We'll take a look at their bodies, their siblings and parents, growth rates, injury history and recovery, and all the other fun factors to show why it is more likely than not that that individual has taken something illicit in his career.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

The idea that there isn't an incentive (or less of one) for punters to use PEDs is ludicrous. Exhibit A: Pro Bowl Punter Todd Sauerbrun who had a long illustrious career and was busted for PED use near the end. Exhibit B: Zoltan Mesko, who went from being near-Pro Bowl caliber to being pretty much out of the league almost overnight.

Being a professional punter means having perfect mechanics and balance. The second either of those are thrown off, you are out of a job. I spoke to a college punter who tried out for an NFL team once. He was set to make the team out of training camp when he got a small, minor injury that threw his mechanics off and meant he couldn't get as much height on this punts. He was cut and ended up never playing a down in the NFL.

Yes!!! At the bottom of the spectrum these injuries get you cut. At the top of the spectrum these injuries can lose you 100s of thousands to millions of dollars. There is no position immune to this. "You can't make the team in the training room" is a mantra in the NFL for a reason!!

 

[bankshot1]

You've ignored all of the information presented.

My post to you addressed your point re the 400% baseline which I thought pertinent.

But other than that you only presented anecdotal stories about PED usage in high schools and that you've seen references to people claiming NFL PED usage is 100%.
I'm sorry but those points do not make a very compelling case to me.

Nor do the other anecdotal stories about PED use by weight lifters, body builders, wrestlers etc.Or what Olympic athletes might do if they were not tested.

I just don't believe you have presented anywhere near close to sufficient evidence to make the case of 100% usage.

And fwiw I think usage is high as well, but not universal, as I think there are a few guys out there who for whatever reason, do not cheat.

 

[Dotrat]

No, it's 4x or 6x using the notation you are citing.

OK--but that's still insane. The league just doesn't care.

 

[RG33]

Here, how about this.

It seems really important to some people for there to be 2 or 3 super great humans in the league who have never done steroids, HGH, amphetamines or illicit prescription drugs. Papelbon's Poutine named a guy who surely couldn't be on anything and we pretty rapidly shot the logic behind that one down.

There are 1600+ players in the NFL. You "I just can't buy this 100 percent!!" Folks put your heads together and Name 5 who you guys think have never done anything and we will present arguments and hopefully some good data to cite why we feel they have. We'll take a look at their bodies, their siblings and parents, growth rates, injury history and recovery, and all the other fun factors to show why it is more likely than not that that individual has taken something illicit in his career.

How about you just show one example of a sample size of 1600 or bigger where the ratio of proactively introducing an outside variable is 100%?

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

How about you just show one example of a sample size of 1600 or bigger where the ratio of proactively introducing an outside variable is 100%?

Students who take the SATs who have practiced for the test.

Your initial reponse will be "BUT THAT ISN'T THE SAME.." But it is. Now, go somewhere and try to be smart. Preferably not in this thread, but if you have to, put out your 5 and your thinking.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

OK--but that's still insane. The league just doesn't care.

Yes. Bang on

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

My post to you addressed your point re the 400% baseline which I thought pertinent.

But other than that you only presented anecdotal stories about PED usage in high schools and that you've seen references to people claiming NFL PED usage is 100%.
I'm sorry but those points do not make a very compelling case to me.

Nor do the other anecdotal stories about PED use by weight lifters, body builders, wrestlers etc.Or what Olympic athletes might do if they were not tested.

I just don't believe you have presented anywhere near close to sufficient evidence to make the case of 100% usage.

And fwiw I think usage is high as well, but not universal, as I think there are a few guys out there who for whatever reason, do not cheat.

No, there was a lot of other information presented that you aren't noting. But that is fine.

I gave you the challenge. Ball is in your court.

 

[crystalline]

OK--but that's still insane. The league just doesn't care.

Check the SD Union-Tribune article linked above. Beyond the 4:1 epi:test number, the league has constructed its tests so they are easy to beat. The tests happen at predictable times, and any surprise is removed by giving the players a few hours of buffer time to go find some clean urine or inject a masking agent.

The league doesn't care because they think their customers want to pay to see superhuman size gladiators.

 

[bankshot1]

No, there was a lot of other information presented that you aren't noting. But that is fine.

I gave you the challenge. Ball is in your court.

Yammer I provided you with data that indicated roughly 2% of NFL players tested positive for PED use since the end of the '15/'16 season. And asked the question, whether 98% of the players could game/evade detection.
I don't know enough about PEDs or testing to answer that question. But surely the guy who claims PED usage is 100% has the evidence to support his claim that 98% of the NFL players can beat the system. So please, whenever you have the time, fill in the details.

 

[crystalline]

@bankshot1, I'm not yammer, but - that article I posted is a longform piece that explains how 98% of players can beat the system (Predictable tests with long delays from notification to testing, and no preservation of samples to check for designer drugs retrospectively).

In addition it talks about widespread amphetamine use and toothless amphetamine testing. Steroids are not the only drug issue.

And the point of the NFL's drug policy is not to stop PED use. It's to allow people to believe players are steroid free, and also to cover Goodell so he can tell Congress "Not the owners' fault-we have testing! It's the players' fault for 'cheating'".

 

[Van Everyman]

Yes!!! At the bottom of the spectrum these injuries get you cut. At the top of the spectrum these injuries can lose you 100s of thousands to millions of dollars. There is no position immune to this. "You can't make the team in the training room" is a mantra in the NFL for a reason!!

Yep. Another point I would add upon:

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.

This is so true. Everyone thinks that PED use is about muscle building because of baseball. But it wasn't even true in baseball. Take Rafael Palmeiro. Raffy had a really good career, 3,000 hits, 500 homers. Until he tested positive for steroids, he was in the HOF conversation. People remember this:

What they don't remember is this: that to that point Palmeiro hadn't been on the disabled list A SINGLE TIME IN NINETEEN YEARS. That's not only unlikely – it's pretty much impossible absent some kind of medicinal aid. When was the first time he did go on the DL? Right after he came back from his suspension when he was (presumably) clean. And then he retired. What did he test positive for? Winstrol, for which one of the main uses is speeding recovery. Once you realize that, you start to realize that while Palmeiro was a very good player in his career, the only reason he was even in the conversation for HOF was the longevity and consistency fueled by his steroid use.

And... once you realize that he was using steroids for that purpose, you have to start wondering who else was using them for those purposes. At which point, you have to begin to wonder how many pitchers used them to get thru the grind of a 162 game season – not just guys like Clemens but also guys like Greg Maddux who seemed to defy the laws of age to stay on the field and relievers whose arms fall off when their managers Proctor them. I mean, Andy Pettite admitted as much and nobody thought to so much as ask who else amongst MLB pitchers might be using them the same way.

For my part, I think shortening recovery time is the single biggest reason athletes use PEDs – and by not really exploring that side of the steroid era in baseball, the media effectively left people with the wrong impression of why people use them and, as a result, who is likely to be using them.

 

[j44thor]

OK--but that's still insane. The league just doesn't care.

This part is right but for the wrong reasons.
4X is the World Anti Doping Agency standard and it is that because 4X covers 95 % of all athletes. That said, a small % of people can produce greater than 4X NATURALLY. 6X is the IOC and NCAA standard and that covers 99% of the population.

The reason the testing is a joke is because it is easily beaten and the test isn't a great predictor to start with. Synthetic Testosterone has a half life of 8 days so if you know when the test is coming you can beat it by simply cycling off less than a month before the test. I'm willing to bet the "random" drug testing isn't quite that random. Plus there are lozenges, creams etc that can be used to beat the test.

If the NFL did care they would use CIR testing. Even the godfather of masking Victor Conte admits this is a foolproof test. It is significantly more expensive, $400 per test, thus the NFL doesn't use it. Now to be fair no organization uses CIR testing exclusively.

So basically the process is you can't fail a really simple test or you get subjected to a really, really hard test.

 

[RG33]

Students who take the SATs who have practiced for the test.

Your initial reponse will be "BUT THAT ISN'T THE SAME.." But it is. Now, go somewhere and try to be smart. Preferably not in this thread, but if you have to, put out your 5 and your thinking.

[/QUOTE]
Now you are surpassing "super troll" status into just being plain laughable.

"They want to make more money!"
"They want to be bigger and faster than the next guy!"
"They need to be able to recover after all the brutality!"

That will be your logic. And all are true. But that is completely different from "proving" your point that literally 100% of NFL players are using illegal PEDs.

But, keep playing your reindeer games.

 

[bankshot1]

In case @bankshot1 has me on ignore, someone may want to repost that article that explains how 98% of players can beat the system.

I don't use the ignore function.

But I did not/have not read the article.

And if 98% of the players can beat the system, I guess its not much of a system, and those 2% should find new docs/advisors.

 

[RIFan]

The interesting data I would like to see is how many players file and are approved for a therapeutic use exemptions. I would imagine that there is not a ton of scrutiny on those applications.

The reality that pushes the numbers close to 100% is that colleges aren't recruiting on potential. The elite college recruits are already physical specimens at 18. The reality for even gifted athletes hits pretty quickly in high school. If you're not on the map at 15 or 16 the odds of a scholarship go way down. Doping starts early and is just a way of life. If a player was good enough to make it to D1 on genetics alone, they quickly realize it's not going to be good enough at that level. It's not just back alley stuff or those who are focused on scholarships. I know for a fact that doctors are prescribing testosterone not strictly as a performance enhancer, but to help minimize the injury risk in competing against more physically mature competition. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find a doctor to prescribe higher level PED's.

 

[crystalline]

I don't use the ignore function.

But I did not/have not read the article.

And if 98% of the players can beat the system, I guess its not much of a system, and those 2% should find new docs/advisors.

Yup, there's a reason why the NFL's PED testing is described as an intelligence test - i.e., as long as you don't do something stupid or careless, you shouldn't get caught.
(and yes, apologies re: ignore, I edited my post but the thread is moving fast.)

From the article:

Here's a relevant excerpt:

In the piles of doping evidence against cyclist Lance Armstrong is a story about how drug testers showed up unannounced at the world championships for his sport. Armstrong had them test a teammate first while someone smuggled a bag of saline under his raincoat, past the doping control officers, and infused it into him.

The saline quickly restored Armstrong’s blood levels within acceptable limits, and he would then pass the test. The whole thing took about 15 minutes.

Imagine if you had three hours. Or 24.

“It’s amazing what they can do,” Don Catlin, the pre-eminent anti-doping scientist in the United States, told the Wall Street Journal in 2012. “If you don’t have surprise testing, they can run rings around you.”

 

[crystalline]

The SD U-T has been doing investigative pieces on NFL PEDs for many years now. The recent 2014 article I've posted excerpts from (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/dec/08/nfl-performance-enhancing-drug-testing-goodell/) is comprehensive and a good read.

Here's a longform article on the history of steroid use in the NFL ("Translation: 95% of the Chargers were taking the roids. " [in the 70s]).
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/232404-the-steelers-steroids-and-profound-misconceptions


Here's a piece from the Atlantic exploring why the public doesn't seem to care if NFL players dope:
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/02/why-dont-more-people-care-if-nfl-players-dope/273057/

The reason why the NFL's drug testing policy doesn't work might well have been revealed five years before the Union-Tribune report in a 2003 book by football writer Mike Freeman, Bloody Sundays: Inside the Dazzling, Rough-and-Tumble World of the NFL. In 1999, reported Freeman, the NFL players had a meeting in Hawaii. Seeming to forget that the meeting was being recorded, one union official told player reps that several players had failed their drug tests but would not be punished because of "a secret agreement" between the league and the union not to enforce rules on drug use until a new policy, which was already in the works, was established.

That gets at the underlying motivation, from owners and from the union, to have a policy that is toothless, but allows them to say there is a policy.

 

[johnmd20]

My post to you addressed your point re the 400% baseline which I thought pertinent.

But other than that you only presented anecdotal stories about PED usage in high schools and that you've seen references to people claiming NFL PED usage is 100%.
I'm sorry but those points do not make a very compelling case to me.

Nor do the other anecdotal stories about PED use by weight lifters, body builders, wrestlers etc.Or what Olympic athletes might do if they were not tested.

I just don't believe you have presented anywhere near close to sufficient evidence to make the case of 100% usage.

And fwiw I think usage is high as well, but not universal, as I think there are a few guys out there who for whatever reason, do not cheat.

It's not cheating. I think that is your issue here. You view PED use as cheating, so it holds that you would think everyone wouldn't do something. Yet, I view it as a universal part of the sport. It's not cheating. It's doing what it takes.

 

[bankshot1]

Yup, there's a reason why the NFL's PED testing is described as an intelligence test - i.e., as long as you don't do something stupid or careless, you shouldn't get caught.
(and yes, apologies re: ignore, I edited my post but the thread is moving fast.)

From the article:

Here's a relevant excerpt:

And I thought Nink was a relatively smart player.

heh

and fwiw I think its clear the NFL does not really care about PEDs and its largely an issue for PR purposes.

 

[bankshot1]

It's not cheating. I think that is your issue here. You view PED use as cheating, so it holds that you would think everyone wouldn't do something. Yet, I view it as a universal part of the sport. It's not cheating. It's doing what it takes.

Yes I think knowingly breaking a rule is a form of cheating. From using a nail file to doctor a baseball to injecting HGH, (whatever/however) I'm just not sure 100% of athlete are willing to cross that line. You are free to disagree.

 

[H78]

The NFL's testing policy is just like WWE's: test juuust randomly enough to stave off questions about how hard you're working to remove PEDs from your sport/company, and pop a semi-big name every once in a blue moon to further solidify the "legitimacy" of the program.

If the NFL really wanted to remove PEDs from the league they'd test all players on random days every week.

As a player, if you know you're gonna be tested each week on a random day, the ~48-72 hour window that it takes to metabolize most illegal/banned substances suddenly doesn't feel like such a sure thing. The NFL doesn't do this because if they did they would uncover a massive PED scandal in their own league and then they'd have to figure out how to handle the subsequent public backlash, just as MLB did in the late 90's.

So...they test just enough that a big name gets popped every now and then, which legitimizes the program in the general public's eye, while still allowing defenses like the 2013 Seahawks and 2015 Broncos to exist, where guys are taking heads off with reckless abandon because they know they've got what they need to recover sitting on a countertop at home, and the chances anyone ever finds out is pretty minuscule.

 

[j44thor]

Yup, there's a reason why the NFL's PED testing is described as an intelligence test - i.e., as long as you don't do something stupid or careless, you shouldn't get caught.
(and yes, apologies re: ignore, I edited my post but the thread is moving fast.)
Here's a relevant excerpt:

I don't know what test Armstrong was trying to beat but Saline isn't going to help you beat a T/E ratio test.

Another fault in the T/E test is that you need a certain enzyme in the body for T to bind properly to be excreted as urine. There are significant differences among ethnicities in how prevalent the enzyme is. Some Asians can take significant amounts of Synthetic Test and still fall below 4:1 because they have small amounts of the enzyme compared to European or US born white males (low end of spectrum). African Americans fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

There are also studies that Green Tea can help block Test in the urine though not conclusive if it scales to block significant levels.

It bears worth repeating that the NFL policy is stronger than the NCAA policy. The NFL isn't some boogeyman, they are less complicit than their feeder system.

 

[johnmd20]

Yes I think knowingly breaking a rule is a form of cheating. From using a nail file to doctor a baseball to injecting HGH, (whatever/however) I'm just not sure 100% of athlete are willing to cross that line. You are free to disagree.

But the PED thing is such an arbitrary line, I don't think it's remotely close to cheating. So you can take all the painkillers and cortisone shots in the world or inject red blood platelets in your knee and that is ok but take some Creatine, 1MR, or HGH and that's over the line? It's all done for PR, which the NFL appreciates, which is why their testing process is so toothless.