No, he really didn't. I'm happy to go.Leave this shit out from now on. He addressed your post, you are expected to do the same.
No, he really didn't. I'm happy to go.Leave this shit out from now on. He addressed your post, you are expected to do the same.
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?No, he really didn't. I'm happy to go.
Easy answer: SSS.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?
Only ISIS sympathizers believe that. Why do you hate America?Second answer: Peyton Manning. Need we go on?
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.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?
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.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?
My roommate after college was active duty army and ran a couple cycles. I understood it's pretty common.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?
PED usage and aggressive supplement usage is tremendously commonplace in the active military.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
I dont think you are understanding even what you are saying and how my counter argument deflates what you are proposing.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.
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.Wait, why are we suggesting Joe Cardona is using PEDs? Because he is an NFL player who served/serves in the military?
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.
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.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.
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.Which is to say nothing of the fact that there is literally no benefit to a long snapper using.
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?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.
You may well be right. The point being of course, the whole thing is a massive sham.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
Which no one is arguing.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.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.
My roommate after college was active duty army and ran a couple cycles. I understood it's pretty common.
This is wonderful. Like a refutation from 2001. Didn't they say steroids couldn't help someone hit a fast ball either?Which is to say nothing of the fact that there is literally no benefit to a long snapper using.
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.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.
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.P
You may well be right. The point being of course, the whole thing is a massive sham.
You just couldn't help yourself.I dont think you are understanding even what you are saying and how my counter argument deflates what you are proposing.
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.
I just noticed that, I swear.You just couldn't help yourself.
Particularly when your ignore all of the other data they presented!!! Hooray you!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.
No, it's 4x or 6x using the notation you are citing.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 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 dont think you are understanding even what you are saying and how my counter argument deflates what you are proposing.
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.Particularly when your ignore all of the other data they presented!!! Hooray you!
What risk factors? The tests are always going to be reacting to the latest method of evasion or masking.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.
Health ones. Side effects.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?Health ones. Side effects.
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.What are the health concerns with using steroids under doctor supervision? Are they worse than alcohol or cigarettes? Worse than playing football?
If they're hoping to pass tests, they're under supervision. Someone's checking their blood, and liver enzymes, etc.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.
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.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.
Which we should all be able to agree is pretty different than being under a doctors care.If they're hoping to pass tests, they're under supervision. Someone's checking their blood, and liver enzymes, etc.
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.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.
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.From what I've read, steroid abuse has side effects. Steroid use doesn't.
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.You think every kicker complies because adding 2 yard to their kickoffs is worth more in money than the risk factors you listed.
Different steroid. Corticosteroids, not anabolic steroids. Corticosteroids have bad side effects.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.