Jump to content


Interesting article on PEDs


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 vincec

vincec

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,729 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:59 PM

http://www.grantland...sk-ped-question

The one question that I have that he never really asks is "Does anyone really care if these guys are on PEDs?"

I think that many people assume that it's basically a level playing field with most everyone taking drugs who wants to and that "performance enhancing drugs" have been around since stimulants and pain killers were used in the 60s or even earlier. The only people who really follow the rules against PEDs are the honest people and that allows the dishonest people to dominate.

And comparing records across eras is impossible for many reasons besides the improvements in PEDs, including the improvements in other training techniques, strategies, overall health, funding, etc.

Edited by vincec, 02 February 2013 - 12:26 AM.


#2 San Jose Bills Fan

San Jose Bills Fan

    San Jose Bills Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,764 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:35 PM

I'm against PEDs because it penalizes those people who want to compete honestly, who don't want to put rubbish in their bodies in order to fulfill their goals.

#3 swnybillsfan

swnybillsfan

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:45 PM

i'm actually conflicted on this one. part of me wants the cheaters to be punished and not be allowed to compete because they are breaking the rules and gaining an advantage on those that are doing it "the right way". the other part of me thinks that these are grown men and they can put whatever the hell they want in their bodies because in the end, they may be trading years of their lives for millions of dollars now. so one part of me really wants to yell at the other side, i just don't know which one it is.

#4 BADOLBEELZ

BADOLBEELZ

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:04 PM

View Postvincec, on 01 February 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

http://www.grantland...sk-ped-question

The one question that I have that he never really asks is "Does anyone really care if these guys are on PEDs?"

I think that many people assume that it's basically a level playing field with most everyone taking drugs who wants to and that "performance enhancing drugs" have been around since stimulants and pain killers were used in the 60s or even earlier. The only people who really follow the rules against PEDs the honest people and that allows the dishonest people to dominate.

And comparing records across eras is impossible for many reasons besides the improvements in PEDs, including the improvements in other training techniques, strategies, overall health, funding, etc.

To me it comes down to more than inflated statistics.  I want to see the good players play the game...not on the disabled list.  I mean, in the 80's you could buy andro at GNC and nobody thought it was steroids or was changing the game.....now you can't take pseudofed?  I just don't like the prospects of 100% organic professional athletes.   It's not realistic.  It may come down to do you want your athletes on a perfectly level playing field or do you want entertaining sport with players that are on the field long enough to form an appreciation of their individual performance?

#5 BADOLBEELZ

BADOLBEELZ

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 11:43 PM

View Postvincec, on 01 February 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

http://www.grantland...sk-ped-question

The one question that I have that he never really asks is "Does anyone really care if these guys are on PEDs?"

I think that many people assume that it's basically a level playing field with most everyone taking drugs who wants to and that "performance enhancing drugs" have been around since stimulants and pain killers were used in the 60s or even earlier. The only people who really follow the rules against PEDs are the honest people and that allows the dishonest people to dominate.

And comparing records across eras is impossible for many reasons besides the improvements in PEDs, including the improvements in other training techniques, strategies, overall health, funding, etc.

I didn't want to hijack the feel-good JJ Watt thread because doing good things for others and being a PED abuser are two things that are not mutually exclusive from one another.  But if there is one player in the NFL who is not just using, but ABUSING PED's it has to be Watt.  I know it's a shame we have to question successful players, but this guy isn't just successful, his body has turned into a charicature much like Barry Bonds did.   I suspect a few years from now he will get busted and then everybody will say it should have been obvious, he was overgrown, his ability seemed to grow ten-fold overnight from a base 3-4 DE to a cross between Reggie White and Bruce Smith, the defense he was on was lead by a guy who was also suspended for PED's, he seems to crave attention like a lot of the famous abusers....etc.  This thread is about dead so I will leave it here, but every time I see that guy I think something unnatural is going on there.

#6 Mr. WEO

Mr. WEO

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,764 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:05 AM

This is an interesting topic.

No one cares that steroids were rampant before testing made them less so.  No one cared after hearing it.   Guys who 'roided were also the guys who spent the most time working out and staying in shape.  They were willing to risk their health and careers in order to get an edge.  Then there are "all natural" athletes like Stevie who tell us they don't work out as much and ask us to imagine how much better they could be if they only applied themselves a little more...are these the guys we should emulate and admire? Look at all these guys strolling into camp fat and out of shape who are injured or on IR before the second week of the season.  

Anyway,  I said earlier, I think it is crazy that injured players cannot use substances like HGH to recover under doctor supervision. Why not, if it is effective?

#7 Bill from NYC

Bill from NYC

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,569 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:18 AM

View PostBADOLBEELZ, on 02 February 2013 - 11:43 PM, said:

I didn't want to hijack the feel-good JJ Watt thread because doing good things for others and being a PED abuser are two things that are not mutually exclusive from one another.  But if there is one player in the NFL who is not just using, but ABUSING PED's it has to be Watt.  I know it's a shame we have to question successful players, but this guy isn't just successful, his body has turned into a charicature much like Barry Bonds did.   I suspect a few years from now he will get busted and then everybody will say it should have been obvious, he was overgrown, his ability seemed to grow ten-fold overnight from a base 3-4 DE to a cross between Reggie White and Bruce Smith, the defense he was on was lead by a guy who was also suspended for PED's, he seems to crave attention like a lot of the famous abusers....etc.  This thread is about dead so I will leave it here, but every time I see that guy I think something unnatural is going on there.

I remember watching Watt on youtube before the draft and liked what I saw. But in no way did I expect him to become the best defensive player in the NFL, let alone in his second season.
I found his comment about Mario Williams signing with the Bills to be a tad strange. He said (and I'm paraphrasing of course) that they would miss him in the locker room, but not so much on the field. There was no real reason to say something like this, and imo this too points to steroid use. Roid freaks do not tend to use great judgement. If they did, they would find hot, young women instead of old hags like Madonna (Canseco, A-Rod, and probably Sean Penn LOL).
I haven't cared about baseball for many years, but do you remember a Yankee, Randy Velarde? He was a pinch runner, and a late inning defensive replacement. An all around utility player. Then, he came in jacked. I saw him hit a home run over the centerfield wall at Yankee Stadium.
So yes, sometimes it really is obvious.

Edited by Bill from NYC, 03 February 2013 - 12:20 AM.


#8 Tcali

Tcali

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,356 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:20 AM

Well....PEDs ruined the records part of baseball---the stats/records r kinda meaningless now.
But there is the question about PED use in the old days before there was any testing at all.
Weve read about these old time ballplayers getting these..cough..'vitamin b12 shots'--who knows what was in those shots.

If they werent physically dangerous--and everyone could use them then I wouldnt have a problem with it. But its not fair to force everyone to use them to compete on an equal basis if these drugs are harmful.

So far baseball and football have survived the HGH/steroid era.--
Im not so sure football is gonna survive the brain damage lawsuit era.
that could end the league.

#9 jumbalaya

jumbalaya

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,475 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:34 AM

Those that maintain the stance that everyone does PEDs so its all fair are the root of the problem, not only in sports but in everything else.  Honesty, integrity and character are the values we should cherish, not he had to cheat because the others cheated so what's the big deal?  Lance Armstrong is a fraud and so are most of America's athletes.  And most of America's fans are frauds as well.

#10 HoF Watkins

HoF Watkins

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,181 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 05:22 AM

Eventually this kind of thing is likely to come to a head in the non athletic workplace. How about "smart drugs" for the common man? Legal or illegal (but unofficially endorsed), expensive designer drugs that radically improve performance, only accessable to the wealthy (and desperate), that shave a couple decades off a user's life. High powered college degrees, and high paying jobs for users. And maybe lots of pressure applied to non-users, or pressure from employers/schools to increase dosage and improve performance. These, and a myriad of other implications are the kinds of decisions that face college and pro athletes.

Edited by Manti'sMicro, 03 February 2013 - 05:25 AM.


#11 vincec

vincec

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,729 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:11 AM

View PostManti, on 03 February 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

Eventually this kind of thing is likely to come to a head in the non athletic workplace. How about "smart drugs" for the common man? Legal or illegal (but unofficially endorsed), expensive designer drugs that radically improve performance, only accessable to the wealthy (and desperate), that shave a couple decades off a user's life. High powered college degrees, and high paying jobs for users. And maybe lots of pressure applied to non-users, or pressure from employers/schools to increase dosage and improve performance. These, and a myriad of other implications are the kinds of decisions that face college and pro athletes.
If these "smart drugs" have acceptable side effects then what would be the problem with people taking them?  Since everyone can't do it that means that no one can?

#12 vincec

vincec

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,729 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:22 AM

View PostTcali, on 03 February 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

If they werent physically dangerous--and everyone could use them then I wouldnt have a problem with it. But its not fair to force everyone to use them to compete on an equal basis if these drugs are harmful.
This argument does hold some weight with me but I think the reaction to ban all PEDs across the board is over the top.  And if this is the basis of the rule then why allow injections of pain killers to get hurt players back on the field?  It's certainly not good for them long term to be aggravating injuries and turning them into potentially chronic conditions after they retire.  And there's a lot of pressure to take them too and "not let your team down".

#13 HoF Watkins

HoF Watkins

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,181 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:22 PM

View Postvincec, on 03 February 2013 - 07:11 AM, said:

If these "smart drugs" have acceptable side effects then what would be the problem with people taking them?  Since everyone can't do it that means that no one can?

I don't know the right answer, I'm just trying to apply the same situation to activities outside of sports.

I don't know what would be considered "acceptable" side effects, I listed "shaving a couple decades off a users life", is that acceptable to you? (No, I'm not claiiming that the current PED's are (or aren't) doing that). Maybe instead they would just turn you into an insufferable jerk?

Anything that radically changes your body chemistry, is going to have side effects, some mental, and some physical.

I am curious how PED's are utilized in the armed forces. They must be using them in the special forces (I hope so at least).

#14 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,527 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:35 PM

View PostSan Jose Bills Fan, on 01 February 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

I'm against PEDs because it penalizes those people who want to compete honestly, who don't want to put rubbish in their bodies in order to fulfill their goals.

Agreed. That couples closely with the creep of usage in college, and the high school too. I don't like the idea that you penalize guys that want to participate on a natural level.

Further, bigger faster stronger all equates to more powerful collisions. It's dangerous as is, we don't need these guys to be stacking unnatural factors into these collisions.

I could care less about record books - rules change regularly.

#15 San Jose Bills Fan

San Jose Bills Fan

    San Jose Bills Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,764 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:29 PM

View PostNoSaint, on 03 February 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

Agreed. That couples closely with the creep of usage in college, and the high school too. I don't like the idea that you penalize guys that want to participate on a natural level.

Further, bigger faster stronger all equates to more powerful collisions. It's dangerous as is, we don't need these guys to be stacking unnatural factors into these collisions.

I could care less about record books - rules change regularly.

To follow up on your point, football has always been big, fast, and violent enough for me from the very time I started watching it as a kid in the late 60s.

I don't need to see comically-oversized players achieving never-before-seen speeds and sizes to be entertained.

I remember when Ang Lee came out with The Hulk movie and thinking how ridiculous it was with the hyperbolized and computer-enhanced new Hulk. I didn't really like The Lord of the Rings movies because having read the books, I didn't appreciate that some of the characters exceeded my imagination of them. The Balrog for instance was ridiculous, IMO.

I don't need to see inhuman looking human beings playing football. If I needed that I'd spend my time watching the latest gladiator movies out of Hollywood.

I'm not sure that I've made my point well.

Ten is high enough on the dial. I don't need 11.

#16 MattM

MattM

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:52 PM

View PostMr. WEO, on 03 February 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

This is an interesting topic.

No one cares that steroids were rampant before testing made them less so.  No one cared after hearing it.   Guys who 'roided were also the guys who spent the most time working out and staying in shape.  They were willing to risk their health and careers in order to get an edge.  Then there are "all natural" athletes like Stevie who tell us they don't work out as much and ask us to imagine how much better they could be if they only applied themselves a little more...are these the guys we should emulate and admire? Look at all these guys strolling into camp fat and out of shape who are injured or on IR before the second week of the season.  

Anyway,  I said earlier, I think it is crazy that injured players cannot use substances like HGH to recover under doctor supervision. Why not, if it is effective?

.
Part of the reason roided out guys work out harder is because that's what some of those drugs allow you to do--work out more intensely on less rest for your body.  Personally, my objection to them is that the medical profession hasn't done enough work on them to guarantee that they're safe for use and thus allowing folks to use them in that situation means an athlete has a choice of either doping to keep up, with all the medical risks that brings, or risk not making the cut by not using them.  That doesn't seem right to me.   If you haven't seen it, watch "Bigger, Faster, Stronger" sometime--it's a documentary on roids....

Edited by MattM, 03 February 2013 - 05:02 PM.