NFLDC 2009 DROTY vote

[Scotty D]

Brian Orakpo, LB - Washington Redskins
Tackles 50
Sacks 11.0
Forced Fumbles 1
http://masnsports.com/images/Brian-Orakpo.jpg
Clay Matthews, LB - Green Bay Packers
Tackles 51
Sacks 10.0
Forced Fumbles 1
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/host.madison.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/0/8f/fe4/08ffe4a4-bc4a-11de-8775-001cc4c03286.preview-300.jpg
Jairus Byrd, FS - Buffalo Bills
Tackles 45
Interceptions 9
http://nimg.sulekha.com/sports/thumbnailfull/jairus-byrd-braylon-edwards-2009-10-18-21-40-0.jpg
Brian Cushing, LB - Houston Texas
Tackles 145
Sacks 4.0
INTs 4
Fumbles Forced 2
http://media.nj.com/needell/photo/brian-cushing-texans--3ec634f0caf52e0e_large.jpg

[Paranoidmoonduck]

I thought Byrd should have won it even before all this PED madness, and I feel the same way now.

[CC.SD]

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/host.madison.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/0/8f/fe4/08ffe4a4-bc4a-11de-8775-001cc4c03286.preview-300.jpg

Is this the Lights Out dance?

[Matthew Jones]

I think Byrd is a nice player (I was high on him coming out as well) but I feel as though a lot of his INTs were the result of more being in the right place at the right time. I still voted for Cushing because based on last year he's already one of the top players in the league at his position, and I'm not naive enough to think that he's the only star player who used steroids. Besides, his use should have been obvious based on all those before/after pics, general injury concerns in college, etc.

[Ravens1991]

Byrd 9 interceptions is amazing for even a seasoned veteran. I believe thats the most INTs Ed Reed ever had in 1 season in his career, Byrd got that as a Rookie.

[umphrey]

Matthews had at least one forced fumble, just look at my sig. I know he played a role in several turnovers last year.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

I think Byrd is a nice player (I was high on him coming out as well) but I feel as though a lot of his INTs were the result of more being in the right place at the right time.

You literally just defined what an interception is. Whether or not Byrd was lucky or not doesn't seem the least bit relevant. Cushing may be a better player moving forward but Byrd made the most impact on the games played in 2009.

[Mr.Regular]

Im extremely biased, so maybe my vote shouldn't count but I had to go with Matthews.
Once he cracked the starting lineup in week 5 i believe, he was sensational. Without him, we had no passrush, and we wouldn't have been the top 5 defense we ended up as.

He has the sexy stats, he was a definite playmaker, he plays a premium position, he helped lead a top rated defense, and he really did it all....coverage, run defense, and of course pass rushing. He was very comfortable in all of these aspects of the game. You could say he was our 3rd or 4th best player last year, which is remarkable for a rookie, especially on an 11-5 team.

[Scotty D]

Matthews had at least one forced fumble, just look at my sig. I know he played a role in several turnovers last year.

You are correct. NFL.com has him listed as having one forced fumble.

[umphrey]

Clay Matthews didn't even play in the first handful of games and he still racked up great numbers. He was also the premier pass rusher on the #2 defense in the league and a playoff team. The other 3 were on pretty bad teams.

Obviously I'll be pimping Matthews from beginning to end, but still, he has a lot going in his favor.

[Shiver]

I still vote Brian Cushing. He was the best player on the field of these rookies. I am a firm believer that you do not and should not punish a player retroactively. He took a substance that was on the ban list, it wasn't a PED per say but that's beside the point, and will be punished four games next year. That is sufficient for me. Let's not devalue the NFL and assume that physicality is all one needs to be a good player. Cushing showed an amazing ability to make plays, which requires tremendous mental preparation and awareness.

[vidae]

You literally just defined what an interception is. Whether or not Byrd was lucky or not doesn't seem the least bit relevant. Cushing may be a better player moving forward but Byrd made the most impact on the games played in 2009.

I was just about to post this exact same thing. Right place right time is what safeties are supposed to do and he did it brilliantly.

[LonghornsLegend]

I don't know why Clay gets so much more credit then Orakpo, because their team won the playoffs? Orakpo played two positions for the Redskins, and was rushing the passer far less then Mathews was.


It's not like he was lining up to play the pass every down and rush the edge, he was playing the run primarily and being a pass-rusher on 3rd downs.


I still think Byrd getting 9 picks was pretty incredible.

[YAYareaRB]

Byrd Man Byrd Man Byrd Man

[VernonLawson89]

The Byrd's the word.

[SickwithIt1010]

i dont give a **** if he tested positive or not hes still a good ball player and would have had a good season anyways.

cushing got my vote

[VernonLawson89]

i dont give a **** if he tested positive or not hes still a good ball player and would have had a good season anyways.

cushing got my vote

http://srhabay.wikispaces.com/file/view/HomerSimpson48.gif/61853282/HomerSimpson48.gif

[Addict]

I don't begrudge Cushing his prize, he played really well... but 9 picks should have won DROY IMO.

[niel89]

Damn looking back there were some pretty good rookie players on defense.

[MetSox17]

I still vote for Cushing. Byrd's interceptions are nice, but i don't think he had as big of an impact as the other three guys did. Orakpo had a better season than Matthews did, but Cushing completely shut it down on the Texans. 145 tackles as a rookie is amazing no matter what way you put it.

1. Cushing
2. Orakpo
3. Matthews
4. Byrd

[Addict]

Damn looking back there were some pretty good rookie players on defense.


not a bad class indeed.

[SeanTaylorRIP]

I was amazed at Orakpo's transition to 43 backer. He looked surprisingly light and smooth. Where as someone like Woodley IMO could not play 43 backer, Orakpo really could play there. It's not most effective but he looked decent there. Of course his most damage was done on rush downs off the line. He is going to be such a monster in the new 34. Hah he's about the only player who benefits from the switch. Oh well aside from the DB's.

[Saints-Tigers]

Everyone in the NFL isn't clean, but you are innocent until proven guilty, and Cushing is a cheater, and shouldn't even get consideration.

I'd go Byrd.

[Bucs_Rule]

I don't know why Clay gets so much more credit then Orakpo, because their team won the playoffs? Orakpo played two positions for the Redskins, and was rushing the passer far less then Mathews was.


That is excatly why. The Redskins were so bad no one paid attention to them or watched their games. I was surprised that their stats were virtually identical.

[wonderbredd24]

Byrd was tied for the league lead in INTs and which is more valuable; sacks or INTs? The goal of the defense is to get off the field and Byrd got them off the field immediately 9 times.

[Nalej]

J.Byrd. A shining spot in gloomy Buffalo

[Bob Sanders Dreadlock]

Originally thought Byrd should win 9 picks is amazing

[keylime_5]

I betcha Matthews and Orakpo used too, they just didn't get caught. Cushing was the best defensive rookie last year (all-pro as well I do believe) he deserves it, illegal substance or no.

[Splat]

I like Clay's game.

[Prowler]

cush, give the award back to him

[bigbluedefense]

Orakpo.

Can you imagine Orakpo running wild in a similar ZB scheme that GB employs under Dom Capers?

He'd have 15 sacks in that scheme. And he played as a 4-3 SAM on running downs and still had 11 sacks. He's a beast vs the run too.


If we're excluding Cushing, its easily Orakpo to me.

[SeanTaylorRIP]

Watching his college film I always imagined him being much more mechanical and stiff. I'm pleasantly surprised with how fluid he is in the open field. With enough time I really think that he can play almost any LB spot in any scheme. When he's getting older and hopefully still with the Skins I can see him moving back to DE. Regardless I didn't expect him to have the versatility and fast learning that he shows. He's kind of the prospect that I thought Aaron Maybin would be. And he still has that super hulk strength. He's about the only player on the defensive side of the ball which I project being with the team for a long time. That's sad.

[bigbluedefense]

Watching his college film I always imagined him being much more mechanical and stiff. I'm pleasantly surprised with how fluid he is in the open field. With enough time I really think that he can play almost any LB spot in any scheme. When he's getting older and hopefully still with the Skins I can see him moving back to DE. Regardless I didn't expect him to have the versatility and fast learning that he shows. He's kind of the prospect that I thought Aaron Maybin would be. And he still has that super hulk strength. He's about the only player on the defensive side of the ball which I project being with the team for a long time. That's sad.

In a 4-3, there is absolutely no reason to have him play any position other than DE. I think its moronic to have him anywhere else in that front.

In a 3-4, he has no business playing any position other than rushbacker.

Basically, he needs to be utilized as an every down pass rusher. He impacts the game the most in that role, that role has the most impact on every play, it just makes no sense to do anything else with him.

[killxswitch]

I still vote Cushing because of his versatility. But damn those are 4 great rookie seasons. I think you could make a case for any of them.

[thebow305]

I still vote for Cushing. I pimped him pretty hard before the draft and knew he was going to be a monster, PED's or not.

He's a great player.

Byrd would be a very close 2nd though. Nine picks for a rookie making a position switch is nothing short of incredible.

[JFLO]

totally meant to vote for Cushing...damnit

[FUNBUNCHER]

In a 4-3, there is absolutely no reason to have him play any position other than DE. I think its moronic to have him anywhere else in that front.

In a 3-4, he has no business playing any position other than rushbacker.

Basically, he needs to be utilized as an every down pass rusher. He impacts the game the most in that role, that role has the most impact on every play, it just makes no sense to do anything else with him.
Haslett basically already told Rak he's going to be the SKins designated pass rusher and was going to send him after the QB about 50% more than he was under Greg Blache.

I didn't see Cushing play much, but his tackle numbers were sick for a rook. After Mario, he seems like the Texans 2nd best player.

Because I was equally impressed by Orakpo (homer!!) and Matthews, who played like a vet last season, I give my vote to Byrd.

Nine picks as a rookie is bizarre.

[LonghornsLegend]

Orakpo.

Can you imagine Orakpo running wild in a similar ZB scheme that GB employs under Dom Capers?

He'd have 15 sacks in that scheme. And he played as a 4-3 SAM on running downs and still had 11 sacks. He's a beast vs the run too.


If we're excluding Cushing, its easily Orakpo to me.


BBD your with me.


I thought Washington was so stupid for trying to mess with a good thing and make him a SAM, I still don't understand it but it makes his year that much more impressive. This will technically be his 3rd position in two years, but if you just let him rush the passer people will see how good he really is.



I guess I also don't understand everyone still voting for Cushing. It's easy to assume everyone else is on the juice, but they haven't been caught yet. Orakpo has been a workout freak since he got to Texas yet there hasn't been so much of a whisper of steroid usage for him.


7HMFbR7kDy8



I don't know why the term "performance enhancing drugs" doesn't mean as much to some people. Of course his stats are off the charts, but I'm not going to vote for anyone who most believe has been off and on roids since he entered college and not know how good he may or may not be without them.

[DeathbyStat]

How did byrd get so little votes in the first place?

[killxswitch]

I guess I also don't understand everyone still voting for Cushing. It's easy to assume everyone else is on the juice, but they haven't been caught yet. Orakpo has been a workout freak since he got to Texas yet there hasn't been so much of a whisper of steroid usage for him.


For me it's a logistics thing. I can't reconcile taking the award away from him when others have been busted for banned substances and kept their awards (Peppers and Merriman).

I also don't really care about steroids in any sport because I think a lot more players are using them than is publicly acknowledged, and I don't think they're THAT dangerous if they're used properly. The taboo nature of them leads kids to shoot up in secret when they have no idea what they're doing, whereas with medical professionals monitoring things the side effects are minimal and not permanent.

[wonderbredd24]

The Brian Orakpo love just blows my mind... let's just compare Clay Matthews and Brian Orakpo

Brian Orakpo benefited immensely from playing with Albert Haynesworth and Andre Carter, who also had 11 sacks, demanding attention from opposing blockers giving Orakpo far more 1 on 1 matchups than he'd ever seen without them.

Clay Matthews had who? No one anywhere near the level of those 2 players. Matthews led his team with 10 sacks and the guy in second had 4.5, so Matthews was clearly the guy OC's were preparing for. In addition to that, Matthews had 7 PBUs compared to 2, 7 TFLs compared to 4, and had that play where he picked Adrian Peterson's pocket. Plus, Matthews was far more consistent throughout the season in terms of production while Orakpo's season was largely built on one huge day against Oakland.

I still think Jairus Byrd's season was the most deserving for the award, but failing that, it's Clay Matthews over Brian Orakpo and saying otherwise is just silly.

[Hurricanes25]

The Brian Orakpo love just blows my mind... let's just compare Clay Matthews and Brian Orakpo

Brian Orakpo benefited immensely from playing with Albert Haynesworth and Andre Carter, who also had 11 sacks, demanding attention from opposing blockers giving Orakpo far more 1 on 1 matchups than he'd ever seen without them.

Clay Matthews had who? No one anywhere near the level of those 2 players. Matthews led his team with 10 sacks and the guy in second had 4.5, so Matthews was clearly the guy OC's were preparing for. In addition to that, Matthews had 7 PBUs compared to 2, 7 TFLs compared to 4, and had that play where he picked Adrian Peterson's pocket. Plus, Matthews was far more consistent throughout the season in terms of production while Orakpo's season was largely built on one huge day against Oakland.

I still think Jairus Byrd's season was the most deserving for the award, but failing that, it's Clay Matthews over Brian Orakpo and saying otherwise is just silly.

The Orakpo love shouldn't blow your mind. He was playing out of position all year long. If you want to compare him to Matthews, Orakpo had one more sack and he played SAm in a 43. Matthews was a rushbacker in the 34. It's pretty hard to compare them.

I went with Jarius Byrd as well.

[K Train]

orakpo is a big time stud and will be in the running for DPOY soon imo...hes so relentless i love it

news is that cushing is gonna retain his award...good for him

[FUNBUNCHER]

The Brian Orakpo love just blows my mind... let's just compare Clay Matthews and Brian Orakpo



If loving Orakpo is wrong, I don't wanna be right!!!:p

[TitanHope]

Voted for Matthews originally, and am voting for him again. He was the most impressive to me.

Cushing retains the award... Texans fans (not on SWDC) are taking this as some sort of victory. *shakes head*

Do they give out the names of who voted for who? I know McClain's (fat) homer ass did, but I'd like to know the other writers whose opinions I will now ignore.

[toddmlazarchick]

The Brian Orakpo love just blows my mind... let's just compare Clay Matthews and Brian Orakpo

Brian Orakpo benefited immensely from playing with Albert Haynesworth and Andre Carter, who also had 11 sacks, demanding attention from opposing blockers giving Orakpo far more 1 on 1 matchups than he'd ever seen without them.

Clay Matthews had who? No one anywhere near the level of those 2 players. Matthews led his team with 10 sacks and the guy in second had 4.5, so Matthews was clearly the guy OC's were preparing for. In addition to that, Matthews had 7 PBUs compared to 2, 7 TFLs compared to 4, and had that play where he picked Adrian Peterson's pocket. Plus, Matthews was far more consistent throughout the season in terms of production while Orakpo's season was largely built on one huge day against Oakland.

I still think Jairus Byrd's season was the most deserving for the award, but failing that, it's Clay Matthews over Brian Orakpo and saying otherwise is just silly.

Perhaps because Orakpo played out of position and still managed 11 sacks. He was basically only rushing the QB on obvious passing downs. Imagine if he did that on all downs. He was a SLB, which is for sure not an 11 sack position. Matthews was a rush backer whose man job is just that.

[Brodeur]

I don't know why the term "performance enhancing drugs" doesn't mean as much to some people. Of course his stats are off the charts, but I'm not going to vote for anyone who most believe has been off and on roids since he entered college and not know how good he may or may not be without them.

Probably because the effect of performance enhancing drugs on actual play is incredibly over played, in both baseball and football.

[wonderbredd24]

Perhaps because Orakpo played out of position and still managed 11 sacks. He was basically only rushing the QB on obvious passing downs. Imagine if he did that on all downs. He was a SLB, which is for sure not an 11 sack position. Matthews was a rush backer whose man job is just that.

Except that statistically, Matthews was more productive in pass coverage than Orakpo was...

[LonghornsLegend]

Probably because the effect of performance enhancing drugs on actual play is incredibly over played, in both baseball and football.

Maybe it is, but I just cannot ignore the fact that his performance was enhanced illegally, people can argue in circles for days about how much it actually was.

[RealityCheck]

My vote is still Cushing's.

[cunningham06]

Except that statistically, Matthews was more productive in pass coverage than Orakpo was...

That might be the worst argument I've ever heard.

http://www.sportsfangoods.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/8fb01_johnny-jolly.gif

Johnny Jolly had 10 PBU's

http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/nnamdi-asomugha.jpg

And Nnamdi only had 4 PBU's, he must be less effective in coverage than Johnny Jolly!

PBU's is a terrible way to compare players with two very different responsibilities. Players who rush the qb get most of their PBU's at the LOS, you think Jolly's fat ass is out there covering wide receivers?

I'm not saying that Orakpo is better in coverage than Matthews, but that is a terrible metric to compare them with.

[LonghornsLegend]

The Brian Orakpo love just blows my mind... let's just compare Clay Matthews and Brian Orakpo

Brian Orakpo benefited immensely from playing with Albert Haynesworth and Andre Carter, who also had 11 sacks, demanding attention from opposing blockers giving Orakpo far more 1 on 1 matchups than he'd ever seen without them.

Clay Matthews had who? No one anywhere near the level of those 2 players. Matthews led his team with 10 sacks and the guy in second had 4.5, so Matthews was clearly the guy OC's were preparing for. In addition to that, Matthews had 7 PBUs compared to 2, 7 TFLs compared to 4, and had that play where he picked Adrian Peterson's pocket. Plus, Matthews was far more consistent throughout the season in terms of production while Orakpo's season was largely built on one huge day against Oakland.

I still think Jairus Byrd's season was the most deserving for the award, but failing that, it's Clay Matthews over Brian Orakpo and saying otherwise is just silly.



These are all good points I give you that, but it shouldn't really "blow your mind" that people are impressed with a dude who played SAM in a 4-3 which was completely out of position. Nobody would have been surprised if he ended up a complete bust due to trying something they had no business doing in the 1st place.


Also if somebody can find the statistics for how often each of those two rushed the passer, I bet Clay rushed after the QB with no other intentions but to sack the QB almost double to the times Orakpo did. Alot of what he did may have not even shown up on the stat sheet.


I have no problem with people picking Clay or vice versa, but what does bug me is when people act like your crazy for picking Orakpo over him or thinking what he did as a rookie playing two positions was highly impressive and worthy of praise. If he had 16 sacks and 3 FF's in a 3-4 that attacked like a Wade Phillips defense people would be all over his nuts, but some of what was so impressive is how he can play so many different positions with different roles and still be impressive.

[tjsunstein]

I think it's funny how people still voted for Cushing.

[Brodeur]

I think it's funny how people still voted for Cushing.

He was the best defensive rookie, so I don't find it funny.

[wonderbredd24]

He was the best defensive rookie, so I don't find it funny.

And the 22 year old Haitian dude was the best kid on the high school basketball team. I don't see a problem

[Brodeur]

And the 22 year old Haitian dude was the best kid on the high school basketball team. I don't see a problem

Yeah okay, that's a legitimate comparison.

[wonderbredd24]

Yeah okay, that's a legitimate comparison.
It was a stretch to make a point.

Brian Cushing cheated and was busted for it. Why should he be rewarded for that both with an award and financially with an incentive attached to achieving said award.

At some point, cheating is cheating is cheating

[Brodeur]

It was a stretch to make a point.

Brian Cushing cheated and was busted for it. Why should he be rewarded for that both with an award and financially with an incentive attached to achieving said award.

At some point, cheating is cheating is cheating

I don't believe taking any type of growth hormone is cheating, so I really don't give a flying **** that Cushing took some weak ass fertility drug.

[TitanHope]

At some point, cheating is cheating is cheating

It's ok to cheat, as long as you only cheat a little bit.

Plus, everyone is doing it, so that makes it ok. I mean, lets not be naive here, tons of NFL players use steroids - probably most of the players in this poll too. You need proof of that last part? Well, the only proof we have of this group is just Cushing's test, so in an attempt to backup my point, I'll say that just because Byrd, Matthews, Orakpo, etc. didn't fail their tests doesn't mean they're clean. So despite the fact that none of the other players tested positive once, we still really don't know, so therefore they're on the same playing field as the guy who actually did test positive. Makes sense, doesn't it?

These things may sound stupid when you say them out loud, but on a message board they're very factual.

[Prowler]

this isn't baseball. i'm alright with players doing whatever they need to keep their bodies in top condition. its not like the vernon gholstons of the world are the best players. some times its the london fletchers and zach thomas' who have the most impact. cushing played well and deserves the award.

[wonderbredd24]

I don't believe taking any type of growth hormone is cheating, so I really don't give a flying **** that Cushing took some weak ass fertility drug.
Fantastic. The NFL still does. And I can say I don't care if a 22 year old man plays highschool basketball, but that doesn't make it right or legal.

It's ok to cheat, as long as you only cheat a little bit.

Plus, everyone is doing it, so that makes it ok. I mean, lets not be naive here, tons of NFL players use steroids - probably most of the players in this poll too. You need proof of that last part? Well, the only proof we have of this group is just Cushing's test, so in an attempt to backup my point, I'll say that just because Byrd, Matthews, Orakpo, etc. didn't fail their tests doesn't mean they're clean. So despite the fact that none of the other players tested positive once, we still really don't know, so therefore they're on the same playing field as the guy who actually did test positive. Makes sense, doesn't it?

These things may sound stupid when you say them out loud, but on a message board they're very factual.

I don't disagree that most, if not all players are using PEDs, but this guy was caught, so why not send the message that it's not ok?

To an extent, there seems to be a wink and a nod with this whole thing, but considering how pitiful any non olympic testing is, if you're stupid enough to get caught, you deserve to be punished

[LonghornsLegend]

It's ok to cheat, as long as you only cheat a little bit.

Plus, everyone is doing it, so that makes it ok. I mean, lets not be naive here, tons of NFL players use steroids - probably most of the players in this poll too. You need proof of that last part? Well, the only proof we have of this group is just Cushing's test, so in an attempt to backup my point, I'll say that just because Byrd, Matthews, Orakpo, etc. didn't fail their tests doesn't mean they're clean. So despite the fact that none of the other players tested positive once, we still really don't know, so therefore they're on the same playing field as the guy who actually did test positive. Makes sense, doesn't it?

These things may sound stupid when you say them out loud, but on a message board they're very factual.


Lol seriously though. Plus people act like Cushings' isn't a hardcore Steroid user, and has been for a long time. It's one thing to act like this is just a fertility drug, but were talking about a guy people have long suspected of juicing, but let's just ignore that also:


One NFL GM tells Thomas George of AOL Fanhouse that suspended LB Brian Cushing's steroids use dates back to high school.


"We did our research on him before the draft last year and we concluded he was a chronic steroid user dating back to high school," said the unnamed general manager. "More than a few people were surprised when he passed the steroid tests at the Combine. I think the guy became a pro at masking it, until he was caught. I definitely would have taken my vote back on (the Defensive Rookie of the Year) award if I had one."
Source: AOL NFL Fanhouse


You could easily say it's BS, but people were saying all these same things before he was even drafted.

[Brodeur]

Fantastic. The NFL still does. And I can say I don't care if a 22 year old man plays highschool basketball, but that doesn't make it right or legal.


The fact that you keep relating a guy at the very least 3 years older than any high school senior should be to a guy who uses hormone drugs, really isn't helping your case. All that steroids are proven to do is bulk you up, and help with injuries in the short term.

[TitanHope]

The way I see it, drug screening doesn't determine innocence. It determines guilt. You have a guy who was proven guilty (Cushing) and guys who were proven not guilty (Byrd, Cushing, Orakpo). Doesn't mean they're innocent, just means that they weren't proven guilty. That's the bottom line and the extent of the evidence. So to then try to make a case for not giving it to another guy because he could be on PED's is irrelevant and a huge waste of time.

Brian Cushing broke the rules. We may not know the extent of the effects he reaped due to breaking the rules, but the principle is that he broke them. He's being suspended for breaking them, retroactively because of appeal and a delayed process due to the Williams case. Had he been suspended last season like he should have, then he would've only played in 12 games. You take away 4 games of production, and he doesn't have superior stats than the others (you could argue for equivelant [although I wouldn't seeing as I think Matthews's season was superior than Cush's to start with, let alone after it's been reduced], depending on the stretch). Then you factor in he tested positive for having illegal levels, and it puts the 12 games worth of production in question.

To me, Cushing is so unbelievably fortunate to be hanging on to this award by not getting hit by suspension during the season, the report of his positive test not being leaked to the media until recently, and by having a bunch of stubborn sports writer who felt uncomfortable changing their vote for whatever reasons. I'm regretting not writing him and asking him to pick out my lottery numbers as I write this.

[LonghornsLegend]

The fact that you keep relating a guy at the very least 3 years older than any high school senior should be to a guy who uses hormone drugs, really isn't helping your case. All that steroids are proven to do is bulk you up, and help with injuries in the short term.

If that's all they do then why even make them illegal? What's the point?


It's pretty well documented that Cush has been juicing since he was in HS, there is no legit way to tell if he's even half the player he is had he not been using for so long. I also think it's pretty funny people can honestly act like him being an avid steroid user has no affect what so ever on his on the field play.


He'll end up getting caught again though I can guarantee that.

[Brodeur]

If that's all they do then why even make them illegal? What's the point?


It's pretty well documented that Cush has been juicing since he was in HS, there is no legit way to tell if he's even half the player he is had he not been using for so long. I also think it's pretty funny people can honestly act like him being an avid steroid user has no affect what so ever on his on the field play.


He'll end up getting caught again though I can guarantee that.

And there's no legitimate way to tell that he wouldn't be the player he was without steroids, so it's a useless argument. And they're illegal because of the fact that they aren't exactly good for the human body long term, and they can lead to significant heart problems.

[wonderbredd24]

And there's no legitimate way to tell that he wouldn't be the player he was without steroids, so it's a useless argument. And they're illegal because of the fact that they aren't exactly good for the human body long term, and they can lead to significant heart problems.

And you know... killing yourself or your entire family before killing yourself

[Brodeur]

And you know... killing yourself or your entire family before killing yourself

Benoit had a long, long history of concussions to go along with taking about a billion times the steroid consumption that the body can handle, so once again you make a comparison that is completely out there.

[wonderbredd24]

Benoit had a long, long history of concussions to go along with taking about a billion times the steroid consumption that the body can handle, so once again you make a comparison that is completely out there.

So the number of high school kids that do things like take a couple belts and hang themselves because of the overwhelming depression brought on by steroids is what?

[LonghornsLegend]

And there's no legitimate way to tell that he wouldn't be the player he was without steroids, so it's a useless argument.

Come on dude. At the very minimum, steroids increase strength and aggressiveness, but yea, I can see how those two things wouldn't make a Linebacker a better player, why would anyone think that?



I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with them being illegal.

[Brodeur]

So the number of high school kids that do things like take a couple belts and hang themselves because of the overwhelming depression brought on by steroids is what?

It's an extreme brought on by misuse of steroids. I'm not saying that steroids are essentially good, all I'm saying is that I don't believe that steroids are likely to effect any type of performance by a significant amount.

Come on dude. At the very minimum, steroids increase strength and aggressiveness, but yea, I can see how those two things wouldn't make a Linebacker a better player, why would anyone think that?



I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with them being illegal.

Steroids don't magically make you stronger and buffer, you actually have to put in a large amount of work in the weight room as well. They basically just increase the development of muscles in your body. As for the increased aggressiveness, I wouldn't exactly say that was a steroid relates issue.

[Jughead10]

In certain cases I wouldn't mind if the revote resulted in the same thing. But just like the quote posted earlier, I believe Cushing's entire college and pro career has been created by steroids. There were whispers before he even went to USC like the quote said. I've been saying he's on roids for year.

I'm the exact opposite of most people. I'm harsher on football players taking steroids than I am on baseball players.

[LonghornsLegend]

Steroids don't magically make you stronger and buffer, you actually have to put in a large amount of work in the weight room as well. They basically just increase the development of muscles in your body. As for the increased aggressiveness, I wouldn't exactly say that was a steroid relates issue.

I think everyone knows you have to put work in the weightroom, but if you want to ignore the fact that steroids increases strength and aggressiveness that's not only being naive, but completely wrong. Your trying to give fancy it up and say "it just develops muscles in your body" and "you still have to put in a large amount of work" to downplay it.


The facts are just that though, facts. You can keep dancing around it if you want but a LB who has been using steroids since HS has extreme advantages to his game, one which relies predominantly on strength and being aggressive. Were not talking about a WR here.



But yea, I'm sure the only reason they are banned from using them in sports is because of heart problems lol. If that was the case they would be giving urinal test for alcohol because they give you longterm kidney problems.

[prock]

Steroids don't magically make you stronger and buffer, you actually have to put in a large amount of work in the weight room as well. They basically just increase the development of muscles in your body. As for the increased aggressiveness, I wouldn't exactly say that was a steroid relates issue.


Really Brodeur? Come on. You are defending steroid use. "He may have taken steroids, but he still lifted weights and put in work, so it's ok." I have read through all these lasts posts and you are blatantly defending cheating.

[wonderbredd24]

And let's not forget that steroids allow a person to exceed what their body would normally allow them to achieve in terms of their maximum potential muscle gain.

[prock]

this isn't baseball. i'm alright with players doing whatever they need to keep their bodies in top condition. its not like the vernon gholstons of the world are the best players. some times its the london fletchers and zach thomas' who have the most impact. cushing played well and deserves the award.

So you are saying that the best hitters in baseball are the juicers? There are a lot of juicers in baseball who still suck. That is really ignorant. You are arguing that steroids helps baseball players more than football players, and you expect people to take you seriously?

[Brodeur]

I think everyone knows you have to put work in the weightroom, but if you want to ignore the fact that steroids increases strength and aggressiveness that's not only being naive, but completely wrong. Your trying to give fancy it up and say "it just develops muscles in your body" and "you still have to put in a large amount of work" to downplay it.


The facts are just that though, facts. You can keep dancing around it if you want but a LB who has been using steroids since HS has extreme advantages to his game, one which relies predominantly on strength and being aggressive. Were not talking about a WR here.



But yea, I'm sure the only reason they are banned from using them in sports is because of heart problems lol. If that was the case they would be giving urinal test for alcohol because they give you longterm kidney problems.

I never said that it's the only reason they're banned. There's a belief in sports that steroids greatly increase performance, and I know that's why they are banned as far as sports go. I just don't think it is as true as some make it out to be.

Cushing will probably be dead in fifteen years anyway, so this will all be moot then. However, I'm willing to concede a bit of Cushing's success is due to the insane amount of substance abuse he has gone through over the course of six years, but I still don't think that means he shouldn't be made the Rookie of the Year.

[prock]

I don't believe taking any type of growth hormone is cheating, so I really don't give a flying **** that Cushing took some weak ass fertility drug.

Jesus Brodeur. You cannot be serious.

[Jughead10]

Jesus Brodeur. You cannot be serious.

Well growth hormone isn't really used to build muscle mass. People use it to heal from injury. There is a blurry line there. Cortisone is technically a steroid. But people use it to deal with injury to play.

[prock]

Well growth hormone isn't really used to build muscle mass. People use it to heal from injury. There is a blurry line there. Cortisone is technically a steroid. But people use it to deal with injury to play.

It isn't about what they do, it is the fact that is it ILLEGAL. If the league ban a performance enhancing drug, and you take it, you are cheating. I don't see any debate here.

[LonghornsLegend]

Well growth hormone isn't really used to build muscle mass. People use it to heal from injury. There is a blurry line there. Cortisone is technically a steroid. But people use it to deal with injury to play.

I don't know all the specs behind growth hormones, but couldn't that make a 6'1 210lb FS into a 6'3 225lb FS ? Obviously I'm just throwing out numbers, but I thought it made a big difference in terms of height and weight. It could really go a long way between DIII and D-1, or the CFL and NFL.


Over the counter supps don't do things that growth hormones and steroids do. Once people start going past the realm of Nitric Oxide pills, Cell Tech, Creatine, Protein etc your crossing the lines. I know you can use it for other uses, but it can alter your body in ways that give you huge advantages in physical sports. I don't think they make this stuff illegal just because their bored, there are ALOT of supps these guys can buy that are far stronger then anything in GNC but they still go above and beyond.

[Brodeur]

Jesus Brodeur. You cannot be serious.

I've been saying it for years in the main baseball threads, this is just the first time I've had to make a case for the NFL.

[prock]

I've been saying it for years in the main baseball threads, this is just the first time I've had to make a case for the NFL.

Did Barry Bonds cheat? Bad example, he didn't ever test positive.

Did A-Rod, Palmeiro, McGwire, or Canseco cheat?

[Jughead10]

It isn't about what they do, it is the fact that is it ILLEGAL. If the league ban a performance enhancing drug, and you take it, you are cheating. I don't see any debate here.

I get it. I think one day we might be heading to a day when HGH might be legal. When taken effectively it's kind of a wonder drug with minimal negative side effects.

[Jughead10]

I don't know all the specs behind growth hormones, but couldn't that make a 6'1 210lb FS into a 6'3 225lb FS ? Obviously I'm just throwing out numbers, but I thought it made a big difference in terms of height and weight. It could really go a long way between DIII and D-1, or the CFL and NFL.

From what I understand, no. What it does is prevent injury in a lot of cases and seriously cuts down on healing time. People use it for anti-aging too.

[tjsunstein]

He was the best defensive rookie, so I don't find it funny.
He cheated.

I don't believe taking any type of growth hormone is cheating, so I really don't give a flying **** that Cushing took some weak ass fertility drug.
Give me the answers to every test and I'll finish with a higher grade than a kid who studied. Does that make me smarter?

It doesn't matter if you don't find growth hormones cheating, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant as a matter of fact. The NFL banned the substance for a reason and he was caught with it in his system. He cheated, knew he cheated, the NFL knew he cheated, and yet, people find it justifiable to give him the award over the three other candidates.

this isn't baseball. i'm alright with players doing whatever they need to keep their bodies in top condition. its not like the vernon gholstons of the world are the best players. some times its the london fletchers and zach thomas' who have the most impact. cushing played well and deserves the award.
If anything, steroids benefit you more in football than baseball so that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You're ok with athletes taking steroids to keep their bodies in peak condition? What happened to training? What happened to integrity? What happened to honesty?

You're defending cheating here and it's sickening.

It's ironic that this is a draft forum and people are O.K. with him taking steroids. What's one of the most highly scrutinized aspect of prospects coming out? Size and strength. Apparently that won't be an issue anymore if you can just do a cycle and silence the critics. Oh wait, you can't because that's cheating and many things wrong with it.

[GB12]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Orakpo get a vast majority if not all of his sacks with his hand down in passing situations.

[Brodeur]

Did Barry Bonds cheat? Bad example, he didn't ever test positive.

Did A-Rod, Palmeiro, McGwire, or Canseco cheat?

I don't really care, they were great players because they were great players (well outside of Canseco, he was just good).

He cheated.


Give me the answers to every test and I'll finish with a higher grade than kid who studied. Does that make me smarter?

It doesn't matter if you don't find growth hormones cheating, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant as a matter of fact. The NFL banned the substance for a reason and he was caught with it in his system. He cheated, knew he cheated, the NFL knew he cheated, and yet, people find it justifiable to give him the award over the three other candidates.


If anything, steroids benefit you more in football than baseball so that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You're ok with athletes taking steroids to keep their bodies in peak condition? What happened to training? What happened to integrity? What happened to honesty?

You're defending cheating here and it's sickening.

It's ironic that this is a draft forum and people are O.K. with him taking steroids. What's one of the most highly scrutinized aspect of prospects coming out? Size and strength. Apparently that won't be an issue anymore if you can just do a cycle and silence the critics. Oh wait, you can't because that's cheating and many things wrong with it.

I'm pretty sure if steroids gave you hand-eye coordination, intelligence, intangibles, coordination and actual talent, that statement would make sense. You still have to ******* train in football to keep your body going, you can't just take steroids and everything will be a-okay. And integrity and honesty? In a game that employs scumbags like Ben Roethlisberger and Leonard Little? Are you serious?

As for the strength portion (steroids don't make you taller), who gives a **** if they want to add a few extra pounds. It will **** up their personal life, and really ruin them in the future so it's a win-lose situation.

[prock]

I don't really care, they were great players because they were great players (well outside of Canseco, he was just good).


I cannot believe you defend cheating. Just wow.

[tjsunstein]

I'm pretty sure if steroids gave you hand-eye coordination, intelligence, intangibles, coordination and actual talent, that statement would make sense. You still have to ******* train in football to keep your body going, you can't just take steroids and everything will be a-okay
Everyone trains, obviously, or they wouldn't be in the league. Steroids gives you an edge and you can't deny that. I still don't get how you're defending steroid use and brushing it off as nothing in a game of strength. A weight lifter can gain the strength and mass he wants without having to work as hard as natural body builders do and he can get ready for competitions in a much shorter time. Steroids enhance testosterone as you know and that builds muscle fibers which contribute to an individual being faster, stronger, and bigger. How is that in any way fair to everyone else in the league? Be rational about this and don't pull a Skip Bayless and argue just to be different.

As for the strength portion (steroids don't make you taller), who gives a **** if they want to add a few extra pounds. It will **** up their personal life, and really ruin them in the future so it's a win-lose situation.
So it's okay for them to have an unfair advantage against everyone else because his personal life will be affected sooner or later? Really? Do you think about what you're saying?

[21ST]

These are all good points I give you that, but it shouldn't really "blow your mind" that people are impressed with a dude who played SAM in a 4-3 which was completely out of position. Nobody would have been surprised if he ended up a complete bust due to trying something they had no business doing in the 1st place.


Also if somebody can find the statistics for how often each of those two rushed the passer, I bet Clay rushed after the QB with no other intentions but to sack the QB almost double to the times Orakpo did. Alot of what he did may have not even shown up on the stat sheet.


I have no problem with people picking Clay or vice versa, but what does bug me is when people act like your crazy for picking Orakpo over him or thinking what he did as a rookie playing two positions was highly impressive and worthy of praise. If he had 16 sacks and 3 FF's in a 3-4 that attacked like a Wade Phillips defense people would be all over his nuts, but some of what was so impressive is how he can play so many different positions with different roles and still be impressive.

Haslett said orakpo rushed the QB about 200 times last season and this season he expects him to rush the passer about 600 times

[21ST]

The Brian Orakpo love just blows my mind... let's just compare Clay Matthews and Brian Orakpo

Brian Orakpo benefited immensely from playing with Albert Haynesworth and Andre Carter, who also had 11 sacks, demanding attention from opposing blockers giving Orakpo far more 1 on 1 matchups than he'd ever seen without them.

Clay Matthews had who? No one anywhere near the level of those 2 players. Matthews led his team with 10 sacks and the guy in second had 4.5, so Matthews was clearly the guy OC's were preparing for. In addition to that, Matthews had 7 PBUs compared to 2, 7 TFLs compared to 4, and had that play where he picked Adrian Peterson's pocket. Plus, Matthews was far more consistent throughout the season in terms of production while Orakpo's season was largely built on one huge day against Oakland.

I still think Jairus Byrd's season was the most deserving for the award, but failing that, it's Clay Matthews over Brian Orakpo and saying otherwise is just silly.

The thing you have to understand is Orakpo rushed the passer way less than Matthews did

[YAYareaRB]

I thought Byrd man should have won it last season so I went with him. The latest Cushing news doesn't change my opinion of him. I still think he's a beast.

[Prowler]

this isn't baseball. nobody gives a crap about stats in the nfl.(with the exception of quarterbacks) who is the all-time leader in tackles? nobody knows, nobody cares. this is a team game defined by championships. players' bodies take a pounding all season. if a player wants to do steroids because it helps his body cope with the pain then i'm fine with it. i don't think it should be legalized in football, but i also don't think we should blackball players like they do in baseball. there is nothing anybody can say that can change my opinion on it. look at earl campbell, he has to use a wheelchair at times because of the pounding his body took playing football. if a player wants to juice to feel comfort or help his body then let him.

[wonderbredd24]

Tackles are an unofficial statistic

[njx9]

this isn't baseball. nobody gives a crap about stats in the nfl.(with the exception of quarterbacks) who is the all-time leader in tackles? nobody knows, nobody cares.

that's a demonstrably untrue statement, backed up with a disingenuous example.

this is a team game defined by championships.

which has what to do with what?

players' bodies take a pounding all season. if a player wants to do steroids because it helps his body cope with the pain then i'm fine with it.

i'm now curious if you understand the difference between steroids and vicodin.

i don't think it should be legalized in football, but i also don't think we should blackball players like they do in baseball. there is nothing anybody can say that can change my opinion on it.

"not only am i going to rant about something i clearly know little about, i'm then going to take my ball and go home. so there."

look at earl campbell, he has to use a wheelchair at times because of the pounding his body took playing football. if a player wants to juice to feel comfort or help his body then let him.

please do let me know how taking steroids would've helped earl campbell avoid the body wear associated with repeatedly using his body as a battering ram.

[Brent]

I find it interesting that so many people are willing to crucify Cushing as if they've never done something illegal or have never cheated, ever.

Not that he should be forgiven or this should be looked over, just something that came to mind.

[njx9]

I find it interesting that so many people are willing to crucify Cushing as if they've never done something illegal or have never cheated, ever.

this is just as disingenuous. i've never won DROTY as a result* of underage drinking. when i do, and when i complain about people not liking it, feel free to call me a hypocrite. until then, it's absolutely silly to try to pull the pot/kettle thing here.

*maybe.

[YAYareaRB]

I find it interesting that so many people are willing to crucify Cushing as if they've never done something illegal or have never cheated, ever.

Not that he should be forgiven or this should be looked over, just something that came to mind.

Isn't this always the case? I mean sports players are held to such a high standard in every society because they're supposed to be the modern day superheroes.

[wonderbredd24]

I find it interesting that so many people are willing to crucify Cushing as if they've never done something illegal or have never cheated, ever.

Not that he should be forgiven or this should be looked over, just something that came to mind.

So cheating in your profession, winning an award, and getting paid based off of the achievement in part due to cheating is somehow equivalent to what for the average person?

[YAYareaRB]

this isn't baseball. nobody gives a crap about stats in the nfl.(with the exception of quarterbacks) who is the all-time leader in tackles? nobody knows, nobody cares. this is a team game defined by championships. players' bodies take a pounding all season. if a player wants to do steroids because it helps his body cope with the pain then i'm fine with it. i don't think it should be legalized in football, but i also don't think we should blackball players like they do in baseball. there is nothing anybody can say that can change my opinion on it. look at earl campbell, he has to use a wheelchair at times because of the pounding his body took playing football. if a player wants to juice to feel comfort or help his body then let him.

The fact of the matter is, it's illegal and it's said to be "performance enhancing" by NFL standards.

[Brodeur]

Everyone trains, obviously, or they wouldn't be in the league. Steroids gives you an edge and you can't deny that. I still don't get how you're defending steroid use and brushing it off as nothing in a game of strength. A weight lifter can gain the strength and mass he wants without having to work as hard as natural body builders do and he can get ready for competitions in a much shorter time. Steroids enhance testosterone as you know and that builds muscle fibers which contribute to an individual being faster, stronger, and bigger. How is that in any way fair to everyone else in the league? Be rational about this and don't pull a Skip Bayless and argue just to be different.


So it's okay for them to have an unfair advantage against everyone else because his personal life will be affected sooner or later? Really? Do you think about what you're saying?

There is no definitive proof that steroids actually increase performance more than a little bit. For every so called success story that people seem to think is due to steroids, there are thousands upon thousands that are failed train wrecks.

[wonderbredd24]

Isn't this always the case? I mean sports players are held to such a high standard in every society because they're supposed to be the modern day superheroes.

What an impossible standard for Brian Cushing to live up to... don't cheat.

[prock]

I find it interesting that so many people are willing to crucify Cushing as if they've never done something illegal or have never cheated, ever.

We aren't NFL players, using steroids to make millions. I drink underage, I smoke things that aren't legal (yet), but that doesn't make me a cheater. Using steroids to get an unfair advantage is cheating.

[prock]

There is no definitive proof that steroids actually increase performance more than a little bit. For every so called success story that people seem to think is due to steroids, there are thousands upon thousands that are failed train wrecks.

But there is definitive proof that the man took a substance that the NFL has labeled under "performance-enhancing". You cannot argue this.

[YAYareaRB]

What an impossible standard for Brian Cushing to live up to... don't cheat.

Never said it was impossible.

[prock]

Never said it was impossible.

He was being sarcastic. No one expects these guys to be super heroes, they expect them to have integrity.

[Brodeur]

But there is definitive proof that the man took a substance that the NFL has labeled under "performance-enhancing". You cannot argue this.

I never said it wasn't, I just don't think that awards should be taken away because of positive tests.

[wonderbredd24]

Never said it was impossible.

The idea that pro athletes are held to a higher standard is a giant load of crap.

In how many professions is Ben Roethlisberger able to keep his job?

Leonard Little killed someone while driving drunk, then drove drunk again and is STILL playing.

Look no further than this board at how indignant people felt at the idea that Michael Vick wouldn't be allowed to make millions of dollars for playing football again.

[SeanTaylorRIP]

I never said it wasn't, I just don't think that awards should be taken away because of positive tests.

Well IMO it's even worse to have an "unwritten" asterisk associated with your award.

[prock]

I never said it wasn't, I just don't think that awards should be taken away because of positive tests.

So you think cheating is OK then? Can I ask you a question? Why do you hate America?

[njx9]

There is no definitive proof that steroids actually increase performance more than a little bit.

that's utter BS. google scholar is highly effective as a research tool in this case (erowid is not). you might start with the general effect of testosterone on muscle growth.

[wonderbredd24]

Even if it only increases performance only a "little bit", it's still an advantage

[Brodeur]

So you think cheating is OK then? Can I ask you a question? Why do you hate America?

I've been saying that I don't really care if they took it because I don't think it makes that big of a difference. That is all.

that's utter BS. google scholar is highly effective as a research tool in this case (erowid is not). you might start with the general effect of testosterone on muscle growth.

There are thousands of drugs that have that same effect, and just because they increase muscle mass does not mean they have a significant effect on performance.

[prock]

I've been saying that I don't really care if they took it because I don't think it makes that big of a difference. That is all.



There are thousands of drugs that have that same effect, and just because they increase muscle mass does not mean they have a significant effect on performance.

So you don't think a drug that enhances strength and aggressiveness makes a linebacker significantly better? Ok.

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by Prowler View Post
this isn't baseball. nobody gives a crap about stats in the nfl.(with the exception of quarterbacks) who is the all-time leader in tackles? nobody knows, nobody cares.

that's a demonstrably untrue statement, backed up with a disingenuous example.

my point is that sacks and the interception returns for TDs have no business being compared to mlb home run numbers. football is a different culture than baseball. if baseball didn't have their hallowed records then they wouldn't even care about steroids. their asinine bias is bleeding over into football and its ridiculous.


which has what to do with what?

'nobody care about nfl stats' argument.

i'm now curious if you understand the difference between steroids and vicodin.

ask andy pettite why he took hgh. plus being bigger does mean you can absorb more hits.

"not only am i going to rant about something i clearly know little about, i'm then going to take my ball and go home. so there."

i'm still here. the arguments against steroids frankly started to sound like steroid users were evil satan worshippers and there is no gray area in the debate.

please do let me know how taking steroids would've helped earl campbell avoid the body wear associated with repeatedly using his body as a battering ram.

you know exactly what i intending, that was just a nice looking sentence for you to post. [sarcastic tone but true]my phrasing was meant to conjure the beat up image of earl campbell to gain sympathy for my argument.[/sarcastic tone but true] football players' careers are violent and short. they don't play for 20 years like in baseball, they are lucky to get to a second contract. the players that do 'make it' end up paying for it for the rest of their lives. if a player has to be bigger and they do it discretely without influencing little kids lives then so be it. i'm turning my back on it like baseball turned its back during the 90s.

again, football never had a 'clean' culture like baseball. how many teams do you think were using something in the 70s? 80s, 90s? romanowski? there is no clean legacy to preserve like in baseball. brian cushing does not equal barry bonds. different standards for different sports.

[prock]

again, football never had a 'clean' culture like baseball. how many teams do you think were using something in the 70s? 80s, 90s? romanowski? there is no clean legacy to preserve like in baseball. brian cushing does not equal barry bonds. different standards for different sports.

Romanowski wasn't that long ago. NFL teams were juicing before him. MLB had juicing problems before Romanowski's time too.

[Brodeur]

So you don't think a drug that enhances strength and aggressiveness makes a linebacker significantly better? Ok.

Most linebackers take something that amplifies their aggression and strength. I'm just waiting for it to be revealed that Patrick Willis has an alien symbiote under his uniform.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Neither baseball or football ever had a "clean" period. Players were using amphetamines in baseball as far back as the 1920's (perhaps even before, that's just the earliest reference I know of).

For all those who don't have a problem with what Cushing did, you must believe that the best move for the NFL would be to embrace and legitimize the use of all performance enhancing drugs in the sport, correct?

[Prowler]

For all those who don't have a problem with what Cushing did, you must believe that the best move for the NFL would be to embrace and legitimize the use of all performance enhancing drugs in the sport, correct?

i just want them to continue half-*** testing and not act like somebody killed jesus when a positive test comes up. if he gets a 4 game suspension then fine, but avoiding the blackball hall of fame type hate that exists in baseball fan's minds.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

i just want them to continue half-*** testing and not act like somebody killed jesus when a positive test comes up. if he gets a 4 game suspension then fine, but avoiding the blackball hall of fame type hate that exists in baseball fan's minds.

I too prefer my sport of choice to be made up of cowardly hypocrites. Good show.

[Scotty D]

I thought Louis Delmas would get some votes.

Tackles 94
Sacks 1.0
INTs 2

On December 20, 2009, Delmas became the first rookie in NFL history to record a interception return for a touchdown, a fumble return for a touchdown and a safety in the same season. He is only the second player in NFL history to accomplish the feats in the same season.

[Brodeur]

I too prefer my sport of choice to be made up of cowardly hypocrites. Good show.

It has always been full of cowardly hypocrites and scumbags, so who really gives a rats ass.

[Prowler]

I too prefer my sport of choice to be made up of cowardly hypocrites. Good show.

steroids is the least of the nfl's concerns right now. start with the sexual assaults and domestic violence issues first. now is not the time to drag football through some sort of PR nightmare due to steroids.

[njx9]

my point is that sacks and the interception returns for TDs have no business being compared to mlb home run numbers. football is a different culture than baseball. if baseball didn't have their hallowed records then they wouldn't even care about steroids. their asinine bias is bleeding over into football and its ridiculous.

and the nfl rushing record has no business being compared to the mlb ERA vs. left handed hitters record. maybe we should compare apples to apples. regardless, the assumption that records are just as meaningful whether you played within the established rules or didn't is the only asinine thing thus far in this thread.

'nobody care about nfl stats' argument.

which is still demonstrably untrue.

ask andy pettite why he took hgh. plus being bigger does mean you can absorb more hits.

i imagine his answer might just have something to do with adding more muscle mass. i mean, it's a weird assumption and all... but thanks for basically answering 'no'.

i'm still here. the arguments against steroids frankly started to sound like steroid users were evil satan worshippers and there is no gray area in the debate.

please cite one example where someone was even within the same ballpark of comparing a steroid user to an 'evil satan worshipper'. in this thread, they've been called cheaters, which is actually a completely correct statement. your hyperbolic mis-characterization is just that.


you know exactly what i intending, that was just a nice looking sentence for you to post.

no, i don't. and, if you don' like your statements being posted fully in-context, perhaps you shouldn't post them.

[sarcastic tone but true]my phrasing was meant to conjure the beat up image of earl campbell to gain sympathy for my argument.[/sarcastic tone but true]

then it was a crappy example and didn't accomplish your point. but hey, emotive writing is always better than a well thought out argument.

football players' careers are violent and short. they don't play for 20 years like in baseball, they are lucky to get to a second contract. the players that do 'make it' end up paying for it for the rest of their lives. if a player has to be bigger and they do it discretely without influencing little kids lives then so be it. i'm turning my back on it like baseball turned its back during the 90s.

ah, so everyone should just cheat, and those players who don't want to ruin their body with steroids and other steroid-like drugs should quit playing in junior high. quite frankly, what you're arguing for, is that the super bowl be determined in the future by who has the best chemistry set. that's a sad statement on your actual interest in football.

again, football never had a 'clean' culture like baseball. how many teams do you think were using something in the 70s? 80s, 90s? romanowski? there is no clean legacy to preserve like in baseball. brian cushing does not equal barry bonds. different standards for different sports.

yes, brian cushing has regularly been compared to the all time best* home run hitter in baseball. it's completely relevant to bring up his name. further, how is what happened in an early era remotely relevant to what's happening now?


There are thousands of drugs that have that same effect, and just because they increase muscle mass does not mean they have a significant effect on performance.

are you serious? you don't think muscle mass has any effect whatsoever on someone's potential performance? you think tony mandarich was just as good on steroids as off? what a ridiculous thing to say.

[prock]

It has always been full of cowardly hypocrites and scumbags, so who really gives a rats ass.

That's the right attitude, "We have always been ****, so let's not strive to improve, let's just chill out."

[njx9]

It has always been full of cowardly hypocrites and scumbags, so who really gives a rats ass.

we've always not allowed women to vote. why start now? who really cares? :rolleyes:

[Paranoidmoonduck]

It has always been full of cowardly hypocrites and scumbags, so who really gives a rats ass.

I don't know? Me?

I don't believe I have a mistaken interpretation of the state of the NFL, but I also don't think that grudgingly testing the players for drugs that both damage the body and upset the fairness of the game do anyone any favors. It's not good for the players, who are coerced by the culture of the sport to sacrifice their bodies far more than is necessary. It's not good for the league, which runs the risk of disillusioning it's fan base and tarnishing it's history. Most importantly though, it's not good for the game and sets a dangerous precedent of neglect heading into an age of potential performance enhancement which is going to make HGH and anabolic steroids look like ******* Advil.

Honestly, I have no real investment in whether the NFL decides to allow performance enhancing techniques or not. But I do care if they pussyfoot around the issue like a bunch of dicks. It's not what I want from the people who's very job description is to regulate the sport.

[Brodeur]

we've always not allowed women to vote. why start now? who really cares? :rolleyes:

Okay, these comparisons are getting more and more ridiculous.

[prock]

Okay, these comparisons are getting more and more ridiculous.

I don't get why you think that. Your argument was we shouldn't care now because we used to not care, and that is the same thing njx said with that. It actually seems like a very accurate comparison to me.

[njx9]

Okay, these comparisons are getting more and more ridiculous.

it's not my fault you made a bad argument for your position.

"it's always been like X" is not meaningful.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Okay, these comparisons are getting more and more ridiculous.

Well then, let's keep them football themed.

"We never used to care about head injuries in football. Why start now?"

[Brodeur]

it's not my fault you made a bad argument for your position.

"it's always been like X" is not meaningful.

All I'm trying to say is that there are much bigger things to worry about in the NFL than people using growth hormones and so forth. I really don't think there is any way that athletes are going to stop finding ways to continually use them, so I just don't see the point in trying to go to the absolute maximum with it. As far as other issues (domestic abuse, DUI's, etc.), I think the NFL is doing fine in policing that.

I don't know? Me?

I don't believe I have a mistaken interpretation of the state of the NFL, but I also don't think that grudgingly testing the players for drugs that both damage the body and upset the fairness of the game do anyone any favors. It's not good for the players, who are coerced by the culture of the sport to sacrifice their bodies far more than is necessary. It's not good for the league, which runs the risk of disillusioning it's fan base and tarnishing it's history. Most importantly though, it's not good for the game and sets a dangerous precedent of neglect heading into an age of potential performance enhancement which is going to make HGH and anabolic steroids look like ******* Advil.

Honestly, I have no real investment in whether the NFL decides to allow performance enhancing techniques or not. But I do care if they pussyfoot around the issue like a bunch of dicks. It's not what I want from the people who's very job description is to regulate the sport.

You mentioned it earlier but for the last 90 years or so there have been amphetamines and drugs made with similar compositions used extensively, and a great number of athletes look for ways to shortcut around the policies in place.

[tjsunstein]

Well then, let's keep them football themed.

"We never used to care about head injuries in football. Why start now?"
Because it has been scientifically proven that not only are head injuries harmful for the players on the field but also have adverse long term effects on a player's well being.

Sounds a bit like steroids. Thank god for science.

[Brodeur]

Because it has been scientifically proven that not only are head injuries harmful for the players on the field but also have adverse long term effects on a player's well being.

Sounds a bit like steroids. Thank god for science.

Except for the fact that the players are CHOOSING to **** up their lives in the future with steroids. Head injuries are a consequence of playing the game, and the NFL has a responsibility to take care of that.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Except for the fact that the players are CHOOSING to **** up their lives in the future with steroids. Head injuries are a consequence of playing the game, and the NFL has a responsibility to take care of that.

And steroid use is a consequence of a ******** policy on prevention by the NFL. Do they not too have a responsibility there?

You mentioned it earlier but for the last 90 years or so there have been amphetamines and drugs made with similar compositions used extensively, and a great number of athletes look for ways to shortcut around the policies in place.

...and?

[tjsunstein]

All I'm trying to say is that there are much bigger things to worry about in the NFL than people using growth hormones and so forth. I really don't think there is any way that athletes are going to stop finding ways to continually use them, so I just don't see the point in trying to go to the absolute maximum with it. As far as other issues (domestic abuse, DUI's, etc.), I think the NFL is doing fine in policing that.
What in the game of football comes before the player's health? Using steroids and growth hormones are detrimental to each and every player's health, whether mental or physical. Just because there are bigger things to worry about doesn't mean we brush this off to the side because the latest advances in science are making these drugs easily accessible and tough to detect. You fight fire with fire. Work to prevent instances like these from happening. Personal conduct is a completely different entity. The NFL can only do so much. It's an employer, an entertainment, a corporation, not a day care.

I think the NFL should have stripped the award just to, at the very least, send some sort of message.

[Brent]

this is just as disingenuous. i've never won DROTY as a result* of underage drinking. when i do, and when i complain about people not liking it, feel free to call me a hypocrite.
Just to be clear, I never said what he did was right or wrong; certainly, I did not mean to imply that everyone who isnt voting for Cushing in this thread is a hypocrite. I was just making an observation, njx. You seem like you're in one of your fight-all-posters moods. ;)

So cheating in your profession, winning an award, and getting paid based off of the achievement in part due to cheating is somehow equivalent to what for the average person?
I do not care for the "average person" comment. He's an employee at a company. He broke rules set forth by that company in order to gain an advantage (cheating), and by doing so, he gained something from it. Regardless of how he went about that, his dishonesty (cheating/lying/etc I believe is dishonest) earned him money/accolades/whatever.

My implication is that (again, this is how I view the situation) people in all types of professions break rules or regulations in order to perform better than their co-workers, trying earn any thing from a raise to a promotion.

they're supposed to be the modern day superheroes.
If an athlete is considered a role model or hero... well, that is a different rant.

[Prowler]

quick summary

opinion:

'i don't think we should take steroids seriously in the nfl.'

main reason against my opinion:

'steroid use is cheating and bad'

1. other players have to obey the rules, so do cheaters get a free pass?
2. it sets a poor example to kids
3. it can cause health problems
4. it makes players better
5. now is the time to set the example

rebuttal
1. its been going on for a long time. suspend them but don't blackball.
2. nobody cares, seriously there are people who shoot and rape people in the league.
3. hitting 220-350lbs muscle blocks is detrimental to one's health
4. if strength=greatness then why does vernon gholston suck?(impact of steroids)
5. don't drag football into the mlb type drama of steroids

[tjsunstein]

If an athlete is considered a role model or hero... well, that is a different rant.
It's the way America has become. Rant on. :)

[Rosebud]

Just wondering if all the people crucifying NFL athletes also do the same to the kids who get prescription amphetamines to help them stay up and study for tests/do a paper. Adderall is the scholastic equivalent to steroids yet no one freaks out about the adderall users. Personally I could give two shits about steroids in sports, I watch the NFL to see the best play the best, so whatever makes them better football players only improves the entertainment the NFL's product delivers.

[Brodeur]

And steroid use is a consequence of a ******** policy on prevention by the NFL. Do they not too have a responsibility there?



...and?

There will always be a problem, and players will very likely always be ahead of the NFL testing process.

What in the game of football comes before the player's health? Using steroids and growth hormones are detrimental to each and every player's health, whether mental or physical. Just because there are bigger things to worry about doesn't mean we brush this off to the side because the latest advances in science are making these drugs easily accessible and tough to detect. You fight fire with fire. Work to prevent instances like these from happening. Personal conduct is a completely different entity. The NFL can only do so much. It's an employer, an entertainment, a corporation, not a day care.

I think the NFL should have stripped the award just to, at the very least, send some sort of message.

Which goes back to my original argument that I don't believe steroids made a big enough impact, and Cushing was by far the best rookie.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

5. don't drag football into the mlb type drama of steroids

This makes no sense. None.

The thing that caused all the drama in baseball was exactly what you're suggesting the NFL do, which is take an official stance against steroids to mitigate the public outcry but refuse to take truly active measures against it. All that lack of honesty and forthrightness is what essentially threw decades of baseball history into major question.

If the NFL doesn't want to actually ban steroids and try to enforce that ban, then the NFL needs to verbally acknowledge that and let players take them legally. Not only would that allow people to cope with the concept of a league that allows PED's now, as opposed to dealing with it retroactively, but it would also create an environment where knowledge and health studies regarding steroids could take a large step forward.

As people have said, it's up to the player's what they do to their body and football hasn't historically left it's former players in great shape anyway. But for the NFL to be looking the other way and pretending they care about steroids is just ******** and as a fan who gives my money to the league, I don't have to stand for it.

I think the NFL is plenty exciting with or without steroids. If I have my preference, I'd like to see a truly clean league. But the one outcome that causes me the most discomfort is the one the NFL is headed for right now, because it's exactly what has caused baseball history irreparable damage.

There will always be a problem, and players will very likely always be ahead of the NFL testing process.

So let's just leave it at that and not try? I'm totally confused by this attitude. Organizations like the Olympic Committee have done overall a fantastic job regulating drug use in their events. It's not perfect, but it's ******* light years ahead of what the NFL has set-up. It's not like the NFL doesn't have the money to set up a system like that.

[njx9]

Just to be clear, I never said what he did was right or wrong; certainly, I did not mean to imply that everyone who isnt voting for Cushing in this thread is a hypocrite. I was just making an observation, njx. You seem like you're in one of your fight-all-posters moods. ;)

no, but i've seen the same argument made before (see below) and i don't think it's a particularly relevant one. seemed as good a place as any to state why.

All I'm trying to say is that there are much bigger things to worry about in the NFL than people using growth hormones and so forth. I really don't think there is any way that athletes are going to stop finding ways to continually use them, so I just don't see the point in trying to go to the absolute maximum with it. As far as other issues (domestic abuse, DUI's, etc.), I think the NFL is doing fine in policing that.

so the nfl should legalize all anabolic steroids because a few players have other, unrelated legal issues? *and* because they'll just find a way around it? um, ok. i bet my team's chemist is better than your team's, since the athletes would largely be irrelevant.

do you also think ben johnson was the best sprinter ever at the time? or that we should just stop testing sprinters? i mean, it apparently makes no difference whatsoever, and people have always been doing it. why fight it? just let everyone juice. i mean, they're really busy making sure no sprinter is out murdering people, so really, they can't devote any resources to testing properly anyways.

Just wondering if all the people crucifying NFL athletes also do the same to the kids who get prescription amphetamines to help them stay up and study for tests/do a paper. Adderall is the scholastic equivalent to steroids yet no one freaks out about the adderall users.

perhaps because AD/HD is a recognized DSM-IV disorder. 'failure to play football well' is not. so no. they're not remotely comparable.

Personally I could give two shits about steroids in sports, I watch the NFL to see the best play the best, so whatever makes them better football players only improves the entertainment the NFL's product delivers.

i agree. quite frankly, we should get rid of the athletes and see which team of engineers can build the best football-playing robots. i mean, your receiver could run at subsonic speed (faster if you have earplugs), your qb could throw at hundreds of miles an hour, and get the ball halfway across the country. that'd be the best game ever.

[Brodeur]

This makes no sense. None.

The thing that caused all the drama in baseball was exactly what you're suggesting the NFL do, which is take an official stance against steroids to mitigate the public outcry but refuse to take truly active measures against it. All that lack of honesty and forthrightness is what essentially threw decades of baseball history into major question.

If the NFL doesn't want to actually ban steroids and try to enforce that ban, then the NFL needs to verbally acknowledge that and let players take them legally. Not only would that allow people to cope with the concept of a league that allows PED's now, as opposed to dealing with it retroactively, but it would also create an environment where knowledge and health studies regarding steroids could take a large step forward.

As people have said, it's up to the player's what they do to their body and football hasn't historically left it's former players in great shape anyway. But for the NFL to be looking the other way and pretending they care about steroids is just ******** and as a fan who gives my money to the league, I don't have to stand for it.

I think the NFL is plenty exciting with or without steroids. If I have my preference, I'd like to see a truly clean league. But the one outcome that causes me the most discomfort is the one the NFL is headed for right now, because it's exactly what has caused baseball history irreparable damage.

The problem with baseball is that Bud Selig is a ******* dumbass, and he didn't accept what was going on in the sport (although I believe what happened in baseball was just a cycle in history, not the PED use). The fact that Goodell polices DUI's and steroids as equal is far bigger of a problem than the situation with players using them in the first place.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

The problem with baseball is that Bud Selig is a ******* dumbass, and he didn't accept what was going on in the sport (although I believe what happened in baseball was just a cycle in history, not the PED use). The fact that Goodell polices DUI's and steroids as equal is far bigger of a problem than the situation with players using them in the first place.

Can you elaborate? I'm having trouble understanding this.

Selig was an idiot because he didn't accept what, exactly? And what exactly is a "cycle" in baseball history. Each chance in the sport has happened for a specific reason, not due to some ineffably cosmic ****. And Goodell handing out equal suspensions for steroid use and DUI's is worse than the players doing the steroids in the first place?

Color me confused.

[Rosebud]

I didn't mean the actual ADD kids, I meant the ones who buy the actual ADD kids' meds off of them. And if you don't think that huge numbers of students on college campus across the country who do not possess a prescription for ADD meds get those prescription Amphetamines you're being purposefully dense. I'm not even going to point out that a significant number of kids get ADD prescriptions who do not actually need the meds but get them solely for the recreational/academic uses.

I've said before that I'll still watch some sports when its cyborgs on the field and not natural humans. The NFL's job is to entertain, and bigger, faster, stronger athletes will attract more casual fans. Just like Brock Lesnar has done for MMA, people coming to the sport just to see that "huge freaky guy". I love the intricacy of play calling and the nuances of technique a Lineman needs to understand to be any good at his job and those things will still remain, even when an offseason weight training program is half chemicals and half working out. I mean players have gotten progressively bigger and bigger and you can still clearly see the difference between briliant coaches and moronic coaches. Plus I disagree with your theory that teams will win based of who has the best engineers, the best engineers very well could chose to sell their product to as many people as they can as could the best chemists, in which case all teams will have the best chemicals and/or robots available to them if they're willing to pay for them, just like teams can get the best players available if they're willing to pay for them.

[YAYareaRB]

I thought Louis Delmas would get some votes.

Tackles 94
Sacks 1.0
INTs 2

If he had at least 3 or 4 more INTs I would be all for Delmas. He's a baller

[Paranoidmoonduck]

I didn't mean the actual ADD kids, I meant the ones who buy the actual ADD kids' meds off of them. And if you don't think that huge numbers of students on college campus across the country who do not possess a prescription for ADD meds get those prescription Amphetamines you're being purposefully dense. I'm not even going to point out that a significant number of kids get ADD prescriptions who do not actually need the meds but get them solely for the recreational/academic uses.

Well, the most obvious difference is that college isn't a spectator sport nor is the "cheater" making millions of dollars as a result. John Doe, 4th year student at Bumfuck University, doesn't owe me ****. The NFL, regulator of my home team and receiver of my money and the money that my attention provides them, owes me something.

Studying for college also isn't an end in itself nor are their strict rules pertaining to it beyond not allowing gross plagiarizing. I don't really see the comparison.

[Brodeur]

Can you elaborate? I'm having trouble understanding this.

Selig was an idiot because he didn't accept what, exactly? And what exactly is a "cycle" in baseball history. Each chance in the sport has happened for a specific reason, not due to some ineffably cosmic ****. And Goodell handing out equal suspensions for steroid use and DUI's is worse than the players doing the steroids in the first place?

Color me confused.

Okay that whole post sounded wrong (mine not yours). What I'm saying is that Selig tried to sweep **** under the rug instead of accepting the fact that there was a lot of players taking steroids, and instead of trying to prove that pitching numbers and power numbers have gone through cycles during the entirety of baseball history, he just came up with some ******** testing regime that does nothing.

As for Goodell, I just think it is far worse for a player to be drinking and driving than it is to be taking steroids or any other growth hormone.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Okay that whole post sounded wrong (mine not yours). What I'm saying is that Selig tried to sweep **** under the rug instead of accepting the fact that there was a lot of players taking steroids, and instead of trying to prove that pitching numbers and power numbers have gone through cycles during the entirety of baseball history, he just came up with some ******** testing regime that does nothing.

Except that those "cycles" you talk about have always been for specific reasons (changing the type of ball, changing the height of the pitching mound, etc.) They didn't just fluctuate for no reason, nor would that even come close to explaining the power surge in baseball.

Selig was an idiot because he tried to sweep it under the rug instead of actually doing something about it, not because he didn't think to write it off with a ******** explanation which is also used to try and explain global ******* warming.

As for Goodell, I just think it is far worse for a player to be drinking and driving than it is to be taking steroids or any other growth hormone.

Fair enough, although I vehemently disagree there. Goodell's job is to regulate the image of the league and the trajectory of the sport. Does a player getting a DUI hurt the image of the sport? Yes. Is there an entire legal system designed to punish people for breaking the law? Yes. I applaud Goodell adding to the legal retribution by cutting into player's salaries substantially, but it's not like he's the only one taking a stand against drunk driving. On the other hand, use of PED which is explicitly against the rules of the league that Goodell runs greatly affects both of the jobs he is explicitly and solely responsible for. I don't think he's taking nearly seriously enough.

[njx9]

I didn't mean the actual ADD kids, I meant the ones who buy the actual ADD kids' meds off of them. And if you don't think that huge numbers of students on college campus across the country who do not possess a prescription for ADD meds get those prescription Amphetamines you're being purposefully dense. I'm not even going to point out that a significant number of kids get ADD prescriptions who do not actually need the meds but get them solely for the recreational/academic uses.

i'm unclear as to why this is an issue. has anyone ever said "dude, those kids are so cool, i really think it's totally ok that they buy adderall and take it when they don't need it" then turned around and said 'player X is the devil incarnate'? why make the comparison in the first place?

I mean players have gotten progressively bigger and bigger and you can still clearly see the difference between briliant coaches and moronic coaches.

because technically, they're all on the same plane. no one is signing the bio-chemist to an exclusive-rights deal because he found a way to make HGH 10x more effective.

Plus I disagree with your theory that teams will win based of who has the best engineers, the best engineers very well could chose to sell their product to as many people as they can as could the best chemists, in which case all teams will have the best chemicals and/or robots available to them if they're willing to pay for them, just like teams can get the best players available if they're willing to pay for them.

ah, right. just like every team can go out and sign tom brady. no one ever signs an exclusive contract.

[Saints-Tigers]

I can't believe this is an issue. WTF is wrong with you people?

Every player isn't taking steroids.

Cushing did.

Guys that did it without an illegal substance should be rewarded.

I always thought Cushing was a juicer, but when he tested clean, I gave him props for his stellar play.

We found out he was juicing, we can't just run around assuming "oh, most guys are doing it" to justify it.

Innocent until proven guilty and all.

[Rosebud]

Well, the most obvious difference is that college isn't a spectator sport nor is the "cheater" making millions of dollars as a result. John Doe, 4th year student at Bumfuck University, doesn't owe me ****. The NFL, regulator of my home team and receiver of my money and the money that my attention provides them, owes me something.

Studying for college also isn't an end in itself nor are their strict rules pertaining to it beyond not allowing gross plagiarizing. I don't really see the comparison.

Well I'm a student right now so the "cheater" does impact me and very well could be making huge sums of money off of it if I were going to a different school. If a person is screwed out of a spot at a prestigious Law School because they didn't want go through amphetamine abuse I think that that situation is just as "wrong" as the athletes who don't make it because they don't want to juice just to keep up, which to me is the most compelling argument against steroids in sports.

Steroids in professional sports also aren't an end in themselves, but just like the amphetamines they let you prepare for the competition better be it a football game or a final paper or exam.

[Rosebud]

i'm unclear as to why this is an issue. has anyone ever said "dude, those kids are so cool, i really think it's totally ok that they buy adderall and take it when they don't need it" then turned around and said 'player X is the devil incarnate'? why make the comparison in the first place?

because technically, they're all on the same plane. no one is signing the bio-chemist to an exclusive-rights deal because he found a way to make HGH 10x more effective.

ah, right. just like every team can go out and sign tom brady. no one ever signs an exclusive contract.

I made the comparison because I'm a student right now in the middle of finals week, the booming Adderall market just happens to slap me in the face. Personally I don't care about kids using Adderall just like I don't care about kids cheating off of me on tests, or pro-athletes juicing. But I think it's a comparable situation with only the major difference in my eyes being the varied policies towards the respective drugs by the NFL and your local University. On a moral basis I think the situations fall in a very similar sphere.

People do sign exclusive contracts but in this case I think between all sports there'd be so much demand for the superior roids that from my meager understanding of finance and economics would lead me to believe that the money you could make negotiating deals with each team in every sport would let you not just make more money but also expand their market share to dominant that industry instead of making money from just one team letting my competitors stick around by selling to the other teams. Plus if I'm only selling to one team I'm tied to that team by the hip, if they don't dominate with my super roids then my reputation falls, if on the otherhand I'm selling my super roids to all teams I don't have to run that risk.

[prock]

Just wondering if all the people crucifying NFL athletes also do the same to the kids who get prescription amphetamines to help them stay up and study for tests/do a paper. Adderall is the scholastic equivalent to steroids yet no one freaks out about the adderall users. Personally I could give two shits about steroids in sports, I watch the NFL to see the best play the best, so whatever makes them better football players only improves the entertainment the NFL's product delivers.

Adderall enables you to work longer. It doesn't enhance your brain. It doesn't make you smarter.

[Rosebud]

Adderall enables you to work longer. It doesn't enhance your brain. It doesn't make you smarter.

It lets you learn more by working longer, Steroids make you stronger by building more muscle mass. I think that's comparable. Plus smarter is a really ****** term, does having a faster mind make you smarter or having more knowledge? Plus you can't neglect that the more information and connections you make the faster you become able to think those specific areas so I guess it does actually make you smarter if you use that extra time it gives you studying. Just like steroids won't make you smarter unless you work out. If our gripe is that steroids give athletes an unfair advantage in games it's undeniable that amphetamines give students an unfair advantage in tests.

[prock]

It lets you learn more by working longer, Steroids make you stronger by building more muscle mass. I think that's comparable. Plus smarter is a really ****** term, does having a faster mind make you smarter or having more knowledge? Plus you can't neglect that the more information and connections you make the faster you become able to think those specific areas so I guess it does actually make you smarter if you use that extra time it gives you studying. Just like steroids won't make you smarter unless you work out. If our gripe is that steroids give athletes an unfair advantage in games it's undeniable that amphetamines give students an unfair advantage in tests.

Alright, so what is your point? Adderall is wrong to use, no ****, I don't take it. So how about we talk about the topic instead rather than arguing about the benefits of adderall?

[Rosebud]

Alright, so what is your point? Adderall is wrong to use, no ****, I don't take it. So how about we talk about the topic instead rather than arguing about the benefits of adderall?

My point is that we don't really care when kids are doing it in something as important as education so why should we care when it's something as useless and insignificant as sports? I don't care if athletes use steroids even though I don't use them myself and never would.

[njx9]

My point is that we don't really care when kids are doing it in something as important as education so why should we care when it's something as useless and insignificant as sports? I don't care if athletes use steroids even though I don't use them myself and never would.

i think we do care. it's illegal in both cases. however, in one case, there's a well defined method for catching violations. in the other case, there aren't mandatory blood/urine tests for students. these are *completely* different situations that aren't actually comparable. it's like suggesting that we don't care when students drink and drive. we do. and, when they get caught, they get punished. when an nfl player gets caught, they get punished.

[Rosebud]

i think we do care. it's illegal in both cases. however, in one case, there's a well defined method for catching violations. in the other case, there aren't mandatory blood/urine tests for students. these are *completely* different situations that aren't actually comparable. it's like suggesting that we don't care when students drink and drive. we do. and, when they get caught, they get punished. when an nfl player gets caught, they get punished.

I guess I feel that this is a moral question and you're describing a regulatory difference. The NFL has taken the question of PEDs on while University's haven't, but that doesn't change whether you or I think the use of drugs that improve a person's ability to perform are right or wrong. On a fundamental level I think they're very comparable dilemmas.

Could you explain your analogy for me, I'm not getting it.

[prock]

My point is that we don't really care when kids are doing it in something as important as education so why should we care when it's something as useless and insignificant as sports? I don't care if athletes use steroids even though I don't use them myself and never would.

Well, based on how much people like us post on this site, and how much of our life we devote to sports, it is definitely NOT useless and insignificant. Excuse me for caring about my passion, and not taking it well when I found out that someone is cheating. If you want to talk about kids taking adderall, go to a different forum and debate about how to stop it. Unless you are gonna test kids for adderall, it won't stop. Steroids can be put to a stop, all it takes is better testing and more severe consequences.

Based on your argument, you like sports but your passion is education, so you don't like when people cheat in that. I like education, but my true passion is sports, so that pisses me off. I understand what you are saying and agree, but it isn't relevant to this argument.

[Rosebud]

Well, based on how much people like us post on this site, and how much of our life we devote to sports, it is definitely NOT useless and insignificant. Excuse me for caring about my passion, and not taking it well when I found out that someone is cheating. If you want to talk about kids taking adderall, go to a different forum and debate about how to stop it. Unless you are gonna test kids for adderall, it won't stop. Steroids can be put to a stop, all it takes is better testing and more severe consequences.

Based on your argument, you like sports but your passion is education, so you don't like when people cheat in that. I like education, but my true passion is sports, so that pisses me off. I understand what you are saying and agree, but it isn't relevant to this argument.

Football is a form of entertainment, which is useful, but as someone heading into the field, entertainment, not football, myself I can't take it too seriously. And I'm not telling you to not be passionate about sports, god knows I care more about the German National team every other summer than I do my own sister. I just don't think the tests can ever keep ahead of the roids, especially as we get more specialized and more specialized hormon treatments. So no matter how much you focus and how much punish steroid use you won't get ever stop it. So as a fan I'd rather the league focus on other issues and let their athletes be big boys and make their own decisions, even if they don't want that then at least don't punish people for steroid abuse as much as you would someone who beats his girlfriend, not even going to get on my issues with DUIs since I have a very peculiar perspective on the matter.

As for the second paragraph you're mistaken, as I've said in many of my posts in this thread I don't care if kids want to cheat, ultimately they're the ones who have to compensate for their own inability to develop certain skills and acquire certain knowledge just like the juicers, who are going to die at a younger age and suffer the long term health consequences if they don't. I don't care what they want to do in school so long as they're not impeding my own learning and I don't care if the juicers are juicing unless it makes the NFL less enjoyable to watch, which it doesn't for me because I think with open steroid use you'd still see skill, strategy and heart still playing massive roles in determining success as they do now. This is a bad analogy but I think of it like Pride, we know that there where guys like Josh Barnett in Pride who juiced and we know there were guys in pride who didn't juice, yet you still had as many if not more elite clean fighters as you did juicing fighters. Bad analogy as football is a different sport but I think it makes that professional athletes, even in highly physical sports like Football or MMA need so much more than gym-room strength that the use of open steroids won't taint the product, at least not for me because what I love will be there whether the average speed for a player in the 40 is 4.1 or 5.1.

[GB12]

The thing you have to understand is Orakpo rushed the passer way less than Matthews did
Well first I'd like you to confirm this. Or I guess try your best to deny it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Orakpo get a vast majority if not all of his sacks with his hand down in passing situations.

And then I'd like to hear how you know Orakpo rushed way less than Matthews. I'd bet they're pretty close.

[Rosebud]

Well first I'd like you to confirm this. Or I guess try your best to deny it.


And then I'd like to hear how you know Orakpo rushed way less than Matthews. I'd bet they're pretty close.

Rak did beast with his hand on the ground, but he spent the vast majority of his snaps standing up and stuffing the run.

[prock]

Football is a form of entertainment, which is useful, but as someone heading into the field, entertainment, not football, myself I can't take it too seriously. And I'm not telling you to not be passionate about sports, god knows I care more about the German National team every other summer than I do my own sister. I just don't think the tests can ever keep ahead of the roids, especially as we get more specialized and more specialized hormon treatments. So no matter how much you focus and how much punish steroid use you won't get ever stop it. So as a fan I'd rather the league focus on other issues and let their athletes be big boys and make their own decisions, even if they don't want that then at least don't punish people for steroid abuse as much as you would someone who beats his girlfriend, not even going to get on my issues with DUIs since I have a very peculiar perspective on the matter.


Personally, I think it is fine suspending juicers for just as long if not longer than people who commit crimes. Juicers are blatantly disrespecting the sanctity of the game, and the law is there to deal with criminals. I just wish the law still applied to athletes as it does to normal people...

[Rosebud]

Personally, I think it is fine suspending juicers for just as long if not longer than people who commit crimes. Juicers are blatantly disrespecting the sanctity of the game, and the law is there to deal with criminals. I just wish the law still applied to athletes as it does to normal people...

See to me that's ********, there's no way taking steroids is as bad as beating a woman and if the NFL where to punish players for it more would be disgusting. The sanctity of the game? Are you seriously comparing the sanctity of a game the same value as the safety and well being of a single woman?

[FUNBUNCHER]

There is no definitive proof that steroids actually increase performance more than a little bit. For every so called success story that people seem to think is due to steroids, there are thousands upon thousands that are failed train wrecks.
Of course steroids only increase athletic performance by a little bit.

That's why Flo Jo set records in the 100 and 200m dash that will NEVER be broken by a genetic woman, and why Ben Johnson became the first man to run a sub 9.9 second 100m.

Don't be fooled, athletes take steroids because they WORK.

If you are every bit a talented football player from the neck up, steroids can close the gap from a strength/size/speed perspective.

Bosworth, Mandarich, David Boston were all known steroid cheats in college and/or the pros, and when they were on them, their play on game days was SICK.

What the NFL should do is commission their own bio chemists to design a line of PEDs okayed for use specifically by the NFL. That way, if a guy wants to gain 20 pounds of muscle in the offseason, he can pick up a 4 month dosage from his team trainer and be monitored by team doctors.

Or if a DB or RB wants to lower their 40 by a couple tenths of second, he picks up his magic pills from an NFL sanctioned pharmacist.

Instead of being embarrassed by this problem, the NFL should take control of it and own it.

[prock]

See to me that's ********, there's no way taking steroids is as bad as beating a woman and if the NFL where to punish players for it more would be disgusting. The sanctity of the game? Are you seriously comparing the sanctity of a game the same value as the safety and well being of a single woman?

No, I am saying that the NFL is it's own governing body, it takes care of NFL problems. The law takes care of legal problems. If the law just treated athletes like everyone else, then the NFL wouldn't have to worry about domestic violence, etc, because the law would do it for them. You are keep trying to bring in these outside points to this topic and put words in my mouth. You are making it sound like I am advocating domestic abuse.

[cunningham06]

Of course steroids only increase athletic performance by a little bit.

That's why Flo Jo set records in the 100 and 200m dash that will NEVER be broken by a genetic woman, and why Ben Johnson became the first man to run a sub 9.9 second 100m.

Don't be fooled, athletes take steroids because they WORK.

If you are every bit a talented football player from the neck up, steroids can close the gap from a strength/size/speed perspective.

Bosworth, Mandarich, David Boston were all known steroid cheats in college and/or the pros, and when they were on them, their play on game days was SICK.

What the NFL should do is commission their own bio chemists to design a line of PEDs okayed for use specifically by the NFL. That way, if a guy wants to gain 20 pounds of muscle in the offseason, he can pick up a 4 month dosage from his team trainer and be monitored by team doctors.

Or if a DB or RB wants to lower their 40 by a couple tenths of second, he picks up his magic pills from an NFL sanctioned pharmacist.

Instead of being embarrassed by this problem, the NFL should take control of it and own it.

Mandarich and Bosworth aren't very good examples since they were total roid-heads and were complete busts in the pros. They go to show that steroids don't automatically make you a great player. That's just overgeneralizing to say something like that. Cushing has got great coordination and knows the game of football well, steroids have 0 impact on that. I'm sure he benefited from roids, not denying that, but he's a great football player considering all the aspects of the game.

It's an insult to football to say that steroids are a shortcut to greatness because the game is more complex than that.

Also, track serves as a terrible comparison for steroid usage. It's a sport that is all about power and strength, for sprinters not that much coordination is necessary. Take Michael Johnson for instance, he was a great sprinter, but he's not very coordinated. He's said before that he's not very good at other sports, running is just his thing.

Anyway, look at the most ripped guys in the NFL. Notice anything? Robert McCune, Michael Pittman, and Vernon Gholston I'm willing to bet have all tried steroids at some point, none of them are anything to write home about.

Sure he took steroids, I for one don't give a damn. He's serving a suspension, he's being punished. I will welcome him back week 5.

[Rosebud]

No, I am saying that the NFL is it's own governing body, it takes care of NFL problems. The law takes care of legal problems. If the law just treated athletes like everyone else, then the NFL wouldn't have to worry about domestic violence, etc, because the law would do it for them. You are keep trying to bring in these outside points to this topic and put words in my mouth. You are making it sound like I am advocating domestic abuse.

No I'm not I'm making it sound like you think that the NFL should worry more and punish players more for defiling the sanctity of a game than for domestic abuse.

Personally, I think it is fine suspending juicers for just as long if not longer than people who commit crimes.
Which was in response to me talking about a guy beating up his girlfriend, in case you've forgotten. And to me that's ridiculous. It would be nice if the Law did it's job but it'd also be nice if the DMV where run decently, the US postal service didn't lose my mail, the cops would actually find killers and thieves and we could eradicate drugs just by making them illegal, all of those things would be nice but they aren't what actually happens. In real life the legal system doesn't work perfectly and the NFL needs to police it's talent on its own to keep them out of trouble that makes the team and the league look bad. So if the league has to do so anyone I'd rather they focus more on something that actually hurts a person like spousal abuse or going Marvin Harrison on a bum than on some guy who sticks a needle in his butt because he wants his nuts too shrivel and his life span to be cut even dramatically than it is just for playing in the NFL.

[prock]

No I'm not I'm making it sound like you think that the NFL should worry more and punish players more for defiling the sanctity of a game than for domestic abuse.


Which was in response to me talking about a guy beating up his girlfriend, in case you've forgotten. And to me that's ridiculous. It would be nice if the Law did it's job but it'd also be nice if the DMV where run decently, the US postal service didn't lose my mail, the cops would actually find killers and thieves and we could eradicate drugs just by making them illegal, all of those things would be nice but they aren't what actually happens. In real life the legal system doesn't work perfectly and the NFL needs to police it's talent on its own to keep them out of trouble that makes the team and the league look bad. So if the league has to do so anyone I'd rather they focus more on something that actually hurts a person like spousal abuse or going Marvin Harrison on a bum than on some guy who sticks a needle in his butt because he wants his nuts too shrivel and his life span to be cut even dramatically than it is just for playing in the NFL.

You list all of these things you would love to work perfectly, but you should just add the NFL to that list. You took that quote out of a paragraph, so of course it sounds bad. If you read the entire thing, it is explained.

[njx9]

It's an insult to football to say that steroids are a shortcut to greatness because the game is more complex than that.


so you're saying that steroids do nothing to make a player better? is that seriously the argument you're trying to put forward?

or are you trying to suggest that taking an average to good player, and juicing him up, would have *no* chance of turning him into a great player?

because either opinion is absurd.

[njx9]

I guess I feel that this is a moral question and you're describing a regulatory difference. The NFL has taken the question of PEDs on while University's haven't, but that doesn't change whether you or I think the use of drugs that improve a person's ability to perform are right or wrong. On a fundamental level I think they're very comparable dilemmas.

i don't believe they are at all. in one case, i'm a student. so, if i'm at a publicly funded university, there are some fairly substantial 'rights' that i have, regarding what the university is able to do to either punish me, or search me in the first place (http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing gives a decent breakdown of some cases, i don't have time to filter it down more than that). whereas, the nfl, as a private business, can damn well do whatever it wants with it's employees (obviously in context, i'm not suggesting they can take them out in the back alley and shoot them for underperformance). if it's determined that the use of certain controlled substances is against its own rules of employment, then it has every right to terminate the services, or otherwise reprimand any employee caught violating those terms. at a public university (i don't honestly know how this would apply at a private university), i have a lot more protection from what is allowable by the school, insofar as searches and discipline.

so all that said, i don't buy for a second that the two scenarios are remotely comparable, whether we talk about them as moral choices (and really, you think any kid who's a borderline nfl player would have a choice?) or regulatory issues.

Could you explain your analogy for me, I'm not getting it.

whereas a DUI is unambiguous, no matter who i am. if i drink and drive as a student, i lose my license/go to jail and then further suffer the consequences of my place of education (though my evidence is anecdotal, i don't recall a professor allowing a late exam due to incarceration) or place of employment (likely termination or suspension/loss of PR driven sponsorships). legally, it's an equalizer, and morally, there's little to no difference between the choice of an 18 year old getting behind the wheel, or an athlete getting behind the wheel.

more to the point, there's also a sort of punishment by degree, in that a student getting caught for buying black market adderall might get expelled or suspended from the university, but it's never going to make a paper because frankly, no one on earth cares about joe schmoe trying to cheat on his accounting 101 exam. meanwhile, you get a guy like cushing who's not only on tv 16 weeks of the year, but who's also a pretty well known athlete (DROTY), and him getting caught for breaking a rule of his employment in such a way that it casts doubt on whether or not he was actually responsible for any part of his ability is going to get a LOT of media play. which is going to result in a LOT more disapproval. i'd guess that, to go back to your analogy, if you could somehow make joe schmoe's use of adderall to cheat on his exam nationally interesting, there would be a similar outcry (both for and against).

regardless, and for my opinion, the game becomes meaningless the minute the athletes become artificial. and the game is disrespected the minute an athlete does something, specifically prohibited by the sport, to gain an advantage over other players. games weren't, for instance, more intriguing when merriman was apparently juiced, than afterwards. i had even less interest in baseball when david ortiz was very clearly on steroids. *shrug* i'm willing to accept that we may differ in that regard.

[cunningham06]

so you're saying that steroids do nothing to make a player better? is that seriously the argument you're trying to put forward?

They go to show that steroids don't automatically make you a great player.

or are you trying to suggest that taking an average to good player, and juicing him up, would have *no* chance of turning him into a great player?

I'm sure he benefited from roids, not denying that, but he's a great football player considering all the aspects of the game. And again, see the above post, the key words being "don't automatically." In what way does that mean "*no* chance?"

because either opinion is absurd.

The only thing that is absurd is your lack of reading comprehension. Both answers to those questions are from my original post. My stance on the issue is pretty easy to understand.

- Steroids make you stronger and faster, but there is more to football than strength and speed. (Mandarich serves as a good example)
- Cushing benefited from steroids, but he is fundamentally good at football to begin with, he has good technique, instincts, and coordination.

He benefited from steroids and is being punished accordingly.

[njx9]

They go to show that steroids don't automatically make you a great player.

prove it. how good was mandarich before? do you think he was overdrafted solely on his bench press numbers? did you ever even see him play, or are you just jumping to conclusions because those conclusions fit this nice little thing you just made up?

I'm sure he benefited from roids, not denying that, but he's a great football player considering all the aspects of the game. And again, see the above post, the key words being "don't automatically." In what way does that mean "*no* chance?"

based on what, exactly? his stunning nfl accomplishments when he wasn't taking steroids? when did those occur, exactly?

The only thing that is absurd is your lack of reading comprehension.

actually, it's your writing ability and thought process, but i like the blame-shifting.

Both answers to those questions are from my original post. My stance on the issue is pretty easy to understand.

and pretty poorly-thought out. good thing i asked for clarification or i might've thought you'd just failed to properly write out what you meant. now i know you just don't have any vague understanding of the issue.

- Steroids make you stronger and faster, but there is more to football than strength and speed. (Mandarich serves as a good example)

no, he doesn't. or do you think they give all-america honors, and name linemen of the year based on a college player's bench press/40 time?

- Cushing benefited from steroids, but he is fundamentally good at football to begin with, he has good technique, instincts, and coordination.

citation needed. let me know when you come up with that evidence.

He benefited from steroids and is being punished accordingly.

yippee.

[cunningham06]

prove it. how good was mandarich before? do you think he was overdrafted solely on his bench press numbers? did you ever even see him play, or are you just jumping to conclusions because those conclusions fit this nice little thing you just made up?

Prove it? Are you contending that steroids do automatically make you a great player? How about you actually offer an opinion instead of just offering sarcastic questions?

Mandarich was able to be a great lineman at the collegiate level largely because of his strength, but he failed in the NFL. Why is that? One of the main reasons is his footwork was not nearly good enough for him to keep up with speed rushers. Competing in the NFL requires technique, which steroids don't give you.

based on what, exactly? his stunning nfl accomplishments when he wasn't taking steroids? when did those occur, exactly?

Have you ever seen Cushing play? Not every steroid user can play football, Cush has excellent abilities outside the realm of those enhanced by steroids. Watch him play.

actually, it's your writing ability and thought process, but i like the blame-shifting.

Haha, please that is such a weak point. Fact is your questions were already answered if you had just read the post. Do I need to incorporate e-terms like *shrug* and *shakes head* for you to properly understand my point? In no way is what I wrote obscure, it is a very general point.

and pretty poorly-thought out. good thing i asked for clarification or i might've thought you'd just failed to properly write out what you meant. now i know you just don't have any vague understanding of the issue.

In what way is it poorly thought out? I have no vague understanding of the issue? In what way? You're wrong is quite a compelling argument, good job, gold star.

no, he doesn't. or do you think they give all-america honors, and name linemen of the year based on a college player's bench press/40 time?

The competition level in college is not near that of the NFL. Some players can rely on incredible strength or speed in college, but they need more than that in the pros.

citation needed. let me know when you come up with that evidence.

Citation: Texans games. I watched Cushing every week, all of the aforementioned attributes are apparent if you've seen him play before.

It seems that you don't like my example of Mandarich, but in what way do your views differ from mine? All you have managed to say so far is essentially you're wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about. What do you think? All you do is nitpick, how about some disclosure on the issue. In what way is my understanding of the steroid issue inadequate, and how is yours so superior?

[Rosebud]

i don't believe they are at all. in one case, i'm a student. so, if i'm at a publicly funded university, there are some fairly substantial 'rights' that i have, regarding what the university is able to do to either punish me, or search me in the first place (http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing gives a decent breakdown of some cases, i don't have time to filter it down more than that). whereas, the nfl, as a private business, can damn well do whatever it wants with it's employees (obviously in context, i'm not suggesting they can take them out in the back alley and shoot them for underperformance). if it's determined that the use of certain controlled substances is against its own rules of employment, then it has every right to terminate the services, or otherwise reprimand any employee caught violating those terms. at a public university (i don't honestly know how this would apply at a private university), i have a lot more protection from what is allowable by the school, insofar as searches and discipline.

so all that said, i don't buy for a second that the two scenarios are remotely comparable, whether we talk about them as moral choices (and really, you think any kid who's a borderline nfl player would have a choice?) or regulatory issues.



whereas a DUI is unambiguous, no matter who i am. if i drink and drive as a student, i lose my license/go to jail and then further suffer the consequences of my place of education (though my evidence is anecdotal, i don't recall a professor allowing a late exam due to incarceration) or place of employment (likely termination or suspension/loss of PR driven sponsorships). legally, it's an equalizer, and morally, there's little to no difference between the choice of an 18 year old getting behind the wheel, or an athlete getting behind the wheel.

more to the point, there's also a sort of punishment by degree, in that a student getting caught for buying black market adderall might get expelled or suspended from the university, but it's never going to make a paper because frankly, no one on earth cares about joe schmoe trying to cheat on his accounting 101 exam. meanwhile, you get a guy like cushing who's not only on tv 16 weeks of the year, but who's also a pretty well known athlete (DROTY), and him getting caught for breaking a rule of his employment in such a way that it casts doubt on whether or not he was actually responsible for any part of his ability is going to get a LOT of media play. which is going to result in a LOT more disapproval. i'd guess that, to go back to your analogy, if you could somehow make joe schmoe's use of adderall to cheat on his exam nationally interesting, there would be a similar outcry (both for and against).

regardless, and for my opinion, the game becomes meaningless the minute the athletes become artificial. and the game is disrespected the minute an athlete does something, specifically prohibited by the sport, to gain an advantage over other players. games weren't, for instance, more intriguing when merriman was apparently juiced, than afterwards. i had even less interest in baseball when david ortiz was very clearly on steroids. *shrug* i'm willing to accept that we may differ in that regard.

Oh no doubt that the NFL is allowed to enforce its own laws as they see fit and they need to protect their image with the fans, so they can do whatever they've got to do. My gripe is with us as fans taking a game played by freaks of nature way too seriously. We're here to be entertained as are the casual fans that the NFL needs to keep a hold of to remain the US's premiere sporting league. Steroids help the league with casual fans, the afore mentioned "let's watch that freaky huge guy do something freaky to somebody" effect. As a fan I love football for the strategy and heart, steroids don't eliminate that.

Sure a borderline NFL guy has a choice to make, do you want to be a low level NFL player or live a healthy life? I think that's clearly a choice. A low level guy could have the choice of ST or rotation player, these are all choices, just like athletes need to chose to eat healthy and push their body year round, just like they need to chose to watch film and study and learn, these are all choices.

[prock]

"let's watch that freaky huge guy do something freaky to somebody"

I call this porn, not the NFL.

[njx9]

Oh no doubt that the NFL is allowed to enforce its own laws as they see fit and they need to protect their image with the fans, so they can do whatever they've got to do. My gripe is with us as fans taking a game played by freaks of nature way too seriously. We're here to be entertained as are the casual fans that the NFL needs to keep a hold of to remain the US's premiere sporting league. Steroids help the league with casual fans, the afore mentioned "let's watch that freaky huge guy do something freaky to somebody" effect. As a fan I love football for the strategy and heart, steroids don't eliminate that.

i think steroids *can* minimize the strategy side. let's say we have Player X, who runs in the 4.4 range. dude's still fast, but he's not burner quick. all of a sudden, he gets on the juice (trying to be non-specific) and can run a 4.2. he's now running fly routes at all times and beating everyone deep. i think your first thought is, 'then the DC will adjust and scheme to that.' where we differ, i think, is that i think the next step would be a safety or cornerback getting on something, so that he can run faster. now your running back needs something to get to the edge, or your LT needs to be able to keep up with the DE.

i understand it's a slippery slope argument, but i guess i look back at baseball. at first, you might just have the hitters taking something to get the extra 20, 30, whatever feet on their hits. then, the pitchers realize there's a disadvantage, and they start taking something to throw a little harder, or last a little longer. and back and forth.

that's emphatically *not* what i want the league to turn into. and sure, we can say everyone would be on X, so the field would be level and strategy would come back in, but again, the next logical outcome i see is someone thinking, 'well if everyone is on X, then i can get on Y and have an advantage!'

like i said before, when games come down to your chemistry sets, i stop caring.

Sure a borderline NFL guy has a choice to make, do you want to be a low level NFL player or live a healthy life? I think that's clearly a choice. A low level guy could have the choice of ST or rotation player, these are all choices, just like athletes need to chose to eat healthy and push their body year round, just like they need to chose to watch film and study and learn, these are all choices.

let's follow a different road then... i'm in college, and i'm thinking i could get drafted. but then i think, 'well, if i ran a little faster than the next guy, or was a little stronger, i'd get pushed up' (which already happens, given workout warriors). so i take something to give me that advantage that the other guy initially didn't need because he was just better. now the other guy sees my name jump past, because he's still running a 4.5. so he wants to take something to push himself up.

but worse, imo, is the disastrous effects it would have as it cascaded down. again anecdotally, i already know several guys who were taking things for baseball in high school, because they thought they had to. i'd really rather not see high school football players start thinking they need to take HGH or whatever, just to get to college, or because their parents have dollar signs in their eyes. i can think of few things worse (in context) for one's long term health than messing around with stuff like that before your body has even finished growing naturally.

so in the end, yes, some folks will have that choice and will make the right choice for themselves. some folks will feel pressured into it, because a scholarship is the only way to get to college, or because an nfl salary is the only way out of wherever they came from (i think you can see the salary effect fairly clearly in the nba, where players with no realistic shot of being drafted will declare because someone convinces them they can).

[njx9]

Prove it? Are you contending that steroids do automatically make you a great player? How about you actually offer an opinion instead of just offering sarcastic questions?

i'm contending that steroids don't have a net zero effect, and that they will make you a better player than you would've been otherwise. i've offered an opinion throughout this thread, several of them, in fact.

Mandarich was able to be a great lineman at the collegiate level largely because of his strength, but he failed in the NFL. Why is that? One of the main reasons is his footwork was not nearly good enough for him to keep up with speed rushers. Competing in the NFL requires technique, which steroids don't give you.

you didn't answer the question. was mitch petrus an all american? a finalist for the outland award? but he tied the combine record in the bench. if that's all mandarich was good for, why was he given those honors? i'm also vaguely curious who you're considering a speed rusher in 2000, though it's not necessarily relevant.

Have you ever seen Cushing play? Not every steroid user can play football, Cush has excellent abilities outside the realm of those enhanced by steroids. Watch him play.

i saw him play regularly at usc and in houston. there's no evidence whatsoever that he was a great lb without steroids until he actually is a great lb without steroids.

basically, you're saying that mandarich was only good with steroids, and that cushing is great no matter what. i think that's a bizarre view, with no basis in reality. i further think it's quite clear that steroids will make you a better player, if that's your intention (if you'd rather become a body builder, a la David Boston, that's a different story altogether).

in the end, i think your initial statement, the one i disagreed with, is hopelessly naive, given the clear effect of steroids in a number of demonstrable cases (mandarich and cushing being only two of them), and that your further arguments (mandarich was only steroids, cushing is great regardless) show a rather large lack of understanding of that issue.

[cunningham06]

i'm contending that steroids don't have a net zero effect, and that they will make you a better player than you would've been otherwise. i've offered an opinion throughout this thread, several of them, in fact.

you didn't answer the question. was mitch petrus an all american? a finalist for the outland award? but he tied the combine record in the bench. if that's all mandarich was good for, why was he given those honors? i'm also vaguely curious who you're considering a speed rusher in 2000, though it's not necessarily relevant.

i saw him play regularly at usc and in houston. there's no evidence whatsoever that he was a great lb without steroids until he actually is a great lb without steroids.

basically, you're saying that mandarich was only good with steroids, and that cushing is great no matter what. i think that's a bizarre view, with no basis in reality. i further think it's quite clear that steroids will make you a better player, if that's your intention (if you'd rather become a body builder, a la David Boston, that's a different story altogether).

in the end, i think your initial statement, the one i disagreed with, is hopelessly naive, given the clear effect of steroids in a number of demonstrable cases (mandarich and cushing being only two of them), and that your further arguments (mandarich was only steroids, cushing is great regardless) show a rather large lack of understanding of that issue.

I agree that steroids don't have a net zero effect. They absolutely do increase strength and speed. What I'm saying is that those are just two aspects (albeit important ones) of a game made up of many different skills.

Mandarich and Petrus aren't really comparable. The only thing they have in common are great upper body strength. Petrus isn't even close to Mandarich when it comes to lower body strength. Mandarich was a physical freak who had decent/below average mechanics and got by in college by using his incredible explosion and strength. Once he got to the NFL, it was apparent that despite his explosion and strength he lacked key abilities to excel at the NFL level.

As for Mandarich and Cushing, the thing they both have in common is steroid usage. The former, a spectacular bust, the latter, defensive rookie of the year. Both have impressive strength and speed for their respective positions, but one couldn't hack it and the other excelled. Logically you can deduce that this is largely because of NFL skills besides size and strength. Plenty of players who took steroids have failed in the NFL, Cushing succeeded because he has tools that Mandarich didn't have. Skills that don't come from steroids.

You're right in that there is no non-steroidal Cushing to compare to. Therefore Cushing's speed and strength are pointless to try to estimate if he were steroid free. We just don't know. But what we do know is that he has more than just speed and strength. He has good instincts and understands his responsibilities on the field. He's a playmaker, and has pretty good ball skills. He's great with steroids factored in, but to say that's the only reason he's good them is an over-exaggeration.

Bottom line what I'm saying is that Cushing has the NFL skills to play the game. Did he enhance his game with steroids? Absolutely. But people who say he is just some scrub who is only good because he juiced up are just wrong in my opinion.

[Saints-Tigers]

Cushing absolutely is a smart guy on the field, with good skills.

But it's dumb to even argue that he's not largely valuable because of his strength/speed combo, and we really don't know how much of that is derived from steroids.

I don't really care though, even if Steroids makes you only one step faster, that one step is the difference from making a tackle on the edge, or giving up a 60 yard touchdown run.

It's cheating, no matter how you want to spin it.

[Rosebud]

i think steroids *can* minimize the strategy side. let's say we have Player X, who runs in the 4.4 range. dude's still fast, but he's not burner quick. all of a sudden, he gets on the juice (trying to be non-specific) and can run a 4.2. he's now running fly routes at all times and beating everyone deep. i think your first thought is, 'then the DC will adjust and scheme to that.' where we differ, i think, is that i think the next step would be a safety or cornerback getting on something, so that he can run faster. now your running back needs something to get to the edge, or your LT needs to be able to keep up with the DE.

Can steroids really do that much? I'm sure they will be able to shave .2 off of your 40 eventually, but are they really that potent already? My knowledge of how modern steroids work on a molecular level is minimal, but if they just help build muscle bulk, which is my understanding, then they won't aid the explosiveness that comes with quick twitch muscles that ultimately is the key to football.

Sure if the steroids work and we let people juice players will get on the juice to "keep up" but I don't really care about that. These guys are already taking massive risks to get paid major bank. If I were an NFL player I'm not sure whether I'd take roids or not, if it were the difference between me playing pro-ball and me playing in Canada I probably would but if I were a solidified NFL player without the juice I'd probably stay clean.

i understand it's a slippery slope argument, but i guess i look back at baseball. at first, you might just have the hitters taking something to get the extra 20, 30, whatever feet on their hits. then, the pitchers realize there's a disadvantage, and they start taking something to throw a little harder, or last a little longer. and back and forth.

Slippery slope arguments are often reasonable and in this case I agree there would be a significant incentive to juice. But again I don't have a problem with guys using chemicals to enhance their training, especially if the primary use is guys trying to recover and guys trying to build mass beyond what their natural frame would hold.

that's emphatically *not* what i want the league to turn into. and sure, we can say everyone would be on X, so the field would be level and strategy would come back in, but again, the next logical outcome i see is someone thinking, 'well if everyone is on X, then i can get on Y and have an advantage!'

like i said before, when games come down to your chemistry sets, i stop caring.

As I've said above I think that even though teams will try and get a chemical advantage that the talent in drug development that discovers/creates these chemicals will see more money in just selling to the league for all 30 teams who would then send trained medical teams to each team to administer the doses. Rather than working out an exclusive deal.

let's follow a different road then... i'm in college, and i'm thinking i could get drafted. but then i think, 'well, if i ran a little faster than the next guy, or was a little stronger, i'd get pushed up' (which already happens, given workout warriors). so i take something to give me that advantage that the other guy initially didn't need because he was just better. now the other guy sees my name jump past, because he's still running a 4.5. so he wants to take something to push himself up.

but worse, imo, is the disastrous effects it would have as it cascaded down. again anecdotally, i already know several guys who were taking things for baseball in high school, because they thought they had to. i'd really rather not see high school football players start thinking they need to take HGH or whatever, just to get to college, or because their parents have dollar signs in their eyes. i can think of few things worse (in context) for one's long term health than messing around with stuff like that before your body has even finished growing naturally.

A lot of kids who think they have a shot already do start juicing in High School, I think it's magnificently idiotic, but that's just my opinion. Again these guys want these roids be it because they think they have to or because they want to look even bigger for the ladies or just because they like sticking things in their butt. I don't care about the motivation because it doesn't matter, what matters is that the kids want the roids so they'll go after them whether they're allowed or not and testing will never keep up with steroid development, especially as these chemicals get more and more specialized for each individual athlete.

so in the end, yes, some folks will have that choice and will make the right choice for themselves. some folks will feel pressured into it, because a scholarship is the only way to get to college, or because an nfl salary is the only way out of wherever they came from (i think you can see the salary effect fairly clearly in the nba, where players with no realistic shot of being drafted will declare because someone convinces them they can).

sorry for taking so long to respond to this, these last few days have been absolute chaos. Anyways my responses in bold but to summarize I don't disagree with your slippery slope argument, although I'm not completely sure that's how it would play it either. What I do believe is that we won't eradicate steroids in sports and as time goes on it'll be harder and harder to test them which is why I think the league should step in and say that if players want to juice the league will provide them with chemicals and medical advice to try and limit the long term damage as well maximizing the effectiveness of the steroids so that players don't need to abuse them as badly.

Ultimately I still think football will always be decided by coaching, strategery, preparation and motivation, team chemistry, health, the toughness, skill, experience, instincts and heart of the players. Of course athleticism is important but there are elite athletes on all teams. Strength and long speed, which steroids help with right?, are important, but they aren't what makes the good teams good and the bad ones bad.