Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Terry Bradshaw admits to steroid use in 70's

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by njx9
    stop it.
    If I could give you a high five, I would.

    Pick the Winners Champion 2008 | 2011

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jay View Post
      But hey, apparently it took a rule/law to tell us that it's not OK to segregate the school system, so it must have been morally OK when they did it and those laws weren't there...
      You make terrible analogies.
      http://i38.tinypic.com/2aj2s7t.jpg
      For a good time call (303) 499-7111.whitspacsig by steel man

      United: "I actually went to the college I root for"

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by awfullyquiet View Post
        You make terrible analogies.
        that's an understatement


        Follow me on Twitter! http://twitter.com/#!/aMo_Captain

        Comment


        • #34
          Iron curtain my ass. Now we know the real reason ****-burg won those 'ships. Tainted.
          This entire post is a joke.

          Comment


          • #35
            It was legal and a ton of players took them. Nothing wrong with that or too surprising. Health wise it creates problems, but it enhances performance and thats a choice he made. Now since its against the rules its wrong.

            Comment


            • #36
              I'm going to try to avoid using the terms "right" and "wrong" here.

              I disagree with the sentiment that what Bradshaw did was all hunky-dory when measured against the use of steroids in today's football, simply because there weren't rules in place prohibiting it. Rules strive to a standard that we all hope to strive to, but they are in no way, shape, or form the definition of what is okay and what is not okay.

              I also disagree that putting something into your body to enhance your performance is on par with a questionable tactic you employ with your body (nxj brought up Dick Lane's tendency to horsecollar and Deacon Jones' headslap). They are fundamentally different.

              This isn't about punishment and this isn't about how "tainted" the Steelers epic run in the 1970's is now because of this. This is about how we look at one of the more visible figures in football the last 30 years of the sport. Personally, I'm ecstatic that Bradshaw talked semi-frankly about the issue, because that's what we really need. But I do believe this will somewhat impact Bradshaw's image, and by all rights it should (whatever that means).

              Comment


              • #37
                *

                Just like the Patriots.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I think that this gives two different main arguments to look at, the first being whether or not this would be considered on the same level of cheating as the people busted for steroids and other abuses today, and the second being how it effects the measuring of players from different eras.

                  The first, in terms of cheating, is very unfounded. It was clearly not a violation back then, which essentially makes them grandfathered into it. Terry Bradshaw's, as well as the other users of the era's, performance may have been greatly effected by the use of steroids, but that does not give a reason to brand them cheaters. Who knows what will be legal and illegal in the NFL in 30 years? While they may have known it would effect their performance and health, there was nothing immoral done that should label Terry Bradshaw a cheater, simply because he did not anticipate a rule that would come later. In that regard, it is certainly different from the players who intentionally broke the rules today.

                  Now, for the second argument it absolutely does contain a lot of relevance. There is a tendenecy when comparing players from the earlier eras of the NFL to the modern era, to use the crutch that "technology and training methods are much more advanced" or that "steroids are being abused by athletes these days". While Terry Bradshaw coming out to say that he used steroids doesn't automatically label every player from a previous decade steroid users, it is important to note that not only were steroids prevalent, but legal in those days. Therefore the argument of advanced training is somewhat diminsihed when you consider that players are no longer allowed to use steroids or HGH, legally at least, which gives players from the earlier days a distinct advantage.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JK17 View Post
                    The first, in terms of cheating, is very unfounded. It was clearly not a violation back then, which essentially makes them grandfathered into it. Terry Bradshaw's, as well as the other users of the era's, performance may have been greatly effected by the use of steroids, but that does not give a reason to brand them cheaters. Who knows what will be legal and illegal in the NFL in 30 years? While they may have known it would effect their performance and health, there was nothing immoral done that should label Terry Bradshaw a cheater, simply because he did not anticipate a rule that would come later. In that regard, it is certainly different from the players who intentionally broke the rules today.
                    Morality is not based upon rules or laws. Rather, rules and laws try to strive to a level of morality. Bradshaw broke no rule, but that doesn't mean it doesn't change how people view his career. Furthermore, saying what you said creates an environment where the onus of creating a fair and level playing field falls completely upon the the organizing body and not the players. Bradshaw made a choice and is now due to receive whatever opinions people have about that, even if it calling him a cheater.

                    Now, for the second argument it absolutely does contain a lot of relevance. There is a tendenecy when comparing players from the earlier eras of the NFL to the modern era, to use the crutch that "technology and training methods are much more advanced" or that "steroids are being abused by athletes these days". While Terry Bradshaw coming out to say that he used steroids doesn't automatically label every player from a previous decade steroid users, it is important to note that not only were steroids prevalent, but legal in those days. Therefore the argument of advanced training is somewhat diminsihed when you consider that players are no longer allowed to use steroids or HGH, legally at least, which gives players from the earlier days a distinct advantage.
                    I don't think the argument loses any sort of relevance. In the 1980's, the Oakland Raiders ran a 3-4 defensive front with a nose tackle weighing a grand total of 260 lbs. Today, having a nose tackle who weighs short of 310 lbs. is considered a major risk. Every era of every sport has had performance enhancers, but todays athletes are visibly bigger, stronger, and faster than in the past, and I don't think there's any doubt about that.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I think it's quite refreshing to see a player (now, or ex) be so candid about something like this. In a day and age where every response from a player is PC and, essentially, a non-answer, it's nice to have someone be straightforward and real about something.

                      Originally posted by fenikz
                      His soft D really turns me off
                      ** RIP themaninblack. You will be missed. **

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by BrentN View Post
                        If I could give you a high five, I would.


                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Holy mackerel!
                          I didn't think a has-been admitting to doing something tons of players used would generate so much buzz.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Paranoidmoonduck View Post
                            Morality is not based upon rules or laws. Rather, rules and laws try to strive to a level of morality. Bradshaw broke no rule, but that doesn't mean it doesn't change how people view his career. Furthermore, saying what you said creates an environment where the onus of creating a fair and level playing field falls completely upon the the organizing body and not the players. Bradshaw made a choice and is now due to receive whatever opinions people have about that, even if it calling him a cheater.
                            What choice did he make? To follow the rules and advance his career in a completely legal way? What was he supposed to do, look at people bettering their performance all around him and opt not to do it, because in 20 years someone might decide, hey that seems odd? I said its fine to think of his career in a different light but to say its no different then Barry Bonds, or Shawne Merriman is off base, being as they deliberately broke a rule, whereas Bradshaw finds himself caught up becasue the rules changed since he retired. Again, its not like im saying you can't view his performance or personality differently, but to give him the brand "cheater" because today it is against the rules is silly. Morality, your right, is not directly based on rules or laws. Perhaps that was the wrong word choice, but that has absolutely no relevance on my point, which was about cheating, and not the "morally" right thing to do. And why wouldn't the onus of maintaing an even playing field fall on the organizing body? Isn't that what they are in place for, to organize and regulate the field? And please explain how exactly it would be justified to call Terry Bradshaw a cheater, without having broken a rule. You haven't offered anything remotely close to show that he is justified being called a cheater, just perhaps that he made an immoral choice, which again, was not my argument, rather a poor word choice.

                            Originally posted by Paranoidmoonduck View Post
                            I don't think the argument loses any sort of relevance. In the 1980's, the Oakland Raiders ran a 3-4 defensive front with a nose tackle weighing a grand total of 260 lbs. Today, having a nose tackle who weighs short of 310 lbs. is considered a major risk. Every era of every sport has had performance enhancers, but todays athletes are visibly bigger, stronger, and faster than in the past, and I don't think there's any doubt about that.
                            Yes, today the players are bigger on both sides of the ball, which generally neutralizes the advantage a defensvie or offensive player would have. Yes of course, it gives a player in 2008 a direct advantage when matching up with a player from say 1980, however when people compare numbers, as they often do between different time frames, it makes no difference that the players are bigger today, as they are going up against bigger players, with the same advantages they have. However, unlike in previous eras, they are not allowed to use steroids. I do understand what you are saying, and I'm shifting more towards the middle from my original argument on this point, however nothing aggravates me more then hearing "if player A from the 70's had today's technology he would dominate the NFL". In all likelihood, he would still be just as good of a player, but people tend to act as if these players would suddenly be gaining a massive leg up on the playing field, however they would still have to face the competition of today then, and not be able to simply dominate players from a pervious era. I'm not doubting today's players have more equipment training, and other advantages, but don'y discount the benefits the players of the earlier eras were able to sneak in that would not be allowed today.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Its not really THAT bad for a QB or a kicker imo, its not like their muscle size has a lot to with the position.

                              Don't attack me for this, just saying this shouldn't taint the championships he won because they were a team effort and they in no way helped him have the moxy or smarts he needed to quarterback those games.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by njx9
                                are you incapable of reading? when did i even remotely suggest anything about your terrible slavery argument? what the hell does that have to do with anything? again, cheating with respect to a competition has utterly nothing to do with deliberately subjugating an entire race and abusing them and you should be bloody ashamed for being so pathetically hyperbolic to suggest that they do. you've utterly lost all grip with reality you may have ever had.
                                If I could say it really slow I would, but this is the internet so that just won't work will it?

                                There was a time... in this country... where it was legal to own black people as slaves. It wasn't against the rules. Did that make it OK?

                                There was a time... in professional sports... where it was not against the rules to do steroids. Does that make it OK?

                                The answer, in both cases, is absolutely not. Everyone knew it was wrong then, in both cases, and they know it is wrong now. Period. You make the mistake of trying to put so much more thought into the situation instead of breaking it down to the bare essentials.

                                Just because something is not against the rules, doesn't make it right. I'm saying there were stupid rules. The steroid use of the 70's is the REASON it is against the rules and law today. Rules don't change without a reason. And we can sit here and play semantics with words all you want.

                                You can spend minutes of your time talking about much choice of the word SHADY instead of focusing on the point at hand: someone looked at the rule book and said "hey, it doesn't say we can't put adhesive on our hands to help us catch the ball." The league found out, and made the rule.

                                A football team out there looked at the rule book and said "hey, based on this, we can film defensive signals from these locations." The league found out, sent out a clarifying memo and from there on the team should have stopped. I have intentionally tried to not make this about that, but it's just another classic case of the hypocrisy that exists when dealing with these things.

                                Bottom line, it was wrong then and it was wrong now. All of it. I don't care who had the rules on their side, all of it was wrong regardless of how rules read, and everyone involved knew it. Just like there wasn't a rule that said you could not do steroids, there wasn't a rule that said you could, and, typical America, it took some jackass dying before they decided "hey, you know this just ain't right."

                                But I guess people that need rules that say "hey, you can't take steroids" are the same people that need labels on toasters that say "hey, don't throw me into a bathtub"...
                                Last edited by Jay; 06-25-2008, 07:46 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information