Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Terry Bradshaw admits to steroid use in 70's

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

  • #61
    You know what, I had this super long, awesome post written chalk full of awesome one liners and cute little catch phrases to match njx9 blow for blow, but I've decided to take a different approach.

    Instead of all that, I am going to compliment njx9. I have nothing but respect for you dude. I have respect for you because you say your piece and you don't hide. I don't agree with your opinion, and I could (and did) continue to dispute it until we're both blue in the face, but it's irrelevant. It's pretty easy to be on the popular side of the debate, especially with your little cheerleaders running around trying to act awesome. That's not your fault, of course, because god knows you weren't asking them to and probably have no ******* clue what I am talking about.

    But I'll give you credit for having the balls to say something and stick to it, even though people may disagree, unlike the six chicken shits that felt the need to hit me with negative rep without bringing it to the table publicly because they have nothing to say. I think I've proven time and time again that I could give a flying **** about the biggest mistake this message board ever made, because if I did, I'd take the popular side of every argument and suck up to everyone like these six unnamed girls seem to like to do.

    But **** that. I call it like I see it. You don't like what I have to say? Bring it. Don't hide behind some stupid popularity system that does more harm to this site then it does good. At least I have the balls to voice my opinion, regardless of who may or may not agree.

    So in conclusion, I don't really think either one of us cares who ends up being right or wrong here, and I'm not even going to sit here and take any of the personal jabs you tried to lob at me while misrepresenting what I said. We both made points, we both have people that agree and I don't think either one of us really cares. But I'd rather fight the fight with someone like you that actually has something to bring to the table any day over half the cowards that infest this board.

    Seriously people. Grow up.

    njx9, until next time. We both know there will be one...

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by njx9
      why was taking a legal substance morally wrong? are players who currently take things like creatine morally wrong? what about players who used epehdra before it was banned? what, exactly, do morals have to do with anything? bad argument.
      I do think there is something intrinsic to the idea of putting a chemical in your body which enhances physical performance. Morality isn't really something that should enter the conversation, but gaining an unnatural leg-up is something that goes directly against the idea of fair play, which is the standard competitive sports is built on (and I don't buy the argument that since steroids were legal, the field was level).

      Remember, any evidence that suggests Barry Bonds took steroids indicates he did so before Major League baseball had official rules directly contradicting taking certain performance enhancers, and way before the MLB had any rules in place that had any teeth to them whatsoever. People don't feel slighted by Bonds because he broke a rule, they feel cheated because they think he reached the pinnacle of baseball greatness in an unfair manner.

      Rules prohibiting steroid use come from the idea that their use violates fair play. That idea has been around as long as sport has existed. Just because a governing bodies rule book hadn't caught up to performance enhancing technology in 1970's doesn't mean that steroids are somehow magically "okay".

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Jay View Post
        I'd take the popular side of every argument and suck up to everyone like these six unnamed girls seem to like to do.
        Well. I'm not unnamed. Thanks.

        Originally posted by Jay View Post

        So in conclusion, I don't really think either one of us cares who ends up being right or wrong here, and I'm not even going to sit here and take any of the personal jabs you tried to lob at me while misrepresenting what I said. We both made points, we both have people that agree and I don't think either one of us really cares. But I'd rather fight the fight with someone like you that actually has something to bring to the table any day over half the cowards that infest this board.

        Seriously people. Grow up.
        What everyone's busting your balls for are this: the fact that you bring up slavery for no purpose. You try to make some dramatic point with it, but in reality, you just have stooped down to Godwin's Law level. The fact that every argument will be continually debased by some over the top-shock-value-comparison... well. you did that pretty well.

        And then we're not even getting into your fantastic and overwhelming homerism when it involves boston. That and your fight to the death to try to defend something ridiculous.
        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


        • #64
          Originally posted by awfullyquiet View Post
          you just have stooped down to Godwin's Law level.
          Ah, Usenet. Good times.

          Pick the Winners Champion 2008 | 2011

          Comment


          • #65
            I don't see this as a big deal at all. To think that he was the only person taking steroids is ridiculous but it seems like most of us seem to agree on that. I don't think anybody should be mad at anyone for taking legal steroids either. As a professional athlete, it makes complete sense to try to gain every legal advantage you can.

            The slave example is bad. Taking legal steroids is not a 'moral' decision at all. A better example I think would be if, in 5 years, it was discovered weightlifting had terrible effects and it was banned. Nobody would look down on today's athletes for lifting.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Crickett View Post
              Which is the point of this thread, or didn't anyone notice it was notice it was posted by the guy who would defend Bill Belicheat and Shady Brady actually selling their souls?
              I knew that from the minute the thread was made.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by njx9
                why was taking a legal substance morally wrong? are players who currently take things like creatine morally wrong? what about players who used epehdra before it was banned? what, exactly, do morals have to do with anything? bad argument.
                I guess 'morally' isnt the right word im looking for. I'm not sure how to phrase it. I've always viewed putting some sort of substance into your body that causes harm for a competitive advantage is wrong, or IMO lazy. I understand you still have to work out like mad even with steroids, and that they serve no purpose if you do otherwise, but you can achieve a high level physically without performance enhancing substances (obviously). As far as creatine goes, it offers a much smaller chance of gain than the illegal performance inhancing drugs we have been discussing, too small for me to consider them to be bad, i guess.
                Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins, Texas Longhorns

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Bigburt63 View Post
                  I guess 'morally' isnt the right word im looking for. I'm not sure how to phrase it. I've always viewed putting some sort of substance into your body that causes harm for a competitive advantage is wrong, or IMO lazy. I understand you still have to work out like mad even with steroids, and that they serve no purpose if you do otherwise, but you can achieve a high level physically without performance enhancing substances (obviously). As far as creatine goes, it offers a much smaller chance of gain than the illegal performance inhancing drugs we have been discussing, too small for me to consider them to be bad, i guess.
                  Steroids weren't considered harmful in the 70s like they are today.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Duster View Post
                    Steroids weren't considered harmful in the 70s like they are today.
                    i know tests were being done to determine the full extent of their effects, so it was not entirely known what they do to the human body. but at the same time, the old idiom of 'if its too good to be true it probably isn't' applies. common sense dictates that there has to be some sort of negative effect from putting a substance like that into your body that gives such great results.
                    Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins, Texas Longhorns

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Bigburt63 View Post
                      i know tests were being done to determine the full extent of their effects, so it was not entirely known what they do to the human body. but at the same time, the old idiom of 'if its too good to be true it probably isn't' applies. common sense dictates that there has to be some sort of negative effect from putting a substance like that into your body that gives such great results.
                      Are you kidding me? There are plenty of substances that we put into our body that provide beneficial results with little or no negative side effects.

                      Further, if a doctor was giving you this drug to treat an injury, would you not think it was safe and effective?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        treating an injury is completely different. the drugs they use to treat and heal injuries are far less potent than the drugs in question. for example, when someone gets a very bad case of poison ivy a low grade steroid is prescribed for treatment.

                        i would like to know what substances we put in our body that provide the same level of advantages as steroids that carry no harmful side effects (excluding medicines to treat diseases and such, even though those sometimes carry negative effects)
                        Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins, Texas Longhorns

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Bigburt63 View Post
                          treating an injury is completely different. the drugs they use to treat and heal injuries are far less potent than the drugs in question. for example, when someone gets a very bad case of poison ivy a low grade steroid is prescribed for treatment.

                          i would like to know what substances we put in our body that provide the same level of advantages as steroids that carry no harmful side effects (excluding medicines to treat diseases and such, even though those sometimes carry negative effects)
                          Did you even bother to read the article?

                          Bradshaw didn't use steroids for the performance-enhancing qualities, he used them to heal faster from injuries. At the time, steroids were seen as an effective method to heal injuries (which they are, but they pose a health risk as well).

                          If 10 years from now we find out anti-inflammatory drugs cause cancer are you going to look down on athletes who used them? Or people in general?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Duster View Post
                            Did you even bother to read the article?

                            Bradshaw didn't use steroids for the performance-enhancing qualities, he used them to heal faster from injuries. At the time, steroids were seen as an effective method to heal injuries (which they are, but they pose a health risk as well).

                            If 10 years from now we find out anti-inflammatory drugs cause cancer are you going to look down on athletes who used them? Or people in general?
                            i am aware, but i wasnt referring to him specifically, moreso the overall use of steroids in the era.
                            Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins, Texas Longhorns

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I hate to say it but if there are no rules stopping it...then its fine to do


                              If it was legal to take roids, im pretty sure 95% of the current NFL would....its not so they cant/and shouldnt

                              If weed was legal TONS of people would smoke...and Guess what...IT WOULDNT BE BAD

                              If alcohol was Illegal it would then be wrong for someone to drink


                              IF Somthing is legal then go for it
                              Last edited by Denver Bronco99; 06-30-2008, 01:18 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information