'Rash' of positive test for steroid policy - Page 2

awfullyquiet · 10-24-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingElvis

^ Right. The banned substances list is available. It is the responsibility of the club & player to ensure they are in compliance.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Substance policy isn't the 'steroids policy' though. These players are for 'substance' policy, not steroids policy as the article is reporting. If the league is pursuing them for steroids related infractions, the league is out of line...

Watchman · 10-24-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awfullyquiet

Substance policy isn't the 'steroids policy' though. These players are for 'substance' policy, not steroids policy as the article is reporting. If the league is pursuing them for steroids related infractions, the league is out of line...

I don't know if they are one in the same or not. If they aren't, what is the penalty for testing positive for a banned substance? I don't see why the NFL would have a "banned substance" policy and a separate "steriod policy". Seems like it all relates to stuff you can't take or you'll pay the price.

awfullyquiet · 10-24-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watchman

I don't know if they are one in the same or not. If they aren't, what is the penalty for testing positive for a banned substance? I don't see why the NFL would have a "banned substance" policy and a separate "steriod policy". Seems like it all relates to stuff you can't take or you'll pay the price.

iirc, the steroids policy was newer, and harsher, than the substance policy.

Borat · 10-24-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awfullyquiet

Wow. that's stupid.

"Under the NFL’s steroid policy, a player’s first positive test results in a four-game suspension."

Um... is Bumetanide a steroid? No. Why are these players being subject to steroid policy if they're 'not on steroids'... i don't care if they are or aren't... but the fact is, they DID NOT TEST POSITIVE FOR STEROIDS. therefore, they shouldn't be subject to a policy designed for steroids.

AQ, the league views "masking agents" like this Bumetanide product the same as actual steroids.

FlyingElvis · 10-24-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borat Sagdiyev

AQ, the league views "masking agents" like this Bumetanide product the same as actual steroids.

This was the impression I got from the article linked. Because it can be used as a masking agent it gets lumped in w/the steroid policy. But I am not sure if there is a difference between "Banned Substance" and "Steroid" in the eyes of the league. It may be 2 separate policies - but I've always interpreted stories about effedra & such as part of one "banned substance" list.

awfullyquiet · 10-24-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borat Sagdiyev

AQ, the league views "masking agents" like this Bumetanide product the same as actual steroids.

Then, i have a beef with this decision and with that policy.

from the tribune today...

"Diuretics also can be used as masking agents. When used in that capacity the diuretic dilutes the urine, which results in lower levels of the banned substance being excreted from the body. That can make it more difficult to detect banned substances."

But it doesn't mean it's impossible, and yes, these players are on diuretics, some of them can probably use diuretics.

edit: if there's no evidence that they did do steroids, this pill shouldn't be under such a harsh because it does have some legitimate usage. whereas, i don't disagree with the possible suspension of players (if it's on the list, don't use it. duh... i'm sure we can all agree with that), but i do think it's ridiculous that it's on the list.

i can think of the game that cyclists and the world anti-doping agency (and it's french counterparts) have played for years, where the wada now has the strictest drug policy and the best testing internationally (although, i still believe the french manage to screw up testing protocol)... they're not satisfied with saying 'you took masking agents'. no. especially with something as simple as diuretics. they'd be looking at miniscule parts per whatever of steroids compared to parts per whatever of bumetinide... make a ratio... and figure out if the trail of time on steroids.

basically. this goes to the NFL. get better testing. don't punish players for substances that aren't performance enhancing... if you want to prove they're doing steroids or other illegal drugs... prove they're doing them.

Mr. Stiller · 10-24-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awfullyquiet

Then, i have a beef with this decision and with that policy.

from the tribune today...

"Diuretics also can be used as masking agents. When used in that capacity the diuretic dilutes the urine, which results in lower levels of the banned substance being excreted from the body. That can make it more difficult to detect banned substances."

But it doesn't mean it's impossible, and yes, these players are on diuretics, some of them can probably use diuretics.

edit: if there's no evidence that they did do steroids, this pill shouldn't be under such a harsh because it does have some legitimate usage. whereas, i don't disagree with the possible suspension of players (if it's on the list, don't use it. duh... i'm sure we can all agree with that), but i do think it's ridiculous that it's on the list.

i can think of the game that cyclists and the world anti-doping agency (and it's french counterparts) have played for years, where the wada now has the strictest drug policy and the best testing internationally (although, i still believe the french manage to screw up testing protocol)... they're not satisfied with saying 'you took masking agents'. no. especially with something as simple as diuretics. they'd be looking at miniscule parts per whatever of steroids compared to parts per whatever of bumetinide... make a ratio... and figure out if the trail of time on steroids.

basically. this goes to the NFL. get better testing. don't punish players for substances that aren't performance enhancing... if you want to prove they're doing steroids or other illegal drugs... prove they're doing them.

It only "Masks" their urine. And with Synthetic Urine and the likes... why not use Hair samples?

You can't "Mask it" and it's much easier and detectable.

awfullyquiet · 10-24-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stiller

It only "Masks" their urine. And with Synthetic Urine and the likes... why not use Hair samples?

You can't "Mask it" and it's much easier and detectable.

exactly. the nfl can't be stuck in the 90's.

Bruce Banner · 10-24-2008, 05:17 PM

The league(s) need(s) to step up to the plate and pay for blood testing.

They can't continue to half ass it.

SaintsMan · 10-24-2008, 05:20 PM

And I thought losing Reggie was the final blow. No Deuce or Smith for 4 weeks would put the nail in the coffin.

Flyboy · 10-24-2008, 05:24 PM

*shakes head*

I have no words at this point.

I'm going to go to the corner where Geo can console me. :(

Saints-Tigers · 10-24-2008, 05:34 PM

We'll probably win the next 4, get everyone healthy, and falter and fall to 8 and 8, getting a ****** pick, and no playoff berth.

SaintsMan · 10-24-2008, 05:44 PM

Yeah, if the Saints are going to lose, hopefully we end up with a high draft pick. We need another impact Defensive player like Sedrick Ellis. But I hope we can put some wins together and make the playoffs.

Geo · 10-24-2008, 05:54 PM

All of these guys are in the process of appeal I believe, so if there is still a suspension coming, it's not necessarily coming next week.

In the case of McAllister at least, he might try and delay it a bit so that it's spaced closer to Bush's return. If not, the Saints still have Pierre Thomas and also Aaron Stecker, I think they are going to come into the picture with Deuce anyways as guys who can come in and try to fill for Reggie, slash a bit and receive the ball. Thomas can do more than that.

Losing Will Smith is tough, a guy like McCray can play in his stead but it's a different dynamic than at RB.

awfullyquiet · 10-24-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo

All of these guys are in the process of appeal I believe, so if there is still a suspension coming, it's not necessarily coming next week.

In the case of McAllister at least, he might try and delay it a bit so that it's spaced closer to Bush's return. If not, the Saints still have Pierre Thomas and also Aaron Stecker, I think they are going to come into the picture with Deuce anyways as guys who can come in and try to fill for Reggie, slash a bit and receive the ball. Thomas can do more than that.

Losing Will Smith is tough, a guy like McCray can play in his stead but it's a different dynamic than at RB.

note to self: don't pick up thomas or stecker on the FA FF market.

Geo · 10-24-2008, 06:07 PM

My waiver claim for Thomas was successful, I'm pleased to say.

As was my later waiver claim for Greg Camarillo.

No I didn't test positive for anything. :)

iloxygenil · 10-24-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo

All of these guys are in the process of appeal I believe, so if there is still a suspension coming, it's not necessarily coming next week.

In the case of McAllister at least, he might try and delay it a bit so that it's spaced closer to Bush's return. If not, the Saints still have Pierre Thomas and also Aaron Stecker, I think they are going to come into the picture with Deuce anyways as guys who can come in and try to fill for Reggie, slash a bit and receive the ball. Thomas can do more than that.

Losing Will Smith is tough, a guy like McCray can play in his stead but it's a different dynamic than at RB.

Stecker is reportedly another player caught up in this scandal...so that'd leave them with just Thomas.

Geo · 10-24-2008, 06:16 PM

Time for Sean Payton to go back to his Giants days and call, well Tiki Barber is still retired, but here comes the Dayne Train! Ron Dayne, woot woot

And maybe Mike Bell.

Tatum Bell, keep waiting for that call.

FuzzyGopher · 10-24-2008, 07:43 PM

The funny thing is that this substance dehydrates you so much that the muscle can seize and actually tear away. It makes you very prone to serious injury and even organ failure. I know bodybuilders that won't touch this stuff and they take enough steroids to compete in the Kentucky Derby.

Also this is not a OTC product, it is prescription only so it's not like they bought it from GNC and didn't know what they were getting. They either bought it online from an overseas source or a Dr. hooked them up.

CC.SD · 10-24-2008, 08:32 PM

So when do we get the complete list? Great to hear that Deuce and Will Smith have been outed but won't get suspended in time for it to make any difference to the Chargers. Here's hoping backup WR Malcolm Floyd has a big game against the Saints, rumor around the Charger boards is that he might be on it too.

BlindSite · 10-24-2008, 09:40 PM

Yeah, can we please not have everyone acting like Morons and saying everyone on the saints organization is on roids. So far they haven't been proven to be using any steroids at all.

SaintsMan · 10-24-2008, 10:04 PM

Add Charles Grant to the list. :(

Saints-Tigers · 10-24-2008, 11:03 PM

To be honest, I LOVE Deuce, but it would explain how he's come back so strong and fast from this previous injury.

dunagan15 · 10-25-2008, 12:43 AM

where are yall getting the extra players other than Duece and Smith that are on this list??

yourfavestoner · 10-25-2008, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awfullyquiet

Substance policy isn't the 'steroids policy' though. These players are for 'substance' policy, not steroids policy as the article is reporting. If the league is pursuing them for steroids related infractions, the league is out of line...

There is no 'steroids policy' per se. Steroids, and the weight loss pills that these players tested positive for, all fall under the 'performance enhancing drugs' policy. Recreational drugs fall under the 'substance abuse' policy.

Testing positive for a 'performance enhancer' incurs an automatic four-week suspension. Testing positive for a recreational drug will result in a warning and automatic enrollment into the league's Substance Abuse Program. A second offense results in a four week suspension. A third results in a one year ban. Because its the league's policy to be confidential concerning failed drug tests and punishments (usually, it's the team or player's agent that leaks the news to the media), you oftentimes don't even know that a player is in the Substance Abuse Program and has been caught once before.