What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Steroids: Why We Look the Other Way (1 Viewer)

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Why we look the other way

By Chuck Klosterman

ESPN The Magazine

This article appears in the March 26 issue of ESPN The Magazine

Shawne Merriman weighs 272 pounds.

This is six pounds less than Anthony Muñoz, probably the most dominating left tackle of all time. Shawne Merriman also runs the 40-yard dash in 4.61 seconds. When Jerry Rice attended the NFL draft combine in 1985, he reportedly ran a 4.60; Rice would go on to gain more than 23,000 all-purpose yards while scoring 207 career touchdowns.

You do not need Mel Kiper's hard drive to deduce what these numbers mean: As an outside linebacker, Shawne Merriman is almost as big as the best offensive tackle who ever played and almost as fast as the best wide receiver who ever played. He is a rhinoceros who moves like a deer. Common sense suggests this combination should not be possible. It isn't.

Merriman was suspended from the San Diego Chargers for four games last season after testing positive for the anabolic steroid nandrolone. He argues this was the accidental result of a tainted nutritional supplement. "I think two out of 10 people will always believe I did something intentional, or still think I'm doing something," Merriman has said. If this is truly what he believes, no one will ever accuse him of pragmatism. Virtually everyone who follows football assumes Merriman used drugs to turn himself into the kind of hitting machine who can miss four games and still lead the league with 17 sacks. He has been caught and penalized, and the public shall forever remain incredulous of who he is and what he does.

The public knows the truth, or at least part of it. And knowing this partial truth, the public will return to ignoring this conundrum almost entirely.

The public will respond by renewing its subscription to NFL Sunday Ticket, where it will regularly watch dozens of 272-pound men accelerate at speeds that would have made them Olympic sprinters during the 1960s. This, it seems, is the contemporary relationship most people have with drugs and pro football: unconditional distrust of anyone who tests positive, balanced by an unconscious willingness to overlook all the physical impossibilities they see. This is partially understandable; socially, sports serve an escapist purpose. Football players are real people, but they exist in a constructed nonreality. Within the context of any given game, nobody cares how a certain linebacker got so big while remaining so fast. Part of what makes football successful is its detachment from day-to-day life. For 60 minutes, it subsists in a vacuum. But this detachment is going to become more complicated in the coming years, mostly because reality is evolving, becoming harder to block out. And the Evolved Reality is this: It's starting to feel like a significant segment of the NFL is on drugs.

As a consequence, you will have to make some decisions.

Not commissioner Roger Goodell.

You.

On Feb. 27, federal, state and local authorities seized the records of an Orlando pharmacy, accusing the owners of running an online bazaar for performance-enhancing drugs. This came on the heels of a raid on a similar enterprise in Mobile, Ala., where the customer list apparently included recognizable names like boxer Evander Holyfield and late-blooming outfielder Gary Matthews Jr.

None of this is particularly shocking.

But then there is the case of Richard Rydze. In 2006 Rydze, an internist, purchased $150,000 of testosterone and human growth hormone from the Florida pharmacy over the Internet. This is not against the law. However, Rydze is a physician for the Pittsburgh Steelers. He says he never prescribed any of those drugs to members of the team, and I cannot prove otherwise. However, the Steelers have had a complicated relationship with performance enhancers for a long time. Offensive lineman Steve Courson (now deceased) admitted he used steroids while playing for Pittsburgh in the 1970s and early '80s, as did at least four other guys. Former Saints coach Jim Haslett, a player in Buffalo from 1979 to 1985, has said the old Steelers dynasty essentially ran on steroids. The team, obviously, denies this.

Several members of the Carolina Panthers' 2004 Super Bowl team were implicated in a steroid scandal involving Dr. James Shortt, a private practitioner in West Columbia, S.C. One of these players was punter Todd Sauerbrun. Do not mitigate the significance of this point: The punter was taking steroids. The punter had obtained syringes and injectable Stanozolol, the same chemical Ben Johnson used before the 1988 Olympics. I'm not suggesting punters aren't athletes, nor am I overlooking how competitive the occupation of punting must be; I'm merely pointing out that it's kind of crazy to think punters would be taking steroids but defensive tackles would not. We all concede that steroids, HGH and blood doping can help people ride bicycles faster through the Alps. Why do we even momentarily question how much impact they must have on a game built entirely on explosion and power?

"People may give a certain amount of slack to football players because there's this unspoken sense that in order to play the game well, you need an edge," USC critical studies professor Todd Boyd told the Los Angeles Times last month. Boyd has written several books about sports, race and culture. "That's what people want in a football player -- someone who's crazy and mean."

It's a subtle paradox: People choose to ignore the relationship between performance enhancers and the NFL because it's unquestionably the league where performance enhancers would have the biggest upside. But what will happen when such deliberate naïveté becomes impossible? Revelatory drug scandals tend to escalate exponentially (look at Major League Baseball and U.S. track and field). Merriman, Sauerbrun and the other 33 players suspended by the NFL since 2002 could be exceptions; it seems far more plausible they are not. We are likely on the precipice of a bubble that is going to burst. But if it does, how are we supposed to feel about it? Does this invalidate the entire sport, or does it barely matter at all?

This is where things become complicated.
Click here to read the rest of the article . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
People choose to ignore the relationship between performance enhancers and the NFL because it's unquestionably the league where performance enhancers would have the biggest upside.

Totally wrong.

People chose to ignore it, because the NFL has been testing for drugs forever. They are in the lead in this category and even ahead of the olympic body.

The problem for the NFL is - you cant test players 24/7/365. You cant beat out the designer drugs. Its hard when you are stuck at being reactionary.

They are not perfect, but if anyone wants to start throwing rocks... you had better start at the high school level. Or none of it means spit.

Baseball got a bad rap because they were not testing or punishing at all.

The problem for Merriman is... he is product of steroids. Good or bad. For it or against it.

PS: Im on record saying it should be legal for doctors to write the RX for adults. And legal for adults to use (not abuse) it under physician guidance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I look the other way because I have a brain. All these guys don't get that huge naturally. It's common sense.

eta: I also don't care that they are on steroids. More power to 'em. Just do your job and entertain me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
People choose to ignore the relationship between performance enhancers and the NFL because it's unquestionably the league where performance enhancers would have the biggest upside.

Totally wrong.
Can you name me a sport where being bigger, faster and stronger would have a bigger impact?
PS: Im on record saying it should be legal for doctors to write the RX for adults. And legal for adults to use (not abuse) it under physician guidance.
What is your stance on cyanide again? This stuff kills people after they hit 40. There is no way to not abuse it. You are adding extra hormones to your body. Your body than stops producing as much hormones (because there is already too much in the system), Then when these guys get off the juice the problems are just starting. Every kid thinks he is indistructable. And no one wants to die or suffer.Personally I think it shouldn't be legal in any shape or form.

And I don't think it should be the leagues responsibility to enforce this either. This one is on the government. The FDA should have been on this (and are now) like white on rice making arrests.

Believe me, this steroids issue is just beginning. The legal eagles are simply amassing evidence at this point. At some point they will begin indicting.

Great article MT. Thank you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
People choose to ignore the relationship between performance enhancers and the NFL because it's unquestionably the league where performance enhancers would have the biggest upside.

Totally wrong.
Can you name me a sport where being bigger, faster and stronger would have a bigger impact?
PS: Im on record saying it should be legal for doctors to write the RX for adults. And legal for adults to use (not abuse) it under physician guidance.
What is your stance on cyanide again? This stuff kills people after they hit 40. There is no way to not abuse it. You are adding extra hormones to your body. Your body than stops producing as much hormones (because there is already too much in the system), Then when these guys get off the juice the problems are just starting. Every kid thinks he is indistructable. And no one wants to die or suffer.Personally I think it shouldn't be legal in any shape or form.

And I don't think it should be the leagues responsibility to enforce this either. This one is on the government. The FDA should have been on this (and are now) like white on rice making arrests.

Believe me, this steroids issue is just beginning. The legal eagles are simply amassing evidence at this point. At some point they will begin indicting.

Great article MT. Thank you.
Every sport can use a player bigger, faster, stronger. Olympics sports being numero uno.And please provide one single scientific case finding of steroid death.

Not death from improper syringe use. And not abuse. Which I am positive you are refering to ===> uneducated abuse.

(like you not mentioning post cycle therapy, which is the realm of the uneducated and those people shouldnt be touching it - thus a doctors guidance)

But death from the use of it, especially under the care of a physician. I'll wait.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm with BigSteelThrill on this one. Steriod use (not abuse) under a doctors supervision can be beneficial to a person.

Can you name me a sport where being bigger, faster and stronger would have a bigger impact?
Baseball for one. The season is longer and steriod can help the body recover quicker thus making you available for more games. Plus one guy can win a game for you in baseball. A pitcher that throws a no-hitter as an example. And batters CAN have a bigger impact on the ultimate outcome of the game than a LB.
 
i don't care about PEDs/HGH/etc. at all.

i wish that all professional sports & the olympics stopped trying to catch the users and endorse the fact that athletes at the highest level are chemically enhanced freaks of nature.

 
I'm with BigSteelThrill on this one. Steriod use (not abuse) under a doctors supervision can be beneficial to a person.

Can you name me a sport where being bigger, faster and stronger would have a bigger impact?
Baseball for one. The season is longer and steriod can help the body recover quicker thus making you available for more games. Plus one guy can win a game for you in baseball. A pitcher that throws a no-hitter as an example. And batters CAN have a bigger impact on the ultimate outcome of the game than a LB.
I concede the point.You convinced me. I now think steroids should be mandatory for all professional and amatuer atheletes. At least that would get us back to that pesky even playing field theory.And we should forget about the previous records and history that help us to compare current atheletes to years gone by. Obviously the records people got without enhancement, through hard work and natural ability, shouldn't count anyway. After all, this is a chemical world we live in now, right? Who cares about our history or traditions anyway? :thumbup:
 
I concede the point.You convinced me. I now think steroids should be mandatory for all professional and amatuer atheletes. At least that would get us back to that pesky even playing field theory.And we should forget about the previous records and history that help us to compare current atheletes to years gone by. Obviously the records people got without enhancement, through hard work and natural ability, shouldn't count anyway. After all, this is a chemical world we live in now, right? Who cares about our history or traditions anyway?
Your post assumes that steriods is only a 90s thing and that the players using the steriods don't work hard or have natural ability. Barry Bonds was/is probably one of the top 10 greatest players to ever play the game and that was before he started hitting a ton of home runs. Steriods have been around for a long time, I think they began being used for performance enhancement sometime around the 40s or 50s. Who's to say that Willie Mays or Hank Aaron weren't juicing. We'll never know, but don't act like it just started in the past 10-15 years. It only became illegal to use it during that period. I'm not saying that steriod use should be mandatory, only that the use of steriod should be a personal choice and done under doctor supervision. By banning its use and forcing it underground it only makes its use more dangerous.
 
I look the other way because I have a brain. All these guys don't get that huge naturally. It's common sense.eta: I also don't care that they are on steroids. More power to 'em. Just do your job and entertain me.
That sucks.
what sucks?
"I also don't care that they are on steroids. More power to 'em. Just do your job and entertain me."
Well, that's the truest answer there is.Because really, if someone is violently opposed to steroid use, and still follows the NFL, they are either an outrageous hypocrite, or so ignorant that they shouldn't be allowed to leave the house.As to caring if they are on steroids, I also don't care if a bunch of millionaire strangers take steroids. I don't care if you do, either.
 
As to caring if they are on steroids, I also don't care if a bunch of millionaire strangers take steroids. I don't care if you do, either.
:2cents: These guys know exactly what they are doing. Most/many evidently feel the chance to make huge $$$ and be famous is worth whatever risk comes with the 'roids. I don't care either way. Grown men can make their own decision on the issue.
 
I concede the point.

You convinced me. I now think steroids should be mandatory for all professional and amatuer atheletes. At least that would get us back to that pesky even playing field theory.

And we should forget about the previous records and history that help us to compare current atheletes to years gone by. Obviously the records people got without enhancement, through hard work and natural ability, shouldn't count anyway. After all, this is a chemical world we live in now, right? Who cares about our history or traditions anyway?
Your post assumes that steriods is only a 90s thing and that the players using the steriods don't work hard or have natural ability. Barry Bonds was/is probably one of the top 10 greatest players to ever play the game and that was before he started hitting a ton of home runs. Steriods have been around for a long time, I think they began being used for performance enhancement sometime around the 40s or 50s. Who's to say that Willie Mays or Hank Aaron weren't juicing. We'll never know, but don't act like it just started in the past 10-15 years. It only became illegal to use it during that period. I'm not saying that steriod use should be mandatory, only that the use of steriod should be a personal choice and done under doctor supervision. By banning its use and forcing it underground it only makes its use more dangerous.
Where in that post did he claim that steroid athletes don't work hard or have natural ability? I think it's well-established that steroids enhance certain aspects of performance that require some ability in the first place. Bonds is the obvious example. He was a good power guy in his time. Not great, but very good. Obviously, once he went on growth and 'roids, he became a monster over and above his natural ability. But, he did start with some natural ability.Where is it said that HGH and roids aren't personal choices that are facilitated under doctor supervision? That's the only legitimate way to obtain these drugs. But, that's not how the players are getting the performance enhancers, obviously.

I don't think you quite understand the relationship between personal choice, doctor responsibilities and regulation. Anyone can go see a doctor right now, out of their personal choice, and request to be put on steroids. But, most doctors aren't idiots like these athletes, and they will refuse to provide steroid or HGH treatment because it's totally unwarranted and will, in fact, compromise their health. Regulation of these drugs is appropriate and completely consistent with blood pressure medication, antibiotics, antidepressants, etc. They're not distributing Skittles here. These are serious drugs, and doctors have to depend on the medical necessity before offering a script. You seem to suggest that we bypass this process altogether AND suggest that it be done under doctor supervision. The two don't work together.

These drugs are underground because doctors are a lot smarter than the athletes who are trying to obtain growth and roids. They won't in good conscience prescribe these treatments. Hence, the players are going underground to obtain them. I don't know what you're proposing to do to change that.

 
Where in that post did he claim that steroid athletes don't work hard or have natural ability?
It's implicit in your post when you say this:
Obviously the records people got without enhancement, through hard work and natural ability, shouldn't count anyway.
LOL! at this:
Bonds is the obvious example. He was a good power guy in his time. Not great, but very good. Obviously, once he went on growth and 'roids, he became a monster over and above his natural ability. But, he did start with some natural ability.
He had more than just "some" natural ability. He won 3 MVP awards prior to showing up one year at Giants spring training looking like "the Hulk". He was a HOF player with or without steriods.
Where is it said that HGH and roids aren't personal choices that are facilitated under doctor supervision?
Again when you say this:
I now think steroids should be mandatory for all professional and amatuer atheletes. At least that would get us back to that pesky even playing field theory.
I reply that it should be a personal choice.
I don't think you quite understand the relationship between personal choice, doctor responsibilities and regulation. Anyone can go see a doctor right now, out of their personal choice, and request to be put on steroids. But, most doctors aren't idiots like these athletes, and they will refuse to provide steroid or HGH treatment because it's totally unwarranted and will, in fact, compromise their health.These drugs are underground because doctors are a lot smarter than the athletes who are trying to obtain growth and roids. They won't in good conscience prescribe these treatments. Hence, the players are going underground to obtain them. I don't know what you're proposing to do to change that.
Doctors won't put people on steriods because they've been put on the controlled substance list and are much more afraid of the legal ramifications of prescribing steriods then the potential health problems that steriods may cause.
These are serious drugs, and doctors have to depend on the medical necessity before offering a script. You seem to suggest that we bypass this process altogether AND suggest that it be done under doctor supervision. The two don't work together.
You're a little naive if you don't think this is how it used to work and still does, not just with steriod but with all sort of drugs people get prescribed today. Whether you think it's right or wrong, there are more than a few doctors that really don't give a crap about their patients personal health or well being all they care about is $$$. Drug companies even after the creation of PhRMA codes, shower doctors with gifts, money and trips just so they will prescribe the drugs they are selling. It really doesn't matter whether they work or not. I work on this type of stuff everyday. I get to read how Doctor X prescribed Drug Y even though the data suggests that Drug Z would be more effective for his patient. See Doctors only care about getting paid for their services, and if a person came in to shower them with enough money, they could easily find a medical necessity for anything. You don't find it interesting that the drug industries marketing expenses were more than the research and developement expenses last year.
 
Because really, if someone is violently opposed to steroid use, and still follows the NFL, they are either an outrageous hypocrite, or so ignorant that they shouldn't be allowed to leave the house.
Please explain this abortion of logic.
Sure.Performance enhancers are rampant in the NFL. They are rampant in big-time college football. Heck, they were rampant at the Div 1-AA school I graduated from in '94.

This is pretty well-known, in my opinion. Steroids don't get the coverage that they used to in the media, but that doesn't mean the problem has gone away. It just means the testing hasn't caught up to the cheating. Which isn't news either.

So going under the assumption that any half-wit knows that steroids are a part of the NFL, and every NFL team, I conclude this about the person that claims to be VERY opposed to steroids, and yet follows the NFL:

They are either lying to themselves, and pretending their team doesn't use, while ignoring logic and common sense, or they really believe that steroids are not a big part of the NFL, making them less than a half-wit, and I wouldn't trust them with a paper airplane, let alone issue them a drivers license.

 
LOL! at this:

Bonds is the obvious example. He was a good power guy in his time. Not great, but very good. Obviously, once he went on growth and 'roids, he became a monster over and above his natural ability. But, he did start with some natural ability.
He had more than just "some" natural ability. He won 3 MVP awards prior to showing up one year at Giants spring training looking like "the Hulk". He was a HOF player with or without steriods.
I thought it was obvious I was referring to his home run prowess, not overall ability. He was a great overall player and HOF worthy, no doubt. But, he wasn't the HR slugging machine until he went on growth and roids. He had some natural HR-hitting ability, but he wasn't a "slugger" until he started doping.
 
As to caring if they are on steroids, I also don't care if a bunch of millionaire strangers take steroids. I don't care if you do, either.
I don't care either, but the clean players probably care.
Well, they should just get with the program and start using.
No, they shouldn't do that. Ah, wait, you were being facetious! I get it. Hey, I hope they stamp out all PE's. I'm in favor of Olympic-type testing. It'd be great to know the NFL was drug-free. But if I was a Charger fan, the news of Merriman's cheating wouldn't affect my fanboy status one iota. Because I have my eyes open. I don't know who is on steroids, but I'm not surprised when anyone is caught. Well, except for that punter.But really, if someone is going to pretend they are ourtraged by steroid use, and tunes in every Sunday, they have a credibility problem with me.
 
Doctors won't put people on steriods because they've been put on the controlled substance list and are much more afraid of the legal ramifications of prescribing steriods then the potential health problems that steriods may cause.
:popcorn: There's nothing about steroids that exposes doctors to liability any more than prescribing any other drugs, which by definition, are all on the controlled substance list. I have no idea what you're talking about, and I suspect you don't either.

 
The bottom line is that the steroids don't interfere with, and arguably augment, the enjoyability of the game of football.

In baseball, however, the spike in home runs, while enjoyable for some, threw the balance between pitching and hitting out of whack and ruined it for me. Baseball also is much more measurable and stats driven, and the modern stats were on a different scale from the traditional stats.

We also view baseball, for whatever reason, as a purer sport, a "national past time" played by the "boys of summer"; we can have no such illusions about a violent game like football.

 
Because really, if someone is violently opposed to steroid use, and still follows the NFL, they are either an outrageous hypocrite, or so ignorant that they shouldn't be allowed to leave the house.
Please explain this abortion of logic.
Sure.Performance enhancers are rampant in the NFL. They are rampant in big-time college football. Heck, they were rampant at the Div 1-AA school I graduated from in '94.

This is pretty well-known, in my opinion. Steroids don't get the coverage that they used to in the media, but that doesn't mean the problem has gone away. It just means the testing hasn't caught up to the cheating. Which isn't news either.

So going under the assumption that any half-wit knows that steroids are a part of the NFL, and every NFL team, I conclude this about the person that claims to be VERY opposed to steroids, and yet follows the NFL:

They are either lying to themselves, and pretending their team doesn't use, while ignoring logic and common sense, or they really believe that steroids are not a big part of the NFL, making them less than a half-wit, and I wouldn't trust them with a paper airplane, let alone issue them a drivers license.
I know that steroids/HGH are used in the NFL.I don't know to what extent (e.g., 10%, 20%, 50%, 100%).

I am opposed to the use of steroids/HGH for non-medical purposes, pro athletes included.

I love the NFL.

I don't know where I fit into your paradigm. :lmao:

 
People choose to ignore the relationship between performance enhancers and the NFL because it's unquestionably the league where performance enhancers would have the biggest upside.

Totally wrong.
Can you name me a sport where being bigger, faster and stronger would have a bigger impact?
PS: Im on record saying it should be legal for doctors to write the RX for adults. And legal for adults to use (not abuse) it under physician guidance.
What is your stance on cyanide again? This stuff kills people after they hit 40. There is no way to not abuse it. You are adding extra hormones to your body. Your body than stops producing as much hormones (because there is already too much in the system), Then when these guys get off the juice the problems are just starting. Every kid thinks he is indistructable. And no one wants to die or suffer.Personally I think it shouldn't be legal in any shape or form.

And I don't think it should be the leagues responsibility to enforce this either. This one is on the government. The FDA should have been on this (and are now) like white on rice making arrests.

Believe me, this steroids issue is just beginning. The legal eagles are simply amassing evidence at this point. At some point they will begin indicting.

Great article MT. Thank you.
Every sport can use a player bigger, faster, stronger. Olympics sports being numero uno.

And please provide one single scientific case finding of steroid death.

Not death from improper syringe use. And not abuse. Which I am positive you are refering to ===> uneducated abuse.

(like you not mentioning post cycle therapy, which is the realm of the uneducated and those people shouldnt be touching it - thus a doctors guidance)

But death from the use of it, especially under the care of a physician. I'll wait.
Are you one of those guys that still doesn't think smoking kills people because they don't have a 1:1 ratio between smoking and death?
 
As to caring if they are on steroids, I also don't care if a bunch of millionaire strangers take steroids. I don't care if you do, either.
I don't care either, but the clean players probably care.
Well, they should just get with the program and start using.
No, they shouldn't do that. Ah, wait, you were being facetious! I get it. Hey, I hope they stamp out all PE's. I'm in favor of Olympic-type testing. It'd be great to know the NFL was drug-free. But if I was a Charger fan, the news of Merriman's cheating wouldn't affect my fanboy status one iota. Because I have my eyes open. I don't know who is on steroids, but I'm not surprised when anyone is caught. Well, except for that punter.But really, if someone is going to pretend they are ourtraged by steroid use, and tunes in every Sunday, they have a credibility problem with me.
I think one can appreciate the sport and not indict every person playing the sport at the same time. There are a lot of "turds" (borrowing a phrase the PFT guys humorously coined) who assault and rape and dope, etc. I am well aware of these problems. My hope is that steps are taken to remove/punish those elements as much as possible from within the sport. And, I'm not the least bit surprised when these folks get caught, either. But, I don't go entirely in the other direction to indict the entire sport and hold disdain for everything it represents. Again, I don't know what percentage of players use this stuff, but I suspect it's more than I think and less than you might think. Somewhere in-between. But, that doesn't ruin the whole thing for me. Not yet, at least.
 
The bottom line is that the steroids don't interfere with, and arguably augment, the enjoyability of the game of football.
Steroids make players bigger, faster, strong, able to dish out more punishment. They don't make players able to absorb more punishment. Careers are ending more quickly. That degrades the game.
 
Because really, if someone is violently opposed to steroid use, and still follows the NFL, they are either an outrageous hypocrite, or so ignorant that they shouldn't be allowed to leave the house.
Please explain this abortion of logic.
Sure.Performance enhancers are rampant in the NFL. They are rampant in big-time college football. Heck, they were rampant at the Div 1-AA school I graduated from in '94.

This is pretty well-known, in my opinion. Steroids don't get the coverage that they used to in the media, but that doesn't mean the problem has gone away. It just means the testing hasn't caught up to the cheating. Which isn't news either.

So going under the assumption that any half-wit knows that steroids are a part of the NFL, and every NFL team, I conclude this about the person that claims to be VERY opposed to steroids, and yet follows the NFL:

They are either lying to themselves, and pretending their team doesn't use, while ignoring logic and common sense, or they really believe that steroids are not a big part of the NFL, making them less than a half-wit, and I wouldn't trust them with a paper airplane, let alone issue them a drivers license.
I know that steroids/HGH are used in the NFL.I don't know to what extent (e.g., 10%, 20%, 50%, 100%).

I am opposed to the use of steroids/HGH for non-medical purposes, pro athletes included.

I love the NFL.

I don't know where I fit into your paradigm. :thumbdown:
Well, I did put on one qualifier: I did say violently opposed. Meaning a person who is outraged at steroid use, wants to see it stamped out, stricter punishments, and won't root for players that are known users. If someone is violently opposed to steroids, is aware of their use, and still spends their money and time on the NFL, then they fit into the 'hypocrite' portion of my paradigm. Hopefully, this clears up the 'abortion' of logic.Because I am opposed as well to PE's. But I know it's part of the game. I would say I am mildly oppsed to PE's. The knowledge of their use won't keep me from enjoying the NFL. But I don't care enough to spend my dollar elsewhere. And I don't pretend to.

ETA: Based on your last post, I would say you are mildly opposed, as am I.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's nothing about steroids that exposes doctors to liability any more than prescribing any other drugs, which by definition, are all on the controlled substance list. I have no idea what you're talking about, and I suspect you don't either.
Here goes a little article for you to show you that you have absolutely no clue as to the type of liability that a doctor now faces for prescribing steriods. Just because a doctor has a DEA number doesn't give him liberty to prescribe what he wants when he want.
Shortt agrees to plead guilty in steroids caseCOLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — A doctor accused of writing illegal steroid prescriptions to football players has agreed to plead guilty to one federal conspiracy charge as part of a plea agreement, according to court documents. Alternative medicine physician James Shortt, 59, will plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute anabolic steroids and human growth hormone. In exchange, prosecutors will drop 42 similar counts against the West Columbia doctor, according to papers filed Monday in U.S. District Court in South Carolina. Shortt faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Johnny Gasser said in these types of cases, sentencing usually occurs two or three months after the plea agreement has been reached. Shortt has been free on bond since he was indicted last September. The indictment didn't specify who received the drugs Shortt prescribed. But a person familiar with the indictment said they were current and former members of the Carolina Panthers, bodybuilders and at least one police officer. The source spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing, and did not name players. A report last spring from CBS program 60 Minutes Wednesday identified center Jeff Mitchell, tackle Todd Steussie and punter Todd Sauerbrun as having filled steroid prescriptions written by Shortt. Other former Panthers have also been named as Shortt's patients in subsequent media reports. Of the players identified in the CBS report, only Mitchell, the Panthers' starting center, remains with the team. Steussie is with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Sauerbrun was traded to the Denver Broncos. None of the players linked to Shortt were suspended or fined. Citing an anonymous source, The Washington Post reported in September that an NFL report indicated that less than 10 players during a four-year period used banned substances given to them by Shortt. Some of the players linked to Shortt would be subject to as many as 24 random drug tests each year, NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue told the paper. Shortt's trial had been scheduled to begin March 6. Last week, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Joe Anderson said he would allow some parts of Shortt's interview on HBO's CostasNow program to be shown to jurors in his trial. In the interview, which was recorded in August, Shortt said he treated about 18 NFL players with anabolic steroids or human growth hormones to help athletes heal from injuries, not to enhance their performance. The South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners suspended Shortt's medical license in April. According to the board's suspension order, Shortt prescribed the steroid testosterone to four unnamed male patients "in doses and frequencies that were extremely unlikely to have been prescribed with any legitimate medical justification." Shortt also faces a state criminal investigation in the death of a woman who died three days after receiving intravenous hydrogen peroxide to help her multiple sclerosis. Shortt's defense attorney, Allen Burnside, did not respond to a phone message left at his office after hours.
 
I care, because I don't think it is right that a player who doesn't want to use 'roids, might have to and risk long term health problems in order to keep up with those that do. Not to mention the message that is sent to HS players. The level playing field shouldn't be altered by the use of performance enhancing drugs. Yes, I care.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I care, because I don't think it is right that a player who doesn't want to use 'roids, might have to and risk long term health problems in order to keep up with those that do. Not to mention the message that is sent to HS players. The level playing field shouldn't be altered by the use of performance enhancing drugs. Yes, I care.
There are legal OTC substances out there that are proven to be much more harmful to a persons long term health than steriods or HGH. In fact, once a person has fully grown, the use of steriods and HGH actually could be beneficial to a persons long-term health.
 
I care, because I don't think it is right that a player who doesn't want to use 'roids, might have to and risk long term health problems in order to keep up with those that do. Not to mention the message that is sent to HS players. The level playing field shouldn't be altered by the use of performance enhancing drugs. Yes, I care.
There are legal OTC substances out there that are proven to be much more harmful to a persons long term health than steriods or HGH. In fact, once a person has fully grown, the use of steriods and HGH actually could be beneficial to a persons long-term health.
And thats the truth the politicians do not want to hear. And do not want you to hear.
 
I care, because I don't think it is right that a player who doesn't want to use 'roids, might have to and risk long term health problems in order to keep up with those that do. Not to mention the message that is sent to HS players. The level playing field shouldn't be altered by the use of performance enhancing drugs. Yes, I care.
There are legal OTC substances out there that are proven to be much more harmful to a persons long term health than steriods or HGH. In fact, once a person has fully grown, the use of steriods and HGH actually could be beneficial to a persons long-term health.
I have no idea if that is true, but if it is your stance would work OK for the NFL level of having Doctor's being able to monitor steroid use. The implications for that in the lower rankings of college and HS football programs would be horrible. You would have kids with rampant steroid abuse, not doctor monitored, but abuse.
 
And thats the truth the politicians do not want to hear. And do not want you to hear.
Well the politicians only care about your vote. The politicians grandstand and have hearings to show the public that they care about getting rid steriods because they are bad and harmful and whatnot, when all they really care about is keeping their jobs. Its a shame that you can buy cigarettes OTC which are not only harmful to the user, but are harmful to surrounding people but a person can't use steriods or HGH because Lyle Alzado said it gave him "brain cancer" and some kids dad said that steriods caused his kid to commit suicide. When in reality steriods have never been shown to cause cancer and adolescent kids have a high rate of suicide.
 
I care, because I don't think it is right that a player who doesn't want to use 'roids, might have to and risk long term health problems in order to keep up with those that do. Not to mention the message that is sent to HS players. The level playing field shouldn't be altered by the use of performance enhancing drugs. Yes, I care.
There are legal OTC substances out there that are proven to be much more harmful to a persons long term health than steriods or HGH. In fact, once a person has fully grown, the use of steriods and HGH actually could be beneficial to a persons long-term health.
I have no idea if that is true, but if it is your stance would work OK for the NFL level of having Doctor's being able to monitor steroid use. The implications for that in the lower rankings of college and HS football programs would be horrible. You would have kids with rampant steroid abuse, not doctor monitored, but abuse.
You dont get around high school football much, do you?As I stated before... if they are not testing high school athletes all of this doesnt mean spit.High school is waist deep in steroids. And because of the proliferation of misinformation/propaganda it is causing further abuse and health problems. The flipside of it for the highschool athlete is the much greater liklihood of obtaining a college scholarship. Hmmm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I care, because I don't think it is right that a player who doesn't want to use 'roids, might have to and risk long term health problems in order to keep up with those that do. Not to mention the message that is sent to HS players. The level playing field shouldn't be altered by the use of performance enhancing drugs. Yes, I care.
There are legal OTC substances out there that are proven to be much more harmful to a persons long term health than steriods or HGH. In fact, once a person has fully grown, the use of steriods and HGH actually could be beneficial to a persons long-term health.
I have no idea if that is true, but if it is your stance would work OK for the NFL level of having Doctor's being able to monitor steroid use. The implications for that in the lower rankings of college and HS football programs would be horrible. You would have kids with rampant steroid abuse, not doctor monitored, but abuse.
You dont get around high school football much, do you?As I stated before... if they are not testing high school athletes all of this doesnt mean spit.High school is waist deep in steroids. And because of the proliferation of misinformation/propaganda it is causing further abuse and health problems. The flipside of it for the highschool athlete is the much greater liklihood of obtaining a college scholarship. Hmmm.
OK so your solution is to then create a policy that will then flood MORE steriods into schools that is already "waist deep" that's a good idea. Also where are all the doctors going to come from to maintain test and keep all the HS kids from abusing, and just staying on their regimented program?I'm not arguing about whether or not they already use steroids, just that the solution is not to just say "Ok everybody, shoot 'em up if you got 'em!!"ETA: I'm sure it would go over wonderfully with the public if it was suggested that instead of new textbooks, better and higher paid teachers, new equipment for children to learn on etc.... they were told that the school needs to higher a doctor to monitor the steroid use of the football team.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ive NEVER said High School athletes (or any minor) should be using steroids.

I said they MUST be tested for any steroid correction to be made, at any level.

IMO they should be barred from college/pro athletics if tested positive as a minor.

Thats when the benefits and athletic advantages are at its greatest. And that advantage snowballs. (You can use Merriman as an example)

I did say, adults (again-ADULTS) should be able to use them under the guidance of a physician, regardless of sports or athletics.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ive NEVER said High School athletes (or any minor) should be using steroids.I said they MUST be tested for any steroid correction to be made, at any level. IMO they should be barred from college/pro athletics if tested positive as a minor.Thats when the benefits and athletic advantages are at its greatest. And that advantage snowballs. (You can use Merriman as an example)I did say, adults (again-ADULTS) should be able to use them under the guidance of a physician, regardless of sports or athletics.
I agree with this. Although I think a ban on college/pro athletics is extreme. But to tell an adult that they can't use a performance enhancing drug is to restrictive a move by our government. It's one thing if your in a profession that doesn't allow it, but for personal use I just don't understand it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top