Let me also say that I played D2 basketball. Obviously not big time athletics, and even at the D2 level, there was a percentage of the football players who used steroids and it was widely known. The coaches likely knew what was going on, but they didn't ask.

There was a point before my senior year where I thought about taking an illegal substance to get myself stronger as I had hit the "wall" where I couldn't increase my weight or amount of weight I could lift. I talked to one of the steriod using football players and he told me what I could expect by using steroids.

I had the potential to play professional basketball overseas and thought that as a D2 player, the difference in 3-4 ppg could be the difference in some money earned and if I was stronger it would give me an advantage.

After talking to the steroid user, I quickly declined, and it wasn't ever a serious thought, but I did consider it enough to ask around.

But from my personal standpoint, it could have been the difference in a professional career as opposed to not having one. It was something that I thought might have been worth it, but ultimately didn't.

I think someone like a Brian Cushing or a Shawn Merriman might have even more motivation to do whatever necessary to maximize their potential because of the potential income that can be earned in the NFL. If a guy does a couple cycles of steroids and it increases their play by gaining 10 more tackles a year than they would have had otherwise, and it earns them an extra $2 million per year in their contract, who is to tell them that they shouldn't use them.

as someone mentioned before..

thedynasty1998 wrote:

vball10set wrote:

thedynasty1998 wrote: Football coaches don't ask. It's not like OSU and every other college program in the country (all the way down to D3) doesn't have steroid users.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement about coaches like that..I'm willing to bet that a lot,if not most,coaches know who's juicing--but choose to look the other way.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

not that it matters,but both--I agree that every college program may have steroid issues,but I don't agree that all football coaches "don't ask"...IMO there are those who try and police it,and there are those who turn a blind eye.

KnightRyder wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Hopefully, the reports leaking out are accurate and Mr. Cushing's alma mater is going to get hammered with probation and a loss of scholarships (perhaps even a bowl ban) in the next week or so.

Such a slimeball Petey turned out to be after all. Lots of crap sure went on under his "watchful" eye.

But hey, ESPN sure loved him.

is it any different than the crap that went on under the "watchful" eye of jim tressel. how many players were arrested under his watch? 19? 20? what is it buckeye fans and the disdain for any team that gave you a butt whoopin? it happens, and you know what it will happen again. good lawd get over it.

Yes, it's so different it's laughable.

The NCAA sanctions AGAINST THE UNIVERSITY AND THE PROGRAM make it dramatically different.

Individual acts are one thing -- a lack of institutional monitoring and/or control is totally different.

But you already knew that.

Thedynasty,

I'm actually in agreement with you more than you might think.

I totally agree with your first post, talking about how the athlete knows their risk/reward. I think the decision you encounter in college is daily occurrence thought for thousands of athletes across the country.

I guess my problem is that the punishment for PEDs isn't strong enough in the NFL. If PEDs are so effective, then a 4-week suspension may not be all that bad ESPECIALLY if you're still praised by the media and fans with Pro Bowl selections and whatnot.

Okay, I get what you are saying. But that's the system the NFL has in place, and I think it's more significant than you might be thinking. 4 games is a quarter of the season, so it is very significant.

And yes, I think PED's are more common than most people will ever know. And the stuff the the NFL tests for isn't necessarily an illegal substance, but just banned by them, which I think is unfair in certain ways.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

KnightRyder wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Hopefully, the reports leaking out are accurate and Mr. Cushing's alma mater is going to get hammered with probation and a loss of scholarships (perhaps even a bowl ban) in the next week or so.

Such a slimeball Petey turned out to be after all. Lots of crap sure went on under his "watchful" eye.

But hey, ESPN sure loved him.

is it any different than the crap that went on under the "watchful" eye of jim tressel. how many players were arrested under his watch? 19? 20? what is it buckeye fans and the disdain for any team that gave you a butt whoopin? it happens, and you know what it will happen again. good lawd get over it.

Yes, it's so different it's laughable.

The NCAA sanctions AGAINST THE UNIVERSITY AND THE PROGRAM make it dramatically different.

Individual acts are one thing -- a lack of institutional monitoring and/or control is totally different.

But you already knew that.

well as of right now there are no sanctions against usc. all there is is rumor. and when you have 20 players arrested in one program that show a blatant lack of institutional monitoring and/or control. i find it hard to believe that tressel didnt know anything that was going on with these players. lets be real here tressel isnt the squeaky clean guy that he portrays himself to be. and its just not tressel . i would guess that vast majority of big time programs have a boat load of skeletons in the closet. and if you think steroids are just confined to usc and that it doesnt go on down in c-town then guess again.

The body of overall evidence against USC is almost overwhelming, if any of these reports are to believed. But, we'll wait and see what really happens.

If I'm wrong, I'll come back and admit I jumped the gun. You gonna admit USC is a bag of shit and Petey was a cheating snark if it comes back the other way?

Oh and just to clarify...individual run-ins with the law have Nothing to do with lack of control in the way the NCAA defines it. Surely you knew that too. The lack of monitoring/control has to do directly with NCAA regs -- like not taking free rent for your parents in a million dollar house.

first off i could care less about usc. but for what they have accomplished on the field i give them respect. i dont hate on them because they gave my team a beating. that is where you get off track. you let your heart do your thinking. is taking free rent for your parents house worse than tressel arrainging for players to get free vehicles? i would say they are the same. or arrainging for players to get cash from boosters or getting paid for phony jobs. that is a blatant violation of ncaa rules. do you think tressel hasnt broken any rules? if you do your naive

Just announced that after the AP revote, Cushing will keep his Defensive Rookie of Year award. Can't say I'm too surprised.

Edit for link
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5183620

Cushing recieved 18 of 50 first place votes this time around compared to 39. Jairus Byrd of Buffalo was second with 13. Laurinaitis got 1 vote.