Guys on PEDs in football are just killing themselves...in baseball they are killing the game.

I don't care if guys use drugs. If using HGH meant I'd get pumped stats and a bigger contract? You bet your ass i'm using them. You only have so many years to make big money.

lhslep134;1485936 wrote:This



from this article http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_23808443

My first post was poorly worded. The above quote is why I feel like how I feel.

I understand what he's saying there, I just disagree with that rationale as far as a legitimate excuse. But I guess it does sound like a plausible explanation for the why the public doesn't seem to care as much. In highly competitive sports (basically all professional sports), every little extra advantage can and does have an impact on the competition.

WebFire;1486050 wrote:Because the expectation for football is big, burly men crashing into each other at high speeds. I believe for that reason we do not see the impact of PEDs as much in football as baseball, which is a finesse sport.

The end result might not stand out as much, but any physical advantage in football will have an effect on the game. Football is famously a game of inches.

http://youtu.be/9rFx6OFooCs?t=2m

Fly4Fun;1486273 wrote:I just disagree with that rationale as far as a legitimate excuse.

There is no legitimate excuse when you have 2 people competing against each other and one is taking PED's and one isn't.

It's a matter of how much you care, and if you care enough for something to be done. And when I say you, I mean the media and general public.

lhslep134;1486314 wrote:There is no legitimate excuse when you have 2 people competing against each other and one is taking PED's and one isn't.

It's a matter of how much you care, and if you care enough for something to be done. And when I say you, I mean the media and general public.

I agree. I personally do care and wish there were independent authority for testing such as the USADA is for the USOC. But like I acknowledged it does seem like a reasonable explanation for why it's not perceived as big of an issue in football as it is in baseball.

Yet we hamstring our Olympians with USADA and they get crushed in many sports because the other countries are cycling on and off PED's every moment outside of IOC drug testing periods.

Then you look at the testing in a sport like MLB, where you are limited on how many times you can test and what constitutes a "failed test" and you soon realize only a moron (usually guys trying to cycle themselves, without a coach/doctor) gets busted.

You can only be tested twice in a 12-month window and 3 times in an 18-month window. If you are given a testing time, you can "no show" and re-schedule. You're allowed 2 flat out missed tests and not until the 3rd, does it count as a failure.

If we had a flat out, random and unlimited testing protocol, I'd be more comfortable saying it was out of the game. Then again, what would that accomplish?

Fly4Fun;1486273 wrote:
The end result might not stand out as much, but any physical advantage in football will have an effect on the game. Football is famously a game of inches.

http://youtu.be/9rFx6OFooCs?t=2m

It doesn't matter. Guys on PEDs in football don't stand out as much as baseball players on PEDs. That's the difference.

Azubuike24;1486344 wrote:Yet we hamstring our Olympians with USADA and they get crushed in many sports because the other countries are cycling on and off PED's every moment outside of IOC drug testing periods.

Then you look at the testing in a sport like MLB, where you are limited on how many times you can test and what constitutes a "failed test" and you soon realize only a moron (usually guys trying to cycle themselves, without a coach/doctor) gets busted.

You can only be tested twice in a 12-month window and 3 times in an 18-month window. If you are given a testing time, you can "no show" and re-schedule. You're allowed 2 flat out missed tests and not until the 3rd, does it count as a failure.

If we had a flat out, random and unlimited testing protocol, I'd be more comfortable saying it was out of the game. Then again, what would that accomplish?

I had wondered how the MLB testing went. What really really has me doubting the who validity of whom is clean or not is how these bio guys didn't test positive that prompted this suspensions. Yes, some had before but this is a different case.

^^^Obviously player's union has something to say about this, and probably the reason that more can't be done.

Azubuike24;1486344 wrote:
If we had a flat out, random and unlimited testing protocol, I'd be more comfortable saying it was out of the game.

That and significantly harsher punishments would serve as the ultimate deterrence I would think. If Lolo Jones can get drugtested at her birthday party, so can a major leaguer.

Add in harsh punishments (maybe 2 years for 1st failed test? add in contractual outs for teams who have a player fail a test?).

Go after the wallets and playing time, and you'll see players stop. Until teams stop giving known cheaters 2 year $16 million contracts, it won't stop (looking at you Blue Jays/Melky)

Trout was on ESPN talking how many players are leaning toward the one and done type of punishment. I look for the next CBA to have some major sticking points in the drug testing. The quotes from the union guy about Arod last week makes it seem like it may be tougher than some expected to get more union support for the punishments. I do think there should be two sets of punishments, of which may be tough to go at though. Those who accidently take something used for something else and those who intentionally are juicing. Will be hard to differentiate though

I mean look at the guys who get busted for a positive test. Usually low level minor leaguers who probably don't have extra money to pay for monthly lab testing, high end cycle therapies and a coach to guide them through it.

You can almost say MLB got lucky with the Biogenesis thing, allowing them to uncover use by many prominent players.

I guess what bothers me is that for MLB or NFL, we can basically formulate opinions quite easily because the US dominates those sports, they dominate the historical significance in those sports and therefore, our laws and societal norms are all that matter.

It's the other sports, where we're directly competing on an international stage, that are not only hampered by our lack of "great athletes" pursuing those sports, but the ones that do are held back because everyone else either promotes PED's or looks the other way completely when it comes to winning medals for the country.