Do you "really" care about players using steroids?

[Big/Sky/Fly]

I'm around high level high school athletes every day. Many of them don't touch a thing.
Hen again, with all of your tinfoil conspiracies, I'm not surprised that you believe this.

You were the kid in school that thought that no one ever did drugs or drank at parties...you were the narc! Right?

This stuff happens all over the place Barney...

 

[PatsFan09]

You were the kid in school that thought that no one ever did drugs or drank at parties...you were the narc! Right? This stuff happens all over the place Barney...

Yeah, that was me, Sparky.
Again, I'm around high school athletes who go on to D-1 schools every day. One of my students is going to Michigan as a RB.
I'm not saying that some high school athletes don't take illegal substances, but the vast majority do not.

 

[Big/Sky/Fly]

Yeah, that was me, Sparky.
Again, I'm around high school athletes who go on to D-1 schools every day. One of my students is going to Michigan as a RB.
I'm not saying that some high school athletes don't take illegal substances, but the vast majority do not.

I don't disagree with you...there are a lot of legit athletes. But, for every Tebow, there are a few AHerns and Von Millers (personality wise).

 

[mikiemo83]

I look at it a different way, these Steroids are making the players bigger, faster and play thru pain. My concern is when a player too big and fast for his own good. The violent hit, yes the very hit I love to see, is increasing the issues later in life for the players.


Could this Superman mentality of users be the cause of more and more CTE talk? and if making them legal help make the NFL not liable for the out come? They choose to use them?

 

[mikiemo83]

Yeah, that was me, Sparky.
Again, I'm around high school athletes who go on to D-1 schools every day. One of my students is going to Michigan as a RB.
I'm not saying that some high school athletes don't take illegal substances, but the vast majority do not.

it started during my high school years and got real big within the next 10-15 years. Steroids have been in high school sports from early 80's on to 2000, I can't say after that but I think it cycles (yes intended).

friends took them, D-1 recruits took them. I knew one of the seller in my area and he liked to talk about who bought them.

 

[Big/Sky/Fly]

it started during my high school years and got real big within the next 10-15 years. Steroids have been in high school sports from early 80's on to 2000, I can't say after that but I think it cycles (yes intended).

friends took them, D-1 recruits took them. I knew one of the seller in my area and he liked to talk about who bought them.

The coaches looked the other way, they wanted to win...the players all knew about them and many dabbled with the stuff. In my experience...

 

[mikiemo83]

The coaches looked the other way, they wanted to win...the players all knew about them and many dabbled with the stuff. In my experience...

of course, and I think the CTE's are a result of them, that and the helmet being a weapon players lead with.

 

[HSanders]

Here is the thing, and forgive me if someone already made this point.

While I agree with the libertarian idea of they are adults and should be able to choose for themselves, if they are NOT against the rules, one would assume it would be more acceptable to take them, so more players would. Many players that do play by the rules now may feel that they have to start taking them, and their bad side effects, just to be competitive.

That's my concern as well. Banning them means guys who don't want to take them have a chance to compete.

To play Devils advocate, if you make them legal companies can spend their time researching how to remove those side effects instead of constantly putting out new products to stay a step ahead of the testing agency.

They might but that would be market driven of course. They'd probably make the most $$$ just selling the stuff and listing the side effects.

Fair enough, but creatine supplementation has more in common with eating more protein and getting enough sleep than artificially introducing a synthetically produced hormone not found in a person's diet. I'd put HGH in the same class as steroids (both are a hormone, both cannot be found in food), but not supplements like creatine, fish oil, vitamins & minerals, etc. (which can be obtained from food and are not actual hormones) even though there are benefits to taking them.

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, I just see a large gap between the two classes.

Right, just like picky jewelry lovers see a difference between natural diamonds and lab created ones.

That said, if the problem of pressuring those who don't want to take these drugs into doing so in order to compete could be solved another way than by having them banned, I don't really care WTF they take. I care about fairness for all. I DO think all of them should sign a waiver holding teams harmless from any ramifications though, That's another thing that banning them eliminates, team/NFL liability. Look at how many players are pissed because they felt teams pressured them to take pain drugs, etc. to keep playing.

 

[Patriots71]

If people could get over the silly biased outlook on things, then, not really would care, but now that .2 PSI in a football is looked at as the worst thing ever on sports while Manning can get the aww shucks it was to help me play again feel good story, than no....burn them all to the ground.

---------- Post added at 08:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 AM ----------

What's the difference between taking a legal creatine supplement and an illegal testosterone supplement?

I don't see a fundamental difference aside from legality and effectiveness.

Well then, let me ask, if they are both the same, why would a guy risk it by taking the illegal one?

 

[mikiemo83]

Well then, let me ask, if they are both the same, why would a guy risk it by taking the illegal one?

'cause

 

[Jaric]

Well then, let me ask, if they are both the same, why would a guy risk it by taking the illegal one?

Probably because one is significantly more effective than the other (which I stated in the post you quoted.)

The point I was trying to articulate (poorly it seems based on responses) was an objection to labeling one a "drug" and the other not. I am fully aware there there is a difference between creatine and steroids. Just like there is a difference between nicotine and heroin (but both are drugs)

I hope this clears that up.