PDA

View Full Version : If the NFL truly wanted to eliminate steroid use!



shula_guy
12-03-2008, 09:17 AM
The solution is very easy. After a team wins a game, have every player give a urin sample before they leave the locker room. If one person tests positive the team forfiets the win. If they did this, steroid use would disappear. This is a team sport and when an indibidual commits a penality on a play they dont move the one player back 5 yards or whatever they move the whole team back. Use that same mentality with steroids and the players would make the problem go away. I am sick and tired of the NFL's posturing but really does not do anything to effectivly put an end to it. The truth is they only test because it is politically popular and they pick n choose who they want to test and when they want to test them.

MR NFLFAN
12-03-2008, 10:26 AM
The solution is very easy. After a team wins a game, have every player give a urin sample before they leave the locker room. If one person tests positive the team forfiets the win. If they did this, steroid use would disappear. This is a team sport and when an indibidual commits a penality on a play they dont move the one player back 5 yards or whatever they move the whole team back. Use that same mentality with steroids and the players would make the problem go away. I am sick and tired of the NFL's posturing but really does not do anything to effectivly put an end to it. The truth is they only test because it is politically popular and they pick n choose who they want to test and when they want to test them.


So if a player from both the teams test positive the game never happened? That would kill the bottom line because what the NFL truly wants is $$$$$

shula_guy
12-03-2008, 11:21 AM
So if a player from both the teams test positive the game never happened? That would kill the bottom line because what the NFL truly wants is $$$$$


I did not say you give the opposing team the win. I said you take the win from the winning team. It would not take $$$$ from the leauge because it if they institued a policy like that, steroid use would be next to non-exisistent.

SpurzN703
12-03-2008, 11:48 AM
The solution is very easy. After a team wins a game, have every player give a urin sample before they leave the locker room. If one person tests positive the team forfiets the win. If they did this, steroid use would disappear. This is a team sport and when an indibidual commits a penality on a play they dont move the one player back 5 yards or whatever they move the whole team back. Use that same mentality with steroids and the players would make the problem go away. I am sick and tired of the NFL's posturing but really does not do anything to effectivly put an end to it. The truth is they only test because it is politically popular and they pick n choose who they want to test and when they want to test them.

So the whole team goes down b/c one rogue player is on something?

shula_guy
12-03-2008, 01:01 PM
So the whole team goes down b/c one rogue player is on something?


Yup

Slim
12-03-2008, 02:21 PM
Then the Lions could all be on steroids since they don't win.

shula_guy
12-03-2008, 02:30 PM
The point is if it one player cost the entire team a win teammates would stop one another from using instead of helping them cover it up or turn a blind eye to it. They would do things to stop it internally. Could you imagine if a team missed the playoff because a third string guy was using, they would cruicify him.

burger13
12-03-2008, 02:58 PM
The solution is very easy. After a team wins a game, have every player give a urin sample before they leave the locker room. If one person tests positive the team forfiets the win. If they did this, steroid use would disappear. This is a team sport and when an indibidual commits a penality on a play they dont move the one player back 5 yards or whatever they move the whole team back. Use that same mentality with steroids and the players would make the problem go away. I am sick and tired of the NFL's posturing but really does not do anything to effectivly put an end to it. The truth is they only test because it is politically popular and they pick n choose who they want to test and when they want to test them.

where did this come from? Did I miss someone testing positive for for steroids?

I know a bunch of players recently tested positive for a league-banned diuretic...which was secretly included in a supplement, so the players didn't even know they were taking it.

Is steroids that big of a problem in this league? Who was the last player who tested positive for steroids?

shula_guy
12-03-2008, 03:06 PM
where did this come from? Did I miss someone testing positive for for steroids?

I know a bunch of players recently tested positive for a league-banned diuretic...which was secretly included in a supplement, so the players didn't even know they were taking it.

Is steroids that big of a problem in this league? Who was the last player who tested positive for steroids?

No you didnt miss anything. The report about the banned substances is what put it in my head. The idea that the NFL is activily trying to eliminate performance enhancements IMO is a farse because it could be easily eliminated. Teams would let the leauge unfairly persucute people if it cost them a win and teams would not turn a blind eye to it if were actually occuring within their organzation for the same reason.

burger13
12-03-2008, 03:25 PM
No you didnt miss anything. The report about the banned substances is what put it in my head. The idea that the NFL is activily trying to eliminate performance enhancements IMO is a farse because it could be easily eliminated. Teams would let the leauge unfairly persucute people if it cost them a win and teams would not turn a blind eye to it if were actually occuring within their organzation for the same reason.

It would have to be a HUGE problem for such a drastic measure. I can't think of a single professional sports league that ever took a victory off the books. it would be unprecedented, and IMO unnecessary.

this is the biggest 'steroid' scandal in the league in quite some time.....and it centers around a diet pill that contained an ingredient, but did not list it. That's it. that's the huge steroid issue in the league. hardly worthy of unprecedented measures.

the current policy is strict enough. caught once and you're gone for 1/4 of a season (losing 25% of your salary). Plus you're tested a lot more frequently, and a second failure is a 1 year suspension and your last chance. 3rd time you're gone for good.

djfresh47
12-03-2008, 04:10 PM
The users will always be one step ahead of the tests. I'm sorry but that policy is ridiculous. I think alot of guys do use 'roids in the NFL. Though taking away a victory from a team is not fair. If anything it would move the players to find a new substance that is not tested for.

shula_guy
12-03-2008, 05:32 PM
The users will always be one step ahead of the tests. I'm sorry but that policy is ridiculous. I think alot of guys do use 'roids in the NFL. Though taking away a victory from a team is not fair. If anything it would move the players to find a new substance that is not tested for.


You think it's unfair to remove a win from team who has players on it's team that are cheating. Are you also opposed to the athelete's in the oylympics who get stripped of their metals for testing positive?

#1dolphinsfan
12-03-2008, 05:59 PM
You dont Punish the whole team for one guy i am sure if the coach and the other players on the team knew they wouldnt let him play or suspend him

djfresh47
12-03-2008, 10:11 PM
You think it's unfair to remove a win from team who has players on it's team that are cheating. Are you also opposed to the athelete's in the oylympics who get stripped of their metals for testing positive?

If someone tests positive on a 53 man olympic team I wouldn't disqualify the whole team. I think it's unfair to remove a win when players on every team are cheating. When a single person tests positive at the olympics they should be stripped.

Also what about the teams and players that have admitted to being loaded with 'roiders? Should the Steelers teams be stripped of rings? Do the Raiders have to give rings back? Lawerence Taylor was high on crack during games. The Giants give back their rings also?

It's hard for me to punish 52 for the actions of 1. Let's also not forget their is locker room code. These guys aren't giving up names. If they are they're going to slammed like Jose Canseco was. Your statement to punish the whole team may work on 5 or 6 year old tee ball teams but not grown men.

shula_guy
12-04-2008, 02:03 AM
If someone tests positive on a 53 man olympic team I wouldn't disqualify the whole team. I think it's unfair to remove a win when players on every team are cheating. When a single person tests positive at the olympics they should be stripped.

Also what about the teams and players that have admitted to being loaded with 'roiders? Should the Steelers teams be stripped of rings? Do the Raiders have to give rings back? Lawerence Taylor was high on crack during games. The Giants give back their rings also?

It's hard for me to punish 52 for the actions of 1. Let's also not forget their is locker room code. These guys aren't giving up names. If they are they're going to slammed like Jose Canseco was. Your statement to punish the whole team may work on 5 or 6 year old tee ball teams but not grown men.

I respectfully disagree on a multitude of levels.

1. I am not suggesting they go back into the past and start disqualify teams. I am speaking in terms of the present, forward. Whats done is done and going back and stripping titles does nothing to stop the use of banned substances in the present. That is the goal.

2. You say its unfair to punish 52 other guys for the action of one. Lets say the one guy using is an O-Line guy who is dominating his postion because he is cheating. He is giving his QB extra time to throw and opening huge holes for his running backs. Now you got other team members benefitting from his cheating and your opponet is playing at a disadvantage too.They are being unfairly dominated at that spot. Is that fair to them?

3. You say this approach would work in Tee Ball but not with adults. I say its just the opposite. If one guy on that team jeapordizes all the other players playoff money because of forfitted wins do you think they are going to tolerate that? I dont.

4. This is a team sport not an individual sport. When a player on the field commits a personal foul and the ref throws a flag. He dosnt penalize that one individual he moves the whole team back 15 yrds or whatever. That is part of being apart of a team. You are not only responsible for yourself but for your teammates also.

The only point I was trying to make was that if the NFL wanted to put an end to performance enhancers they could do it very easily. You can argue that it wont work or it's unfair but IMO it would work and banned substance use would be next to non existent.

The system in place right now is junk. They pick and choose who they want to check and when they want to check them. It's just another subtle way they use to influence which teams get into the playoffs and which ones stay home.

NYinBostonFin
12-04-2008, 12:55 PM
Your right when saying the NFL being hard nosed against steroid use is a farce, but your way of correcting the policy couldn't be worse for the league and would never happen for a number of reasons. One including your basically making games worthless, until after the winning team takes a drug test....that means we really wouldnt know if our team won by Wed, maybe later...then you give the losing team the win automatically, but would you test them after then? then, their win comes even later...or if the losing team alos has steroid users..then what? give it back to the cheating team that won?

Your plan is flawed in several other ways as well, but if you said test them BEFORE the game, then take what actions come...that would be more logical...but I personally still wouldnt agree with it at all and honestly, would make the NFL lose money, and look horrible. I don't think owners would want to lose money, just to look righteous...esp when the nfl is as successful as it is.

djfresh47
12-04-2008, 01:33 PM
I respectfully disagree on a multitude of levels.

1. I am not suggesting they go back into the past and start disqualify teams. I am speaking in terms of the present, forward. Whats done is done and going back and stripping titles does nothing to stop the use of banned substances in the present. That is the goal.

2. You say its unfair to punish 52 other guys for the action of one. Lets say the one guy using is an O-Line guy who is dominating his postion because he is cheating. He is giving his QB extra time to throw and opening huge holes for his running backs. Now you got other team members benefitting from his cheating and your opponet is playing at a disadvantage too.They are being unfairly dominated at that spot. Is that fair to them?

3. You say this approach would work in Tee Ball but not with adults. I say its just the opposite. If one guy on that team jeapordizes all the other players playoff money because of forfitted wins do you think they are going to tolerate that? I dont.

4. This is a team sport not an individual sport. When a player on the field commits a personal foul and the ref throws a flag. He dosnt penalize that one individual he moves the whole team back 15 yrds or whatever. That is part of being apart of a team. You are not only responsible for yourself but for your teammates also.

The only point I was trying to make was that if the NFL wanted to put an end to performance enhancers they could do it very easily. You can argue that it wont work or it's unfair but IMO it would work and banned substance use would be next to non existent.

The system in place right now is junk. They pick and choose who they want to check and when they want to check them. It's just another subtle way they use to influence which teams get into the playoffs and which ones stay home.

It has little effect on who makes the playoffs. The NFL does have dopers just like every other sport. If you want every team tested after the game and if anybody tests positive we'd be looking at teams finishing the season with 0-0-16. Further more the appeals process would backlog and we wouldn't know the outcome til even further in the year.

The point of random drug tests is that they're random. I really doubt they're truly random. Though the premise of the NFL testing policy works. Dopers will always be one step ahead.

Nappy Roots
12-04-2008, 03:08 PM
a lot of steriods are undetectable through urine....and they arent going to take blood before every game..

so there goes that idea.

shula_guy
12-04-2008, 03:38 PM
Your right when saying the NFL being hard nosed against steroid use is a farce, but your way of correcting the policy couldn't be worse for the league and would never happen for a number of reasons. One including your basically making games worthless, until after the winning team takes a drug test....that means we really wouldnt know if our team won by Wed, maybe later...then you give the losing team the win automatically, but would you test them after then? then, their win comes even later...or if the losing team alos has steroid users..then what? give it back to the cheating team that won?

Your plan is flawed in several other ways as well, but if you said test them BEFORE the game, then take what actions come...that would be more logical...but I personally still wouldnt agree with it at all and honestly, would make the NFL lose money, and look horrible. I don't think owners would want to lose money, just to look righteous...esp when the nfl is as successful as it is.


Good constructive post, my compliments to you. Just for the sake of clairification. I am well aware that the leauge would never impliment such a plan because it would hurt their bottom line. This thread was not really intended to push a certain way that the leauge should address drug use. It's intent was to illustrate that if they were serious about eliminating it they could. They choose not too but want to put a face on like they are trying to stop it. The reality is they dont care either way. They care about TV ratings, stadium attendance, and parphinela sales. I only put that one specific idea out there to illustrate a type of policy that would indeed put an end to it.


For the sake of conversation about that specific idea that you don't like. What I was saying not that you give the win to the team that lost. I dont agree with that concept. I think if a team gets caught cheating you put a loss on the cheaters team and you give the other team nothing. I dont think it would be fair to the rest of the leauge to give a team a win that did not actually win. Yes it would complicate teams standings marginally. For instance you could see two teams with 10 wins at the end of the season but one team only had a 15 game record so their winning precentage would be higher so tey would be ranked in a higher seed then the other team who had a 10 win 16 game record. I really believe though that would be a rare occurance because drug use through out the leauge would become almost non-exisistent.

As far as making games worthless, I absolutly would be doing that for cheating teams. I dont think it would take till wendsday to get test results back. Normally test results can come back in twenty fout hrs or less. The NFL is a large enough enity that it could have test faculities in place that would give them results back by monday, IMO. Again too, I really think forfeited games would be a rare occurance because players would not risk a team loss on using and even if they were of the mindset to cheat, his teammates and the rest of the organazation would be keeping an eyeout for that kinda stuff. I think you might even see people cut from their roster before gameday if they get caught internally and someone from the practice squad sighned on.

This was only one example of how it could be handled to eliminate drug use in the NFL. I am sure there are other ways that it could be handled that would be as effective if not more then this one particular idea. I just dont think the current policy really adresses stopping performancers being used by athletes. I don't know if you are aware of this or not but a player can trigger a positive test result from having too much water in their system under the current policy. They consider too much water in a players system to be a masking agent. We are talking about professional atheletes who's body is their livilyhood and they can lose their job for drinking too much water. IMO, that is ludacris and if it happens to lesser player do you think a team is going to go bat for the guy against the league. Noway he becomes a sacrafical lamb and they let the league get up in front of the cameras and grandstand and posture about how tough they are on drug use. If you make the teams record riding on it and they try to take away a win over a false positive you will see a team react and fight. The current system now tests people and sometimes its 6-8 weeks later that they are notified that they tested positive. What if it was a false result there is no opprotunity to retest them because now it might be two months after the fact. The player really has no leg to stand on and just has to accept whatever the league decides.

Anyhow your response is appriciated and some of your points are valid but I still disagree with the notion that it would be an ineffective approach.

shula_guy
12-04-2008, 03:48 PM
It has little effect on who makes the playoffs. The NFL does have dopers just like every other sport. If you want every team tested after the game and if anybody tests positive we'd be looking at teams finishing the season with 0-0-16. Further more the appeals process would backlog and we wouldn't know the outcome til even further in the year.

The point of random drug tests is that they're random. I really doubt they're truly random. Though the premise of the NFL testing policy works. Dopers will always be one step ahead.

No disrespect intended here but your opinion is one of a defeatest. Your postion is drug use cant be eliminated in the NFL because they will find new ways around the system so why try to stop it all. To me that is a bad attitude to apply here. The fact is that the NFL does very little to curb drug use and it portrays itsself as being tough on it. Personally I find it insulting that the league views the fans as being naive enough to buy into it. JMO of course. You may not agree with the approach I laid out but you come across to me as inteligent enough to not buy into the the propaganda the NFL is trying to promote.

MR NFLFAN
12-05-2008, 04:36 PM
Perhaps a tougher penality for 1st time offenders would be better than penalizing 52 innocent players. Say they implement a 1 full season suspension for first time offenders and a lifetime ban the second time around. You get caught in week 10 and you can't play until week 9 the following season etc. That way the penality gets enforced against the guilty party and not the entire team. Taking away a win with the idea that the teammates would enforce the substance abuse policy in a bit niave thinking IMO as players on the juice don't sit openly in the locker room and take these banned substances most times its done in private.

GoonBoss
12-05-2008, 04:54 PM
any tougher steroid policy must be approved by the NFLPA. The NFL only has so much to say about it.

djfresh47
12-05-2008, 05:06 PM
No disrespect intended here but your opinion is one of a defeatest. Your postion is drug use cant be eliminated in the NFL because they will find new ways around the system so why try to stop it all. To me that is a bad attitude to apply here. The fact is that the NFL does very little to curb drug use and it portrays itsself as being tough on it. Personally I find it insulting that the league views the fans as being naive enough to buy into it. JMO of course. You may not agree with the approach I laid out but you come across to me as inteligent enough to not buy into the the propaganda the NFL is trying to promote.


I've posted in other threads that I think alot of guys in the NFL are dopers. Guys are going to stay ahead that's the nature of it. Most players IMO use 'roids or HGH to recover quicker from injuries. The best way for the NFL or any sport to try to curb use is stiff penalties. Baseball got in trouble because they had no penalty. Plus they needed something to bring the game back from the strike. Say what you will but McGwire and Sosa hitting homeruns with balloon heads helped baseball out at that moment.

The NFL policy I think is pretty fair in terms of 4 games for first time offenders. A season for 2nd time offenders. My main problem is that the appeal process takes soo long. Matt Jones was caught with blow in the offseason and his appeal still has not been heard. The players recently suspended were known about for awhile also.