Parting reference to banned substance in this ESPN article on "gamesmanship" in the NFL

The Coffee Shop
1

“NFL players look for any edge they can get” - http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/cheat/news/story?id=2957893

Books have been written on “gamesmanship” in baseball, so I think it’s great they did an article on the NFL for this (I also think they missed a LOT).

However, given the rampant use of steroids in the NFL through the 90’s, and then the common use of HGH and other drugs presently, and ALL the coverage of Bonds and banned substances in MLB, I thought this story really just glanced over an important topic.

2

About 2 years ago I had read an article that talked about the ancient Greeks and their Olympic “games.” The idea of the article was that the theory that today’s sports should be as pure as “sports” were back then is bogus, because those guys did whatever they could to win. The primary difference between then and now was that our science is better (i.e. their idea of doping was to drink the blood of an ox to get its strength). If you think about it that way it sort of colors it a little differently I think.

One thing that I don’t think gets enough attention in the whole debate (although Ken Lehner sort og touched on it in the Main Forum) is the idea of self-improvement surgeries, for example Lasik, to give an athlete an edge. I have a hard time understanding why that is any different then HGH, blood doping, EPO,or any other substance. The result is the same. Why should it be treated differently?

Frankly, I could give f***-all if pro-athletes want to give themselves an edge. The problem as I see it comes with the “old slippery slope.” In order for a college guy to get noticed and play to that level, they would have to do the same stuff. And then the kid who is trying to get onto the U of M team from high school would have to…and so on.

Bernie

3

i.e. their idea of doping was to drink the blood of an ox to get its strength

There was also a greek runner who at that time was eating lots of red meat when everyone else was eating lots of bread.

Today we know that eating meat prevents the body from using it’s muscle as energy AND ered meat contains creatine. Granted you have to eat 5 lbs of red meat to get the equivalent of one spoonful of our moden supplement, but still.

example Lasik, to give an athlete an edge. I have a hard time understanding why that is any different then HGH, blood doping, EPO,or any other substance.

I think we all ask that question to an extent. But most dont’ have a hard time seeing the difference between that and PEDs. First, it’s common in soceity and (more importantly) it’s not illegal (like steroids are). Individual governing agencies have the right/responsibility to add procedures/substances to their list based on a wide variety of factors. Decisions are made … and questioned.

**The result is the same. Why should it be treated differently? **

See above. It’s a good question on a case-by-case basis, but I don’t agree with the “We allow LASIK surgery, we should allow Winstrol and Nandolone”.

I agree the result is the same, but that also applies to athletes that attend “sports academies” or have access to high profile camps, etc. We have to take things case-by-case and evaluate the risk-reward, how it elevates performance, etc.

The LASIK surgery is a good topic b/c in the future, it may not just be able to normalize or restore vision, but perhaps actually enhance it drastically. I think we should be aware of surgeries like Tommy John, that allow athletes to come back throwing harder and better than they did before the surgery. These procedures and technology improve as the years go by.

They’re good questions to ask.

4

The LASIK surgery is a good topic b/c in the future, it may not just be able to normalize or restore vision, but perhaps actually enhance it drastically.

I didn’t make it very clear, but this is what I was referring to. I understand that it is not illegal to have Lasik to “correct” your vision to BETTER than 20/20, but the effect is similar to that of an athlete who is juicing. There is an advantage. Sure, these guys are probably sacrificing their vision in the longer term future, but this is their livlihood. Surgeries like what you were talking about with Tommy John, take it even a step further. “How about we tighten this tendon up a little?” Or, “We’ll just move this insertion point and shave a little bone.” Who really knows what else they do? I hate to bring the Lions into this, but Drew Stanton just had an arguably unnecessary knee surgery “just to clean stuff up in there.” He’ll sit for a year, but will probably come back with more mobility than he had before.

I don’t really know what the answer is, and I am at least playing (partially) Devil’s Advocate, but from a simple advantage standpoint (because you rarely hear anything about legality of any of this) I really don’t see a difference.

I think Ken was on to something when he was saying “Life is unfair.” Some people are born with certain advantages, and others have to work a little harder to transcend their deficiencies. The problem with that is that then you only have 8 NFL Teams, or 6 Hockey clubs, or 12 Baseball teams and their are decades in between records being broken. That would be fine, but people won’t pay exhorbitant ticket prices or buy expensive team/player apparel for mediocrity.

Bernie

5

What bothers me about the doping issue is that many of “age groupers” follow the “doping is immoral religion” so blindly and faithfully, yet are ignorant to many of the facts.

To whom do the doping rules apply? USADA has caffeine and buproprion (Wellbutrin) on their “monitoring” list while many diuretics used to treat blood pressure are currently banned.

Being the cynic I am, I often think that many of these rules, sanctions, etc. are not created to make the world a better place but for job security of those holding administrative positions within the policing of sport doping.

Again, it is the fervor steeped in ignorance that seems reminiscent of Salem, WWII Germany, the Klan, etc, that is disturbing.

6

What’s going to be interesting to me is how the views on steroids, LASIK, TJ Surgery, etc during this next generation.

All this stuff is emotional/passionate to us because it’s relatively new and still impressive. But, I can easily envision this next generation (my son’s age) that grows up “with steroids” and where LASIK, TJ, etc has all been commonplace and is an everyday part of sports, views steroids as “no big thing” … just getting a little more recovery and extra strength for a demanding sports schedule.

Furthermore, I am interested in seeing how guys my age (34) start to view steroids and HGH when we’re 50, and they’re (possibly) available for inexpensive, safe, small-moderate amounts, use to combat again and to hang onto some muscle for a little longer, and keep testosterone levels up at “normal” amounts.

I am strongly against steroid use in sports b/c they do allow for a significant unfair advantage, especially insports like baseball where stattistics across eras are compared so heavily. But, I am all FOR a disucssion on whether steroids in small-moderate amounts actually make athletes “safer” and less prone to injury. I think people would be surprised at what medicine says about steroids as compared to what marketing ads, your HS health teacher, etc say.

7

"I thought this story really just glanced over an important topic. "

Probably because it wasn’t an article about steroids or banned substances specifically, but getting an advantage through practices like reading signs or pulling jerseys. Not every article about sports has to talk about steroids.

8

You know ANY article on “gamesmanship” on the MLB these days would FOCUS on banned substances etc.

My main focus is on how everything in the NFL seems to ignore this.

9

"You know ANY article on “gamesmanship” on the MLB these days would FOCUS on banned substances etc. "

I don’t see steroids or banned substances as being in the same category as “gamesmanship.” It may be a subtle distinction, but vaseline in the pitchers glove, stealing signs, faking the QBs signal calling, etc, are different than chemically enhancing your physical abilities, and I don’t see anything wrong with an article on the former neglecting to talk about the latter.

10

Concur.

Except any article on the former for MLB would in fact focus on the later.

The odds are way in favor of NFL players abusing banned substances over MLP players, yet MLB gets all the focus.

11

Yeah, how come nobody complains about the wild-card and inter-league play in the NFL?

grin

Gamesmanship. I’ve heard it described a lot of times, and it’s not usually called “gamesmanship”.

What you call it depends on whether you’re doing it or it’s been done to you. OF COURSE, it’s “gamesmanship” when YOU’RE doing it. When it’s been done to you it’s called essentially every negative adjective/noun you can think of … usually with lots of vulgarity and cuss words mixed in.

12

“The odds are way in favor of NFL players abusing banned substances over MLP players, yet MLB gets all the focus”

That’s because of two things. MLB is a much more record centric sports league. And, the NFL appears to have a better testing program, whereas MLB appears to have been shoving this problem under the rug for years.