NFL substance abuse policy vs rest of the world's substance abuse policy

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blue_Monkey

I don't believe that. Losing 25% of a season is in no way justifiable when compared to losing 2 years. Olympic athletes don't live life in 4 year cycles, so to think 2 years is the same as 4 weeks is actually ridiculous (I know you were exaggerating).

There are other reasons the Olympic sports are different that I don't really want to dig into, but I was exaggerating... and still serious. So maybe you can explain the life of track stars more? All I can see is that the importance lies in the money and the medals... and that's on a 4 year cycle. Other than that, trying to break a world record here or there but everything else appears to be prep for the Olympics.

[Blue_Monkey]

Quote: Originally Posted by steelcurtain311

It probably should be more harsh in the NFL, 4 games is nothing. It sucks that baseball gets the rap that it does for roids, when the NFL has been sooooo bad with them for decades, and they've really just accepted them as part of the culture instead of trying to outlaw them. I don't know how I feel about it though, because what would football be like without steroids? For linemen on both sides of the ball, the game is completely based on your strength and size (not that there isn't talent involved), which is something you either have or you don't. If you don't, steroids are pretty much it for you. I think a 6-8 games suspension (and there should be a HUGE fine) would be much better. Hit these guys in their wallets, since that's all they care about. And it sends a message to owners too, who surely are going to be more reluctant to pay a guy that gets himself suspended.

I think the game would look about the same to the viewers. The physical part of the game would still LOOK the same. People shoving each other, jumping, running, blocking, tackling. The power and speed involved doesn't really look that much different whether it's steroid power or not. Even the huge hits would look the same since they only happen with proper angles and timing anyway and if you nail those two things, I could be out there taking people out (not that I'm not athletic enough to do it anyway... )

[Blue_Monkey]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

There are other reasons the Olympic sports are different that I don't really want to dig into, but I was exaggerating... and still serious. So maybe you can explain the life of track stars more? All I can see is that the importance lies in the money and the medals... and that's on a 4 year cycle. Other than that, trying to break a world record here or there but everything else appears to be prep for the Olympics.

World Championships, Golden League, Grand Prix's, Super Grand Prix's and the upcoming Diamond League. Everyone in gets paid.

Usain Bolt doesn't start anywhere for less than $100 000. Except in the Olympics and in the WC's, where he gets nothing for starting.

Again, doesn't it seem ridiculous to you as well that in track there'd only be the Olympics and because of that a 2 year suspension is the equivalent of 4 games in the NFL?

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blue_Monkey

World Championships, Golden League, Grand Prix's, Super Grand Prix's and the upcoming Diamond League. Everyone in gets paid. Usain Bolt doesn't start anywhere for less than $100 000. Except in the Olympics and in the WC's, where he gets nothing for starting. Again, doesn't it seem ridiculous to you as well that in track there'd only be the Olympics and because of that a 2 year suspension is the equivalent of 4 games in the NFL?

No, actually it doesn't. I'm ignorant to the details of the professional track star so my level of exaggeration may be extreme (and admitted). But the point is, track is not football like football is not baseball, and baseball is not hockey and hockey is not soccer. Comparing things between any of them is like comparing apples and steaks. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that 2 years isn't too long of a suspension for track (since I don't know as much about track) and wouldn't argue if you think 4 games is too short for NFL... but there's no comparison there. They're two separate arguments. See what I mean?

As for track specifically, and other world sports, the rules on anything (including drugs) are going to be different, and different means harsher... bc of the different laws, access, difficulty controlling things, etc. But in general, sports are way too different to assume the powers that be of all sports should be able to come to agreements on the level of punishments compared to each other.

[Blue_Monkey]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

But in general, sports are way too different to assume the powers that be of all sports should be able to come to agreements on the level of punishments compared to each other.

I agree with this completely. All sports can never have the same rules about anything really, and I've never demanded them to have.

So, leaving all other sports aside, 4 games is too short of a penalty no matter what. It makes the U.S. look bad in front of the rest of the sport world cause it effectively states "We allow doping".

Penalties are endlessly arguable but up to this point I've never heard a strong enough argument that said doping is good or that penalties shouldn't be more severe (than f.e. 4 games in the NFL).

Personally, I think 2 years would be good in terms of prevention and sanction. Harsh, but then it's supposed to be.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blue_Monkey

I agree with this completely. All sports can never have the same rules about anything really, and I've never demanded them to have. So, leaving all other sports aside, 4 games is too short of a penalty no matter what. It makes the U.S. look bad in front of the rest of the sport world cause it effectively states "We allow doping". Penalties are endlessly arguable but up to this point I've never heard a strong enough argument that said doping is good or that penalties shouldn't be more severe (than f.e. 4 games in the NFL). Personally, I think 2 years would be good in terms of prevention and sanction. Harsh, but then it's supposed to be.

Switching the focus, I still disagree with you. The rest of the world knows very little about American football so any judgment they have of the penalties comes with ignorance of the rules and nature of the sport. To be blunt, I don't think anyone should really care what the rest of the world thinks. In this case, it may be different if it were baseball, basketball, etc. b/c there are flourishing leagues around the world, but not American football.

I also disagree that 4 games is too short. I didn't really want to get into what's been repeated too many times in the baseball forum, but it's kind of unfair to discuss it without "going there". Basically, the issue with roids has to do with health. That's the only reason they're illegal in the first place, so I don't agree with any penalty that wouldn't be consistent with any other illegal substance. I feel like things like track are different bc part of the nature of the sport is to go above and beyond to make sure everyone's on an even "playing field" so to speak (the uniform requirements in the NFL are about sponsors, but in track it's about reducing variability). But even with that said, athletes are allowed to take all kinds of supplements and technically "performance enhancing drugs". They just aren't allowed to take certain ones. This basically says we have no problem with you using artificial means to become huge freaks of nature, just don't use things that we specifically banned bc of health reasons.

Considering that, linking them to cheating doesn't make any sense to me.

[Blue_Monkey]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

Switching the focus, I still disagree with you. The rest of the world knows very little about American football so any judgment they have of the penalties comes with ignorance of the rules and nature of the sport. To be blunt, I don't think anyone should really care what the rest of the world thinks. In this case, it may be different if it were baseball, basketball, etc. b/c there are flourishing leagues around the world, but not American football. I also disagree that 4 games is too short. I didn't really want to get into what's been repeated too many times in the baseball forum, but it's kind of unfair to discuss it without "going there". Basically, the issue with roids has to do with health. That's the only reason they're illegal in the first place, so I don't agree with any penalty that wouldn't be consistent with any other illegal substance. I feel like things like track are different bc part of the nature of the sport is to go above and beyond to make sure everyone's on an even "playing field" so to speak (the uniform requirements in the NFL are about sponsors, but in track it's about reducing variability). But even with that said, athletes are allowed to take all kinds of supplements and technically "performance enhancing drugs". They just aren't allowed to take certain ones. This basically says we have no problem with you using artificial means to become huge freaks of nature, just don't use things that we specifically banned bc of health reasons. Considering that, linking them to cheating doesn't make any sense to me.

Ignorant of rules and nature or not, they're still judging the U.S. already. But really, me knowing the rules and nature of the game and being unbiased cause I'm a track athlete myself, I see 4 games as too short. And like I said, I've yet to hear strong arguments to say otherwise.

Supplements like recovery drinks and creatine are allowed cause they're easily available to everyone, aren't health risks and basically don't really enhance anything except basic nutrition. Steroids etc. aren't easily available to everyone (probably are in the NFL but equality doesn't exhist in this area), they're dangerous and they greatly affect performance although the effects are always unpredictable in individuals. So it's cheating and a health risk. And I'll repeat the point of wanting to watch athletes and not lab experiments.

[deaduck]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blue_Monkey

Ignorant of rules and nature or not, they're still judging the U.S. already. But really, me knowing the rules and nature of the game and being unbiased cause I'm a track athlete myself, I see 4 games as too short. And like I said, I've yet to hear strong arguments to say otherwise. Supplements like recovery drinks and creatine are allowed cause they're easily available to everyone, aren't health risks and basically don't really enhance anything except basic nutrition. Steroids etc. aren't easily available to everyone (probably are in the NFL but equality doesn't exhist in this area), they're dangerous and they greatly affect performance although the effects are always unpredictable in individuals. So it's cheating and a health risk. And I'll repeat the point of wanting to watch athletes and not lab experiments.

But you are biased. You continue to compare your sport (track)with one in which your understanding is minimized by perception.

Steroids are not the big bad folks like to paint them.

Like anything else in medicine, they are dangerous when abused. But as you keep pointing out, you see them as used only for gains in size and speed... never for recovery. And that's the greater seperation between track and football, injury. You don't accumilate the wear and tear in a track meet as you do a game of football. It's why it's not a year round activity and the talk of adding games brings up the reality of shortened careers.

So instead of just focusing on your "math" consider the sourse of usage and how exactly it affects the game before condeming those who govern the sports desicion on it's affect and suitable punishment.