Home

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

This is a discussion on NFL substance abuse policy vs rest of the world's substance abuse policy within the Pro Football forums.

Go Back   Operation Sports Forums > Football > Pro Football
MLB The Show 24 Review: Another Solid Hit for the Series
New Star GP Review: Old-School Arcade Fun
Where Are Our College Basketball Video Game Rumors?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-25-2009, 12:43 PM   #33
*ll St*r
 
wwharton's Arena
 
OVR: 28
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 26,978
Re: NFL substance abuse policy vs rest of the world's substance abuse policy

To add to what deaduck just said, if creatine (for example) was determined the cause of a HS football player dying in practice, it'd be banned immediately. Honestly, the powers that be could care less how effective steriods are. Your argument (same as many people) that steroids are banned bc they're "too" effective just doesn't hold weight. They need to be looked at just like every other drug, substance, whatever that athletes take to be better at what they do. If you're not pushing to ban everything down to caffeine then there's a huge hole in the argument.
wwharton is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 01:12 PM   #34
MVP
 
faster's Arena
 
OVR: 13
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,182
Re: NFL substance abuse policy vs rest of the world's substance abuse policy

Steroid health risks are minimal, sorry guys. Find me 10 guys who died from steroids.... and that you can definately tell me that. You can't find them. Almost every person you bring up will be taking something else that's FAR more potent and dangerous -- like every pro wrestler.

I'm not going to get into this argument, because you all have been desensitized to no end by the media. The health risks are EXTREMELY overblown and my exposure to people taking these drugs is very high.

So take away the health risk...... and it's about money. 99% of the players are using, and if they get in a situation where large failures happen, then they lose a huge deal of money and it causes panic through. Couple that with the short season and every dollar matters in the NFL.

Oh, and someone was talking about the US being the laughing stock of substance abuse policies in professional athletics. Well, for the record, the US has THE STRICTEST steroid policy in the world that I'm aware of. Most other countries don't make it illegal to use... or if they do, it's not enforced.... ever. Obviously it's a huge health risk. How about we get rid of alcohol, something that actually kills and destroys hundreds of thousands, if not MILLIONS of people's lives each year.

Regulating this stuff in profesional sports is an extremely difficult task.... and every sport trying to do it realizes those risks.... they also know, to the percent, how many of their athletes are using... and their policies have been well thought out, so that, in the end, it's the most financially viable plan overall.
__________________
"Well the NBA is in great hands but if I had to pick the single greatest player on the planet, I take Kobe Bryant without hesitation." - Michael Jordan, 2006

Last edited by faster; 08-25-2009 at 01:14 PM.
faster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 01:37 PM   #35
*ll St*r
 
wwharton's Arena
 
OVR: 28
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 26,978
Re: NFL substance abuse policy vs rest of the world's substance abuse policy

faster, don't really know how your post relates to what we've been talking about but I'm sure it's true. But we're not saying there are huge health risks, but health risks are the reason roids and other things are said to be banned. An athlete dies or has some serious issues and boom, that substance is banned. Most of the time (probably 99%) it happens bc the person wasn't using properoly, which I think is part of what you're saying. Either way, what I'm saying is the "performance enhancing" abilities have nothing to do with steroids or anything else being banned. If there were no health issues to point the finger at (whether something's really banned for safety or bc they're worried about money) then steroids would be completely legal.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand what you're getting at.
wwharton is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisements - Register to remove
Old 08-25-2009, 01:53 PM   #36
MVP
 
faster's Arena
 
OVR: 13
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,182
Re: NFL substance abuse policy vs rest of the world's substance abuse policy

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwharton
faster, don't really know how your post relates to what we've been talking about but I'm sure it's true. But we're not saying there are huge health risks, but health risks are the reason roids and other things are said to be banned. An athlete dies or has some serious issues and boom, that substance is banned. Most of the time (probably 99%) it happens bc the person wasn't using properoly, which I think is part of what you're saying. Either way, what I'm saying is the "performance enhancing" abilities have nothing to do with steroids or anything else being banned. If there were no health issues to point the finger at (whether something's really banned for safety or bc they're worried about money) then steroids would be completely legal.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand what you're getting at.
I was blabbing.... SORRY GUYS!

I think each sports organization has a unique goal, a unique setup, different fans, and different population for sponsors, marketing, etc, etc. Each sports organization has to come up with guildelines that make sense to it's business model.

Track and Field, for instance, has a situation where suspending a guy for 2 years doesn't do anything to it's culture. Players are individual and don't affect a "team" goal (whatever that goal is, money, wins, etc) in any way. Sure, there are team aspects and country aspects, but that overall affect by one guy's suspension is minimal. In the NFL, entire fan bases are affected, teams are affected, large financial decisions are affected, etc. The implications are much larger ranging in that instance.

So it's very difficult to compare leagues and say right from wrong.
__________________
"Well the NBA is in great hands but if I had to pick the single greatest player on the planet, I take Kobe Bryant without hesitation." - Michael Jordan, 2006
faster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 02:02 PM   #37
MVP
 
faster's Arena
 
OVR: 13
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,182
Re: NFL substance abuse policy vs rest of the world's substance abuse policy

So my answer to the original post is NO, the penalty should be smaller because of different circumstances.

Question here all.............. if you're sentencing someone to the death penalty, would you rather kill a few innocents or be more cautious?

It's not an exact analogy so don't analyze that please. The point is, our supplement world is a mess, I know that for a fact. So smaller penalties are really a warning as they should be. You don't know what's tainted and you never should pass judgement. Believe me.

Now, where it gets crucial is for repeat offenders. If you really want to be thorough and safe, you give them a slap on the wrist, then a pretty severe strike for #2 and lifetime for #3. You can be pretty sure that most guys hit with #2 are guilty of something and #3, well, too bad.

So considering the complexity of each single athlete in professional sports here in the US, the marketing plan, team strategy, large level of spiked supps, etc, you have to be cautious right away and error on leniency. Later on, you reign down the wrath because you know with almost absolute certainly you're dealing with a rule breaker.
__________________
"Well the NBA is in great hands but if I had to pick the single greatest player on the planet, I take Kobe Bryant without hesitation." - Michael Jordan, 2006
faster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 02:11 PM   #38
*ll St*r
 
wwharton's Arena
 
OVR: 28
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 26,978
Re: NFL substance abuse policy vs rest of the world's substance abuse policy

Quote:
Originally Posted by faster
I was blabbing.... SORRY GUYS!

I think each sports organization has a unique goal, a unique setup, different fans, and different population for sponsors, marketing, etc, etc. Each sports organization has to come up with guildelines that make sense to it's business model.

Track and Field, for instance, has a situation where suspending a guy for 2 years doesn't do anything to it's culture. Players are individual and don't affect a "team" goal (whatever that goal is, money, wins, etc) in any way. Sure, there are team aspects and country aspects, but that overall affect by one guy's suspension is minimal. In the NFL, entire fan bases are affected, teams are affected, large financial decisions are affected, etc. The implications are much larger ranging in that instance.

So it's very difficult to compare leagues and say right from wrong.
Ahh, gotcha. Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by faster
So my answer to the original post is NO, the penalty should be smaller because of different circumstances.

Question here all.............. if you're sentencing someone to the death penalty, would you rather kill a few innocents or be more cautious?

It's not an exact analogy so don't analyze that please. The point is, our supplement world is a mess, I know that for a fact. So smaller penalties are really a warning as they should be. You don't know what's tainted and you never should pass judgement. Believe me.

Now, where it gets crucial is for repeat offenders. If you really want to be thorough and safe, you give them a slap on the wrist, then a pretty severe strike for #2 and lifetime for #3. You can be pretty sure that most guys hit with #2 are guilty of something and #3, well, too bad.

So considering the complexity of each single athlete in professional sports here in the US, the marketing plan, team strategy, large level of spiked supps, etc, you have to be cautious right away and error on leniency. Later on, you reign down the wrath because you know with almost absolute certainly you're dealing with a rule breaker.
Also agree... besides the death penalty part, lol.

I'm curious, Blue Monkey do you agree with the idea of "3 strikes". Doesn't touch on the original question of whether 4 games is too short (which I believe is the 2nd strike for the NFL) but I definitely think the system is how it should be (and I think is for most sports).
wwharton is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 02:44 PM   #39
MVP
 
OVR: 42
Join Date: Mar 2009
Blog Entries: 14
Re: NFL substance abuse policy vs rest of the world's substance abuse policy

Quote:
Originally Posted by faster
Steroid health risks are minimal, sorry guys. Find me 10 guys who died from steroids.... and that you can definately tell me that. You can't find them. Almost every person you bring up will be taking something else that's FAR more potent and dangerous -- like every pro wrestler.
Umm..maybe I'm misreading this but I hope your not implying that all the tragic wrestling death are because of steroids? The wide margin of those deaths are from long term/heavy drug use related to living a lifestyle that was for a decade or so wreckless and ill informed.
deaduck is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 03:40 PM   #40
MVP
 
faster's Arena
 
OVR: 13
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,182
Re: NFL substance abuse policy vs rest of the world's substance abuse policy

Quote:
Originally Posted by deaduck
Umm..maybe I'm misreading this but I hope your not implying that all the tragic wrestling death are because of steroids? The wide margin of those deaths are from long term/heavy drug use related to living a lifestyle that was for a decade or so wreckless and ill informed.
No................. the opposite. And that's the case with almost all deaths people use to point at steroids -- other drugs are the culprit on almost all occasions. The pro wrestlers that have died and some have suggested steroids all have had other, much more dangerous substances in their systems. Hmmmmm..... cocaine or steroids? I wonder what could have been the cause? High amphetamine levels.... dangit... must have been the juice! Lyle Alzado... yeah, it was the juice. Uh no, it was the brain tumor you had. The point is that steroids are NOT the killer or even major health risk that other say.
__________________
"Well the NBA is in great hands but if I had to pick the single greatest player on the planet, I take Kobe Bryant without hesitation." - Michael Jordan, 2006
faster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

« Operation Sports Forums > Football > Pro Football »


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:49 AM.
Top -