OT: Brian Cushing suspended four games for PEDs

[condon84]

Nor were you by the Patriots' explanation, but you made the claim so I thought that I, too, would claim victim status.

Victim status is a bit dramatic. He got caught breaking a rule that was implemented specifically to stop our videotaping practice. Yet he continued the very practice that the new rule was implemented to prevent just weeks after the memo of the new rule was faxed and then hid behind a "misinterpretation" excuse that we all know was BS. It's lame and if you feel like his reasoning for doing it excused him from any wrong doing, then maybe you're not as smart as I thought you were.

 

[Scouse Patriot]

Something about that kid that just annoys the sh!t out of me.

 

[BSR]

Victim status is a bit dramatic. He got caught breaking a rule that was implemented specifically to stop our videotaping practice. Yet he continued the very practice that the new rule was implemented to prevent just weeks after the memo of the new rule was faxed and then hid behind a "misinterpretation" excuse that we all know was BS. It's lame and if you feel like his reasoning for doing it excused him from any wrong doing, then maybe you're not as smart as I thought you were.

Its not that anyone is trying to excuse him from any "wrongdoing". The point is degree of wrongdoing. It is literally a video camera placement violation. It should have been the equivalent of a speeding ticket. And now due to the lawsuit that DI cited, the NFL is finally having to admit to this.

Now was BB's explanation possibly just some lame pre-prepared excuse? Quite possibly, just like when pulled over for speeding you might tell the officer that you didn't see the sign or say that you were late for a meeting or some other excuse. I'm sure he understood that there was a risk of getting caught, but I'm sure he never thought the consequences would be so dire for something he believed so minor. If anything BB is a smart man. As its a reasonable guess to guess that it was a lame excuse, it is also a reasonable guess that if he thought he was breaking some important rule he would have taken better care in hiding the practice. Everyone knew he was doing it. He knew everyone knew he was doing it. For the longest time, nobody cared.

 

[Deus Irae]

Victim status is a bit dramatic. He got caught breaking a rule that was implemented specifically to stop our videotaping practice. Yet he continued the very practice that the new rule was implemented to prevent just weeks after the memo of the new rule was faxed and then hid behind a "misinterpretation" excuse that we all know was BS. It's lame and if you feel like his reasoning for doing it excused him from any wrong doing, then maybe you're not as smart as I thought you were.

1.) Please produce this "new rule".

2.) Please produce evidence to prove that the "new rule" was implemented "specifically to stop our videotaping practice".

3.) The memo was neither a rule nor a regulation.

4.) You should have read the stuff I linked. You'd have been able to avoid making the same tired and refuted arguments that were made more than 2 years ago.

5.) I don't know how smart you thought I was, but I'm smart enough to know that when filming from the end zone is fine, and filming from enclosed areas in the stadium is fine, the issue with filming from the sidelines is about position, not filming. I don't know why this stuff has to be repeated, but just take a look at how the Jets, who were also "caught" filming, were dealt with.

Jets videotaped Patriots last season in Foxborough - NFL - ESPN

Report: Jets caught spying - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

Now, if filming was illegal per se, the Jets would have needed to be punished regardless of any claimed "permission".

6.) The Patriots had been filming since 2000, and had been doing it out in the open enough for people such as Herm Edwards to be able to see it and wave to the camera. If it had been something the league considered contrary to the rules, they had plenty of time to deal with it prior to Goodell deciding to play the part of of the new guy who's just got to get into a pissing contest.

7.)

The issue is not stealing signals. That is allowed, “and it is done quite widely,” Commissioner Roger Goodell said recently.

The issue, rather, is the method of acquiring the signals.

“I’m not sure that there is a coach in the league that doesn’t expect that their signals are being intercepted by opposing teams,” Goodell said Feb. 1, two days before the Super Bowl.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/sports/football/17nfl.html?pagewanted=print

Now, your arguments were wrong and uninformed. Let's just let this all drop. I don't want to have to continue rehashing spygate. It was a tempest in a teapot, and it's one of Goodell's many idiot moments.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

ausbacker is as far from a tool as you can find.

So, you're saying he's decorative?

 

[patchick]

both cushing and matthews are about the most obvious cases of PED's in the draft last year, but some teams figure they don't care an dwill deal with it when they need to...

You never know, but both did make me nervous in the draft. Here's Matthews' history, make of it what you may:

- Came from a football family, so was steeped in football and had access to great training from an early age.
- Couldn't crack his high school team's starting lineup because he was scrawny and not a great athlete.
- Got no scholarship offers.
- Walked on at USC spent two years as a non-scholarship player.
- Because of his great hustle and work ethic, awarded a scholarship in his 3rd year. Played special teams, and backed up Brian Cushing.
- Once he joined that LB corps, this lifelong football-steeped, hard-working but size-challenged player suddenly "committed to rigorous weight training and conditioning programs to gain size and improve his performance level"
- Emerged a year later as a muscular physical specimen who blew away the Combine.

:confused2:

 

[eom]

You never know, but both did make me nervous in the draft. Here's Matthews' history, make of it what you may:

- Came from a football family, so was steeped in football and had access to great training from an early age.
- Couldn't crack his high school team's starting lineup because he was scrawny and not a great athlete.
- Got no scholarship offers.
- Walked on at USC spent two years as a non-scholarship player.
- Because of his great hustle and work ethic, awarded a scholarship in his 3rd year. Played special teams, and backed up Brian Cushing.
- Once he joined that LB corps, this lifelong football-steeped, hard-working but size-challenged player suddenly "committed to rigorous weight training and conditioning programs to gain size and improve his performance level"
- Emerged a year later as a muscular physical specimen who blew away the Combine.

:confused2:

I think I'd have an easier time believing it was a radioactive spider bite.

 

[IcyPatriot]

@ 82 days until training camp .... :scared:

 

[PATSNUTme]

You never know, but both did make me nervous in the draft. Here's Matthews' history, make of it what you may:

- Came from a football family, so was steeped in football and had access to great training from an early age.
- Couldn't crack his high school team's starting lineup because he was scrawny and not a great athlete.
- Got no scholarship offers.
- Walked on at USC spent two years as a non-scholarship player.
- Because of his great hustle and work ethic, awarded a scholarship in his 3rd year. Played special teams, and backed up Brian Cushing.
- Once he joined that LB corps, this lifelong football-steeped, hard-working but size-challenged player suddenly "committed to rigorous weight training and conditioning programs to gain size and improve his performance level"
- Emerged a year later as a muscular physical specimen who blew away the Combine.

:confused2:

Add to the fact that his grandfather, father, and uncle were all big men.

A good friend of mine in high school was 6'5 and skinny as a post. He would be pushed around in high school basketball. His father was a big man. In college my friend filled out and added 40 pounds- no roids back then. He was the one pushing college basketball players around by his junior year.

I think that Matthews genetics point to his growing into his body late and didn't need roids to do it.

So I'm not buying the guilt by association on him.

 

[patchick]

Add to the fact that his grandfather, father, and uncle were all big men.

A good friend of mine in high school was 6'5 and skinny as a post. He would be pushed around in high school basketball. His father was a big man. In college my friend filled out and added 40 pounds- no roids back then. He was the one pushing college basketball players around by his junior year.

I think that Matthews genetics point to his growing into his body late and didn't need roids to do it.

So I'm not buying the guilt by association on him.

Nut, it is absolutely, positively possible that Matthews was a dramatic but natural late bloomer. But in considering the likelihood of that, you have to weigh that his dramatic transformation coincided exactly with the time he became close friends with a teammate who has since been proven a doper.

Take a look at Matthews' facial structure early vs. late in his college career:

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Damn! Now I'll have to go thru life with folks suspicious I'm a roider

 

[Snake Eyes]

Nut, it is absolutely, positively possible that Matthews was a dramatic but natural late bloomer. But in considering the likelihood of that, you have to weigh that his dramatic transformation coincided exactly with the time he became close friends with a teammate who has since been proven a doper.

Take a look at Matthews' facial structure early vs. late in his college career:

yes, his facial features in the first pic look rather boyish, in the 2nd pic he looks like man.

I'm sorry but this doesn't prove anything.

 

[BostonPatriot]

Nut, it is absolutely, positively possible that Matthews was a dramatic but natural late bloomer. But in considering the likelihood of that, you have to weigh that his dramatic transformation coincided exactly with the time he became close friends with a teammate who has since been proven a doper.

Take a look at Matthews' facial structure early vs. late in his college career:

This post is a great example of how little people know about steroids and how they affect the human body.

First, Matthews' facial structure is the exact same in the first picture as in the second. Pictures are a horrible way to forecast steroid use. How many times have you seen pictures of yourself and you looked “different”? The difference in the pictures is due to Clay's increased muscle mass and lower body fat. Simply put, he went from a boy to a man. Look at pictures of yourself when you were a freshman in college and then again during your senior year. You'll look different, just like Clay.

Second, facial changes are not typically a side effect of steroid use in men. Growth Hormone is what can cause facial changes and increased head, hand and feet size. Gyno, aggressive behavior, sevre acne/backne and a bloated appearance are far better “tells” than facial growth. In fact, I don’t recall ever seeing a man's facial features change from steroid use, alone. That is not common at all.

Third, muscle mass and overall weight gain is another poor indication of steroid use (when used as the soul indication of steroid use). If Clay had not trained with weights, and not followed a diet designed to help him add lean mass, when he did start to implement those tools, the muscle would come fast and furious. It’s not out of the ordinary for a novice weight lifter with good to great gentics to see 20-35 lbs of lean mass over the first couple years, training naturally. That said, after that initial shock to the body, muscle gains slow down dramatically, and the typical male can expect to gain 1-5 lbs of lean mass per year. Again, this is why weight alone is a bad gauge of steroid use. Fat and water are not lean muscle, and often times those who gain weight are adding fat along with that muscle, thinking it's quality gains. If you look at pictures of Clay with his shirt off, you can see he’s not extremely lean and clearly has added bodyfat with the lean mass.

A better in indication of Clay's steroid use would be his dramatic improvement in performance and production (that is based on his ability to recover much faster than his peers). Look at all the baseball players who started having huge spikes in performance later in their careers, out of the blue. Steroids are not just used to add muscle..they are also used as a recovery agent.

In conclusion, while increased muscle mass (within reason) can be a tell of steroid use, it’s not even close to an accurate gauge on how to tell if someone is using the drug(s).

 

[crowell33]

This post is a great example of how little people know about steroids and how they affect the human body.

First, Matthews' facial structure is the exact same in the first picture as in the second. Pictures are a horrible way to forecast steroid use. How many times have you seen pictures of yourself and you looked “different”? The difference in the pictures is due to Clay's increased muscle mass and lower body fat. Simply put, he went from a boy to a man. Look at pictures of yourself when you were a freshman in college and then again during your senior year. You'll look different, just like Clay.

Second, facial changes are not typically a side effect of steroid use in men. Growth Hormone is what can cause facial changes and increased head, hand and feet size. Gyno, aggressive behavior, sevre acne/backne and a bloated appearance are far better “tells” than facial growth. In fact, I don’t recall ever seeing a man's facial features change from steroid use, alone. That is not common at all.

Third, muscle mass and overall weight gain is another poor indication of steroid use (when used as the soul indication of steroid use). If Clay had not trained with weights, and not followed a diet designed to help him add lean mass, when he did start to implement those tools, the muscle would come fast and furious. It’s not out of the ordinary for a novice weight lifter with good to great gentics to see 20-35 lbs of lean mass over the first couple years, training naturally. That said, after that initial shock to the body, muscle gains slow down dramatically, and the typical male can expect to gain 1-5 lbs of lean mass per year. Again, this is why weight alone is a bad gauge of steroid use. Fat and water are not lean muscle, and often times those who gain weight are adding fat along with that muscle, thinking it's quality gains. If you look at pictures of Clay with his shirt off, you can see he’s not extremely lean and clearly has added bodyfat with the lean mass.

A better in indication of Clay's steroid use would be his dramatic improvement in performance and production (that is based on his ability to recover much faster than his peers). Look at all the baseball players who started having huge spikes in performance later in their careers, out of the blue. Steroids are not just used to add muscle..they are also used as a recovery agent.

In conclusion, while increased muscle mass (within reason) can be a tell of steroid use, it’s not even close to an accurate gauge on how to tell if someone is using the drug(s).

Looks like steroids.

 

[BostonPatriot]

Looks like steroids.

I agree.

Clay's explosion in production his senior year would suggest that.

My point: ignorant comparisons such as: "look at these two pictures" and comments like: "he's gained 30 pounds" are rediculous at best.

 

[crowell33]

I agree.

Clay's explosion in production his senior year would suggest that.

My point: ignorant comparisons such as: "look at these two pictures" and comments like: "he's gained 30 pounds" are rediculous at best.

Agreed. Circumstantial evidence at best.

 

[BostonPatriot]

Add to the fact that his grandfather, father, and uncle were all big men.

A good friend of mine in high school was 6'5 and skinny as a post. He would be pushed around in high school basketball. His father was a big man. In college my friend filled out and added 40 pounds- no roids back then. He was the one pushing college basketball players around by his junior year.

I think that Matthews genetics point to his growing into his body late and didn't need roids to do it.

So I'm not buying the guilt by association on him.

This is another example of the wrong way to forecast steroid use. I appologize for being blunt. I have a lot of respect for you.

All weight gain is not created equal. I could gain 20 lbs of weight in a month if I wanted to. Would be mostly lean muscle? Nope. Most of it would be fat and water. Your friend from college gained weight that was probably a combination of fat, a little muscle and water (unless he undertook a serious weight training regimen that he had not done before). And yes, steroids did exist when you were in college (unless it was before the 40's). The 70’s and 80’s was a huge time for steriods. The golden age of bodybuilding.

Steroids accelerate the rate in which you gain lean mass and allow you to recover much faster. Lean mass is muscle alone - minus fat and water. As I said above, mass gains are not always the best way to forecast steroid use, because novice weight lifters can experience dramatic gains in muscle mass based on their genetics and diet. In regards to steroid use, the tip-off comes when muscle gains continue to come fast and furious for the seasoned weight lifter. After the initial shock your body adapts to from weight training, lean mass gains slow down to 1-5 lbs of LEAN MASS a year. When you're on the sauce, you are producing 100's - 1000's of times more test than the average male. Testosterone is imperative in the creation of muscle, and also recovery, so a steriod user will see gains in lean mass much quicker than your average male. That said, that is not always the case! I've seen guys who take more drugs than you can imagine get very little results. It's all based on genetics and "drug response". That is why steriods are tricky to predict with only visual tools.

A better tell of steroid use is gyno, a bloated or "watery" look to the face, severe "backne" and spats of uncontrollable aggressive behavior. But really, the best "tell" of steroid use with athletes is dramatic spikes in production that come out of nowhere. Ex: Bonds' 70 home run season very late in his career - etc.

 

[Snake Eyes]

This post is a great example of how little people know about steroids and how they affect the human body.

First, Matthews' facial structure is the exact same in the first picture as in the second. Pictures are a horrible way to forecast steroid use. How many times have you seen pictures of yourself and you looked “different”? The difference in the pictures is due to Clay's increased muscle mass and lower body fat. Simply put, he went from a boy to a man. Look at pictures of yourself when you were a freshman in college and then again during your senior year. You'll look different, just like Clay.

Second, facial changes are not typically a side effect of steroid use in men. Growth Hormone is what can cause facial changes and increased head, hand and feet size. Gyno, aggressive behavior, sevre acne/backne and a bloated appearance are far better “tells” than facial growth. In fact, I don’t recall ever seeing a man's facial features change from steroid use, alone. That is not common at all.

Third, muscle mass and overall weight gain is another poor indication of steroid use (when used as the soul indication of steroid use). If Clay had not trained with weights, and not followed a diet designed to help him add lean mass, when he did start to implement those tools, the muscle would come fast and furious. It’s not out of the ordinary for a novice weight lifter with good to great gentics to see 20-35 lbs of lean mass over the first couple years, training naturally. That said, after that initial shock to the body, muscle gains slow down dramatically, and the typical male can expect to gain 1-5 lbs of lean mass per year. Again, this is why weight alone is a bad gauge of steroid use. Fat and water are not lean muscle, and often times those who gain weight are adding fat along with that muscle, thinking it's quality gains. If you look at pictures of Clay with his shirt off, you can see he’s not extremely lean and clearly has added bodyfat with the lean mass.

A better in indication of Clay's steroid use would be his dramatic improvement in performance and production (that is based on his ability to recover much faster than his peers). Look at all the baseball players who started having huge spikes in performance later in their careers, out of the blue. Steroids are not just used to add muscle..they are also used as a recovery agent.

In conclusion, while increased muscle mass (within reason) can be a tell of steroid use, it’s not even close to an accurate gauge on how to tell if someone is using the drug(s).

Agreed, look at this pic of Cushing, he's got the roid boobs something fiece, Matthews' chest looks muscular but normal.

Now let's take a look at Matthew's mother, not a dainty or petite woman.

In his prime his dad was muscular with a similar build.

I don't think his pictures support anything being out of the ordinary, as far as increased production being proof of steroid use, should Brady skyrocketing in 07 be considered proof of his steroid use or could something else be at work?

 

[BostonPatriot]

Agreed, look at this pic of Cushing, he's got the roid boobs something fiece, Matthews' chest looks muscular but normal.

Snake eyes, great job.

As you can see, Brian is displaying a pretty severe case of gyno. This comes with steriod use by an amateur. After his cycle, his test levels likely dropped through the floor (because his natural system was temp shut down by the juice he was injecting) and his estrogen levels likely spiked through the roof. Viola, you have boobs, just like a women. You see, test is what makes a man a man and estrogen is what makes a woman a woman.

To be fair, gyno is a real condition in males with low test levels and does not always have to do with steriod use. That said, In cushings case, I would say it was from steriod and him not understanding how to deal with coming off a cycle of steriods.

 

[BostonPatriot]

Agreed, look at this pic of Cushing, he's got the roid boobs something fiece, Matthews' chest looks muscular but normal.

Now let's take a look at Matthew's mother, not a dainty or petite woman.

In his prime his dad was muscular with a similar build.

I don't think his pictures support anything being out of the ordinary, as far as increased production being proof of steroid use, should Brady skyrocketing in 07 be considered proof of his steroid use or could something else be at work?

Couple points.

The picture thing is just not an accurate way of forcasting anything. Currently, your comparing a man in his 60's to a young man in his 20's, who's in his prime, and you are also comparing his father (who had a different mother) to his son ( who is still about 10 years older than Clay in that picture) and expecting to draw an accurate conclusion. Clay sr could have been on something there too, we just don't know.

As you said, spikes in production are not the end-all-be-all tell with steriod use. It's the one that I would put the most stock in, though. Strange spikes in production. Ex: Bond hittin 70 homers late in his career. Clay Jr, blowing up his senior year and dominating in the pros.

Bradys dramatic spike in production is easily explainable (moss, welker, o line play, playcalling - etc). Clay sort of exploded out of nowhere and it carried over to the NFL.

I'm not saying he's dirty... however, I would guess he was if you put a gun to my head.