Question: do you care about PED's?

[Steve102]

With this Ray Lewis and A-rod news, I am curious: do you really care? It's my belief that PED's are rampant at the highest level of all pro sports. Rampant. I believe most fans want their football players bigger than life, and could care less if they are dirty. I also believe there's a double standard when it comes to other sports. Perhaps that is driven by the sports writers, I don't know. IMO there's more interest in Lance Armstrong and the baseball players than football, basketball, or even golf.

I think sports are dirty, it's economically driven, and fans for the most part don't care.

 

[Brady2Gronk]

No I dont really care if athletes use PEDs. I especially dont care if it is like Ray Lewis' case where they are used to recover from an injury quicker to get back on the field.

 

[letekro]

No. The PED concern is largely media driven. Sports media is full of guys that secretly envy the guys they cover because they are everything they are not--rich, attractive, and talented. They like nothing better than to "expose" the athletes for being cheaters, bad people, whatever. That Congress got involved with this is a national embarrassment.

 

[Froob]

Not anymore, pretty obvious a lot of athletes use them. and lol@the "adderal" academic.

 

[patsfan13]

They should be used to aid in injury recovery and their use should be monitored/administrated by the teams and leagues. If a substances is used to aid the recovery on non athletes it should be available for those purposes to athletes.

 

[voluntarysaftey]

I care about creating a level playing field.
Whether that includes or excludes PEDs I'm not as concerned about -- but the players as a collective should prefer a game without PEDs as it reduces their long term health risks.

PEDs are like a zero sum game -- if everyone takes them; or if no one takes them, then everything is equal. So everyone is better off not taking them. But people do because they believe others do and they need to to level the field, or because they believe others don't and thus it gives them an advantage.

More people won't watch the game just cause it has PEDs.
I don't believe the 'baseball wanted more home runs so they allowed it'. If that was the case, they could've just allowed corked bats.

Maybe the NFL should up the penalty.
Not all PEDs are equal -- if you take a drug accidently for a non sports purpose, a 2-4 game suspension sounds fair enough. If you're taking something for a sports advantage, make it a year suspension on first offense; 2 years on second. People will think a lot harder if they lose an entire season.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Not an expert on the science but if there is medical evidence that doctor administered PEDs can expedite or improve injury recovery, they should be allowed. Times change. Medicine advances.

 

[dales804]

In sports other than football, I don't really care. I know PEDs are used throughout the NFL but I don't like it because guys are hitting each other and have the potential to hurt. In sports like baseball, I really don't care. It still takes skill to play the game and seeing a guy blast a 425 ft. HR is exciting as well as watching a pitcher throw a CG while still topping off at 97MPH in the 9th inning.

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

I think almost all NFL players take some sort of supplement to enhance muscle/strength gains and to enhance endurance. But not everyone takes illegal Performance enhancers. The players that do are able to detox and get away with it or they take something that doesn't stay in their system long enough to be detected in a drug test.

Like I said, I believe a lot of players have used something. For example, a stat that stuck out to me was Aaron Hernadez's bench press results in the 2010 combine. He repped 225lbs for 30 reps, which was on par with most lineman and I believe was the most of the TE's. Hernadez was also only 20 years old. If he wasn't taking some kind of performance enhancer at some point within the previous couple years, then I am surprised.

 

[DocHoliday]

My solution:

Allow free use of molecularly tagged PEDs from NFL (not team) doctors for the purposes of speedier recovery.

Before you use it, however, you consent to a blood test for PEDs that aren't the type the NFL uses (as well as if you had any before they inject you).

Simple - the lure of easy PEDs for recovery will be too great for athletes to resist while automatically screening them for other uses.

 

[Sicilian]

I think my opinion changes on a case by case basis. I don't think they really upset the integrity of the sports themselves, because as others have pointed out they are pretty rampant. For a guy like Ray Lewis (as much as I feel disdain for him as a person in general), he knew this was going to be his last kick at the can, and didn't want to end his career on the sideline. I can understand that if not respect it.

Same for young players trying to make the bottom of an NFL roster, or a player like Cunningham trying to prove his worth before his career is essentially over before it began. I'm willing to bet most people if given the choice, would choose to risk something like this if it meant the difference between a multi-million dollar payout or working at a grocery store.

Where I take personal issue is players like Bonds and Clemons, where they were already rich, already hall of famers, and still felt the need to grab more through artificial means. These weren't borderline players trying to change their lives, or injured players trying to get back on the field. They were all-stars, and in Bonds' case I believe he just couldn't STAND the attention that McGuire and Sosa (who are in the same category) were getting and needed to become the center of the baseball universe. I have no respect for those men.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Depends on the PED.

If they don't harm the body, I don't really care.

But ones that harm the body (including harm that only surfaces down the road) should be banned with very, very severe penalties (like being suspended for an entire season).

Why? Because I don't want players who don't want to ****** up their body with them feeling pressured to take them because they'll be at a competitive disadvantage relative to other players who don't care what they're doing to themselves.

 

[Steve102]

Depends on the PED.

If they don't harm the body, I don't really care.

But ones that harm the body (including harm that only surfaces down the road) should be banned with very, very severe penalties (like being suspended for an entire season).

Why? Because I don't want players who don't want to ****** up their body with them feeling pressured to take them because they'll be at a competitive disadvantage relative to other players who don't care what they're doing to themselves.

There's the reason these guys use this stuff: it works. I say more research is in order. These drugs have far reaching possibilities for society as whole, not just the super rich, athletically gifted or the famous.

 

[signbabybrady]

As other have pointed I dont care about PEDs but I do care about a level playing field.

If there were no health side effects to these drugs than I would want all the athletes on them because it would just make for better athletes. Also and this will sound calous but I dont really care about the players health that much either, I mean I dont want to see someone seriously injured or die but if they did some long term damage to a kidney or liver because of what they took that is not really my problem and it was their choice. That being said this gets back to the level playing field, so long as their are negative side effects and it is banned not everyone will use them and thus it is not fair for anyone to use them.

That's the black and white of it but as they are banned but persumed to be fairly widely used you are in a very grey area and its highly unfair to the athletes that are faced with tough decisions like the difference playing all 16 games in a season can have on your contract or the difference between being the 53rd player on a roster if you use but being jobless if you didn't.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Most definitely!

 

[fxkane]

Depends on the PED.

If they don't harm the body, I don't really care.

But ones that harm the body (including harm that only surfaces down the road) should be banned with very, very severe penalties (like being suspended for an entire season).

Why? Because I don't want players who don't want to ****** up their body with them feeling pressured to take them because they'll be at a competitive disadvantage relative to other players who don't care what they're doing to themselves.

Agreed. Amazed that this discussion advanced to the 20th post without anyone mentioning the most crucial factor in the whole debate. These drugs/supplements can be incredibly dangerous over the long haul, esp when a quick outcome is the desire (overdosing competitively)

 

[thenepatsrule]

What does P and E stand for? Performance-enhancing

I donot follow boxing but dont heavy weights fight heavy weights? The goal in any sport is to have a level playing field. If one player uses PED then his team has an unfair advantage, in that case let all 110 odd players use PEDs so that all of them are juiced up. Injuries are part of the game, People get injured get old get retired and that paves way for a newer generation of players. Maybe if people like Ray Lewis had not taken PEDs and extended their playing careers some other fine young Defensive player would be playing for the Ravens.

I am surprised many fans have come out in support of players using PED. If using PED is absolutely necessary then maybe the players should miss some games before returning.


Also i must say i am shocked at the double standards of ESPN. Just because Ray lewis will be joining the network does not mean they blindly support him.

Here is what i heard on the radio this morning on ESPN

"Ray Lewis took PEDs so that his team could win, this shows dedication"

Lance armstrong took PEDs to gain an unfair advantage over his opponents and make money

So ray lewis taking PEDs is not an unfair advantage? and did he not make money?

 

[BTTA]

I object to the label. A single category that includes both steroids and growth hormone is more misleading than useful. At some point it becomes like "clean coal" - the very language implies something that misdirects the whole conversation.

I'm in favor of growth hormone for injury recovery. I love the idea of molecular tagging from an earlier post. Transparency is the primary issue.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

As other have pointed I dont care about PEDs but I do care about a level playing field.

If there were no health side effects to these drugs than I would want all the athletes on them because it would just make for better athletes. Also and this will sound calous but I dont really care about the players health that much either, I mean I dont want to see someone seriously injured or die but if they did some long term damage to a kidney or liver because of what they took that is not really my problem and it was their choice. That being said this gets back to the level playing field, so long as their are negative side effects and it is banned not everyone will use them and thus it is not fair for anyone to use them.

That's the black and white of it but as they are banned but persumed to be fairly widely used you are in a very grey area and its highly unfair to the athletes that are faced with tough decisions like the difference playing all 16 games in a season can have on your contract or the difference between being the 53rd player on a roster if you use but being jobless if you didn't.

Callous doesn't even begin to describe it. Your post just underscores why changing a culture is so difficult.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think my opinion changes on a case by case basis. I don't think they really upset the integrity of the sports themselves, because as others have pointed out they are pretty rampant. For a guy like Ray Lewis (as much as I feel disdain for him as a person in general), he knew this was going to be his last kick at the can, and didn't want to end his career on the sideline. I can understand that if not respect it.

Same for young players trying to make the bottom of an NFL roster, or a player like Cunningham trying to prove his worth before his career is essentially over before it began. I'm willing to bet most people if given the choice, would choose to risk something like this if it meant the difference between a multi-million dollar payout or working at a grocery store.

Where I take personal issue is players like Bonds and Clemons, where they were already rich, already hall of famers, and still felt the need to grab more through artificial means. These weren't borderline players trying to change their lives, or injured players trying to get back on the field. They were all-stars, and in Bonds' case I believe he just couldn't STAND the attention that McGuire and Sosa (who are in the same category) were getting and needed to become the center of the baseball universe. I have no respect for those men.

Money is great, it covers a lot of expenses in a $75-150K per year assisted living or Alzheimer's/dementia residence which medical insurance doesn't cover at all. Guys who would trade their brains away in their 50's for a couple of more years in the game in their 20's and 30's should visit some prior to making that decision.