- Joined
- Aug 14, 2005
- Messages
- 15,347
- Reaction score
- 1,568
Damn! Now I'll have to go thru life with folks suspicious I'm a roider
yes, most of us hunks have that cross to bare!
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Damn! Now I'll have to go thru life with folks suspicious I'm a roider
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 and also comparing his father (who had a different mother) to his son ( who is still about 10 years older than Clay in the picture). Clay sr could have been on something 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.
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.
This post is a great example of how little people know about steroids and how they affect the human body.
...and his post is a great example of reading the word "steroids" where it was not written.
Seriously, you raked me over the coals for specifying steroids and not understanding the differences among various PEDs when I never said a single word about any particular substance. What's that about?
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.
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.)
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.
Patriots under investigation for following rules, guidelines violations ...
1. Page 105 of the Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."
2. And, a memo from Ray Anderson, NFL head of football operations, to head coaches and GMs on Sept. 6, 2006 said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches’ booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
You're spinning this into another discussion. The whole point was that Belichick got caught doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing. I'm not interested in arguing if x y z, then it should have been okay:
Belichick speaks with Goodell, apologizes for videotape flap
What he did was against a rule in the NFL Rulebook, a rule that was emphasized in a memo sent to teams prior to 2006 season.
IMO, his excuse was lame. If you think it was a legit reason, so be it.
Most guys who played college football have had to make moral decisions and find the line they draw. The training and conditioning is so rigorous, everything hinges upon recovery. Everybody takes ZMA and rapid delivery protein. From there it's a personal ethics question. When you add the prospect of making tens of millions of dollars if you do a few cycles, I can understand. I don't like it or agree with it, but I understand.
...and his post is a great example of reading the word "steroids" where it was not written.
Seriously, you raked me over the coals for specifying steroids and not understanding the differences among various PEDs when I never said a single word about any particular substance. What's that about?
Here's what I did say: Matthews comes from a family of big dudes. It's always possible that his "big dudeness" kicked in unusually late. But the guy gained 80 lbs of muscle in a truly astonishing physical transformation, the biggest burst coinciding exactly with his friendship with a teammate who we now know was using some unspecified PEDs. Matthews has attributed the dramatic change to committing himself to a weight-training regimen his junior year of college. Yet he grew up in a family of professional football players and had a reputation as a super-hard worker, so he obviously had plenty of weight training before that.
That's all.
Originally Posted by patchick
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:
The points bolded are rediculous at best.
The general public has little to no idea what they are talking about when it comes to steriods. Maybe that fact caused me to go a little overboard with my post. That said, it's nothing personal.
Fair enough. I really don't mean to accuse Matthews of anything in particular, and he may indeed be clean. It's just that his transformation was truly astonishing. Even Nut's example of his friend who went through a similar amazing change was about adding 40 lbs. Matthews went from 170 to 243 -- in an environment where his workout buddy was cutting illicit corners.
With Cushing, it's a very different storyline, with widespread accusations of PEDs starting in the middle of high school. If he really did half of what he's been accused of, it's scary to think about the state of his body.
BTW, I also agree with everybody who says that the temptations and promise of rewards are just too great for many kids to resist. And imagine knowing that your competition -- on the field, or for a scholarship -- has this unfair advantage over you. And the only example of "risk" you see is a multi-million$$ guaranteed contract, with a brief suspension?
Jermaine Cunningham got a lot bigger too.
As a senior in high school ~age 17
As a junior at Florida and a year later at rookie camp. ~age 20/21
To me it looks like Jermaine added at least 50lbs in three years. I used to work with a guy that was a former high school wrestler who started working out again at about 24 years old. He made gains like this in a few months without any weight lifting goals. He just went to the gym to blow off steam. Maybe Clay actually wasn't a very hard worker and gym rat early on. Some guys are freaks like that while others like Cushing need help.
I was blasted here by some people last year for putting pictures of Cushing up in before and after mode. He went from needing a Costanza-Manzere to looking like the incredible hulk.
And yet this was considered a form of bashing to suggest something was off.
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.
According to Associated Press advisor Dave Goldberg, the AP may hold a re-vote for the 2009 Defensive Rookie of the Year award.
Goldberg is also a Rookie of the Year voter. A decision isn't expected for a few days "at least," but Brian Cushing is in danger of being stripped of his award after testing positive for a banned substance last September. Cushing insists that it wasn't steroids. The linebacker wouldn't just lose the trophy, he'd also lose incentives based on rookie-year accomplishments.
NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year voting
Player Pos. Team Votes
Brian Cushing LB Texans 39
Jairus Byrd S Bills 6
Clay Matthews LB Packers 3
Brian Orakpo LB Redskins 2
Comparing the effects of steroids in athletic performance, and the advantages obtained from "spygate" is the most moronic thing I've ever read. Seriously, you should have your posting privileges revoked.