Good A.P. editorial


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Good A.P. editorial

Postby trackstar » Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:29 am

Finally, a voice in the mainstream media points out the obvious flaw in the "track is a dirty sport" myth: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/gen/wi ... d=24355985
trackstar
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby tafnut » Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:11 am

good call - the sporting public assumes we're the dirtiest only because we are the most vigilent at testing and reporting. Imagine if the NFL or MLB tested as we do.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby rmayes » Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:25 am

What's funny is the athletes in basketball, football and baseball don't even need "designer" steroids, plain old steroids work fine when you're not being tested or at least not being tested very often. Anyone know exactly what they test for in MLB and the NFL and how often they test (do they ever actually test or do they just talk about it). I don't think the NBA tests at all at this point.
rmayes
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby Guest » Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:48 am

MLB does not test; the players union is the strongest in any sport, hence the difficulties there.

In fairness, the NFL actually does a good deal of testing. They don't do blood testing to detect HGH (nobody in any sport does). But their testing program is pretty rigorous.

I don't know about the NBA.
Guest
 

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby Guest » Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:51 am

>MLB does not test; the players union is the
>strongest in any sport, hence the difficulties
>there.

In fairness, the NFL actually does a
>good deal of testing. They don't do blood
>testing to detect HGH (nobody in any sport does).
>But their testing program is pretty
>rigorous.

I don't know about the NBA.>

It is inconceivable to me that the NFL is on the up and up with the testing they supposedly do. Either they don't really test or they hide some results.
Guest
 

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby Guest » Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:07 pm

Note that Donald Fehr has been a member of the USOC Board And the Senate's USOC reform task force while simultaneously heading the MLB union that has fought against baseball players being drug tested. Pretty sad.
Guest
 

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby rmayes » Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:16 pm

It would be nice to see the NFL and other major sports pool their resources with the USADA to test their athletes...So much money has been spent internationaly to develop these tests for testing Olympic athletes and to my knowledge the NFL has not taken advantage of these tests nor do they use the labs that the IAAF etc use to test their athletes (can someone please correct me if I'm wrong). This leads me to believe that the testing in the NFL is either woefully behind what we even have in track or is pretty much non-existant. They have certainly caught far fewer players over the last couple of years than we have in track (come to think of it have they caught any?).
rmayes
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby Guest » Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:21 pm

<<In fairness, the NFL actually does a
good deal of testing. They don't do blood
testing to detect HGH (nobody in any sport does).
But their testing program is pretty
rigorous.>>

This a bit off-topic and possibly fictional, but on a recent episode of ESPN's "Playmakers", one of the characters avoided detection by having a doctor drain and clean his bladder of the drug-heavy urine, after which the doctor injected someone else's clean urine into the bladder.

GROSS!!!
Guest
 

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby rmayes » Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:31 pm

This a
>bit off-topic and possibly fictional, but on a
>recent episode of ESPN's "Playmakers", one of
>the characters avoided detection by having a
>doctor drain and clean his bladder of the
>drug-heavy urine, after which the doctor injected
>someone else's clean urine into the
>bladder.

GROSS!!!

There was a very similar scene in the movie "The Program"...
rmayes
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby Guest » Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:32 pm

Couple points:

First, to Randy Mayes: yes, the NFL has caught a fair number of players over the past couple years. Notable examples include Julius Peppers and Lee Flowers; there have been a number of others.

Second, regarding the Playmakers show: that show has no resemblance to reality. Sure, some stuff goes on in the NFL, but that show (like Oliver Stone's ridiculous Any Given Sunday) is a huge exaggeration.

Third, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the NFL's testing program; I believe the NFL has done quite alot.

However, the NFL is actually not really relevant on this board; criticizing the NFL about its supposed shortcomings in this area really just deflects attention away from our own sport, which should be the main subject of this message board and is actually in a very sorry state regarding drugs.
Guest
 

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby trackstar » Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:23 pm

Somebody on the t-and-f listserv opined that this drug scandal might take us back to "pre-1958" times; I say if the NFL tested as vigorously as track & field, we'd go back to the days of linemen weighing 250-275 pounds.
trackstar
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby bhall » Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:29 pm

I'd say the testing of other sports is relevant. T&F competes for viewers and sponsorship dollars against those other sports. Getting black eye after black eye for testing while other sports are not testing, or are testing at a lesser level, gives them an advantage and ultimately hurts our sport.
bhall
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby Guest » Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:08 pm

An Ex-Cowboy (name escapes except that he's a spokeman for NORML now!) explained last year how the NFL drug testing program. They test once per year and you get 4 months notice before your test date. That's how he was able to fire up a bowl daily for his 10+ year career and not get caught.
Guest
 

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby michael lewis » Wed Oct 22, 2003 6:03 pm

"this drug scandal might take us back to "pre-1958" times"

Not a chance. 45 years of accumulated knowledge pertaining to training (including use of weights) means today's athletes have a lot of science in addition to drugs to help them run swifter, jump higher and throw farther. And they run on much faster tracks, and there is a worldwide talent pool which dwarfs the number of participants in the 1950's. Get real.
michael lewis
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:51 am

Cooter Brown: how long ago was this ex-Cowboy in the league? Things have gotten stricter in the last few years.
Guest
 

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby rmayes » Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:27 am

To quote Larry Rawson in this piece he did for Runner's World:

"I know of one journalistic effort to report on how the NFL does its testing and the organization declined to cooperate. No piece was done."

from http://www.runnersworld.com/home/0,1300 ... 33,FF.html

I'm not sure anyone knows exactly what the NFL's testing procedures are.
rmayes
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:34 am

Don't know if you are implying anything by your statement or not, but I don't think the NFL's refusal to cooperate with some journalist means that their testing program is not stringent.
Guest
 

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:37 am

>Somebody on the t-and-f listserv opined that this
>drug scandal might take us back to "pre-1958"
>times; I say if the NFL tested as vigorously as
>track & field, we'd go back to the days of
>linemen weighing 250-275 pounds.>>

I seem to recall that the LA Rams had a front four that averaged 300lb back in the late 50's or early 60's, with behemoths like Rosie Grier on it. Anybody recall deteails?
Guest
 

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby trackstar » Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:43 pm

>Cooter Brown: how long ago was this ex-Cowboy in
>the league? Things have gotten stricter in the
>last few years.

Mark Stepnoski. Played 1989-2001.
trackstar
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby trackstar » Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:44 pm

trackstar
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Good A.P. editorial

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:03 am

Trackstar: that link doesn't go anywhere.

I seem to remember that Mark's drug of choice was marijuana (he is not involved in an organization that campaigns for its legalization).

Where is the steroid evidence?
Guest
 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest