Peyton Manning Accused of HGH Use

D9Male

It really bothers me how little people seem to care about doping in the NFL.

LuckyLloyd

D9Male wrote: »

It really bothers me how little people seem to care about doping in the NFL.

Seems to me that many people are smart enough to understand that the sport with the most outrageous feats of athleticism on a consistent basis wouldn't be as fast or as fun if it was fully clean.

There's also the reality that the vast, vast, vast majority of people who watch the sport will either never have played the game at a high level or not since they were a teenager. As a consequence there is none of the haughtiness on the topic that amateur competitors tend to have on the subject regarding the professional levels of their sport of choice. NFL players are otherworldly athletes playing a brutal sport we'll never experience. As such? Don't care. Enjoy the freak show.

D9Male

I completely understand your argument, although I have issue with you saying that it is because people who have that opinion are "smart enough".

My view is different however. Off the top of my head, here are a few reasons why.

1. Efficacy of Doping Differs Across Athletes
Doping affects people in different ways. For instance some people have naturally high HCT levels, and therefore respond less to EPO. Some people have adverse reactions to nandrolone. So if you and I were to race clean, you might beat me over 100m. So you are a more naturally gifted athlete. If we were to both take the same dose of anabolic steroids, I might beat you now, as it might benefit me more. How is this fair?

2. Not Everyone Has the Same Resources
Professional sports can be very elite, with access to coaching and expertise a key factor in allowing an athlete to succeed. The NFL is actually one of the better sports globally when allowing people from poorer backgrounds to compete at the elite level. Allowing potential athletes to engage in what would become an effective arms race to tool up to succeed in NFL would further skew the odds in favour of teenagers who have the financial means to invest in long-term doping programmes.

3. Long-term Health Issues for Dopers
I can agree with you that it might be fine to allow (say) Manning and Palmer and Kuechly and JJ Watt to jeopardise their health by doping. These guys are old enough and bold enough to make their own beds. However teenagers and college students would be exposed to the significant risks associated with long-term doping. For instance testosterone can cause liver damage, depression and suicide. HGH can cause hypertension, heart attacks, thyroid problems, cancers. EPO can cause cancer, hypertension, pulmonary embolism and strokes. Stimulants and diuretics if used for a prolonged period of time can cause dependence and addiction as well as heart and blood pressure abnormality and emotional stress. Nearly all of the above drugs can cause sleeping disorders.

Personally, I don’t think the spectacle of NFL would suffer if nobody took anything illegal. Sure, it might mean that the star QB or edge rusher might miss more games, but I actually think the sport is resilient enough to withstand it.

D9Male

Damn duplicate posts.

LuckyLloyd

D9Male wrote: »

I completely understand your argument, although I have issue with you saying that it is because people who have that opinion are "smart enough".

My view is different however. Off the top of my head, here are a few reasons why.

1. Efficacy of Doping Differs Across Athletes
Doping affects people in different ways. For instance some people have naturally high HCT levels, and therefore respond less to EPO. Some people have adverse reactions to nandrolone. So if you and I were to race clean, you might beat me over 100m. So you are a more naturally gifted athlete. If we were to both take the same dose of anabolic steroids, I might beat you now, as it might benefit me more. How is this fair?

It's not fair. But the level of resource afforded to different high school programs is not fair. As may be the family backgrounds or living contexts of different players. Is it fair that players can hang around SEC programs despite barely being academically eligible while players at Notre Dame have to take real classes and graduate? Is it fair if you get drafted in the first round by the Jags and doomed to play for a broken program as opposed to getting selected by the Pats or Ravens or Steelers, etc? I mean, is it fair that a man can be as physically gifted as JJ Watts or the likes of Orlando Pace from yesteryear?

There is a lot of unequality in American society anyway, and that affects who will ultimately get a shot at the top levels of the game. True fairness is unachievable.

D9Male wrote: »

2. Not Everyone Has the Same Resources
Professional sports can be very elite, with access to coaching and expertise a key factor in allowing an athlete to succeed. The NFL is actually one of the better sports globally when allowing people from poorer backgrounds to compete at the elite level. Allowing potential athletes to engage in what would become an effective arms race to tool up to succeed in NFL would further skew the odds in favour of teenagers who have the financial means to invest in long-term doping programmes.

Bear in mind that the NFL bears no responsibility for testing procedures or coaching decisions at the NCAA or Highschool level. EVERY former player or strength athlete willing to speak frankly about drugs and training in general advocates maxing out physical potential naturally (and also focussing far more on movement quality in training young elite athletes) before PEDs come into the equation. Honestly PEDs shouldn't be a necessity or consideration until a player is moving into their Junior year at the NCAA level. And by that stage, the majority of players already know the NFL is not a possibility.

The head in the sand 'Drugs are not an option' attitude mitigates against having an adult conversation about PEDs, and that can only encourage misuse by athletes who don't need to embark down that road.

D9Male wrote: »

3. Long-term Health Issues for Dopers
I can agree with you that it might be fine to allow (say) Manning and Palmer and Kuechly and JJ Watt to jeopardise their health by doping. These guys are old enough and bold enough to make their own beds. However teenagers and college students would be exposed to the significant risks associated with long-term doping. For instance testosterone can cause liver damage, depression and suicide. HGH can cause hypertension, heart attacks, thyroid problems, cancers. EPO can cause cancer, hypertension, pulmonary embolism and strokes. Stimulants and diuretics if used for a prolonged period of time can cause dependence and addiction as well as heart and blood pressure abnormality and emotional stress. Nearly all of the above drugs can cause sleeping disorders.

Again, any coach advocating / assisting with PED use for young athletes yet to maximise their natural potential is going to give them bad advice anyway irrespective of what the NFL is doing. And ultimately, irrespective of what the NFL is doing, Highschool and the NCAA is incharge of testing at those levels of the game. And people will probably chear in pursuit of the dream no matter what you do.

Yes, there are health risks to PED use. Well hey - there's health risks to playing football at an elite level anyway. It's the most brutal sport.

D9Male wrote: »

Personally, I don’t think the spectacle of NFL would suffer if nobody took anything illegal. Sure, it might mean that the star QB or edge rusher might miss more games, but I actually think the sport is resilient enough to withstand it.

How would you feel about records going untouched for the next couple of decades? How would you think that would play to the perception and history of the NFL?

LuckyLloyd

There is no way I'd allow my kid to play football by the way. It is simply too dangerous a sport to allow participation in and there are a myriad of alternative forms of physical competition available. I will sit back and enjoy the freaks go at it every Sunday though.

Put it this way - I'm far more annoyed at the NFL for not having guaranteed contracts than I am at them for taking a common sense approach to drug testing for professional athletes.

D9Male

Interesting post, thanks.

's not fair. But the level of resource afforded to different high school programs is not fair. As may be the family backgrounds or living contexts of different players. Is it fair that players can hang around SEC programs despite barely being academically eligible while players at Notre Dame have to take real classes and graduate? Is it fair if you get drafted in the first round by the Jags and doomed to play for a broken program as opposed to getting selected by the Pats or Ravens or Steelers, etc? I mean, is it fair that a man can be as physically gifted as JJ Watts or the likes of Orlando Pace from yesteryear?

There is a lot of unequality in American society anyway, and that affects who will ultimately get a shot at the top levels of the game. True fairness is unachievable.

And yet you are suggesting something that is going to make the playing field even more uneven? To me, I can't agree with this.

Bear in mind that the NFL bears no responsibility for testing procedures or coaching decisions at the NCAA or Highschool level. EVERY former player or strength athlete willing to speak frankly about drugs and training in general advocates maxing out physical potential naturally (and also focussing far more on movement quality in training young elite athletes) before PEDs come into the equation. Honestly PEDs shouldn't be a necessity or consideration until a player is moving into their Junior year at the NCAA level. And by that stage, the majority of players already know the NFL is not a possibility.

The head in the sand 'Drugs are not an option' attitude mitigates against having an adult conversation about PEDs, and that can only encourage misuse by athletes who don't need to embark down that road.

I agree with this for the most part. But I think your opinion that drugs shouldn't be needed until junior year of NCAA level sounds wrong to me. Anecdotal evidence admittedly, but the prevalence of drug use among athletes aged 16-18 in high school is apparently quite high. And this is with the pro leagues not allowing drugs. My belief is that opening it up at the elite level would mean that even more athletes would choose to get first run on their competitors by using drugs at an early age. But you are right in saying that what the NFL does would govern just pro players.

Again, any coach advocating / assisting with PED use for young athletes yet to maximise their natural potential is going to give them bad advice anyway irrespective of what the NFL is doing. And ultimately, irrespective of what the NFL is doing, Highschool and the NCAA is incharge of testing at those levels of the game. And people will probably chear in pursuit of the dream no matter what you do.

Agree on NCAA being a different ball game. Do you think they should have zero tolerance?

I also agree with people cheating in pursuit of the dream, but they are way more likely to do so in the current environment. With theoretical "rules" and minimal enforcement means that they are more likely to cheat. Many will laugh at me for my belief that pro cycling is way, way cleaner than it was 10 years ago. This is because the enforcement and penalties are way stricter.

Yes, there are health risks to PED use. Well hey - there's health risks to playing football at an elite level anyway. It's the most brutal sport.

And yet you are suggesting something that is going to increase those health risks. I can't agree with that.

D9Male

There is no way I'd allow my kid to play football by the way. It is simply too dangerous a sport to allow participation in and there are a myriad of alternative forms of physical competition available. I will sit back and enjoy the freaks go at it every Sunday though.

Put it this way - I'm far more annoyed at the NFL for not having guaranteed contracts than I am at them for taking a common sense approach to drug testing for professional athletes.

I enjoy the freaks going at it as much as the next man. That doesn't mean that I don't think safety, player welfare or health should not be improved.

I would not be thrilled if my kids were in NFL either.

LuckyLloyd

D9Male wrote: »

Interesting post, thanks.

Likewise

D9Male wrote: »

And yet you are suggesting something that is going to make the playing field even more uneven? To me, I can't agree with this.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting anything that isn't happening already. Realistically PEDs are as ingrained in the NFL now as the forward pass. We're happy with the state of the game in terms of competitiveness and entertainment, right?

D9Male wrote: »

I agree with this for the most part. But I think your opinion that drugs shouldn't be needed until junior year of NCAA level sounds wrong to me. Anecdotal evidence admittedly, but the prevalence of drug use among athletes aged 16-18 in high school is apparently quite high. And this is with the pro leagues not allowing drugs. My belief is that opening it up at the elite level would mean that even more athletes would choose to get first run on their competitors by using drugs at an early age. But you are right in saying that what the NFL does would govern just pro players.

It's important to separate how something like this should be used from how it is used. A 17 year old highschool football athlete shouldn't be using PEDs, just as he shouldn't be low bar squatting above depth in extreme knee wraps or muscling up power cleans while pulling from the floor with a flexed spine before landing the catch through his knees. If those things are happening (and they are) it's down to flat out bad coaching from which only the strong naturally gifted athletes will survive so long as luck is on their side.

Nothing is 'opened up' at the NFL level, there is some rudimentary testing and low level punishments for repeat offenders. The NFL is smart enough to know that use is rampant and they're simply choosing to not create a half decade blood bath of trying to stop same.

Ultimately the NFL at an elite level is a strength / power / movement sport across numerous positions. OBJ having an immense ability to haul in the football only matters so long as he can run a 4.4 40 and is fluid enough through the hips to contort his body around the opponent's top CB. Joe Thomas can be as smart and disciplined as he likes, but unless he has the strength and lateral quickness / acceleration to react quickly JJ Watts will blow by him every time. I fundamentally don't believe that NFL players, who begin strength training in their early teens and practicing their skills from a young age, can continue improving physically and mentally beyond their first couple of years in the league without the aid of PEDs. I'm sure the real physical freaks may be exempt, but there is an entire league battling to live in the same world as those guys.

But pretending that isn't happening; or refusing to ever talk about in a real way is only going to lead to unneccesary abuse of young athletes. PED use is only one of a mass of inefficiency in how young elite footballers are trained and handled generally. But honestly? The NFL can't be responsible for every brain dead highschool coach in America.

D9Male wrote: »

Agree on NCAA being a different ball game. Do you think they should have zero tolerance?

Of course! They should have invited USADA in the whole way decades ago and have the kind of punishments for substance abuse that player's receive if they are proven to have accepted a coke out of turn from a booster. Again, the vast majority of even NFL calibre players will fail to reach their physical potential during their NCAA eligibility period. So yes, I fully support an aggressive policy

D9Male wrote: »

I also agree with people cheating in pursuit of the dream, but they are way more likely to do so in the current environment. With theoretical "rules" and minimal enforcement means that they are more likely to cheat. Many will laugh at me for my belief that pro cycling is way, way cleaner than it was 10 years ago. This is because the enforcement and penalties are way stricter.

Way cleaner. Fully clean? And at what cost has this 'cleaner but not clean' world come at? Ultimately people will cheat so long as they believe it gives them an edge. They will cheat so long as we have a system where 224 newly drafted players come into the league every year to compete for 1696 regular season roster spots.

D9Male wrote: »

And yet you are suggesting something that is going to increase those health risks. I can't agree with that.

We don't agree. But ultimately the main difference we may have is that I have zero moral objection to PED use. I believe professional sports has nothing to do with health, athletes have consistently demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice short and long term health in lieu of short term competitive concerns.

D9Male wrote: »

I enjoy the freaks going at it as much as the next man. That doesn't mean that I don't think safety, player welfare or health should not be improved.

I would not be thrilled if my kids were in NFL either.

If there was more guaranteed money; development leagues; more robust medical oversight; etc you might start to approach a context where players could start thinking about the risks. When players do consider the risks, increasingly their decision is to quit. When guys like Jake Locker are turning down offers because they just don't fancy the battle it paints a picture of where the balance currently lies.

But it's still entertaining!

Jolly Red Giant

D9Male wrote: »

Interesting post, thanks.

It was an excellent post -

One thing that must be taken into account is that - ultimately - American Football at college and NFL is all about money - and an awful lot of money.

In college Coaches can get paid $millions per year - yet the players don't (or at least aren't supposed to) get anything. They are supposed to get an education - but that is often in some mickey-mouse course (loads of athletes graduate with degrees in 'communications'.

To get the big-bucks you have to get to the NFL - and even then its a crap-shoot

Less than 4% of high-school players get to college

Every year there are about 3,500 college players eligible for the draft (a spectacle that is worth $millions to the NFL) - 224+ get drafted and are then competing with players already on the roster and another 600 free agents (vets and rookies) - and from a total of about 850 players about 300 will make the roster.

The average NFL career (of players on a roster from the opening game) is 3 years. Fewer than 10% of NFL players last 10 years. After taxes the average NFL player with an average career length will make less than $1million from football. Most are done by 24 years of age. And to get a chance at these rather slim picking footballers from young teenage years all the way up will take what ever they think will help them see their dreams come true.

Last season the NFL distributed $7.24billion to teams - $226.4million per team.

D9Male

To be clear, I'm not suggesting anything that isn't happening already. Realistically PEDs are as ingrained in the NFL now as the forward pass. We're happy with the state of the game in terms of competitiveness and entertainment, right?

Yes, but that is not to say that it can't be improved. In fact, I would say that the level of entertainment and competition is quite separate from the prevalence of PED's.

It's important to separate how something like this should be used from how it is used. A 17 year old highschool football athlete shouldn't be using PEDs, just as he shouldn't be low bar squatting above depth in extreme knee wraps or muscling up power cleans while pulling from the floor with a flexed spine before landing the catch through his knees. If those things are happening (and they are) it's down to flat out bad coaching from which only the strong naturally gifted athletes will survive so long as luck is on their side.

We agree on this, but I don't see how this would further either of our arguments.

Nothing is 'opened up' at the NFL level, there is some rudimentary testing and low level punishments for repeat offenders. The NFL is smart enough to know that use is rampant and they're simply choosing to not create a half decade blood bath of trying to stop same.

You say smart enough, I actually think this is something that will need to be done eventually. Cycling tried to sweep it under the carpet, but was foiled by the media and cops. I think (and hope) something happens to make the NFL take this seriously.

Ultimately the NFL at an elite level is a strength / power / movement sport across numerous positions. OBJ having an immense ability to haul in the football only matters so long as he can run a 4.4 40 and is fluid enough through the hips to contort his body around the opponent's top CB. Joe Thomas can be as smart and disciplined as he likes, but unless he has the strength and lateral quickness / acceleration to react quickly JJ Watts will blow by him every time. I fundamentally don't believe that NFL players, who begin strength training in their early teens and practicing their skills from a young age, can continue improving physically and mentally beyond their first couple of years in the league without the aid of PEDs. I'm sure the real physical freaks may be exempt, but there is an entire league battling to live in the same world as those guys.

Speculation your honour. I agree that it is a strength/power/movement league. I have absolutely no idea whether the physical tools that bring the current elite to the fore would be any less entertaining if the quantity of doping was dialled back. But it is the bit underlined I have an issue with. If there are physical freaks it is completely unfair that others are cheating in their battle to live in the same world as those guys. For me it is like tying Messi's shoe laces together.

But pretending that isn't happening; or refusing to ever talk about in a real way is only going to lead to unneccesary abuse of young athletes. PED use is only one of a mass of inefficiency in how young elite footballers are trained and handled generally. But honestly? The NFL can't be responsible for every brain dead highschool coach in America.

I am not pretending it isn't happening. Neither are you. I want people to talk about it to change the system, you want people to talk about it to improve what is happening at the college level and maintain the spectacle at the top level. All of that is understandable, it is just we disagree on the one fundamental point!

Of course! They should have invited USADA in the whole way decades ago and have the kind of punishments for substance abuse that player's receive if they are proven to have accepted a coke out of turn from a booster. Again, the vast majority of even NFL calibre players will fail to reach their physical potential during their NCAA eligibility period. So yes, I fully support an aggressive policy.

Cool. I think it would be a big step to go from a "clean" NCAA to a "doped" NFL.

Way cleaner. Fully clean? And at what cost has this 'cleaner but not clean' world come at? Ultimately people will cheat so long as they believe it gives them an edge. They will cheat so long as we have a system where 224 newly drafted players come into the league every year to compete for 1696 regular season roster spots.

No cycling is not fully clean. There are still cheats. This is the same in nearly every human endeavour. There are people who don't pay their TV license, who use their mobile phones in the car, who sell heroin. The only way to reduce that is to enforce it, which cycling is trying to do (it could do way beter, don't get me started on that one). The cost to the cycling ranks was great, but I think it was worth it. Let's just say Dan Martin is a clean cyclist. I think he is, but wouldn't put my money on it. This cleaner but not fully clean world has meant that Dan Martin can compete at the elite level, win two monuments, a UCI stage race and a handful of grand tour stages. This would not have been possible 20 years ago. He would have struggled to finish these races clean.

We don't agree. But ultimately the main difference we may have is that I have zero moral objection to PED use. I believe professional sports has nothing to do with health, athletes have consistently demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice short and long term health in lieu of short term competitive concerns.

I believe that the Dan Martins of this world deserve a chance.

If there was more guaranteed money; development leagues; more robust medical oversight; etc you might start to approach a context where players could start thinking about the risks. When players do consider the risks, increasingly their decision is to quit. When guys like Jake Locker are turning down offers because they just don't fancy the battle it paints a picture of where the balance currently lies.

But it's still entertaining!

To the bit underlined, how do you know? How do you know that loads of pro footballers haven't considered the risks and decided to plough on? By doping? I don't think these guys are stupid enough to live their lives with blinkers on.

And people quit in every sport. Rocky Marciano, Bjorn Borg, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Justine Henin, Michel Platini, Frank Rijkaard all retired early. It may seem like there are more NFL retirements, but it has always been thus in NFL and other sports.

D9Male

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It was an excellent post -

One thing that must be taken into account is that - ultimately - American Football at college and NFL is all about money - and an awful lot of money.

In college Coaches can get paid $millions per year - yet the players don't (or at least aren't supposed to) get anything. They are supposed to get an education - but that is often in some mickey-mouse course (loads of athletes graduate with degrees in 'communications'.

To get the big-bucks you have to get to the NFL - and even then its a crap-shoot

Less than 4% of high-school players get to college

Every year there are about 3,500 college players eligible for the draft (a spectacle that is worth $millions to the NFL) - 224+ get drafted and are then competing with players already on the roster and another 600 free agents (vets and rookies) - and from a total of about 850 players about 300 will make the roster.

The average NFL career (of players on a roster from the opening game) is 3 years. Fewer than 10% of NFL players last 10 years. After taxes the average NFL player with an average career length will make less than $1million from football. Most are done by 24 years of age. And to get a chance at these rather slim picking footballers from young teenage years all the way up will take what ever they think will help them see their dreams come true.

Last season the NFL distributed $7.24billion to teams - $226.4million per team.

This is all very interesting, but what has it got to do with the price of apples?

Billy86

Langdon Alger wrote: »

This is taken from the FDA website http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_204.html.



Are the NFL just going after Peyton ? Or the others ( Clay Matthews, Mike Neal, Julius Peppers & James Harrison) mentioned in the documentary by Al Jazeera also going to be investigated

THIS IS A CONSPIRACY AND ASSAULT AGAINST THE GOOD, FINE NAME OF THE GREEN BAY PACKERS AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT!! :mad: