PDA

View Full Version : Juice in the NFL


S4DF
05-08-2010, 10:53 PM
Without reading the entire 50-page Cushing thread, I can assume that there are many people in the Houston area that are re-evaluating their stance on steroids, Cushing himself, and the rules of the NFL. Let me be the first to tell you, his violation WAS for anabolic steroids and do NOT be a doofus who believes the age-old excuse from the player that is was "a non-steroidal supplement" that he "unknowingly took."

Cushing juiced. Most of us knew he was a juice head before he even played at USC, but anyone with doubts were soon made certain after he came back from injury in college. To think that he would enter then NFL and quit his cycling is just ridiculous.

For those of you who like to view the league with rosey colored glasses, you may want to stop reading now. This post contains spoilers. OK, if you're still reading, then let's get one thing straight: 90% of the NFL uses steroids. This is not an exact number, and I cannot prove my statistics, but nobody can prove me wrong either, so let's not get caught up in the numbers. The flat fact is, when you have the ability to earn millions of dollars by playing well against people who are in the 400lb bench press club, you're probably gonna drop $300.00 and get on some steroids. High school kids do it, so why wouldn't NFL players?

The reward far outweighs the risk. If Shawne Merriman can win a sack title and a defensive player of the year award while reaping the benefits of anabolics, and the consequence is a 4-game suspension, then you can bet he's gonna juice up because that cycle will be worth 2 or 3 more big contracts for him. Five years from now, when it's time for Cushing to sign his 2nd or 3rd contract, do you think the prospective teams will remember this suspension? Hell no, they'll remember how good he was as a rookie, again while on steroids. Just one season with that added strength and decreased recovery time will make a good player great, and it allows the outside world to view a player's potential in a whole different light. Until there's a true death penalty (lifetime ban) for steroids, players will use them to their heart's content and laugh off the suspensions.

Don't be silly and don't be naive- the league is far, far dirtier than NFL Network gives it credit for, and if we only knew the half of it, we'd probably have more to talk about, pharmaceutically than we do athletically.

I am not making a case to forgive Brian Cushing, but I am just saying, he didn't cheat because he was playing on an even field with all the other steroid users. The New England Patriots cheated but didn't break the law. Cushing broke the law, but didn't cheat.

One day, this whole thing might bust open and we'll all know for sure just how rampant steroid use is in the NFL. Believing that only the vast minority of the NFL use steroids is literally like believing that WWF wrestling isn't fake. Once it hits home, i.e. a hometown player makes national news for violating, you really start thinking about it, and if I have a point to make, it's just that- I don't know where I stand on the issue, I just believe it should be thought about more. Steroids are a huge part of football, and the subject is brushed under the rug with more fervor than OJ and with a bigger broom than LT.

It's a league problem, but the league blames individuals.

Wolf
05-08-2010, 10:57 PM
Cushing had a statement that it was not steroidal

JB
05-08-2010, 11:05 PM
. Let me be the first to tell you, his violation WAS for anabolic steroids

And you know this how? And your credibility comes fom where?

S4DF
05-08-2010, 11:06 PM
Cushing had a statement that it was not steroidal

Have you ever heard of any athlete who tested positive for a "banned, performance-enhancing substance" ADMIT that it was anabolic steroids?

Hell no.
ALL of them say that it was something else. Something that was an honest mistake, or some supplement that they took had a banned substance that was an ingredient, and they didn't know, or something like that. They never admit it. Any injection- they thought it was vitamin B-12. Any pill- they thought it was a salt tablet.

I think I've heard of one time when a guy just admitted his guilt rather than going with the cliche slew of repeated excuses. Louis Castillo, who plays for the Chargers, admitted his steroid use.

Come on man. You and I both know that Cushing is one of the most obvious cases in a long, long time.

S4DF
05-08-2010, 11:11 PM
And you know this how? And your credibility comes fom where?

I'm not here to make personal friends and discuss my real life, friends, and chain of information.

I'm here to discuss football, and something has happened in the world of the Houston Texans that was interesting to me.

And I'll say again, Come ON. Let's be honest here. This isn't one of those mystery cases that could go either way.

JB
05-08-2010, 11:17 PM
I'm not here to make personal friends and discuss my real life, friends, and chain of information.

I'm here to discuss football, and something has happened in the world of the Houston Texans that was interesting to me.

And I'll say again, Come ON. Let's be honest here. This isn't one of those mystery cases that could go either way.

Really? Your'e Judge, Jury & executioner all rolled into one? Like Wyatt Earp?

Get off your higher than thou platform and admit reality. You do not know more than anyone else. It is all conjuecture at this point.

Wolf
05-08-2010, 11:18 PM
I can save you some discussion

everything is in here even a doctor that commented on what steroids will do to the body along with other things in this thread
http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71773

S4DF
05-08-2010, 11:25 PM
I can save you some discussion

everything is in here even a doctor that commented on what steroids will do to the body along with other things in this thread
http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71773

While I thank you for the response, I was already aware of that thread, and I'm not looking to make an additional Cushing thread. I'm talking about steroids in the NFL in general.

And I find it surprising that anybody would read what I wrote and post a response in defense of Cushing. I did not condemn Brian Cushing, I simply posed the problem that faces the entire league.

But I'm not going to argue about WHAT Cushing tested positive for because there's only one possibility. He's the most blatant steroid user since Tony Mandarich and whether his test was deemed a failure due to the actual roids or masking agents, or anything else, it happened because he used steroids. If you don't believe that, then you're nuts, and you probably think that John Cena can beat up Mike Tyson and Adam Sandler would make a great NFL quarterback.

JB
05-08-2010, 11:35 PM
While I thank you for the response, I was already aware of that thread, and I'm not looking to make an additional Cushing thread. I'm talking about steroids in the NFL in general.

And I find it surprising that anybody would read what I wrote and post a response in defense of Cushing. I did not condemn Brian Cushing, I simply posed the problem that faces the entire league.

But I'm not going to argue about WHAT Cushing tested positive for because there's only one possibility. He's the most blatant steroid user since Tony Mandarich and whether his test was deemed a failure due to the actual roids or masking agents, or anything else, it happened because he used steroids. If you don't believe that, then you're nuts, and you probably think that John Cena can beat up Mike Tyson and Adam Sandler would make a great NFL quarterback.

Awfully bold dude. Can you back any of this spurious BS up? I think you are talking out your ass and do not have a clue. I am not defending Cushing, because I do not know the story yet. Neither do you! "for you to go so profoundly where no man has gone before makes you just an attention grabbing whore that is perfectly fine with slandering someone else's name so you can try to establish yourself. Where are you trolling from btw?

wagonhed
05-09-2010, 12:03 AM
I agree with your general point BUT I do not think Cushing stands out in any way as the most obvious case recently. And, of course, just because some cases may appear more obvious than others, doesn't mean most everyone else isn't using too.

I think steroids (and all other drugs) should be legalized in the US, but that isn't really the point here. I think the NFL needs to stop testing for steroids, period. Here is why.

First of all, prohibition doesn't work. The more people you catch, the more of an advantage the people who didn't get caught have. At the rate the NFL catches people it makes the whole thing a joke. I would estimate they catch and suspend less than 1% of users. They have what, half a dozen suspensions per year?

Stopping steroid and other PED tests is the ONLY way to level the playing field. Period. Anything else is just going to make it into a race to beat the testing system, just like it is in the Olympics, bike racing, etc. The Olympic drug policy is a nightmare and has turned the whole affair into a huge joke. Luckily the NFL hasn't been stupid enough to ramp up their testing efforts to reach that level, but it is a good example of what happens as your drug policy gets stricter.

Cushing, Merriman, Peppers, and others are just the NFL making an example out of people so they can maintain the facade that they are a clean organization that punishes users. It's unfair, ineffective, and self-serving.

Beyond all that, the health implications of the steroid ban are significant. Real, injectable steroids are actually the safest of all the hormonal substances. The modern derivatives and pills that mimic steroids are vastly more damaging to the body, yet they are legal. Instead of letting players take the tried and true drugs that have extensive dosage and side effect information, many are turning to cutting edge shit that is untested and dangerous.

Obviously the NFL can't condone or openly allow steroids because they are (wrongfully) illegal. But they should definitely relax the testing process and the punishment, like maybe dropping it to a fine only.

That's my opinion in a nutshell.

buddyboy
05-09-2010, 04:01 AM
I guess I'm probably in the minority that absolutely hates what Cushing did. I really think the argument that "hey, everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't we?" argument is weak.

In the NBA flopping is ruining the game, yet people do it because it works. And since other people do it, why shouldn't you if it gives you an edge? Why shouldn't football players use steroids to give themselves an edge, or at least level the playing field?

Because, it's against the rules. Argue all you want about how the rules should be changed, but right now, it's against the rules. And that makes Brian Cushing a cheater.

Yes, there are a ton of other cheaters out there. But honestly, I don't care about them. Brian Cushing cheated, and that's a fact.

Grid
05-09-2010, 04:49 AM
blahblahBaselessAccusationblahblahIdioticConspirac yTheoryblahblahblah

:goodpost:













:crazy:

NitroGSXR
05-09-2010, 10:19 AM
Without reading the entire 50-page Cushing thread, I can assume that there are many people in the Houston area that are re-evaluating their stance on steroids, Cushing himself, and the rules of the NFL. Let me be the first to tell you, his violation WAS for anabolic steroids and do NOT be a doofus who believes the age-old excuse from the player that is was "a non-steroidal supplement" that he "unknowingly took."

Cushing juiced. Most of us knew he was a juice head before he even played at USC, but anyone with doubts were soon made certain after he came back from injury in college. To think that he would enter then NFL and quit his cycling is just ridiculous.

For those of you who like to view the league with rosey colored glasses, you may want to stop reading now. This post contains spoilers. OK, if you're still reading, then let's get one thing straight: 90% of the NFL uses steroids. This is not an exact number, and I cannot prove my statistics, but nobody can prove me wrong either, so let's not get caught up in the numbers. The flat fact is, when you have the ability to earn millions of dollars by playing well against people who are in the 400lb bench press club, you're probably gonna drop $300.00 and get on some steroids. High school kids do it, so why wouldn't NFL players?

The reward far outweighs the risk. If Shawne Merriman can win a sack title and a defensive player of the year award while reaping the benefits of anabolics, and the consequence is a 4-game suspension, then you can bet he's gonna juice up because that cycle will be worth 2 or 3 more big contracts for him. Five years from now, when it's time for Cushing to sign his 2nd or 3rd contract, do you think the prospective teams will remember this suspension? Hell no, they'll remember how good he was as a rookie, again while on steroids. Just one season with that added strength and decreased recovery time will make a good player great, and it allows the outside world to view a player's potential in a whole different light. Until there's a true death penalty (lifetime ban) for steroids, players will use them to their heart's content and laugh off the suspensions.

Don't be silly and don't be naive- the league is far, far dirtier than NFL Network gives it credit for, and if we only knew the half of it, we'd probably have more to talk about, pharmaceutically than we do athletically.

I am not making a case to forgive Brian Cushing, but I am just saying, he didn't cheat because he was playing on an even field with all the other steroid users. The New England Patriots cheated but didn't break the law. Cushing broke the law, but didn't cheat.

One day, this whole thing might bust open and we'll all know for sure just how rampant steroid use is in the NFL. Believing that only the vast minority of the NFL use steroids is literally like believing that WWF wrestling isn't fake. Once it hits home, i.e. a hometown player makes national news for violating, you really start thinking about it, and if I have a point to make, it's just that- I don't know where I stand on the issue, I just believe it should be thought about more. Steroids are a huge part of football, and the subject is brushed under the rug with more fervor than OJ and with a bigger broom than LT.

It's a league problem, but the league blames individuals.

Wagonhed? Alter-ego?

Ole Miss Texan
05-09-2010, 10:55 AM
SD4F - Good initial post and I think it's something worth discussing. However, you can't start off a post wanting to talk about the big picture and just throw stuff out there as facts. You could be completely correct that Cushing tested positive for an anabolic steroid... or has been taking them while playing for the Texans... but right now we don't know that. There could be a very high percentage that's the case, I'm not saying I would be overly surprised if that's what comes about all this - but until then we can't just say we "know" that because it's just conjecture.

Hardcore Texan
05-09-2010, 11:49 AM
http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12

Speedy
05-09-2010, 12:21 PM
OK, if you're still reading, then let's get one thing straight: 90% of the NFL uses steroids. This is not an exact number, and I cannot prove my statistics, but nobody can prove me wrong either, so let's not get caught up in the numbers.

Don't you just love it when people throw numbers up that they can't prove and then try to qualify it with the ol "you can't prove me wrong"?

Assumptions and opinions are not facts. You don't KNOW half of a half a percent of what NFL players do so quit grabbing numbers like 90% out of your ass and acting like it means something.

Ole Miss Texan
05-09-2010, 12:24 PM
Don't you just love it when people throw numbers up that they can't prove and then try to qualify it with the ol "you can't prove me wrong"?

Assumptions and opinions are not facts. You don't KNOW half of a half a percent of what NFL players do so quit grabbing numbers like 90% out of your ass and acting like it means something.

90% of a team's active roster is 48 players, which means 5 players would NOT be using steroids. I'm guessing the starting and back up QB's, punter, kicker and 1 other guy? :runaway:

False Start
05-09-2010, 12:35 PM
90% of a team's active roster is 48 players, which means 5 players would NOT be using steroids. I'm guessing the starting and back up QB's, punter, kicker and 1 other guy? :runaway:

The long snapper? :heh:

Wolf
05-09-2010, 12:38 PM
The long snapper? :heh:

"Finally someone believes me!"

signed,
Bryan Pittman (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6143339.html)

:smiliedance:

:runaway:

JCTexan
05-09-2010, 12:43 PM
90% of a team's active roster is 48 players, which means 5 players would NOT be using steroids. I'm guessing the starting and back up QB's, punter, kicker and 1 other guy? :runaway:

The third string QB? Even if all the O-line, D-line & linebackers take them, I seriously doubt all the receivers, corners & running-backs take them. So 90% doesn't sound accurate.

gtexan02
05-09-2010, 12:49 PM
So are you saying a lifetime ban for steroid users would fix teh issue?

False Start
05-09-2010, 12:49 PM
"Finally someone believes me!"

signed,
Bryan Pittman (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6143339.html)

:smiliedance:

:runaway:

Forgot about that........ :headhurts:

The Pencil Neck
05-09-2010, 12:52 PM
There are steroids and there are steroids. There are performance enhancing drugs and there are performance enhancing drugs.

My stance on this has always been that steroids shouldn't be illegal (they only became illegal in the early 90's) and that athletes should be allowed to take performance enhancing drugs legally and they should do it under close monitoring by physicians. I believe that many athletes in the 70's and 80's were taking steroids. We don't know the long term effects of these drugs and they could have many positive effects (especially with aging if used properly.)

If you're going to outlaw performance enhancing drugs then to be consistent, a lot of drugs that are currently allowed should also be banned. Pain killers and anti-inflammatories and anything that allows you to play when you wouldn't normally be able to play should be banned for consistency's sake. If your shoulder is hurting and you can't move your arm without a painkiller, so they give you a painkiller so you have a better range of motion and send you out on the field... to me, that's performance enhancing.

All athletes should be trying everything they can to find an edge in the game. That includes trying to find new drugs and supplements (and hyperbaric chambers) and training regimens and everything else that could possibly make them better. That's their job. They're paid big bucks to be the best and they should look for every loophole and nook and cranny to improve themselves. And they'd want to keep their "tricks" secret to keep other athletes from finding out their edge.

So, even if everything was legal, there would be a culture of secrecy about supplement and drug use so each athlete could keep their edge. With so many of the only "real" drugs that will enhance performance made illegal, that just makes it that much darker and more secretive.

Now, during the 70's, 80's and 90's, I think that a large percentage of the NFL was using steroids. But with the testing that's in place eliminating the possibility of cycling the best steroids (like Deca that has a long, long half life), I don't know how many athletes are taking "normal" anabolic steroids. (Probably 100% of the NFL has taken cortico-steroids.)

BUT, I would expect any athlete to try to find a way to take anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs and have it not show up on the tests. Because, if the tests don't detect it, then it's "allowed." I'm sure there's a culture of "It's not cheating if you don't get caught."

BUT, with that said, I've seen no proof that Cush took steroids. You can't say "this guy is taking steroids" without proof of it. I'm not saying he's not taking steroids but it's wrong to say that he is. There are a lot of non-steroidal agents that constitute violating the steroid policy and it's very easy to accidentally take some of those things. (But, as I've said, even if he is taking steroids, I'm not going to be upset about it.)

The Pencil Neck
05-09-2010, 12:57 PM
The third string QB? Even if all the O-line, D-line & linebackers take them, I seriously doubt all the receivers, corners & running-backs take them. So 90% doesn't sound accurate.

I'd actually be surprised if 50% were taking anabolic steroids.

But the right cycle could really have a big benefit for receivers, corners, and running backs. They can all benefit from being faster and stronger.

Personally, I've always thought Walter Payton was on steroids. Whenever I hear of an athlete getting a rare liver or kidney disease, my initial thought is that it's an unexpected steroid side effect.

wagonhed
05-09-2010, 01:15 PM
I'd actually be surprised if 50% were taking anabolic steroids.

But the right cycle could really have a big benefit for receivers, corners, and running backs. They can all benefit from being faster and stronger.

Personally, I've always thought Walter Payton was on steroids. Whenever I hear of an athlete getting a rare liver or kidney disease, my initial thought is that it's an unexpected steroid side effect.
I wouldn't put the number that high either. Trying to make a guess like that becomes pretty difficult and there is just no way for us to know.

If I had to guess per position I'd say that 90% of RBs use, 75%+ of linemen use, 50%+ of LBs and DEs use, and maybe 20% or less for the skill positions and DBs. That's just my guess based on the kind of bodies they need to maintain.

And yeah there is a really strong argument for WRs and DBs using. That argument is olympic sprinters. If they are getting a big advantage from AS/HGH, skill players could too.

The1ApplePie
05-09-2010, 01:18 PM
If it was anything, it must have been HGH

Seriously, no one uses anabolics anymore, epsecially a health nut like Cush

CloakNNNdagger
05-09-2010, 01:54 PM
I'd actually be surprised if 50% were taking anabolic steroids.

But the right cycle could really have a big benefit for receivers, corners, and running backs. They can all benefit from being faster and stronger.

Personally, I've always thought Walter Payton was on steroids. Whenever I hear of an athlete getting a rare liver or kidney disease, my initial thought is that it's an unexpected steroid side effect.

Pencil Neck,

Just for historical purposes, you and others may find this article quite interesting. Also, keep in mind that when anectodal stats are kicked around, they are usually exaggerated (as you have already alluded to).

TAKING A STANCE AGAINST STEROIDS IN THE N.F.L.
By GERALD ESKENAZI
Published: August 24, 1989 (New York Times) (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/24/sports/taking-a-stance-against-steroids-in-the-nfl.html?pagewanted=1)

The Pencil Neck
05-09-2010, 02:46 PM
I wouldn't put the number that high either. Trying to make a guess like that becomes pretty difficult and there is just no way for us to know.

If I had to guess per position I'd say that 90% of RBs use, 75%+ of linemen use, 50%+ of LBs and DEs use, and maybe 20% or less for the skill positions and DBs. That's just my guess based on the kind of bodies they need to maintain.

And yeah there is a really strong argument for WRs and DBs using. That argument is olympic sprinters. If they are getting a big advantage from AS/HGH, skill players could too.

I look at it like the way drug use is for powerlifters and bodybuilders versus other sports like cycling. PL and BB use steroids more or less like a sledgehammer. Just shoot up as much as you can, throw a bunch of weight on the bar, and grip it and rip it. Nothing elegant about that.

But with cyclists, their drug use is a lot more complicated and detailed using all sorts of techniques and different drugs at different times to get different effects. To me, it seems like skill position players would be more like cyclists. And because of that, I think they may actually be able to get more benefit if they put their minds to it.

Obviously, WRs and RBs could at least get the speed benefits that sprinters get from a well planned drug regimen.

The Pencil Neck
05-09-2010, 02:56 PM
Pencil Neck,

Just for historical purposes, you and others may find this article quite interesting. Also, keep in mind that when anectodal stats are kicked around, they are usually exaggerated (as you have already alluded to).

TAKING A STANCE AGAINST STEROIDS IN THE N.F.L.
By GERALD ESKENAZI
Published: August 24, 1989 (New York Times) (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/24/sports/taking-a-stance-against-steroids-in-the-nfl.html?pagewanted=1)

Thanks, CnD. That was an interesting read from a historical perspective.

And, about anecdotal evidence, it gets really muddied sometimes because people who are taking things (or who know people who are taking things) don't really know what they're taking. I've had several people tell me that person X or person Y was taking steroids or that they themselves had dabbled with steroids when the "steroids" that these people were talking about was nothing more than simple, non-steroid creatine. I've talked to several high school players who thought they were getting away with something by taking creatine and were really, honestly afraid they were going to get "caught" taking it. I can't tell you how many times (at least 5, :) ) that I've been asked by a high school athlete how best to cycle creatine and whether they should take Clomid or Nolvadex or something to get their nuts working again after their current cycle was over.

There's just a lot of ignorance and confusion all the way around.

Sorry. Got on a little rant there.

Spled
05-09-2010, 04:57 PM
I figure for every guy that gets caught there are 50 that don't. You just have to look at the physiques. http://www.badjocks.com/images/DavidBoston.jpg

alphajoker
05-09-2010, 05:01 PM
I figure for every guy that gets caught there are 50 that don't. You just have to look at the physiques. http://www.badjocks.com/images/DavidBoston.jpg

LOL - David Boston. I knew that dude when going to school at Humble High. Everyone could tell that guy was on 'roids coming back the summer after his first year away at Ohio State. He left a scrawny little guy and then came back blown up. What a douche bag.

MadBurgerMaker
05-09-2010, 11:59 PM
:lol: David Boston was hilariously roided up.

CloakNNNdagger
05-10-2010, 10:16 AM
:lol: David Boston was hilariously roided up.

Bet it really hurt to sit down.:kitten:

HoustonFrog
05-10-2010, 10:22 AM
There are steroids and there are steroids. There are performance enhancing drugs and there are performance enhancing drugs.

My stance on this has always been that steroids shouldn't be illegal (they only became illegal in the early 90's) and that athletes should be allowed to take performance enhancing drugs legally and they should do it under close monitoring by physicians. I believe that many athletes in the 70's and 80's were taking steroids. We don't know the long term effects of these drugs and they could have many positive effects (especially with aging if used properly.)


Ask the 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers linemen. They know alot about them and how their lives have been ruined by them. I get that there is a difference between monitored rationing of things vs all out taking them in mass but alot of guys...these players, wrestlers, etc have been ruined by these things.

The Pencil Neck
05-10-2010, 12:23 PM
Ask the 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers linemen. They know alot about them and how their lives have been ruined by them. I get that there is a difference between monitored rationing of things vs all out taking them in mass but alot of guys...these players, wrestlers, etc have bene ruined by these things.

A lot of these guys were just flat out self-medicating. They really weren't taking their steroids with any rhyme or reason. A lot of these things are really, really hard on your liver and kidneys and if you don't have a doctor monitoring you and making sure everything's OK, you can really fsck yourself up.

Like I said in another post, whenever I see "unusual" and/or "genetic" liver and kidney issues in athletes, I almost always assume it's steroid related: Sean Elliot, Walter Payton, Alonzo Mourning... etc.

For me, the thing that's the scariest is that your heart is a muscle. You take these steroids and (for most people*) your muscles get bigger, including your heart. Bigger heart == early heart attack. So when I see ex-athletes in their 40's and 50's having heart problems, that's a red flag for me, too.

* Most people get bigger taking steroids as long as they eat enough calories. But some people don't even if they eat properly.

HJam72
05-10-2010, 12:35 PM
A lot of these guys were just flat out self-medicating. They really weren't taking their steroids with any rhyme or reason. A lot of these things are really, really hard on your liver and kidneys and if you don't have a doctor monitoring you and making sure everything's OK, you can really fsck yourself up.

Like I said in another post, whenever I see "unusual" and/or "genetic" liver and kidney issues in athletes, I almost always assume it's steroid related: Sean Elliot, Walter Payton, Alonzo Mourning... etc.

For me, the thing that's the scariest is that your heart is a muscle. You take these steroids and (for most people*) your muscles get bigger, including your heart. Bigger heart == early heart attack. So when I see ex-athletes in their 40's and 50's having heart problems, that's a red flag for me, too.

* Most people get bigger taking steroids as long as they eat enough calories. But some people don't even if they eat properly.

I know the bolded is true, but I don't get it. Someone explain to me why a bigger heart isn't a good thing. Seems like it would just be stronger.

MadBurgerMaker
05-10-2010, 12:36 PM
Bet it really hurt to sit down.:kitten:

This brings a whole new meaning to the term "roid rage."

HJam72
05-10-2010, 12:39 PM
So much for battle red Kool-Aid. Now we're just on the juice.

NitroGSXR
05-10-2010, 12:45 PM
So much for battle red Kool-Aid. Now we're just on the juice.

Battle red juice, my friend, battle red....

CloakNNNdagger
05-10-2010, 01:33 PM
I know the bolded is true, but I don't get it. Someone explain to me why a bigger heart isn't a good thing. Seems like it would just be stronger.


Have you ever seen roided up body builders? Some can hardly walk.......They waddle. Why? Because their muscles are so thick that they can perform in isolation in one only function.......contract........but with poor coordination. It takes a great deal of energy to even do that particular function.

When the heart thickens (hypertrophies), it no longer can move well in coordination. The increased thickness then also impinges on and limits the inner blood capacity (volume) it can take in and pump out. Finally, the heart is enclosed by a non-yielding “pericardial sac.” There is a limited amount of “extra space” between the outer surfaces of the heart and the inner surfaces of the pericardial sac, in order to allow the heart to expand while taking in blood. The more extra thickness of the heart muscle present (as in the case of steroid use) the less heart expansion space left.......until there is no space left at all.........the heart can’t expand...........it needs more and more energy to try to function, and creates more and more hypertrophy of the muscle until..........heart failure/attack.

Besides this, steroid use, even in your 30's commonly leads to cholesterol deposit buildup in the major arteries, including the coronaries.......heart attack material. And if blood is prevented from reaching the brain, the result is stroke.

Finally, steroids contribute to significant risk of blood clot formation which then can stop up the circulation not only to the heart and brain, but to any number of other important organs of the body.

And although some people tote dose and proper cycling as being the key to avoiding the aforementioned, it may be true for performance enhancing measures, but not very assuredly protective of the problems I enumerated above.

otisbean
05-10-2010, 02:24 PM
I wonder if any university run research studies have been conducted on properly dosed/cycled steroid. It would be interesting to see what the side effects would be if everything was medically controlled. The doctor that headed up the East German anabolics program was quoted as saying that while their are obvious side effects to steroid usage, if everything was controlled then the chances of having side effects were similar to that of the Birth control pill or some other well established drug. It would be interesting to see.

Dutchrudder
05-10-2010, 02:45 PM
A lot of these guys were just flat out self-medicating. They really weren't taking their steroids with any rhyme or reason. A lot of these things are really, really hard on your liver and kidneys and if you don't have a doctor monitoring you and making sure everything's OK, you can really fsck yourself up.

Like I said in another post, whenever I see "unusual" and/or "genetic" liver and kidney issues in athletes, I almost always assume it's steroid related: Sean Elliot, Walter Payton, Alonzo Mourning... etc.

For me, the thing that's the scariest is that your heart is a muscle. You take these steroids and (for most people*) your muscles get bigger, including your heart. Bigger heart == early heart attack. So when I see ex-athletes in their 40's and 50's having heart problems, that's a red flag for me, too.

* Most people get bigger taking steroids as long as they eat enough calories. But some people don't even if they eat properly.

This really makes me think of DE Gaines Adams (4th pick overall 2007 by Bucs) who died from cardiac arrest this January. I did not hear any confirmation of what caused his enlarged heart, but there was speculation that it could have been steroids. I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect he may have been juicing throughout his HS, college and pro days.


Adams was taken to the emergency room in Greenwood, South Carolina on the morning of January 17, 2010, after his girlfriend found him at home. He was pronounced dead at 8:21 a.m. ET. The coroner confirmed, after an autopsy, that Adams died of cardiac arrest due to an enlarged heart. Neither Adams nor his relatives knew about any kind of medical condition he may have had. At the time of his death, neither drug abuse nor foul play was suspected. Toxicology reports showed that Adams had alcohol and marijuana in his system but according to the coroner neither contributed to his death.
Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaines_Adams#Death)

Anyone know if they determined anything else about his death and the circumstances?

CloakNNNdagger
05-10-2010, 03:02 PM
This really makes me think of DE Gaines Adams (4th pick overall 2007 by Bucs) who died from cardiac arrest this January. I did not hear any confirmation of what caused his enlarged heart, but there was speculation that it could have been steroids. I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect he may have been juicing throughout his HS, college and pro days.



Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaines_Adams#Death)

Anyone know if they determined anything else about his death and the circumstances?

Last month, it was reported that the toxicology reports would not be available for "a few months."

The Pencil Neck
05-10-2010, 03:15 PM
I know the bolded is true, but I don't get it. Someone explain to me why a bigger heart isn't a good thing. Seems like it would just be stronger.

Because you only have so much space in your chest for it to fit into. When it gets bigger, it gets compressed by the rib cage and the other organs and when it gets compressed, it has to work harder to beat.

HuttoKarl
05-10-2010, 03:20 PM
I find it funny that the guy saying Cushing is the biggest steroid user in the NFL since Tony Mandarich has a steroid user as his avatar.

Ladanian Tomlinson used to say he was embarrassed to take his shirt off in front of David Boston.

The Pencil Neck
05-10-2010, 03:22 PM
Have you ever seen roided up body builders? Some can hardly walk.......They waddle. Why? Because their muscles are so thick that they can perform in isolation in one only function.......contract........but with poor coordination. It takes a great deal of energy to even do that particular function.

Now, part of that is also because of the way that bodybuilders train. They're training to build up non-functional size. They're training muscles in isolation and in so doing, artificially creating muscle imbalances. It's entirely possible to use roids and train the muscles so that they increase strength while not sacrificing coordination. If you take roids and train to improve performance, you get a vastly different effect.

Of course, none of that invalidates anything that you've said, I just wanted to jump in before people jump to the conclusion that taking roids turns you into a lumbering, unathletic behemoth.

Part of David Boston's problem was that he trained (and took steroids) following body builder protocols and not protocols that would improve his performance. He got hooked up on looking like a beast instead of performing like one.

wagonhed
05-10-2010, 03:28 PM
I wonder if any university run research studies have been conducted on properly dosed/cycled steroid. It would be interesting to see what the side effects would be if everything was medically controlled. The doctor that headed up the East German anabolics program was quoted as saying that while their are obvious side effects to steroid usage, if everything was controlled then the chances of having side effects were similar to that of the Birth control pill or some other well established drug. It would be interesting to see.

One of the effects of steroids being made illegal in the US is that there are virtually no studies done on them here. As far as I know the majority of studies referenced for steroids are over 30 years old.

The Pencil Neck
05-10-2010, 03:29 PM
I wonder if any university run research studies have been conducted on properly dosed/cycled steroid. It would be interesting to see what the side effects would be if everything was medically controlled. The doctor that headed up the East German anabolics program was quoted as saying that while their are obvious side effects to steroid usage, if everything was controlled then the chances of having side effects were similar to that of the Birth control pill or some other well established drug. It would be interesting to see.

The problem is that you only get grants to study things that someone thinks they may eventually be able to make money on. So steroid studies in the US are pretty rare.

The initial steroid studies in the US even found that steroids had no effect. That was because the doctors used such small amounts that they got no effect. Bodybuilders started using steroids in the late 40's/early 50's and the amount that the doctors used in their study was less than 1/10th than what those bodybuilders were using. And those bodybuilders were using probably less than 1/100th of what today's modern bodybuilders use.

But there are no long term studies when it comes to performance enhancement and health. They're too expensive and hard to set up and with steroids becoming Schedule III drugs in the early 90's, the possibility of those sorts of studies become difficult. BUT, steroids are being used with HIV patients and patients with other wasting types of diseases, so a long term study may come out wrt those sorts of things.

Steroids are also being used in hormone replacement therapies for guys with low testosterone. But the testosterone levels in those sorts of therapies are pretty low. They're just trying to get guys up to low normal, not 10-15x normal like a bodybuilder. :)

CloakNNNdagger
05-10-2010, 03:34 PM
Now, part of that is also because of the way that bodybuilders train. They're training to build up non-functional size. They're training muscles in isolation and in so doing, artificially creating muscle imbalances. It's entirely possible to use roids and train the muscles so that they increase strength while not sacrificing coordination. If you take roids and train to improve performance, you get a vastly different effect.

Of course, none of that invalidates anything that you've said, I just wanted to jump in before people jump to the conclusion that taking roids turns you into a lumbering, unathletic behemoth.

Part of David Boston's problem was that he trained (and took steroids) following body builder protocols and not protocols that would improve his performance. He got hooked up on looking like a beast instead of performing like one.

The particular picture of the caricature of an exaggerated overmuscled bodybuilder was only to make the cardiac muscle analogy clearer. That's specifically why I used the word "some.":)

ChampionTexan
05-10-2010, 03:36 PM
Ladanian Tomlinson used to say he was embarrassed to take his shirt off in front of David Boston.

:hmmm: :thinking: Wonders if VY has ever met David Boston :thinking: :hmmm:

CloakNNNdagger
05-10-2010, 03:41 PM
:hmmm: :thinking: Wonders if VY has ever met David Boston :thinking: :hmmm:

VY: My nuts are bigger than yours.

Boston: Huh?

ChampionTexan
05-10-2010, 03:43 PM
VY: My nuts are bigger than yours.

Boston: Huh?

Nah, if VY was going to bring up a food product, it would be his sausage.

wagonhed
05-10-2010, 07:16 PM
This is my theory as to why more people don't fail the steroid tests:


Steroids aren't detected in a normal urine toxicology test. I know this from being in the military and dealing with the issue a lot. Apparently a steroid test costs an additional large amount of money, something upwards of a couple hundred dollars.

In the military, they will only send your urine for the steroid test if they have some reason to believe it is necessary, and I think (not 100% sure) they pick a small % of the batch to do it on randomly over and above the normal tox test.

It's at least possible in my opinion that this is what the NFL does. They save money by not running every urine sample through the steroid test. And on top of that, they benefit by not catching so many of their players, which would obviously be bad for business.

So there you have it. Feel free to construct whatever theories you want with that information. Nothing the NFL actually does would surprise me.


edit: to clarify, the military collects samples from everyone. they only run normal tox tests on random samples. im guessing they do random steroid tests on a much, much smaller random sample beyond that. they only do it specifically, as far as i know, if the unit commander requests it for someone.

CloakNNNdagger
05-10-2010, 08:08 PM
Wagonhead,

Here's a summary to the way the military policy (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l/bldrugtests.htm) is handled.

wagonhed
05-10-2010, 08:14 PM
Thanks. I've read something similar to that in the past.

Every sample gets tested for marijuana, cocaine and amphetamines, including ecstasy. Tests for other drugs are done at random on different schedules for each lab. Some laboratories do test every sample for every drug.

Commanders can request samples be tested for steroids. In this case, the samples are sent to the Olympic testing laboratory at the University of California at Los Angeles.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the NFL has a similar policy where they don't test every sample for steroids.

S4DF
05-11-2010, 03:13 PM
Guys, NFL players know when they CAN'T be tested.
there is a stretch of several months in the summer when a veteran NFL player cannot be drug tested. Once camp begins (or sometime around then) there is a random screening that gets turned on.

A guy like Cushing or Merriman knows that if they start a steroid cycle in February, and they finish the cycle by May, then there's no way they'll test positive in September. But sometimes they screw up and they fail the test.

This is how all NFL players get away with roids. Go to any local gym, and you'll be able to tell which dudes are juicing. It's pretty easy. Well, if normal guys are juicing just to look good- and there are WAAAAY more normal guys than there are NFL players- then why the hell wouldn't NFL players juice when they can earn millions of dollars on a $300.00 investment?

Again, I do not condone this, but the reward simply outweighs the risk by a mile and then some.