PDA

View Full Version : Steroids



prough91
12-07-2007, 07:19 AM
I know everyone is probably sick to death of hearing about steroids by now, but I was thinking today about it and I think I have a solution to the steroid problem.

Let everyone do them.

Every team in every sport could have a doctor that would over see the administration of the steroids for that team. I did a little research on the internet tonight about steroids and it isn't the steroids themselves that screw up the players so much as the abuse of steroids. A player will start bulking up and think "well, if this amount helps me, doubling it will double the results", when they start thinking along these lines, that's when they start hurting themselves. Most players realize that they need to take extremely good care of their bodies and if they were monitored and educated on steroids, I think it would be better than just letting them take it into their own hands.

I know there are people who are going to be going on about maintaining the purity of sports, but as long as their has been sports, I'm sure people have been looking for a leg up. I read a story one time about a famous baseball player, I think Babe Ruth but I can't remember for sure, that would drink a ton of coffee before each game because he thought it gave him a competitive advantage. Obviously, drinking all that coffee didn't help him, but he was looking for some kind of drug, in this case caffeine, that would help him perform better physically. We can all look back on the "Glory Days" of any sport and wish sports nowadays were like that, but the fact is simple, Players in the "Glory Days" didn't take steroids because they weren't available. Period.

Now, bash away.

Guru
12-07-2007, 07:50 AM
Don't be shy.

chief31
12-07-2007, 08:04 AM
I know everyone is probably sick to death of hearing about steroids by now, but I was thinking today about it and I think I have a solution to the steroid problem.

Let everyone do them.

Every team in every sport could have a doctor that would over see the administration of the steroids for that team. I did a little research on the internet tonight about steroids and it isn't the steroids themselves that screw up the players so much as the abuse of steroids. A player will start bulking up and think "well, if this amount helps me, doubling it will double the results", when they start thinking along these lines, that's when they start hurting themselves. Most players realize that they need to take extremely good care of their bodies and if they were monitored and educated on steroids, I think it would be better than just letting them take it into their own hands.

I know there are people who are going to be going on about maintaining the purity of sports, but as long as their has been sports, I'm sure people have been looking for a leg up. I read a story one time about a famous baseball player, I think Babe Ruth but I can't remember for sure, that would drink a ton of coffee before each game because he thought it gave him a competitive advantage. Obviously, drinking all that coffee didn't help him, but he was looking for some kind of drug, in this case caffeine, that would help him perform better physically. We can all look back on the "Glory Days" of any sport and wish sports nowadays were like that, but the fact is simple, Players in the "Glory Days" didn't take steroids because they weren't available. Period.

Now, bash away.

I believe in peoples freedoms to choose for themselves. So I agree to a certain degree on this matter.

One major problem with the theory is that if the "pros" are using steroids, then, in order to be ready fro the professional level, college players will feel the need to use steroids.

Then, if college atheletes are using them, high-school atheletes will also need to be using them, so that they are ready to compete with the much bigger, stronger college atheletes.

And, of course, it stretches on down to Pop-Warner football.

If it is widely accepted for the professional level, then younger players will feel the need to gain that same kind of advantage.

And, while it may not be as dangerous to adults as it once was, it is still very unhealthy for a nuturally developing body.

Sure, you could try to control it like tobacco and alcohol, but how well is that working? And would we rather have this issue among adults, or shift it to children?

prough91
12-07-2007, 08:42 AM
I'll do some more research, but you know as well as I do that there is college and high school players already taking steroids. But, no, I don't think anyone below the Pro level should be able to take them. Just like no one below the age of 21 should be able to drink. Of course, being kids there will be some that will try to obtain them anyway, but it shouldn't be legal for them.

chief31
12-07-2007, 08:46 AM
I just think that making that product even more mainstream will increase the problems with underaged users.

But again, I really support individuals' freedom of choice.

prough91
12-07-2007, 08:49 AM
I guess the way I look at it is, any athlete in any sport is going to try to find an edge. Some will use steroids no matter what the laws or rules in their sport are. At least if they were prescribed and monitored they might not hurt their bodies as bad. Still, I am talking about the professional level. Their are tons of things someone under 22 shouldn't be allowed to do. LOL

Chiefster
12-07-2007, 09:52 AM
A well thought out point of view, one of which we will have to agree to disagree on; just primarily on principle. It does have merit in many circles though; it is much the same argument currently being made in an attempt to legalize marijuana - of which I also disagree with for the same reason.

Nice sig BTW. :)

prough91
12-07-2007, 11:10 AM
A well thought out point of view, one of which we will have to agree to disagree on; just primarily on principle. It does have merit in many circles though; it is much the same argument currently being made in an attempt to legalize marijuana - of which I also disagree with for the same reason.

Nice sig BTW. :)

I will not even tell you how long it took to make that!

:beer:

McLovin
12-07-2007, 11:58 AM
I believe in peoples freedoms to choose for themselves. So I agree to a certain degree on this matter.

One major problem with the theory is that if the "pros" are using steroids, then, in order to be ready fro the professional level, college players will feel the need to use steroids.

Then, if college atheletes are using them, high-school atheletes will also need to be using them, so that they are ready to compete with the much bigger, stronger college atheletes.

And, of course, it stretches on down to Pop-Warner football.

If it is widely accepted for the professional level, then younger players will feel the need to gain that same kind of advantage.

And, while it may not be as dangerous to adults as it once was, it is still very unhealthy for a nuturally developing body.

Sure, you could try to control it like tobacco and alcohol, but how well is that working? And would we rather have this issue among adults, or shift it to children?

WOW something we absolutely agree 100%, I was going to say the same thing but this saved me finding the words. REP.

rbedgood
12-07-2007, 12:04 PM
I believe in personal choices, however I also have concerns about the issue bleeding down to college and high school more than it already has. I would suggest that if the NFL/MLB/NBA etc. were to allow the regulation of these substances, then they should also assist the school systems below them in the testing of them. For example the need to test the Chiefs players is now reduced because we know they're "juicing" but take the funds that were used to test them, and help high schools test their players in an effort to further ensure that the issue is being taken care of at the high school level.

I know high school kids are using steroids, because they were 15 years ago. It wasn't very common, but I knew a couple guys who did.

prough91
12-07-2007, 11:59 PM
I believe in personal choices, however I also have concerns about the issue bleeding down to college and high school more than it already has. I would suggest that if the NFL/MLB/NBA etc. were to allow the regulation of these substances, then they should also assist the school systems below them in the testing of them. For example the need to test the Chiefs players is now reduced because we know they're "juicing" but take the funds that were used to test them, and help high schools test their players in an effort to further ensure that the issue is being taken care of at the high school level.

I know high school kids are using steroids, because they were 15 years ago. It wasn't very common, but I knew a couple guys who did.

Steroids are like drugs and alcolhol. Kids will find a way to get them and use them.

chief31
12-08-2007, 01:03 AM
Sticking with football as my primary example, if the NFL allows them, then how can a "clean" kid, out of college compete with the HGH-loaded NFL players?

A rookie will then be required to spend a year, or more, on the sidelines, getting the "juices" flowing, before he will be able to compete in a league of roid-monsters.

Also, the more mainstream that a drug becomes, the more popular it will be amongst youth. I realize that high school kids will get them if they want them, but the demand would almost certainly increase dramatically, if the drug was that much more common.

Guru
12-08-2007, 01:18 AM
Sticking with football as my primary example, if the NFL allows them, then how can a "clean" kid, out of college compete with the HGH-loaded NFL players?

A rookie will then be required to spend a year, or more, on the sidelines, getting the "juices" flowing, before he will be able to compete in a league of roid-monsters.

Also, the more mainstream that a drug becomes, the more popular it will be amongst youth. I realize that high school kids will get them if they want them, but the demand would almost certainly increase dramatically, if the drug was that much more common.

Very good point.

prough91
12-08-2007, 01:39 AM
Sticking with football as my primary example, if the NFL allows them, then how can a "clean" kid, out of college compete with the HGH-loaded NFL players?

How do they do it now?

A rookie will then be required to spend a year, or more, on the sidelines, getting the "juices" flowing, before he will be able to compete in a league of roid-monsters.

I don't think that steroids help elite athletes that much, I just think it helps marginal players be better.

Also, the more mainstream that a drug becomes, the more popular it will be amongst youth. I realize that high school kids will get them if they want them, but the demand would almost certainly increase dramatically, if the drug was that much more common.

Kids already figure most NFL athletes use steroids. I doubt there would be a huge influx of steroid use in the amateur ranks because they would be just as hard for them to get, since they would still be illegal for them.

I can't figure the quote thing out!

Guru
12-08-2007, 01:50 AM
I can't figure the quote thing out!

I disagree with the "elite athletes" comment. I don't think Barry Bonds touches the record without steriods.

chief31
12-08-2007, 02:47 AM
Sticking with football as my primary example, if the NFL allows them, then how can a "clean" kid, out of college compete with the HGH-loaded NFL players?

How do they do it now?

A rookie will then be required to spend a year, or more, on the sidelines, getting the "juices" flowing, before he will be able to compete in a league of roid-monsters.

I don't think that steroids help elite athletes that much, I just think it helps marginal players be better.

Also, the more mainstream that a drug becomes, the more popular it will be amongst youth. I realize that high school kids will get them if they want them, but the demand would almost certainly increase dramatically, if the drug was that much more common.

Kids already figure most NFL athletes use steroids. I doubt there would be a huge influx of steroid use in the amateur ranks because they would be just as hard for them to get, since they would still be illegal for them.


I don't believe that steroids are currently as rampant as you seem to believe they are.

And do you believe that steroids automatically know some limit of user-performance-level? What would give you the impression that elite atheletes have some immunity to steroids, and why do they do them?

Also, with steroids being banned from our major sports, they are not as common as they would be were they widely accepted.

For an example, one can look to nations who have no laws against marijuana, or other "narcotics". In Columbia, you can walk through large fields of marijuana. ( I would reccomend that you don't try it, but the fields are there.) Go to Holland, and you can find "pot-smoking" cafes and marijuana cigarettes at the stores there. Afghanistan has been exposed as a major distributor of several different "narcotics", and have a large quantity of fields for that purpose.

Funny that I find myself arguing this side of the issue, since, if I were able, I would legalize most illegal drugs. But this isn't about the legalization/criminalization, it's about the major sports industry of this country foregoing testing and rules against certain substances.

I wouldn't be against an alternate league existing, that would openly forego such rules. But there would, eventually, be the same issues with youth getting more involved with 'roids, even in that case.

timsatt1
12-08-2007, 02:48 AM
i think the NFL, which is privately owned, should be able to create whatever rules the owner(s) wants to.

high school is different because high school is not private, it is run by the government. So...the government can do whatever the #$# they want, because that is what they always have done.

if i could do it all over, when i was in NAIA basketball, i would have taken steroids. I didnt know then, but i realize now that MANY of the players were. I was young and innocent and nieve and had no clue the amount of steroid usage then among my teammates and the league in general.

but, as i age, my eyes are open to more and more every day. i realize now that anything and everything i can think of has and/or is happening now. the world is scum!! and i am a contributor! :)

hermhater
12-08-2007, 02:50 AM
I will not even tell you how long it took to make that!

:beer:


How long did it take to make your sig pic?

How did you do it?

timsatt1
12-08-2007, 02:52 AM
I don't believe that steroids are currently as rampant as you seem to believe they are.

And do you believe that steroids automatically know some limit of user-performance-level? What would give you the impression that elite atheletes have some immunity to steroids, and why do they do them?

Also, with steroids being banned from our major sports, they are not as common as they would be were they widely accepted.

For an example, one can look to nations who have no laws against marijuana, or other "narcotics". In Columbia, you can walk through large fields of marijuana. ( I would reccomend that you don't try it, but the fields are there.) Go to Holland, and you can find "pot-smoking" cafes and marijuana cigarettes at the stores there. Afghanistan has been exposed as a major distributor of several different "narcotics", and have a large quantity of fields for that purpose.

Funny that I find myself arguing this side of the issue, since, if I were able, I would legalize most illegal drugs. But this isn't about the legalization/criminalization, it's about the major sports industry of this country foregoing testing and rules against certain substances.

I wouldn't be against an alternate league existing, that would openly forego such rules. But there would, eventually, be the same issues with youth getting more involved with 'roids, even in that case.



legalizing drugs, unfortunately, would make the drugs dirt cheap and very affordable to people. The whole drug issue is kind of a difficult one. Yes, i am for limited government and less regulation...but at the same time, drugs, ESPECIALLY meth, can take over your life.

you cannot recover from meth. once a meth head always a meth head. once you are addicted, your life will never be the same.

....so because of the major impact for the worse drugs can have on a society, in this case, i am for government regulation.

i dont know about marijuana. i hear it is pretty safe. i have never done any drug in my life. sure it would be fun....but luckily never had a huge interest.

chief31
12-08-2007, 02:55 AM
legalizing drugs, unfortunately, would make the drugs dirt cheap and very affordable to people. The whole drug issue is kind of a difficult one. Yes, i am for limited government and less regulation...but at the same time, drugs, ESPECIALLY meth, can take over your life.

you cannot recover from meth. once a meth head always a meth head. once you are addicted, your life will never be the same.

....so because of the major impact for the worse drugs can have on a society, in this case, i am for government regulation.

i dont know about marijuana. i hear it is pretty safe. i have never done any drug in my life. sure it would be fun....but luckily never had a huge interest.

My stance is simple. Educate the people about dangers, but do not protect me from myself, by taking away my freedom of choice.

Yes, bad things will happen to people. That is what I call life. If it isn't one bad thing that will happen to them, it will be another.

timsatt1
12-08-2007, 02:56 AM
My stance is simple. Educate the people about dangers, but do not protect me from myself, by taking away my freedom of choice.

Yes, bad things will happen to people. That is what I call life. If it isn't one bad thing that will happen to them, it will be another.

i do not disagree with your response.

i am undecided at this point. but cannot disagree. in fact, i might agree. again...undecided.

hermhater
12-08-2007, 02:59 AM
Well I read through the rest of the post and wow.

This is about steroid use being trickled down from Pros to the youth leagues.

If I am right about this here are my thoughts.

Steroids are so dominant in sports and more people are getting busted (or just outright admitting it publicly, and giving up medals, etc...) at championship levels that it is obvious now to everyone.

It is happening, and there will always be "cheaters", so find a substance that they will allow such as HGH and then focus testing on the more dangerous stuff.

The players will all get a physical help without all the side effects.

prough91
12-08-2007, 03:26 AM
legalizing drugs, unfortunately, would make the drugs dirt cheap and very affordable to people. The whole drug issue is kind of a difficult one. Yes, i am for limited government and less regulation...but at the same time, drugs, ESPECIALLY meth, can take over your life.

you cannot recover from meth. once a meth head always a meth head. once you are addicted, your life will never be the same.

....so because of the major impact for the worse drugs can have on a society, in this case, i am for government regulation.

i dont know about marijuana. i hear it is pretty safe. i have never done any drug in my life. sure it would be fun....but luckily never had a huge interest.

That's a little ignorant. I know from personal experience that the meth habit can be kicked.

hermhater
12-08-2007, 03:28 AM
That's a little ignorant. I know from personal experience that the meth habit can be kicked.

Ignorance is timsatt's specialty.

prough91
12-08-2007, 03:30 AM
I don't believe that steroids are currently as rampant as you seem to believe they are.

And do you believe that steroids automatically know some limit of user-performance-level? What would give you the impression that elite atheletes have some immunity to steroids, and why do they do them?

Also, with steroids being banned from our major sports, they are not as common as they would be were they widely accepted.

For an example, one can look to nations who have no laws against marijuana, or other "narcotics". In Columbia, you can walk through large fields of marijuana. ( I would reccomend that you don't try it, but the fields are there.) Go to Holland, and you can find "pot-smoking" cafes and marijuana cigarettes at the stores there. Afghanistan has been exposed as a major distributor of several different "narcotics", and have a large quantity of fields for that purpose.

Funny that I find myself arguing this side of the issue, since, if I were able, I would legalize most illegal drugs. But this isn't about the legalization/criminalization, it's about the major sports industry of this country foregoing testing and rules against certain substances.

I wouldn't be against an alternate league existing, that would openly forego such rules. But there would, eventually, be the same issues with youth getting more involved with 'roids, even in that case.



Have you never read the stories in the Star or sports magazines where baseball players talk about how readily available and widely used steroids are in the sport? I think you, like myself, pull the wool over our eyes a little because deep down we still look at these athletes as heroes and do not want anything to tarnish that image.

chief31
12-08-2007, 04:25 AM
Have you never read the stories in the Star or sports magazines where baseball players talk about how readily available and widely used steroids are in the sport? I think you, like myself, pull the wool over our eyes a little because deep down we still look at these athletes as heroes and do not want anything to tarnish that image.


That's baseball. And it is pretty obvious that MLB has been overrun by steroid useage. But We were talking about major sports in general. I think most people know that baseball has an epidemic on their hands.

My statement about "clean" rookies being able to compete was more directed at football, where there would be a more sizable difference between a "clean" game, and a roid-filled game.

Baseball already has a minor league system that allows "clean" college atheletes to spend a year or two getting juiced.

But with the lack of a minor league in football, and the hard contact that occurs in football, a clean collegiate player would be overwhelmed if all, or even a large majority of, players were already juiced.

timsatt1
12-08-2007, 12:03 PM
That's a little ignorant. I know from personal experience that the meth habit can be kicked.

source: (well just one source for now that i cant back up by a document) my old roomate was a wichita sherriff, now with the Kansas Bereau of Investigation, that dealt with the whole drug industry all the time.

Meth is the most addictive drug there is. I will go ahead and take some time later and get documents and post them here, then send you some great pictures of meth heads.

the recovery from meth is less than 1%. ONCE YOU ARE ADDICTED, YOUR LIFE IS OVER. you are no longer to take care of your kids if you have them, etc. I mean it is bad. But you seem to know a lot....and this is ignorance. Sorry you live in a bubble where everyone around you is in good health and you dont know people that made these decisions that screwed their life forever. Well i do know these people.

But i dont know it all, like you do. If i say something...well you had for sure better challenge it...and all u got to do is pull out the ignorance word...then you dont even have to back it up with an intelligent saying...the word "ignorance" is simply enough.

chief31
12-08-2007, 12:13 PM
source: (well just one source for now that i cant back up by a document) my old roomate was a wichita sherriff, now with the Kansas Bereau of Investigation, that dealt with the whole drug industry all the time.

Meth is the most addictive drug there is. I will go ahead and take some time later and get documents and post them here, then send you some great pictures of meth heads.

the recovery from meth is less than 1%. ONCE YOU ARE ADDICTED, YOUR LIFE IS OVER. you are no longer to take care of your kids if you have them, etc. I mean it is bad. But you seem to know a lot....and this is ignorance. Sorry you live in a bubble where everyone around you is in good health and you dont know people that made these decisions that screwed their life forever. Well i do know these people.

But i dont know it all, like you do. If i say something...well you had for sure better challenge it...and all u got to do is pull out the ignorance word...then you dont even have to back it up with an intelligent saying...the word "ignorance" is simply enough.

I have known a few people who spent a couple of years wrapped-up in the "meth" environment, all of whom are either clean, or very convincing liars who lead seemingly normal lives.

Not to say that meth isn't extremely addictive, but perhaps there have been some vastly exaggerated studies and reports. That is extremely common with anti-narcotics campaigns.

I have seen what meth does to a persons body though, and it can be pretty nasty.

prough91
12-08-2007, 12:19 PM
source: (well just one source for now that i cant back up by a document) my old roomate was a wichita sherriff, now with the Kansas Bereau of Investigation, that dealt with the whole drug industry all the time.

Meth is the most addictive drug there is. I will go ahead and take some time later and get documents and post them here, then send you some great pictures of meth heads.

the recovery from meth is less than 1%. ONCE YOU ARE ADDICTED, YOUR LIFE IS OVER. you are no longer to take care of your kids if you have them, etc. I mean it is bad. But you seem to know a lot....and this is ignorance. Sorry you live in a bubble where everyone around you is in good health and you dont know people that made these decisions that screwed their life forever. Well i do know these people.

But i dont know it all, like you do. If i say something...well you had for sure better challenge it...and all u got to do is pull out the ignorance word...then you dont even have to back it up with an intelligent saying...the word "ignorance" is simply enough.

That's where you're wrong, in one of your many ways. I used to be addicted to meth, that's what is known by personal experience. I will anxiously await for your documentation on the 1% recovery rate, because that is also bogus. I searched everything I could think of and could not even find a recovery rate and I doubt your "Wichita Sheriff" friend has it either. Also, you say, "But you seem to know a lot....and this is ignorance." Um, no. If I know something, then I am not ignorant about the subject. It is the lack of knowledge which makes a person ignorant.

Canada
12-08-2007, 12:35 PM
My stance is simple. Educate the people about dangers, but do not protect me from myself, by taking away my freedom of choice.

Yes, bad things will happen to people. That is what I call life. If it isn't one bad thing that will happen to them, it will be another.

No one is doing it to protect you from yourself. I got to deal with a guy going through a little 'roid rage and several people ended up getting seriously hurt. To make dangerous drugs illegal is not infringing on your right to get F'ed up, making it legal in infringing on my right to walk safely down the street without some raoid head pickin a fight because I "looked at him funny"

McLovin
12-08-2007, 12:59 PM
No one is doing it to protect you from yourself. I got to deal with a guy going through a little 'roid rage and several people ended up getting seriously hurt. To make dangerous drugs illegal is not infringing on your right to get F'ed up, making it legal in infringing on my right to walk safely down the street without some raoid head pickin a fight because I "looked at him funny"

One perfect example, Chris Benoit. Rep Canada. I for one am not so freaked out about putting limits on my personal choices if it affects others. Drunk driving is a choice and I don't know if I have ever heard someone speak out protecting that.

timsatt1
12-08-2007, 08:15 PM
That's where you're wrong, in one of your many ways. I used to be addicted to meth, that's what is known by personal experience. I will anxiously await for your documentation on the 1% recovery rate, because that is also bogus. I searched everything I could think of and could not even find a recovery rate and I doubt your "Wichita Sheriff" friend has it either. Also, you say, "But you seem to know a lot....and this is ignorance." Um, no. If I know something, then I am not ignorant about the subject. It is the lack of knowledge which makes a person ignorant.


well i am still a meth head. how the hell did you quit? nothing is as good as the feeling of meth. that is all i want to do.

the only way i could quit is if someone cut off all my limbs to where i couldnt move.

Chiefster
12-08-2007, 08:41 PM
I will not even tell you how long it took to make that!

:beer:

Preachin to the choir buddy. :D

Chiefster
12-08-2007, 08:46 PM
No one is doing it to protect you from yourself. I got to deal with a guy going through a little 'roid rage and several people ended up getting seriously hurt. To make dangerous drugs illegal is not infringing on your right to get F'ed up, making it legal in infringing on my right to walk safely down the street without some raoid head pickin a fight because I "looked at him funny"


Something to be said for this; nice reply! :)

chief31
12-08-2007, 09:11 PM
No one is doing it to protect you from yourself. I got to deal with a guy going through a little 'roid rage and several people ended up getting seriously hurt. To make dangerous drugs illegal is not infringing on your right to get F'ed up, making it legal in infringing on my right to walk safely down the street without some raoid head pickin a fight because I "looked at him funny"

A.) I don't think safety is a right. You should have the right to drive to the mall and not have an accident, but occaisionally, it happens anyway. The fact is that if someone does infringe upon your "right" to be safe, not your right to feel safe, then they should be held accountable. Not when he was in the privacy of his own home, putting something into his own body. (You won't hear that kind of thing from me often.:D )

B.) The steroids aren't to blame for Chris Benoit, Chris Benoit is. The steroids do not even have a way to shoot people. (Was it a shooting thing? I don't remember.)

By blaming an inanimate object, in this case drugs, we are taking the blame off of the guilty party.

It is unfair to blame me and my steroid use for the actions of Chris Benoit. (I have never used steroids, just making an example.) Chris Benoit killed his family. I did not. I didn't even kill my family. Me and my steroids have never killed anyone. How am I a criminal because Chris Benoit was a psycho who killed his own family?

Chiefster
12-08-2007, 09:40 PM
The fact is that if someone does infringe upon your "right" to be safe, not your right to feel safe, then they should be held accountable...


Agreed!

Less filling. :D

Canada
12-08-2007, 11:04 PM
A.) I don't think safety is a right. You should have the right to drive to the mall and not have an accident, but occaisionally, it happens anyway. The fact is that if someone does infringe upon your "right" to be safe, not your right to feel safe, then they should be held accountable. Not when he was in the privacy of his own home, putting something into his own body. (You won't hear that kind of thing from me often.:D )

B.) The steroids aren't to blame for Chris Benoit, Chris Benoit is. The steroids do not even have a way to shoot people. (Was it a shooting thing? I don't remember.)

By blaming an inanimate object, in this case drugs, we are taking the blame off of the guilty party.

It is unfair to blame me and my steroid use for the actions of Chris Benoit. (I have never used steroids, just making an example.) Chris Benoit killed his family. I did not. I didn't even kill my family. Me and my steroids have never killed anyone. How am I a criminal because Chris Benoit was a psycho who killed his own family?

I am not in any way taking the responsibility off of the guilty party. You screw up then you pay the penalty, but why make it easier for people to screw up. Do you honestly think the world would be a better place if we could but steroids, cocaine, crack, meth and heroin at the local convenience store?? People have a hard enough time with the fact that you are allowed to drink alcohol and that is too much responsibility to handle. While I understand your point, I like to smoke weed...a lot and I agree that it is my body and I should be allowed to do as I please with it, I think that it is an insane idea to promote the use of steroids or any other mind altering drugs. Believe it or not, drugs make people do things that they would not normally do. That is the point of doing them, however to say that the effects of steroids in teh Chris Benoit case had nothing to do with what he did??....you must be joking.

timsatt1
12-08-2007, 11:45 PM
I am not in any way taking the responsibility off of the guilty party. You screw up then you pay the penalty, but why make it easier for people to screw up. Do you honestly think the world would be a better place if we could but steroids, cocaine, crack, meth and heroin at the local convenience store?? People have a hard enough time with the fact that you are allowed to drink alcohol and that is too much responsibility to handle. While I understand your point, I like to smoke weed...a lot and I agree that it is my body and I should be allowed to do as I please with it, I think that it is an insane idea to promote the use of steroids or any other mind altering drugs. Believe it or not, drugs make people do things that they would not normally do. That is the point of doing them, however to say that the effects of steroids in teh Chris Benoit case had nothing to do with what he did??....you must be joking.

yes, there are drugs, legal and illegal, that are very mind-altering. I am pretty sure that Chris Benoit's mind was not very clear because of his deposition to steroids.

I have never used illegal drugs, but when i was in high school i was on acutane, an acne medicine that has been taken off the market because of the high amounts of suicide with ppl taking that drug.

i was never suicidal and never will be...but i definately wasnt thinking clearly then. Life was hell.

i will never miss my high school years. i was glad to get through them. Now I am living the real life!! AND LOVING IT!!! most of the time.

hermhater
12-08-2007, 11:50 PM
I am not in any way taking the responsibility off of the guilty party. You screw up then you pay the penalty, but why make it easier for people to screw up. Do you honestly think the world would be a better place if we could but steroids, cocaine, crack, meth and heroin at the local convenience store?? People have a hard enough time with the fact that you are allowed to drink alcohol and that is too much responsibility to handle. While I understand your point, I like to smoke weed...a lot and I agree that it is my body and I should be allowed to do as I please with it, I think that it is an insane idea to promote the use of steroids or any other mind altering drugs. Believe it or not, drugs make people do things that they would not normally do. That is the point of doing them, however to say that the effects of steroids in teh Chris Benoit case had nothing to do with what he did??....you must be joking.

I'm sure steroids use had something to do with it, but there were also reports of his concussions that led to depression, and suicidal thoughts.

This is a major issue in contact sports right now, as more and more concussed players are feeling the effects further into life.

chief31
12-09-2007, 12:10 AM
I am not in any way taking the responsibility off of the guilty party. You screw up then you pay the penalty, but why make it easier for people to screw up. Do you honestly think the world would be a better place if we could but steroids, cocaine, crack, meth and heroin at the local convenience store?? People have a hard enough time with the fact that you are allowed to drink alcohol and that is too much responsibility to handle. While I understand your point, I like to smoke weed...a lot and I agree that it is my body and I should be allowed to do as I please with it, I think that it is an insane idea to promote the use of steroids or any other mind altering drugs. Believe it or not, drugs make people do things that they would not normally do. That is the point of doing them, however to say that the effects of steroids in teh Chris Benoit case had nothing to do with what he did??....you must be joking.

Bottom line... Unless you hurt somebody, (or steal) then I don't see how there is a crime.

If you become violent, or steal, as a result of drug use, then you are a criminal. If you don't hurt anyone, or steal from anyone, then who the **** is the complainant?

For the record, I will gladly grant that the effects of steroids played a part in Benoits tirade. But, the drugs didn't hurt anyone, Chris Benoit did.

You can use any example of how drugs hurt someone, but they didn't. The fact is that whoever put the drugs into the "victims" system hurt them.

Canada
12-09-2007, 12:34 AM
Bottom line... Unless you hurt somebody, (or steal) then I don't see how there is a crime.

If you become violent, or steal, as a result of drug use, then you are a criminal. If you don't hurt anyone, or steal from anyone, then who the **** is the complainant?

For the record, I will gladly grant that the effects of steroids played a part in Benoits tirade. But, the drugs didn't hurt anyone, Chris Benoit did.

You can use any example of how drugs hurt someone, but they didn't. The fact is that whoever put the drugs into the "victims" system hurt them.

I totally agree with you, however most drugs/drug users do become violent and or steal as a result of the drugs they are using. I personally am glad that the laws are set to protect those of us who choose not to use drugs as opposed to protecting those who do. And for the record the drugs are usually not forced into people. People make a choice.

timsatt1
12-10-2007, 03:39 PM
Bottom line... Unless you hurt somebody, (or steal) then I don't see how there is a crime.

If you become violent, or steal, as a result of drug use, then you are a criminal. If you don't hurt anyone, or steal from anyone, then who the **** is the complainant?

For the record, I will gladly grant that the effects of steroids played a part in Benoits tirade. But, the drugs didn't hurt anyone, Chris Benoit did.

You can use any example of how drugs hurt someone, but they didn't. The fact is that whoever put the drugs into the "victims" system hurt them.

hoorah! yeah, i totally agree. there are too many "victims" out there. Anymore, before we try a murderer, we have to make sure that he was mentaly stable enough to know what he was doing when he murdered so and so. Our system is screwed up.

rbedgood
12-11-2007, 06:45 PM
I disagree with the "elite athletes" comment. I don't think Barry Bonds touches the record without steriods.

I don't thinkk Barry Bonds touches the HR record without steroids, but I do think he becomes the first and only 600-600 guy without steroids. Steroids slowed him down, and in many ways may have caused some of the joint problems that he had. The irony is that to true baseball fans 600-600 would've been much more impressive than the 762 HRs that he hit.

BTW he finished with 514 stolen bases...and averaged 25+ per year until 1999 when he went on steroids...it cost him at least 10-15 SBs a year for the last 9 years of his career.

hermhater
12-13-2007, 05:36 AM
I don't thinkk Barry Bonds touches the HR record without steroids, but I do think he becomes the first and only 600-600 guy without steroids. Steroids slowed him down, and in many ways may have caused some of the joint problems that he had. The irony is that to true baseball fans 600-600 would've been much more impressive than the 762 HRs that he hit.

BTW he finished with 514 stolen bases...and averaged 25+ per year until 1999 when he went on steroids...it cost him at least 10-15 SBs a year for the last 9 years of his career.

I saw something on ESPN today, about some guy who is going to release a report, about a 20 month investigation of the players who have used steroids, tomorrow...

Much fodder for you baseball fanatics!

:D

chief31
12-13-2007, 05:46 AM
I saw something on ESPN today, about some guy who is going to release a report, about a 20 month investigation of the players who have used steroids, tomorrow...

Much fodder for you baseball fanatics!

:D

I believe it to be more "white-wash"

Guru
12-13-2007, 06:47 AM
I believe it to be more "white-wash"
Jose Canseco will probably write another book about it.

chief31
12-13-2007, 06:51 AM
Jose Canseco will probably write another book about it.

This list that they are suppose to release will have fewer names in it than Joses book had.

Guru
12-13-2007, 06:56 AM
This list that they are suppose to release will have fewer names in it than Joses book had.
Which is exactly why he will have another one published.

hermhater
12-13-2007, 03:41 PM
Here ya go guys, discuss away...


Mitchell Report released
Findings concern use of performance-enhancing drugs in MLB
By Bryan Hoch / MLB.com
http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2007/12/40.jpg (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/tickets/index.jsp)


View the complete Mitchell Report (PDF) (http://files.mlb.com/mitchrpt.pdf)
Complete Mitchell Report coverage (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/news/mitchell/coverage.jsp)


NEW YORK -- The findings of former Sen. George Mitchell's report concerning use of performance-enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball were released Thursday. Several high-profile, superstar-caliber players were among those named in the Mitchell Report, the product of a 21-month, multimillion dollar investigation that could shape decisions, prompt punitive actions against active players, and usher in the next era of the sport.
Free agent Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte of the New York Yankees, Miguel Tejada of the Houston Astros, Eric Gagne of the Milwaukee Brewers and Paul Lo Duca of the Washington Nationals were among the most prominent former and current All-Stars to be mentioned in the lengthy report, which spans 311 pages, plus multiple exhibits, including evidence of signed checks, handwritten notes and shipping receipts.
The players listed in the paragraph above are by no means the only players listed in the report, but in MLB.com's first, quick review of the document, those names stood out for their notoriety. Our coverage will continue minute-by-minute through the course of the proceedings and for the foreseeable future thereafter, but the entire report is available for viewing here at MLB.com in PDF format. It will be presented in a searchable, clickable version as soon as the 311 pages of content can be converted appropriately.
Several of the names mentioned in the Mitchell Report have been connected to performance-enhancing drug use in the past. In recent years, Barry Bonds, Kevin Brown, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa and the late Ken Caminiti, among others, have all been linked to reports or have admitted their own steroid use.
Erroneous reports earlier circulated in broadcast media prior to Mitchell's release featured a high percentage of inaccuracies.
A considerable number of names also appeared in the report in contextual stories detailing the actions of other players. Multiple players were invited to meet with Mitchell's probe as he gathered facts but declined. Mitchell said that each player mentioned in the report was offered a fair opportunity to refute the allegations.
Mitchell released his findings at a 2 p.m. ET news conference held at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York. Commissioner Bud Selig was expected to react to the report during a 4:30 p.m. ET news conference blocks away at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. MLB.com will carry both conferences live.
While the report detailed drug use in baseball by naming those accused, the report also contained 19 separate recommendations for the sport to move forward from this point, proceeding after a culture of steroids and performance enhancement grew exponentially in the late 1990s.
Mitchell said that evidence has been found that steroid use among MLB players has declined since the institution of a random testing arrangement in 2002, but that use of human growth hormone has risen, because a urine test for HGH is not readily available. Five to seven percent of Major Leaguers tested positive during an anonymous, random survey of testing during the 2003 season, a figure that Mitchell declared to be representative of a larger problem.
Mitchell's report named both Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association in assigning blame, charging leadership -- from the Commissioner to club owners and general managers -- for allowing the issue to proliferate.
One of the keys to Mitchell's investigation seems to have been the willingness earlier this year of Kirk Radomski, a bat boy, equipment manager and clubhouse attendant for the New York Mets from 1985-95, to provide Mitchell with players' names as part of his plea bargain with the federal government in the case against the Bay Area Co-Operative Laboratory.
Radomski pleaded guilty to providing players with performance-enhancing drugs during that period, and an entire section of the Mitchell Report largely circled around Radomski's testimony. Brian McNamee, a trainer who worked closely with Clemens, Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch, provided extensive context as well.

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2007/12/41.jpg (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/news/mitchell/coverage.jsp)
McNamee told Mitchell that he provided Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone in the late 1990s, but said he had no knowledge of Clemens' actions after 2001; McNamee also said that he injected Pettitte on two to four occasions with human growth hormone.
A national investigation by an Albany, N.Y., district attorney unearthed the names of nine former or current players involved with procuring performance-enhancing drugs, either through southern U.S. clinics or pharmacies doing business via the Internet.
Seven of them -- Rick Ankiel of the Cardinals, Gary Matthews Jr. of the Angels, Jerry Hairston Jr. of the Rangers, Jay Gibbons of the Orioles, Paul Byrd of the Indians, Troy Glaus of the Blue Jays, Scott Schoeneweis of the Mets and Jose Guillen, who just signed as a free agent with the Royals, were interviewed by the Commissioner's Office. Of those players, only Matthews Jr. was not named in the Mitchell Report.
Names of nine former or current Major Leaguers had already surfaced from that previous investigation and Selig suspended two of those players -- Guillen and Gibbons -- for 15 days each for the start of the 2008 season. Several media reports detailed that both players had obtained human growth hormone in 2005, after baseball had banned the drug.
Those suspensions may provide a road map for how the Commissioner will deal with other players named in Mitchell's report; the union has filed a grievance against Guillen's suspension and it will be heard by an arbitrator early next year. Due to insufficient evidence, no disciplinary action was taken against Ankiel, Matthews Jr., Glaus and Schoeneweis. Results of the Byrd and Hairston reviews have not yet been made public.
Mitchell, a former federal prosecutor, is a director of the Boston Red Sox, and was chairman of The Walt Disney Co., the parent of ESPN, at the time Selig established the committee on March 30, 2006, charging it with leaving "no stone unturned" in its quest to determine what happened in baseball's so-called steroid era.
The report was delivered with the backdrop of Bonds having just pleaded not guilty last week in a San Francisco federal court on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.
Bonds' plea related to his own use of performance-enhancing drugs in testimony he gave four years ago before a grand jury investigating BALCO for money laundering and illegally selling performance-enhancing drugs without prescriptions.
Selig appointed Mitchell after he read the book "Game of Shadows," which documented the BALCO investigation, and in which Bonds, Giambi and Sheffield were subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury under grants of immunity.
Giambi later became the only known Major League player to speak with Mitchell, meeting in July after being threatened with a possible suspension by Selig after implying past steroid use in a USA Today report earlier in the season, telling the newspaper that he had been wrong for doing "that stuff." Giambi's statements followed up a bizarre years-old scenario in which he had apologized but was unable to specifically say what he was apologizing for.
While Mitchell's committee has never had subpoena power, he and his group of investigators have spent months and millions of dollars conducting interviews from the clubhouse to the front office as trainers, strength coaches, former players, general managers, managers and team presidents all spent time answering queries.
Bryan Hoch (Bryan.Hoch@mlb.com) is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.



http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071213&content_id=2324860&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

hermhater
12-13-2007, 03:44 PM
I'll give a dollar to anyone who reads all 409 pages of the .pdf file!!!

:lol:

Chiefster
12-13-2007, 05:20 PM
I'll give a dollar per word to anyone who reads all 409 pages of the .pdf file!!!

:lol:


FYR! :D

timsatt1
12-13-2007, 06:32 PM
i dont care that baseball players take steroids...and neither do the fans....as they (at least the winning teams)still fill out stadiums all the time and buy merchandise. Baseball is still booming. We would be lying to ourselves if we said we want to go back to seeing a bunch of stick looking figures hitting singles and doubles and the leading homerun hitter having 30 homeruns that year.

We like the long ball!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rbedgood
12-13-2007, 07:30 PM
Personally I was a pitcher, I enjoy seeing a 1-0 game more than most...but I can't say that steroids hurt the pitchers as more of them have been nabbed than hitters...

timsatt1
12-13-2007, 07:38 PM
Personally I was a pitcher, I enjoy seeing a 1-0 game more than most...but I can't say that steroids hurt the pitchers as more of them have been nabbed than hitters...


Yes, even THE Roger Clemens was on the list...but I still like him, nonetheless.

BUT the greatest pitcher of all time WAS NOLAN RYAN....and he WASNT on steroids. (i think)

...and i think i can name all the teams nolan played for...at least ill try

texas rangers,
California Angels
NY METS
Astros????
...one more team...i cannot remember.

rbedgood
12-13-2007, 07:42 PM
Pretty good for a young kid...that was the entire list, albeit out of order...NYM, California, Houston and then Texas.

timsatt1
12-13-2007, 11:15 PM
Pretty good for a young kid...that was the entire list, albeit out of order...NYM, California, Houston and then Texas.


well his final years was the years that i was a huge baseball fan. i knew just about every player on every team.

I still have my late 80s, early 90s baseball cards.

tops, donruss, fleer, score....and more

and i have like 5 complete sets from a certain year...such as complete set of '92 score cards, etc.

rbedgood
12-14-2007, 12:08 AM
I've been a big baseball fan since the 70's, and have always loved the history of the game. I have baseball cards back to the 50's (I wasn't born then but dad saved them and passed them on). I still have all my sets from 1984 through 1996 and my prize possession is a 1967 Henry Aaron MVP card.

I still love baseball, and truly have moved past the stupid labor situation and the cancelled World Series.

timsatt1
12-14-2007, 12:18 AM
I've been a big baseball fan since the 70's, and have always loved the history of the game. I have baseball cards back to the 50's (I wasn't born then but dad saved them and passed them on). I still have all my sets from 1984 through 1996 and my prize possession is a 1967 Henry Aaron MVP card.

I still love baseball, and truly have moved past the stupid labor situation and the cancelled World Series.


that is awesome that u have hank aaron's card. i at least have a signed bo jackson card from the era of when he had all his "bo knows" commercials and at the end of the commercial he says "what else am i gonna do this summer"

well the baseball card i have of him isnt by any brand (like tops or donruss or whatever) but it has him in his white sox uni and on the back of the card it says "what else am i going to do this summer" and that is the card he signed for me whenever he signed a football for me.

yeah i still got my cards basically so i can pass em on one day. and i got A LOT of cards.

rbedgood
12-14-2007, 12:26 AM
I also have Bob Gibson, Roger Maris, Richie Ashburn, Willie Mays and a Nolan Ryan rookie card. No their not available as they belong to a currently 3 year old son of mine (no he won't get them until he is much older.)

chief31
12-14-2007, 12:39 AM
I have a Ryne Sandberg 1984 Donruss(?) that he signed "'84 NL MVP Ryno" One of my most prized baseball possessions.

He was the manager for the Peoria Chiefs, 'A' affiliate of the Cubs, this past season.

I also have alot of "game used" cards. The likes of Willie Mays, Reggie Jackson, Yogi Berra, etc. (Very long list.)

I am not nearly as passionate about the game as I once was, but I am not completely withdrawn from it anymore.