Does the NFL need HGH testing ?

Morrisseeee

Q. Does the NFL need HGH testing ?

<NFL video> in this video the analysts reckon up to 50% are using HGH !

Justin10

No

That figure wouldn't surprise me

Son Of A Vidic

No

Didn't talks on this issue between the players union and the NFL breakdown recently? Lots of foot dragging going on right now but increased testing will happen eventually.

taidghbaby

The NFL want to use the Olympic method of testing for HGH but recently an Estonian (I think but could be wrong) athlete had her ban overturned in court!

The NFLPA are questioning the legitimacy of the test (citing the above court case) and the NFL aren't budging! At a bit of an impass at the moment I believe! Personally I think the NFLPA are dragging their heels over this

ABajaninCork

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Q. Does the NFL need HGH testing ?

<NFL video> in this video the analysts reckon up to 50% are using HGH !

Only 50%? I think at least 70-80% are using/have used HGH...

eagle eye

Atari Gridiron

I think I'm the only no vote. I think its just a waste of time. Personally I believe that if you start testing for something like that then those with the most connnections/money who want to dope will find something else to beat the system. I think you have to just accept it at this stage because its happening in the NCAA as well as the NFL and its going to be very hard to stamp out PEDs. You might be successful in stamping out HGH but there is certainly going to be something else ready to go when that happens.

adrian522

No

Disagree, just because it is going to be very difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

The NFL should be following the WADA code of conduct and bans should be in years not games.

Morrisseeee

No

eagle eye wrote: »

I think I'm the only no vote. I think its just a waste of time.

Most people would probably be of that opinion and I can understand why, ie. being a waste of time. For example, they've been testing for cheating in all sports over the years, but yet the competitors continue to try and beat the system.

I voted yes, because, well, they have to try and stop the cheating or have to be showing to try. I wouldn't be happy with all sports saying Yes to cheating, and saying "sure it's just a waste of time".

What would your opinion be on other sports ? should they stop testing in those sports aswell, have a free-for-all, best doper(s) wins, dare I mention 2 famous dopers, Ben Johnson & Lance Armstrong

Morrisseeee

No

adrian522 wrote: »

The NFL should be following the WADA code of conduct and bans should be in years not games.

Yes I agree, and meant to add that point above actually, ie. if the ban outweighs the act of cheating then the competitors would definitely think twice about doing it.

padraig_f

No

Haven't followed the politics around it, but it strikes me as massive hypocrisy by the NFL talking about player safety and then not doing HGH testing, which artificially increases both size and speed of players.

eagle eye

Atari Gridiron

I just think the current policy of banning people for four games if they get caught is enough to show you are doing something.

I don't think you will ever get rid of drugs out of sport. Its kinda like burglar alarms, antivirus software etc., no matter how good you get there will always be somebody there ahead of the game.

As far as those two famous dopers mentioned. Anybody with a bit of cop on knew that Armstrong was at it but he wasn't the only one in cycling by any stretch. I personally know somebody very well who was a professional cyclist and pretty much was given the choice of either doing it or not getting his contract renewed, he chose the latter but there are very few who do.

Johnson was just on better drugs than the other sprinters during his time. Its well known that Carl Lewis was caught and it got swept under the rug, Linford Christie got caught too. Thats the first three home in the Seoul Olympics. Out of the top five only Calvin Smith never failed a drugs test.

TO.

No

There should be a category for on the fence rather than Atari Gridiron.

The reason I say that is I have 2 points of view on this:

Coaching standpoint: Yes I do think the effort should be stepped up to cut it out. Even if new ways are found to avoid the test there is no excuse for not trying to cut it out. Now my reason for that is not to cut out those getting the upper hand on others due to it. But for High School and College students who see HGH as the norm and put their bodies through it at a young age without being told how to do it properly for reasons of not getting caught. At a young age the body should be allowed to develop naturally and not pumped full of drugs to help it a long. Besides from the morale aspect of it you are also telling kids it is alright to cheat to get ahead.

Personal standpoint: On the flip side of this I really don't care what Pro sports do. If they opened up HGH to everyone it puts every player on a level playing field and I say that for every sport. Lets face it, This problem is rampant throughout every pro sport at this point and working with it and controlling it for normal use would probably be a better way to go.

As I said though as a coach in the game who will be coaching in the US making sure it is completely stamped out is probably the way to go because lets face it there is no happy median in all of this. HS and College kids should not see HGH as the best solution of developing their bodies.

Son Of A Vidic

No

Feck, forgot to vote earlier.

Morrisseeee

No

eagle eye wrote: »

I just think the current policy of banning people for four games if they get caught is enough to show you are doing something.

I don't think you will ever get rid of drugs out of sport. .

That's the problem tho, banning is so lenient, 4 games !!, it should be 5 years, maybe then the cheats will think twice about it.

Agree with the last point, there will always be cheats, but it can't be a free for all.

I also agree with TO on the HGH with youths, but surely you'd have to carry that conviction through to the Pro ranks, otherwise it makes a mockery of the whole thing.

As regards Armstrong, he's the worst case scenario, or proof positive (no pun) that drugs/cheating is a non-runner, he's a guy who hadn't the natural talent to win 1 TDF but ends up winning 7 in a row !! where millions of people believed in him, and thousands still did until the final evidence came out.

At the end of the day, people admire sports people for their natural ability, not some drugged up pretender.

pepperfoot

i vote yes also - players should not try to improve themself by dope of any cind. its unsportsmen like and the NFL should test them.

Red Crow

How prevalent is doping in college? You'd imagine with the amount of money involved in the game that there is a large amount of doping going on. I think rugby is on the cusp of hammering doping revelations shortly.

Can the NFL not demand drug tests and why are the NFLPA stuttering over this? I think that's pretty telling in itself.

LuckyLloyd

If you like the speed and intensity of the modern NFL you are for PED use. If you're willing to accept a decent drop off in athletic intensity then by all means ask for increased testing.

When it comes to younger athletes, if they are an elite HS player with Div 1 interest as a Junior they should start using. I'm sorry, but this is the current reality. Either they do everything they can or they don't make it because someone does instead of them. Huge amount of naivetey abounds on this topic imo.

TO.

No

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

When it comes to younger athletes, if they are an elite HS player with Div 1 interest as a Junior they should start using. I'm sorry, but this is the current reality. Either they do everything they can or they don't make it because someone does instead of them. Huge amount of naivetey abounds on this topic imo.

Most top level HS players are using and it is a sad reality. I know guys who were red shirted or low down in depth in their freshman year who used the testing free year to use and bulk up and enhance their abilities. The minute they left High school football many of them go to "experts" who help them do it in a controlled way. Others just do it themselves. When they enter college they realise the need to bulk as some of them are a lot smaller than the bigger juniors and seniors.

Realism of it is the NCAA dont test non starters or guys who dont see themselves on to the field in their 1st year in college.

frostie500

No

As both Lloyd and TO say it's a sad reality that lots of players dope from an early age when their body is still developing. The US has always been rife with this and I remember a friend of mine who said that when he was in high school in the 80s the coach would come into the locker room with a load of "vitamins" and tell the players to take them. Suddenly guys were faster and stronger....With minimal testing (such as in a red shirt year) the advantages of doping are clear and unfortunately lots of guys take this time to use various drugs.

Personally I hate to see doping in any sport but it's clear that rugby, football and other sports are now suffering to a large degree from doping. Cycling gets a terrible rep for doping (and it's obviously deserved) but it's one of the few sports that has actually made a concerted effort to clean itself up and punish dopers. They aren't afraid of the negative publicity of a major doping case and they want to clean their sport. Lots of others would do well to follow their example instead of putting their heads in the sand like the NFL do

davyjose

frostie500 wrote: »

As both Lloyd and TO say it's a sad reality that lots of players dope from an early age when their body is still developing. The US has always been rife with this and I remember a friend of mine who said that when he was in high school in the 80s the coach would come into the locker room with a load of "vitamins" and tell the players to take them. Suddenly guys were faster and stronger....With minimal testing (such as in a red shirt year) the advantages of doping are clear and unfortunately lots of guys take this time to use various drugs.

Personally I hate to see doping in any sport but it's clear that rugby, football and other sports are now suffering to a large degree from doping. Cycling gets a terrible rep for doping (and it's obviously deserved) but it's one of the few sports that has actually made a concerted effort to clean itself up and punish dopers. They aren't afraid of the negative publicity of a major doping case and they want to clean their sport. Lots of others would do well to follow their example instead of putting their heads in the sand like the NFL do

It's worth noting, the UCI (cyclings governing body) have little to do with the current changes in cycling. It has almost all been through WADA.

UnitedIrishman

The sad reality is that the testers are so far behind the developers of these drugs that no sport will ever be clean. Cycling with Lance, soccer with Juventus and the Dutch guys, Baseball with.. well.. nearly everyone. There was an excellent interview with Victor Conte a few years back when he described the process of building designer drugs for athletes.

Basically they did a load of tests on the cyclist or runner and then created a drug or steroid and changed enough molecules on it that it couldn't be traced by testing or it wasn't on the banned list because it was a new lab created chemical. Of course the more money you had the better drugs you received and the more advanced they were. He was fairly certain that all of the 100m field in the 2008 Olympics were doping.

If they want to get serious about it, they need to start it at grassroots level too. I'm not all that well enamored with the testing systems at high school and college but perhaps a more stringent system here will deter young athletes from doing it.

The other side of it is, I may be completely wrong here but a friend of mine who would be a fairly well clued in athlete himself was telling me about a documentary called 'Bigger, Faster, Stronger' and was saying that overuse of steroids and other drugs was the problem, and that just taking them in moderation showed no major health problems. Anyone seen that to clarify?

LuckyLloyd

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

The other side of it is, I may be completely wrong here but a friend of mine who would be a fairly well clued in athlete himself was telling me about a documentary called 'Bigger, Faster, Stronger' and was saying that overuse of steroids and other drugs was the problem, and that just taking them in moderation showed no major health problems. Anyone seen that to clarify?

The brother that died in 'Bigger, Faster, Stronger' had issues outside of steroid abuse imo.

But to answer your question, doing steroids right takes a lot of knowledge and expertise (so I understand). You're taking substances that are designed to alter / accelerate your bodily balance and function. Main factors are:

- getting genuine, good quality PEDs
- knowing what to use and when
- knowing how to adjust and stack different compounds as the effects of initial things wear off
- having the facility / finances to get regular blood work done and analysed so that any warning signs can be spotted early and correctly accounted for

Plus, if someone decides to embark down the PED route they are likely to have to stay on to some extent the rest of their life.

And, ultimately, you're not operating in a realm of extensive research and scholarly 'how to' manuals. A lot of amatear use will be working on what has been handed down from a longer term user - and given that every body and objective is different it isn't hard to see how that might not be ideal.

ABajaninCork

There seems to be a disproportionately high number of ex-NFL players dying young. I don't mean the suicides which is another subject altogether...

People like Reggie White, Reggie Roby, 'Ironhead' Heyward. I wonder is there any connection with the use of steroids/HGH the effects of which (especially HGH) are still not fully understood?

LuckyLloyd

ABajaninCork wrote: »

There seems to be a disproportionately high number of ex-NFL players dying young. I don't mean the suicides which is another subject altogether...

People like Reggie White, Reggie Roby, 'Ironhead' Heyward. I wonder is there any connection with the use of steroids/HGH the effects of which (especially HGH) are still not fully understood?

I'd say it has played its part alright. Along with too many helmet to helmet hits and the general negative health consequences of pursuing an extended career in a high intensity / high impact professional sport.

Hazys

ABajaninCork wrote: »

There seems to be a disproportionately high number of ex-NFL players dying young. I don't mean the suicides which is another subject altogether...

People like Reggie White, Reggie Roby, 'Ironhead' Heyward. I wonder is there any connection with the use of steroids/HGH the effects of which (especially HGH) are still not fully understood?

Steroid use has only become widespread in the last 10/15 years (i know the Russians have been pumping their athletes with all sort of stuff for the last 60 years). Some NFL players were probably using it in the 80s but i can only imagine it was rare due to the lack of knowledge about steroids and lack of availability.

So i'd say the early deaths of Reggie White & co are more do to the physicality of the sport. I guess if you summed up all the hits in the NFL over a 10 year career, it would be the equivalent of being in a dozen or so car crashes.

ABajaninCork

Hazys wrote: »

Steroid use has only become widespread in the last 10/15 years (i know the Russians have been pumping their athletes with all sort of stuff for the last 60 years). Some NFL players were probably using it in the 80s but i can only imagine it was rare due to the lack of knowledge about steroids and lack of availability.

Steroid use has been around in some shape or form since the 60's!! I would hazard a guess it's been in use in the NFL since at least the 70's. So, no. It is not as rare as you might think.

Hazys

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Steroid use has been around in some shape or form since the 60's!! I would hazard a guess it's been in use in the NFL since at least the 70's. So, no. It is not as rare as you might think.

Steroids were only starting to be used by Olympic weightlifters in the 70's and by the 80's it had spread to all other Olympic sports...i'd be a little surprised if it was widespread in the NFL by then also, i could be wrong I'm only speculating

But anyway, i don't think steroids are the main reason for NFL players dieing young, i think the physicality of the sport is by far the main reason.

UnitedIrishman

Hazys wrote: »

Steroids were only starting to be used by Olympic weightlifters in the 70's and by the 80's it had spread to all other Olympic sports...i'd be a little surprised if it was widespread in the NFL by then also, i could be wrong I'm only speculating

But anyway, i don't think steroids are the main reason for NFL players dieing young, i think the physicality of the sport is by far the main reason.

I'd imagine it was prevalent in the NFL by the early 80's given that it was rife among track athletes by that stage. The likes of EPO wasn't available but roids were and quite a few footballers from that era have admitted as much.

The issue I'd have is how companies market the likes of creatine (which I don't have an issue with as a supplement) and other supplements as safe and denounce anabolic steroids as something that's sold on back streets from a dodgy dealers.

Also the physicality of the sport is a result of drug use too remember. As Angel Heredia said, man is not designed to be genetically able to run a sub 9.8 100m. Likewise linebackers and running backs are not nearly going to collide at the same pace if they aren't using drugs.

Edit: Actually it was Angel Heredia and not Conte who I read interviewed.
Here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=412846

Arawn

No

I'll say his in my own experience in mma and rugby performance enhancing is fairly prevelant, and nfl stars dwarf most of these people in size, muscle and generally speed. There is no way that many people can be that genetically gifted