North American
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
02 Feb 14
12:16
Joined:
Date Joined:
18 Aug 02
With the number of positive drug tests from that organisation over the last couple of years, I can't help but feel them winning the Superbowl would be a disaster.
Players caught using PEDs and advocates of players using drugs in the NFL often say it's necessary to use drugs because everyone else is on them. Personally I think that view is absolute nonsense. There will be plenty of players across the league who don't go anywhere near PEDs for a whole variety of reasons. If anything, I think it tends to be an excuse trotted out by players of lesser ability struggling to cope with ego threat who are more likely to use PEDs.
These players are used to be being the star at high school, the star at college, now they are in the pro ranks they might find themselves in a situation where they are not the star, and are even perceived as average or poor quality when judged against the rest of the professional cohort in their position. Having been told how brilliant they are for 15 years the player can't reconcile their mediocrity and looks to come up with an explanation why they are performing so poorly. We know from social psychology when evaluating the performance of others we are cynical as to how their achievements are attained, yet we are very forgiving and make numerous excuses when our own performance doesn't come up to scratch.
The high volume of positive tests from Seattle coupled with a Superbowl win would be further fuel for the struggling player that drugs are necessary to succeed, when the reality is that the very nature of human performance and by definition, only a few players can be exceptional or elite. Perhaps my biggest concern is that the NFL fails to adequately address the issue of PEDs in order to discourage their use in the first place. Bans are typically in the order of 4 games in the NFL, in many other sports bans start at two years.
If the NFL wants to remove PEDs they need to start applying force. Failure to do so is essentially tacit approval of PED use, a shrug of the shoulders. Season long bans for players need to come in. Teams who are accepting of numerous violations among their players should face punishment in the form of loss of draft picks and significant salary cap hits. A system where the team is punished for the transgressions of players would in turn encourage the team to further disincentivise PED use and may lead to contract clauses mandating clean behaviour. Where there's a will, there is a way, but is there a will, are the NFL scared to look underneath the rock?
Players caught using PEDs and advocates of players using drugs in the NFL often say it's necessary to use drugs because everyone else is on them. Personally I think that view is absolute nonsense. There will be plenty of players across the league who don't go anywhere near PEDs for a whole variety of reasons. If anything, I think it tends to be an excuse trotted out by players of lesser ability struggling to cope with ego threat who are more likely to use PEDs.
These players are used to be being the star at high school, the star at college, now they are in the pro ranks they might find themselves in a situation where they are not the star, and are even perceived as average or poor quality when judged against the rest of the professional cohort in their position. Having been told how brilliant they are for 15 years the player can't reconcile their mediocrity and looks to come up with an explanation why they are performing so poorly. We know from social psychology when evaluating the performance of others we are cynical as to how their achievements are attained, yet we are very forgiving and make numerous excuses when our own performance doesn't come up to scratch.
The high volume of positive tests from Seattle coupled with a Superbowl win would be further fuel for the struggling player that drugs are necessary to succeed, when the reality is that the very nature of human performance and by definition, only a few players can be exceptional or elite. Perhaps my biggest concern is that the NFL fails to adequately address the issue of PEDs in order to discourage their use in the first place. Bans are typically in the order of 4 games in the NFL, in many other sports bans start at two years.
If the NFL wants to remove PEDs they need to start applying force. Failure to do so is essentially tacit approval of PED use, a shrug of the shoulders. Season long bans for players need to come in. Teams who are accepting of numerous violations among their players should face punishment in the form of loss of draft picks and significant salary cap hits. A system where the team is punished for the transgressions of players would in turn encourage the team to further disincentivise PED use and may lead to contract clauses mandating clean behaviour. Where there's a will, there is a way, but is there a will, are the NFL scared to look underneath the rock?
Show More
marijuana is only a performance enhancing drug for musicians and artists.
be a disaster for the game. But I have an exclusive for you: They won't win. So we can save ourselves this discussion
Of the NBA, NFL and MLB, the NFL easily has the strongest drug testing policy. That does not really say much, honestly. The players union fights every step in testing rigorously. A new blood test that would catch most every designer performance-enhancing drug, including Human Growth Hormone which an anonymous player said is being used by "10 to 15 players in every locker room", is still not being used in part because of the union.
Yeah, it's not great is it. The thing is, to what extent are the union representing those players who don't want to use PEDs, and resent them being used by the opposition. The union seems to have lined itself up to only ever represent the element that needs to be removed from the sport. Very strange situation.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539