this guy evidently hired to work for AD
In case you missed this article from Friday, Simmons does a great job discussing a couple of "modern miracles" that may warrant a bit more scrutiny. I'm not saying that I know that any of these guys are juicing, but Simmons's list of "people who should have to pee in a cup" makes some excellent points. Interested to hear what the board thinks of it. Why don't we have better PED testing in sports? Reasons cited often include players' freedoms, and that blood testing is invasive, or something. Well, there are all kinds of random and invasive rules commiserate with playing pro sports. Hell, the combine has a literal meat market where players walk around in their underwear and are measured in front of hundreds of men. I'd think that the clean players would push hard for more testing.
Remember as you hear today that a 37 year old tore his triceps 2 months ago and is now on a "victory tour" making tons of tackles... that the NFL doesn't test for HGH.
The following anecdote is also 100 percent true … When Bertrand Berry and Ty Warren suffered a complete tear of their triceps, it took them six months to recover. When Arizona left tackle Levi Brown suffered a complete tear of his triceps in August 2012, the Cardinals immediately put him on their season-ending injured list. When Ray Lewis suffered a complete tear of his triceps in mid-October, we thought he was finished for the season … only he returned to action a little more than two months later. During the third month of his "recovery," he made 17 tackles in a double-overtime playoff game in Denver. In 13-degree weather. At age 37. So when Lewis's name landed in this week's PED scandal, nobody tumbled over in shock. We wasted the rest of Super Bowl week talking about him, wondering whether he cheated, watching his denial for signs that he was lying, Googling "deer antler spray" and talking about everything other than the game. Eventually, the moment will pass, like it always does. Nothing will change. Sadly, the collective irresponsibility of some sports media members — call it "cornballbrotheritis" — ruined any rational media member's chances to question the current environment. You don't trust our ability to handle such a loaded subject, nor should you. We've ruined your trust too many times.
It's an exciting day in the world of Performance Enhancing Drugs, as two bombs have been dropped on major athletes in major American sports.
In Baseball, investigation into a clinic in Florida has once again linked everybody's favorite multimillionaire Alex Rodriguez, among others, with a clinic distributing PEDs. This is much more recent than his allegedly "isolated" use of them from 2001-2003.
And, leading up to Super Bowl week, SI has printed a report suggesting that Ray Lewis took Deer-Antler Spray, of all things, to help his recovery from a triceps tear--a substance that includes a substance banned by the NFL. The Ravens have issued a denial that features this argument: "Ray Lewis has never tested positive for banned substances."
If that sounds familiar, that's because it is the same defense used by Lance Armstrong for 14 years prior to his confession to Oprah of rampant PED use.
Personally, I'm not surprised; I'm a cycling fan and to be one is to understand the effectiveness and elusiveness of cheating. Years of looking into it have left me with the conviction that PEDs are widespread and widely un-caught in many sports. It is simply too easy to get away with.
Ironically, if Ray Lewis were to be nailed for this, it would be roughly analagous to catching Al Capone for tax evasion--a punishable infraction, but only a small portion of what is a much larger web of drug use in the League. Not to say that Ray Lewis is in any way unusual in what he may or may not do, because I don't think he is.
AP article posted on ESPN:
The author implies that steroid use is common across the sport despite practically no positive test results.
I don't know what to make of it. I'd be disappointed to find that some of my favorite players were/are steroid users.
Found this link (it's a press release, summarized below if you don't care to read ads)
Basically, they're advertising a steroid that doesn't have negative steroid side effects. It builds muscle by stimulating stem cells (no, not the ones in labs -- the ones you have aplenty in your body for building new stuff inside you while sleeping).
If this works, I'd like to see what people's thoughts are on a "safe steroid," and its application in collegiate and pro sports.
Even if this product is bollux, you gotta figure they'll come up with a safe performance enhancement drug or 20 in the future, right?
So hypothesis: there's a drug with no negative side effects that can accomplish in a pill what today we accomplish with half of a Barwis workout.
How would you feel about pro athletes taking them? Would you want them banned? How about in college? What if schools put their student athletes on the supplements as a matter of course?
Positives: Free market. Better athletes = better sports. Banning would be really hard to do; I imagine if roids are rampant now even with shrinkage, etc., what if they didn't hurt you? For Michigan, if they're priced out of the range of smaller schools, that's one more big-school advantage.
Negatives: More "explosive" players already has increased injury rates...the modern "big hit" is already dangerously close to the limits of what the hittee's bones and muscles and tendons can reasonably take. Lots of $$$ of athletic budgets going to pharmaceutical companies, NCAA-wide.
Manny Ramirez will be suspended 50 games for violating baseball's steroid policy.