15% of Clemson's Football Team Tests Positive for PED's

Who cares. If you think they won all 15 games because 15% of their team is "using" something well.....

Is the testing really that costly to only have a small portion of the team submit samples?  It seems that it would be easier to simply have everyone submit, thus aiding to discourage use since all would know they'll get tested.

ah, SARMS. Not at GNC but easily obtained

SOunds like a natural rival for Sparty.

15% ... seems low

OP used a quoted line as a sensational thread title.

Less than 20 players were tested. 3 of them tested positive.

Hence, 3 divided some number (less than 20) = "more than 15 percent of those Tigers screened tested positive for performance enhancing drugs (PEDs)"

 

/For posterity's sake, I think every program (and NFL team) is using something. It's just a matter of whether or not that substance has been comprehensively tested, classified as a PED, and banned.

//Who remembers deer antler spray becoming a thing around 2012?

It depends.  If we're talking androgenic anabolic steroids (AAS), yes they work very well.  They will make you larger, stronger, faster, leaner, etc.  But they won't improve your motor control, coordination, agility, etc. which IMO is what makes great athletes great.  They are not as effective in ball team sports compared to something like track & field or combat sports.  Look around and rarely are the best sport players the biggest, strongest, or most jacked.  If we're talking virtually anything else (besides AAS), no they don't do enough to make much of a difference.

Seems like a logical outcome of 3 positive tests should be mandatory testing of all of the athletes in the program.  Oh, never mind, silly me thinking logical and NCAA go together.

There's not a pro athlete in a major sport that hasn't or isn't currently taking a banned PED of some kind. Know that most of these kids who come from an affluent enough background were on stuff starting in HS. Everyone's "dirty", learn to live with that or don't watch sports.

Was this leaked by the SEC? I'm sure they'd love the "can't beat us on a fair playing field" argument, despite insane hypocrisy in the statement.

Title of the article is misleading. 15% of the 20 players that were tested came back positive. that is 3/20, that we knew about, were positive for a banned substance. 

OSU certainly had a spring in their step against us this year, unlike most of their prior games.

How has nobody mentioned that this article if true, indicates that 15% of Bama players also tested positive, and 0% from ND and Oklahoma (assuming they tested 20 from each team)

Very suspicious that they tested only three before the playoffs and all three tested positive and were suspended why the rest of the team wasn’t tested? 

I love this topic. A few items...It is harder to get caught now with NCAA offseason testing but it is still random, sparse and easy to work around. I worked as an athletic trainer at a D1 school and this is exactly what happens; the ATC's get a fax/email the day before with a list of athletes. Those athletes report around 6am or 7am the next day. It's totally random. At that point if you are on and called in you will be caught. However, there is a good chance you won't be on the list and you play your odds of when you are likely to get tested to not be on. 15 years ago you could 100% avoid being caught. Now...it's probably more like 85% if you are smart.

Each school also does self testing but it is only for recreational drugs, not PED's. 

At these schools less people use than some think and more than others think. When I was introduced to it, it was mostly the lineman. Many used. Most of the skill positions never really thought about it. 

They also didn't use all year. The ones that got caught are the ones who would be on long acting drugs or take something like deca which you can ring a positive test for months and months later. I only saw one guy caught and he was just "on" all the time with no regard to getting caught. 

The best way to do it is short bursts of 4-6 weeks maybe 2-3 times a year. These are elite athletes and with training and food that is all you need. You take a 20 year old lineman and throw him on 750-1000mgs of test prop and some sort of oral drug and that is all you need. You will throw on a lot of muscle (and probably fat if you are eating like many of these lineman) and then you're done. 

Mid June to Mid July is all some guys I knew would do...a YEAR...that's it. Some would go as high as 2g of test a week and 100mgs of dianabol/day (that is a huge cycle) and throw on 30 pounds. Granted, only about 6 pounds of that was probably muscle. 

You can also get fairly legit HGH now from China for $130 for 100iu's. So some that are paranoid will just do a bunch of HGH. You aren't going to gain a bunch of muscle that way but you also won't test positive. For actual muscle and performance gains it's a misguided strategy, and quite expensive. 

I've never seen or heard of a systemic issue from the top. That is the interesting part here. If that is the case and they find someone high up is orchestrating a PED program we are breaking new ground at a large program. It's not as sophisticated as some of you think. These dudes are buying $20 bottles of test online and going to internet message boards for advice. 

15% of the players tested, which was 20 players. So 3 out of 20. The title is misleading. 

We could extrapolate that tiny set of data to the entire program or college football, but that'd be foolhardy. The actual percentage could be way less or significantly higher. Honestly, I think the latter is most likely. 

Clemson's response? Well, that still means than 93% of our players aren't using PEDs!