OT - Does Doping Occur in College?
After A-Rod, the NFL suspensions this fall, etc., I have to wonder how clean the NCAA is. If I'm reading this policy correctly, schools cannot even provide protein drinks to athletes. The banned substance (PDF) list is the usual suspects and it looks like the punishments are severe. One violation and you're gone.
Have there been any violations of the drug policy (the performance-enhancing kind, not the Michael Phelps kind)? Does the NCAA usually publish reports about the number of tests, the number of positives, that sort of thing? Do the schools get any form of punishment, in addition to the athletes?
And, a bigger question: do you believe the college athletes are clean?
I'm done with MLB until they start enforcing their policy to the point that it is a serious punishment. I'm particularly upset about the handling of the JC Romero case: he tested positive in August, was allowed to pitch and win World Series games, and now has a 50 game suspension to start the series.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^
Are college athletes clean? No.
Do they use/abuse performance enhancing drugs? Yes. To believe otherwise is to be naive.
Also, I wonder if you're ready to be done with the NFL, too. Players continue to get bigger, stronger and faster. Do you honestly think that there still isn't rampant drug use amongst football players? Also, the NFL and MLB do NOT test for human growth hormone. I would estimate that at least half, if not more NFL players are on the juice.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:21 AM ^
You are spot on Jay..no one uses steroids anymore in football they use HGH because they haven't tested correctly for it. I wonder if Professor Barwis has found any guys juicing and or they have policed it in house with all his blood work and charting he does. I think he may would know more than anyone. Maybe someone should ask him about it next time he starts into 1 of his youtube classics at Spring ball.
The thing I will never understand is why the players themselves don't go to the league with the strictest rules possible. This saves them from killing themselves as well as levels the playing field. I thought about lie detector tests, but I'm sure the lawyers on here can explain why it isn't feasible.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:34 AM ^
Trust me, Ziff. Anabolic steroid use is STILL rampant amongst both proffesional & collegiate athletes. HGH is very expensive. Anabolic steroids are significantly cheaper and are still the gold standard in terms of performance enhancing drugs, even more so than HGH. It is not difficult to beat a urine test. There are a number of different masking agents that can be taken. Also, its fairly easy to pass a drug test when you know when its coming. The little secret that the NFL doesn't talk about is that the players aren't subjected random drug tests UNLESS they have previously tested positive for a banned substance.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:56 PM ^
Without getting into a huge explanation as to why a lie detector test is unreliable, I'll just refer you to a couple of links:
http://www.police-test.net/
and, if you want to get more in-depth:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ota/
The short of both of these is that the tests themselves are based on faulty assumptions and produce regularly dubious results. Also, they're easily beat-able if you know what you're doing.
Polygraphs are not admissible evidence in court, nor should they be. They're fun for a side-show on Maury, but beyond that there's basically no point in them whatsoever.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:19 AM ^
I was really close to having D-1 scholarship level times in swimming. Obviously I never doped, but had I done so I probably would have gotten a D-1 level scholie and had my school paid for. If I had to do it all over again I don't know if I would have made the same choices. In my high school, at that time, no one even talked about doping (at least in my sport). Now? I am not so sure. I think the morer people talk about it the more kids think "Hell, why not?" that is just my opinion on the matter. To answer your question: take a look at Gholston from last years NFL draft, just sayin'.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^
Kids take dope, kids take money. Most aren't clean. Nothing you can really do but turn a blind eye to it. Everyone wants kids to be faster, stronger, and bigger, so they pay the price for our entertainment expense.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:28 AM ^
if your question is does doping happen in college sports...
also i think you are going to find that basetball players are as well..
February 10th, 2009 at 11:46 AM ^
That was kind of my point. I assume that all pro athletes will do whatever they can to keep making money. It then follows that college kids will do whatever it takes to make money. To think otherwise is naive.
So where are the NCAA's doping suspensions? Why don't we hear about them? If a kid loses his scholarship suddenly after a tremendous improvement, us internet-stalkers would certainly notice. I can't think of one.
I do think the NCAA has harsher suspensions than the other majors. If a kid loses a scholarship, that's effectively a lifetime ban. That's the kind of rule that says "Don't Do It." I know some will still do try anyway, but the punishment is there.
I think the NCAA is closer to cycling. If you're caught, you're gone for two years, usually fired from your team, and your wins are taken away. That's a serious punishment. A 10 game suspension from 160 games is a vacation. So's 4 games from the NFL (but back in time for playoffs). So until the leagues get serious about getting rid of it (including banning trainers who allow it to happen), the major leagues are just WWE to me: put on a good show, but it's not real.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:53 AM ^
do you think would report these actions if it did happen?
You would have to be granted tremendous access in order to know if, say an O$U player was taking cycles. If you had that kind of access and trust, I doubt it would be in your best interest to report the story.
MOST people given that kind of access don't try to tear down the team from the inside. I say most because some in the AA area do attempt to rip up the school, but then again, would anybody give them that sort of access? I doubt it.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:55 AM ^
Again, all I can tell you is that it isn't difficult to pass a urine test. To tell you the truth, I really don't give a shit that athletes use performance enhancing drugs. In fact, the libertarian in me believes that it shouldn't be illegal to use them. When used properly and under the close supervision of a physician who actually has some knowledge about them, (and there aren't many that do) anabolic steroids can be quite beneficial for many athletes.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:36 PM ^
Do you think that we don't hear about suspensions because the overwhelming majority of college players are clean, or do you think it's because college testing is so pathetic that basically anyone who wants to can get away with it?
My bet is on the 2nd.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:16 PM ^
We are in agreement. Testing for performance enhancing drugs is a joke.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:06 PM ^
as far as i know, HGH has no known negative side effects and it's marked effects include a virtual rewinding of the aging clock since many of the effects of aging have been correlated to a decline in the body's production of HGH. It increases lean muscle mass, causes the body to burn fat, thickens hair and finger nails and bones, promotes healing, on and on... and the NFL doesn't test for it.
It's the freaking fountain of youth. No one can afford the weekly injections, however, because the stuff is extracted from cadavers in poverty stricken countries and you can imagine that supply chain increases the price a bit.
Fortunately for them, NFL players make a good chunk of change... and an investment in HGH injections is an investment in the money making potential of their bodies going forward. And while you or I may have a hard time finding a dude on the corner slinging HGH... i bet there's a dude in the locker room slinging it.
is the use of this substance unfair competition? where is that line drawn?
February 10th, 2009 at 12:18 PM ^
HGH does have some serious side effects when used in the amounts that some athletes use them, such as facial bone growth, diabetes and irregular heartbeat. When (over)used and abused in conjuction with anabolic steroids the way "professional" bodybuilders use them, it can cause your heart to enlarge, which is very VERY serious. Of course, those are the extreme effects from ABUSE of performance enhancing drugs, not necessarily from USE of them.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:56 PM ^
Did Placido Polanco use HGH then?
February 10th, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^
believe that HGH has "no negative side effects" then you need to research it more. If it had no negative side effects and was "the freaking fountain of youth" then I think we would all have a prescription.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:24 PM ^
Gholston never used roids! NEXT QUESTION!!!!!
February 10th, 2009 at 3:16 PM ^
Either he used roids, or he has the genetics of a Greek God.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:33 PM ^
You are nuts, absolutely freaking insane, if you think kids in college aren't using. Just like you are nuts if you think there aren't HS players using.
As a pretty avid professional wrestling,MMA, and weight training fan, the topic of steroid/HGH usage and effective testing comes up a lot. The simple fact of the matter is that used correctly, and intelligently, PEDs can offer significant upside with little downside. The other side of that coin is most people who use them don't employ them correctly or intelligently.
Testing is problematic. Unless you have the ability to test athletes pretty much constantly there will always be ways around it. In the case of HGH, it can be tested for, but it requires a significantly more in-depth and expensive type of testing, and even that isn't always reliable. The price of HGH has come down since it was first introduced to the world of sports doping, so I believe it's use is fairly widespread. Like Jay said, however, anabolic steroids are still extremely popular.
My point is that there will always be athletes who do whatever they can to be better, including PEDs. And that there will probably never be a way to ensure that everyone is "clean".
As for the claim that a 50 game suspension in MLB or a 4 game in the NFL is a "vacation" - if you miss 4 games in the NFL season, you miss 4 paychecks, you miss 1/4th of the season, and you miss 4 games in which your backup can prove he is cheaper and more effective than you. In the vicious world of the NFL, I don't think you can call that a "vacation", considering the frequency with which teams drop players because of the pathetically weak union.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:59 PM ^
I realize that there will be cheaters at every level of everything. My question was more like: is it as endemic in college as it seems to be in the pros?
There's only so much the organizing body can do, but I base my opinion on how they treat cheats and how they catch them, not the cheats themselves. That's why I feel that the NCAA's policy of scholarship revocation is fair. If a sport wants to clean up (or even appear to care about looking clean), get the cheaters out, and get rid of anyone involved with them (trainers, coaches, teammates supplying it).
I'm sorry, but if a player needs illegal substances to get ahead of another player, he's not as good. So he should be gone.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:34 PM ^
I repeat my question from earlier - do you think the lack of busts in the college level are more because players aren't using (and then suddenly using in the pros) or because college testing is largely a joke?
Effective drug testing requires a serious outlay of cash, personnel, etc. And a strong central administrative body to make sure it is applied fairly.
Do you think the NCAA/Big 10 is sending out people to randomly test athletes at every school in every sport on a regular basis? A regular enough basis to deter use? And do you think the school itself is enforcing their own policy?
If you only get tested at the bowl games, and you know that, it's beyond easy to time your usage so that you don't test positive but still have all the positive effects of the drugs.
If drug testers only come around once a season and only test a handful of guys, I guarantee that most players already inclined to using would be happy to take that gamble.
Personally, I think steroids are just as prevalent at the college level as the professional, and it wouldn't shock me if a substantial number of S&C guys were (via intermediaries, of course) helping players obtain them.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:36 PM ^
Some of the S&C guys are into it for sure.
February 10th, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^
Like Eric Lichter who is the S&C guy for OSU?
February 10th, 2009 at 4:12 PM ^
"As a pretty avid professional wrestling...fan"
Seriously?
Down with MMA (love it) and weight training (used to go to the Arnold Classic every year), but pro wrestling? You don't seem like the type. I mean, like many of us I watched it all the time in grade school (I was at Wrestle Mania 3, last row), but you still watch that stuff?
February 10th, 2009 at 4:20 PM ^
I'm not walking around in an Austin 3:16 shirt or anything, but I watch Monday nights (except football season) and will go to the live shows if they are around.
It is real, right?
February 10th, 2009 at 4:28 PM ^
What sucks is Legion of Doom was my favorite tag team growing up(although The Bushwhackers were a close second) and now I have to see that asshole rooting for the bucks every year. At least it's over now.
How big into MMA are you? I've been looking for a decent MMA blog for months but can't seem to find one. Rearnaked News is pretty good but no one comments and there's no message board. Know of any good ones?
February 10th, 2009 at 4:40 PM ^
I order a decent number of the UFC PPVs, watch Fight Night Live and WEC on VS. and stuff like that. So I'm into it but not like I am football or baseball.
Sherdog has good news coverage, and one of the best I've found is f4wonline.com - but it's $9.99 a month for all the news. It's run by Dave Meltzer, who used to cover professional wrestling exclusively, but now most issues are at least 50% or more MMA coverage.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:07 PM ^
i still watch monday nights too. when done right, it can still be an entertaining show. i actually went to the Royal Rumble at the Joe Louis 2 weeks back. Fun time.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:39 PM ^
I was playing tennis indoors at Northwestern so I used the tennis locker room instead of the main one. As I was in there, I heard two people come in and were talking but they never made it over to the lockers which I thought was weird. When I went out to the courts I saw that they were in a stall together and one of them was pissing into a cup.
If I were a complete jerk I could have said something like, "How's that whizzinator working out for you?"
February 10th, 2009 at 4:27 PM ^
Are folks saying that Michigan players are clean and many others are doping? Or are folks saying Michigan players are doping also?
February 10th, 2009 at 4:37 PM ^
I'd stake my live savings (all $40) on the fact that at least, at the very freaking least, one Michigan player is juiced up.
February 10th, 2009 at 4:47 PM ^
Yeah, there are just as many at Michigan as any other school or team. I know people from SVSU, GVSU, CMU etc that have used so you can bet it's everywhere else too.
Now, I wouldn't just assume that they are by looking at them. For example, Gholston MAY have used, yet, at the same time the guy has elite genetics too. I wouldn't be surprised if he did or did not.
I agree with the others who say PED testing is a waste of time. I'm in favor of PEDs being used actually. At least with healthy adults with proper supervision. These sports themselves can take a huge toll on the body and some of these can actually benefit these guys from that.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:57 PM ^
I think it's reasonable to test for blood composition below certain limits, to try to limit the health effects. There needs to be a lot more, random testing, to make sure the levels are kept relatively safe.
I'm a big fan of cycling, and I like the idea of the biological passport (blood tests weekly, just ask Lance). I don't think it's feasible unless conducted by an independent organization, which would be difficult to manage for all D-1 NCAA sports teams.
I have a lot more respect for someone who says "I've never done it" than someone who says "I've never tested positive."
February 10th, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^
"one Michigan player" = Ricky Reyes.