NFL anonymous steroid survey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayC

"Conceivably," granted. But "realistically," no.

---

considering the results the Germans got until the Americans kicked their behinds, I would think it more likely for other athletes to want to use that new fangled health "juice"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I think its more serious during the 90's because of the fact there is more knowledge on how to get the best workout for your body. Knowledge about the body during the 70's and prior you can say were non existent. Heck you can see ads of cigarettes where it shows doctors smoking.

Also I read a book on a boxer that fought in the 50's and before his match he would eat a steak dinner. Nowadays fighters load up on carbs because thats what fuels the body for energy.

So in essence with the lack of knowledge you really cant say steroids enhanced their performance as much as the players of today, because simply we know more about the human body.

---

excellant point:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

True, what benefits players from back then too, is the fact a lot of time has gone by before it was discovered that they used amphetamines to keep them playing everyday. So much time, that now the greats are considered heroes or immortal and its hard to accept they did any wrong.

But with the steroids, memories of a lot of these guys are still fresh in peoples minds and its easier to come to the conclusion to dislike em and say steroids is what helped them achieve greatness. I think if a lot of time went by when these players were long retired, I think the reaction would be a little different.

---

agreed:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

considering the results the Germans got until the Americans kicked their behinds, I would think it more likely for other athletes to want to use that new fangled health "juice"

---

Actually Dianabol was created in the '50s in the US in response to Soviet domination in weightlifting. The German use that led to their domination of some Olympic sports came later.

But OK, point taken. I shouldn't have said "zero." But steroids still weren't readily available until the '70s, so I'll amend my comment about the three decades before that to "near zero." ;)

Also another reason why Football and its records are not sacred is because the game changes every 5 years-10 years. Remember when running the ball ruled the game, in the 80s it was passing, back to the 00's, and it is a balance run attack with a passing game.

Baseball and its rules and strategies haven't changed much in the last 80-90 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boomboom

Also another reason why Football and its records are not sacred is because the game changes every 5 years-10 years. Remember when running the ball ruled the game, in the 80s it was passing, back to the 00's, and it is a balance run attack with a passing game.

Baseball and its rules and strategies haven't changed much in the last 80-90 years.

---

Baseball changes A TON. The basic rules haven't, but the game sure has. You just can't compare records from the 1960's to records from the 1990's without adjusting them...because the game's changed. People like to believe it doesn't change, but it changes a ton, and that's why records shouldn't be ascribed with some holy quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Baseball changes A TON. The basic rules haven't, but the game sure has. You just can't compare records from the 1960's to records from the 1990's without adjusting them...because the game's changed. People like to believe it doesn't change, but it changes a ton, and that's why records shouldn't be ascribed with some holy quality.

---

Yep everything changes especially when it comes to pitcher use. Don't expect anybody coming close to Cy Young's win record.

Rules and stadiums change a lot too. Back when Ruth played balls that bounced or rolled over/under the fence were home runs, stadium dimensions have changed throughout the years, the ball used to be a foul if it hit the foul pole, etc....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 200tang

Yep everything changes especially when it comes to pitcher use. Don't expect anybody coming close to Cy Young's win record.

Rules and stadiums change a lot too. Back when Ruth played balls that bounced or rolled over/under the fence were home runs, stadium dimensions have changed throughout the years, the ball used to be a foul if it hit the foul pole, etc....

---

From what I heard a good 50 homers were not counted for Ruth because if the ball curved around the foul pole and the ball landed in foul territory it was considered foul and not a home run.