NFL anonymous steroid survey
Results from a comprehensive health survey of 2,552 retired NFL players from the 1940s to the 1990s:
"In the anonymous survey, 20.3 percent of the players from the 1980s answered yes when asked "During the time in which it was acceptable to use performance-enhancing steroids, did you use steroids?"
Of all of the retired players, 9.1 percent answered yes to the question."
That 9.1% figure, of course, includes players from the 40s, 50s, and 60s, so the number from that group would be zero.
So why all the attention to baseball?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3920603
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
Because football's leaders don't actively wage a war against their players like Selig and Co. do.
And also because football/its fans don't give undue importance to records and give them sacred qualities.
I think the more pertinent question is...we know steroids have been around for roughly half a century. We know of at least one admitted user from the early 1970's in baseball, and that person claims that there were 6-7 pitchers per team experimenting with the stuff. We know that football teams like the 1970s Steelers were juiced up. We know that 20% of 1980s football players admit to using it. Why do people still act as though it's only been in baseball since 1998?
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Because football's leaders don't actively wage a war against their players like Selig and Co. do.
And also because football/its fans don't give undue importance to records and give them sacred qualities.
http://www.sedonaobserver.com/images/truth_000.jpg
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
etothep
how long you been saving that pic etothep?
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JayC
Results from a comprehensive health survey of 2,552 retired NFL players from the 1940s to the 1990s:
"In the anonymous survey, 20.3 percent of the players from the 1980s answered yes when asked "During the time in which it was acceptable to use performance-enhancing steroids, did you use steroids?"
Of all of the retired players, 9.1 percent answered yes to the question."
That 9.1% figure, of course, includes players from the 40s, 50s, and 60s, so the number from that group would be zero.
So why all the attention to baseball?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3920603
not necessarily zero since steriods have been around since 1930's, Hitler experiemted with his olympic atheletes, so conceivably players in the 40's could have used.
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Because football's leaders don't actively wage a war against their players like Selig and Co. do.
And also because football/its fans don't give undue importance to records and give them sacred qualities.
I think the more pertinent question is...we know steroids have been around for roughly half a century. We know of at least one admitted user from the early 1970's in baseball, and that person claims that there were 6-7 pitchers per team experimenting with the stuff. We know that football teams like the 1970s Steelers were juiced up. We know that 20% of 1980s football players admit to using it. Why do people still act as though it's only been in baseball since 1998?
Because it's only been around that time period athletes used 'experts' on steroids combined with serious regimental exercise programs?
Does this guy look roided up?
http://www.vintageseattle.org/wp-con....thumbnail.jpg
I just read some thread by a nimrod that suggested Hank Aaron, Davey Johnson and Darrell Evans did roids all because of a concurrent power spike. Maybe they did, but i seriously doubt popping a steroid pill, eating some wheaties, and curling five pound weights is going to help you hit a homerun.
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pavelb1
I'd link to a bunch of steroid users from this era and say "Does this guy look roided up?", like this guy, as well, except I'm too lazy to. The point is you absolutely cannot make any judgment of steroid use simply by looking at a person.
Quote:
I just read some thread by a nimrod that suggested Hank Aaron, Davey Johnson and Darrell Evans did roids all because of a concurrent power spike. Maybe they did, but i seriously doubt popping a steroid pill, eating some wheaties, and curling five pound weights is going to help you hit a homerun.
Whose to say that Aaron, Johnson, and Evans didn't have their own strict exercise regimes? Just because weight-training wasn't widely accepted doesn't mean that there weren't players doing it.
Speculating on whether or not someone did steroids based on power spikes, though, is ridiculous as well, just like speculating based on physical appearance is.
But, to get back to this point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Because it's only been around that time period athletes used 'experts' on steroids combined with serious regimental exercise programs?
So, simply using steroids isn't bad. Using steroids and doing what every other athlete of your time in every sport does (work out) is bad?
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wassit3
not necessarily zero since steriods have been around since 1930's, Hitler experiemted with his olympic atheletes, so conceivably players in the 40's could have used.
"Conceivably," granted. But "realistically," no.
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
I'd link to a bunch of steroid users from this era and say "Does this guy look roided up?", like
this guy, as well, except I'm too lazy to. The point is you absolutely cannot make any judgment of steroid use simply by looking at a person.
Whose to say that Aaron, Johnson, and Evans didn't have their own strict exercise regimes? Just because weight-training wasn't widely accepted doesn't mean that there weren't players doing it.
Speculating on whether or not someone did steroids based on power spikes, though, is ridiculous as well, just like speculating based on physical appearance is.
But, to get back to this point:
So, simply using steroids isn't bad. Using steroids and doing what every other athlete of your time in every sport does (work out) is bad?
No, taking illegal drugs in a manner that very very likely helping you perform as if you were 15 years younger (Clemens and Bonds) is....popping 'whatever pill (which i think wern't even illegal then) you could get your hands on' isn't. It's dumb, but it's not bad.
That's my moral judgement and I'm sticking to it. I don't expect or even think anyone else will concur nor do I make any kind of moral judgment of anyone who disagrees. (that's NOT a jab at you, just saying where i stand)
My head hurts.
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
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.
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
One more thing: anyone in the 70's who has a mindset of 'pop any pill you can get your hands on' is probably living a lifestyle that negates any possible positive effect the steroids could have given them. No wonder greenies were so popular.
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pavelb1
No, taking illegal drugs in a manner that very very likely helping you perform as if you were 15 years younger (Clemens and Bonds) is....popping 'whatever pill (which i think wern't even illegal then) you could get your hands on' isn't. It's dumb, but it's not bad.
That's my moral judgement and I'm sticking to it. I don't expect or even think anyone else will concur nor do I make any kind of moral judgment of anyone who disagrees. (that's NOT a jab at you, just saying where i stand)
My head hurts.
So, because past players lived at a time when they did not have access to the drugs of today (because those drugs didn't exist), but nevertheless still used the "best" drugs they could get their hands on, they're better people than the people of today who used the best drugs available to them?
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ragecage
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.
Saying that is fine, and I wouldn't disagree, but that's different than making a moral judgment about the players.
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Saying that is fine, and I wouldn't disagree, but that's different than making a moral judgment about the players.
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.
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
200tang
how long you been saving that pic etothep?
haha, just typed truth into google images & it was my favorite one from the first page of results :p
Re: 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"
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
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:)
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
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:)
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
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." ;)
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
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.
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
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.
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
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....
Re: NFL anonymous steroid survey
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.
