Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Redskins would welcome Tanard Jackson back
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
markrc99


Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 312
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woz wrote: "That bolded section [that the Redskins had to have known that Jordan Black would have to juice to get himself ready] is ridiculous slander. I started to discuss how utterly illogical and foolish it is, but I'll just stick with it being slander. It's not worth my time to respond to. ... No, that's an assertion [that use is widespread & detection easy to avoid] without basis, not a fact."

No, it's not an assertion or my opinion, every time I've sourced the literature that provides the evidence, you're choosing to ignore it. I have more, but it's just as likely you'll ignore all of this as well. Jordan Black is of interest because his circumstance was so blatantly obvious. You say my contention is slanderous but the team had to have known the only option available to him in order to get ready in a very short period of time, which is in fact what occurred! These articles are in chronological order.
Quote:
"When the Washington Redskins signed [Jordan Black] early in training camp, [he] weighed a relatively modest ... 270lbs. He’d been out of the league last season... Black has been on a weight-gaining campaign since returning to the sport, consuming about 7,000 calories per day as he attempts to get up to approximately 290lbs." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/jordan-black-is-getting-bigger-and-he-says-better/2012/08/14/796f5d88-e630-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_blog.html

Quote:
"Black drank up to eight protein drinks a day and ate a lot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to try to get close to his listed weight of 305 pounds. But putting back on the 50 pounds he struggled to lose almost took an emotional toll on him." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2012/10/17/jordan-black-on-losing-then-gaining-50-pounds/

Quote:
"Redskins [OT] Jordan Black has boasted this year that he put on 50 pounds to get back up to his playing weight of 310 and return to the NFL after missing the entire 2011 season. But an announcement from the Redskins today calls into question Black’s claims that he did it by drinking protein shakes and eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches." http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/17/after-gaining-50-pounds-this-year-jordan-black-busted-for-peds/

So those early articles in Aug & Oct are stories you would've believed? Protein drinks & peanut butter, the breakfast of champions? Black duped the coaches & training staff? They believed that if he could stuff his face, he'd be a viable RT a month later? I'm sorry but you're really naive. The WP article shows him in action vs Cincinnati, that 50 pounds doesn't look like blubber. Seriously, you think you can cram down 7,000 calories a day and in about a month add 20 pounds of meaningful mass, let alone 50 in 10 weeks!? Let me help you out, that's utter nonsense! I have no idea what he actually weighed when they brought him in, nobody does except them, but he was noticeably small in preseason. That 1st one, contending he only needed to add 20lbs to compete is BS! Here's what I wrote 3 months before Jordan Black was suspended:
Quote:
"On offense, (1) pass protection has to get better. Jordan Black can't roid back up fast enough, they've got to get him & Polumbus some help! I'd expect to see more 2-TE sets than we have to this point." http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?p=1458529

Now you know that I knew this smuck was juicing before he was suspended by the league, before it was reported by the WP or any other source. I assure you that the Redskins coaching staff knew as well.

Woz wrote: "Umm ... he and Fred Davis are under greater scrutiny because they failed drug tests before? Remember, for everything except steroids, you have to fail twice before you get suspended. As such, if you failed once, they'll keep a closer eye on you. And I have hard time understanding this? Really. Okay ... so if they arbitrarily enforce the rules and you break them but don't know if they will catch you ... isn't that random testing, albeit in a sub-optimal way?"

Well, it certainly seems so as you're still debating the same premise. Which is that the only users are the guys who are caught & suspended, substance abuse is largely infrequent & isn't a problem. We know that's false. I do agree that all or some repeat offenders may be scrutinized more closely. What I meant to convey is that every player that's caught is subject to greater scrutiny than what is normally the case. Your latter point is fair to say, if testing is consistent and adequate.

Woz wrote: "However, the NFLPA and the NFL cannot agree on the testing system, like they did with the drug testing. Why? Perhaps this from the same USA Today article you quoted below might say why... So this test you are championing that would prove once and for all that cheating is so widespread across all of the Big Four leagues (plus the NCAA) ... had managed to catch an average of one cheater per year of the test's existence. I don't agree with the NFLPA blocking the implementation of any HGH testing since they agreed to do it, but they are acting appropriately as an agent on behalf of the players."

This was pretty good, worldwide, sports having instituted HGH testing have yielded just a handful of test positives since sometime around 2006. You then reasonably concluded that usage is rare, almost non-existent. But the context of Dr. Wadler's statement was directed at the players concern over false positives, defending the methodology employed by WADA. Nowhere does he elaborate on how effective the test has been.
Quote:
"At the start of the Vancouver Games in '10, Christiane Ayotte, director of the World Anti-Doping Agency-accredited lab in Montreal, said that the HGH test was so unlikely to produce a positive that "We rely on the fact that if you take growth hormone, you will certainly take something else that is easier to detect." There was not a single HGH positive in Vancouver, either. Presumably, that was not because HGH has fallen out of fashion. In fact, if anything, the drug has probably increased in popularity because of the difficulty of detection and the alleged symbiotic anabolic effect that HGH has when used with steroids, allowing doping athletes to get more bang from a lower (and less easily detectable) dose of steroids. ... The reason that there were no positives was because the test was so insensitive that a cheating athlete could have taken HGH with his breakfast and been clean by dinner." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/david_epstein/08/08/nfl.hgh.testing/index.html

See, the reason there have been so few test positives is because HGH is very difficult to detect. Or more likely, it's difficult to catch users with limited and/or inadequate access. Note that by taking HGH the athlete can then take lower doses of steroids, making them more difficult to detect! I agree that athletes, in this case, the players have to comply. That said, you seem to be contradicting yourself by saying that the union is appropriately acting on behalf of the players. According to you the vast majority of players are clean, why is the union acting against the interests of the whole to protect a few? Due to the adverse affects, it's in every player's best interest to stay clean! Remember, these players are competing against one another. If you're a good player but sitting on the bench because the guy in front of you is doping, why would you want him protected? Makes no sense, none.

What makes sense & what is supported by the literature is that the problem is far more prevalent than you're aware of. The reason the clean players have to put up with the dirty ones is because there's just as many! This notion that the dopers are just some fringe element is ridiculous. If you insist on defending the league's policy a more credible position would be to say that testing is inadequate and we don't know the full extent of usage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group