|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Feb 5, 2007 18:41:00 GMT -5
Very recently, comissioner Roger Goodell and Union leader Gene Upshaw have agreed to institute a new rule stating that any player who tests positive for any banned substance throughout the season is ineligible for post-season awards (including the Pro Bowl).
On the plus side, it sends the right message - and is a clear example of "doing the right thing."
But is it the right thing? Shawn Merriman had a phenomenal 17 sacks in 12 games. How can one deny him the Pro Bowl?
Should this rule be put into action, or thrown out the window?
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 5, 2007 20:43:48 GMT -5
Pfft. Merriman had a phenomenal 17 sacks in 12 games. See that number 12? Why isn't it 16? Oh yeah, he cheated. He's a cheater. I won't hold it against him for the rest of his career, but for this season? Certainly. He's a cheater. I can deny him the Pro Bowl, because how many of those sacks did he get while on steroids? With those sacks, he became a cheater.
Cheaters don't go to the Pro Bowl.
Players don't care that much about the Pro Bowl, so it is a stupid rule. But I'd rather them do that then just let them have a free pass.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 7, 2007 0:31:11 GMT -5
Um.. this debate is fairly one sided. I would attempt to argue the other side, but I wouldn't believe what I'd say. I agree with GEO. You cheat, you don't get rewarded. Baseball players cheat all the time and get rewarded. The MLB is known for roids. There are more news articles everyday about cheaters. Then six months laters, those guys are magically 'cleaned up.' This is a good rule. You cheat, you don't get rewarded. It's simple.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Feb 7, 2007 7:29:15 GMT -5
What if there is a false positive?
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 7, 2007 17:35:06 GMT -5
If there's proof there's a false positive, then they should play. Like every other suspension, the player should be given the chance to appeal it. At that point, more research could be done into the test get all of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Feb 7, 2007 18:47:01 GMT -5
But, I think, if a player appeals it and there is no evidence against the original suspension, another four games should be added.
This would prevent those guys from looking like jackasses and trying to squeeze in a game or two before a suspension that they know is correct occuring. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Feb 7, 2007 19:54:34 GMT -5
Yes, but what I mean is sometimes a player is still suspended even if they didn't "roid up" nor do anything wrong. I believe it happened to Jose Theodore a year ago when Rogaine made him test positive, and was still suspended for a game or so after an appeal. There are other substances (and not the shady ones Bonds gets) that set off the tests as positive when really a player is just embarrassed of losing hair. There's no way to gauge whether a test is truly a false positive unless a player admits it.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 7, 2007 20:00:40 GMT -5
NYI: The only problem with that, is that it doesn't happen often. There aren't 100 cases where something set off the test as positive. The point is, the NFL is agaisnt drugs. They should look into the test before it is public and before the suspension is given out.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Feb 7, 2007 20:25:24 GMT -5
NYI: The only problem with that, is that it doesn't happen often. There aren't 100 cases where something set off the test as positive. The point is, the NFL is agaisnt drugs. They should look into the test before it is public and before the suspension is given out. Look into it in what way? Other than simply seeing positive or negative, how is it looked into to? Any further research becomes a game of integrity and trust between a player and the league. No one would argue against the NFL being against drugs.... but this can also penalize players undeservingly.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 7, 2007 21:53:48 GMT -5
The majority of players aren't being penalized because of a false positive. What do you want them to do? Nothing? Life isn't fair sometimes. Better safe then sorry.
Be scared. Eliminate the policy because it might penalize players undeservingly. But at the same time, allow cheaters to keep going to Hawaii. Take back your league's comments on drugs, and go find Andy Reid's sons, because they could tell you a thing or two about drugs.
There's no debate. If this gets guys off drugs (which it won't) then I'd rather one innocent guy get penalized and two guys get caught then nothing happening to anybody.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 8, 2007 0:18:19 GMT -5
I disagree. Players reputations are the of the utmost importance. If you're known for cheating, your rep goes down. Your stock goes down. Your pay check goes down. Guys don't want to get blamed for things they didn't commit. There aren't many steroid cases each year. I think it's fine that they take away any achievements when they're caught, but the league should be very cautious and courteous of the players interests before they starting accusing. Sure, it's a rough league and you do what it takes to win, but guys know the limits. They know the testing. There will always be ways around getting caught. The NFL is cleaner than most other pro-sports, but is not without it's flaws. I think the testing should be concise, accusations should be as positive as possible and appeals should be allowed. There's more on the line than a player's stats here
|
|
|
Post by jdbsa05 on Feb 8, 2007 15:47:59 GMT -5
I completely agree with the new rule. I think that the players naturally shouldn't be using these substances, and anyone who does use those could have and probably did use them to give them a better chance at those awards. The players who deserve them are those that don't use the substances. If one person was terrible, and then they use steroids or another banned substance, they just altered their personality to make them better and have a better chance. If they were nominated for an award, and someone else who was not using a substance was also nominated, the one who didn't use it was technically the better one.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Feb 8, 2007 16:11:40 GMT -5
I completely agree with the new rule. I think that the players naturally shouldn't be using these substances, and anyone who does use those could have and probably did use them to give them a better chance at those awards. The players who deserve them are those that don't use the substances. If one person was terrible, and then they use steroids or another banned substance, they just altered their personality to make them better and have a better chance. If they were nominated for an award, and someone else who was not using a substance was also nominated, the one who didn't use it was technically the better one. But there's no way to gauge how much it actually helped/even if it did anything at all. What if it was a pill the player takes to control a medical condition like diabetes (which is common among lineman) that set of the test? No way the league will lift the suspension on that because they'll have no way of knowing and won't trust the player - but the player didn't do anything wrong and is now stripped of his only Pro Bowl because he unfortunately has a lifelong medical condition.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 8, 2007 17:46:43 GMT -5
Not that many players have lifelong medical conditions. You're basically saying that there shouldn't be any drug tests. In that case, we may as well open up the game to making cheating legal.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Feb 8, 2007 19:26:55 GMT -5
Not that many players have lifelong medical conditions. You're basically saying that there shouldn't be any drug tests. In that case, we may as well open up the game to making cheating legal. Drug Tests, yes. Stripping of awards because of a diabetic pill? No. You'd be surprised how many players require pills and medication because of conditions they've developed in and out of football.
|
|