|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 8, 2007 20:49:47 GMT -5
NYI is right. Linemen take medicine more than most other positions. They don't take it so they'll be better. They take it so they don't pass out on the field. That's why the testing should be as thorough as possible and as I said before the league should be 100% sure the player took something illegal before they make the accusation. That would include a in-depth researching of their medical history. If a guy takes something he's taken all his life, he's not going to think anything of it. But when he gets stripped of his pro-bowl because of it, that's not fair. The only way this rule will be fair is if their testing is as in-depth and sure as possible.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 9, 2007 18:13:25 GMT -5
I already said they should look into.
But if NYI doesn't want this rule, he's crazy. It's an excellent rule, no matter which way you look at it.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Feb 10, 2007 1:17:20 GMT -5
Who says I don't want it? A debate is just boring if everyone takes the same side...
If it's such an excellent rule how come it took a player like Jason Taylor to put it in action? Why didn't this come up while Romanowski was in the Pro Bowl and juicing? Is there a reason it was avoided then?
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 10, 2007 1:42:36 GMT -5
It's progression. Things evolve. The game has evolved. Rules are changing. Tests are being created and perfected. This debate is one sided because everyone agrees. Stripping players for cheating is just morally right. Cheaters never prosper. It wasn't avoided I don't think. It just wasn't necessary. Again, the game has evolved since then. Plus, Bill Romonowski was never caught juicing (to my knowledge) while he was an active player. He admitted to it after his retirement. It's hard to implement a rule for someone cheating when they don't even know that individual is cheating.. ha.
This is a no brainer. It should've been created years ago, but it's here now and it's here to stay.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Feb 10, 2007 9:10:15 GMT -5
I'm all for cheaters getting stripped of awards.... but as I said earlier couldn't a rule like this affect more than just cheaters?
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 10, 2007 12:03:31 GMT -5
If you want to use that logic, then you may as well forget drug testing. It probably will. But as long as all of the players playing are clean, I don't mind if one or two clean guys don't get in.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 12, 2007 1:30:16 GMT -5
That's what the appeal process is for. If guys are clean, they can appeal. If they aren't they probably won't. Just as GEO said, if 1 clean guy gets caught in exchange for 20 guys not getting in because they cheated, then it's well worth it.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 12, 2007 15:47:03 GMT -5
So we're pretty much in agreement. A winner?
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Feb 12, 2007 21:24:39 GMT -5
I'll evaluate it sometime tomorrow, if any one has final words or points or stats let them be heard now.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 12, 2007 21:31:36 GMT -5
I think GEO deserves it. Not because he's more right ('cause we agree), but 'cause he got here first. This was one sided to begin with and I added what I could but I understand if you don't think it's enough. There's a clear right answer and a clear wrong answer to this debate. No one who participated was dumb, so we all thought it was right ha. I agree with the league's move and commend whoever finally put it into motion.
Yeah.. that's all I got.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 12, 2007 21:50:10 GMT -5
I think BlindlyWeWander deserves it. Not because he out-debated me, but because I don't need to feel any better then I already do. ( I'm kidding, calm down ) But he's right. No one was going to say that this was a bad rule, because anyone who says that is basically saying they don't care about the drug issue. I don't think the rule is harsh enough. No one cares about the Pro Bowl. What about the player on drugs who doesn't make the Pro Bowl? He gets off with 4 games.
|
|
|
Post by :~Speedy-SK~: on Feb 13, 2007 11:22:34 GMT -5
To me this rule should effect only those with overly high levels of illegal substances in their systems. Otherwise, they may regret what they do.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Feb 13, 2007 23:27:06 GMT -5
I'm going to have to go with BWW.
If I could, I would give a tie between GEO and BWW, but I don't think that's allowed. The little edge BWW has is that he looked at the pros and cons to every side of the argument present in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 14, 2007 12:18:55 GMT -5
Wow. I really thought I had that one. Hmm.
Good job BWW.
Have the topic posted today or tomorrow or someone else gets to do it.
Good debate.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 14, 2007 22:57:51 GMT -5
Thanks a lot. I'll try to think of one asap.
|
|