Which Texans are on PEDs

I don't know. Not much in this world could diminish my enthusiasm for football. A few great players, especially Houston Texans Alzado'ed into an early grave would do it.

 

I think a lot of that is media-driven, though. Baseball writers feels so patently burned (and rightfully embarrassed) by their complicit (non) actions during the steroid era that they've spent the past 5+ years overcompensating and making this issue a bigger deal than it really is. (And it doesn't help that too many of the steroid poster boys are generally unlikeable.)

There’s no self-righteous indignation among football circles. I mean… they had a chance to make a pretty definitive statement by stripping Cushing of his DROY award and chose not to. So the media isn't whipping fans into a frenzy.

 

Agree with this 100%. The narrative is entirely different when a baseball player is discovered having used PED's than when the same is true for a football player.

 

Sigh... baseball writers. It's a breed I hope dies off. They think they're entitled. As if they are in some sort of special league of writers and its their responsibility to protect the game. Doesn't help fans in any way. Baseball writers with all of their high and mightiness - it's an empire of dirt.

 

Right? And I agree with justtxyank that hallowed numbers are very obviously a big part of this - but that, too, is largely the fault of the writers, who have spent centuries overinflating their importance.

I mean, how is Ryan Braun's suspension a bigger deal than Von Miller's? In what other endeavor would baseball news trump football news? The NFL Draft draws larger ratings than the baseball postseason, yet the (arguably) best player getting suspended from one of the league's best teams is a secondary story to Ryan freaking Braun? I think it's very easy to trace it back to the media. Baseball writers are "OUTRAGED!" Football writers are, "Eh... No s***, Sherlock....."

 

Yes, see 2013 Super Bowl Champion Ravens.

 

It's more like 1k a week for the amount needed to train and see definite results

 

This is so true. The NFL and us fans have never, ever cared about steroids or amphetamines or painkillers or any sort of drug abuse. Never. Ever. It's been openly and blatantly rampant for 40ish years and everybody just shrugs it off as part of the game.

 

Because he publicly made a spectacle of himself swearing up and down that he didn't use PED's ....meanwhile Von Miller smoked a joint and maybe took some speed at a position where the prototypicall player of all time was known and celebrated for being coked up on the field.

Is it really that hard to figure out why it's different?

 

Sorry; I assumed, incorrectly as it turns out, that Von Miller's suspension was PED-related.

General point still stands, though: there've been countless stories of those 70s Steeler teams using PEDs and there's nary a scratch on their mostly pristine image. Meanwhile, writers are still jumping up and down about the shame McGwire/Sosa/Bonds rained down upon MLB for, more or less, doing the exact same thing.

 

The most glaring examples from the past year to me were: Adrian Peterson's quick recovery from ACL tear, and Ray Lewis with the tricep tear...both of those dudes must've been on some crazy german platlet therapy PED type sht.

 

First, comparing things that happened in the 70's with things that happened 40 years ago and saying "why is the media reaction different?" when the media in its current form is unrecognizable from its form in the 70s is self-evident.

Second - obviously there is a different standard. It's two different things. People know (whether they admit it or not) that football is a horrible awful violent game that literally kills its participants (recently this has been confirmed) which is "part of the game" - We are all of course complicit in this and ok with it sicne its growth is more or less unstoppable. The NFL expands and Roger Goodell pays himself $30 million a year for his fantastic managerial skills. We like and celebrate violent players for their ability to behave on the field in ways that would land them in prison otherwise. Obviously, the expectation off the field is different than in the time-warp-nostalgia-idealization loop that MLB siphons its cash from our wallet with.

 

Other than Cushing, it's definitely not the guy who was a lightly recruited small college TE who morphed into a 6-5, 290 lb 60-inch box jumping Defensive MVP phenom.

 

I'm not really a baseball purist, but even I find that baseball numbers mean something, while football numbers don't. I think this is because baseball at heart is an individual game. It's basically the batter against the pitcher. Strikeouts are a sign of a pitcher's dominance. HRs are a sign of hitter's dominance. It's not like football where a 5yd run by Foster is a combination of himself, 5 linemen, the FB, perhaps a nice run block by AJ, etc. But when Bagwell hits a home run, it's his ****ing HR and he was awesome.

 

Give the whole team some deer antler spray and lets go..

 

No. If you allow steroids, it forces all the players to use it just to compete.

 

But the Steeler issues didn't come to light in the 70s: it’s been revealed within the last 10 years (the story I linked was from 2005), and the media's collective response was, more or less, "Eh...."

More recently, the PFWAA had the opportunity to make a pretty declarative statement and strip Brian Cushing of his DROY award, and their collective response was, more or less, “Eh…”

Even the red flags that popped out of Ray Lewis' and Adrian Peterson's backs last year were, more or less, ignored by the football media.

Compare that to the sanctimonious chirping we have to endure every year when the BBWAA votes on baseball's Hall of Fame candidates… would you describe their collective response as, “Eh…”?

I don’t disagree – but are you denying the media isn’t complicit in those two narratives? Who, otherwise, is keeping the nostalgia flame of baseball burning if not the media? They are, without any hyperbole, its greatest champion. Just ask Bob Costas.

 

Except all the players are mostly out of the public eye and dead and no longer famous. Maybe Terry Bradshaw is still borderline relevant but that's it the question as to whether the media covers Alex Rodriguez or Barry Bonds or Lance Armstrong differently than it covers Steve Coursen, is, once again self-evident. (For the record, the NFL didn't even ban them until 87 until it realized it was a PR problem)

Sure, probably, but once again the rhetorical question answers itself - the NFL is covered differently from MLB because it's a different thing appealing to differetn emotions with different archetypes to engender to make that appeal.

If you want to question anything as being irrational, question the way sports where pretty much every single person cheats (sprinting/cycling) creating what's more or less a level playing field, then there is outrage when a cheater is unmasked. Now that's just plain illogical.