Bruce matthews and clay matthews sr are big guys, but I don't ever remember them looking quite like this:
I'd hate to be in his shoes, knowing you're innocent and yet no one will believe you....he's like Andy Dufresne. I've no idea if he's actually telling the truth or not...but I do think it's rather sick that in the court of public opinion you're guilty before innocent...and what's worse is if some tangible evidence did come out that he was in fact innocent, no one would give a s*** because the damage has already been done. And it's not as if there's even plenty of circumstantial evidence either, as in the Clemens case. There's no smoking gun of syringes from a former trainer, no handwritten checks to a supplier (like Tejada). Just one failed test for a masking agent that can be produced naturally.
This isn't a criminal proceeding. To the extent he's "guilty" it's of failing a drug test. The NFL Players Association, of which Cushing is a part, has agreed to that testing and to being subject to punishment for failed tests. As fans, we're not crazy to infer failed tests means something's up. None of this is happening in a bubble.
What the hell man. People have suspected Cushing of juicing since he was in HIGH SCHOOL. But this isn't baseball, and no one really cares all that much when an NFL player tests positive for PEDs. If he just shuts up and takes the suspension this will essentially go away.
The circumstantial evidence is the suspicions that follow him back to USC. It's quite a coincidence that one of the few guys people publicly thought was surely on steroids a few years back is now now one of the few that fails a steroids test.
I somewhat agree with this but I don't think this applies to Cushing's case. He failed a drug test and lost the appeal, therefore he was found guilty and I think it's okay for the public to think the same. Now if there's tangible evidence that he was innocent, I think people would care and the damage could be somewhat reversed. However, I don't think "over-trained athlete syndrome" is enough tangible evidence to overturn things. When you have a positive drug test, you really don't need circumstantial evidence to prove your case. But in the Clemen's case, where there is no direct evidence (i.e. failed test), you have to rely on circumstantial evidence such as syringes, checks, etc...
I think I keep forgetting he actually failed the test! That's pretty concrete evidence there. I guess what makes it more murky for me is that he failed a test, not for a steroid, but just for a masking agent, and that particular agent can be produced naturally. And then of course you got McNair backing him now...but really they all have their own motivations for trying to claim his innocence. But I think my initial point stands, if he is actually telling the truth, or any athlete in a somewhat similar position, then that pretty much sucks for them. But of course too many athletes in the same position have cried wolf one too many times for us to really believe anyone anymore. Honestly I'm just sick of this whole mess...of accusations being made when there is no evidence to support, of athletes claiming innocence despite contradicting proof, of the media talking asterisks. It's all grown rather tiresome.
For the millionth time, hCG is NOT a masking agent. It doesn't hide the fact that someone takes, or has taken steroids (which Cushing has never tested positive for). Besides, if Cushing had taken the test the season before, he would have been fine. The NFL lowered their acceptable levels when Cushing came into the league.
While I appreciate your finding, I don't care what this thing says. Scarface is correct, it doesn't mask a thing. It jumpstarts your natural testosterone by bringing back your nads basically. If you have steroids in your body Along with Hcg, they will find the steroid. It will not mask it.
My understanding is that it's purpose as a masking agent is to normalize the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio (i.e., the effects of the steroid use), rather than to actually hide the presence of a steroid.
