Master Index of Archived Threads


Differing Views Of Drugs

MFS62 Jan 23 2007 11:18 AM

On the Mike and Mike ESPN radio show this morning, they discussed a recent article in which the writer said that baseball and football fans and writers have differing views on the use of drugs and player off-field problems. The article centered on a players who have committed crimes (the Bear player with guns in his house, the nine Bengals who have been arrested this year, etc). But they also mentioned the way the fans of the two sports seem to differ on the use of illegal drugs. They used the example of the player who was suspended four games for the use of steroids this season, then came back to play in the playoffs without any continuing press or fan clamor. They added that if baseball players had done the same, the stories would have been in the papers all season. Then I began to think specifically of how the fans and press (will) treat players found to have used performance enhancing drugs in general. We have seen what fans, and HOF voters have done to McGwire and may in the future do to Bonds. But what about football? In Mad Dog's book of "Top Ten" lists, he cited some player and coach comments about Lawrence Taylor. These included (I paraphrase) comments about how they marvelled at his ability to "play through pain; injuries that would have put other players on the sideline". And there were comments about his constant agressive play. But, wasn't Taylor found to have used crack three times? And aren't heightened aggression and numbness to pain things that crack provides? In that sense, you could say that in his case, crack was a performance enhancing drug. And although the league rules said that a player must undergo rehab after found using for the second time, when asked by writers which facility/ program he would enter, Taylor thumbed his nose at the League by saying "My rehab is golf. I'll see you out on the links". Yet the same (or similar) writers and fans who lauded Taylor's on-field performance and got him into Canton (the football HOF) will probably be the same voices that keep McGwire et. al out of the Baseball Hall. For using those substances, I don't believe that Bonds or McGwire should be in the Hall. And for the same reason, I don't think Taylor belongs in his Hall, either. Later

Nymr83 Jan 23 2007 11:22 AM

Taylor got caught too, McGwire never really did. Theres no fairness in HOF voting.

Edgy DC Jan 23 2007 11:27 AM

]Yet the same (or similar) writers and fans who lauded Taylor's on-field performance and got him into Canton (the football HOF) will probably be the same voices that keep McGwire et. al out of the Baseball Hall. You lose me here. The Baseball Hall of Fame has a much bigger voting body --- 540+ memebers of the BBWAA --- while the Pro Football Hall of Fame uses a board of selectors of only 40 people, 33 of whom are writers, I think.

MFS62 Jan 23 2007 11:34 AM

I meant"similar" in terms of what they may think on the subject. The football HOF nominators/voters include ex-players , and they have been accused of voting based on the "buddy system". I know that they aren't the same voters. Later

Edgy DC Jan 23 2007 11:52 AM

Then I'd argue that no, they're not similar, and that crack isn't that similar to steroids and HGH. I think it'd be unwise to cite Lawrence Taylor as the precedent under which Mark McGwire should be enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

MFS62 Jan 23 2007 12:14 PM

Edgy: ] I think it'd be unwise to cite Lawrence Taylor as the precedent under which Mark McGwire should be enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame. First of all, re-read the last sentence of my post. I'm not saying that McGwire should be in the baseball Hall. I'm saying that Taylor shouldn't have been in the football Hall. And it was my view that while steroids can enhance baseball player's performance in terms of helping add strength and vision (one of the effects of the BALCO cream), that crack enhances the kinds of performance specific to a linebacker. (Agression and numbing pain) Just my opinion. Later

Edgy DC Jan 23 2007 12:31 PM

I'm writing in response to Nymr as well, who is saying otherwise. I don't care too much about the Football Hall of Fame, so perhaps this isn't my thread. But it would sure say something if they started locking the unrepenentant criminals out.

metirish Jan 23 2007 12:37 PM

Does anyone really think that LT took crack for performence enhancement?,I met a lot of crack addicts while in hospital and it's horrible what that stuff can do to a person.

Edgy DC Jan 23 2007 12:52 PM

No. I guess that MFS is speaknig of performance-enhancing side-effects (and not that Taylor was taking them for the main effect of improving his game), but I'd further imagine that the drug's deleterious effects offset whatever edges he got, and that any beneficial effects of the drug --- designed to be recreational and hihgly addictive --- don't compare to drugs which are designed exclusively as performance-enhancers. Now excuse me. I have to submit that one to the run-on sentence police.

Sandgnat Jan 23 2007 01:17 PM

Its not out of the question that LT used crack cocaine as a performance-enhancing drug. Hell, an entire college basketball team used cocaine to beat Georgetown. Some of the listed effects of crack are: - Crack makes the heart beat faster, elevates blood pressure, raises body temperature and dilates the pupils. - Crack can make a person feel awake and energetic, even when their mind and body are exhausted. Crack can push a person's body until it crashes - Crack users may feel invincible. They may think they can fly, or stand in front of an automobile to stop it. If LT only experienced these types of effects of the drug, and not the hallucinations, paranoia, etc., it is entirely possible that he used the drug to overcome pain and fatigue to play in games where he might not otherwise have played, or played at a higher level then otherwise. Now, the upper effects of the drug only last about 30 minutes and then you crash horribly, so he would have to use more then once during a game. Since it is smoked, that would be hard to get away with, but it isn't out of the question.

Frayed Knot Jan 23 2007 01:29 PM

There are a whole bunch of differences as to how baseball & football are treated by both fans and writers. For the HoF; Baseball specifically has a "character" mention in its induction guidelines while football has no such clause. On more general issues like drugs, crime, and other 'moral failings', there's no doubt that football players get a much easier ride than baseball (or even basketball) players. In a large part I think it's due to the relative anonymity of most NFLers. With only a handful of exceptions per team, most players are simply faceless interchangeable cogs. Only the most diehard fans can even name more than half of the roster of their favorite team much less the role players of other squads. So players who screw up become merely pieces in the machine to be replaced and there's no emotional connection to them nor a sense of betrayal or anger when they do. Now if a star on the order of a Peyton Manning were to get busted it would certainly cause some stir but, as mentioned, Lawrence Taylor committed multiple drug offenses and yet his crimes - both against the sport and the state - are probably mentioned less often than Mantle's drinking or Cobb's crudeness. And the other part - something I've been saying for years and the mass media just seems to be getting around to now - is that baseball people, and by that I mean fans, writers and other 'keepers of the flame', not neccesarily the players and owners within the structure itself, simply hold their sport to a higher standard than their football equivelants. The football fan just wants his game without caring whether the players are fun to root for or how tainted certain aspects of the sport may become. Just give him his bread & circuses and he's fine. There's less of an obvious explanation as to why the press corps has allowed themselves to become so neutered on the same subjects. The TV guys may just realize that because football & TV are so intertwined they'd better not rock the boat for fear are jeopardizing their own existance, and maybe the print guys are simply reading their audience and adapting the same tunnel-vision like attitude towards just talking about the game to hell with those annoying "distractions" like arrests and drugs and violence. Even a supposedly 'issues oriented' show like ESPN's weekly 'The Sports Reporters' will barely discuss baseball unless it's in connection to steroids or "outrageous" salaries while pro football and NCAA football (no issues to discuss there) get their full and undivided attention restricted to action on the field.

MFS62 Jan 24 2007 09:05 AM

Gnat, thank you for providing support. Knot, your last two paragraphs are right in line with what they said on that radio show. I agree. Later

Elster88 Jan 25 2007 07:06 AM

Wait a minute, so some of youse guys think that LT played NFL football games while high on crack? Are you kidding me?

metsmarathon Jan 25 2007 09:04 AM

nah, just cocaine. it's possible that one could use a low dosage of it, i guess, to try to improve one's performance in the short term, and i don't think its the first time i've heard it rumored either. i think this could definitely be an upcoming mythbusters episode. lets start writing them on it!