With all that said, though, the NFL’s richer and deeper history of PED use should invite more outrage. Let’s be frank: while we’re not certain to what extent steroid use affects a player’s ability to play baseball, we do know that it makes a much better football player. Football, of course, is a sport that relies on size and raw strength to a much greater extent than does baseball. To gaze upon your average NFL player and see nothing but the work of genetic good fortune and hard work requires a level of credulity that should elude you.
Moreover, that the cycling of anabolic steroids leads to bigger and stronger football players and, hence, to on-field violence of an increasing scale should concern those who worry about the future of football and those who play it. The NFL tests for PEDs, yes, but when those tests turn up positive, it’s back-page stuff. In 2006, Shawne Merriman made the Pro Bowl after testing positive for steroids. In 2010, Brian Cushing won a re-vote for AP Defensive Rookie of the Year despite having tested positive for banned substances. And so on.
Still and yet, it’s baseball players who are subjected to public floggings far more often. That’s fine, as it goes, but it’s curious that such unequal treatment persists despite what we know about steroid use in football. Put simply, steroids in football almost certainly have a greater effect on competitive integrity than they do in baseball, they’ve been around longer in football, and they help make it a far more dangerous game.
So why don’t we care?
Repoz
Posted: August 23, 2012 at 04:23 PM |
66 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
steroids
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 23, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4216231)I've heard for years that steroids are as ubiquitous in the NBA as they ever were in MLB, and no one really cares about that either. As for explaining that, well, no sport's fans are as attached to its history and tradition and the myth of its own purity quite like baseball's.
Nails it.
I think this is the big issue. NFL records are fairly meaningless to most fans and when they fall the occasion is celebrated, there is little comparison of the game today vs. yesterday. Additionally, the history of the game prior to Super Bowl I is largely ignored. Baseball records are revered and when they fall there is always discussion of the way the game has changed, hell, when the most famous record, Ruth's 60, was broken there was a debate about 162 vs. 154 games and that pre-dates the Super Bowl era. And of course the history of the game gets much more attention than it does.
Just by way of example, the New York Giants have several lovely t-shirts on their web site proclaiming them as "4 time Super Bowl Champions" rather than "8 time NFL champions". It would be like the Yankees saying they were 7 time World Series champions and ignoring the pre-division era titles.
EDIT: Or y'know, what Gonfalon said.
1. The vast majority of NFLers are treated as and seen to be interchangable, anonymous pieces of meat. Strip-mine, next man up, repeat.
2. Steroid use in the NFL doesn't affect the play balance. It doesn't matter if the amassed pieces of meat fighting for turf are 270 or 330 pounds. Steroid use in baseball effectively shrinks the ballparks.
And finally, the objectives of the two games are completely different:
In football the object is for the quarterback, also known as the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use the shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy’s defensive line.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! – I hope I’ll be safe at home!
Who's this "we" you're referring to?
-Mark Twain
To pick football players that I really liked in college that are now in the pros, I have no idea what Robert Sands face looks like. Or Bruce Irvin. Or even Noel Devine, who was a four year star at WVU. Then again, it could just be me.
Seriously. Hasn't this been thrashed out a few thousand times already?
Yeah, and besides... [1] nailed it.
Done in one.
Executive producer, Roone Arledge.
Well, my view is along the lines of [3], but the point is this is a discussion that has long since been conducted, exhaustively.
While I agree with the premise that we care more about our baseball players doping than our football stars,* I don't think these examples say as much as Dayn and others suggest. Yes, Merriman made the Pro Bowl, but that accomplishment wasn't greeted with shrugs, but considerable opposition. Enough that the commissioner immediately determined that anyone testing positive wouldn't be able to earn such distinctions. As for Cushing, yes he won the AP's revote. But they had one. When Braun won the MVP, but before the overturn, the BBWAA decided they wouldn't revote the MVP. It's hard to see how either decision is more outragey than the other.
As for why we care more for our baseball guys**, I think SBB and TerpNats have the key reason. Football players, other than a handful of visible stars, are anonymous and replaceable. If Peyton or Tom Brady or Drew Brees tested positive, I think that would activate the rageometer in a hurry.
** For the record, as a baseball fan, I consider the fact that we care about our baseball players and not about our gridiron ones to be, ultimately, a good thing.
Are you serious with this?
Of course. I think it's good for the sport that fans identify with the players, both the current ones and the ones that came before, that they don't just consider them anonymous and disposable. That their acheievements and records and legacies matter. I don't know why that would be viewed as a negative.
That fans don't think the same about the NFL players is decidedly not a good thing for that sport.
But it's therefore a good thing that we "not care about our gridiron ones"?
Look, to the extent that the problem with PEDs in sports is that they might endanger the health of athletes, that's entirely a good thing. But to then say that it's a good thing that a fan should decide to care about the health of athletes in this sport but not that one utterly undercuts the generosity of spirit of the first principle.
I tried to clarify that in the next paragraph. It's good for baseball that fans care about it, and it's not good for the NFL that its fans are indifferent. As a baseball fan first, and well, last, I view things through the lens of what things mean for baseball.
That this attitude has the side effect of overzealous and oft-illogical anger over the use of PEDs is unfortunate, but the fact that we care about our ballplayers is ultimately a good thing for the sport and its future, I believe.
Okay.
I guess I would say that all of our attitudes would be better focused on what's best (and what's right) for everyone, that they're not "our" ballplayers, and that the most important thing isn't necessarily what's a good thing for any given sport.
I believe he included visibly pregnant women in that.
As I get older and have more responsibilities, I find that a point in the NFL's favor.
Also, because of the media's sick need for baseball to constantly have a crisis.
Julius Peppers, and a large number of his teammates including the punter, did at one point.
Thanks, but weren't all of those individuals tagged pre-Merriman?
So permit me to rephrase the question: Five MLB players have tested positive for PEDs in 2011 alone. How many NFL players have tested positive since Merriman did in '06? Cushing in '10 and who else?
That one is easy. Bruce Irvin looks like the Predator
That's a good point - the NFL has at least had an official punishment plan for much longer than MLB has. One of the big issues for baseball was that players were cheating, but had no actual consequences.
Baseball is a much safer sport than football. Many of its fans see it as a more "civilized" sport. PED's and the health risks associated with them add a level of ugliness and danger to the game that did not previously exist...
edit: Apparently Dwayne Bowe was suspended a few years ago and he's not on the wikipedia list, so it's probably not worth much.
Lance's statement is pretty detailed: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrongs-full-statement-on-usada
PED use is rampant in the NFL to a degree that vastly outstrips baseball. Anyone who seriously tries to argue otherwise is a fool or making money doing so.
Of the NFL, NBA, and MLB, MLB is pretty clearly the "whitest" league (or at least the "non-blackest"). Someone during the NBA lockout made a comment about "plantation owners" and I think there is probably some truth to that -- also in the NFL. Do we (fans in general) think of NFL players as "interchangeable, anonymous pieces of meat" because of the nature of the game, or because of the way they look? I wonder. Maybe fans (in general) care less about the well-being of/have lower expectations for black athletes playing predominantly black sports.
It seems to me that if Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers tested positive for steroids, it would be a pretty big deal.
With the rise of Fantasy Football this is no longer true. Most football fans recognize most of the skill guys now, including back-ups. You know what those baseball players look like because you are a very devoted baseball fan, most fans would have no clue who those guys are. I'd recognize Punto, and certainly know who the rest are, but put them in a lineup and I would only guess at who they were based on looks.
It seems to me that if Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers tested positive for steroids, it would be a pretty big deal.
That's because of their position and (in their specific cases) their accomplishments much more than it is their race. I don't know about outside of Washington, but in Redskins Nation it'd be like the second assassination of JFK if "RG3" tested positive.
(BTW if you want to see media suckup, the RG3 phenomenon in Washington is like Derek Jeter x Bryce Harper, squared, and he's yet to take his first regular season snap.)
Baseball, meanwhile, everybody has a face at all times, and while casual fans perhaps only recognize the big stars and the guys on their favorite team, the fact is: you can see their faces. And baseball players all, more or less, look like average Joes, while all of the padding and helmets makes even the most average Joe of NFL players look superhuman.
Which is really ironic, as it really strikes you then when you see a baseball player and a football player next to each other. I once saw Cal Ripken shaking hands and talking with Jim Kelly, and even taking into account that Ripken was famously tall for a SS, it was kind of shocking to see how imposing Ripken was compared to Kelly. But if Jim Kelly had been back in his playing days and in full pads and gear, it probably would have been the other way around.
Yeah, but QB's, RB's, WR's and LB's make up a large portion of the players. Sure, lineman are for the most part completely overlooked (aside from defensive ends), safeties, fullbacks and 3rd/4th WR's are too. But I just don't buy that the average fan would recognize a utility infielder and not a tight end.
I don't know, seeing football players in the ESPN Body magazines actually impresses me more than seeing the player in pads. In pads you don't realize just how much of their bulk is muscle. Naked football players are freaking huge.
Suspended under the NFL PED policy since 2006:
Brian Cushing (hCG)
John Welbourn (steroids)
Dwayne Bowe (diuretic)
Kevin Williams (diuretic)
Pat Williams (diuretic)
Charles Grant (diuretic)
Will Smith (diuretic)
Grady Jackson (diuretic)
Bryan Pittman (diuretic)
Deuce McAllister (diuretic)
DJ Williams ("non human urine")
Virgil Green (Adderall)
Ryan McBean (unknown PED)
Andre Brown (Adderall - suspension lifted)
Garret Brown (unknown PED)
Mike Neal (Adderall)
Antwan Odom (unknown PED)
Joe Haden (Adderall)
Andre Neblett (unknown PED)
Tyler Sash (Adderall)
Brett Hartman (unknown PED)
Phillip Buchanon (unknown PED)
Gerald McGrath (unknown PED)
Luke Lawton (unknown PED)
David Vobora (unknown PED)
Hollis Thomas (steroids - two time offender)
This is not comprehensive, just what I could find on the Google.
I would love to check out that fake web site!
I would love to check out that fake web site!
Or to see the sequel to Pink Flamingos.
I remember some outrage over David Boston a long time ago. He was one of the first high profile players suspended, and his change was VERY noticeable. He went from being a skinny wideout at Ohio State to being built like a linebacker.
While I am not making an argument, I am curious to know why this is a given. Have their been that many more players suspended? Are there widely known loopholes in the testing program of the NFL?
Do people have eyes (see, for instance, the post immediately preceding this one)?
So the proof is the tried-and-true "just look at them" test?
If people are, I dunno, 6'8, weigh 275 pounds & run faster than Billy Hamilton ... they might be ducks. Or something.
OK, but that doesn't really rise to the level of proof of, well, anything.
Ironically, your link doesn't work.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main