[quote]Mouldsie wrote:
Go Jairus Byrd![/quote]
Ha, yea some were saying that Clay Mathews would have a good shot at winning also, which would be interesting seeing as he played with Cushing.
The shitty thing about all of this is he tested positive in September, had multiple negative tests through-out his “ROY” season and now they wanna yank his awards? The league tested him “in” season several times, and he passed all of them. Doesnt that only show that he was clean during the season?
Maybe its 'cuse he’s white. You know with Pac-man Jones making it rain and all and the entire Cinncy Bengals squad getting into shit the NFL and Goodell have to even out the playing field. First Big Ben now Brian Cushings.
I don’t think its going to matter, the Texans weren’t going any where this up-coming season anyway. I mean its the Texans lol.
Cowboys >>>>>>>>>> Texans
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Maybe its 'cuse he’s white. You know with Pac-man Jones making it rain and all and the entire Cinncy Bengals squat getting into shit the NFL and Goodell have to even out the playing field. First Big Ben now Brian Cushings.[/quote]
Damnit. Another case of the man keeping us down again. I knew it.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
And my last point would be that there is a massive amount of spin control going on here on all sides. The NFL doesn’t want these guys testing positive (looks bad on the league). Himself, the team, NFL, agent and PR people don’t want this because it’s a ton of lost revenue $$$$$$.
[/quote]
I disagree very strongly with this. I think the only way the league looks bad is if their vaunted testing program does NOT turn up any positive tests. Even mouth-breathing sheeple who picture steroid users with a band around their arm searching for a vein know intuitively that these guys arent just the genetic elite, and that the size of the average linemen hasnt increased something like 80 lbs in the last 25-35 years because of a better understanding of nutrition.
To put it simply, if baseball is now seen as this dirty sport full of drug users, how is any average person going to look at the comparatively little guys in MLB, the behemoths in the NFL, and conclude that just the baseball guys are on?
The NFL needs sacrificial lambs to appease the masses
[quote]cutthoat25 wrote:
The shitty thing about all of this is he tested positive in September, had multiple negative tests through-out his “ROY” season and now they wanna yank his awards? The league tested him “in” season several times, and he passed all of them. Doesnt that only show that he was clean during the season?[/quote]
Yes but it is possible that he used steroids in the off seasons and used the hCG after the steroid cycle and that happened to overlap with the beginning of the season. The testing is a joke in the off season. Baseball players get tested more often in the offseason than football players.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Even mouth-breathing sheeple who picture steroid users with a band around their arm searching for a vein know intuitively that these guys arent just the genetic elite, and that the size of the average linemen hasnt increased something like 80 lbs in the last 25-35 years because of a better understanding of nutrition.[/quote]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure football players 25-35 years ago didn’t have quite the same weight training regimen as players do these days. Not saying PEDs didn’t play a part, just saying.
"Texans SLB Brian Cushing has retained his Defensive Rookie of the Year award after a re-vote by 50 writers for the Associated Press. The outcome is surprising, but over the last two days it became increasingly evident that voters were bothered by the idea of a re-vote. The re-vote count, though, was much closer.
Cushing received a whopping 39 first-place votes on the January 5 ballot. He garnered 18 votes this time. Bills S Jairus Byrd again finished second with 13 (he got six in January). Clay Matthews (10), Brian Orakpo (3), and James Laurinaitis (1) rounded out the re-vote’s top five."
-Rotoworld.com
Cush keeps the hardware! Ap revoted today and Cush was voted Def. Rookie of the year again!
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]cutthoat25 wrote:
The shitty thing about all of this is he tested positive in September, had multiple negative tests through-out his “ROY” season and now they wanna yank his awards? The league tested him “in” season several times, and he passed all of them. Doesnt that only show that he was clean during the season?[/quote]
Yes but it is possible that he used steroids in the off seasons and used the hCG after the steroid cycle and that happened to overlap with the beginning of the season. The testing is a joke in the off season. Baseball players get tested more often in the offseason than football players. [/quote]
Exactly. I don’t see how anyone can think that him passing a polygraph and then not failing any tests after the original failed test proves anything beyond:
- he knows how to lie
- he’s not stupid enough to keep taking anything after failing the first test.
Did anyone watch NFL live today? Mark Scheleth (I butchered that name) was talking about hCG and how is was not a steroid, and also not a masking agent. He said something along the lines of it is used to restart natural testosterone levels back up post cycle. Thought he did a good job of putting that information out there.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Did anyone watch NFL live today? Mark Scheleth (I butchered that name) was talking about hCG and how is was not a steroid, and also not a masking agent. He said something along the lines of it is used to restart natural testosterone levels back up post cycle. Thought he did a good job of putting that information out there.[/quote]
Yea ESPN has actually done a decent job explaining some of the nuances of this particular situation. Some guy, Quinn his name is I think, was explaining how AAS affect natural T production and how hCG relates.
He said that hCG can be used to restart production, which is not the whole truth, but that is still believed by PLENTY of steroid users. A little bit of bro science is better than “steroids kill teenagers in Texas”
edited
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]cutthoat25 wrote:
The shitty thing about all of this is he tested positive in September, had multiple negative tests through-out his “ROY” season and now they wanna yank his awards? The league tested him “in” season several times, and he passed all of them. Doesnt that only show that he was clean during the season?[/quote]
Yes but it is possible that he used steroids in the off seasons and used the hCG after the steroid cycle and that happened to overlap with the beginning of the season. The testing is a joke in the off season. Baseball players get tested more often in the offseason than football players. [/quote]
Exactly. I don’t see how anyone can think that him passing a polygraph and then not failing any tests after the original failed test proves anything beyond:
- he knows how to lie
- he’s not stupid enough to keep taking anything after failing the first test.[/quote]
Isn’t it incredibly difficult to lie on a lie detector tests or is that one of those sheeople misconceptions. I know its impossible to be a perfect liar… as in there will be something somewhere that gives it away.
[quote]Amiright wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]cutthoat25 wrote:
The shitty thing about all of this is he tested positive in September, had multiple negative tests through-out his “ROY” season and now they wanna yank his awards? The league tested him “in” season several times, and he passed all of them. Doesnt that only show that he was clean during the season?[/quote]
Yes but it is possible that he used steroids in the off seasons and used the hCG after the steroid cycle and that happened to overlap with the beginning of the season. The testing is a joke in the off season. Baseball players get tested more often in the offseason than football players. [/quote]
Exactly. I don’t see how anyone can think that him passing a polygraph and then not failing any tests after the original failed test proves anything beyond:
- he knows how to lie
- he’s not stupid enough to keep taking anything after failing the first test.[/quote]
Isn’t it incredibly difficult to lie on a lie detector tests or is that one of those sheeople misconceptions. I know its impossible to be a perfect liar… as in there will be something somewhere that gives it away.
[/quote]
There are different kinds of polygraph machines. They all have their flaws. Google “how to beat a polygraph” or something. Im sure someone has written about it.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Kerley wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Kerley wrote:
Defrancos stance on this whole thing.[/quote]
good article… standing behind your people. The fact that the positive test was back in September and we’re just hearing about it now raises questions. “slightly elevated” levels of some thing your body actually produces normally is a pretty weak thing to hit someone on without follow on proof I think. Hopefully this all works out cause Cushing is a beast and he was a stud as SC.
.greg.[/quote]
For clarity. Healthy men will NOT produce hCG. There are diseases that can raise hCG levels and ways to create false postives but it is abnormal for a man to have hCG in his system. [/quote]
so what Joe D said about cush having a high reading of hCG after training is BS?[/quote]
The stuff I know about hCG primarily revolves around its application with steroids. There’s no way I can say for sure if Joe is right or wrong. Maybe someone like Bill Roberts could share his opinion on Joe DeFranco’s thoughts. [/quote]
This is the most important issue right now. Is it true that the only way a disease-free man will have any hcg in his system is if he introduces it from external sources?
Or is it true that men have hcg in their system naturally, and it flucuates in response to certain things, like training (and tests look for levels that are definitely beyond natural, or differences between endogenous and exogenous versions)?
I hope someone that knows about these things will be kind enough to answer this for us. I guess we could google it, and go off sources that may be less than trustworthy.
[quote]Eric 2.0 wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Kerley wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Kerley wrote:
Defrancos stance on this whole thing.[/quote]
good article… standing behind your people. The fact that the positive test was back in September and we’re just hearing about it now raises questions. “slightly elevated” levels of some thing your body actually produces normally is a pretty weak thing to hit someone on without follow on proof I think. Hopefully this all works out cause Cushing is a beast and he was a stud as SC.
.greg.[/quote]
For clarity. Healthy men will NOT produce hCG. There are diseases that can raise hCG levels and ways to create false postives but it is abnormal for a man to have hCG in his system. [/quote]
so what Joe D said about cush having a high reading of hCG after training is BS?[/quote]
The stuff I know about hCG primarily revolves around its application with steroids. There’s no way I can say for sure if Joe is right or wrong. Maybe someone like Bill Roberts could share his opinion on Joe DeFranco’s thoughts. [/quote]
This is the most important issue right now. Is it true that the only way a disease-free man will have any hcg in his system is if he introduces it from external sources?
Or is it true that men have hcg in their system naturally, and it flucuates in response to certain things, like training (and tests look for levels that are definitely beyond natural, or differences between endogenous and exogenous versions)?
I hope someone that knows about these things will be kind enough to answer this for us. I guess we could google it, and go off sources that may be less than trustworthy. [/quote]
Some hCG is produced naturally in a male. A very small amount. Depending where you look it’s around 0-5 IU/ml of blood. This is about the same as a non-pregnant woman.
I was wrong when I said NONE is produced. The number should be very low IF ANY is produced.
A man with a tumor in the testes may have a level around 30 IU/ml. But that number can vary, obviously. Its just a reference point.
A pregnant woman can have levels in the tens of thousands IU/ml at the peak.
When a steroid user uses hCG DURING his cycle to maintain testicular size he will inject 100-250 IU 2-3 times per week. Outdated protocol has men injecting 1000-5000 IU per week AFTER a cycle (this will cause further suppression of natural T production and is counterproductive).
Does anyone know the level of hCG in Cush? I looked around for a bit but I couldn’t find if they had released the numbers. With what Bonez just said it would be really interesting if they released those numbers to the public.
Also Bonez, I completely agree that ESPN did a good job with the bro science, so guys like me have more of an understanding.
Not sure how it pertains to HcG, or if that was even the substance he tested positive for (since there’s been no official announcement), but there was a case with an Australian swimmer (Ian Thorpe), where a single test showed he had “abnormal” levels of LH and one other hormone.
He was initially cleared, a French magazine dug up the results and it was investigated again. His testing history showed that he continually had high levels and the spike was not significant even though it did take him outside of the normal acceptable range. Anyhow, he was cleared again.
Still, I reckon if they were serious about testing they’d be doing blood testing and having the option of putting B samples in storage. Admittedly it’s more invasive than a urine test, but it gives the athlete a testing history to go off if they have a new test and the league the same option.
Sportscenter stated this morning: Cush is claiming he was taking a fertility drug when he tested positive for hCG. Not sure how this helps or hinders his case just throwing it out there for discussion.
A reporter from Pittsburgh (I believe) changed his vote to Cush, stating in an email it was not right to revote on the ROY (Cush won again with 18 votes instead of 39). But, he is calling for a revote on past awards who were supposedly caught cheating such as Bill Belichick when he won the COY after the video scandal came out. I am assume to make a point.
[quote]TheJonty wrote:
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Even mouth-breathing sheeple who picture steroid users with a band around their arm searching for a vein know intuitively that these guys arent just the genetic elite, and that the size of the average linemen hasnt increased something like 80 lbs in the last 25-35 years because of a better understanding of nutrition.[/quote]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure football players 25-35 years ago didn’t have quite the same weight training regimen as players do these days. Not saying PEDs didn’t play a part, just saying.[/quote]
To the best of my understanding the pros have been lifting since at least the early 70s. I know back in the day teh common misconception was that lifting weights leaves you musclebound, slow, etc, but I believe that was more in the 50s and 60s and died out first int eh nfl, while persisting longer in college and high school.
If you mean that they were lifting but the programs are that much better today, I simply dont believe that coaches of today are responsible for 80 additional lbs of mass. A crappy program, well-executed will still take you to within 90% (maybe more) of your potential, a superior program will likely make a difference of less than 10%. Obviously all this is my opinion and nobody’s ever researched it, because there’s no way to do so.