Anonymous NFC starter: HGH is like clockwork. Estimates 10-15 players per team use it

[ChrisPozz]

Debate over HGH in the NFL continues with no end in sight

 

[dredinis21]

Unfortunately, this doesn't surprise me...and i think its more then 10-15 players per team.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

I gotta be honest, who cares? The whole purpose of sports is to entertain and HGH provides maximum entertainment. You think AP came back from what could've been a career ending injury only to have his best season ever without some help? HGH is not steroids, it's a miracle drug. Helps guys recover faster, stay healthy. I say make HGH mandatory (not really).

 

[MarkOU]

^^ AP is a freak. Even his doctors admit his the exception and not the norm. Good genes. I doubt he used anything. Day one on campus in Norman he was better conditioned than 5th years seniors.

 

[NickVT10]

I gotta be honest, who cares? The whole purpose of sports is to entertain and HGH provides maximum entertainment. You think AP came back from what could've been a career ending injury only to have his best season ever without some help? HGH is not steroids, it's a miracle drug. Helps guys recover faster, stay healthy. I say make HGH mandatory (not really).

It puts players who want to stay clean at risk going up against guys using enhancements. Most guys probably dont want to use the drugs and for them to have to go up against someone who is stronger and faster even though they both put in the same effort off the field is unfair and dangerous.

 

[threelittleturds]

All you need to look at is how much of a fight the Players Union is putting up against testing to see how many people use HGH in the NFL. They're pretty much taking the stance of, over our dead bodies... or rather... over our dead careers because they know they are screwed once testing is established.

 

[FourBeeDen]

It's really easy to say, "Who cares" or "Everyone is doing it, so why not let them", but the long term effects of continuous usage of HGH is yet to be known... What will be the effect on a player after his career is done? If there are any detrimental effects, the league will get sued for allowing the use of HGH...

 

[threelittleturds]

"I say, just let guys do it," the player said of taking HGH. "This is our career. We're putting on for fans. I say ... HGH isn't anything. I say, do it. ... You're going to get hit hard regardless whether you're clean or not clean. It's just a matter of how hard you get hit. I don't care who's taking it. A hit is a hit."

Why not just let me keep cheating? Haha, that classic mindset of a Packer... errrr wait... an anonymous NFC starter from Green Bay. Oh wait, we don't know which team from the NFC gives candid interviews with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. wink wink

 

[imac_21]

It's really easy to say, "Who cares" or "Everyone is doing it, so why not let them", but the long term effects of continuous usage of HGH is yet to be known... What will be the effect on a player after his career is done? If there are any detrimental effects, the league will get sued for allowing the use of HGH...

Isn't it an individual's right to decide if he wants to take that chance, not the government's, and definitely not the employer's, right to tell someone they can or cannot risk shortening their life?

We know the effects of many substances we put in our bodies. Should your boss be able to tell you that you aren't allowed to eat at McDonald's because it will reduce your life expectancy?

Arguing the "long term effects" point is something I will never accept. If you want to argue the unfair advantage in competition, that's fine. I used to agree with that, but not so much anymore.

 

[imac_21]

Why not just let me keep cheating? Haha, that classic mindset of a Packer... errrr wait... an anonymous NFC starter from Green Bay. Oh wait, we don't know which team from the NFC gives candid interviews with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. wink wink

There's no acceptable test at this point. The real question should be more to whether or not taking HGH SHOULD be cheating. I would argue it should be allowed.

 

[RobBase]

It's really easy to say, "Who cares" or "Everyone is doing it, so why not let them", but the long term effects of continuous usage of HGH is yet to be known...

Arnold was rumored to have used HGH back in the day when they still extracted it from cadavers (obv much more dangerous than synthetic they use nowadays).

Dorian Yates was the first mass monster introducing the use of hgh, slin and all the other goodies they use. It might have been used earlyer than the 90's but only to about 1985 in Lee Haney's time.

These freaks (who use way more of everything than pro athletes) more often disprove any theories that long term use of steroid/HGH comes with long-term life threatening side effects.

 

[FourBeeDen]

Isn't it an individual's right to decide if he wants to take that chance, not the government's, and definitely not the employer's, right to tell someone they can or cannot risk shortening their life?

We know the effects of many substances we put in our bodies. Should your boss be able to tell you that you aren't allowed to eat at McDonald's because it will reduce your life expectancy?

Arguing the "long term effects" point is something I will never accept. If you want to argue the unfair advantage in competition, that's fine. I used to agree with that, but not so much anymore.

Yes it's the individual has the right to choose... but if there are unforeseen ill effects in the future, can you guarantee that that said individual or relatives of that individual will not turn around and sue the NFL because they allowed the use of HGH without knowing whether or not it will have any ill effects??

 

[NinerSickness]

Isn't it an individual's right to decide if he wants to take that chance, not the government's, and definitely not the employer's, right to tell someone they can or cannot risk shortening their life?

Their right? Not necessarily (in the U.S. that is). At least, that's what's held up in court; otherwise, laws banning certain drugs would have been overturned by now. You may be asking from a perspective of what is "right," in your opinion, but from a standpoint of jurisprudence the answer is no.

In terms of whether it's "right" or not, I have no problem with employers saying "you can't work here" if you take certain drugs.

 

[imac_21]

Yes it's the individual has the right to choose... but if there are unforeseen ill effects in the future, can you guarantee that that said individual or relatives of that individual will not turn around and sue the NFL because they allowed the use of HGH without knowing whether or not it will have any ill effects??

That suit SHOULD get thrown out of court instantly. The reason the concussion lawsuits are going ahead is because the plaintiffs are arguing the NFL knew the negative impact of head trauma and hit it from the NFLPA.

The NFLPA would have to prove that

1. The NFL knew the long term results from using HGH;
2. The NFL intentionally hid the results from the NFLPA;
3. The NFL marketed the league around the benefits of using HGH;
4. The NFL created a culture where using HGH was expected/encouraged.

 

[imac_21]

Their right? Not necessarily (in the U.S. that is). At least, that's what's held up in court; otherwise, laws banning certain drugs would have been overturned by now. You may be asking from a perspective of what is "right," in your opinion, but from a standpoint of jurisprudence the answer is no.

In terms of whether it's "right" or not, I have no problem with employers saying "you can't work here" if you take certain drugs.

This is true. There are plenty of narcotics that the government has outlawed. However, I believe those are banned with the understanding of the negative impact the use of those drugs has on others. This is why there is a push to legalize/decriminalize marijuana.

Has the government outlawed HGH?

 

[threelittleturds]

There's no acceptable test at this point. The real question should be more to whether or not taking HGH SHOULD be cheating. I would argue it should be allowed.

Do you believe it is a "performance enhancing drug"? Almost everything I have ever read or heard about it suggests that it is, but there is that other side where people say it hasn't been proven to be a PED. I also am pretty sure these guys wouldn't be taking it if they didn't feel like it enhanced their performance.

On the other hand I also feel like if it is true that HGH helps players recover quickly from injuries then there isn't any harm in letting them use that to get back on the field quicker during the off-season... but I don't think they should be allowed to use it so they play at a higher level than they would without the drugs.

 

[threelittleturds]

This is true. There are plenty of narcotics that the government has outlawed. However, I believe those are banned with the understanding of the negative impact the use of those drugs has on others. This is why there is a push to legalize/decriminalize marijuana.

Has the government outlawed HGH?

Well, I googled and found this article. NY Times 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20hgh.html?_r=0

Growth hormone has also become popular with athletes who believe it builds muscle and improves speed. “It’s definitely the drug du jour,” says Chuck Kimmel, the president of the National Athletic Trainers’ Association. The catch is that it’s illegal. The Food and Drug Administration has banned H.G.H. for all but a few specific medical conditions (see “The Outlaw Drug”),

 

[imac_21]

Do you believe it is a "performance enhancing drug"? Almost everything I have ever read or heard about it suggests that it is, but there is that other side where people say it hasn't been proven to be a PED. I also am pretty sure these guys wouldn't be taking it if they didn't feel like it enhanced their performance.

On the other hand I also feel like if it is true that HGH helps players recover quickly from injuries then there isn't any harm in letting them use that to get back on the field quicker during the off-season... but I don't think they should be allowed to use it so they play at a higher level than they would without the drugs.

It absolutely enhances performance. It improves recovery time from injury for example.

Caffeine is a performance enhancing drug. When players (or coaches for that matter) are pulling late nights studying film and developing game plans I be they're sluggling back coffee and coke to stay up, so they can focus allowing them to work harder and later into the night, so they are better prepared for the next game.

The league should ban caffeine.

 

[imac_21]

Well, I googled and found this article. NY Times 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20hgh.html?_r=0

Thanks. I wasn't sure if the US had banned it. That's as of 2006. Anyone know anything more recent?

 

[threelittleturds]

Thanks. I wasn't sure if the US had banned it. That's as of 2006. Anyone know anything more recent?

Well, this isn't a great source but they say it is available by prescription only. For the purpose of this discussion I think this might be the best answer. It is from 12/1/12

Is HGH Illegal? | eHow.com

So, I guess in that sense the NFL should treat it like Adderall. Without an Rx it should be banned. I do believe players should be able to use it to speed up recovery from injuries.