PatsFanTX Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 The Steelers didn't cheat. NFL didn't ban steroids until 1987. And taping from the sidelines was legal up to 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanatic Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 If you could care less, it means you do care atleast a little... perfectly evidenced by the amount of time you spend here defending it same for this vile creature, your behavior contradicts your words. taints With a name like Wicked Ass hole, I mean Awesom, how bright can he be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afosomf Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 And taping from the sidelines was legal up to 2007. You be an assclown, taping from sidelines was never legal, the NFL sent a reminder notice in 2006 to every team, only 1 didn't comply ...I wonder which team that was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 The Steelers didn't cheat. NFL didn't ban steroids until 1987. No, the nfl did not specifically list steroids until 1987. The use of Steroids as a performance enhancer was illegal in the US during the 70s. During the 70s the nfl banned the use of all illegal drug use. Just because team doctors illegally prescribed the drug did not make it within the rules. Yes a lot of players during the 70s took steroids, what make the steelers stand out was it was a team doctor prescribing the drugs for an illegal use. I know teams turned a blind eye to it, but the steelers encouraged it officially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Yeah, so sweet I'm posting here at a Jets board, with my new awesome avatar. This is a small slice of the overall reason it's as sweet as it is. Yes. These are definitely the words of a person who does not care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanTX Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 No, the nfl did not specifically list steroids until 1987. The use of Steroids as a performance enhancer was illegal in the US during the 70s. During the 70s the nfl banned the use of all illegal drug use. Just because team doctors illegally prescribed the drug did not make it within the rules. Yes a lot of players during the 70s took steroids, what make the steelers stand out was it was a team doctor prescribing the drugs for an illegal use. I know teams turned a blind eye to it, but the steelers encouraged it officially. So, the Steelers, 49ers and Cowboys all cheated in winning their Super Bowls? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 the bitch not allowing his people to talk to reporters from espn Earlier in this thread, I pointed out that ESPN did a segment of Sport Science regarding a 2 psi diff in inflation on throwing the ball. (which they concluded was negligible, compared to throwing a wet football) Why have they not performed the much simpler task of measuring deflation due to environmental changes during game days. My take is It does not fit their goal of driving viewership or clicks. Now, I understand it totally from a business point, The media's job is to sell Media, but why even have a show called sport science if you do not use it to explain/refute this scientific premise? When a head coach stands up and gives it as an excuse for a deflated ball(s). As soon as BB did it the lab that tests helmets, had something published in 2 days. Other PHDs spoke on how it was theoretically possible (although they did not simulate it, just did the math) that it was But it's absence from this discussion is what I believe may be fueling a feud if there is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM31 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Yep, just like they forced Pat Bowlen out. It's amusing how you lump the Patriots together with PED users given that Calvin Pace, Thomas Jones, LaRon Landry and Santonio Holmes all played -- or currently play -- for your very own team. Best case for "us guys" is anything that doesn't involve draft pick forfeiture or lengthy suspensions. Anyone with a keyboard and a thought in their head about the Patriots, no matter how asinine, can post it on the internet, so that doesn't enter into the equation. I lump the Pats in with those PED users because the records of each are suspect as a result of their cheating. In the case of Bonds, Armstrong and AROD, the records in question are individual records and so the link between the cheating and the benefits is very clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 So, the Steelers, 49ers and Cowboys all cheated in winning their Super Bowls? Interesting. I never heard anything regarding team doctors from the cowboys or 9ers. The 9ers got docked a 3rd rd draft pick during the 90s but the infraction took place in a year that they did not win the SB. The Broncos on the other hand were docked a 3rd rd pick for salary cap violations during a superbowl season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I lump the Pats in with those PED users because the records of each are suspect as a result of their cheating. In the case of Bonds, Armstrong and AROD, the records in question are individual records and so the link between the cheating and the benefits is very clear. Only because you or whoever chooses to think of them as individual records and not their contributions to the teams total effort. Teams in most sports turned a blind eye towards illegal drug use and some in baseball encouraged it at it was driving business. If a manager(s) knew his players were cheating, should not the team also be painted with that brush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanTX Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I never heard anything regarding team doctors from the cowboys or 9ers. The 9ers got docked a 3rd rd draft pick during the 90s but the infraction took place in a year that they did not win the SB. The Broncos on the other hand were docked a 3rd rd pick for salary cap violations during a superbowl season. Yep, the Broncos were the worst cheaters in the history of the Super Bowl. Think those teams would have won those championships without Elway and Davis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Yep, the Broncos were the worst cheaters in the history of the Super Bowl. Think those teams would have won those championships without Elway and Davis? Remember cut blocks? Salary cap Chinese math? In the heat of battle, the Denver Broncos were just trying to stay warm. That's why Brian Habib, Gary Zimmerman and Mark Schlereth had Vaseline on their arms during Sunday's AFC divisional playoff victory in frigid Kansas City, coach Mike Shanahan insisted yesterday. Nevertheless, the NFL fined the three offensive linemen $5,000 apiece yesterday for using a foreign substance, which can make it harder for defenders to get a grip. Shanahan said that he convinced the NFL to drop $5,000 fines levied against Tom Nalen and Tony Jones for the same offense and that he eventually plans to appeal the other three. http://articles.philly.com/1998-01-09/sports/25750018_1_vaseline-foreign-substance-cold-weather Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Only because you or whoever chooses to think of them as individual records and not their contributions to the teams total effort. Teams in most sports turned a blind eye towards illegal drug use and some in baseball encouraged it at it was driving business. If a manager(s) knew his players were cheating, should not the team also be painted with that brush? Yes, MLB is ate up with Steroids. They've been around since the 70's too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 No, the nfl did not specifically list steroids until 1987. The use of Steroids as a performance enhancer was illegal in the US during the 70s. During the 70s the nfl banned the use of all illegal drug use. Just because team doctors illegally prescribed the drug did not make it within the rules. Yes a lot of players during the 70s took steroids, what make the steelers stand out was it was a team doctor prescribing the drugs for an illegal use. I know teams turned a blind eye to it, but the steelers encouraged it officially. Non-medical use wasn't outlawed in the US until the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Nice try though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Non-medical use wasn't outlawed in the US until the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Nice try though.... The use of any non-prescribed drug or the abuse of a prescribed drug for which it was not approved for was illlegal. The AMA did not approve the use of Steroids for performance enhancement. Therefore it was not allowed by the NFL. While doctors can write prescriptions for drugs for a use other than they were primarily designed without AMA approval, to prescribe a drug for which it's use is not approved is something different The prescribing of amphetamines by team doctors was another abuse that was rampant. However, since the drug was approved by the AMA for use in fatigue treatment, they were legal in the nfl eyes back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 The use of any non-prescribed drug or the abuse of a prescribed drug for which it was not approved for was illlegal. The AMA did not approve the use of Steroids for performance enhancement. Therefore it was not allowed by the NFL. While doctors can write prescriptions for drugs for a use other than they were primarily designed without AMA approval, to prescribe a drug for which it's use is not approved is something different The prescribing of amphetamines by team doctors was another abuse that was rampant. However, since the drug was approved by the AMA for use in fatigue treatment, they were legal in the nfl eyes back then. You are so confused it's not even funny. Here's a hint... The AMA is a professional organization. It's not a governmental organization than say like the FDA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 You are so confused it's not even funny. Here's a hint... The AMA is a professional organization. It's not a governmental organization than say like the FDA. The AMA determines for its members what drugs can be prescribed. No doctor ever asked that the FDA approve the use of Streroids for performance. The FDA approves a drug for use. The FDA did not regulate the use of prescription steroids prior to the 80s, However the nfl policy was only drugs that were prescribed for their intended use were legal and since the AMA did not recognize the use of steroids for enhancement, A doctor could lose his license for giving steroids to an athlete in the 70s. The team doctors were the ones breaking the rules, not the players. As a jet fan you can think of it similarly to spygate where the coaching staff broke the rules and not the players. or the players were taking them without a prescription which was taken a drug without being prescribed and the players were cheating. take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM31 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Only because you or whoever chooses to think of them as individual records and not their contributions to the teams total effort. Teams in most sports turned a blind eye towards illegal drug use and some in baseball encouraged it at it was driving business. If a manager(s) knew his players were cheating, should not the team also be painted with that brush? Literally as many as 40% or more MLB players may have been using during the peak. Even more NFL'ers if you go back to the peak in the 709s and 80s. Barry Bonds, AROD and Lance Armstrong all have individual records that are suspect as a result of using PEDs. Just as New England has Lombardi trophies that are suspect because of team cheating, I gave no opinion either for or against the involvement of the teams and team records in MLB and the Cycling worlds as a result of the cheating of those named individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 And taping from the sidelines was legal up to 2007. No it wasn't. If it was they wouldn't have been warned in Sept. of 2006. Do you just make sh*t up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 The AMA determines for its members what drugs can be prescribed. No doctor ever asked that the FDA approve the use of Streroids for performance. The FDA approves a drug for use. The FDA did not regulate the use of prescription steroids prior to the 80s, However the nfl policy was only drugs that were prescribed for their intended use were legal and since the AMA did not recognize the use of steroids for enhancement, A doctor could lose his license for giving steroids to an athlete in the 70s. The team doctors were the ones breaking the rules, not the players. As a jet fan you can think of it similarly to spygate where the coaching staff broke the rules and not the players. or the players were taking them without a prescription which was taken a drug without being prescribed and the players were cheating. take your pick. That's factually incorrect. Nice try though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 That's factually incorrect. Nice try though. What is: 1. You needed a prescription for Anabolic steroids, 2. Doctors could lose their licenses for prescribing steroids for enhancement. 3. Taking non precribed drugs was a crime 4. The NFL rules on prescription drugs was that they were only to be used as medically prescribed by a physician. ( ex. you can't take 5 percs even if you had a script). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 whatever floats your boat, who am I to tell you how you should spend your time. People like you and tx spend a lot of your time on jets message boards gloating because the team that averaged 26,000 a game and almost moved to St. Louis in the 80's drafted the greatest qb of all time with pick 199 in the draft. You guys are so knowledgeable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Everybody northeast of New York City is now a pats fan. The patriots couldn't give away tickets up until the early 90's. This fair-weathery fagitry at its finest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 What is: 1. You needed a prescription for Anabolic steroids, 2. Doctors could lose their licenses for prescribing steroids for enhancement. 3. Taking non precribed drugs was a crime 4. The NFL rules on prescription drugs was that they were only to be used as medically prescribed by a physician. ( ex. you can't take 5 percs even if you had a script). Your entire argument is stupid as physicians have some leeway for off-label use. BTW, in the 70's the medical professions' opinion of AAS were they weren't useful in enhancing performance and only had a placebo effect. Spend some time and do some research before spouting off your nonsense. Here's another way your argument is stupid: Please explain why, if what you say is true, did the NFL ban their use in 1987? According to you, they were effectively banned before that so why would they create a rule to ban something that was already banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 No it wasn't. If it was they wouldn't have been warned in Sept. of 2006. Do you just make sh*t up? Apparently, you do. It was legal. The NFL constituition only stipulates when it can be used. “Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.” Where does it say it is illegal to tape from the sideline? Nowhere. Only you cannot do it during the game. The memo, which was a "clarification" was not a clarification, but a pull out of Rogah's ass lets add this to the rule book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Your entire argument is stupid as physicians have some leeway for off-label use. BTW, in the 70's the medical professions' opinion of AAS were they weren't useful in enhancing performance and only had a placebo effect. Spend some time and do some research before spouting off your nonsense. Here's another way your argument is stupid: Please explain why, if what you say is true, did the NFL ban their use in 1987? According to you, they were effectively banned before that so why would they create a rule to ban something that was already banned. my understanding was that they decided to treat it as a differnt classification of drug use in 1987, prior to that it was treated in the same manner as illicit drugs. If it was legal and they were no NFL repercussions how come no one player or organization ever made the use public during the 70s. If you feel it was just a evolution in training techniques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Apparently, you do. It was legal. The NFL constituition only stipulates when it can be used. “Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.” Where does it say it is illegal to tape from the sideline? Nowhere. Only you cannot do it during the game. The memo, which was a "clarification" was not a clarification, but a pull out of Rogah's ass lets add this to the rule book. Please read what you just wrote. Pats fans are worse than lawyers... and much dumber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Everybody northeast of New York City is now a pats fan. The patriots couldn't give away tickets up until the early 90's. This fair-weathery fagitry at its finest. You do understand that if you were in college when the played the bears in their first superbowl you would be almost 50 years old now? How old do you have to be to be considered a lifelong fan? Guys who were going to games in the 60 or 70s (me) are now retired. What do you tell a 30 year old patriots fan that all he has known is success that he is not a true fan.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 my understanding was that they decided to treat it as a differnt classification of drug use in 1987, prior to that it was treated in the same manner as illicit drugs. If it was legal and they were no NFL repercussions how come no one player or organization ever made the use public during the 70s. If you feel it was just a evolution in training techniques. Read this article and then please admit to us how wrong you are: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/232404-the-steelers-steroids-and-profound-misconceptions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Read this article and then please admit to us how wrong you are: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/232404-the-steelers-steroids-and-profound-misconceptions Well it said that Haslett said that there were no rule banning the use. And i'ts use was ignored by the league, I never said it wasn't. I said that there was no speicfic rule banning them but an implied rule in that they were treated as any other drug. You need a prescription to take them, and doctors would not write a prescription for use as an enhancement. If you expect a full expose written by an author named "Tim Steelers fan" to be the be all and end all, i don't know what to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Well it said that Haslett said that there were no rule banning the use. And i'ts use was ignored by the league, I never said it wasn't. I said that there was no speicfic rule banning them but an implied rule in that they were treated as any other drug. You need a prescription to take them, and doctors would not write a prescription for use as an enhancement. If you expect a full expose written by an author named "Tim Steelers fan" to be the be all and end all, i don't know what to say. There are many of sources on the internet regarding this. None of which that support your delusion. Thanks for playing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Please read what you just wrote. Pats fans are worse than lawyers... and much dumber. Yeah, that does not make any sense what was posted., you can't videotape from the sidelines where it may be available during the game to the coaches or players. BB's lame excuse was that he did not access it during the game. Big deal that was not how it was stated in the guideline. My take on the whole spygate sh*t was that it did not make any sense that you could tape the other team from the stands with no issue. and that the NFL constitution says that the home team can tape the game from the sideline but must give the opposing team copies of the film within 2 days. Check out section XIX 19.20 and 19.21 stupid sh*t. http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 There are many of sources on the internet regarding this. None of which that support your delusion. Thanks for playing! I am happy too. Again how come no one spoke of this "training aid" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I am happy too. Again how come no one spoke of this "training aid" I don't need to. Let's recap: Your claims that it was cheating were proven false Your claims that it was illegal, again, proven false. Thanks for playing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patman Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I don't need to. Let's recap: Your claims that it was cheating were proven false Your claims that it was illegal, again, proven false. Thanks for playing! and your and tim steeler are welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.