Author
Topic: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll
(Read 7479 times)

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #70 on:** July 25, 2018, 05:13:24 PM »

I would bet doping of one kind or another is routine in and around CFB. I doubt it's sanctioned by many schools, but I bet they are largely ok with presenting a front to the public that looks like they are addressing the issue, without investing in the resources to really crack down.

MLB is a pretty good barometer. It has a strict guideline for drug test failures, and yet every year people--including stars--get caught. They wouldn't get caught if they didn't think they could get away with it, and if they think they can get away with it, that's because people do. So they are catching a small percentage of the cheats.

Professional bike racing and the Olympics are also pretty demonstrative. Those testing regimes there are extremely strict and quite active, and yet people--including the stars--routinely get caught. Same as with MLB: if they thought they would get caught, they wouldn't do it.

The incentive to cheat is strong and the technology is there to keep ahead of the testing. The physical feats these guys are pulling off are remarkable. Sure, some of them are the result of lucky genes, some are the result of legitimate research in strength and conditioning training, and some--probably a significant part--are the result of "science" and keeping ahead of the testing regime.

Truly just an opinion, but a strongly held one. :-)

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #71 on:** July 25, 2018, 05:29:16 PM »

Quote from: ELA on July 25, 2018, 04:36:04 PM

HGH. While I don't believe we still have S&C coaches helping kids access drugs and assist in their cycles, I'm not sure that's a good thing. A lot of these kids get it on their own, and god knows what they are actually putting in their bodies. I think the intent in drug testing is good, and overall does lead to substantially fewer players using. But I do worry, just like recreational drug use, that once we take it out of the hands of professionals, what kind of risks are we opening those who still use up to. Particularly while coaches just pretend not to know what's going on. Remember it was just 2 years ago where Saban took issue with the fact that only CFP teams were subject to NCAA testing. So he knows. He's just mad that only 4 out of 128 face NCAA testing for it.

I've never looked into it, but as a purified protein I can't imagine how expensive hGH is.
Biologics (medicines that are purified proteins) tend to cost thousands a month. Are only the rich kids doing it? How would non-rich kids get the money?
Which is related but separate from finding a source. Maybe the poorer kids are all doing column chromatography in campus research labs to keep their footballing at its peak.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #72 on:** July 25, 2018, 05:38:59 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on July 25, 2018, 05:13:24 PM

I would bet doping of one kind or another is routine in and around CFB. I doubt it's sanctioned by many schools, but I bet they are largely ok with presenting a front to the public that looks like they are addressing the issue, without investing in the resources to really crack down.

MLB is a pretty good barometer. It has a strict guideline for drug test failures, and yet every year people--including stars--get caught. They wouldn't get caught if they didn't think they could get away with it, and if they think they can get away with it, that's because people do. So they are catching a small percentage of the cheats.

Professional bike racing and the Olympics are also pretty demonstrative. Those testing regimes there are extremely strict and quite active, and yet people--including the stars--routinely get caught. Same as with MLB: if they thought they would get caught, they wouldn't do it.

The incentive to cheat is strong and the technology is there to keep ahead of the testing. The physical feats these guys are pulling off are remarkable. Sure, some of them are the result of lucky genes, some are the result of legitimate research in strength and conditioning training, and some--probably a significant part--are the result of "science" and keeping ahead of the testing regime.

Truly just an opinion, but a strongly held one. :-)

I don't disagree with that logic. But who was the last CFB player to publicly test positive for something other than a GNC supplement (Grier at UF tested pos. for that reindeer antler thing)?
The last confirmed example on my mind is Tony Mandarich in the late 1980s. Bullough's Rose Bowl suspension has been roundly speculated as doping-related but never confirmed.
(P.S. I'm sensitive to the fact it looks bad that I can only think of MSU examples. Except for the fact that we all know the news best from our neck of the woods...I want to call it a coincidence.)
In any event my point is that these cases don't go public nearly as often in CFB as they do in MLB. Is that a false premise? And if not, why? Do the programs sit on it in-house? I don't think we see enough unexplained suspensions for that to be it. My guess is that CFB oversight is either way higher or way lower than the MLB. And I'd be shocked if it's way lower.

ELA · « **Reply #73 on:** July 25, 2018, 06:00:44 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous Coward on July 25, 2018, 05:38:59 PM

I don't disagree with that logic. But who was the last CFB player to publicly test positive for something other than a GNC supplement (Grier at UF tested pos. for that reindeer antler thing)?
The last confirmed example on my mind is Tony Mandarich in the late 1980s. Bullough's Rose Bowl suspension has been roundly speculated as doping-related but never confirmed.
(P.S. I'm sensitive to the fact it looks bad that I can only think of MSU examples. Except for the fact that we all know the news best from our neck of the woods...I want to call it a coincidence.)
In any event my point is that these cases don't go public nearly as often in CFB as they do in MLB. Is that a false premise? And if not, why? Do the programs sit on it in-house? I don't think we see enough unexplained suspensions for that to be it. My guess is that CFB oversight is either way higher or way lower than the MLB. And I'd be shocked if it's way lower.

I mean a simple Google search of articles finds several that discuss just how weak the NCAA testing policy is.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #74 on:** July 25, 2018, 06:15:08 PM »

Yeah, I think the answer is that it is way lower, i.e., the NCAA testing is weak relative to professional sports. That's what the Google is telling me, though I won't invest the time to confirm my initial search.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #75 on:** July 25, 2018, 06:20:29 PM »

Quote from: ELA on July 25, 2018, 06:00:44 PM

I mean a simple Google search of articles finds several that discuss just how weak the NCAA testing policy is.

Didn't occur to me as a Googleable kind of thing. /cardinalsin

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #76 on:** July 25, 2018, 06:22:38 PM »

I think data privacy rules protects student athletes in ways it doesn't protect the pros (probably due to collective bargaining for "employees" in the pro ranks).

But here's an example of a failed performance enhancing drug test at a major university within the last year or so:
https://www.bgsfirm.com/college-sports-law-blog/bledsoe-v-ncaa-ou-student-athlete-challenges-ncaa-drug-testing-policies

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #77 on:** July 25, 2018, 06:24:41 PM »

And here's a dated article, but one that points out the same gap noted above in high profile drug cheats in the college ranks:
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/8765531/steroids-loom-major-college-football-report-says

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #78 on:** July 25, 2018, 06:28:00 PM »

Now that we're progressing (because now it appears I've been wrong about basically all my hunches), I'd like to push this to the source and cost.

hGH should be doubly unattainable for a college student acting independently -- the cost is all but guaranteed to be more than $52K annually (I just checked) and biologics aren't available on store shelves or street corners. But it happens anyway. Meaning I'm incorrectly hunching here, too. So...what's the mechanism?

(Edit: or is this like the garbage you see peddled on those misleading "low T" infomercials and, turns out, the supplement is cheap and (shh!) never predicted to be effective. I've seen versions of that for oral hGH supplements. But hGH is a protein. Eating it would only cause expensive digestion. And when inexpensive, those supplements are merely amino acid formulations...and, sure, AA's could be used to make hGH but will far more often be used to make whatever else the body is driven to make instead. Exactly like a hamburger would, or a zucchini.)

TyphonInc · « **Reply #79 on:** July 25, 2018, 09:04:47 PM »

Quote from: FearlessF on July 25, 2018, 09:26:47 AM

I'm guessing the grades and money/free tats and shoes still go on EVERYWHERE

kids like perks

I still think we need to interview Eddie Rife (owner of Columbus Tattoo parlor who gave out discounted tattoos) and get him to go on record that he would give a discounted tattoo to anyone who gives him a gold trinket. Then we have a North Carolina situation, where it's not just the Athletes getting a discount, but anyone, so the NCAA can't hand out sanctions.

ELA · « **Reply #80 on:** July 25, 2018, 09:45:29 PM »

Yeah, my take is that while it's still.commonly used, it's very much the athletes acting independently, unlike what we had in the 70s, so I would doubt that what they are accessing is anything that cost prohibitive. That would put us in a realm of schools, agents or boosters providing it, and I've never heard anything to that effect.

Didn't the deer antler spray guy who was supplying Alabama players say the coaches continued to send him cease and desist letters that he openly ignored?

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #81 on:** July 25, 2018, 10:14:10 PM »

Quote from: ELA on July 25, 2018, 09:45:29 PM

Yeah, my take is that while it's still.commonly used, it's very much the athletes acting independently, unlike what we had in the 70s, so I would doubt that what they are accessing is anything that cost prohibitive. That would put us in a realm of schools, agents or boosters providing it, and I've never heard anything to that effect.

Didn't the deer antler spray guy who was supplying Alabama players say the coaches continued to send him cease and desist letters that he openly ignored?

The booster angle is the best explanation I guessed, too. At least for the expensive and inaccessible PEDs.
And, honestly, if true I wouldn't be surprised if boosters felt more secure in their investments effecting outcomes if/when they subsidize PEDs than if/when they fund pizza and PlayStation games. That "if true" part looms.
As for the Bama case: Not familiar. Will google later. This convo, while interesting, is a drag. Naiveté served a purpose.

FearlessF · « **Reply #82 on:** July 31, 2018, 11:11:28 AM »

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-2018

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #83 on:** July 31, 2018, 01:10:31 PM »

Quote from: FearlessF on July 31, 2018, 11:11:28 AM

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-2018

I always love that article. What a great concept, and you actually get the unvarnished truth about what other coaches think.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

SFBadger96

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

Anonymous Coward

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

Anonymous Coward

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

ELA

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

SFBadger96

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

Anonymous Coward

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

SFBadger96

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

SFBadger96

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

Anonymous Coward

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

TyphonInc

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

ELA

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

Anonymous Coward

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

FearlessF

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Cleveland.com Preseason Big Ten Poll