NRL vs NFL debate

[ozhawk66]

I have edited article for clarity:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/6744864


On more than one occasion during my broadcasting career, I have offered an opinion that did not reflect well on the NFL. It is my job to report when something in the league is not right.

But when the NFL is doing something right, people should know about that as well.


I take great pride in the way NFL has handled the steroids issue. If you read the newspaper, you know a new type of steroid -- THG -- has been making headlines. Questions have been raised about whether the NFL is doing all it can to eliminate steroid use as a means of competitive advantage.

Each year, the NFL tests for recreational drugs. Players are given a specified date and plenty of advanced warning. If a player fails a test for recreational drugs, he must have a serious addiction problem. Even if he fails the test, he is given a second test before he is suspended. The league treats recreational drug use as a medical issue and wants to get the player some help at that point.

That is not the case with steroids. The NFL has taken a much tougher stance here. On the first positive, a player is suspended for four games. He is suspended for six games following a second positive, and a third positive will result in at least a one-year suspension.

The reason for this is to maintain the competitive balance in the league. If players were using steroids, there would be a temptation for non-users to try steroids in an effort to compete physically. The NFL is setting this tough standard to keep players on a level playing field and to protect them from themselves.

As a player, from a competitive standpoint, I never cared if an opposing player was using recreational drugs, because it would only hurt his performance. Of course, on the human side, I hoped he would receive help, but it wasn't going to improve his performance on the field.

However, with steroids, performance might be enhanced. Thus, each week players are given random tests for steroids. A computer will randomly select six players, on each team, each week, to be tested. To show how random the test is, my HBO partner Dan Marino said he was tested eight times in one season.

Compare what the NFL is doing with steroids to other sports such as the NBA, Major League Baseball and the NHL. It is by far the most stringent test in all of professional sports.

I would hate to see what would happen if the NFL did not test for steroids. When I covered the Olympics for NBC, the joke among the track and field athletes was that it wasn't a contest between the fastest runners, but rather who had the best pharmacist. I would hate to see the NFL come to that.

Like the Olympic athletes, the NFL has a higher standard. In addition to testing for steroids, the league also tests for masking agents. If a player tries to pass a test by using these masking agents, they are suspended, even if a steroid is not detected.

It is important for the average fan to understand what NFL players go through each week in order to maintain this competitive balance. Imagine walking into work each Monday morning and being required to give a specimen for testing. NFL players are subject to testing each week, and they do so willingly.

That is why the NFL and the players union should be complimented for what they are doing with steroids. In addition to keeping the competitive balance, they set a standard that trickles down to college and high school players. A high school player might want to use steroids to get a college scholarship. A college player might want to use steroids to reach the NFL. But by taking such a tough stand on steroids, the NFL and the Players Association are setting a standard that is positive for all players, at all levels.

The goal is to maintain a competitive balance on every level, and dissuade those who might believe they can artificially earn a spot on football's greatest stage. The NFL has fumbled on a few issues along the way, but it has scored big on this one.

 

[lemon rabbit]

I went to an NFL trial game last year in New York (I left before the season commenced). First point: the trial match was live on two free to air tv networks!

Anyway, the game is way too long and it seems there is less "die hard" fans for each team. The people I spoke to suggested it's more like an event, than a regular thing to do.

The game itself is more exciting than league in parts, but dead boring in others.

The biggest thing though is that they are two different games. It's like comparing the 100m run to the 1000m - they are pales apart.

 

[Danish]

It's a lot harder to hit a baseball than a cricket ball, that's for sure.

Now you are just being utterly stupid.

Baseball is for people who cant play cricket.

Here's how baseball was invented;

Yank: Oh i cant handle having to actually pick balls that are coming anywhere from my toes to head height, its too hard........
Englishman: I know!! We'll make it so they have to bowl it at the easiest place to hit it!!

Yank: But then they can still bounce it off the ground, and sometimes they even make it spin or cut....... how am i supposed to deal with that??
Englishman: I know!! They arent allowed to bounce it, they have to just throw it.

Yank: But the ball is so hard!! I have to hit it really well to make it go far!! And all that weight makes it go too fast
Englishman: I know!! We'll change the ball so that it is easier to hit further, and make it lighter so it wont be travelling as fast ok?

Problem: But we still have to run all the time when we hit it. Cant we change that somehow??
Englishman: I know!! We'll make it so that once you've run ONCE, you can just go sit down again and let someone else bat

Problem: But now that we've made it so us dumb yanks can actually hit the ball, us poor fielders are struggling to get to it........
Englishman: I know!!! We'll make it so they are only allowed to hit it forward!!

Problem: But.......... what about catching? Those balls hurt you know and i cant always get my hand in the right place
Englishman: Oh FFS you people can whinge........ alright we'll give you a big f**k off glove so you couldnt possibly miss ok?

Problem: While we are on the topic of being weak, what about if they throw the ball at us? It stings and makes me cry
Englishman: Jesus christ do you yanks even like sport?? Ok, ok. If the big bad bowler hits you, you can have a free run ok?

Yank: Wow sounds like a great game!!!

 

[lemon rabbit]

:lol:

 

[dreary]

Lol

 

[ozhawk66]

Now you are just being utterly stupid.

Baseball is for people who cant play cricket.

Here's how baseball was invented;



A .320 batting average can get you into the hall of fame. A cricketer with that sort of average is a dismal failure.

 

[Dread]

It's a lot harder to hit a baseball than a cricket ball, that's for sure.

Its also a lot easier to catch a baseball than a cricket ball, that's for sure.

Hey ozhawk.. what point are you trying to make with this thread? Give it a rest, eh?

 

[Danish]

Now you are just being utterly stupid.

Baseball is for people who cant play cricket.

Here's how baseball was invented;



A .320 batting average can get you into the hall of fame. A cricketer with that sort of average is a dismal failure.

Thats like saying it must be harder to kick a goal in league than in union purely because the best league players generally dont have as high a conversion rate as union boys.

In fact its exactly why baseball is a sissys game. All rules made to make it easy to score runs and even the best can only manage that 30% of the time.

Cricketers have far more skill than baseballers. Hence why they are called batsmen, while the latter are mere...... hitters.

 

[ozhawk66]

Its also a lot easier to catch a baseball than a cricket ball, that's for sure.

Hey ozhawk.. what point are you trying to make with this thread? Give it a rest, eh?

I didn't start the cricket/baseball thread. It was a short response to a comment, that's all.

 

[Bomber]

Why aren't steroid users banned for longer periods of time?

In the NRL, the ban for the first offense is one year, not four weeks.

On that basis, the NFL's policy on drugs doesn't seem quite as world-class as you make it out to be.

 

[Bomber]

On another point, that article that you kindly brought into the discussion was dated October 2003 - well before the issue of steroid use in professional sports was brought up in the American congress.

And if the NFL paid my cheques, as it would for the writer, then I would be writing complimentary articles about their drug policies too!

 

[ozhawk66]

In fact its exactly why baseball is a sissys game. All rules made to make it easy to score runs and even the best can only manage that 30% of the time.


Sissies don't wear a facemask and a sweater to play a baseball game then take some time off for tea. They actually get dirt on their jerseys.


Cricketers have far more skill than baseballers. Hence why they are called batsmen, while the latter are mere...... hitters.

And don't give the jive about cricketers having more skill. It's pure BS because one of the hardst things to do in sports is to hit a home run with round ball with a round bat.

That's why it's much harder to get a hit in baseball than to whack a cricket ball with a bat bigger than a 2x4.

 

[NPK]

Why aren't steroid users banned for longer periods of time?

In the NRL, the ban for the first offense is one year, not four weeks.

On that basis, the NFL's policy on drugs doesn't seem quite as world-class as you make it out to be.

Exactly, they're soft on drugs in the NFL because they know that many of their players are on drugs.

 

[AlexM]

the americans think that NRL players are ticked off because A) they were to small and not stronge enough to play football or B) they like wearing short shorts and possibly doing each other thinking its gay porno.

 

[ozhawk66]

Why aren't steroid users banned for longer periods of time?


If tested positive a 2nd then 3rt time, the sentence is a longer one. The initial 4 week is a compromise with the powerful NFL union.



In the NRL, the ban for the first offense is one year, not four weeks.


Could you link the NRL roid policy for me?


On that basis, the NFL's policy on drugs doesn't seem quite as world-class as you make it out to be.

Even so, they sre raising the standards of testing, including for masking agents. They have been ahead of the curve when it comes to professional sports, though.

 

[camsmith]

13 pages? wow.

 

[ozhawk66]

On another point, that article that you kindly brought into the discussion was dated October 2003 - well before the issue of steroid use in professional sports was brought up in the American congress.



And that proves my point, the NFL was testing before it made the news. Years before roids became a major issue.

And if the NFL paid my cheques, as it would for the writer, then I would be writing complimentary articles about their drug policies too!

The man who wrote the article is not paid by the NFL.





April 18, 2005 -- Lawrence Taylor says the NFL has done a good job controlling steroid use, but he thinks Major League Baseball's policy — or lack thereof until this season — has been "a joke."

"Football and baseball, man, we've been throwing people out of the league and suspending people for a lot of years," said Taylor


"There's no question if there was steroids in football — of course there was — there probably still is some under the radar," he said. "But you know what? It's not half as bad. It's not even nowhere as bad as it used to be. Right now you're taking your career in your hands if you get caught with them."

"The NFL has been the strictest [of all the leagues], they were the earliest with their testing," said former tackle Karl Nelson,

"I know in '86, from talking with our medical staff and our weight coach, from what I understand we had one guy who was taking [steroids] when they weren't yet banned. He was taking them early in the season and he went off during the season, and when we won the Super Bowl we were clean."

"One thing I love about the NFL is that they keep the players aware," Johnson said. "You can't say that no one didn't try to help you, to tell you."

Johnson doesn't think steroids would necessarily give someone an advantage in football in the way they might in other sports.

"I don't think it really matters in the actual game. You have to physically beat me several times in football in order to win the battle. And it's hard to do that if mentally you're not sharp.," he said.

"If it takes someone taking some enhancement to give them the courage to go out there against someone else eventually, mentally it's gonna catch up to you because you're not gonna be as strong when I compete at the same level and stand up to you and your steroids ain't working."

Nelson summed up how everyone felt about the '86 Giants and the steroid issue: "You play football from the heart. You can be as strong as you want to be, you don't have the guys with the heart, you're not gonna be any good."


http://www.nypost.com/sports/giants/44756.htm

 

[Bomber]

I don't actually have a copy of the NRL Drug Policy sitting by my side ;-) but I can point you towards the following links:

http://nrl.rleague.com/news/index.php?id=17042

The NRL policy provides for a 2-year ban in relation to stimulants unless the NRL Drug Tribunal is satisfied that the offence was not intended to involve or conceal any performance enhancement.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/sportsf/stories/s1371594.htm

...the National Rugby League has been at the forefront of drug testing in Australia and conducts testing programs that extend well beyond the professional level through to representative teams and even elite junior teams.

...Rugby League already does drug-testing that goes beyond what’s called for under the WADA code.

[url="http://www.olympics.com.au/default.asp?pg=home&spg=display&articleid=4780"]http://www.olympics.com.au/default.asp?pg=home&spg=display&articleid=4780[/url]

More later

 

[AlexM]

Baseball Players are like the unfittest bunch sports athletes in the world.

 

[ozhawk66]

I don't actually have a copy of the NRL Drug Policy sitting by my side ;-) but I can point you towards the following links:

http://nrl.rleague.com/news/index.php?id=17042



http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/sportsf/stories/s1371594.htm





[url="http://www.olympics.com.au/default.asp?pg=home&spg=display&articleid=4780"]http://www.olympics.com.au/default.asp?pg=home&spg=display&articleid=4780[/url]

More later

I asked cause I couldn't find anything myself, specifically dealing with the NRL and roids. I saw a piece when Mason was busted and in it they said they tested for cannaboids?, smack, coke and speed. But I couldn't quite tell if it was just those drugs or not, that they tested for.

The 2nd link was a bit long - wasn't quite sure what I was supposed to be loking for and the 3rd link didn't seem to relate to the NRL, unless I missed it.