NFL 2016 Playoffs: The Kool-aid Guy vs. the Sith Lord Edition

[Mexal]

I can't take credit -- it's been all over sports talk radio here. Heard some really bad stories from people calling in to relate their own experiences with the synthetic weed, from cops and EMTs who've scraped these people off a sidewalk. It just sounds fucking awful. I ingested a fair amount of illegal substances in my time, and often for stupid reasons, but I just can't see the appeal in this. One guy even admitted, as the radio hosts asked incredulously why he'd do it, "I am very susceptible to peer pressure."

I've only heard bad things. When I went to the hospital for my heart, that was one of the first questions they asked me because of how bad it affects some people. I wonder what the end result will be from the league.

Also, when do fines come out from the Steelers / Bengals game? Burfict is already suspended 3 games but I haven't heard anything about fines yet. I assume Friday?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The Pats' Head of Security is also the Foxborough police chief.

The Pats are good at cheating on every level.

[Prince of the North]

I see a team in St. Louis again in 20 years or so...

I think you may be right and, if it's not St. Louis, it'll definitely be somewhere else.  I don't think it can be denied that it has been very good for the NFL over the years to have other markets with which to threaten current markets with moving teams.  Now, threatening to move teams places other than LA probably doesn't have the same teeth but still I think the threats will always remain.  It's too lucrative for the NFL not to.  Municipalities would be far less likely to cough up funds for new stadiums without the fear of losing their team.       

[DanteGabriel]

The Pats' Head of Security is also the Foxborough police chief.

The Pats are good at cheating on every level.

I'm sure the Pats are the only NFL team with a kushy arrangement with local law enforcement. 

[Fez]

I think you may be right and, if it's not St. Louis, it'll definitely be somewhere else.  I don't think it can be denied that it has been very good for the NFL over the years to have other markets with which to threaten current markets with moving teams.  Now, threatening to move teams places other than LA probably doesn't have the same teeth but still I think the threats will always remain.  It's too lucrative for the NFL not to.  Municipalities would be far less likely to cough up funds for new stadiums without the fear of losing their team.       

I'm sure the threat will be there, but hopefully cities don't take it too seriously. LA is kind of a special case and I don't think any other cities could take its place as the NFL's go-to strong-arm threat. If nothing else, there's the fact that the relocation fee the owner of a moving team needs to pay the other owners is so large (the Rams are paying $550 million to be split among the other owners) that they need to be getting an overwhelming great deal from the new city for it to be worthwhile.

And while few cities or states have made the decision to completely stonewall sports leagues, most of them are getting better at refusing to deals that are too lopsided (with the notable recent exception of Wisconsin and the Bucks).

[Reny of Storms End]

I think you may be right and, if it's not St. Louis, it'll definitely be somewhere else.  I don't think it can be denied that it has been very good for the NFL over the years to have other markets with which to threaten current markets with moving teams.  Now, threatening to move teams places other than LA probably doesn't have the same teeth but still I think the threats will always remain.  It's too lucrative for the NFL not to.  Municipalities would be far less likely to cough up funds for new stadiums without the fear of losing their team.       

I'm not to sure we will see another team in St. Louis. Just saw a report saying they'll still be paying for their stadium until 2021. I wonder if leaving the bill and taking the team will have negative effects on getting cities to build stadiums for teams in the future. At the very least I'd expect to start seeing teams being contractually tied to a city until at least their stadium is payed for. Or that could just be wishful thinking. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I'm sure the Pats are the only NFL team with a kushy arrangement with local law enforcement. 

I'm shocked. Shocked I tells ya.

But what have they done for me lately?

[Prince of the North]

I'm sure the threat will be there, but hopefully cities don't take it too seriously. LA is kind of a special case and I don't think any other cities could take its place as the NFL's go-to strong-arm threat. If nothing else, there's the fact that the relocation fee the owner of a moving team needs to pay the other owners is so large (the Rams are paying $550 million to be split among the other owners) that they need to be getting an overwhelming great deal from the new city for it to be worthwhile.

And while few cities or states have made the decision to completely stonewall sports leagues, most of them are getting better at refusing to deals that are too lopsided (with the notable recent exception of Wisconsin and the Bucks).

Ah, thanks, I didn't know about the relocation fee.  That's a good way to keep teams from playing musical chairs with cities.  I'm not saying it's necessarily always a bad thing for teams to change markets but I would like it to not be done often or lightly.

I'm not to sure we will see another team in St. Louis. Just saw a report saying they'll still be paying for their stadium until 2021. I wonder if leaving the bill and taking the team will have negative effects on getting cities to build stadiums for teams in the future. At the very least I'd expect to start seeing teams being contractually tied to a city until at least their stadium is payed for. Or that could just be wishful thinking. 

Whoa!  That certainly has to add insult to injury!  They're still stuck paying for a stadium with no team - ouch!  Looks more and more like the Green Bay publicly-owned way is the better way (I'm "sorta" kidding)  You're absolutely right about the stadium contracts.  It seems there has to be some way to make them more "binding" or have enough "teeth" to make moving...I don't know, less attractive?

And, finally, what makes the NFL sure this time will be different for a team in LA?  Why will people support the team(s) this time when they haven't in the past?

[Jaime L]

 

1. The NFL needs to ease up on weed. The least you can do, while you exploit athlete's bodies and the majority of them spend the season in some kind of pain, is to allow them to self-medicate with something less fucked up than opioids.

For sure. It's insane that weed is a banned substance where Toradol is ubiquitous.  

Taking it one step further, does anyone really care if Peyton Manning used HGH in an effort to get back on the field? Or if Kobe went to Germany for platelet rich plasma therapy in his knee? 

Athletes put all kinds of things in their body to both to enhance performance and speed recovery and it's not immediately clear to me the rationale that leagues use to distinguish between supplements that are allowed and those that are banned. They seem to be based out of 1980s Afterschool Special understanding on the dangers of drugs. 

I'm infinitely sympathetic to anything a player wants to do either to speed recovery or extend his career. I'm a bit less so when it comes to things that enhance performance in the sense it potentially gives an unfair competitive advantage...though increasingly I'm not even sure what that means except in the purely theoretical sense. Guys use all kinds of supplements both known and unknown to gain a competitive edge. We have no idea what the bleeding edge of athletic performance enhancers entails. We might know in 2020 what guys in 2015 were doing. But we don't know now. 

On the one hand, saying everything is allowed opens Pandora's box. On the other hand, the current rules seem about effective as the War on Drugs. And I feel like the population under 50 is increasingly apathetic to what guys are taking because, well, everyone's doing something.

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I read the Todd Marinovich did LSD because it didn't show up in drug tests and weed did.

That is still much better idea than doing synthetic weed.

[Prince of the North]

For sure. It's insane that weed is a banned substance where Toradol is ubiquitous.  

Taking it one step further, does anyone really care if Peyton Manning used HGH in an effort to get back on the field? Or if Kobe went to Germany for platelet rich plasma therapy in his knee? 

Athletes put all kinds of things in their body to both to enhance performance and speed recovery and it's not immediately clear to me the rationale that leagues use to distinguish between supplements that are allowed and those that are banned. They seem to be based out of 1980s Afterschool Special understanding on the dangers of drugs. 

I'm infinitely sympathetic to anything a player wants to do either to speed recovery or extend his career. I'm a bit less so when it comes to things that enhance performance in the sense it potentially gives an unfair competitive advantage...though increasingly I'm not even sure what that means except in the purely theoretical sense. Guys use all kinds of supplements both known and unknown to gain a competitive edge. We have no idea what the bleeding edge of athletic performance enhancers entails. We might know in 2020 what guys in 2015 were doing. But we don't know now. 

On the one hand, saying everything is allowed opens Pandora's box. On the other hand, the current rules seem about effective as the War on Drugs. And I feel like the population under 50 is increasingly apathetic to what guys are taking because, well, everyone's doing something.

 

Yeah, I just assume everyone's doing something.  I mean, who's not going to do it when they have a pretty good idea their competition is doing it?  Also, I understand about not wanting to open the flood gates on PED's, etc. but, as you say, I'm not at all sure the bans are really preventing anything at all.  In fact, I doubt it.  I feel like it's probably more a case of the bans just keeping a lot of chemists/chemical engineers lucratively engaged in staying ahead of the lists of banned substances.

Because I assume they're all doing it, I really don't care at all if Manning used HGH to get back on the field.  I also don't believe for a minute that all Ray Lewis needed was some deer antler spray to make his very speedy recovery from, iirc, a torn pectoral that season.  Sure Ray, pull the other one  I think the list goes on and on and we only see the tip of the iceberg.

[Red Tiger]

Yeah, I just assume everyone's doing something.  I mean, who's not going to do it when they have a pretty good idea their competition is doing it?  Also, I understand about not wanting to open the flood gates on PED's, etc. but, as you say, I'm not at all sure the bans are really preventing anything at all.  In fact, I doubt it.  I feel like it's probably more a case of the bans just keeping a lot of chemists/chemical engineers lucratively engaged in staying ahead of the lists of banned substances.

Because I assume they're all doing it, I really don't care at all if Manning used HGH to get back on the field.  I also don't believe for a minute that all Ray Lewis needed was some deer antler spray to make his very speedy recovery from, iirc, a torn pectoral that season.  Sure Ray, pull the other one  I think the list goes on and on and we only see the tip of the iceberg.

Torn tricep, but your point remains, I agree that everybody does something. Walter Payton's autobiography makes it clear that players have been using all types of shit for over 30 years, this is hardly news and the NFL needs to grow the fuck up.

I think they should just have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding drugs.

[ljkeane]

I think they should just have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding drugs.

I don't agree with that anyway in general but I think the NFL (and other full contact sports for that matter) with it's concussion issues really needs to have a strong policy on PEDs. Leaving aside all the other concerns letting players have an artificial short cut to getting bigger and faster probably isn't a good idea. At the very least I think they could do with getting in line with WADA penalties.

[Prince of the North]

Torn tricep, but your point remains, I agree that everybody does something. Walter Payton's autobiography makes it clear that players have been using all types of shit for over 30 years, this is hardly news and the NFL needs to grow the fuck up.

I think they should just have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding drugs.

Ah, thanks.  I had a fifty-fifty chance and I chose...poorly.

[Red Tiger]

I don't agree with that anyway in general but I think the NFL (and other full contact sports for that matter) with it's concussion issues really needs to have a strong policy on PEDs. Leaving aside all the other concerns letting players have an artificial short cut to getting bigger and faster probably isn't a good idea. At the very least I think they could do with getting in line with WADA penalties.

Yeah...no, if you have all these regulations you are not stopping the drug use, you are pushing them to find some new loopholes to trick the drug tests and all these doctors WILL find ways to have these athletes beat the tests.

The athlete who can not afford the high-end stuff will be at a huge disadvantage, while the players who make elite money will enjoy all the benefits.

Ah, thanks.  I had a fifty-fifty chance and I chose...poorly.

No problem

[ljkeane]

Yeah...no, if you have all these regulations you are not stopping the drug use, you are pushing them to find some new loopholes to trick the drug tests and all these doctors WILL find ways to have these athletes beat the tests.

By the standards of world sports the penalties in the NFL are very light so the fact that players are still doing it under this regime doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't be a deterrent if they were facing meaningful bans. On top of that, again, in a contact sport like American football it has an actual impact on safety so I don't think it's ok to just throw your hands up and ignore it. The NFL is probably the most profitable sports league on the planet, if they really want to buy better doctors than the players can afford they can.

[Red Tiger]

By the standards in world sports the penalties in the NFL are very light so the fact that players are still doing it under this regime doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't be a deterrent if they were facing meaningful bans, On top of that, again, in a contact sport like American football it has an actual impact on safety so I don't think it's ok to just throw your hands up and ignore it. The NFL is probably the most profitable sports league on the planet, if they really want to buy better doctors than the players can afford they can.

Yes, it does have an impact on safety, but on the field these players are concerned with their own safety and their own safety alone. If you're a running back who knows he only has about 6 years in the league and you are going up against juiced-up linebackers whose job it is to put you on the ground, you will only be concerned with yourself.

I don't ignore it at all, but your strict regime won't make nearly as big a difference as you think. What I mean by don't ask don't tell is, you know it is there, but you also know that if everybody is allowed to use, at least the lower-earning athlete won't be at too big a disadvantage.

[Joe Pesci]

Also, when do fines come out from the Steelers / Bengals game? Burfict is already suspended 3 games but I haven't heard anything about fines yet. I assume Friday?

Local sports radio was talking about this and said normally it's Wednesday but they have yet to hear anything though sometimes it happens on Friday. I'm thinking the totals will well exceed the December game.

[Joe Pesci]

I think you may be right and, if it's not St. Louis, it'll definitely be somewhere else.  I don't think it can be denied that it has been very good for the NFL over the years to have other markets with which to threaten current markets with moving teams.  Now, threatening to move teams places other than LA probably doesn't have the same teeth but still I think the threats will always remain.  It's too lucrative for the NFL not to.  Municipalities would be far less likely to cough up funds for new stadiums without the fear of losing their team.       

I was referring to the fact that in 20 years Antonio Cromartie will have enough kids of age to fill a team for St. Louis.

[Mexal]

Local sports radio was talking about this and said normally it's Wednesday but they have yet to hear anything though sometimes it happens on Friday. I'm thinking the totals will well exceed the December game.

I'm not sure. Depends if they fine Burfict in addition to him losing 3 game checks.