New Rule:
Any player testing positive for any steroid use shall:
1st offense - 4 game suspension without pay AND not be eligible for any post season awards AND will not be eligible to play should their team make the playoffs.
2nd offense - 1 year suspension without pay and a mandatory 25% contract reduction the following year.
3rd offense - banned, bye bye you're gone from the league.
Why is the league just giving lip service to the steroid issue. Let's get serious, make the penalties for the player as harsh as possible. Even consider penalizing the team then maybe the individual teams will get just as serious about the issue.
2006-12-27 17:55:52 · 9 answers · asked by ndmagicman 7 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
I agree with you completely that the league should step it up and crack down on steriods as soon as possible to avoid the circus that has plauged baseball. There is a problem with your 2nd offense punishment though, I don't think that the league has the power to reduce a player's contract, that is between the player and the team. Losing a full year's pay due to suspension is an adequate punishment anyway. Three strikes and you're out is a great rule, if somebody doesn't figure it out after losing a whole season then they deserve to get the boot.
2006-12-27 18:57:50 · answer #1 · answered by Answer Man 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The line between legal and illegal steroids/supplements are getting smaller and smaller. baseball is in a tough position, because even if Barry Bonds said he used steroids, they couldn't suspend him, because during those years Steroids weren't even banned in baseball. Which makes it hard for sports organizations, because you have to ban specific steroids, not just "steroids" in general. If people are creating new steroids, which is whawt BALCO did, then they have to know they exist before they can ban them. I'm in the opinion that they should be Dr regulated. I would rather see healthier players using them under Drs control then using them off the black market.
2006-12-27 22:00:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure about not letting them be in the playoffs, although make sure they ARE banned from the Pro Bowl. Clearly with the one year ban they would be out of the playoffs for the season and I think that is fair. Beyond that I totally agree.
2006-12-28 02:13:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No probably Penn VS Florian... See a number of those individuals on appropriate here complaining the UFC would not test sufficient. Or there are not any drugs in UFC. recover from it persons. you won't be able to be a expert athlete and compete on the optimal degree harm loose and do it with out scientific help which integrated drugs. each of those fighters that test detrimental for roids or distinctive banend supplies. nevertheless all have a lot of anti-inflamatories and soreness killers in them. I show and wrestle in Judo. I actually have a hyper stronger elbow suited now. that's a re-occuring harm. If my maximum serious furnish of gross sales was once suffering with and that i had to wrestle on an identical time as i used to be injured. i could robably be taking an excellent style of medicine and injections to adhere healthful and heal speedy.. part of the sport is to look how long you will get away with it. it somewhat is spoke of as cycling. you employ for a pair of weeks as much as 3 months or so then provide up for a pair of weeks to 3 months. and you may understand the way long it takes to sparkling out of your technique... Sherk in basic terms stopped in some unspecified time interior the destiny too late or was once unlucky this time... extra: For all of the fools who don't get it...sure it was once steroids. time-honored stages in athletes is 6 interior the avergage character that's 2-4. Sherk was once 12. sure Penn is suffering with for the easy weight belt he was once scheduled to wrestle Sherk interior the late fall early iciness. Now it say BJ Penn Vs TBA Franca was once posative for roids as good and once you scroll down interior the Sherk tale you could discover all of the postings of acknowledged fighters who established posative
2016-10-19 02:01:09 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
your rules are a bit harsh but even if they weren't the nflpa would never approve such stringent measures. as evidenced by merriman's election to the pro bowl, the public isn't as concerned about steroid use in football. it would take peyton manning testing positive to really rock public opinion.
2006-12-28 01:42:43 · answer #5 · answered by garion22 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think:
1st offense:
Get a slap on the wrist to the flavor of a fine equal to the pay of one year's games.
2nd offense:
Banned from the league.
There needs to be some sort of a safety net for those who just couldn't pass on poppy seed muffins on the day of their testing!
2006-12-27 19:12:43 · answer #6 · answered by Leafy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i don't think there should be rules against steroids. if they enhance a players performance more power to them.
2006-12-27 21:56:06 · answer #7 · answered by dmann 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There goes the NFL then.
2006-12-31 14:20:33 · answer #8 · answered by Kevin H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that seems pretty fair.
I totally agree with the leauge.
2006-12-27 18:12:44 · answer #9 · answered by bukowterpol 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋