HGH testing...

[easyk83]

Then why on earth would he be pushing for HGH testing himself? I call nonsense.

Why do people with cocaine in the trunk of their car willingly agree to let police search their car? It does happen.

 

[JBlood]

The real problem with HGH is that there have been no longterm studies done on its true effects on otherwise normal people. It may well be that use of it has increased injury--there are animal studies that suggest that to be the case. So the epidemic of soft tissue injuries (hamstrings, biceps tendon, pectoral tendon, patellar tendon, etc) may actually decrease with stopping its use.

 

[GoPGo]

Why do people with cocaine in the trunk of their car willingly agree to let police search their car? It does happen.

Are you kidding me? The correct analogy would be someone with cocaine in their trunk actively flagging down a cop and ASKING him to search his car.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Matthews has dropped some weight in the last couple years. To my eye, he looks closer to 240 lbs. than his listed 255 lbs.

Maybe he was using and now he isn't. It's impossible to say.

Or consider that the "bloodline" suggests he's capable of 6'3", 245 lb. proportions and it's hardly unprecedented for a guy to grow into his body between ages 18 and 22 without pharmaceutical assistance.

As for the cop analogy, I'm not sure which is more apt. Did Matthews go to a reporter with unsolicited quotes on the matter? That would suggest he's not using. However, if a reporter asked for his thoughts on the subject, denials mean nothing. We've seen a parade of baseball players offer baldfaced lies to congressional committees and grand juries, let alone reporters.

I take the stance of "innocent until proven guilty" with respect to individual cases while thinking that in the aggregate it would be naive to think there is not a high percentage of use in the league.

 

[TJV]

We've seen a parade of baseball players offer baldfaced lies to congressional committees and grand juries, let alone reporters.

Case in point: Look at the lengths Ryan Braun went to deny reality.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Case in point: Look at the lengths Ryan Braun went to deny reality.

...much to Aaron Rodgers' chagrin.

Or how about Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmiero, Mark McGuire, the original A-Rod, etc. Sammy Sosa gets the Golden Three-Fer Award...PED usage, lying about it to Congress, and using corked bats. Braun lied to the press and the public...many of these other guys lied under oath. At least McGuire came clean and offered mea culpas after the fact.

There's a choice...make the admission and end one's world as one knows it (particularly the paychecks coming to a screeching halt) or keep lying hoping it goes away. It's not a hard choice for most cheaters.

 

[jaybadger82]

Why do people with cocaine in the trunk of their car willingly agree to let police search their car? It does happen.

Answer: These people don't know their rights. A police officer asks to take a look in the trunk and they mistakenly believe they must cooperate. That's a difficult analogy.

On a sidenote, if the police request entry or ask permission to search, they probably lack authority to do so without your consent. I recommend politely denying any such requests, regardless of whether you have something to hide. Exercise your rights.

The real problem with HGH is that there have been no longterm studies done on its true effects on otherwise normal people. It may well be that use of it has increased injury--there are animal studies that suggest that to be the case. So the epidemic of soft tissue injuries (hamstrings, biceps tendon, pectoral tendon, patellar tendon, etc) may actually decrease with stopping its use.

Plus, theoretically, the players won't be quite so big and fast when they're knocking the snot out of each other.

We've seen a parade of baseball players offer baldfaced lies to congressional committees and grand juries, let alone reporters.

I take the stance of "innocent until proven guilty" with respect to individual cases while thinking that in the aggregate it would be naive to think there is not a high percentage of use in the league.

The Congressional entanglement in these professional sports issues is such a joke. Hey Congress, pass a ****ing budget.

Sage perspective at the end there, HRE.

 

[easyk83]

Are you kidding me? The correct analogy would be someone with cocaine in their trunk actively flagging down a cop and ASKING him to search his car.

Answer: These people don't know their rights. A police officer asks to take a look in the trunk and they mistakenly believe they must cooperate. That's a difficult analogy.

On a sidenote, if the police request entry or ask permission to search, they probably lack authority to do so without your consent. I recommend politely denying any such requests, regardless of whether you have something to hide. Exercise your rights.



Plus, theoretically, the players won't be quite so big and fast when they're knocking the snot out of each other.



The Congressional entanglement in these professional sports issues is such a joke. Hey Congress, pass a ******* budget.

Sage perspective at the end there, HRE.

People are still apt to allow such a search even when they do know their right of refusal. Trust me I learned all about this back during my intro to substantive criminal class way back during my 1L year. Sometimes the subject believes that a display of bravado or confidence will dissuade or even deflect suspicion. Perhaps Clay is an honest player relying solely on God given talent or perhaps he really is using PEDs and is only trying to remove himself from active suspicion.

 

[jaybadger82]

Well, I'm not sure what you learned in class but my perspective is informed by a few years spent actually defending indigent people in criminal court.

Not sure whether Clay has juiced in the past or is juicing now, but starting from such an uncertain conclusion in order to analogize/explain his comments seems like an exercise in stupidity. Here's an idea: let's stop talking about this like one our defensive stars is on HGH until there's some actual evidence. (-This is why I have Hobbyist on ignore.)

 

[JBlood]

I assume players use HGH because it has been legal, and there are anecdotal cases where it gives players an advantage. Why would players not use it in that circumstance? Now it is illegal, and that is good for the players, and even good for the game.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Obviously these things are circumstantial...

Yes, they are.

And to say coming out in favor of testing in some way insulates a player has no merit. When they pull Matthews name out of the hat, do you think they'll say, "Oh, we'll skip Clay this time...he's a good guy." Or that a positive test would be buried? That's a pile of conspiracy as reward for a couple of off hand comments in the media. That argument does not hold water.

 

[GoPGo]

Let me be clear. I am not saying that Matthews is for sure 100% on PED's. I'm simply stating that this is what I suspect, and I have lots of reasons for it.

And yet you offer none.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yes, it is conspiracy, but I think there has been plenty of reason to be skeptical of sports leagues over the years, and those that operate within it. Wouldn't you agree that it would be quite the conspiracy for the NFL to bury concussion information, to fire doctors for saying the truth about concussions, and to pay researchers to get the results they want? Wouldn't it even be more of a conspiracy when players aren't covered long-term under insurance, and many of them were killing themselves and their family? Yes, that would be quite the conspiracy. It would also happen to be true.

Many players have gotten around positive tests. There are many ways to do it. Some things couldn't be found, fake urine samples, connections to labs, bribes, etc. We've seen it all in professional sports. There have also been questions about how random these tests really are. Is it coincidence that Wes Welker was caught right after he was handing out hundreds? Is it coincidence that once the NFL found one Seattle player on illegal substances they happened to randomly test the other CB's? I think it is much less of a conspiracy theory to think that a player could be on something illegal and getting away with it then the conspiracy theory around the concussion issue, which we know happened.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that Matthews is for sure 100% on PED's. I'm simply stating that this is what I suspect, and I have lots of reasons for it. And just because something is circumstantial doesn't mean that it isn't evidence or it is wrong. I understand that people will protect Matthews because he's a Packer, but I'm more interested in what is likely to be true. I don't think we'd be seeing these same objections to protect players on certain other teams.

I'm fully aware that the NFL has a history of sweeping problems under the rug. Note in my second post on this subject the proviso, "If the NFL and the union play it straight and don't water it down...."

The issue at hand is whether the league would conspire to protect Matthews in particular because he made public comments supporting HGH testing. That's an awfully thin basis for thinking the league would single him out for favored treatment.

This is a joint union/league initiative, however the union fought it until the league sweetened the deal by agreeing to reduce penalties for drug use. If theories about conspiracies targeted at specific players are your bag, you might as well take the next step in over-thinking this by considering that the union might be gunning for him by going against the party line. I would not take such a step.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Actually, that's not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is about whether Matthews is using/has used HGH/PED's.

Sigh.....

 

[GoPGo]

Sigh all you want, but I keep giving my points of evidence to add merit and you simply say no with no counter. My argument stands with plenty of merit. But to repeat some of the points yet again, here we go (and you're going to have to say more than no next time or I'm done):
1) It's been reported in the past that Matthews has come up with a positive test in the past, although he was never punished for it.

That's not evidence. That's SPECULATION. BTW, how about a link to the report you reference? And reported by WHOM, exactly? You?

2) Many USC NFL players from when Matthews played there, possibly even most, have come up with positive tests, such as Rey Mauluga and Brian Cushing.

Yet Matthews hasn't. But because some of his former teammates tested positive, his own test results are meaningless. Is that your logic? Guilt by association?

3) The NFL has a history of burying issues for stars, most recently the Ray Rice situation, to protect teams and players.

I see, so they want to protect Matthews, but not Wes Welker and others. Gotcha.

And this is just 1 possible explanation for why Matthews could be getting away with HGH/PED use, which is the actual point that you are avoiding. It's easier to be a Matthews protector when you fixate on this conspiracy theory, because that's easier to defend than all of the other evidence pointing directly at him using HGH/PED's.

Now I've provided a lot. It's your turn to actually refute some things instead of sighing and providing absolutely 0 counter-points.

None of what you mentioned is evidence against Matthews in any way. Pure speculation and not worthy of a prolonged response.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Sigh all you want, but I keep giving my points of evidence to add merit and you simply say no with no counter. My argument stands with plenty of merit. But to repeat some of the points yet again, here we go (and you're going to have to say more than no next time or I'm done):
1) It's been reported in the past that Matthews has come up with a positive test in the past, although he was never punished for it.
2) Many USC NFL players from when Matthews played there, possibly even most, have come up with positive tests, such as Rey Mauluga and Brian Cushing.
3) The NFL has a history of burying issues for stars, most recently the Ray Rice situation, to protect teams and players.

And this is just 1 possible explanation for why Matthews could be getting away with HGH/PED use, which is the actual point that you are avoiding. It's easier to be a Matthews protector when you fixate on this conspiracy theory, because that's easier to defend than all of the other evidence pointing directly at him using HGH/PED's.

Now I've provided a lot. It's your turn to actually refute some things instead of sighing and providing absolutely 0 counter-points.

You went on about NFL conspiracies then claimed that was not the subject at hand. It was sigh-worthy.

 

[GoPGo]

It's speculation to say that Rey Maualuga and Brian Cushing were caught? Get real. That's a fact, not speculation.

It it does nothing to suggest that Clay did too. THAT is the speculation, obviously.

You are obviously very confused about what I am saying, and what actual evidence is. To say that someone did something because of the people they know is the guilt by association fallacy. That's not what I said. To say that the possibility of someone doing something is greater because of the people they know does not qualify as that logical fallacy. Who do you think is more likely to use PED's: Someone who has never been around the stuff or someone who has been around the stuff?

I'm not going to play into the false dichotomy you have tried to set up here. The fact remains that Cushing + Maualuga positive for 'roids does NOT = Matthews using 'roids. And if you want to make a claim that them using makes it more likely that Clay used them, I'll point out that the vast majority of their teammates did not test positive for them either.

Who reported Clay Matthews tested positive? There were all kinds of articles about it. If you did a quick Google search you easily could have found it. Here is one of many: http://www.ninersnation.com/2009/4/3/821808/update-on-clay-matthews-brian

http://www.ninersnation.com/2009/4/3/821808/update-on-clay-matthews-brian

You call that a source? You supply an article by some blogger who quotes another website that ALSO does not supply a source other than "various sources, including one NFL team." The only ACTUAL source completely refutes the claim you're so desperately trying to propogate here.

As for your 3rd point, I find it interesting that you use Wes Welker as an example speaking that he just got off of his suspension. Big surprise.

And the problem with that is...what, pray tell?

 

[GoPGo]

I noticed that you shied away from actually addressing my points multiple times now. You tried to claim that one of many possible options I listed as a way that Matthews could be getting away with using HGH/PED's was saying was a conspiracy theory.

"Could" Matthews be on 'roids? Sure! So "could" Rodgers. Or Lacy. Or Shields. Or Hoculi. Do you have a point in all of this nonsense? Shouting at the top of your lungs about how something "could" be true does not make it any more likely that it is true.

 

[GoPGo]

As for asking about sources (btw, just because someone doesn't have a source doesn't mean they are wrong, which is a logical fallacy people on this board love to employ), here is one article I suggest reading: http://www.firstaid4sport.co.uk/Hamstring-Tendonitis-Ainjury_hamstringtendonitis/

Matthews doesn't have hamstring tendonitis. He has a history of hamstring STRAINs. And the article mentions NOTHING about it being as a result of steroid use.

Now combine that with this article: http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20050316/why-steroids-are-bad-for-you

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20050316/why-steroids-are-bad-for-you

Again, nothing there to back your contention that a history of hamstring pulls is any kind of indicator of 'roid use.

The article states this as a side effect of anabolic steroids: "ruptured tendons"

And when did Matthews ever rupture a tendon? I know Robert Francois did, but I've need seen anything stating that Matthews ever has.

Now I have fielded your emotionally-charged counters, and I expect you to back up your points with sources. To expect me to use sources and not yourself is holding my argument to a higher standard than your own, which is a fallacy in logic.

Oh, it's a "fallacy in logic" is it? Since you're such an expert in fallacies, what fallacy would that be, exactly?

Here's the crux of the matter. The burden of proof is on the person making the contention, which would be YOU.

Essentially, you're making a claim that you CANNOT prove and instead of proving your claim, you're declaring it to be true unless someone else proves the negative. Doesn't work that way.

 

[GoPGo]

EDIT: And sure, the vast majority of his teammates didn't get caught, but the vast majority of them didn't make the NFL. Of the ones that did make the NFL, many of them were caught being on roids or some sort of masking agent.

And yet, Matthews never was.

I'm not going to play this source game with you, and I notice you haven't given any sources yet.

And what, exactly do you want a source for? I don't think I've made any kind of claims.

And it has nothing to do with a "power trip." It has to do with nobody going to take your word for fact just because you type it on a forum.

 

[GoPGo]

You made a claim about the injury history of Matthews's hamstring and what the details are about it, yet you provided no source, just as an example.

The only thing I said about his hamstrings is that there is NO SOURCE indicating that he ever ruptured a tendon. So what the hell do you want, some kind of source verifying that he hasn't had one? Should I find a source that verifies he hasn't had a hysterectomy too?

By the way, what is your explanation for why Clay is completely ripped and Casey is such a scrub? Just curious.

OMG you're right! Clay IS on steroids! There can be no other explanation!

EDIT: I just want to throw out that OJ Simpson was "Not Guilty".

Relevance to the subject at hand?

 

[GoPGo]

And you seem to be implying that because Matthews never tested positive that means he was never on anything. More faulty logic.

And you say that Clay must be taking steroids simply because he has a couple former teammates who did. How perfectly logical!

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Lets keep it civil please gentlemen. People are entitled to express an opinion, even if you disagree with it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

....you are going to continue to try to clutter up the issue because you have no legitimate counterpoints to what I said. I'm not interested in that type of conversation. Sorry.

You cluttered up the issue, not me.

Your conspiracy logic that extends the "protection" afforded Ray Rice to Clay Matthews if he happens to fail a drug test is faulty.

The NFL does not care about Ray Rice per se; the NFL cares about how this newly-mainstream issue that blossomed into a 24/7/14 day squawkathon news cycle impacts the league vis a vis sponsorships and (female) viewership. It would seem the NFL office tried to sweep it under the rug, but to think it had anything to do with Rice the person is far fetched.

On the other hand, many Pro Bowl-caliber players have been suspended for drug usage over quite some period of time. The league seems quite comfortable doing so since it has not impacted viewership, sponsorship or revenue. There's no reason to believe the league would favor Matthews in their enforcement over Von Miller, Josh Gordon and Wes Welker, to name a few recent high profile suspensions that leap to mind.

As far as I'm concerned, every player is a suspect when it comes to use of performance enhancing drugs. We might as well single out the kickers for our speculations; they have increased both distance and accuracy so markedly over the last decade or two while baseball players debunked the myth that steroid usage could not enhance quick-twich muscle performance.

Guilt, however, must be demonstrated. The rest is conjecture, speculation and noise.