Why are steroids only seen as a baseball problem?
 

How come whenever Fred Taylor keeps having groin injuries people don't stop and say "whoamg roids"?

Etc, etc, so forth.

Obviously it's a marketing standpoint, but is that all? Do football fans not really care as much?

Re: Why are steroids only seen as a baseball problem?
 

i thought it was b/c football had tougher testing. or something like that.

then again, i don't hear a lot about griffey being juiced, and he has a bunch of leg injuries of that sort.

Re: Why are steroids only seen as a baseball problem?
 

b/c football actually tests for steroids, and baseball (until recently) didnt care about them

Re: Why are steroids only seen as a baseball problem?
 

obvious answer: the NFL has had a respected steroid testing program for 2 decades while baseball hasn't. Furthermore, reports concerinng baseballs' initial steroid testing (pre-implementation of the plan) indicated baseball did have a widespread steroid use/abuse problem (10-15% allegedly tested positive) and guys like canseco and caminitti haven't helped baseball's name. Most people probably have forgotten about lyle alzado and view tony mandarich's career as a confimation that the NFL really tests for steroids.

Re: Why are steroids only seen as a baseball problem?
 

so people actually believe in the efficacy of the nfl steroid testing program?

people look at barry bonds and say "but look at his head!" why doesn't anybody do the same for ray lewis?

Re: Why are steroids only seen as a baseball problem?
 

I think it's probably beyond "they didn't have a program in place" sort of responses. Not that this is not part of the issue, but it's not the only reason.

Baseball statistics and records matter and are much more relevant than those of any other sport because we have this need to compare eras. Piling up the numbers under false pretenses has clouded the judgement of players over the past decade and will continute to do so. I think the confusion over how these players compare to their predecessors leads to dismay over their methods.

Re: Why are steroids only seen as a baseball problem?
 

Because in the NFL we don't see the progression from not roided to roided.

In baseball, guys like Bonds and Sosa come up as rail-thin speedsters and in five or ten years become completely jacked with enormous heads. For the most part, NFL players look that way anyway, so it's just not as obvious.

Re: Why are steroids only seen as a baseball problem?
 

[ QUOTE ]
so people actually believe in the efficacy of the nfl steroid testing program?

people look at barry bonds and say "but look at his head!" why doesn't anybody do the same for ray lewis?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously its because Ray Lewis has been tested multiple times every year since he came into the league. The NFL policy isn't foolproof, but compared to baseball its prettey damned good.

Re: Why are steroids only seen as a baseball problem?
 

[ QUOTE ]
so people actually believe in the efficacy of the nfl steroid testing program?


[/ QUOTE ]

but you only had to watch a few seconds of any press conference to see how much baseball had their heads in the sand, compared to that, football looks like geniuses.

Re: Why are steroids only seen as a baseball problem?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do football fans not really care as much?


[/ QUOTE ]

Its just relative is all. When your leg is gangrenous a hangnail isn't high on your list of priorities.