Page 15 of 48 FirstFirst ... 511121314151617181925 ... LastLast
Results 169 to 180 of 575
  1. #169

    Re: Oh, geez, here it comes (dread)...



    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    That article from 2011 says that it was banned by the NFL.
    2 years from the 2012 season would have been 2010. We are still technically in the 2012 season.
    Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.




  2. #170
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,340

    Re: Oh, geez, here it comes (dread)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    Drew on WNST says that the IGF-1 stuff wasn't illegal 2 years ago.

    That may help explain no failed tests.
    Or it's possible that the claim deer antler contains IGF - 1 is complete bullshit, which I think is more likely.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  3. #171
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,860
    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    Ray Lewis should sue SI.
    For what?

    That's the last thing he should do, especially if the story is true.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  4. #172

    Re: Oh, geez, here it comes (dread)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    2 years from the 2012 season would have been 2010. We are still technically in the 2012 season.
    OK, well, that's 2 seasons ago, not 2 years ago. Regardless as of January of 2011 (2 years ago), the article said it was banned. They generally don't make decisions on what is banned and what isn't during the season, since it requires NFLPA agreement, so I'm going to say I'm fairly certain that - if that Jan. 2011 article is accurate - it was banned during the 2010 season as well.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  5. #173

    Re: Oh, geez, here it comes (dread)...

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Or it's possible that the claim deer antler contains IGF - 1 is complete bullshit, which I think is more likely.
    Now that may be something...I just read an article from early 2011 and basically it sounds like a LOT of players were taking it #1, to the extent that the league, not the NFLPA, but the league took it upon itself to tell players to stop associating themselves with the product...and #2 nobody knew at the time if it actually contained IGF-1, and #3 I'm not sure they could detect it with tests...at least the article says it's really hard to test for.

    Check it out.

    The NFL has sent letters to several players ordering them to cut ties with S.W.A.T.S., the company at the center of sports’ latest performance-enhancing substance controversy, ThePostGame.com has learned.

    “We recently sent letters to players who may have had an affiliation with the company which is now claiming its products include a banned substance,” wrote NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy in an email to ThePostGame.com. “We are investigating the matter, as we have been for awhile now."

    A relationship between S.W.A.T.S. owner Mitch Ross (pictured below) and several NFL players and coaches was first revealed in a Jan. 19 story on ThePostGame.com. One of the S.W.A.T.S. products, called “The Ultimate Spray,” is promoted by the company as containing deer antler velvet and IGF-1, short for Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1. IGF-1 is banned by the NFL and other major sports leagues as well as the Olympics.

    “You use HGH in part to help stimulate IGF-1, which helps aid in recovery and the building of lean muscle mass,” said Travis Tygart, the CEO of the United States Anti-Doping Agency. “A lot of athletes want to go to IGF-1 directly to get the benefit.”

    On Jan. 14, the league ordered Raiders coach Hue Jackson to sever ties with S.W.A.T.S., saying that coaches were not allowed to endorse supplements. Now the league wants players to disassociate themselves from S.W.A.T.S.

    “Despite the company’s claims, it is not clear at all that the product actually contains IGF-1,” McCarthy wrote. “The fact that the company is claiming that its product contains a banned substance is enough to preclude players from associating with the company.”

    S.W.A.T.S. is also getting the attention of a consumer watchdog group in Washington, D.C.

    “We wrote to the FDA last year [about S.W.A.T.S.],” said Steve Mister, President and CEO of the Council for Responsible Nutrition. “We got a response on Nov. 8. They said they would review it. I spoke at a public conference last Thursday morning. I said if the FDA had acted quicker, they might have saved [Hue Jackson] some embarrassment. We were disappointed the FDA didn’t act quicker.”

    Reached by phone Wednesday, FDA spokesperson Siobhan DeLancey said: “For these products, marketed as supplements but potentially containing anabolic steroids or analogs, we have to obtain the product and test the product. We have to prove it contains a steroid or analog before we take action.”

    DeLancey said no action has been taken against S.W.A.T.S.

    IGF-1 is difficult to test for, according to Jonathan Danaceau, lab director at the Sports Medicine Research and Testing Lab, which is approved by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

    “Detecting it is a challenge and we’re currently working on a program to do that,” he said.

    NSF International, a company that does testing for the NFL, has never been asked to test for IGF-1, according to spokesperson Kelly Nichols.

    “In order to do so, we’d need to first develop a test method,” she wrote in an email to ThePostGame.com. “This takes approximately 20-30 business days and includes conducting the first test.”

    Gary Wadler was chairman on the WADA committee that decided to ban IGF-1.

    “This is an area that needs to be addressed,” he said. “IGF-1 poses many of the similar challenges as HGH, but it hasn’t received the attention. There is a commercial form of IGF-1, and I’m curious why that hasn’t made it into doping.”

    As of Wednesday afternoon, more than a dozen NFL players are credited with online testimonials for S.W.A.T.S. products, including a holographic chip touted as increasing an athlete’s energy. Bengals defensive back Roy Williams, who told ThePostGame.com he has used the Ultimate Spray, is pictured on the S.W.A.T.S. site.

    Testimonials credited to Ray Lewis and Jackson have been removed from the site, according to Ross.
    Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.




  6. #174

    Re: Oh, geez, here it comes (dread)...

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    For what?

    That's the last thing he should do, especially if the story is true.
    I'm certainly not convicting Ray of this and I have a lot of doubts, but the extent that some are just acting like it's not a possibility at all even though both parties acknowledged that they spoke after his injury and Ray received a package from them is crazy.

    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    OK, well, that's 2 seasons ago, not 2 years ago. Regardless as of January of 2011 (2 years ago), the article said it was banned. They generally don't make decisions on what is banned and what isn't during the season, since it requires NFLPA agreement, so I'm going to say I'm fairly certain - if that Jan. 2011 article is accurate - that it was banned during the 2010 season as well.
    Makes sense...gotcha.
    Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.




  7. #175

    Re: Oh, geez, here it comes (dread)...

    Quote Originally Posted by outlander512 View Post
    While I agree with your overall point. It should be noted, that it would actually be two hours earlier in Dallas. Not two hours later.
    Meant 2 hours earlier. What is the dude doing in his office on a SUNDAY?...plus, he has all his video/audio tape stuff ready on top of it? Reeks bs.




  8. #176

    Re: Oh, geez, here it comes (dread)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    2 years from the 2012 season would have been 2010. We are still technically in the 2012 season.
    I thought you were wiser than this to buy into this BS.




  9. #177

    Re: Oh, geez, here it comes (dread)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    Makes sense...gotcha.
    BTW, the article you just posted is the one that I posted above and was the one I was quoting from!
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  10. #178

    Re: Oh, geez, here it comes (dread)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Boulderraven View Post
    I thought you were wiser than this to buy into this BS.
    It certainly isn't BS IMHO.

    Is it all true? Don't know. But it's not all BS.
    Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.




  11. #179

    Re: Oh, geez, here it comes (dread)...

    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    BTW, the article you just posted is the one that I posted above and was the one I was quoting from!
    Just realized that.

    I did notice something in there though that would possibly explain the drug tests...the agency the NFL uses to test for banned substances hadn't even been asked to test for the IGF-1 stuff at the time of the article.
    Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.




  12. #180

    Re: Oh, geez, here it comes (dread)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    Now that may be something...I just read an article from early 2011 and basically it sounds like a LOT of players were taking it #1, to the extent that the league, not the NFLPA, but the league took it upon itself to tell players to stop associating themselves with the product...and #2 nobody knew at the time if it actually contained IGF-1, and #3 I'm not sure they could detect it with tests...at least the article says it's really hard to test for.
    My guess - and purely a guess - is that if there is any IGF-1 in the substance, it's so minimal to not be detectable enough to trigger a positive result.

    Also, if this substance was such as to be banned by the NFL - and other sports leagues - what would be the strippers angle here? It's not like publicity about peddling a banned substance is really going to help sales. In fact, it would likely call into question his whole line of products.

    Or, perhaps, he's just a moron (which actually is probably the case either way).
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland