Terry Bradshaw steroid admission?

[Oz]

Given how the "average" Pittsburgh fan is being painted by others, I'm probably going to steer clear of this thread from here on out. Nevermind that those "average" thoughts in mock conversions don't come close to representing my own.

It's gotten ugly, and it's certainly not Steelers fans providing the ugliness.

Because Pittsburgh fans are just so far above this.

This Pittsburgh fan is.

 

[Armchair_QB]

While we're on the subject, where the **** does the term "Yinzer" come from?

 

[mastermind84]

interesting development... altho this isnt new news, no?

 

[outofplace]

So, to get back on point......
TB can admit to cheating to enhance his performance intentionally, basically reveal that the Steelers were all jacked and no one says one thing about the legitimacy of their titles?
I smell bull feces.

Well, at least they didn't have steroid users and coaches breaking videotaping rules.
Edit: Let's try going beyond the snark there.
What you really want to know is why is this different from Spygate. And from your first post in this thread, you are obviously arguing that it is not.
There are many reasons that it is different. One I already mentioned. The Patriots have had steroid users as well. If you are really going to try to suggest that Rodney Harrison was the only one, stop reading here because you just aren't going to listen to reason.
This is also old news. The accusations of steroid use have been made against the Steelers of the '70s since the '70s. We already knew Mike Webster used. Steve Courson admitted it. As Smasher pointed out above, Jim Clack admitted it.
More importantly, the Steelers of the '70s have no impact on the current game. Their time is long past. The Patriots still have at least one steroid user who was caught on their roster. They still have the same head coach and many of the players from their most recent Super Bowl and they got busted for something they were still doing this past season. Regardless of the impact of the cheating, the cheaters are stil ACTIVE.
The NFL also botched Spygate and made it worse by destroying evidence. If you act like you are covering something up, people are going to assume that the rule-breaking went beyond what has become public knowledge. Otherwise, why bother to cover it up?
One more difference is steroid use simply isn't as big of a deal to fans of the NFL as it is in baseball. It is illogical, but it's true.
These two situations are dramatically different no matter how much you wish it was otherwise.

Ok, you want some discussion, here it is….

First, this is going to sound like a Pats fanboi rant, and believe me, it’s not.
Rodney Harrison used HGH, not steroids. To me, they’re both performance enhancers. To the NFL, there must be some sort of difference because though Harrison, to my knowledge, was never proven to have taken it prior to his admittance of guilt, he was still served a four-game suspension.
Do I think Harrison is the only one? **** no. In fact, I think that a vast majority of players do. Does that mean that it should be ignored or that it makes it better? No.
And that’s why I take offense to your line about this being old news in Pittsburgh’s case. Here we have THE QUARTERBACK, a Hall of Famer mind you, admitting he did it. Can you tell me this doesn’t call Bradshaw’s accomplishments into question? And by extension, those of his team?
Bradshaw’s admission, by your count, makes at least FOUR players from that team guilty. Regardless of the fact that they are out of the game, they’re accomplishments are still in the record books. I find it hilarious that the people who want to brand an asterisk on Bond’s record—deservedly or not—have no problem ignoring this little thing when it’s against a team as popular as the ‘70’s Steelers.
Yes, they have no impact on today’s game. But why is that different than people calling the Pats first three titles into question? When they were accused, Belichick came out and admitted it. He said he didn’t think anything was wrong with what he did. Bradshaw is doing the same thing with this admission, but I’ve yet to hear someone question his rings, question his Super Bowl wins.
Belichick admits to “misinterpreting” the rules and everyone cries foul. No one here has yet to utter a peer about this. Don’t believe me? Compare this thread to the ones on Spygate and tell me the attitude is the same with these board members. And this one board is just a small, small, small percentage of the average sports fan.
Belichick cheated---admitted it—took the heat—and people questioned his wins.
Bradshaw cheated—admitted it—took little to no heat—and people say it’s different.
Yes, the Patriots “cheaters” are still ACTIVE. Does that mean it should carry more significance? What if these allegations didn’t come out this year and only surfaced in 10 years? 20? What does time have to do with punishing someone? Does finding out years later about something change what happened?
If you believe the Pats should be punished because their principle components of said scandal are still around, why not punish the Steelers who are still involved in the game? Why not bar them from NFL functions?
Now, yes, I’ll admit the NFL botched Spygate by destroying evidence, but who the hell do we think we are as fans that we deserve to see it in the first place?
If Microsoft catches an employee breaking its rules, it’s not released on ABC News. If GM has an employee break its rules, the evidence isn’t printed in USA TODAY.
The NFL is a private entity and, as such, has a right to govern itself. And don’t feed me the “exemption” bull****. Congress should have no interest in this privately run league when it comes to said league disciplining its employees for breaking rules.
Now, you said why bother covering it up?
Well, to Goodell, what he uncovered obviously wasn’t important enough to warrant a full-blown year suspension for Belichick, but had he released said tapes, given the amount of anti-Patriots sentiment there is out there, fans may have gone ape**** over what was on the tapes, even if it was minor.
This is different than steroids. Steroids give players a competitive advantage that can be seen on every run play, every pass, ever defensive stand.
For Spygate, as we’re led to believe, the only advantage the Pats had was knowing what signals and maybe what formations were going to be called.
If you’ve ever played football, you know that just knowing what play is coming next doesn’t mean you can play it any better.
And really, what more of an advantage do coaches get out of knowing signals when they already spend weeks studying formations, tendencies and scouting their opponents anyway? Even if it’s fourth and one from the goal line and you know a team is running a QB sneak, even if you’ve got confirmation, you still have to stop it.
With performance-enhancers, you have athletes more likely to have the ability to stop said play. These rule-breakers are directly giving a team a leg up over their opponents.
As for the difference between steroid use in the MLB and NFL and fan reactions, I agree the difference is illogical. But, to me, it has more to do with the vastly differences levels of popularity. Roger Goodell can come out tomorrow and say that Michael Vick “may have killed some dogs, but he’s got a great arm, yo” and the country would still be torn as to whether to love or hate him. If Selig even mentioned that Barry Bonds “has talent”, he’d get roasted on every channel up and down the dial.
So, in closing, my basic point is this….if you can sit there and say that the Pats had an advantage in using videotaped signals, how can you say that the Steelers didn’t have an advantage by having players that doped up? Both make you more likely to stop a play, both make you more likely to score a TD (supposedly), so why is one different than the other?
And if you agree that both give an advantage to users, why then is it OK for people to question one coach and one team’s accomplishments, screaming and crying for an asterisk in the meanwhile, while it’s OK to say that the other team’s titles are legit simply because they happened longer ago?

First of all, the stuff about Bonds is irrelevant. Mostly because the only person here insisting that Steelers fans think the accomplishments of Barry Bonds should be wiped from the record books is Zag, who hates Steelers fans.

I do not know a single Steelers fan who is dismissing the steroid use by the team in the '70s but insists on Bonds being erased from the game. Not one. I'm not saying they don't exist. But that contradiction is not nearly as common as you or Zag would like to believe.

The effectiveness of the cheating is also irrelevant. It is cheating. Period.

That said, your suggestion that knowing what play the other team is going to run doesn't help is beyond ridiculous. Players still have to execute, but knowing what the other team will do makes a very big difference.

And no, it is not fair to say that what Goodell uncovered "obviously wasn't important enough to warrant a full-blown year suspension for Belichick." It is in the league's best interest to minimize this as much as possible because it calls the fairness of the games into question. It is also possible that those tapes were far more incriminating than we will ever know, but the league protected its own interest by covering it up. The problem is we will never know and that creates suspicion.

I am not saying any cheating by the Steelers in the '70s is less important than cheating by the Patriots now. But it absolutely makes sense that the reaction is going to be far less drastic to something done 30 years ago by players whose careers are long over than something done last season by coaches who are still active.

I did have one thing wrong, which substance Harrison used. To me, it really doesn't matter which one it was, but I did have that fact incorrect in my post.

Bradshaw's position is irrelevant. He was one among many Hall of Famers on that team. It is still very old news that the Steelers of the '70s had steroids users on the team, another reason for the muted reaction.

And Belichick's claim about "misinterpreting" the rule is a joke. It is a joke because the NFL clarified the rule before the 2007 season. Coach Hoodie is a lot of things. Stupid is not one of them. Nobody with any sense believes that he misunderstood the rules.

The different attitudes regarding the use of performance-enhancing drugs in football and baseball goes beyond popularity. The NFL is far from bulletproof and there is no way Goodell could get away with supporting Michael Vick in any way.

But I do appreciate your willingness to discuss rather than take more potshots.

 

[outofplace]

While we're on the subject, where the **** does the term "Yinzer" come from?

People from certain parts of Pittsburgh use the word "yinz" the same way somebody from some parts of the South use "y'all." These people are referred to as yinzers.

 

[cranberry]

While we're on the subject, where the **** does the term "Yinzer" come from?

People from certain parts of Pittsburgh use the word "yinz" the same way somebody from some parts of the South use "y'all." These people are referred to as yinzers.

I believe these people were found when someone flew a plane over their neighborhood a couple weeks ago.