The Steroids Saga: What About Football??

The Baseball landscape changed forever after the Mitchell Report was released which exposed the names of several high profile stars. It was certainly a dark day in the sport, but it was something that probably had to be done to turn the corner and move forward. We can talk about false accusations or a lack of evidence, or throwing people under the bus, but it was for the greater good of the game. As many people like to say, the first step in solving your problem is admitting that you have one. The amazing, infallible National Football League has not done so, even though there is a much greater incentive to take steroids and HGH in football than in baseball. It's a slam dunk that taking steroids will improve your play in football, but it may not have the same affect in Baseball. But to think that the NFL is squeaky clean is laughable. Marwan Maalouf is an NFL analyst that I normally respect, but he seemed offended when I asked him about steroids in football:
"They test steroids and everything else more regularly in the NFL man."
They may test steroids regularly, but I don't know where he gets the 'everything else' from. The league does not test well enough for HGH, which means that players can freely take the stuff to strengthen themselves to get stronger or heal from injuries. Don't tell me that linemen looking for an edge won't take HGH, especially when contracts aren't guaranteed. And in a 16 game season, you'd be foolish not to think that players take HGH to heal faster, especially later in the season. Popular New England Patriots Safety Rodney Harrison tested positive for HGH, and it's probably safe to say that it's a much bigger problem in football than in baseball. If baseball players did HGH to heal faster, I'm sure that NFL'ers do the same thing.
"The HGH crap, save it for a doctor." Maalouf said.
George Mitchell's report blamed the owners, team executives, and the media for overlooking how big of a problem steroids was. If football's media members are like Maalouf, it seems like the NFL is going down the same road that baseball went on, casting a blind eye to the problem.
Everyone notices the media scrutiny that players like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Miguel Tejada are getting for being in this report, but not many people cared when star Chargers player Shawne Merriman tested positive for steroids.
"I remember a lot of outcries when Merriman got busted, especially from his peers and the pro bowl stuff last year."
Merriman played in the Pro Bowl last year even though he tested positive for 'roids. But an article last year by San Diego Union-Tribune columnist Tim Sullivan said that many of the Chargers' players and staff members openly joked about the suspension, not really taking it seriously at all:
"In the culture of the locker room, cruelty and comedy are sometimes synonymous. Yet the issue of steroids barely raises an eyebrow anymore, much less a laugh, and seems almost as passé as Hester Prynne's scarlet letter. It is more often the subject of lame jokes than value judgments in the NFL. It is treated almost as an inconvenience instead of an infraction...Depending on your level of cynicism, it says either that the NFL drug policy is an effective deterrent for young players who might be susceptible to temptation or that NFL cheating is too easy and too prevalent to be effectively policed. "
Too easy? Too prevelant? That sounded like baseball before they got dragged in front of Congress and were basically forces to get serious about the steroid problem. And the ironic thing is that the NFL was cited as the model for steroids testing at the time, and now the league has fallen behind baseball in my mind in terms of testing. But the NFL is really good at sweeping things under the rug, as Sullivan stated a year ago:
"The NFL is America's Teflon league, an enterprise of such surpassing popularity and skillful packaging that its dirty laundry seems more like lint. For all of their scandals this season...There is no backlash. There are no consequences."
So does this mean that the steroids situation is just as problematic in the NFL as it is in Major League Baseball? Maybe the NFL is just better at downplaying a problem better than baseball. Highly respected ESPN baseball analyst Jerry Crasnick was nice enough to shed some light on this situation, and it seems that his opinion is quite strong:
"Sprung, Don't get me started. I think it's ridiculous that the NFL gets such a pass. In fact, the presence of so many 350-pound behemoths dying young is way more of a health threat than steroids in baseball. It's not a health issue -- It's a matter of managing PR, and the NFL is much better than baseball at that."
So all these things that have been said here in this piece has led me to believe that the performance enhancing in football is just as bad as it is in baseball if not worse, it's just that the giant power that the NFL is just does a better job of sweeping it under the rug. So why is football getting such a free pass, like Crasnick said. It will come a time where steroids becomes a major issue in football, but it's rediculous that the steroids saga does not involve football as well. Hopefully this changes soon.