moochman wrote:There are two questions I have.
1) Why would a football player use a diuretic? As part of a weight loss regimen is it worse than useless, it is dangerous for football players who always battle cramping. Cramping comes from low potassium levels and dehydration. Diuretics dehydrate and deplete potassium. So that makes no sense. I must be missing something.
2)Why aren't these players immediately suspended until cleared with a thorough investigation? There is no innocence until proven guilty in the NFL, only conduct becoming of an Goodellian model player. Steriods are banned and should be given more than lip service. Use of a diuretic as an masking agent should also be banned as it posed a threat to the health of users. Immediate suspension would send the message that the league really does want to crack down on steriod use and that it really cares about the well-being of it's players.
1) Diplomats and LS2 pretty much covered this one. They primarily use it as a masking agent for other banned substances. And, not to promote a stereotype, but if a player is out of shape and fears losing their spot, common sense doesn't always play a factor in their decisions.
2) In the simplest sense, this is not the American way. In all aspects, you should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Combine that with the laundry list of "regulations and stipulations" the NFLPA has managed to tie into the testing procedure, and the NFL always wants to be more than certain before issuing a suspension because they don't want to lose the inevitable appeal on a technicality. I think it was the THenry case where he was appealing simply based on the fact that a random employee who was to watch him physically take the test was in fact not random. And, if I am not mistaken, the first positive result doesn't result in a suspension. But a second sample, which was taken at the same time, is then tested and if that second sample also tests positive, then a suspension is handed out. And in every case you will most likely see an appeal. Many players and teams realize that the suspension, once issued, is inevitable and by appealing the decision, the team and player can control, to a certain point, the timing of the suspension. For example, if we were between week 12 and week 13, you wouldn't be seeing the appeals by any team looking like a lock for the playoffs because the player and the team would rather take the suspension now to allow the player to be back in time for the playoffs, assuming the normal 4 game suspension.
I covered in question 2 the whole masking agent properties of diuretics. My point is that why would the NFL now have already banned that substance since it serves no healthy purpose for a player? This multi-billion doller enterprise is amazingly loosely run. Again the question of why being that steroid and masking agents aren't as big a talking point as morality and non-recreational drug use.
The NFL, smack, doesn't act as if it is that concerned about being certain as much as they are about the appearance of young men gone wild. Pacman was suspended long before he was convicted of anything. Just clubbing should not be enough to ruin a player's career. But this is off point. The issue is that these players were using a drug that has only one serviceable use-to mask banned substances. So why isn't it already on the banned list. The league is being lazy. You would think that a league that doesn't hesitate to punish players wouldn't miss out on such a clear cut crime. But again, steroids don't scare the old men, so why bother.