RayNAustin wrote:I don't think half of the comments here display an iota of understanding of the point.
So let's break it down right here, skip the shrill overreactions, and get to the point. To the best of anybody's knowledge, Santana Moss has not only a) not been suspended, but also b) not been referred for additional PED testing scrutiny over and above the 10 random players weekly standard. So this fear about the jackboots coming out is at least a little premature.
One, there is no evidence of wrong doing on Moss's part...
Knowingly false. Per what's been reported of the witness statements linked to Moss, he paid money (including travel expensese) to receive treatment from a doctor not licensed to practice medicine in the US, and knowingly received Actovegin, a non-FDA-approved (i.e. illegal) drug as part of those treatments. These things are, again, illegal. Please note of course that this is just what's been publicly reported in conjunction with the indictment and should in no way be considered an exhaustive representation of any evidence of Moss' PED use.
and two .. the use of HGH in healing an injury is not at all even close to using steroids or other substances for the purpose of enhancing physical performance. So the issue is not so clear cut.
Except that it is clear cut. The NFL, the IOC, and the NCAA all ban HGH as an anabolic agent. Look at it this way. Every single post-training period is injury recovery. It's why steroids make you stronger--not because of some magic that makes your muscles get bigger, but because you heal faster and can train harder. To wit: performance enhancement.
There is NO EVIDENCE that he took HGH, nor even if he did, there is no evidence that he knew it was HGH when or if the Doctor administered it.
See point 2. Unless you have access to a) the indictment, b) the NFL Security investigation files, and c) the eventual court transcripts, then what you're saying is "I haven't seen any evidence." Which is a pretty paltry standard.
Maybe this is too freaking complex for some of you to understand .... but be careful about how much you LOVE the Gestapo ... because the Gestapo don't love you .. except when you're being so compliant and useful.
In a word: what? Please to explain the applicability of a fascist parallel to... and let's not forget this here, a voluntary, informed, and collectively-bargained commercial relationship between two private entities. Hint: the constitution, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," the Gestapo, and any of the other strawmen contained in the posts above have nothing to do with it. One of the core roles of EVERYBODY's idea of a functioning government (even the anarcho-capitalists) is backstopping the sanctity of private contracts. Arguing against that is basically arguing against society. It's really profoundly simple.
. So I love this guy Santana Moss, but anwyways..
