HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Nazarov: 99% of enforcers use steroids

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-18-2006, 03:22 PM
  #76
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussi View Post
And talking about steroids is kind of pointless since Nazarov implied that enforcers used them mostly. And how many enforcers have played at Worlds or Olympics?
Exactly!! I would not be surprised if many (if not most) enforcers took steroids. What I am saying is that they are by far and away in the minority and that, until their is proof to the contrary, there is no serious problem with steroids in hockey.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 03:25 PM
  #77
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Exactly!! I would not be surprised if many (if not most) enforcers took steroids. What I am saying is that they are by far and away in the minority and that, until their is proof to the contrary, there is no serious problem with steroids in hockey.
My stance is this:

NHL has a drug problem, as proven by Nazarov. Whether the problem is minimal (i.e. limited to enforcers) or much bigger (many players take them) is open to discussion.

The scale of the problem won't be known until NHL gets it's *** out of of it's head. Until then we can say that there is a problem as a FACT if the basic assumption is that any amount of drugs is a problem.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 03:38 PM
  #78
Jussi
No strings on me
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 44,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempsey View Post
I could care less if players take steroids.
Yeah, who cares if they take stuff that may cause them to die younger than normally? Goddamnit, all I care is that they score goals/make hits for my team right now!


Last edited by Jussi: 07-18-2006 at 08:05 PM.
Jussi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 03:43 PM
  #79
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
No, I'm talking about what I spoken with people who have written books about this issue, not just your average bodybuilder. People with massive scientific & practical experience in this issue.
Oh, I see. So speaking with these people means much more than being taught by these people for four years? Gotcha.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Jesus christ, this can't be happening!! Where on EARTH have I said that those are NOT part of their training program??
You never said that these weren`t part of their training program you said "The objective of every hockey player with minimal exceptions is to have as little bodyfat as possible while maximizing the strength of your body" and it is simply not true. The objective of every hockey player is to improve as A HOCKEY PLAYER. Percent body fat is nothing but a statistic, VO2 max and lactic acid threshold have a direct and meaningful correlation with on-ice performance, body fat does not. Its pretty friggin simple. Hockey players train in the off season to become better hockey players, not simply to lower their percent body fat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
All I said is that having as little bodyfat as possible is important to players because it means you're carrying less 'useless' weight on the ice. Best way to decrease the amount of bodyfat WITHOUT eating musclemass is by using banned substances.

Do you NOW understand my point?
I understand your point perfectly. I know what you are saying, and it makes sense but it is really not as important as you make it out to be. Ask any exercise physiologist what is the best indicator of how "in shape" and athlete is and they will tell you to a man that it is VO2 max, not one will mention anything about body fat.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
You're missing the point. There's no such thing as 'optimal shape' that can be achieved during the off-season, you can ALWAYS be in better shape. And therein lies the point; with banned substances you get better results than without. A FACT.
Of course you can always be in better shape, but there is a limit to how good of a hockey player you can become. You can keep on adding muscle, you can keep on trimming fat, you can keep on increasing your aerobic capacity, but all that only has a positive effect of your game up to a certain level, and then your on-ice performance either plateaus or, in the case of too much muscle mass, declines. This level of physical fitness can be attained (though it is harder) through natural means within the time frame of an off-season.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 03:50 PM
  #80
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
My stance is this:

NHL has a drug problem, as proven by Nazarov. Whether the problem is minimal (i.e. limited to enforcers) or much bigger (many players take them) is open to discussion.

The scale of the problem won't be known until NHL gets it's *** out of of it's head. Until then we can say that there is a problem as a FACT if the basic assumption is that any amount of drugs is a problem.
Finally, a reasonable post and I agree. I believe the NHL has to improve their testing procedures and I think they will. There are only two points on which we differ. First, to me, Nazorov has proven nothing. What he said was nothing but gossip and has no facts whatsoever to back it up. Second, you seem to be ready to paint all NHLers with the same brush simply because you believe it would be "easier" for them to improve in the offseason by taking steroids. I, on the other hand, disagree and think that the health risks and penalties associated with taking steroids far outweighs the benefits they would give in the context of an off-season.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2006, 01:18 AM
  #81
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Oh, I see. So speaking with these people means much more than being taught by these people for four years? Gotcha.
I'm willing to bet that none of the guys that taught had so much credentials but since it's turning in to a pissing match, I let that go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
You never said that these weren`t part of their training program you said "The objective of every hockey player with minimal exceptions is to have as little bodyfat as possible while maximizing the strength of your body" and it is simply not true.
You're taking that out of the context there, I was only talking about those two areas (strength gain, bodyfat-%). Of course VO2 max is important as well but I didn't compare the 2 previously mentioned areas' importance to it in any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
The objective of every hockey player is to improve as A HOCKEY PLAYER. Percent body fat is nothing but a statistic, VO2 max and lactic acid threshold have a direct and meaningful correlation with on-ice performance, body fat does not. Its pretty friggin simple. Hockey players train in the off season to become better hockey players, not simply to lower their percent body fat.
Bodyfat has a direct effect on on-ice-performance, it's a fact. If you take 2 identical players, one has a bodyfat of 20% while the other has a bodyfat of 10%, the one with higher bodyfat carries more weight on the ice which causes him to tire more easily.

It IS frigging simple but I don't think you're getting the point here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Of course you can always be in better shape, but there is a limit to how good of a hockey player you can become. You can keep on adding muscle, you can keep on trimming fat, you can keep on increasing your aerobic capacity, but all that only has a positive effect of your game up to a certain level, and then your on-ice performance either plateaus or, in the case of too much muscle mass, declines. This level of physical fitness can be attained (though it is harder) through natural means within the time frame of an off-season.
There is a limit of how good of a hockey player you can become and your fitness is one very important factor in it. Better shape will ALWAYS result a better hockey player (ceteris paribus), you can work harder, you have more energy in the end, you skate faster etc. There's is no such point where extra fitness won't help you.

And you're totally wrong in the last sentence. You can always get better results when using banned substances so using them will always give you an advantage over a person who trains naturally. The level of physical fitness can be improved all the time and it will help your game. Of course it's a case of diminishing returns but an advantage anyway.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2006, 01:20 AM
  #82
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Finally, a reasonable post and I agree. I believe the NHL has to improve their testing procedures and I think they will. There are only two points on which we differ. First, to me, Nazorov has proven nothing. What he said was nothing but gossip and has no facts whatsoever to back it up. Second, you seem to be ready to paint all NHLers with the same brush simply because you believe it would be "easier" for them to improve in the offseason by taking steroids. I, on the other hand, disagree and think that the health risks and penalties associated with taking steroids far outweighs the benefits they would give in the context of an off-season.
Well Nazarov's comments are just one in the long line of comments we have heard from players, there's just too many of them to dismiss them as 'gossip'.

But in the end we agree that any number of 'roids in the NHL means NHL has a problem which needs to be investigated further.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2006, 01:37 AM
  #83
Dempsey
Registered User
 
Dempsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussi View Post
Yeah, who cares if they take stuff that may cause them to die younger than normally? Goddamnit, all I care is that they score goals/make hits for my team right now!
Settle down. I'm not telling them to take steroids, or hoping that they do for that matter.

Dempsey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2006, 02:46 AM
  #84
SopelFan*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richard Park
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,239
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to SopelFan*
I think someone close to Pepper has a roid-rage issue...

SopelFan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2006, 04:15 AM
  #85
Brad*
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 13,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempsey View Post
I could care less if players take steroids.
Me either, to be honest. It's their body. I just find it funny that people are naive enough to think NHL players don't use them.

Brad* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2006, 06:54 AM
  #86
octopi
Registered User
 
octopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 30,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad View Post
Me either, to be honest. It's their body. I just find it funny that people are naive enough to think NHL players don't use them.
I'm so jaded I think all the current players use them

octopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 09:34 AM
  #87
Myke
Registered User
 
Myke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,836
vCash: 500
Nazarov says the enforcers use these steroids to beef up. Could they just be using creatine to beef up and he saw that as steroid use? (I am going on the assumption that creatine isn't a banned substance btw)

Myke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 02:12 PM
  #88
KL*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,022
vCash: 500
Phewww... Thank goodness the canes don't have an enforcer.... One advange to that, I guess

KL* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2006, 06:30 AM
  #89
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myke View Post
Nazarov says the enforcers use these steroids to beef up. Could they just be using creatine to beef up and he saw that as steroid use? (I am going on the assumption that creatine isn't a banned substance btw)
Creatine is not banned and is not going to beef you up.

Creatine is used to allow better recovery from training and while some other banned stuff does that as well, creatine is nowhere near the same level in terms of health hazards.

I used to take creatine but I found out it didn't really help me and only resulted extra fluids in my body and small rise in my body temperature (slight fever in other words).

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2006, 08:01 AM
  #90
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,720
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
What the hell would Nazarov know about enforcing?

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2006, 03:41 PM
  #91
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Creatine is not banned and is not going to beef you up.

Creatine is used to allow better recovery from training and while some other banned stuff does that as well, creatine is nowhere near the same level in terms of health hazards.

I used to take creatine but I found out it didn't really help me and only resulted extra fluids in my body and small rise in my body temperature (slight fever in other words).
Well, this post makes me feel a little better knowing that you really don`t know as much as you pretend to on the subject of supplements. Creatine has nothing to do with the recovery from training. Creatine increases the Creatine Phosphate system, which basically delays the production of lactic acid allowing you to lift more before your muscles become exhausted. The added work will lead to more muscle gains. Nothing to do with recovery. I guess the authors, that you seem to know so well, failed to explain how creatine works.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2006, 01:51 AM
  #92
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
5) Pound made the claim that 'he believes up to 1/3 of NHLers use banned substances'. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest he's wrong, NHL's ridiculous testing results fool only the naivest fanboys.
...Thus the onus is on him to prove it. Dick Pound took a shot in the dark. Plain and simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
They test for the masking agents too. If i`m not mistaken, the substance found in
Theodore`s sample was a masking agent.
This is true, but the Propecia was also prescribed to Jose Theodore by his doctor.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
My stance is this:

NHL has a drug problem, as proven by Nazarov. Whether the problem is minimal (i.e. limited to enforcers) or much bigger (many players take them) is open to discussion.
I would hesitate to take Nazarov's words completely to heart. Here's a guy who can't find a job in the NHL because he's simply a poor hockey player. For all we know, he can be speaking out of sheer bitterness.

If he is right, and most enforcers have taken steroids, the enforcer role is on the way out of the game anyway. Its effect on the sport is slim to nil now, and it would have been a few years ago as the steroids would have been taken to help lay a bigger beating on whoever they square up to fight with, not play hockey.

As for Dick Pound's crusade on anything to help you get a boost before a game (Red Bull, etc.), he can go to hell. The nature of the game of hockey, unlike baseball with homeruns, does not allow one player to put himself head and shoulders above the rest by taking performance enhancing substances, be they steroids or Sudafed an hour before puckdrop. If anything, Dick Pound should express concern for the players' long term health because of these products as they really have a minimal effect on the game's record books.

In the end, these are professional athletes on multi-million dollar contracts. The owners invest money in these players. If they want to take a greenie before a game, go right ****ing ahead. This isn't the Olympics (speaking generally ...obviously national team candidates need to be clean for Olympic play involving NHLers) where athletes depend on small government grants to train every day to represent their country as amateurs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Myke View Post
Nazarov says the enforcers use these steroids to beef up. Could they just be using creatine to beef up and he saw that as steroid use? (I am going on the assumption that creatine isn't a banned substance btw)
If NHL enforcers are on creating, they're plenty ****ing stupid. It doesn't "beef yo up", it simply makes your muscles retain more water, which only makes them appear bigger than they really are.


I'll leave you with this...

Barry Bonds taking steroids makes his hits stronger and the ball travel farther. This is a huge problem.

What the **** would Wayne Gretzky have done if he was on steroids? The answer? Not much different, if at all, from what he accomplished using nothing.

BCCHL inactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2006, 05:14 AM
  #93
Laus723
Future Now
 
Laus723's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 27,138
vCash: 500
I'm just glad Laus got to pund on him while he played, his licks are already in.

__________________
So you're saying there's a chance!
Laus723 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2006, 05:32 AM
  #94
Jeremy2020
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 1,598
vCash: 500
If he's an Enforcer...and he's witnessed 99% of the enforcers taking steroids...isn't that basically all him? I mean how many teams keep multiple "enforcers"? So what's he saying is he's used steroids...and since he has accounted for 99% of the enforcer role on his teams, 99% of the league uses steroids.

I'm sure there are hockey players taking a lot of drugs, but this reeks of grand standing. You want credibility on something like this...do it before no team will sign you and you "retire"

Jeremy2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2006, 05:42 AM
  #95
GuloGulo
Registered User
 
GuloGulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: trunkofacamaro
Country: Bahrain
Posts: 3,713
vCash: 500
Aaah so now Nazarov is a crook and liar because he's out of the league?

I love it. Bush mentality that villifies anyone who doesn't go with the "code".

GuloGulo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2006, 05:57 AM
  #96
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Well, this post makes me feel a little better knowing that you really don`t know as much as you pretend to on the subject of supplements. Creatine has nothing to do with the recovery from training. Creatine increases the Creatine Phosphate system, which basically delays the production of lactic acid allowing you to lift more before your muscles become exhausted. The added work will lead to more muscle gains. Nothing to do with recovery. I guess the authors, that you seem to know so well, failed to explain how creatine works.
Again, it's completely obvious to everyone that you have ZERO experience with weight & muscle training.

One of the most important things creatine gives you is the improved recovery rate.

Look it up.

The fact that you have zero clue about the effects of creatine makes me wonder if your story about studying the subject is complete bogus.


Last edited by Pepper: 07-27-2006 at 06:09 AM.
Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2006, 06:08 AM
  #97
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
...Thus the onus is on him to prove it. Dick Pound took a shot in the dark. Plain and simple..
He doesn't have to prove anything. Pay attention to words "believes" and "up to".

He can't be proven wrong and he can't prove himself right because NHL doesn't allow him to test the players.

If NHL is so gung-ho about Pound being wrong, why don't they allow him to make say 3 random tests to each player during off and on-season? If NHL is so sure about Pound being wrong, they shouldn't have any problem doing this right?

You're so god damn naive Van. When you get older you'll see things more clearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
This is true, but the Propecia was also prescribed to Jose Theodore by his doctor.
So?? That changes absolutely nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
I would hesitate to take Nazarov's words completely to heart. Here's a guy who can't find a job in the NHL because he's simply a poor hockey player. For all we know, he can be speaking out of sheer bitterness.
lmao, a bitter guy who has made millions in the NHL??

sorry but that's just plain ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
If he is right, and most enforcers have taken steroids, the enforcer role is on the way out of the game anyway. Its effect on the sport is slim to nil now, and it would have been a few years ago as the steroids would have been taken to help lay a bigger beating on whoever they square up to fight with, not play hockey.
Steroid problem doesn't affect the role of an enforcer in anyway, you're just using this to support your anti-enforcers crusade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
If anything, Dick Pound should express concern for the players' long term health because of these products as they really have a minimal effect on the game's record books.
Doh, that's exactly what he's doing (not just NHL players but juniors as well!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
What the **** would Wayne Gretzky have done if he was on steroids? The answer? Not much different, if at all, from what he accomplished using nothing.
Again, pure ignorant speculation from your part. More stamina - longer shifts - more icetime - more chances to bury the puck. More strength - harder shots.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2006, 08:30 AM
  #98
brazidee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Country: United States
Posts: 253
vCash: 500
the NHL, like most N. American sports, likes to go into denial about doping.

brazidee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2006, 09:06 AM
  #99
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazidee View Post
the NHL, like most N. American sports, likes to go into denial about doping.
Exactly!

They tell Dick Pound "prove your claims" but when Dick Pound wants to do it by telling NHL to adapt a real testing system, NHL goes in to sulk mode.

Does that sound like a sport which has nothing to hide?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2006, 09:32 AM
  #100
Jussi
No strings on me
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 44,504
vCash: 500
The article was in a Finnish paper yesterday. Nazarov said that the other players also used banned substances, mainly stimulants. He also said that on one was caught in tests (except Berard and Theodore for whatever reasons), because the players were notified of the test day 3-4 months ahead by the teams GM or their agent. The players would then stop using the substances 6-8 weeks before the test. I'm assuming he refers to NHL's own tests.

If this was mentioned in the thread earlier forgive me for not checking but I didn't have the time to read it through again 'coz, you know, I like, have a life.

Jussi is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:10 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.