Skip to main content

Ray Lewis deer-antler spray controversy

There have been rumors and allegations that current Baltimore Ravens and future Hall-of-Fame linebacker Ray Lewis used deer-antler spray to heal more quickly from an injury. There have been mixed reports on whether or not the spray contains a substance which has been banned by the NFL. 

I guess my question is this. Please keep in mind I'm not pro- nor anti-Baltimore Ravens (or Ray Lewis). Year in and year out around this time of year, the only things I really pull for with regard to the Super Bowl are great commercials and a great game. Okay, now, I completely understand why it should be illegal for players of any sport to use a list of banned substances which may give them an unfair advantage when they're actually playing. However, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me for these substances to be illegal if these players are injured and simply trying to recover more quickly. I know people whom have been prescribed steroids, because the doctors believed it would quicken the recovery process. They then weren't tested at their workplaces and fired due to consuming a banned substance which would have allowed for them to be fully productive at work more quickly. What sense would that make? So, why are these substances, which are banned by leagues, not allowed when players are injured and just trying to get back to work more quickly? It'd be better for the league, when star players are injured, for them to get back out and playing as soon as possible. 

In my opinion, whether or not Ray Lewis used the deer-antler spray while he was hampered with an injury and trying to quicken the recovery, I don't think the guy should be punished for it. I'd say that about any player. If they're actively participating in a sport and consume an illegal substance which lends them an advantage, then they should be suspended. However, if they're injured and just trying to get back to work faster, I don't see a problem with it. They should start being smart alecks and have their doctors write notes for these prescriptions to the league commissioners. 

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...
2 comments
Read more

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...
2 comments
Read more