Skip to main content

Even if Peyton Manning did HGH, so what?

Denver Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning has come under recent scrutiny after Al Jazeera America aired a documentary, The Dark Side, which insinuated the veteran quarterback may have taken HGH in 2011 when he was recovering from multiple neck surgeries. Investigative reporter Deborah Davies has since said the documentary never claimed to have proof the quarterback took HGH, only that HGH was delivered by Guyer Institute to Ashley Manning (Peyton's wife) in Florida on multiple occasions. My question is, even if Peyton Manning did take HGH while attempting to recover from injury, why should it matter?

PEDs (performance-enhancing drugs) have been bastardized in the sports world, and rightly so if athletes use them to gain an unfair advantage on their competition (on the field/court/etc.). However, why, if an athlete and his/her doctor feel HGH (or another PED) will help speed up the recovery from an injury, is it also looked down upon? It would have been one thing if Peyton Manning had used a PED while healthy during the season of play. It's quite another for him to use HGH to try and recover more quickly from multiple neck surgeries. Shouldn't this be more between an athlete and his/her doctor than an athlete and the moral sports police? If Peyton Manning were to be caught using PEDs while actively playing football, I'd think less of his career. However, if Peyton Manning were to be caught using a PED while trying to recover from an injury, and especially at the age of 35, I'd think no less of him as a player and honestly don't think anyone else should either. Trying to recover from an injury in order to participate in a sport is far different than trying to garner a significant advantage while playing that sport.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/broncos/2015/12/29/peyton-manning-hgh-al-jazeera-america-reporter-defends-documentary/78016904/

https://parkerhedrick1.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/using-peds-for-injury-recovery/

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