Ha! It's Back! RealJohnBoy's A2K NFL "Pick-Um" Game!

But ed--if taking performance enhancing drugs is cheating, which I don't think it is btw, then the two wins of the Texans were unsportingly and illegally obtained and you should volunteer to have two points knocked off your correct predictions and two added to your incorrect ones.

They beat the Colts by 10 in Week 1 and the Redskins by 3 (in OT) in Week 2. It is reasonable to put both wins down to the drugs.

The England football captain Rio Ferdinand was suspended for 8 months (a season) for avoiding a drugs test. No proof he had taken anything.

What are "approved products" and how are they identified? The game itself has risks. If risk is a consideration the game should be abolished.

It seems to me that this whole business of approved and non-approved substances is nothing but an excuse to add another layer to the bureaucracy of people who like bossing others and thus to increase ticket prices for those who pay to see enhanced performance. Are any of the bureaucrats taking substances?

Your suggestion might approach reasonable if we knew 100% that there were no cheaters on the opposing teams.

We assume innocence until proof is provided ed. Remember the 11th commandment.

You couldn't determine levels of theft or adultery solely on the basis of the numbers caught.

Every player could be tested.

And labs are working overtime to find new substances which enhance performance but are not yet detectable. And they are good at it. And the demand is real because otherwise they wouldn't invest in it.

The whole business is an ever expanding industry for well paid bureaucrats which the fans pay for in ticket prices.

La la la - In the meantime there is a real situation on the ground.

But it isn't real ed. It's rigged.

Isn't training itself performance enhancing. If two teams came on the pitch who had all finished a week's work late Friday afternoon the game would still take place. In fact in the lower leagues that happens.

It was a regular occurence in the club I used to frequent that when somebody made a 50 0r more break at snooker they were accused of having a secret practice table at home. That they were cheating in other words.

That was real enough.

Yes yes. Go on.

The top players are working men. Their job is to put eyes on adverts. They are sandwich-board men like those in Ulysses who each carried a letter and when they stood in the correct formation they spelled HEALYS. Or HEALY'S.

Like all other matters involving men and money it is fiendishly complex. The movie Chariots of Fire took a poke at training. It saved everybody's face that the runner training under a coach after he was beaten was Jewish and the poke could be labelled anti-semitic. Which is an obvious non sequitur.

Why should sportsmen be banned from taking substances that other working men take to improve their performances? If ever something is unconstitutional I think that is.

Does anyone else understand this rant?

I think he's saying that the NFL's substance abuse policy is slipshod when compared to the English soccer leagues, that practicing snooker is cheating, and that all working men -- be they Jewish or not -- ought to be able to eat sandwiches without fear of reprisal.

Wow! I'm impresed. Ever think about getting a translator's job at the United Nations?

The only thing I understand is that once again our Limey has hijacked a fun thread full of camaraderie and friendly banter and turned it into a soapbox for his hysterical and obscure rantings.

In all the years I have been associated with this thread; first running it and then enjoying jrb's expert guidance, I have never seen such a sore loser and what's worse, sore winner.

And it's not like we haven't sent kudos his way. I know I have congratulated him many times for his win last year. But that's not enough. In the last few pages he has suggested edgar give up his 2 wins because the Texans had a man using steroids and he has started his campaign to belittle Cyclo and Tico and anyone else who might give him a run for his money.

This is bad form. Certainly not the fair play taught on the fields of Eton. The gracious winner, the gracious loser; all are missing in post after post.

I had a belly full of it last year and lost interest, and it's only the second week and I've had a belly full already.

This is a public forum and no one can be or should be excluded from its threads, within reason. But I'll be damned if I'm going to sit through another football season with a megalomaniac shoving his diatribes down my throat in order to prove his "cleverness".

Get your **** together pal.

methinks you take him a mite too seriously, panz...

(think of a frilly blouse when you read it...like Jerry's pirate shirt)

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Sadly, I must admit to having a (lesser) problem with this behavior particularly, I object to carrying over political harangues from other A2K threads, calling people out and that 'sore winner/sore-loser' behavior is not something that's AT ALL entertaining to me. It's not in the spirit of fun and friendliness that's been the history here and I would think seriously about my future participation. I've spoken/written of this same issue in private at the end of last NFL season.

I could over-simplify the issue by advising use of the ignore function; however, because of the nature and extent of the issue, it might not be so useful. We are a group of affable people who are playing for the sport and fun. I would NOT want to see anyone fall out - nor would I want to drive someone away who might be able to reform the objectionable behavior.
Perhaps this behavior can be curtailed? And might the political harangues that follow from other treads be curtailed? This is (and was) a rant-free
zone. Shall we continue in that tradition?

I'm not upset by spendi's diatribes/rants in the least. He can be, at times, like a silly blouse, and he's at least that dangerous. Before we had the wonderful little "ignore" option at this site, we were forced to manually ignore folks that rankled us. My suggestion, for those who do not enjoy playing with spendi -- and I mean in the sense that a cat plays with its food -- is just ignore him.

Just to clarify one point. I won't put spendius on ignore because I sometimes enjoy his posts on the religion and evolution threads.

I'm just asking him as ragman did, to leave that stuff out of this NFL football thread and be a little more gracious. Sort of take a clue from edgar who's self-deprecating humour is so endearing.

Pan, I'm totally with you on this.

I'm glad that not too many people 'quote' him anymore when responding.

This thread is supposed to be where we take a break from every other thread.
As an example, I get along with several people on this thread, yet on the other threads we are involved in we disagree about everything.

Spendius hasnt learned how to do that yet, but given time and a little guidance he might.

San Francisco
NY Giants
Pittsburgh
Minnesota
New Orleans (picked with serious reservations)
Baltimore
New England
Cincinnati
Houston
Washington
Philadelphia
San Diego
Arizona
Indianapolis
Miami
Chicago 24-21

Johnboy's Picks:
KC
Tenn
TBay
Minn
New Orleans (no hesitation
Balt
NE
Cin
Houston! (It would be cool to see the Cowboys get off to an o-3 start)
Wash
Jax
Seattle (no confidence)
AZ
Indy
Miami
GB (27-20)