Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from kman2004. Show kman2004's posts

    Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    It seems a new player from the Steelers dies every month from their abuse of Steroid use in the 70's. From past coaches and testimony the Steelers teams of the 70's abused Steroids more than any other team in the league.
    Why bring this up now? Well the Steelers lay claim to owning the most Championships and are quick to point to Spygate, having influence in New England's SB wins
     
    There are now allegations of wide spread HGH use on the 2008 Steelers team.

    My question to you, Should any of the Steelers Super bowl Wins be viewed in a tainted light? 


    http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/06/23/terry-bradshaw-says-he-used-steroids/

     

    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_462321.html

     

    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_328813.html

     

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=3831956

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Let's give it a rest! This is not like MacGwire's record, which is an individual stat. Football is a team game, and regardless of any little infractions (actually, the roids weren't even illegal back in the 70s), you need to be pretty damn good to win a title. Just as the supposed videotapes weren't the difference between winning and losing, neither is a couple players who are juicing. There is a lot more involved in winning a Lombardi than just strength. Steroids didn't help Lynn Swann make those acrobatic catches, nor did tapes help Adam Viniateri kick those winning FGs, or help Willie Mac make all those clutch plays in the postseason. I can understand the concern over hitting HRs in baseball, but the Steelers were clearly the best team in those years when they won their titles in the 70s. Even last year, though they were in a lot of tight games, they came through in the clutch and pulled them out...right down to the SB. It's only the "sour grapes" crowd who talks of tainting and asterisks. Pittsburgh had some excellent teams, just like NE did in this decade. I'd rather just give them their due than sink to the level of the haters who simply love to whine because their own teams do not measure up!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from kman2004. Show kman2004's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    If a whole team uses illegal substances it has an influence over the win. Even I as a Patriot's fan can't say how much impact spygate had on New England's SB wins, but it surely had some influence even if it was only a very small impact. Why else would they go the trouble to do it?
     
    If  60-70% of the player's on a team are taking performance-enhancing drugs, it impacts the outcome of the game. Does it have a 15% impact?, 20% impact... who knows, But it definitely has an impact on the game.

    The poll says, are their actions worthy of tainting their title. It does not say that their title should be rescinded. Did their actions have an unfair impact on the outcome of the game?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Add "asterisk"s to the list of things I am officially sick of.

    It's enough already.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    I think if their fans are going to try and rub our nose in spygate till the end of time why not give it right back to them.


    I have not heard anything about this HGH scandel as of yet but I will say that I have been saying for months now that i thought James Harrison of the Steelers was juicing last year. So I am not surprised what so ever that there would eb a HGH scandel.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    Add "asterisk"s to the list of things I am officially sick of. It's enough already.
    Posted by prairiemike


    I'll second that! All this is only bickering back and forth. I'd say the Steelers win in SB 40 was more "tainted" than any when they were supposedly juicing...aside from the fact that it wasn't prohibited and the Cowboys, Rams, and Vikings could have used them, also. But that was no fault of the Steelers, the refs seemed to have been drunk during that game. Although Pittsburgh would have won without their help, IMO. I'm tired of all the "throwing stones", you take whatever advantages you can get. Still, there are 11 guys who have to go out and perform as a unit. Like I stated earlier, it takes a whole lot more than physical strength to win a championship.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    I think if their fans are going to try and rub our nose in spygate till the end of time why not give it right back to them.


    While I can understand this, still, the BS has to stop somewhere. This only perpetuates the animosity. I choose to be the "bigger man" and not get into a BS slinging contest. The Steelers are a good team. But they still have yet to win a championship where they had to go through the Patriots first!!!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wizardsjag. Show Wizardsjag's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    The refs did take a lot of the fun out of Super Bowl 40, even last year's Super Bowl would have been interesting seeing Warner throw a couple bombs into the end zone and see if Fitzgerald or Boldin could come down with it in the final seconds.


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    The most telling IMO is this:

    "There is no explanation," said Joe Gordon, a Steelers executive from 1969 through '98. "We just shake our heads and ask why."

    The numbers are startling. Of the NFL players from the 1970s and '80s who have died since 2000, more than one in five -- 16 of 77 -- were Steelers.



    Indifference in the brass compounded by ignorance. 
    Face it, football is loaded with those who get loaded up.

    I talked with a kid here who said his high school team was '40% using'. He said, that they would also use Vicodin to play with reckless abandon too. Cant feel hurt if you cant feel nothin'.


    steelers are a paper tiger 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from theplaintruth. Show theplaintruth's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    PED's have existed in some for or another since the days that predate the "gladiators" in the coliseum.  Whether it were some concoction cooked up by the village doctor or master of apothecary arts, they've existed and have been utilized to enable contest participants to perform. 
    It has been pervasive in nearly every sport.  It has only been "selectively" pointed out when it is convenient to do so.  Bygone era's of baseball, football, hockey etc... (but especially baseball), had sanctioned drug use.  From painkillers to amphetamines, they were gobbled up in the name of commerce.  It is now and has always been about the $$$$$.  Players were told (coerced) that if they couldn't play due to injury, they'd be replaced.  Their choice, "shoot up" and play.  The fact that fans and media alike are all over Bonds, McGuire, Selig, and other players of this era is laughable.  Players of the Babe Ruth era, constantly abused amphetamines to assist with the rigors of a long season (double headers, extensive travel).  Even in golf, they used to use high blood pressure medications to ease the yips. They used anti-anxiety drugs to help them deal with the pressure.  You don't know about it because it wasn't reported upon or you chose not to know. 
    Let's really look at this from another perspective.  Every supplement, medication, drug that is used to treat an athlete, injured or otherwise, is "performance enhancing".  From Tylenol, thru OxyContin.  From Aspirin to Percodan.  They all serve the same purpose and the players, trainers, and team physicians who employ their usage all realize the same thing.  Without them, the players can't perform to the best of their capabilities.  Records are records and championships are championships.  We don't change the outcome to past blunders by officials in years past, so how do we now change anything.  If and when we do rewrite the books, begin with striking out every record in baseball prior to intergration and  Jackie Robinson.  How can any of that count when a significant portion of society was excluded from participation?  When you're ready to do that, then we could talk...

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Lets get the season started already!!!!!!!!! LoL

    go Pats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    PED's have existed in some for or another since the days that predate the "gladiators" in the coliseum.  Whether it were some concoction cooked up by the village doctor or master of apothecary arts, they've existed and have been utilized to enable contest participants to perform.  It has been pervasive in nearly every sport.  It has only been "selectively" pointed out when it is convenient to do so.  Bygone era's of baseball, football, hockey etc... (but especially baseball), had sanctioned drug use.  From painkillers to amphetamines, they were gobbled up in the name of commerce.  It is now and has always been about the $$$$$.  Players were told (coerced) that if they couldn't play due to injury, they'd be replaced.  Their choice, "shoot up" and play.  The fact that fans and media alike are all over Bonds, McGuire, Selig, and other players of this era is laughable.  Players of the Babe Ruth era, constantly abused amphetamines to assist with the rigors of a long season (double headers, extensive travel).  Even in golf, they used to use high blood pressure medications to ease the yips. They used anti-anxiety drugs to help them deal with the pressure.  You don't know about it because it wasn't reported upon or you chose not to know.  Let's really look at this from another perspective.  Every supplement, medication, drug that is used to treat an athlete, injured or otherwise, is "performance enhancing".  From Tylenol, thru OxyContin.  From Aspirin to Percodan.  They all serve the same purpose and the players, trainers, and team physicians who employ their usage all realize the same thing.  Without them, the players can't perform to the best of their capabilities.  Records are records and championships are championships.  We don't change the outcome to past blunders by officials in years past, so how do we now change anything.  If and when we do rewrite the books, begin with striking out every record in baseball prior to intergration and  Jackie Robinson.  How can any of that count when a significant portion of society was excluded from participation?  When you're ready to do that, then we could talk...
    Posted by theplaintruth


    You have a valid point. It's only since the explosion of media outlets that these "reports" and "allegations" have come to light. You cannot change the past. But if they really want to be fair about it, they should provide a full list of what is banned, and test everybody instead of doing it randomly, or only those with prior failures. In such a competitive environment, everyone is going to try and get whatever edge they feel they can.
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Anytime any poster refers to some "past" issue as grounds for tainting a TEAM and their championships basically does so out of a grudge or hatred against that team.  There are too many players involved, outside influences (weather & officials) nuances etc to a game of football, to say filming or juicing are wholly responsible for that team's success is ludicrous.  You do not hear it from the "pros" in the game and only hear it from pundits and fans.  Ask the players, except those who seem to act like fans with a grudge, if one small nuance like roids or filming can be the sole reason a team succeeded, thereby discounting all the efforts of the players on that team in general.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    I'm in the "let it rest" camp.  Yeah, the Steelers' fans may still bring up spygate, but just look at them as if they are idiots when they do.  Remember, if there were no idiots, there would be no smart people.  We'd all just be average.

    On a serious note, the Steelers have earned their right to be included in the short list of great franchises.  We shouldn't try to take away from that, even if their fans don't return the favor.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from clouts. Show clouts's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
      On a serious note, the Steelers have earned their right to be included in the short list of great franchises.  We shouldn't try to take away from that, even if their fans don't return the favor.
    Posted by carawaydj


    Here is one fan who will return the favor:  The Patriots have an excellent team are one of, if not the best, run franchise in sports.  The "Patriot Way" grates on me, but it works so kudos.

    As for tainted, I never bought into the spygate thing (nor do I buy into any * on anything, so my opinion may be biased).
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

         Give it a break! The last thing I want to sound like is those pansies who are still whining about "spygate". Sure, steroid use helped the Steelers in the 70s. But I refuse to believe that the Steelers were the only team doing roids.

         As someone previously stated, the Steelers win in SB 40 bothered me...but only because the referees gift-wrapped the game for them. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Wow - I had forgotten all about spygate.  Wonder what new tricks BB will have up his sleeve this year.  Thank you for reminding me of the NFL most decorated fraud.  At least now we have something to talk about. 

    Anyway - to answer your question - I don't recall the steelers being caught for this.  I suppose if you murdered someone and were never caught, it doesn't change the fact that you are still a murderer.  But then again, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make any noise?  

    Its good that we don't have to ponder these questions where Belichick is concerned.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Not getting caught in a lie is not the same thing as telling the truth.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jaxpat. Show jaxpat's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Hell ya they should be tainted.  If you are going to hold BB players accountable for using ped's before testing then why not hold the Steelers for their massive roid use in the 70's.

    Aside from that....it's also a proven fact a former Steeler team doctor acquired hugh amounts of HGH but he attributed it for private use by his regular patients.

    Why should they receive a free pass and all others are held accountable for every little issue.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    So if the steelers of the 70s are tainted and the 49ers of the 80s are tainted and the patriots of the 00's are tainted,

    Then teams of the decades might go something like this?

    70's - cowboys?
    80's - skins?
    90's - cowboys?
    00's - steelers?

    Man I hate the cowboys.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Harleyroadking111. Show Harleyroadking111's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    I don't think any of them are tainted, but I do think the Super Bowl versus Seattle was the worst refereed Super Bowl.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ricky1554atl. Show ricky1554atl's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    So if the steelers of the 70s are tainted and the 49ers of the 80s are tainted and the patriots of the 00's are tainted, Then teams of the decades might go something like this? 70's - cowboys? 80's - skins? 90's - cowboys? 00's - steelers? Man I hate the cowboys.
    Posted by underdogg


    Didn't Jimmy Johnson admit to the same taping that BB was doing? I thought I heard that. If so....take the "boys" off that list. While we're at it, I'm sure if we dug deep enough we could find something on the "skins". Enough of the tainted titles already.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wizardsjag. Show Wizardsjag's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    I don't think any of them are tainted, but I do think the Super Bowl versus Seattle was the worst refereed Super Bowl.
    Posted by Harleyroadking111


    Definately agree Harley, that call against the WR for interference was terrible and should have been a TD, some of the calls in the 2nd half even Michaels and Madden were saying W/T/F. Last seasons Super Bowl that fumble call at the end wasn't right. In a game of this magnitude at least sit down and review the play longer. For the fan it would have been more exciting seeing a couple Hail Mary's at the end. Super Bowl 40 would have also been more entertaining if they kept the calls more even. Not saying the Steelers would have lost either of those games, just the games themselves for fans all across America would have been more entertaining.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Harleyroadking111. Show Harleyroadking111's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Wiz, here is a short list, funny how the back judge was from Pittsburgh.


    Calls against the Seahawks

    The following is a list of the most oft-criticized calls that went against the Seahawks:

    • First Quarter, 2:08 left, score tied 0-0: Seattle quarterback Matt Hasselbeck threw a 16-yard pass that wide receiver Darrell Jacksoncaught in the end zone, but the play was called back on an offensive pass interference call. Back Judge Bob Waggoner, a Pittsburgh native[6], flagged Jackson for pushing off Steelers safety Chris Hope. Seattle had to settle for a Josh Brown field goal. Critics claimed both Jackson and the defensive player were jostling for position and that officials should not have flagged either player. Michael Smith ofESPN wrote that "Jackson extended his arm, yes, but both players were fighting for position, and he didn't create any separation by doing so."[7] Adding to the controversy was the fact that Waggoner's flag was thrown several seconds after the play ended, which some saw as proof that Hope had lobbied for the call[8].
    • Second Quarter, 2:00 left, Seahawks lead 3-0: On third down from the Seattle one-yard line, Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisbergertook the snap, faked a handoff, and dove toward the left side of a pile along the goal-line before being hit by Seahawks linebacker D.D. Lewis. He then extended his arm that was holding the ball to the goal line, though it is unclear as to whether the extension was before or after he was officially down. After first raising one hand (as if to indicate that the quarterback was down), head linesman Mark Hittnerraised a second arm to signal a touchdown. The play stood after review, to the considerable ire of Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren, who berated Leavy on the way to the locker room following the first half.[9] The play was hotly debated in the media between those who thought the play should have resulted in a fourth-down-and-inches situation[10] and those who thought the ball crossed the goal line.[11]Roethlisberger appeared on the The Late Show with David Letterman the day after the game and told the host that, immediately after the play, he had told Cowher, "I don’t think I got in," but that the team was "ready to go for it on fourth down anyway."[12] He later explained that he was referring to his initial impression only, and believes "the ball crossed the plane."[13]
    • Fourth Quarter, 12:35 left, Steelers lead 14-10: Hasselbeck completed an 18-yard pass to tight end Jerramy Stevens at the Steelers 1-yard line. The play was nullified by a penalty against Seattle right tackle Sean Locklear for holding Pittsburgh linebacker Clark Haggans. Critics of the call dubbed it a "phantom hold,"[14] and the call drew dissent from color commentator John Madden[15] but others argued that, since NFL rules prohibit the encircling of a defender with hands or arms (i.e., "hooking") and since Locklear did appear briefly to have an arm around Haggans’ neck, the call was correct and not unusual.[16] In addition, there is a dispute whether Haggans was offsides during the play, but in slow motion, "it looks like he crossed the line right at the snap, not early". [16]
    • Fourth Quarter, 10:54 left, Steelers lead 14-10: Three plays after the nullified pass to Stevens, Hasselbeck threw an interception to Pittsburgh cornerback Ike Taylor, who returned the ball 24 yards. A 15-yard personal foul was whistled against Hasselbeck for a "low block," advancing the Steelers to their own 44-yard line. During the American television broadcast, commentator Al Michaels said, "We think this was a bad call," suggesting that Hasselbeck was not blocking another Pittsburgh player but was instead making a low tackle on a ball carrier, which is legal. However, NFL Network announcer Rich Eisen in a column he wrote for nfl.com claims it was the right call by the rules, even if the rule itself may be defective.[17] Mike Pereira, the Director of Officiating for the NFL, has said that "the call was not correct" and "should not have been made."[18]
    • Fourth Quarter, 4:45 left, Steelers lead 21-10: With the Steelers' hoping to convert a first down on third-and-six in order to take more time off the clock, Roethlisberger was forced to call a timeout when Pittsburgh had difficulty getting a play off as the play clock ran down. The Steelers were awarded a timeout, but some contended that the play clock hit zero seconds before Roethlisberger called for a timeout, which would have constituted a delay-of-game and resulted in a five-yard penalty against Pittsburgh.[19]





     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share