420 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Link Taylor said he first tried cocaine at a party during his rookie year, in 1981. And by his third season, he'd moved up to crack. He wrote: "I'd go through an ounce a day. And at times I'd be standing in the huddle. And instead of thinking what defense we were playing I'd be thinking about smoking crack after the game." “Well, like well, you gotta understand though. It didn't affect my play,” adds Taylor. To beat NFL drug tests, Taylor told 60 Minutes his teammates would give him their urine. But he finally failed a test, when the urine he'd been given turned out to be dirty. Then he failed a second drug test, and was suspended for four games in 1988. A third strike would have ended his career, so he gave up the drug for five years, but as he approached retirement, he looked forward to going back on cocaine. That's from his book, right? The one that was for sale, right? The one he wanted to make money from, right? Just asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyoneli Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I saw LT being interviewed on the Jimmy Kimmel show earlier this year after his video game came out. I felt sorry for him. LT could barely string enough words together to answer Kimmel's questions. He could be a poster child for the effects of drug abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donovan4prez Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 That's from his book, right? The one that was for sale, right? The one he wanted to make money from, right? Just asking. ah, yeah......but so does "Game of Shadows" however, i don't see people sharing the same sentiment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyoneli Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 ah, yeah......but so does "Game of Shadows" however, i don't see people sharing the same sentiment The fact is that even is Bonds was using steroids back when he was hitting all of those homers, steroids were not a banned substance AT THAT TIME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donovan4prez Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 The fact is that even is Bonds was using steroids back when he was hitting all of those homers, steroids were not a banned substance AT THAT TIME. yeah it wasn't banned, but like cocaine it was still illegal. bonds and taylor both should have asterisks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.O. Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 yeah it wasn't banned, but like cocaine it was still illegal. bonds and taylor both should have asterisks gotta go with you on that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gspotter Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Bonds gets bigger and stronger with alledged sterios use. I don't recall seeing Taylor getting more frail and whithered. I'm not sure if it's even close: a performance enhancing drug compared to a highly addictive narcotic that tends to debilitate users over extended perios of time. The good news is Giants fans know there won't be an asterisk; the bad news is that there is an asterisk every time this comes up and it always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donovan4prez Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 Bonds gets bigger and stronger with alledged sterios use. I don't recall seeing Taylor getting more frail and whithered. I'm not sure if it's even close: a performance enhancing drug compared to a highly addictive narcotic that tends to debilitate users over extended perios of time. The good news is Giants fans know there won't be an asterisk; the bad news is that there is an asterisk every time this comes up and it always will. not necessarily the point......no it didn't make him bigger or stronger, but did it give him an unfair advantage is the question when guys would normally miss games because of injury, LT played with pain. Since cocaine numbs the body, did LT have an unfair advantage? When guys would get winded after a few plays and not be able to consistently accelerate to pursue the qb/rb, did cocaine keep him alert and full of adrenaline? did cocaine allow him to recklessly throw his body into opponents since he couldn't feel it? all those are legitimate questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
420 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 not necessarily the point......no it didn't make him bigger or stronger, but did it give him an unfair advantage is the question when guys would normally miss games because of injury, LT played with pain. Since cocaine numbs the body, did LT have an unfair advantage? When guys would get winded after a few plays and not be able to consistently accelerate to pursue the qb/rb, did cocaine keep him alert and full of adrenaline? did cocaine allow him to recklessly throw his body into opponents since he couldn't feel it? all those are legitimate questions I'd like to do a rail of the coke that enabled him to do all that. All I can do is play poker for hours on the internet with out blinking. You make coke out to be more than it is and was he snappin' back lines on the bench to stay fresh? I think he would have keeled over from heart failure. Snorting lines and doing very strenuous things is a killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donovan4prez Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 I'd like to do a rail of the coke that enabled him to do all that. All I can do is play poker for hours on the internet with out blinking. You make coke out to be more than it is and was he snappin' back lines on the bench to stay fresh? I think he would have keeled over from heart failure. Snorting lines and doing very strenuous things is a killer. i never said the man wasn't a supreme athlete....he was unquestionably one of the greatest players to ever lace 'em up. however, the same can be said for the pre-steroid allegation barry bonds. my question is if you're going to knock one man because he took an illegal substance while playing, why not the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
420 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 i never said the man wasn't a supreme athlete....he was unquestionably one of the greatest players to ever lace 'em up. however, the same can be said for the pre-steroid allegation barry bonds. my question is if you're going to knock one man because he took an illegal substance while playing, why not the other? One helps tremendously and one not nearly so much. Pre-steroid allegation or pre-steroid? You should check his #'s for the later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donovan4prez Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 One helps tremendously and one not nearly so much. Pre-steroid allegation or pre-steroid? You should check his #'s for the later. how do you know? ever played football high on coke? how much of it did he take? what about crack? he admitted taking it since his 3rd year. i've never seen studies on the effects of cocaine and crack on athletes, but i'm sure there are some effects. bonds was well on his way to the HOF before the allegations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
420 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 how do you know? ever played football high on coke? how much of it did he take? what about crack? he admitted taking it since his 3rd year. i've never seen studies on the effects of cocaine and crack on athletes, but i'm sure there are some effects. bonds was well on his way to the HOF before the allegations Have you ever done coke? It just doesn't seem like it would help him past the 2nd play on the field and even that's a stretch. Pre-allegation or pre-use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gspotter Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 not necessarily the point Really, isn't increased performance at the heart of the argument? Did make him better? Hard to say considering he was already a beast. Was he even tougher? Hard to say again because the numbers show that he was less dominant and more often injured with age...even with possibility of drug use. I would say Bonds increased performace at the end of his career is evident while Taylor's seems to show the gradual breakdown with or without coke. IMO the asterisk might be more necessary if Taylor was the beast in the SB's that he was in some other games. Now to be fair, I think LT sounds like a dope in nearly every respect, but he's not in the HOF because he was the inventor of scrabble. If you even look at the Giants' biggest games of that era, I think it's clear that other players were even more pivotal: against SF it's Marshall, against Denver it's Phil, against the Bills, it's OJ. No asterisk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 yeah it wasn't banned, but like cocaine it was still illegal. bonds and taylor both should have asterisks if coke, why not amphetamines too, users would include hank aaron, willie mays, and a large percentage of every athlete under the sun. it would be easier to asterik the straight ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vermin79 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 This is all crazy talk. Coke would give him energy for about 30min-1Hr, and after that high was over he would be going through the with draw stage and feel like shit. Unless Parcells allowed him to down a few lines in the locker room at halftime. If anything, coke lowered his numbers instead of increasing them. Who knows how many more sacks he would have gotten if he didn't miss time due to drup suspensions. He may not have even retired when he did and could have played an extra 2 or 3 years. He was never seriously injured. So unllike Barry where steroids has no doubt extended his career (we see what has happened to him now since he can longer take them) Coke has cut Lt's career short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I'd like to do a rail of the coke that enabled him to do all that. All I can do is play poker for hours on the internet with out blinking. You make coke out to be more than it is and was he snappin' back lines on the bench to stay fresh? I think he would have keeled over from heart failure. Snorting lines and doing very strenuous things is a killer. he makes coke out to be a miracle drug, lol. All it does it make you not sleep and numbers your face up. Other than that, it's a retarded drug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MontyPython Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 he makes coke out to be a miracle drug, lol. All it does it make you not sleep and numbers your face up. Other than that, it's a retarded drug. true I believe Coke slowed Taylor down....by his own admission he didn't use Coke till 1983. he was a monster all over the field in 81-82.. and Dforprez - Bonds is breaking hallowed records...what records is/did LT break that you think he needs an asterick? how many times he pounded the eagles qb's senseless? dumb thread....try better threads in the future, we know you can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firstnten Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 yeah it wasn't banned, but like cocaine it was still illegal. bonds and taylor both should have asterisks yeah an 80% of players in the late 70's and on through the 80's everyone was using roids... cocain comparision to riods is retarded... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxi-xxv Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 not trolling. i think it was common knowledge that he was on coke during his playing days.....i think he graduated to crack upon retiring from 83 to 88, in 88 when he was caught he had no other choice but to give it up(missed the 4 games in 88). he knew one more time he was fucked. In fact in 1993 during his last game in San Fran when he knew he was retiring he said in his book that all he could think about as the clock ran down was that he could do coke again and not have to worry about it. LT was not the first or last player to use cocaine in the 1980's. If anything its a shame he probably even wasted talent on it. Whats more a shame is that maybe if MLB had as strict a policy as the NFL had in the 80's bums like Darryl and Doc could have gotten off the shit for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donovan4prez Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 if it were any other player, you guys would have agreed......homers just like new yankers to turn a blind eye when its one of their own say nothing when sheffield and giambi admit to taking it and throw syringes at bonds hypocrites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MontyPython Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 if it were any other player, you guys would have agreed......homers just like new yankers to turn a blind eye when its one of their own say nothing when sheffield and giambi admit to taking it and throw syringes at bonds hypocrites don't ask a question if you don't want to hear our opinions or better yet get the fuck off this board and go join your Eagles fans.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
420 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 don't ask a question if you don't want to hear our opinions or better yet get the fuck off this board and go join your Eagles fans.. They hate him too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUE DAWG Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Everyone knows LT did drugs, but no matter how you look at it drugs wouldn't affect his game play in a positive way if anything it would of taken away from his skills. LT was great w/ or without coke. Not being a homer it's common sense, to say coke is what made him great is just plain stupid if that where the case I would be on coke 24/7 and I would be an NFL Superstar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donovan4prez Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 Everyone knows LT did drugs, but no matter how you look at it drugs wouldn't affect his game play in a positive way if anything it would of taken away from his skills. LT was great w/ or without coke. Not being a homer it's common sense, to say coke is what made him great is just plain stupid if that where the case I would be on coke 24/7 and I would be an NFL Superstar. i never said coke made lawrence a great player.....but bonds was also a great player before the allegations and now it seems to have tarnished his entire career. why not taylor coke is banned for a reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now