Bear Down Wildcats

ChooChooCat wrote:Theoretically if we only lost him for the first half of the season would you guys be happy with that outcome?

If the alternative is losing him for the entire year? Absolutely.

ChooChooCat wrote:Theoretically if we only lost him for the first half of the season would you guys be happy with that outcome?

Theoretically, I'd be halfway happy with that.

In reality, I'd be happy we had him coming back with the rest of the team steeled by playing without him (with plenty of winnable games). I'd be wary because, as is the custom of this fanbase, everything eventually gets shoehorned into a 1997 analogy, and this would be the most logical with Allonzo Trier playing the role of Miles Simon.

Huh?

EVCat wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Theoretically if we only lost him for the first half of the season would you guys be happy with that outcome?

Theoretically, I'd be halfway happy with that.

In reality, I'd be happy we had him coming back with the rest of the team steeled by playing without him (with plenty of winnable games). I'd be wary because, as is the custom of this fanbase, everything eventually gets shoehorned into a 1997 analogy, and this would be the most logical with Allonzo Trier playing the role of Miles Simon.

Which would mean a lot of growing pains after Zo's return, but a hopeful profit in the end. It's 1997 all over again!

ChooChooCat wrote:Theoretically if we only lost him for the first half of the season would you guys be happy with that outcome?

Theoretically, that would be much worse than not losing him at all and much better than losing him for a full year.

If our assumptions are correct whens the last time a college bball player was suspended over PEDs?

rgdeuce wrote:That's a tough one. I've lost roles to multiple guys over the span of several season because of the tremendous edge they got on juicing; It's something you have to see firsthand. I'm talking middle infielders who couldn't come close to hitting one out of our deep field in the fall season (against lesser comp), to hitting 6-8 homers in the spring. Pitchers too, 2-3 mph added to their fastballs, which is a huge deal. I didn't do it for ethical, integrity and health reasons. But looking back, I maybe would have considered it for my senior season had my career not ended as a junior. So basically, you are essentially forcing some guys to sign with the devil and risk their health to keep up w the guys who are doing it, and if it's wide open, the force to do so is even greater (see MLB).

Regarding drug tests, we were tipped off at my first school, the second I had no idea. I know a ton of guys who play(ed) in the minors and a few in the majors. The few I've had conversations with about this all told me they got tipped off several days before random drug tests. You basically have to be negligent to fail or have a severe addiction issue for the street drugs and can't back off for even a day. Contrary to popular belief, I'd bet half of MLB smokes weed on a regular to semi regular basis.. I know PED testing has changed a bit in baseball, but my understanding is there is still use and the guys are just altering things a bit to avoid positives, and the positives are the result of miscalculating their windows in terms of beating the system, or the schedules of any other substances that "hide" their use.

I would think if it was out in the open, players would have a chance to minimize side effects by intelligent use supervised by a doctor. Right now, plenty of people will do it. In the NFL, do many people honestly believe that 90% of the players aren't on something.

The ultimate health aspect, I guess I come from the idea that sports generally aren't healthy. CTE in football, ankle/knees/back in basketball, it just really isn't great for you. The biggest problem I have is the idea that even in recovery, people can't use PED's to recover better or more quickly from injury.

This is just my opinion, and I don't have any monopoly on being right. I would prefer an athlete to be able to reap the benefits with medical supervision to help with side effects while hopefully prolonging the career.

The biggest ethical issue I would have is football, MMA, boxing, etc., where the main focus is hitting and causing trauma to others. Then, I don't know how you don't worry that you aren't enabling people to get hurt more efficiently. Evem then, it isn't really the issue of the PED's, just that they lay the sport's nature bare.

Ok, philosophy off. I hate our new uniforms, I'm crossing my fingers for Zo, and excited about our potential affer the red blue game.

Longhorned wrote:When was the last time you got to work, then suddenly laid down at the entrance, and when somebody reached down for you, you just started rolling away?

LH, you're priceless!

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
I would think if it was out in the open, players would have a chance to minimize side effects by intelligent use supervised by a doctor. Right now, plenty of people will do it. In the NFL, do many people honestly believe that 90% of the players aren't on something.

The ultimate health aspect, I guess I come from the idea that sports generally aren't healthy. CTE in football, ankle/knees/back in basketball, it just really isn't great for you. The biggest problem I have is the idea that even in recovery, people can't use PED's to recover better or more quickly from injury.

This is just my opinion, and I don't have any monopoly on being right. I would prefer an athlete to be able to reap the benefits with medical supervision to help with side effects while hopefully prolonging the career.

The biggest ethical issue I would have is football, MMA, boxing, etc., where the main focus is hitting and causing trauma to others. Then, I don't know how you don't worry that you aren't enabling people to get hurt more efficiently. Evem then, it isn't really the issue of the PED's, just that they lay the sport's nature bare.

You are correct. Steroids have a huge stigma that was largely created from evidence from times when most athletes were taking them in pill form, which wreaked havoc on livers. Under proper medical care and using other things to mitigate some of the risks, I'm sure most could take steroids an entire career without having any ill short- or long-term effects. Your point about football, MMA and boxing was going to be my counter argument but we are on the same page there. Ethically, it is also against the law, but obviously that wouldn't be an issue if used under prescription and a doctor's care. Thing is, where do you draw the line? Legal for college and up? It is going to be more rampant in high school then, at times when the body is still developing. Im sure the use of anabolics at that age at low/therapeutic doses may be fine, but there are not any doctors who are going to sign off on Timmy's Sustanon prescription for football for obvious health/development reasons. Without it Timmy goes to USC and gets absolutely murdered as a freshman by teammates and opponents who have had the benefit of 2-3 years on juice.

The problem I have with PEDs is, where do you draw the line? I was diagnosed with ADHD at 11 and was on Ritalin and later Adderal, which are considered PEDs today. I didn't notice any competitive edge or advantage, but I was on a therapeutic dose. Honestly, you get as much of a benefit as a cup of coffee in terms of performance and obviously it helps my mental condition in addition to that. To me, it makes me "normal." But say it gave me a huge edge, is it fair I have ADHD and could legally have that edge and non-ADHD athletes cant? Creatine is a perfectly legal performance enhancer. The stuff is great. People argue that is naturally occurring in the body anyhow and that's why. But testosterone is naturally occurring in men too. So really, both are increasing something that is already being produced in the body, so what is the difference? We can go on and on.

RG, I hope you aren't bothered by this discussion. It's an intellectually interesting topic for me, but I respect your posts/opinions, and it isn't a simple issue.

The overall legality, I've always figured that use in sports would have to walk hand in hand with decriminalization. I fully understand that sports leagues can't tacitly condone illegality.

The argument about where you draw the line is a primary reason why I think the only level playing field is unregulated. If steroids are ok and stimulants aren't, peo0le will use addrerall or amphetamines for an edge. Baseball players were using greenies for years before people knew what amphetamines were.

Then there's blood doping and epo for endurance sports. I tend to support the idea of individual choice as to how far you want to go bc any line is arbitrary. Barry Bonds and the cream and clear were based in shortening the half life of juice to beat tests. Even creatine enhances performance, as you say.

The only line that's actually a level field is no line. Everything else has given us a doping arms race with the mission being beating tests, not the health of the athlete.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Theoretically if we only lost him for the first half of the season would you guys be happy with that outcome?

Theoretically, that would be much worse than not losing him at all and much better than losing him for a full year.

That is some crazy theorizing you are doing there. You are losing me with the nuance

rgdeuce wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
I would think if it was out in the open, players would have a chance to minimize side effects by intelligent use supervised by a doctor. Right now, plenty of people will do it. In the NFL, do many people honestly believe that 90% of the players aren't on something.

The ultimate health aspect, I guess I come from the idea that sports generally aren't healthy. CTE in football, ankle/knees/back in basketball, it just really isn't great for you. The biggest problem I have is the idea that even in recovery, people can't use PED's to recover better or more quickly from injury.

This is just my opinion, and I don't have any monopoly on being right. I would prefer an athlete to be able to reap the benefits with medical supervision to help with side effects while hopefully prolonging the career.

The biggest ethical issue I would have is football, MMA, boxing, etc., where the main focus is hitting and causing trauma to others. Then, I don't know how you don't worry that you aren't enabling people to get hurt more efficiently. Evem then, it isn't really the issue of the PED's, just that they lay the sport's nature bare.

You are correct. Steroids have a huge stigma that was largely created from evidence from times when most athletes were taking them in pill form, which wreaked havoc on livers. Under proper medical care and using other things to mitigate some of the risks, I'm sure most could take steroids an entire career without having any ill short- or long-term effects. Your point about football, MMA and boxing was going to be my counter argument but we are on the same page there. Ethically, it is also against the law, but obviously that wouldn't be an issue if used under prescription and a doctor's care. Thing is, where do you draw the line? Legal for college and up? It is going to be more rampant in high school then, at times when the body is still developing. Im sure the use of anabolics at that age at low/therapeutic doses may be fine, but there are not any doctors who are going to sign off on Timmy's Sustanon prescription for football for obvious health/development reasons. Without it Timmy goes to USC and gets absolutely murdered as a freshman by teammates and opponents who have had the benefit of 2-3 years on juice.

The problem I have with PEDs is, where do you draw the line? I was diagnosed with ADHD at 11 and was on Ritalin and later Adderal, which are considered PEDs today. I didn't notice any competitive edge or advantage, but I was on a therapeutic dose. Honestly, you get as much of a benefit as a cup of coffee in terms of performance and obviously it helps my mental condition in addition to that. To me, it makes me "normal." But say it gave me a huge edge, is it fair I have ADHD and could legally have that edge and non-ADHD athletes cant? Creatine is a perfectly legal performance enhancer. The stuff is great. People argue that is naturally occurring in the body anyhow and that's why. But testosterone is naturally occurring in men too. So really, both are increasing something that is already being produced in the body, so what is the difference? We can go on and on.

I feel the same about EPO. I mean, yes, overuse of EPO increases chance of a stroke. Smoking 9 packs of smokes a day does, too. But the occasional pre-meet or training use of EPO has very little danger, and may be beneficial in avoiding other issues associated with high altitude (that is where I was introduced to it...training in Flagstaff).

Steroids, if used occasionally to get a jumpstart, are perfectly safe. The work still has to be put in...the steroid just allows for quicker recovery/more work. Continued use causes issues and rage is just one. But doing a cycle to start a workout period after a period of healing time should be, IMO, encouraged and administered by a Dr. The other thing is we have meds that help recovery from injury that the leagues outlaw. Steroids being one of them. HGH, I understand, is a whole nother level and needs to be restricted lest we become a bunch of assassins on the field. But in limited use, to recover from a major injury...why not? Why should we disallow science from proper therapeutic use?

The baseball PED argument always loses me. The old timers tsk tsk all these new players on "the juice" yet they swallowed amphetamines, the very definition of instant performance enhancer (steroids just allow more work), like they were candy.

To keep things a little more on topic with poor Mr. Trier's thread, not knowing anything about what is going on, I would take a Trier half of a season scenario right now if it meant this uncertainty going away. Our nonconference schedule is a joke outside of a few games, and really, I think Alkins, Smith, Simmons, and Kadeem are more than capable of carrying the load at the 2 and 3 (with Kadeem and Simmons getting some burn at the 1) until Trier would return. Especially with how good our front court looks to be offensively. My focus is purely on March, and we know that Trier is a hard worker and his adjustment period will not be that radical. The rest of the team, yeah, they would need to adjust some, but with the flexibility, depth and versatility, I do not think it will be that drastic, chemistry wise or otherwise.

To get to our discussion Space: There is not much, if anything in this world that bothers me in terms of an open discussion/debate. I'm a pretty moderate dude, with a few strong opinions on both sides of the spectrum. If we had this conversation when I was 20, I would have a stronger opinion obviously. You make good points. And actually, I have this own idea in my head about the decriminalization of all substances that are presently controlled/illegal, with the focus of the money saved from law enforcement, prosecution, incarceration/community supervision (tens of billions per year) going toward rehabilitation programs and education (both drug and traditional), and having "safe camps" where addicts can go to get their fixes for free. It sounds pretty wild to most, but I think it would significantly reduce the crime rate, put an end to the drug cartels/drug-related border violence and lower addiction rates with the harder drugs.

Regardless, these pro-athletes are still using and the coaches, execs, commissioners, etc. all know that. It may be less prevalent in some sports, but it is still there. These drug-testing programs are merely about the public's perception. That is all congress cared about as well. No one cared about MLB until Canseco's book and a few other people started name dropping and the extent of the problem became well known. No one cared about the NFL, power lifting, etc. til that blew up as well. As for the amphetamines vs Juice argument that gets brought up, I can tell you first hand, yes they both may increase performance, but its like comparing a hedge bush to an oak tree. But when an oak tree is unavailable, you will settle for a hedge bush because it still beats the hell out of a flower.

EVCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Theoretically if we only lost him for the first half of the season would you guys be happy with that outcome?

Theoretically, that would be much worse than not losing him at all and much better than losing him for a full year.

That is some crazy theorizing you are doing there. You are losing me with the nuance

I'm a simple man. The more Zo, the better.

So does this mean the speculation about Trier was totally wrong and it was really all about Pinder? Or is Trier still in trouble?

No. Probably.

What does that make Keanu, a sophomore or something? Or is he saying now he's a frosh?

Means he has 2 years instead of one...

I come here for juicy, inane speculation about Trier, but I see... Nothing. Get to work, people.

Puerco wrote:I come here for juicy, inane speculation about Trier, but I see... Nothing. Get to work, people.

He was born a woman.
When people talk about his rabid work ethic, it's true. He actually has rabies.
Mike Kryzyzewski is his biological father.
Trier is rigging the 2016 presidential election.
Trier and Ted Cruz's father worked together to murder JFK.
Allonzo Trier is actually a fictional character played by Daniel Day-Lewis.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Puerco wrote:I come here for juicy, inane speculation about Trier, but I see... Nothing. Get to work, people.

He was born a woman.
When people talk about his rabid work ethic, it's true. He actually has rabies.
Mike Kryzyzewski is his biological father.
Trier is rigging the 2016 presidential election.
Trier and Ted Cruz's father worked together to murder JFK.
Allonzo Trier is actually a fictional character played by Daniel Day-Lewis.

Puerco wrote:I come here for juicy, inane speculation about Trier, but I see... Nothing. Get to work, people.

Trier? I barely know her?

dcZONAfan wrote:What does that make Keanu, a sophomore or something? Or is he saying now he's a frosh?

Hes a junior according to AZ Athletics. We all expect him to see some minutes this season and obviously playing here next season.

What changed exactly? Or is that paragraph from last year before we offered him?

gumby wrote:

Puerco wrote:I come here for juicy, inane speculation about Trier, but I see... Nothing. Get to work, people.

Trier? I barely know her?

I just spit my drink all over my desk.

threenumberones wrote:

gumby wrote:

Puerco wrote:I come here for juicy, inane speculation about Trier, but I see... Nothing. Get to work, people.

Trier? I barely know her?

I just spit my drink all over my desk.

Hope you aimed away from your laptop

dcZONAfan wrote:

threenumberones wrote:

gumby wrote:

Puerco wrote:I come here for juicy, inane speculation about Trier, but I see... Nothing. Get to work, people.

Trier? I barely know her?

I just spit my drink all over my desk.

Hope you aimed away from your laptop

Well, that's juicy I suppose.

Puerco wrote:

dcZONAfan wrote:

threenumberones wrote:

gumby wrote:

Puerco wrote:I come here for juicy, inane speculation about Trier, but I see... Nothing. Get to work, people.

Trier? I barely know her?

I just spit my drink all over my desk.

Hope you aimed away from your laptop

Well, that's juicy I suppose.

Nah, the word you're looking for there is "wet".

UALoco wrote:So does this mean the speculation about Trier was totally wrong and it was really all about Pinder? Or is Trier still in trouble?

No. Yes.

ChooChooCat wrote:

UALoco wrote:So does this mean the speculation about Trier was totally wrong and it was really all about Pinder? Or is Trier still in trouble?

No. Yes.

Do you have any sources? Or just your opinion based on speculation and rumor?

Jwsisliving wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

UALoco wrote:So does this mean the speculation about Trier was totally wrong and it was really all about Pinder? Or is Trier still in trouble?

No. Yes.

Do you have any sources? Or just your opinion based on speculation and rumor?

I'm not typically an insider nor do I claim to be, but in this instance I know exactly what is going on.

ChooChooCat wrote:

Jwsisliving wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

UALoco wrote:So does this mean the speculation about Trier was totally wrong and it was really all about Pinder? Or is Trier still in trouble?

No. Yes.

Do you have any sources? Or just your opinion based on speculation and rumor?

I'm not typically an insider nor do I claim to be, but in this instance I know exactly what is going on.

Trust me when I say I know what is going on and you should all be freaking out. I can't say for some reason, but need to just believe me.

UALoco wrote:Trust me when I say I know what is going on and you should all be freaking out. I can't say for some reason, but need to just believe me.

Hey I never told anybody to freak out.

Fingers crossed.

ChooChooCat wrote:

Jwsisliving wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

UALoco wrote:So does this mean the speculation about Trier was totally wrong and it was really all about Pinder?

Then why not say "yes" (coach) when asked it AT is good to go (if this is about Pinder?)

gumby wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

Jwsisliving wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

UALoco wrote:So does this mean the speculation about Trier was totally wrong and it was really all about Pinder? Or is Trier still in trouble?

No. Yes.

Do you have any sources? Or just your opinion based on speculation and rumor?

I'm not typically an insider nor do I claim to be, but in this instance I know exactly what is going on.

Then why not say "yes" (coach) when asked it AT is good to go if this is about Pinder?

He asked two questions, I answered them in order.

Very original.

Heard Trier was going to go to the Pac-12 Media Day and now KaDeem will be replacing him. Has anyone else heard that?

Olsondogg wrote:I'll just leave this here:

Looks like the images dont work anymore

Irish27 wrote:Heard Trier was going to go to the Pac-12 Media Day and now KaDeem will be replacing him. Has anyone else heard that?

Haven't heard anything like this yet, but if true, it definitely is not a good sign.

Some body on the 247 site said they saw trier at the Phoenix airport with bags packed and book was with him.

It's sounds hard to believe but I just so happened to go to the mckale center store to look at the throwback Simon jersey and I saw book and he def looked looked upset but I didn't see trier

3goggles wrote:Some body on the 247 site said they saw trier at the Phoenix airport with bags packed and book was with him.

It's sounds hard to believe but I just so happened to go to the mckale center store to look at the throwback Simon jersey and I saw book and he def looked looked upset but I didn't see trier

Man, this thread is so depressing......I'm hoping for a miracle now but of all the things to 'snakebite' our program, this one that is being alleged would have to be the biggest shocker and most disappointing of all...

Bangkok your sig cracks me up. Placed my chin in my hand and broke my beard.

BigSkyCatinMT wrote:Bangkok your sig cracks me up. Placed my chin in my hand and broke my beard.

Thank you Sir! Anything to change the this depressing topic.....'Rally Tits' anyone?....until some announcement or clarity on the issue???

BTFD Basketball Gods and have mercy on us and Zo......I so badly want to watch him pressure defenses and slash to the bucket for an 'and one'!

3goggles wrote:Some body on the 247 site said they saw trier at the Phoenix airport with bags packed and book was with him.

It's sounds hard to believe but I just so happened to go to the mckale center store to look at the throwback Simon jersey and I saw book and he def looked looked upset but I didn't see trier

Arghh

az91 wrote:

Irish27 wrote:Heard Trier was going to go to the Pac-12 Media Day and now KaDeem will be replacing him. Has anyone else heard that?

Haven't heard anything like this yet, but if true, it definitely is not a good sign.

I'm sure they don't want Trier responding to the rumors, so it isn't a shock. If he showed up, he would probably draw a ton of questions that he wouldn't answer.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

az91 wrote:

Irish27 wrote:Heard Trier was going to go to the Pac-12 Media Day and now KaDeem will be replacing him. Has anyone else heard that?

Haven't heard anything like this yet, but if true, it definitely is not a good sign.

I'm sure they don't want Trier responding to the rumors, so it isn't a shock. If he showed up, he would probably draw a ton of questions that he wouldn't answer.

Which is also why the 247 guy witnessed Book shipping a tearful Allonzo and all his possessions off to a leper colony.

Longhorned wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

az91 wrote:

Irish27 wrote:Heard Trier was going to go to the Pac-12 Media Day and now KaDeem will be replacing him. Has anyone else heard that?

Haven't heard anything like this yet, but if true, it definitely is not a good sign.

I'm sure they don't want Trier responding to the rumors, so it isn't a shock. If he showed up, he would probably draw a ton of questions that he wouldn't answer.

Which is also why the 247 guy witnessed Book shipping a tearful Allonzo and all his possessions off to a leper colony.

I first read that post as Zo being at an airport with a book because book was lowercase. My response was, sure, you're going to want a book if you're flying. I'm impressed that the kid still likes paperbacks.

Isn't the PAC-12 media day today? Maybe they were going to that.