All right, cut the god ***** bull****, seriously.

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by Henry Burris, Nov 16, 2013.

  1. CaptainHookShot

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
    Henry, lifted from your previous post, lifted from my previous post,
    "You: "McCown has earned the starter role, not only because of his play and that we beat green bay in green bay and that had he been starting in the last game we would have won, but because he was prepared and ready for any situation he's been thrown into."
    Me: What you are saying is, because Josh McCown had a full week to practice, unlike Seneca Wallace, he's better than Cutler...."prepared and ready for any situation he's been thrown into", implying that Cutler doesn't prepare himself? If so, then...wow
    You:"You made the implication Cutler isn't prepared."

    I'm sure you can see your response to mine, SHOWS you didn't understand what I was saying."

    You're damn right I don't know what you're saying because when my adult brain tries to comprehend it, it is flummoxed by how illogical it is. Not to get too pedantic here but I wrote a sentence. In it I stated that "not only because of his play and that we beat green bay in green bay and that had he been starting in the last game we would have won, but because he was prepared and ready for any situation he's been thrown into." You, like a child, ripped the last section from the whole sentence, compared it to one game-the one game McCown had prepped specifically for, ignoring the redskins game and lions game into which he was brought in cold, then you throw Jay Cutler and Seneca Wallace into the mix, and then you insinuate that I made the implication that Cutler doesn't prepare himself. Where did I make the implication? Please point it out for me. Yes, after all of this occurred I gave him shit about the prp just to #$%^ with you.

    Henry, you open your response with "What you are saying is," There couldn't be a better example of where the confusion lies here. What it should say is, "What I think you are saying is," There is a big difference. One puts words in mouth, totally misconstrued ones by the way, and the other tacitly states your opinion of my statement without sounding completely illogical and pathologically inept because of how far from the truth you are. In case you were wondering what I was saying I'll paste it one more time and maybe this time the whole sentence, the complete sentence with all the thoughts and ideas contained within it will sink through your thick skull to the little hamster riding his wheel.

    Here it is Henry, Big boy sentence: McCown has earned the starter role, not only because of his play and that we beat green bay in green bay and that had he been starting the last game we would have won(like we did this week), but because he was prepared and ready for any situation he's been thrown into.

    Oh Henry! No pun intended...Here you go again. I'll let you take this one up with everybody else on this forum.

    Blood Doping, just in case anybody was wondering:
    1) You draw the athlete’s blood, centrifuge it (i.e. rotate it) at high speed, separating the red blood cells (RBC) from the plasma.
    2) Your body will produce its own red blood cells to compensate from your blood loss.
    3) You store the packed red blood cells in a refrigerator or freezer (RBC have a 120 day lifecycle).
    4) Then just before competition, you re-inject the red blood cells back into your body.

    PRP
    1.) You draw the athlete's blood, centrifuge it at high speed, separating the red blood cells from the plasma.
    2.) You take the platelet rich plasma (prp)
    3.) You inject it into the wounded area to accelerate healing time

    I'll let everybody draw their own conclusions. Is prp legal? Yes. Is this experimental? Yes. If this was under more scrutiny would it be considered doping? I think so. Sounds pretty damn similar to doping to me. Does it enhance your performance? Unfortunately for Jay Cutler it does not make you throw less interceptions.
     
    #31
    • Like Like x 1
  2. jackiejokeman

    jackiejokeman Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,847
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +245 / 2 / -1
    ßearz ßuckz:
    735ß
    I need another beer.
     
    #32
  3. Henry Burris

    Henry Burris Head Coach

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    19,899
    Likes Received:
    2,489
    Ratings:
    +2,766 / 8 / -10
    ßearz ßuckz:
    892ß
    I asked you point blank, if you were implying that McCown was preparing himself better than Cutler, and if so, WOW your logic is off. At no point did I say Cutler isn't prepared. Again, go back and read it. Let's take the whole sentence: I don't think anybody sees McCown as a long term solution. I just don't see Jay Cutler as one either. Sue me. McCown has earned the starter role, not only because of his play and that we beat green bay in green bay and that had he been starting in the last game we would have won, but because he was prepared and ready for any situation he's been thrown into.

    Maybe you choose your words poorly here, but to say McCown has "earned" the starter role is asinine. That he beat Green Bay, in Green Bay, when they're missing the majority of their roster, as being key to your argument shows that yeah, your logic is off. You're not taking into consideration that beating a Packers team that's was missing 17 starters at that point shows you're not taking all of the evidence into account there.


    You're damn right I don't know what you're saying because when my adult brain tries to comprehend it, it is flummoxed by how illogical it is. Not to get too pedantic here but I wrote a sentence. In it I stated that "not only because of his play and that we beat green bay in green bay and that had he been starting in the last game we would have won, but because he was prepared and ready for any situation he's been thrown into."
    Again, this isn't a Green Bay team to write home about, so he was beating scrubs.

    You, like a child, ripped the last section from the whole sentence, compared it to one game-the one game McCown had prepped specifically for, ignoring the redskins game and lions game into which he was brought in cold, then you throw Jay Cutler and Seneca Wallace into the mix,

    Hmmm, so you don't understand that I was telling you Seneca Wallace not having ANY preparation going into the game, absolutely had an impact. Good stuff.

    and then you insinuate that I made the implication that Cutler doesn't prepare himself. Where did I make the implication? Please point it out for me.

    Already went over that earlier in this post.


    Yes, after all of this occurred I gave him shit about the prp just to #$%^ with you.

    So, you admit that you didn't even believe what you say? Very good job at being both indignant at not being taken seriously AND admitting that you aren't being serious.


    Henry, you open your response with "What you are saying is," There couldn't be a better example of where the confusion lies here. What it should say is, "What I think you are saying is," There is a big difference. One puts words in mouth, totally misconstrued ones by the way, and the other tacitly states your opinion of my statement without sounding completely illogical and pathologically inept because of how far from the truth you are. In case you were wondering what I was saying I'll paste it one more time and maybe this time the whole sentence, the complete sentence with all the thoughts and ideas contained within it will sink through your thick skull to the little hamster riding his wheel.

    Here it is Henry, Big boy sentence: McCown has earned the starter role, not only because of his play and that we beat green bay in green bay and that had he been starting the last game we would have won(like we did this week), but because he was prepared and ready for any situation he's been thrown into.

    He's earned the "starter job" because the starter is injured. I'm not telling you again, how wrong you are for thinking that Packers game was an impressive win, considering that their backup had NO time to warm up.



    Oh Henry! No pun intended...Here you go again. I'll let you take this one up with everybody else on this forum.

    Blood Doping, just in case anybody was wondering:
    1) You draw the athlete’s blood, centrifuge it (i.e. rotate it) at high speed, separating the red blood cells (RBC) from the plasma.
    2) Your body will produce its own red blood cells to compensate from your blood loss.
    3) You store the packed red blood cells in a refrigerator or freezer (RBC have a 120 day lifecycle).
    4) Then just before competition, you re-inject the red blood cells back into your body.

    PRP
    1.) You draw the athlete's blood, centrifuge it at high speed, separating the red blood cells from the plasma.
    2.) You take the platelet rich plasma (prp)
    3.) You inject it into the wounded area to accelerate healing time

    I'll let everybody draw their own conclusions. Is prp legal? Yes. Is this experimental? Yes. If this was under more scrutiny would it be considered doping? I think so. Sounds pretty damn similar to doping to me. Does it enhance your performance? Unfortunately for Jay Cutler it does not make you throw less interceptions.


    Again, Stanford Hospital, T the National Center for biotechnology information, and the World Anti-Doping Agency say you are wrong. You can throw out all these little "facts" about it, but when medical professionals don't have the same view as you, that means either THEY or you are wrong.

    I showed you these following sentences as the crux of their studies, but you either overlooked them, or those words were a little too complex for you:

    While individual growth factors remain prohibited, the intramuscular injection of platelet-derived preparations (such as Platelet Rich Plasma or PRP, or ‘blood spinning’) has been removed from the List after consideration of the lack of any current evidence concerning the use of these methods for purposes of performance enhancement notwithstanding that these preparations contain growth factors.

    Platelet-rich plasma appears to trigger an increase in circulating growth factors through activating biological pathways rather than by serving as a vehicle for the direct delivery of presynthesized growth factors.
     
    #33
  4. short faced bear

    short faced bear Assistant Head Coach
    DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,964
    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Ratings:
    +1,558 / 0 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    716ß
    As for all this goes: be happy that we even HAVE this dilemma.

    As for Jay a step backward (sitting on the bench) could be a step forward. Not only can he heal but Trestman can start giving him more of the playbook, he can work on his mechanics, reads, and decision making.

    As for Josh is he more than just a game manager? I keep hearing he's old, no arm, not much left in the tank. So if he can get it done......
     
    #34
    • Like Like x 1
  5. CaptainHookShot

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    What was the view I was representing? And before you quote me I'll save you the time

    So how did this become a me vs. Stanford Hospital World Anti Doping Agency thing? Is blood doping not experimental? prp? You're the one linking us to experiments that Stanford is doing with it for Christ's sake. I'm sure every time you tweak your hamstring you take a shot of some spun plasma and your insurance covers it. I also said in there that I am not totally against doping anyways-so why the hell are you even mentioning the Anti doping agency as being against me? Personally, I think it's a health risk. There are many risks associated with blood doping, why wouldn't there be with prp?

    When I say that, "under more scrutiny would probably be considered doping." I mean that, if most people knew that blood doping comes from one side of a test tube and prp comes from the other side, and both are injected into the body, they would probably say that yeah, sounds like doping to me.

    The best part of this is the Stanford experiment you link to. Once again, you rip the sentences you want to read, or more likely don't understand. Here is the sentence you linked in:
    Platelet-rich plasma appears to trigger an increase in circulating growth factors through activating biological pathways rather than by serving as a vehicle for the direct delivery of presynthesized growth factors.

    Here are the actual relevant points from the Stanford Study. Copy Pasted:
    PURPOSE:
    To quantify the effect of PRP injection on systemic growth factors with performance-enhancing effects and to identify molecular markers to detect treated athletes.

    and here is what they found. The whole conclusion, not just one sentence. Copy Pasted:
    CONCLUSION:
    Serum IGF-1, VEGF, and bFGF levels are significantly elevated after PRP injection, supporting a possible ergogenic effect of PRP. An indirect marker for hGH doping, the product of IGFBP-3 × IGF-1, also significantly increased after PRP. Platelet-rich plasma appears to trigger an increase in circulating growth factors through activating biological pathways rather than by serving as a vehicle for the direct delivery of presynthesized growth factors. Elevated VEGF was observed in all patients after PRP, and ≥88% of patients had elevated VEGF at each time point from 3 to 96 hours after PRP, suggesting that VEGF may be a sensitive molecular marker to detect athletes recently treated with PRP.

    CLINICAL RELEVANCE:
    This is the first and only adequately powered study of the systemic effects of PRP. We present evidence that PRP contains and may trigger systemic increases in substances currently banned in competitive athletes. Finally, we provide evidence that VEGF could serve as a useful molecular marker to detect athletes treated with PRP.

    In case you don't comprehend what they are saying, here is a copy paste from these Doctor's presentation on another website. It comes through the medical lingo a little better.

    DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Serum IGF-1, VEGF and bFGF levels are significantly elevated following PRP injection, supporting a possible performance-enhancing effect of PRP. An indirect marker for hGH doping, the product of IGFBP-3 x IGF-1, also significantly increased after PRP.

    Link to whole piece:
    http://www.abstractsonline.com/plan...a&mKey={342D5FB6-3E41-46BB-82B4-861286ECFB41}

    One more time Henry, just to rub it in your face
    So the side which I wasn't really on but which you declared me to be on, turned out to be on the same side as the side you declared was against me. Maybe you need to actually reread the things you post. Like this one for instance, it's pretty applicable to you


    [​IMG]
     
    #35
    • Like Like x 1
  6. weneedmorelinemen

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    425
    Ratings:
    +527 / 0 / -1
    ßearz ßuckz:
    290ß
    It seems like the big difference is plasma vs red blood cells, and blood doping occurs right before competition. It's legal, so I don't think you can say its experimental. It might be considered controversial, but prp is allowed. To me, it seems very unnecessary and expensive for a regular person to have done.

    Cutler had the procedure done weeks before he actually played. There would have been zero benefit as a doping agent. Here's an article written by SI in 2010 about the topic. I'd like to point out that the title says it's not new, and that it provides no performance benefit.

    Platelet-rich plasma therapy: not new, no performance benefit

    Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ma.therapy.in.sports/index.html#ixzz2lBrln1xX
     
    #36
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Henry Burris

    Henry Burris Head Coach

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    19,899
    Likes Received:
    2,489
    Ratings:
    +2,766 / 8 / -10
    ßearz ßuckz:
    892ß
    CaptainHookShot, you can't claim Strawman when I was using evidence to support my claims when you were not.

    There's no way any reasonable person wouldn't think you weren't implying you were "on the other side".
     
    #37

Share This Page

Copyright © DaBears.com. This site is a news, entertainment and information site covering the Chicago Bears and their fans.
DaBears.com is an independent fan site and not associated with the Chicago Bears, National Football League, or any other media site.
All content is provided by, and for, Bear fans. We invite your participation and suggestions.