Sports-Related Conspiracy Theories

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Some of the recent posts about various things being rigged has gotten me thinking. I love a good conspiracy theory, and I'd like to know how much you all do, too. I think this thread should be a place to hash those out. I'll start:

Joe Paterno decided to kill himself rather than face the public for his proximity to Sandusky and the kiddie porn dungeon that became the Penn St facilities.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Baconeater

Then why wasn't there a blackout during last year's super bowl? .
Posted via Mobile Device

Probably wouldn't be wise to do it a second time and in the largest city in the country / the headquarters for the league.

[SeeingRed]

Mike Catapano was put back out on the field, flown in airplanes and given anesthesia all while having a documented concussion in august that somehow nobody saw until over a month later. ****ed up and so negligent if true

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Yes, but the argument is that bat speed is widely generated by muscle strength. I don't think it always is. It helps somewhat and granted that somewhat in split seconds is a big advantage. It still doesn't for me answer the question of why the spike then. Should we assume that before Sosa and McGuire and bonds, nobody was juicing?

I do disagree about baseballs. I think they can be juiced or unjuiced pretty easily. The way Selig turned a complete blind eye to steroids, wouldn't surprise me at all if baseball manipulated baseballs to keep home run counts down to prove that steroid testing was working.

It is somewhat cyclical in baseball though. When it is a hitters era teams are looking to draft and develop a lot of pitchers to counteract hitters. When it is a pitchers era then teams draft hitters to counteract the good pitching.

It is a lagging trend due to the minors and the decisions made by the kids in high school before they come up to the majors.

[Jerm]

Other underrated ones that I find interesting...

- Michael Phelps "win" in the 100m butterfly at the 2008 Olympics
- Jordan being poisoned deliberately via pizza the night before the Flu Game
- The NFL's master cover up of Spygate and said evidence

There's plenty more...they're all so interesting....

[UL Washington]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

(I can put my feet behind my head and turn my shoulders 120* to my spine angle...d

That's a little gay...

[displacedinMN]

Originally Posted by Nzoner

In 1995 shortly after the Cowboys played the Chiefs on Thanksgiving Day Jerry Jones was interviewed and said he wanted no part of the KC defense if it came to that in that seasons SB.

KC that season had a kicker who shall go unnamed that not only was from Texas,went to school in Texas but better yet played with the Cowboys before coming to KC.

Fast forward to a frigid day in Jan when a dome team came to Arrowhead as a 10 point dog and knowing that Jerry Jones would sell his mother for a SB ring and you know the rest of the story so draw your own conclusions.

I like that one. Had never heard it. I will buy.

The crazier the better.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by UL Washington

That's a little gay...

Two different moves. Don't worry, I haven't tried to suck my own dick.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Agree on upper body. Read that the bicep strength creates kind of a balance point that stabilizes your swing. I've heard that steroids doesn't do a whole lot for your legs. One of the reasons why I think some think the positive effects may be exaggerated. Definitely performance enhancing but maybe not as much as people think.

That's a good conspiracy theory right there. Steroids only target specific muscles.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Moreover, if they found a way to juice the ball, why wouldn't they keep it juiced,

Oh, I think there's a pretty obvious explanation to that. It would give the appearance that their testing is effective.

There has been such an enormous decline in offense in such a short period of time (the MLB average OPS was .768 in 2006, it's .701 now) that it's hard not to believe there's not at least some basis to this theory (http://deadspin.com/5937432/was-mlbs...uiced-ball-era).

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Oh, I think there's a pretty obvious explanation to that. It would give the appearance that their testing is effective.

There has been such an enormous decline in offense in such a short period of time (the MLB average OPS was .768 in 2006, it's .701 now) that it's hard not to believe there's not at least some basis to this theory (http://deadspin.com/5937432/was-mlbs...uiced-ball-era).

Why wouldn't the testing be effective?

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Yes, but the argument is that bat speed is widely generated by muscle strength. I don't think it always is. It helps somewhat and granted that somewhat in split seconds is a big advantage. It still doesn't for me answer the question of why the spike then. Should we assume that before Sosa and McGuire and bonds, nobody was juicing?

Yeah, the last time offensive levels were this low in baseballs was in the late 80s/early 90s (a time where no testing was in place and players were taking tons of PEDs). It all points to there being other explainable factors.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Oh, I think there's a pretty obvious explanation to that. It would give the appearance that their testing is effective.

There has been such an enormous decline in offense in such a short period of time (the MLB average OPS was .768 in 2006, it's .701 now) that it's hard not to believe there's not at least some basis to this theory (http://deadspin.com/5937432/was-mlbs...uiced-ball-era).

Save that it's bad for business for offense to drop off. People don't actually care about PEDs. If they did, the NFL wouldn't exist.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Why wouldn't the testing be effective?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be/wasn't (although they're obviously not catching every user). For MLB, the appearance of effectiveness is far more important to them than whether it actually is, though.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Yeah, the last time offensive levels were this low in baseballs was in the late 80s/early 90s (a time where no testing was in place and players were taking tons of PEDs). It all points to there being other explainable factors.

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't square with physics. Steroids make you stronger, which translates into more speed. Given your country of residence you should know all about the steroid-speed connection.

Furthermore, baseball was having a HUGE offensive season in '94 before the strike, and there was no impetus to bring fans back because they hadn't yet left.

Bonds is an excellent test case. Over dinner with Griffey he admitted to wanting to use after '98, then comes out and has the three greatest offensive seasons of his career, hitting 50% more HRs than he had previous to any season in 2001.

If the ball was juiced before, why did someone in the clear decline phase of his career have such a precipitous increase in offense?

How do you explain Brady Anderson, Greg Vaughn, and numerous other players who hit 50 out of nowhere?

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

I'm not saying it wouldn't be/wasn't (although they're obviously not catching every user). For MLB, the appearance of effectiveness is far more important to them than whether it actually is, though.

No, they aren't catching every user, but what they are doing is forcing players to use more short term and less effective PED's than the long anabolic cycles of 10 years ago. Most of the stuff today is more to do with injury issues than performance which is why you see guys like Cruz and Melky still producing about the same after getting caught. PED's is just such a broad term.