T Nation

College Football Athlete Cycle


#1

sup guys. I play cornerback, lots of running, lateral agility, flexibility, fast twitch involved. Just got done with a Test 400 and anavar cycle. Felt heavy and slow after. Went from 170lbs to 193lbs... back down to 184 5 weeks later... anyways, getting ready for summer camp. Going to need to keep my conditioning and stay lean during this next cycle, no winny for the joints, and no Tren, Deca, etc for the cardio-killer trait. (from what i've heard). Here's what i got so far for a next cycle. need to stay fast and explosive

-Test 250 Enanthate (12wk)
-Masteron (everyone is saying no brainer for fat loss and strength)
-Equipoise (increased red blood cell count and stamina, strength and appetite)
?? Halotestin? (fast twitch muscle development. very intriguing)
thoughts and comments obliged.


#2

[quote]nsobh5 wrote:
thoughts and comments obliged.[/quote]

My “thoughts and comments” are that steroids are banned by the NCAA and you’re fucking over opponents, teammates, and friends by taking them.

I’ve said before on these forums that people using AAS for their own physique goals, I can live with. To each their own.

But doing it when it’s explicitly banned in the sport you are competing in: not cool.

It’s one thing if you’re going to the NFL and steroids are the ace card that will make you a few million extra bucks. Or even if you’re about to complete your NCAA eligibility and this is what might get you into a pro camp. But if you’re an active NCAA player, fuck you.


#3

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

[quote]nsobh5 wrote:
thoughts and comments obliged.[/quote]

My “thoughts and comments” are that steroids are banned by the NCAA and you’re fucking over opponents, teammates, and friends by taking them.

I’ve said before on these forums that people using AAS for their own physique goals, I can live with. To each their own.

But doing it when it’s explicitly banned in the sport you are competing in: not cool.

It’s one thing if you’re going to the NFL and steroids are the ace card that will make you a few million extra bucks. Or even if you’re about to complete your NCAA eligibility and this is what might get you into a pro camp. But if you’re an active NCAA player, fuck you.[/quote]

X2


#4

Another way of looking at it is that some adults who understand the steroid use in the NCAA choose to compete on a level playing field with the many others who are doing the same, rather than the many others who are not. It’s how it is.

Sure, anyone can choose not to use and see how that goes for them in football, including college.

There are plenty of colleges who have players who seem to be not athletes at all (judging from speed, agility, or even obviously careless appearance) and so it’s not as if a truly talented player who chooses to stay natural can’t get a spot somewhere. Probably at a school that still offers a fine education, if that’s what it’s about?

If the NCAA actually wanted steroids out of college football, then with the billions of dollars they bring in, they could afford random drug testing during the year, just as baseball has always been able to afford but deliberately chose not to do.

This isn’t my basis for the above, but for illustration: http://espn.go.com/gen/s/2000/1207/929862.html

As personal opinion, worth nothing more than that, it’s somewhat like drivers entering a coast-to-coast car race with a rule that the speed limit can’t be exceeded at any time. But in fact, most of the drivers choose to do what they can when they don’t see a cop. Yup, it’s unfair to those drivers who want to follow the rule. They’ll still get to be in the race but sure won’t be hoisting trophies for going 70. How mad is it reasonable to get at the faster drivers who don’t get caught by the cops?

To further the analogy with sports, we’d have decades of the drivers crossing the country in 30 hours or so, and then somehow everybody being in shock and feeling personally betrayed when learning these blurringly fast drivers weren’t following the speed limit the whole time.

It’s competitive sports in the real world rather than an ideal world.

Just personal opinion and worth nothing more than everyone else’s, for sure.

The only study (that I know of) on Halotestin and fast-twitch muscle fibers didn’t show that it does anything unique among anabolic steroids. Rather, Halotestin and mestanolone were the only two steroids tested, and both gave the same effect. I don’t think you’ll get a special benefit from including Halotestin.

In terms of effectiveness and working well together, there’s nothing wrong with combining the three you have in mind.


#5

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

[quote]nsobh5 wrote:
thoughts and comments obliged.[/quote]

My “thoughts and comments” are that steroids are banned by the NCAA and you’re fucking over opponents, teammates, and friends by taking them.

I’ve said before on these forums that people using AAS for their own physique goals, I can live with. To each their own.

But doing it when it’s explicitly banned in the sport you are competing in: not cool.

It’s one thing if you’re going to the NFL and steroids are the ace card that will make you a few million extra bucks. Or even if you’re about to complete your NCAA eligibility and this is what might get you into a pro camp. But if you’re an active NCAA player, fuck you.[/quote]

Yeah in a perfect world everyone would abide by the rules…


#6

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Another way of looking at it is that some adults who understand the steroid use in the NCAA choose to compete on a level playing field with the many others who are doing the same, rather than the many others who are not. It’s how it is.

Sure, anyone can choose not to use and see how that goes for them in football, including college.

There are plenty of colleges who have players who seem to be not athletes at all (judging from speed, agility, or even obviously careless appearance) and so it’s not as if a truly talented player who chooses to stay natural can’t get a spot somewhere. Probably at a school that still offers a fine education, if that’s what it’s about?

If the NCAA actually wanted steroids out of college football, then with the billions of dollars they bring in, they could afford random drug testing during the year, just as baseball has always been able to afford but deliberately chose not to do.

This isn’t my basis for the above, but for illustration: http://espn.go.com/gen/s/2000/1207/929862.html

As personal opinion, worth nothing more than that, it’s somewhat like drivers entering a coast-to-coast car race with a rule that the speed limit can’t be exceeded at any time. But in fact, most of the drivers choose to do what they can when they don’t see a cop. Yup, it’s unfair to those drivers who want to follow the rule. They’ll still get to be in the race but sure won’t be hoisting trophies for going 70. How mad is it reasonable to get at the faster drivers who don’t get caught by the cops?

To further the analogy with sports, we’d have decades of the drivers crossing the country in 30 hours or so, and then somehow everybody being in shock and feeling personally betrayed when learning these blurringly fast drivers weren’t following the speed limit the whole time.

It’s competitive sports in the real world rather than an ideal world.

Just personal opinion and worth nothing more than everyone else’s, for sure.

The only study (that I know of) on Halotestin and fast-twitch muscle fibers didn’t show that it does anything unique among anabolic steroids. Rather, Halotestin and mestanolone were the only two steroids tested, and both gave the same effect. I don’t think you’ll get a special benefit from including Halotestin.

In terms of effectiveness and working well together, there’s nothing wrong with combining the three you have in mind.

[/quote]

Totally agree. Do what you gotta do.


#7

[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Another way of looking at it is that some adults who understand the steroid use in the NCAA choose to compete on a level playing field with the many others who are doing the same, rather than the many others who are not. It’s how it is.

Sure, anyone can choose not to use and see how that goes for them in football, including college.

There are plenty of colleges who have players who seem to be not athletes at all (judging from speed, agility, or even obviously careless appearance) and so it’s not as if a truly talented player who chooses to stay natural can’t get a spot somewhere. Probably at a school that still offers a fine education, if that’s what it’s about?

If the NCAA actually wanted steroids out of college football, then with the billions of dollars they bring in, they could afford random drug testing during the year, just as baseball has always been able to afford but deliberately chose not to do.

This isn’t my basis for the above, but for illustration: http://espn.go.com/gen/s/2000/1207/929862.html

As personal opinion, worth nothing more than that, it’s somewhat like drivers entering a coast-to-coast car race with a rule that the speed limit can’t be exceeded at any time. But in fact, most of the drivers choose to do what they can when they don’t see a cop. Yup, it’s unfair to those drivers who want to follow the rule. They’ll still get to be in the race but sure won’t be hoisting trophies for going 70. How mad is it reasonable to get at the faster drivers who don’t get caught by the cops?

To further the analogy with sports, we’d have decades of the drivers crossing the country in 30 hours or so, and then somehow everybody being in shock and feeling personally betrayed when learning these blurringly fast drivers weren’t following the speed limit the whole time.

It’s competitive sports in the real world rather than an ideal world.

Just personal opinion and worth nothing more than everyone else’s, for sure.

The only study (that I know of) on Halotestin and fast-twitch muscle fibers didn’t show that it does anything unique among anabolic steroids. Rather, Halotestin and mestanolone were the only two steroids tested, and both gave the same effect. I don’t think you’ll get a special benefit from including Halotestin.

In terms of effectiveness and working well together, there’s nothing wrong with combining the three you have in mind.

[/quote]

Totally agree. Do what you gotta do.[/quote]

I’m in this camp, too. I don’t think it’s right, but I do think it’s necessary.

Can’t believe I just disagreed with dt79 about something. Feel like I need to take a shower.


#8

^I respect your guys’ opinion, I really do. My former completely-goody-two-shoes self has become far more accepting of AAS use in general because of things I’ve read on these forums from thoughtful guys like yourselves. Today, I’ve got no issue with their use (the “it’s your body, do what you want with it” mindset), and I can grudgingly understand the Olympian/NFL player/etc whose livelihood might depend on their athletic performance that decides to bend the rules (countingbeans’ “I just don’t expect professional athletes to play fair” mindset).

That’s where my “I don’t think it’s right, but I can understand that it’s necessary” line is. You’re making money from your athletic performance? OK, I don’t really like it, but I see why you’re doing it.

I admit that I’m extra-sensitive to this particular case because I played college football. I played at a pretty small-time, academics-first school so I doubt that it was a lot of guys butI admit that it’s certainly possible, or probable, that someone on my team did, maybe several guys. I’m sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that my five or six closest friends on the team didn’t use AAS, but past that, I can’t really be sure. And it does cheese me off that guys would use a banned substance in that regard, without money at stake, or even a chance at money.

Lest you confuse me with some geezer that says college-athletes-are-just-lucky-to-get-their-scholarship, education-first-even-for-Johnny-Manziel-and-Cam-Newton: I’m very pro-college-athlete, anti-NCAA. That’s a topic for another day best left for another thread. Just wanted to get that out there. My post isn’t coming from a “NCAA athletes are there to get an education first!” standpoint.

Mr. Roberts, your post was very eloquent, and I happen to agree that if the NCAA really wanted steroids out of college football, they could have it (or at least get closer to it) with stricter testing protocols. It’s really amusing how the NCAA (and the NFL, for that matter) have largely skated in this regard while MLB got slammed for steroids in baseball.


#9

[quote]nsobh5 wrote:
sup guys. I play cornerback, lots of running, lateral agility, flexibility, fast twitch involved. Just got done with a Test 400 and anavar cycle. Felt heavy and slow after. Went from 170lbs to 193lbs… back down to 184 5 weeks later… anyways, getting ready for summer camp. Going to need to keep my conditioning and stay lean during this next cycle, no winny for the joints, and no Tren, Deca, etc for the cardio-killer trait. (from what i’ve heard). Here’s what i got so far for a next cycle. need to stay fast and explosive

-Test 250 Enanthate (12wk)
-Masteron (everyone is saying no brainer for fat loss and strength)
-Equipoise (increased red blood cell count and stamina, strength and appetite)
?? Halotestin? (fast twitch muscle development. very intriguing)
thoughts and comments obliged.[/quote]

well, do you really need to add much more weight?

also, did you do a post cycle after that? you lost almost half your gains…

as far as EQ, i’m of the opinion that the RBC/EPO effect is over-rated. most steroids have this effect, and testosterone does do this quite a bit (hence the need to donate blood, etc)

also, do you have a drug test coming up, or is that a concern?


#10

185’s not a terrible weight at his position at the college level (depending of course on height). I’m assuming you’re lean.

drug tests should not be an issue. it’s the NCAA.

Activitiesguy and DT, I believe I’d be on your side of this issue if I believed that fewer than 50% of D1 football players used steroids. I do not, however, believe this to be the case. If we’re talking about scholarship athletes, I’d bet it’s around the 60%+range, and if we’re talking about draftable players, I’d put the number even higher. Of course this is just opinion, but I do have reasons for having this opinion.


#11

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
185’s not a terrible weight at his position at the college level (depending of course on height). I’m assuming you’re lean.

drug tests should not be an issue. it’s the NCAA.

Activitiesguy and DT, I believe I’d be on your side of this issue if I believed that fewer than 50% of D1 football players used steroids. I do not, however, believe this to be the case. If we’re talking about scholarship athletes, I’d bet it’s around the 60%+range, and if we’re talking about draftable players, I’d put the number even higher. Of course this is just opinion, but I do have reasons for having this opinion.[/quote]

Oh no, I thought this was just an inter-college competition with trophies and maybe sponsored sportswear and accessories for athletes lol. I didn’t realise it’s actually such a commercialised and lucrative thing in the US. That definitely changes things and my views towards them.

@OP

My apologies.


#12

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Another way of looking at it is that some adults who understand the steroid use in the NCAA choose to compete on a level playing field with the many others who are doing the same, rather than the many others who are not. It’s how it is.

Sure, anyone can choose not to use and see how that goes for them in football, including college.

There are plenty of colleges who have players who seem to be not athletes at all (judging from speed, agility, or even obviously careless appearance) and so it’s not as if a truly talented player who chooses to stay natural can’t get a spot somewhere. Probably at a school that still offers a fine education, if that’s what it’s about?

If the NCAA actually wanted steroids out of college football, then with the billions of dollars they bring in, they could afford random drug testing during the year, just as baseball has always been able to afford but deliberately chose not to do.

This isn’t my basis for the above, but for illustration: http://espn.go.com/gen/s/2000/1207/929862.html

As personal opinion, worth nothing more than that, it’s somewhat like drivers entering a coast-to-coast car race with a rule that the speed limit can’t be exceeded at any time. But in fact, most of the drivers choose to do what they can when they don’t see a cop. Yup, it’s unfair to those drivers who want to follow the rule. They’ll still get to be in the race but sure won’t be hoisting trophies for going 70. How mad is it reasonable to get at the faster drivers who don’t get caught by the cops?

To further the analogy with sports, we’d have decades of the drivers crossing the country in 30 hours or so, and then somehow everybody being in shock and feeling personally betrayed when learning these blurringly fast drivers weren’t following the speed limit the whole time.

It’s competitive sports in the real world rather than an ideal world.

Just personal opinion and worth nothing more than everyone else’s, for sure.

The only study (that I know of) on Halotestin and fast-twitch muscle fibers didn’t show that it does anything unique among anabolic steroids. Rather, Halotestin and mestanolone were the only two steroids tested, and both gave the same effect. I don’t think you’ll get a special benefit from including Halotestin.

In terms of effectiveness and working well together, there’s nothing wrong with combining the three you have in mind.

[/quote]

Totally agree. Do what you gotta do.[/quote]

I’m in this camp, too. I don’t think it’s right, but I do think it’s necessary.

Can’t believe I just disagreed with dt79 about something. Feel like I need to take a shower.
[/quote]

Nope. No disagreement. I can’t even take a side since I don’t understand the culture there regarding this stuff lol.


#13

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
185’s not a terrible weight at his position at the college level (depending of course on height). I’m assuming you’re lean.

drug tests should not be an issue. it’s the NCAA.

Activitiesguy and DT, I believe I’d be on your side of this issue if I believed that fewer than 50% of D1 football players used steroids. I do not, however, believe this to be the case. If we’re talking about scholarship athletes, I’d bet it’s around the 60%+range, and if we’re talking about draftable players, I’d put the number even higher. Of course this is just opinion, but I do have reasons for having this opinion.[/quote]

Oh no, I thought this was just an inter-college competition with trophies and maybe sponsored sportswear and accessories for athletes lol. I didn’t realise it’s actually such a commercialised and lucrative thing in the US. That definitely changes things and my views towards them.

@OP

My apologies.[/quote]

American football is a weird deal… the NCAA makes over $1 billion a year. i’m not even sure what the combined incomes are for the football teams, but i’ve read it far exceeds that…

and the NFL makes over $9 billion a year by itself…

it’s not surprising how they brushed the head injury issues aside for so long…


#14

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Another way of looking at it is that some adults who understand the steroid use in the NCAA choose to compete on a level playing field with the many others who are doing the same, rather than the many others who are not. It’s how it is.

Sure, anyone can choose not to use and see how that goes for them in football, including college.

There are plenty of colleges who have players who seem to be not athletes at all (judging from speed, agility, or even obviously careless appearance) and so it’s not as if a truly talented player who chooses to stay natural can’t get a spot somewhere. Probably at a school that still offers a fine education, if that’s what it’s about?

If the NCAA actually wanted steroids out of college football, then with the billions of dollars they bring in, they could afford random drug testing during the year, just as baseball has always been able to afford but deliberately chose not to do.

This isn’t my basis for the above, but for illustration: http://espn.go.com/gen/s/2000/1207/929862.html

As personal opinion, worth nothing more than that, it’s somewhat like drivers entering a coast-to-coast car race with a rule that the speed limit can’t be exceeded at any time. But in fact, most of the drivers choose to do what they can when they don’t see a cop. Yup, it’s unfair to those drivers who want to follow the rule. They’ll still get to be in the race but sure won’t be hoisting trophies for going 70. How mad is it reasonable to get at the faster drivers who don’t get caught by the cops?

To further the analogy with sports, we’d have decades of the drivers crossing the country in 30 hours or so, and then somehow everybody being in shock and feeling personally betrayed when learning these blurringly fast drivers weren’t following the speed limit the whole time.

It’s competitive sports in the real world rather than an ideal world.

Just personal opinion and worth nothing more than everyone else’s, for sure.

The only study (that I know of) on Halotestin and fast-twitch muscle fibers didn’t show that it does anything unique among anabolic steroids. Rather, Halotestin and mestanolone were the only two steroids tested, and both gave the same effect. I don’t think you’ll get a special benefit from including Halotestin.

In terms of effectiveness and working well together, there’s nothing wrong with combining the three you have in mind.

[/quote]

Totally agree. Do what you gotta do.[/quote]

I’m in this camp, too. I don’t think it’s right, but I do think it’s necessary.

Can’t believe I just disagreed with dt79 about something. Feel like I need to take a shower.
[/quote]

Nope. No disagreement. I can’t even take a side since I don’t understand the culture there regarding this stuff lol.[/quote]

I’m clean again!


#15

My opinion of become slower, is the body “forgot” some movements OR techniques

And you can improve techniques after a cycle without any drugs. Like flexibility and mobility, etc

I know some players use dromo with test, to get faster


#16

I agree with Bill, I use to compete at a high level for baseball and the majority of players were using. the tide is changing but if you wanted to be at the same level with the competition you were using. Like Bill said, all the money the NCAA brings in they can afford drug testing but I believe they know it brings excitement to the game. ex. Bigger Home Runs, faster players, Bigger hits.

How much fun was it to watch Bonds and McGwire hit Bombs! Also I feel if players weren’t using the stars would not have as long as careers. ex recovering time from injuries and all that.


#17

[quote]Jimjoo4 wrote:
How much fun was it to watch Bonds and McGwire hit Bombs! Also I feel if players weren’t using the stars would not have as long as careers. ex recovering time from injuries and all that. [/quote]

Whether steroids should be legal for use in collegiate and professional sports is not the question being discussed.

The issue being discussed is that at present, in NCAA football, where the players are (for now) not paid professionals, they are illegal, and yet our hero the OP (who I suspect we’ll never see again) wants to use them.

Starts probably would enjoy longer careers, and sports probably would be more exciting, if PED’s were just made legal. For what it’s worth, on the flip side of that coin, I suspect the continued growth in size and speed of NFL players will continue to manifest itself as guys with dementia in their 50’s, more cases of CTE, etc. So full legality of PED’s in that sport might result in longer careers, but probably with a cost. Not a cost that I’d particularly like to see, but that’s my opinion, and I fully recognize there exists a camp of barbarian NFL fans that would happily watch 400 pound mutant linemen and 300 pound linebackers literally tearing each other’s head off because it’s “more exciting” than today’s game, or some crap like that.


#18

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

[quote]Jimjoo4 wrote:
How much fun was it to watch Bonds and McGwire hit Bombs! Also I feel if players weren’t using the stars would not have as long as careers. ex recovering time from injuries and all that. [/quote]

Whether steroids should be legal for use in collegiate and professional sports is not the question being discussed.

The issue being discussed is that at present, in NCAA football, where the players are (for now) not paid professionals, they are illegal, and yet our hero the OP (who I suspect we’ll never see again) wants to use them.

Starts probably would enjoy longer careers, and sports probably would be more exciting, if PED’s were just made legal. For what it’s worth, on the flip side of that coin, I suspect the continued growth in size and speed of NFL players will continue to manifest itself as guys with dementia in their 50’s, more cases of CTE, etc. So full legality of PED’s in that sport might result in longer careers, but probably with a cost. Not a cost that I’d particularly like to see, but that’s my opinion, and I fully recognize there exists a camp of barbarian NFL fans that would happily watch 400 pound mutant linemen and 300 pound linebackers literally tearing each other’s head off because it’s “more exciting” than today’s game, or some crap like that.[/quote]

I agree with you. Im just saying the majority does it. Until NCAA,NFL and MLB create stricter drug testing people are going to do it because the next guy is and he wants to stay in the game.


#19

Athletics - If You Don’t Take It, You Won’t Make It