I think they had two - Frankfurt Galaxy and Cologne.

thanks. wasnt too sure :)

Well aside from the poor sportsmanship of one player, Seattle for a few years (since 2010) led the league in PED suspensions. Just prior to the 2013 season, 5-6 players were suspended for PED's (A fair chunk being starters). Sherman was almost banned from play this season but got off on technicality. I guess you could make the argument that those players acted on their own, but with near 7 suspensions, at some point common sense would dictate the coaches and other players knew about it and either did nothing to resolve the epidemic or promote it.

Normally I could care less since my team didn't go and might even wish the current Super Bowl champs well on their way to face the Broncos (they are a fellow West Coast team). However, their winning and not being held accountable for a large volume of penalties pretty much sets a dangerous precedent that teams should go ahead and start giving players special "vitamins". In case your wondering the 49ers have no suspensions for PEDs in a long time.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/20/seahawks-lead-the-league-in-ped-suspensions-since-2010/

Pete Caroll avoiding some investigation when the college team he ran had a PED epidemic; http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/23/why-suspend-terrelle-pryor-but-not-pete-carroll/

Yeah, WTF happened, Broncos? Get a grip already!






Who are Broncos again?

Very disappointing game! Nothing Denver did worked and everything the Seahawks did worked. I could not believe that given two weeks to prepare Manning screws up the first snap that lead to a safety.

I'm not really a fan of American Football, so this isn't a passionate defense, but this snarky comment comes up a lot in football threads and it's pretty ridiculous. American football is already one of the most dangerous sports out there with constant concussions and other injuries. They slam into one another MUCH more than rugby players do.

Wheres your sense of humor?

Inside me, in abundance. Again, that was not a passionate defense. It was a correction to an extremely tired joke,

oh i have seen rugby...believe me,it is a very suicidal sport. They do not use helmets. I bet their breakfast consists of bullets and barbed wire... Without even a glass of milk.

I think the fact they wear protection expose them to a different kind of harm (one they don't really feel). My point is : not wearing a helmet makes you use your head differently.

Could easily be the case as well. The contact in the open field really is different though, in general. I read a long article about it not long ago after watching some rugby in Europe and wondering about the differences. In American football for example you can do a total body slam at high speed out in the field.

In any event I guess if I am a bit tetchy it's because American football is already a stupidly violent sport with massive head trauma issues. So joking about them being pansies for wearing helmets and padding kind of rubs me the wrong way. The differences make it super dangerous even with all that protection, to the point Americans are kind of wondering whether the sport can keep going without massive changes.

Its a great sport, I played for a few years in my early to mid teens. Was forced to stop after dislocating my hip

Yes, I am completely sensible to that. I like US football, for the tactical side, and I really feel bad when it's classified as a contact sport rather than a ball game.
People usually say (and I am paraphrasing a bit your statement) "This game is so physical, players have to wear armor" (when compared to rugby for instance), whereas I think it's the other way round. So I think you are right about the massive changes : take off the armor, adapt the rules a bit, I believe the spirit of the game can stay quite the same (and yeah "uneducated eyes" would have to watch a sport less impressive ....but that's a small price for the health of the players).