Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass
Fair enough to a point. Assuming that everyone was on the same levels of the same drugs. Or very similar at least.
But on the roids, you still look stronger, more explosive and more devastating than you would without the drugs. Because you are
stronger, more explosive and more devastating. You can fight harder for longer. Your best performances look better than they would if you were clean. Therefore you
look better than you would on natural ability alone.
I mean, Jon Jones doesn't need steroids to look (and be) devastating. Neither did Wanderlei.
But Jon Jones on steroids, with no fear of sanction from an athletic commission, looks even more
devastating. And he becomes even more dangerous. So his best performances would look even more ferocious than they do already.
I don't think you understand the point we're making.
If a roided fighter fights another roided fighter, he may be more ferocious etc but so will his opponent be, so it's cancelled out.
If a clean fighter fights another clean fighter, he doesn't have less of an advantage, it's the same playing field, since they're both the same again.
Only if a roided fighter fights a clean fighter is there a disparity.