Holyfield's amazing transformation

Dude, you could not debate that there was no way from what you wrote that anyone could tell you read the thread or knew that information.
You seemed to present as evidence for PED use something that would not mean anything-that someone said Holyfield like to party. Even the shortcut idea was from you, but even if someone else speculated about it, in iteself it would suggest nothing.

Things went off tangent when instead of just telling me you knew &/or believed the pretty definitive information about Holyfield, you acted like I was attacking you-manfestly untrue-seemingly because your ego was triggered.

"Argue for the sake of arguing"? IF you mean just debate anything regardless of what you actually believe, that is bad & not what I do.
It is important why we believe anything-otherwise we can be just "coincidentally right", or accept anything on faith, best to think critically & comprehend the facts & reasonings behind ideas.

If you mean exchange ideas & argue for a point to try & get at the truth-hopefully not just defend one's own position regardless of whether it is tenable-that is good & mature, & mostly what this website is about.
Luckily the worst of the hate speech & trolling seemingly gone for a while.

 

Sure, many would be shocked-others like you have some idea of what they can achieve.
But even that varies by genetic potential.
Except for around his neck & tarps area, it would seem very possible that Holyfield may have had the genetics to reach that size. Though you left out that it is harder when doing the significant cardio training boxers need to do, it might be possible.

But then we have to consider how fast someone already strong added muscle.
If you pass Evander on that, the nature & times that he had seeming cardiac & baldness issues-& their correlation with what size he had recently reached- seems suspect.
Without that, if he merely worked with people like Lee Haney who juiced up many people, you might not assume it is likely he was using.

However, do you not think the evidence that I have been posting that he drugged up is pretty definitive?
Just read what it says, heavily citationed with references, under "Allegations of Steroid & HGH Use".

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evander_Holyfield[/url]

 

Holyfield was strong for his size. Though I did not know Bowe said that. I would be interested to see that quote, & if Bowe said that before he gained significant muscle aqfter their first fight-or ever indicated that it applied even before then. I would be surprised if this is the case, but please send any hyperlinks about if Bowe distinguished when-because if he did not, it is likely he meant overall, & this is likely to be more so & because of 2 of their 3 fights when Holyfield was heavier.

But I did not debate that, I said that he did not have the same muscle & strength Tyson did naturally.
But I find it unfair to assume anyone used without good evidence.
Not only does this not exist for Tyson, but it is well documented that by 13, & when young, poor, not boxing, no plausible access to or motivation to take PEDs, & not tall, Tyson was bulky & strong, ~ 190 lbs.

Tyson's upper body size like Holyfield's was within the range of what a natural man *might* achieve.
Unlike E.H., he maximized his leg strength too.
Only perhaps his neck was unusually big-but I believe the neck it the one area some boxers might equal or exceed bodybuilders, at least compared to their overall size, due to the demands of the sport & specific excercises such as Tyson did.

Here is the best guide I know to what some might achieve naturally.
In part because it accounts for bone structure & even weight from eating a lot/many times a day.
[url]http://www.weightrainer.net/bodypred.html[/url]

 

I have specified at length that overall the kinds of gains Holyfield made are within natural limits.
I do not believe that this is likely for his neck & traps, & the cardiac problems he declared & baldness coincided with when he had bulked up.
These things were quite unlikely at his age if he was natural.

But let us say that you weigh the evidence differently.
If so I would like to know why, but I admire being fair & reserving judgement unless there is good evidence.
Ad some do *not* do about Tyson, who was unlike Holyfield was big young-at 13-& even before training for anything.

BUT: surely you agree that for many reasons relating to successful cheating & imperfect testing methods, some cheat without be detected?
So you know that some test negative forever, then actual investigations uncover cheating or that it is extremely likely they cheated, like Barry Bonds?
Or Marion Jones, who tearfully admitted cheating only after she was investigated, but tested clean for a lifetime?

And there is much evidence about Holyfield. It is very unlikely to be fraudulent or mistaken.
I have linked it & cut & pasted a few times above. What do you think about it man?

 

Oh im sure he used some designer drugs- for recovery or to aid with puttong on size.
But people can achieve alot if they dont have to worry about outside interference.

 

Here's the link. All Bowe says on the subject is "Small as Evander was, he was probably the strongest": [url]https://www.ringtv.com/598744-best-i-faced-riddick-bowe/[/url]

There are no clear indication that Tyson took steroids, but neither is there for any other HW in the 80's and 90's bar Holy and Morrisson, but I'd be surprised if both amateur and pro boxing wasn't rife with them. There was hardly any testing and we know steroid was widespread in other sports and especially the Olympics.

The only thing that can be said specifically about Tyson in this reagrd was that he gained 15 lbs in a year, from his loss to Tillman in the Olympic trials until his pro debut. It could well be that he cut weight to make 201 against Tillman, though, even though he came in 2,5 lbs below the limit.

Someone here said Tyson was 195 lbs at 17, and if that is true he did indeed gain a lot of lean weight in just a year (he was about 215 in his early pro fights at 18), but I don't think he provided a source.

 

I agree that many used PEDs. But that does not tell us with any authority if it was a significant minority, or the vast majority.
Or if either statement applies to just dabbling, or using for years, or enough to have a big influence on size & strength.
Someone like Bowe never had an implausible level of muscle for his height & bone structure.
Accordingly, it would be unfair to assume usage for him or anyone where there is not good evidence-& let someone like Holyfield off the hook morally or in rating him all time.
When he would not have been as successful, at least against modern HWs, without drugging up.

What you note about Tyson is not at all suspicious.
Anyone *could* have used anything. But what you describe is not unusual.
Firstly, many have said how Tyson was near 200 or 190 at 13.
Even if he was a little chubby, that a boy who was not very tall & did not train at all was that size-& supposedly was bench pressing with 250 the first time he hit any gym-yeah, that is genetics.

And you described how he could have cut weight to make an amateur limit.
Coming in ac couple lbs. under it does not mean he did not cut-but he very well may not have-someone like Hearns glared at his trainer when he weighed in at 145! Even in the pros, sometimes they do not get it correct.

Also if you do the math from 201 to I believe a little under 215 for his earliest pro fights, it was not 15 full pounds.
But even if it was, we are talking a full year, at a time when he is still a teenager & only 18!
Check out what people can gain naturally as novices, & when you combine that with that the vast majority of boys fill out during the college years...
That Tyson who matured earlier, had great genes for mass, & then started training in a dedicated way gained this weight is not at all suspicious!

Now maybe he cheated say when getting back into shape after prison.
But I would not accept it without good evidence, muscle has memory, & his fighting weight & body fat ended up being near what it was during his peak.

But the logic you are using to seemingly assume Tyson used is not at all persuasive.
And it is totally unlike what went on with Holyfield.
Who was lean for years, bulked up fairly quickly-even that would not be enough for me.
Although the time he had cardiac problems & hair loss so young is suspicious.

But nobody can debate the evidence linked to multiple government investigations that show E.H. almost certainly used PEDs-it is not merely guilt by association, though he was surrounded by several who were heavily involved with PEDs.

I hope that you can see & admit that there is nothing suspicious about Tyson from what you described.
If there was, you would have to suspect a ton of other boxers who gained weight-some without much effort or even lifting weights-naturally when young. Most a little later than Tyson.
Many like Ali started at LHW.

Some gained this weight & muscle even before steroids were *invented*.
Nah, for all Tyson's flaws-& he has many as a man & a boxer...

It is unreasonable & unfair to assume that he likely cheated his way to the top.

 

Likely? Unlikely?

That's the problem with a speculative case in these matters. Pushing for the possible is a slam dunk. Of course, it is possible. It is possible that Holyfield was on the juice from birth and never tested positive in both an amateur and pro career, spanning more than 30 years.

However, it being possible doesn't necessarily make it probable and, here is where I find some of the speculation begins to reach - particularly, when references are made to what is and is not naturally achievable, in terms of body shape and muscle mass.

You say: "

This content is protected

"

I say: You're entitled to believe what you want but, in order to deliver a convincing argument for why a person did something wrong/against the rules, you need to, a) adequately explain why you believe specific of his gains in muscle mass were not natural, despite alluding to them as being achievable within "natural limits", b) discount all other possible causes for his interim heart problems and, c) understand that hair loss in men, before the age of 30, is very common.


As far as the evidence you refer to, in relation to Holyfield's alleged steroid and HGH use, is concerned - it is some distance away from being "definitive". You might want to look at the nature of the citations you refer to a little more closely.

- Holyfield is "reportedly" named amongst the customers of BALCO.
(A lot of athletes were "reportedly" connected to BALCO)

- Holyfield "allegedly" received HGH via an alias.
(And, I don't seem to be able to find the article posted on source's website, any longer)

- Holyfield plans "his own investigation into the allegations".
(Hardly damning evidence against him)

- The cited article, relating to "Signature Pharmacy", doesn't even contain Holyfield's name.


Definitive evidence would be something like a positive drugs test result or, better still, a Marion Jones style confession. Anything else is just hearsay, since I am not sure the information in existence, in support of a case against Holyfield, could even be considered as circumstantial evidence.

 

I do appreciate your intellectual rigor in addressing specifics Man_Machine!
Much of what you say about when to find someone guilty & how careful to be I agree with-& I do not see that you know that I have said so repeatedly.
But I weigh the evidence differently than you do.

Sometimes you state a case in a way where it is not skeptical enough-in part because you may state the evidence a bit incompletely.
More often though, you take the admirable reticence to convict someone in the court of public opinion to an implausible extreme.
You are unusually reticent to find someone at least overwhelmingly guilty when the evidence produced is by normal standards deeply convincing.

I will be specific...

1) It is unfair to restate my argument about Holyfield as he "possibly" used PEDs.
Everything I said pointed to multiple lines of very specific reasoning & evidence.
Agree or not, you accidentally created a "Straw Man" by suggesting I would think he-or anyone-should be found guilty due to the fact that nobody can be proven innocent.
In fact I specifically & at length argued against this mentality numerous times-& a few times on this very thread.

2) I said that several points of evidence about his body & problems were suggestive-*not* convincing in themselves. Although I did say that the specific evidence related to investigations was convincing.
First about your objections to what I hope you can see I find suspicious, your three points...

I described & linked this fairly expert source (that studied 10,000 natural lifters) about what was naturally achievable. [url]http://www.weightrainer.net/bodypred.html[/url].
His neck clearly exceeds what you would fine possible naturally.
Again, we are not talking what most guys measure-either extra room for dress shirts, or the extra size that comes with having more than his very low bodyfat. This guide is for 8-10% BF, most have somewhat more than they want to believe they do...
But I also specified that maybe this specific measurement is wrong, because the one body part a boxer might develop beyond a body builder is the neck. Based upon specific excercies & what is needed in the sport. And his traps stand out about as much-the very areas that related to receptors for exogenous testosterone on the body, steroids tend to develop disproportionately develop.
Still I said it is only questionable...

2) About the baldness & interim heart problem...You only need to discount all other possible causes as at all *probable*. That is if you are making a conclusion that he is guilty; I would say that the evidence is very suspicious.
You did not accurately describe what happened with Holyfield.
As others noted, he became bald both pretty suddenly & after bulking up.
And heart problems like his when so young & fit, particularly when there was no previous record of any problems & he had physicals for years....

Yeah, I could be more than forgiven if I thought that this amounts to him being almost certainly guilty given the odds that all this circumstantial evidence was a coincidence.

3) You may not realize that sometimes evidence is overwhelming, either about particular parts of a case or the whole matter of guilt, & for technical & legal reasons people say "allegedly" & "reportedly".
Evolution & atomic "theory" are the bases of much of the physical sicences & much of our knowledge about the world. We have much science & knowledge of the world that would not exist without them-quantum physics too. They are almost certainly correct.

In this matter, you can research it & I do not think you will plausibly be able to debate that Holyfield certainly was accused of being among BALCO clients!
Also that there is really no doubt that he was named as among the clients of same.
Now the likelihood that they had a slight variant of his name & address AND when they called his number he picked up *not* being deeply suggestive of guilt?
Almost vanishingly small.

The part about him launching his own investigation...I did not indicate that this stray fact also indicates guilt.
But it certainly does nothing to show he is falsely accused.
It sounds just like OJ seeking "The Real Killer". I do not believe either one evidenced any actual independent investigation...

4) The evidence is *not* just hearsay. It is not merely random statements, it is an accumulation of much persuasive circumstantial evidence that resulted from government investigations.
You did not address the separate late HGH one.

I do not know how you could doubt either that it is clearly circumstantial evidence.
And nobody has argued with me before that it does not show him at least very likely to be guilty.
Usually folks who want him to be innocent just ignore the evidence.
It is not definitive; it is just overwhelmingly likely he is guilty.

May I ask, is Holyfield a favorite of yours, & is it possible that you therefor are going to great & implausible lengths to assume he may well be clean for a lifetime?

 

This is a remarkably fair post.I agree Holyfield is an all time great..hes actually in my HW h2h atg top 8....his courage,skills and ability to renew and overcome setbacks cant be questioned.

 

Francois Botha

 

Ok. What happened there?

 

Oh, but I am so very, very skeptical... ...of the so-called evidence against Holyfield.

And so, we are indeed weighing up the evidence differently. The same attitude, resulting in different positions, within the scope of the same topic.

You doubt Holyfield's innocence because of the evidence.
I doubt his guilt because I find the evidence to be lacking (and I choose my words carefully here).

I'll get to why I am skeptical, in a moment. But first, some context...

When you replied to my post before last, you were replying to thoughts directed at the thread's topic in general and not to any points directed at you, specifically. That is not to say that I did not appreciate your reply. However, my subsequent response was very much in the spirit of that first one of my posts. The key points of which, in summary were:

- there is no hard evidence - Holyfield never failed drugs test.
- Holyfield's gains were achievable without the use of PEDs.
- speculation is cheap.
- one's opinion on likelihood, doesn't constitute proof.

Perhaps, in my subsequent response to you, I was being too general; not thorough enough and, in places, a tad glib. For that I apologize, in so far as I was not as comprehensive as I might have been.

That said, to refer to me as taking my reservation of judgement to "an implausible extreme" is overcooking your case, somewhat. I think I've made clear my point on the "Likely? Unlikely?" questions.

One is either innocent or guilty; not something in between and, in my opinion, if evidence (information that is being brought to light) is being used to convict a man in the court of public opinion, then it had better be beyond doubt.

On the the question of evidence, your insistence on the information available being "by normal standards deeply convincing" is highly questionable. What are normal standards, in your view?

I did not restate your argument. I merely set out a contrast between 'possibility' and 'probability'.

With reference to my opening statement above, my initial comments on this thread centered on the futility of speculation. The implication being that speculation can sometimes (and more often than not, in today's shabby approach to journalistic inquiry) feed off possibility, rather than a probability deduced/induced from the quality of evidence.

I am struggling to see how you inferred from my previous post that I was making basing my points on the 'burden of proof', 'unfalsifiability' or inability to 'vindicate' Holyfield. While I might not have covered all aspects of the evidence you have put forth (since I only referenced one set of citations from one of your prior postings) it was at least consistent in attacking the quality of the evidence.

Yes - You posted this, after my initial comment and, to be honest, your focus had been so intently on the Wikipedia excerpt "Allegations of steroid and HGH use" that I overlooked the link.

However, with this link, you not only called an 'expert witness' , who I cannot cross-examine , but you also place your own doubts on the veracity of the guy's calculations, in terms of their applicability to a boxer.

On top of this, is the calculator being based on a formula we cannot see. We just have to take its reliability on faith - even though, we can't be sure of whether or not allowances have been made for any other confounding variables and what these might have been.

What margin of error does this guy's formula allow for?

Is one condemned as 'unnatural', if they measure greater than just one metric or do they have to be out-sized on all of them?

Get this guy on the stand and I reckon he'd be calling for the process of Holyfield's canonization to commence, in advance, post-questioning.

I'm not quite sure what to make of the above. You might be more or less stating that a preconceived notion of Holyfield's guilt bolsters the theory of PEDs having been the cause of his heart problems. Or, on the other hand, you might be trying to say that there is no need to explore alternative rationales.

In any event and, in combination with what you think is a neat sequence of events, which include Holyfield's premature hair loss, and it becomes a classic case of one 'joining the dots'.

To address your other point - I did not need to "accurately describe what happened with Holyfield". If you recall in your initial response to me, you categorically stated "These things (heart problems and hair loss) were quite unlikely at his age if he was natural.".

My pointing out that there needed to be consideration for other potential causes of his heart problems, needs no explanation - it is a point of principle. Pattern baldness is common in men under 30. Again, no need to join the dots in the way you have, because it's just a fact about baldness in men.

You are both implying his guilt and doing so on a faulty premise, right here^.

You are also erroneously referring to the output from your dot-joining exercise, as 'circumstantial evidence'. I do hope you realize by now that this is not the case. It is hearsay - your own interpretation of changes you have observed - not based on anything that can directly link Holyfied to systematic use and abuse of PEDs.

It might be a view shared by some others, but then again, it is the type of opinion that thrives on internet forums, to serve only as a cluster of talking points, for which no hard evidence exists in support. And, to think this might be enough for some to declare him "almost certainly guilty"??

 

I have no idea why you think human, sociopsychological interactions and behavior; in a specific setting and timeframe; involving unique people, in unique circumstances, could ever be compared with the physical sciences, which rely on long-observed laws, constants; the measurable properties of energy and matter.

They are not in the same ballpark. In actuality, they're not even the same sport.

I have not said otherwise. But, that said, being "accused" does not prove that he was.

Was Holyfield ever properly investigated over his name being on BALCO's client list? If so, where did those investigations lead?

I can't recall Conte ever implicating Holyfield directly.

To be frank, I think people equate and conflate the BALCO scandal with the Applied Pharmacy situation - although, I am prepared to be corrected, if worthwhile evidence can be provided.

Yes, it is suspicious, in so much that the story has the air of a 'cloak and dagger' conspiracy about it. But it is severely limited - not least because the supplies he is alleged to have received were legitimate, pharmaceutical products, with urological applications.

You do also realize that the SI journalists involved in bringing this situation to light (Llosa & Wertheim) made clear that, a) the items in question were picked up from a medical practitioner's offices supplied by Applied Pharmacy (not ordered online, directly from AP), b) Holyfield had a follow-up appointment booked with the same practitioner and, c) they make no assertion that Holyfield used the drugs that he is alleged to have received?

Added to this, is that they clearly had no interest in following up the case, from the perspective of uncovering the actual athletes, who may or may not have been abusing PEDs. Neither could they have been fully aware of the circumstances, under which Holyfield (if indeed it was him behind the alias) was undergoing treatment.

No. But, when you consistently point to the Wikipedia excerpt, "Allegations of steroid and HGH use", drawing particular attention to the volume of citations this section has (which, in reality, only amounts to 5 references), one of which is no longer available; another of which simply refers to Holyfield looking into the situation and another, which does not include his name at all, I fail to see the weight of evidence we're supposed to be convicting him on.

Has the prescription record, that Llosa & Wertheim claim to have reviewed, ever been made public? (genuine question). I would expect it to be a matter of public record, if it had been the subject of a government investigation.

But, I have never seen it. Have you?

So, while the 'Evan Fields' story offers the best and only hope for those claiming there is enough circumstantial evidence to convict Holyfield, it essentially rests on the word of two journalists, who were in the middle of breaking a big story.

Further still, is that, even if they had evidence of Holyfield actually taking the drugs, there would have remained the question of legitimate therapeutic use, based on any genuinely diagnosed medical condition, for which these drugs were prescribed.

And, going further again, why were not more records found, perhaps dating back to a time closer to when you might tie it to the period, for which you hold opinions about Holyfield's body shape, heart problems and hair loss? I mean, it's one record, relating to a period roughly 10 years after all those physical changes were observed.

I very much doubt anyone is getting a conviction on that pile of story telling; dot-connecting and the assumptions thereof.

Anything is possible.

As for plausibility, my arguments are as valid as yours.

 

I agree, as I've said, that there is no more evidence against Mike than any other.
The weight gain from 198,5 to 213 could just be that he cut. I said as much, so dont know who you're arguing with. If he indeed was 195 at 17, as someone claimed, it would be a different matter, but even that could have come about naturally.
His outbursts of rage doesn't have to be connected to roids nor his weight loss in prison and rapid gain afterwards.

Well, all this taken together is an indication for me, but not nearly as strong as it is for Holy where there is something aporoaching actual evidence.