Holyfield was steroid cheat?

Think it’s the same today

 

We are not going to sgree as you appear to have issues understanding my view point and willfully ignoring your flawed rational.

Ok for the last time...

1.Please do your own reserch if you doubt the validty of gain function using PEDS. You're an adult and if you search and find it yourself then you cannot come back and claim I have cherry picked my data. The reserch in this field is very limited so it won't take you long.

2.Your model means that if someone wants to achieve success using there own natural ability then they are out of luck because it is openly an abusive system. Yes people cheat now the point is if you cheat long enough the odds of slipping up and getting cought increases. Let me give you an analogy. If your a drunk driver you might get away with occassionally drinking and driving if however you do it every day over several years you will enivitably make a mistake. cause an accident or get stopped by the police on a routine check- in some fields this is termed as "Time Exposed to Danger" or TED. Think Floyd using IV or Canelo getting busted.

3.I don't need to prove the morality. Illegal drugs are illegal. Why do you think that is the case? It's because it's cheating. You're asserting an opinion on a system that already exists. The majority of people apart from yourself understand this. If I'm talking bollocks then do a poll on this site and ask that specific question. I will save you time the vast majority of people view taking PEDS as being morally wrong.

4. I have clearly stated that legal supplements are fine. they're legal again you're think in absolutes are you autistic? I understand that people are variable and there limits are variable you don't seem to be able to grasp this fact.
5. You seem to understand the consequences of you philosophy. I have clearly explained why that is the case and I'm doing my best not to repeat myself.

I think we have to agree to disagree. I'm more than happy to discuss these things in detail however I don't want to get into a circualer conversation where the other person is failing to understand basic concepts.

If you believe I'm talking gibberish then do a poll. If everyone says PEDS are fine I will concede. I know however that is not the case and the consequences of having an open season would be devastating for sport as well as society itself.

Although this has been an interesting communication I'm at odds as to whether you're autistic or a psychopath. It isn't me throwing shade at you it's understanding that I'm having to explain the concept of morality to an adult. They're 5 stages of moral growth and your barely at stage 4. In laymans terms you have the same moral capacity as a 7-10 year old. You don't have to take my word for it.

Thanks

 

They were competing with Evan Fields

 

Evan Fields smh.

 

I think some people here would be devastated on a "there's no Santa Claus" level if they knew exactly how many of their boxing heroes used PEDs.

 

He wasn't just a cheat, he had own lab for cheating and due to his popularity / money making ability the boxing comish ignored him.

 

My model means that if someone wants to achieve success using PURELY their own ability, then it's an oxymoron since no person in modern society can call themselves 100% 'NATURAL', unless they live like cavemen without consuming ANY artificial chemical or substance.

It's you who is seemingly not understanding what I'm posting and refusing to answer the most vital questions being asked.

Stating 'Do your own research' is shifting the burden of proof / evidence. I don't need to go look for evidence / proof for a claim that you've made.

Secondly, the opinion of the majority is 'appealing to popularity' which is a logical fallacy and has no basis on what the truth is.

Thirdly, claiming illegal drugs are morally wrong because they are illegal is circular reasoning at its finest. Quite rich of you to claim you don't want to go in circles but one of your premise is circular. You're yet to justify WHY illegal drugs should not be considered legal and WHY legal drugs should not be considered illegal. I.E. Where we draw the line. And given that you've ducked this question on more than 2 occasions now, I don't expect you to answer the following time.

Achieving success with purely one's own 'natural' ability is an oxymoron in the 21st century, unless said athlete lives like a caveman without consuming ANY artificial substance or chemical whatsoever. And we all know this is not the case. It's utterly ludicrous to expect any athlete to be 100% natural and to succeed purely with 'NATURAL' ability without ANY artificial enhancement in the 21st century when the world itself is not natural anymore and is evolving beyond what was THEN.

Claiming people cheating will eventually get caught or or they are more likely to get caught if they cheat long enough, does not solve the problem of said cheaters ALREADY inflicting long-term bodily damage on opponents who are nowhere near as roided up as they are. So even if they do get caught out eventually, what are we going to do to compensate for potential irreparable damage or even death inflicted to boxers by those juiced 'CHEATERS'? So I don't condone waiting for boxers to eventually get caught out at the risk of them being able to inflict long-term harm on their opponents who think those juice-heads are clean due to unreliable drug-tests.

Oh and calling me autistic + psychopath? LMFAO! I'd expect that from someone who's conceded defeat as a last-resort trying to save face by making themselves feel better and the individual they lost to look bad. But that's fine, I won't stoop down to your level because your own words exposes who is the true psychopath.

 

You just aren't getting it...

What is wrong with your brain? Why are you seeking absolutes where none exists?

You're basically saying that because the system has flaws we should just throw it all away and have a free for all.

I just disagree with that and I have explained very clearly why it wouldn't work.

I have made my position crystal clear whilst countering every point you've made.

The fact you ignore this and repeat your point again shows me your not considering any ideas that don't conform to your belief system.

The difference between us is I gave your concept considerable thought.

I explored the possible effects within sport and the society as a whole and I articualed my problems with it the best I could giving examples.

I can't help you if you are a) unable to do your own research in case it underminds your belief system. b) refuse to accept that the vast majority of people have a problem with it.

It's like saying being a peado is fine and the fact the majority think it's wrong doesn't mean anything. I can't educate you on morality you're an adult.

I called you names out of frustration and to ascertain what your brain malfunction is.

Have you considered the 5 steps of morality? Stage 5 is developed in pre and early teens and it's "The need to contribute beyond oneself"

It's about understanding things for society at large and the effects it will have

I provided simplistic analogies for you to grasp the implications.

Why do you think people like Canelo get grief on this site? Partly because his fanboys are hugely irratating. some because he is at the top and people are jealous but it's also because he is a proven cheat.

I didn't conced anything pal. I'm more than happy to put this to a vote on this site.

You will lose.

 

These guys know.

Lot's of nonsense been written about Holyfield and PEDS. Yet no-one seems to want to talk about the real guilty party, Evan Fields.

Can anyone who is so quick to cast these aspersions explain why Evander Holyfield is the ONLY current or former professional boxer to launch his own investigation into doping allegations?

 

It isn't how the world works. If you are claiming something is true, then you have to prove it. I can't prove to you that Santa Klaus doesn't exist, not can I prove to you that Lennox Lewis was not on PEDs. If you want to argue that he was on PEDs, or that Santa Klaus exists, then you have to prove it. Most people get that.

Good luck to you.I am going to go ahead and let you go.

 

It isn't how the world works according to whom? You? And your justification for that is "I say so therefore it must be true", correct? LMFAO

Why can't you prove Santa Klaus doesn't exist, using the same standard of logic to prove that you exist or anything exists? Or do you not believe you can prove your own existence either?

Also, what proof do you even have that Holyfield was a steroid or even a drug-cheat to begin with? I'm talking cold, brutal proof and nothing else. What have you got to offer?

 

Except I am not seeking absolutes where none exists. That's you're false misrepresentation of my argument AKA strawman fallacy!

Thus, if anybody is showing they don't understand the other's position, it is you.

Can you point out any instance where I stated (or even insinuated) that because the system has flaws, that therefore, we should throw it all away?

That's not my argument at all. My argument is not, because the system has flaws, that therefore we should disregard it. You'll find that there are many things which are flawed and are not perfect, that I condone. However, drug-testing not being absolutely 100% perfect is not the reason why I'm against it. The reason why I'm against it, is because not only is it flawed, but that the flaws / negatives SIGNIFICANTLY outweigh the benefits that it doesn't justify existing with any logically sound argument.

There are other things which aren't 100% perfect. However, when the positives and benefits significantly outweigh the negatives, then I'm not going to argue against it. You are under the false impression that I am seeking ABSOLUTES when I'm not.

And unless you can answer the questions I've asked, my position for why drug-testing should not exist is further reconsolidated, on top of plethora of other reasons such as drug-testing being regularly weaponized against certain fighters and preventing many fights at the highest level from taking place when they should.

So far, you've provided no logically sound justification for why an A-side fighter who tests clean but can be roided up, should continue to be drug-tested because eventually he is likely to get caught out overtime when during that time, he can still be drugged up and be destroying his opponents health with opponents thinking he is clean because he tested negative even though he could still be on undetectable drugs. Why should we sacrifice all those opponents of the A-side fighter potentially experiencing life-changing damage at the hands of a drug-enhanced fighter at the cost of this A-side fighter eventually testing positive? Like, even if he eventually does get caught out, how are we going to compensate for the damage he may have already done to opponents who thought the A-side fighter was clean all along? Why isn't it better to just tell all those opponents of the A-side fighter that the A-side fighter will be roided up and that it's their choice to take on the fight regardless, with or without roids themselves?

I suspect you'll avoid this question again, and my other question I asked you.

So no, you have not countered all my points and you have not given my position considerable thought. You don't do that by constantly avoiding vital questions that have been asked multiple times.

On the other hand, I'm the one who's answered all your questions.

And as for your analogy in regards to society at large, LMFAO. Do you realize just how logically flawed and fallacious your reasoning is. Are you seriously trying to argue that because the majority think pedophilia is wrong, that therefore it's wrong because majority opinion? You do realize there have been many tribes out there throughout history and exist even now, that deem pedophilia (under-aged marriage) to be acceptable and right. Thus, according to your bulletproof and other worldly logic, pedophilia has to be considered right in those societies because the majority in those societies agree that pedophilia is right? LMFAO!

You do realize that there are far better logically sound arguments out there for why pedophilia is wrong, that need not invoke popularity, right? Something doesn't become automatically wrong because majority believe so. Likewise, something doesn't become automatically right either because the majority believe so. The whole world could believe that the Earth is flat, and it still wouldn't make the Earth flat. The majority of the world's population in 50 years time could believe pedophilia is right, and it still wouldn't make pedophilia right, anymore than now. The majority of the world could believe Teofimo Lopez would beat Kambosos but that has no bearing on what actually happened in reality.

Go and educate yourself on this basic logical fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/holyfield-was-steroid-cheat.678499/reply?quote=21440377

I really do not need to be teaching you basic logic 101 here.

So instead of trying to educate me on morality, you need to go and educate yourself on the basics of logic and how to avoid at the very least, schoolboy logical errors and fallacies.

 

He was definitely roided to the gills. I imagine the larger guys he fought were equally on the juice. Like the Bonds baseball era, it’s a complex argument. Roided pitchers throwing to juiced batters. Evander gave up so much size to almost every opponent. He was a puffed up cruiserweight fighting the largest guys on the planet in a lax testing era.

Simple minds will accuse him of cheating without considering the possibility that most of his opponents were doing the same thing. Like Armstrong in the TDF, the most successful PED users get most of the blame when the whole field was doing the same thing. It’s not a black and white situation.

 

Didn't read...................................lol.




I've made my position perectly clear and you just keep repeating the same thing without understanding my position.

It's called a circular coversation which although initially was interesting is now not productive.

So I agree to disagree. Nothing personal but you have presented your arguement and I've stated why I'm not prepared to free for all on PEDS.

My reasoning is based on undestanding how systems work and gave you plenty of analogies and examples that solidify my position.

I can't do any more than that.

Peace.

 

That's it's about context and nuance.

A lot of the guys in the 80's and 90's were clearly juiced up so I don't think you can jusy pick Hollyfield out it's just the environment at the time.

It doesn't mean everyone get's a free pass but it's context. As the testing was shoddy or non existent.

That doesn't mean however that you can have a free for all as I think it would be damaging to sport. Maybe not the short term but over time definately.