Holyfield was steroid cheat?

That is TRUE. It is also completely different from the claim you first made.

Please go back & read what I wrote-which I edited since your post here.
But already I had given specific figures re: how much one can gain in muscle (or strength)-which illustrate that it declines.

Again, assuming people lift effectively & eat adequately-which often is not the case.

However, what you said was that it is extremely difficult to put on muscle after a year.
Implying that you can gain little after that, & stating incorrectly that it is really hard work to add it.
No, this MAY apply after 3 years-IF you are in the minority that train well & efficiently enough to maximize gains all that time.
Then the rate of gains slows enough where you might start to use that language.

Or 5 years might apply too, when IF you are working out very effectively you can reach ~ 97% of what you can ever add.

But one year in? Even a genetically average man working out very well has not reached half of his lifetime potential within 12 months.
That gains slow after that does not mean either they are nearly done, far from it-or that adding much more muscle must be extremely difficult.

Now IF someone makes very rapid gains when already muscular & working out a while...
OR reaches a total size that is implausible or impossible naturally...
They are likely juicing/cheating.

But some do & due to whatever combination of genetic limitations, ineffective dosing, bodyfat-they may never be suspected but were on gear.
Using & giving it up still can expand your genetic potential compared to if you never took stuff.
Others have the genetics & body fat that folks assume they are using-& may never have touched the stuff.

One thing for sure, if you are anywhere near the likes of Ronnie Coleman, under 6', ~300 lbs. in COMPETITION shape (note ven bulked with food)...
You have used like a proverbial Mofo!

 

Any natural testosterone boosters out there that work?

 

While true, he was a very dedicated weight lifter and trained like a bodybuilder. I think they all juiced in his era, he just showed it more because of his training.

 

Letting everyone consume PED's may not work absolutely PERFECTLY, but relatively speaking, it is better than pretty much any other option I can think of, other than not letting anybody consume any artificial substance (including protein shakes and their likes) and if we do that, then how does it logically make any sense for the average everyday non-athletic person to consume something which a professional athlete is not allowed to consume when the professional athlete is more in need of said substances than the non-athlete? Or perhaps force every single human being to ONLY consume 100% natural products with 0 artificial chemical or substances being allowed, in doing so, killing modern medicine.

If we go by the premise that performance enhancing drugs don't enhance everybody by the same amount, then the same could be said about not just illegal performance enhancing drugs, but legal performance enhancing drugs like protein shakes or caffeine for example. Thus, the only other alternative I can think of is to not allow any artificial chemical which as I've proven, to be an utterly absurd choice as it kills modern medicine which humans have worked for centuries to bring it where it is.

Thus, logically it'd be best to allow everyone to consume whatever they want. If for example, one person doesn't find the same amount of gains consuming a specific performance enhancing drug compared to another person, then they could consume something else which provides them sufficient gains.

 

Except you can prove a negative, and certainly you can in this particular situation. It is possible to prove that it is NOT snowing, or that someone is NOT as muscular as another person or that someone is NOT as fat as another person. Just three examples out of many where it is possible to prove a negative.

And yes, in a debate, you absolutely do have to prove your position, the onus does not lie with only one party to prove their position and not the other.

Also, most, if not all negatives can be converted to a positive. I could just ask you to prove or at the very least, provide evidence that all of Holyfield's opponents were 'CLEAN', and therefore it'd be a 'positive' for you to prove.

 

I agree in part however the problem then is availibity and access.

In other word the people with the most resources can do more !things to get an advantage.

I undestand what your saying about you can't ban everything as the lines are blurred with many things. An example would be things like oxygen tents although not illegal can be percieved as gaining an advantage.

At elite level of sport they will have access to everything that is on the market.

My point about gain with PED use was demonstating using that model is still not an even playing field. It is essentially who responds to PED use the best that then changes the context of what you are watching. Your no longer watching the most naturally gifted you watching the person who can take the most gear.

A large problem is the fact testing itself cannot detect half the stuff is out there. It's a technolgy war with drugs companies developing drugs and the testing trying to catch up. It's always been flawed but I think the way it is possibly is the lesser of evils as going extreme one way or the other will be very damaging to sport itself and the individuals involved.

There was a study with atheletes were they were asked if they could be given a pill that would improve performance but kill them in a year over half said they would take it. This points to the mental make up. like with boxers there not like the average person they have a short window of opportunity to succed and will on most occassions take that risk.

So I don't believe you can have a complete free for all because people coming up aren't going have the same access unless it's state sponsered like Russia or China. Also the health issues involved is a concern You had atheletes like Flo Jo who was an icredible athelete die prematurely from PED abuse.

 

I get that, but in the end of the day, the athletes at the very least, know what they are getting themselves into (the possibility or even the probability of dying earlier than they normally would and having to face opposition who may be more enhanced than themselves due to the same performance enhancing drugs providing their opponents with more gains). Compare it to now for example, where athletes may very well be juicing even more than the ones that have been caught out, but the drugs inside their bodies are undetectable and things being less clear / more blurry.

As I've already stated, athletes can search for specific drugs that benefits them the most. Let's just address the elephant in the room and stop beating around the bushes, acting like performance enhancing drugs are this blasphemous thing that should be avoided, in doing so, virtue-signaling and trying to take a the fake moral high-ground rather than actually promoting what is best for the sport and what offers most solutions.

 

I agree mostly but at no point have I virtue signalled I think your missing the nuance of my arguement.. My first response to your post shows that I have a decent understanding of the history and the reality of drugs in sport.

We both differ in the morality of the issue but that is on either side. and is an opinion and opinion only..

So when it comes to that part your opinion is no better than mine.

Taking PEDS is cheating to me do I automatically spit my dummy out?

No.

I accept it is part of the sport the only time I will have a go at someone is if like Floyd pointing the finger at other people or those who have lied all along like Armstrong. These people are hypocrites.

I think we are both in agreement on many aspects. I think we just differ in what the best solution is.

I clearly state in my previous post that many things cannot be detected because they are too new or that testing isn't sensitive enough to detect abnormalities in natural chemicals we have in our body.

Things like blood transfusions can make a huge difference and were used extensively by Armstrongs team so it's not a binary black or white problem it's nuance as many elements fall into a grey area.

You still haven't answered my point about cost and availablity. Someone like Canelo can afford the state of the art PEDS on a program that is designed for his needs and requirements. That isn't cheap.

Your also making a fallacy arguement that if a certain PED doesn't work they can just pluck another of the shelf and they will suddenly be elite. Again that isn't how it works.

The main scientific paper I read clearly demonstrated that the improvement yield is on the individual and not what drug they are taking. That's why I was specific in my wording. Please re-read my first post for clarification.

 

I see you have been here about a decade but have no posted particularly often.
But your intellectual rigor & fairness is appreciated!

Yes it is unfair to make cynical assumptions absent evidence-that anyone who invokes a moral position is merely "virtue posturing", being fake about their concerns-or that the motivations is not what is best for the sport.

Luis is mistaken not only about the relative effects of PEDs, ease of access or any whatsoever for some, & that improvements from using them can be equalized. They cannot.

However inequalities relating to genetic differences-& what special accomplishments we can et out of our unique gifts & limitations-are part of what sports, & life, should be about.
Here is a summary & analyses of the great Kurt Vonnegut short story of a future dystopia where human freedom & individuality is destroyed in the search for a misguided, unbalanced ideal of equality over everything else. Even handicapping talented people.
I disagree with Conservatives who would use this as a rationale for disallowing any progressive or compensatory measures to remedy injustice & allow more balanced access to power, position & money now, but it is still a bracing cautionary tale. [url]https://www.gradesaver.com/kurt-vonnegut-short-stories/study-guide/summary-harrison-bergeron[/url]

Also people will absorb much more damage if everything is allowed, including children & overall society.
Just because it is problematic to detect cheating & enforce the rules does not mean we should not do so.
Although I know you did not say otherwise.

We should ban certain types or classes of drugs such as androgens, or make it illegal to use things not on an approved list.
And keep samples forever & punish folks retroactively for cheating.
To deter others, & make sure honest people whose performance reflects their skills & efforts, not pharmaceuticals, are rewarded.
And do not effectively get their hopes, dreams, money & glory stolen by folks acting as criminals.

Finally, again protein powder & similar harmless substances taken in quantities you could get from a diet?
They are totally fine. part of what sports should measure is how effective our training is, which naturally includes how smart our regimen is, & the peculiarities of how we react to things, adjust, & the consequences of our choices.

 

Thank you for the compliment- I try and be a voice of reason.

I agree that there is always inequalities which was my point regarding not creating a level playing field with open all season on PED use.

I agree on the moral aspect I understand that other cultures view PED use as fair game but this philosophy is flawed on a multitude of levels especially on the impact on the rest of society and the message that send to young people.

This can't be viewed as just "entertainment" as again we're dealing with human beings who could greatly shorten there life just so that they can hit a ball out of a stadium.

Finally I agree that testing always needs to be advancing to try and keep people honest.

The reality is many get away with it but even the biggest stars can slip up.

As I stated earlier it's a technology war with the Pharma companies being one step ahead again this doesn't just fight the cheats it retains peoples faith in the sport they follow.

The vast majority of people that I speak to think testing is binary black or white and that's fine.

I'm not here to spoil the party just looking at exploring the subject and seeing through discussion whether a solution is there. The good news is there is. Just continue to improve and enforce the systems we already have.

 

No, you very rarely can prove a negative. But it is not how the world works. We do not live in world in which people make suppositions and it is up to others to disprove them. That is absurd.

 

Yes, you very often can prove a negative, and I've just given you 3 examples. Do you need more examples?

Also, strawman! I'm asking you to prove a positive, not a negative. I'm asking you to at the very least, provide evidence that Holyfield's opponents were 'CLEAN'. So that's a positive, not a negative.

Oh and by the way, claiming you can't prove a negative is self-refuting, given that you claiming "you can't prove a negative" is a negative claim, in and of itself. Thus, you can't prove that you can't prove a negative either. Thus, the proposition that 'you can't prove a negative' can be dismissed and ignored entirely as it has been self-refuted.

 

I did not claim you SPECIFICALLY virtue-signaled, but that many who like to speak against performance enhancing drugs, often do.

Also, you're attacking a straw-man. At no point did I ever state or even insinuate that an athlete can just pick-up a different performance enhancing drug if one doesn't work, and then they'll 'SUDDENLY' become 'elite' just like that. Performance enhancing drugs ALONE, doesn't make one elite. Performance enhancing drugs will have to be accompanied by work-ethic, dedication and of course, natural talent that inherently exists already for one to become elite.

My point was, given that there are so many drugs out there today, to the extent that they are even undetectable in drug-tests, I'm pretty confident that there is a 'right' drug out there that will be effective for nearly everyone.

Also, if you read my previous post carefully, you'd find I have answered your point about cost and availability. It's true there are boxers out there who have access to performance enhancing drugs due to superior wealth and having access to contacts that other boxers down the bottom don't. However, the solution to this is simple:

1) The boxer tries to find the right drugs that work for him, like his opponent. If that's not possible due to insufficient wealth for example among other things, then

2) Agree to fight opponent who is on the state of the art, performance enhancing drugs anyway, knowing fully-well about what the risks before the fight and still agreeing to fight with own personal consent.

OR

3) Simply don't agree to fight such opponents.


There is a massive difference between thinking your opponent is actually clean, just because they passed a drug-test and the result of their test appearing negative, and fighting them (whilst being deceived), VERSUS knowing beforehand your opponent is not clean, and then having the option to either agree to fight regardless or decline, while actually knowing your opponent is not clean.

This whole drug-testing scheme is a dishonest, money-making scheme designed to deceived people and to make money, since a fighter 'PASSING' a drug-test and having a negative test result, is no proof that they are truly clean, and stating otherwise, is dishonesty (which is exactly what these drug-testing agencies do) considering they don't account for the plethora of undetectable drugs.

As far as morality goes, can we both at least agree that HONESTY is better than DISHONESTY? And that it's better for a fighter to know beforehand that his opponent is not clean, and then having the choice to decide whether he still wants to take the fight against that opponent or not, based on what the actual truth is, rather than falsely thinking his opponent is clean due to an unreliable drug-test claiming he is, and then taking the fight due to thinking his opponent is clean and then getting potentially harmed with long-term health damage by an opponent who is potentially roided to the gills? What is better, the former or the latter? I think any honest and objective person will choose the former!

I hope this time you're satisfied with the answer!

And also, would you agree that consuming legal performance enhancing drugs like protein shakes, creatine and caffeine is also equally cheating as illegal performance enhancing drugs? Since your premise boils down to not everyone will benefit the same from consuming performance enhancing drugs. But then, this applies to legal performance enhancing drugs. No two people are always going to experience the same gain from consuming say protein shakes or caffeine. Some people are more sensitive to caffeine than others. Does that mean the person who uses caffeine to boost themselves against their opponent who is not as sensitive to caffeine is a cheater?

If you want to call it 'cheating' to consume performance enhancing drugs, then that's fine. However, you need to remain consistent if you're to be taken seriously with credibility and honesty.

 

1. Well you were responding to me so I assumed that you were calling me for virtue signalling however I don't require those tactics when I debate someone. I'm not a Marxist.

2. You were simplifying the problem by stating someone can take other drugs if the first thing they take doesn' work they can just take something else my rebuttal was that maximum yield is measured on the individuals ability to respond. So for isntance you might only get a 3% gain regardless of what you take where I might get a 10% bump. meaning if we are evenly matched I will always be stronger. The point being it's never a level playing field.

3.I've explained several times it isn't about finding something that works it's a biological limit on an individuals body- You seem to be struggling to undesratnd what I'm saying.

4. The scenarios you give over complicate the whole thing. So what are you going to have clean titles and dirty ones?
Also your weighing it so the champ is full off gear and the challenger has to decide whether to fight them and risk getting badly hurt.

Your stacking the odds in the favour of whoever the top dog is even further. Also giving the option choosing not to fight is a little weak to say the least your're basically saying there is no room for clean fighters because if they don't want to take the risk fighting don't fight.
Um theiy're proffessional boxers not choosing to fight under your model means they won't make any money.

5. I think your missing the nuance of integrity in something. I've clearly stated the testing is far from perfect and there is corruption. However in means that people who are cheating at least have some challenge and can make a mistake and still get caught. The proccess is evolving and becoming more sensitive and accurate over time. Canelo is a good example and for many people there will be an asterix as there should over his career. Also you have deflected my point of the very top having multiple ways of gaining an advantage and those coming up don't have those resources.

6. My last point covers a few areas concerning morality and honesty and you conflating one with the other.
That isn't how things work let me clarify my position.

a. You are trying to operate in absolutes which doesn't work when dealing with either human beings or the universe we live in.
I understand and have stated multiple times that we live in a less than perfect world however we have to have some veneer of integrity in the things we do as otherwise our civilasation will consume itself.
You're not understanding the knock on effects of your model from either and ethical or health standpoint.

b Your trying to claim morality by being honest and letting everyone take PEDS. That my friend is a complete contradiction I think you might want to check what the word morality actually means.

c. Our civilisation is built on cooperation between individuals and groups although flawed in many ways we have got to where we are because of an underlying unspoken framework. Now sometimes this framework is articualted in religous texts or though teachings from our elders. The point being as soon as you throw away or undermine what has got us here you risk sending everything into a state of entropy.

An example. Look in the USA where they have tried banning the police and don't prosecute criminals. What happens?
It turns into a mess because you are removing consequences to actions and it will get worse in the areas because the controls for order have been removed.

b.Ergo your model would do the same thing to sport it's just that simple.

Look I'm English and in my culture cheating is frowned upon because we have a belief in "fair play" and "Sportmanship" it doesn't mean we don't have cheats because that is down to individual choice however culturally you would be seen as mentally weak.

However I remember talking to a few South American's about this very subject and they told me in there culture PED use was seen as fair game. So I''m not stating my opinion as being correct I'm demonstrating that different cultures will not have the same view as myself.

In conclusion the answer is to keep things the way they are and inprove the testing proccess otherwise there is NO motivation for clean atheletes to compete under your model. We have rules for things for good reason is there corruption? of course there is we're human beings you will never rid that but we must maintain those rules for integrity otherwise humanity will consume itself.
Your model is no diffferent to getting rid of the police it would never work.



Thanks.

 

Nope, I did not simplify the problem. I offered multiple different options that a boxer could select, if his opponent is consuming performance enhancing drugs and experiencing greater gains.

let's just agree for argument's sake that one boxer will always experience greater gains than another boxer, regardless of what performance enhancing drug the boxer with inferior gains consumes. Even though you've thus far provided no evidence for that assertion, let's just assume that such is the case. But as I've stated and asked multiple times, this too applies with legal performance enhancing drugs, natural or artificial. One person may always experience much greater mental boost from caffeine than another person who can never consume any PED to attain the same level of enhancement. Thus, they're reflexes let's say, will always be inferior. So should we classify legal performance enhancing drugs 'CHEATING' as well?

This is a question it appears, you have been avoiding for a long time. And unless we can find a line that we can draw, to not only determine what performance enhancing drugs should be legal and illegal, but also WHY, your claim that consuming illegal performance enhancing drugs is 'cheating' will continue to remain an opinion, and your position that things should remain the way they currently are (drug-testing) has no objective merit.

And no, there is no 'contradiction' because you've provided 0 proof for why consuming illegal performance enhancing drugs is morally incorrect as you're yet to draw the line that we can objectively use to determine what performance enhancing drug should be allowed and what should not, without that line being an arbitrary one. And until you do, I have the right to MORALLY classify each and every performance enhancing drug equally correct. But do you consider dishonesty morally correct or incorrect?

And what areyou talking about, clean titles and dirty titles? I never mentioned any such thing, so another straw-man from your behalf. One instance you claim I'm over-simplifying things and another I'm over-complicating things. Which is it? Make your mind up! LOL.

And how am I stacking the odds of the top dog anymore than it is currently? You think it's acceptable for one of the top-fighters to be on undetectable performance enhancing drugs, but be classified as 'CLEAN', only because they pass an unreliable drug-test that doesn't account for everything and his opponents that fight him thinking he is clean, only to get put in hospital and have their health jeopardized by an opponent who was never truly 'CLEAN' to begin with? LMFAO! Yh okay! If anything, what you're doing is stacking the dishonesty of the top-dogs against the contenders and rising challengers even further.

And in case you didn't know, being a professional boxer is not a necessity. My argument also takes into account, a person before they become a professional boxer. A person can choose to become a professional boxer knowing full-well what the risks are (some opponents will be more chemically enhanced than themselves and there is nothing they can do to close that gap) and if they feel it's a risk not worth taking, they can choose to decline a career in prize-fighting altogether and find something else to do.

Even the current boxers who are contenders / rising stars that don't have access to state of the art performance enhancing drugs, they too can go find something else to do if they don't like it.