There was a NFL-player who said the whole team were basically forced to take steroids. Think it was in the 60's/70's. I'll try and find the link again. In the thread we had recently on this subject I posted witness accounts of how widespread it was in the 68 Olympics. I've also read accounts of how it was every where by the 80's Olympics.
I do not doubt that on certain teams within certain sports it was extremely common. Those without any testing where pure strength & muscle mass are valuable. I also agree that steroids became common in the Olympics by 1968, & in Eastern Bloc countries around the 1950's. But none of that shows how common it was overall in any whole sport. And if you somehow find the answer for one sport, is that a snapshot in time, or did usage change over time, especially with increased testing? In a sport like the Tour de France, endurance drugs like EPO & blood doping has been rife. Also unfortunately those at the very highest level may cheat more often-because it is very hard to get to that level even with the best genetics nutrition & training without it. Until recently 9 of the 10 men with the best 100 meter times had been busted for drugs sometime. Usain Bolt was the exception-& assuming he just did not evade being caught, he may be a genetic freak in terms of being able to get enough coordination & fast turnover at 6' 5". So have 90% of world class or professional spriters at least dabbled or regularly used PEDs? It is very possible, this is at least presentable as suggestive evidence, but not definitive enough to show what everyone does... But with boxing, while there are rewards to using PEDs, they are not as consistent, straightforward, & strong as those who are in a sport where pure speed strength explosivenes & lean body mass are so extremely paramount. I still say many boxers used & use PEDs. But can you agree how it could have been, & might be now, either a significant minority, or the vast majority?
It could have been either way. We have no definitive proof. Well, there was a journeyman in the 70s who has admitted he juiced and that it was widespread already then, but it's unclear how he would know. The most likely scenario is however that boxing doesn't differ from other sports and that the use spread widely there as well. Especially since this is backed up by HWs having increased muscle mass from the 70s through the 80s and 90s. An increase that didn’t even lead to a decreased workrate.
I partially agree with you man. Except that sports vary in *how* common PED usage is. You also do not debate my stating how sports which involve more direct benefit from pure power, speed, endurance...And times when it is tested less rigorously-are more likely to have higher rates of cheating than say boxing-where strategy, offensive & defensive techniques, toughness, control, endurance 9which suffers when you have too much muscle, even if lean) are part of what you cannot dope for! Also you are again using the term "widespread". Again-& I hope you can explicitly acknowledge this-that could be 1 in 5 athletes. It could be 9 out of 10! And either of these numbers can represent anything from occasional usage to years of body transforming drug usage. Two more things. Any actual study of what the cause of an effect is isolates for other variables. Please attend to what i am saying & be more precise-you cannot deny that just weight training being so common-& unlike some other sports like football being out of favor until the '80's-means size & strength would have increased anyway. More athletes from more nations & better sports science also would have a similar effect. It would make no sense to say that since this is true, then little or no cheating/PED usage occurred. Likewise, it would be senseless to diagnose how common using substances is without specific evidence-& when these NON-PED factors clearly increased size to some significant degree. Lastly, the PEDs did often decrease work-rate. Just having big muscles to oxygenate may make this & speed a problem-hence AJ losing weight, especially fpor the Ruiz rematch. But with 12 rounds, more clinching to rest, others bulking up-it is often worth the trade off. Just being bulky tends to-I do not know if Razor Ruddock used, but he is an example of a low work-rate (at least after he fell in love with "The Smash", lol! But also some types of drugs help with endurance. And some steroids increase strength & minimize bulk-useful when you need to make a division limit weight. The takeaway should be that while we know some used, we just do not have any good information about how common it was to do what.
The testimonies I'm referring to said the vast majority uses, I think. And, yes, sports such as weight-lifting and track and field get more direct benefit, but they have also had more rigorous testing.
I'm only going to leave key parts of your post in this reply for the same reasons. I have read all of it and this is probably as much as I can conclude with, based on our back-and-forth. We fundamentally disagree on this^ point. I have read, with interest, and considered your comments regarding my lack of reasonableness, concerning the evidence in use. Having done so, I can now wholeheartedly reject your view on my expectations, in relation to a standard of evidence. I can do so, in the knowledge that I have done my best to ascertain the clearest picture. It is actually difficult to describe just how weak the evidence provided by you has been. It is, quite literally, a reproduced Internet Chat - with absolutely nothing else to corroborate it. The very definition of hearsay. No in-depth follow-up, by either Llosa or Wertheim (or any other journalist); no formal investigations into Holyfield himself; no formal documentation about said investigations; no documentary evidence of the very item the claimants Llosa and Wertheim refer to. Heck! I'd be surprised if you can find a reference of Llosa & Wertheim's interview in SI's very own archive. If this is all you got (other than pure speculation about Holyfield's look in the early-to-mid-90s), then you really don't have a case. You might. But appeals to popularity do not determine what is right or wrong. As I have said, right from the outset, one's opinion on likelihood is not proof. The above does not make sense. What scientific formula? Divination? Very strange response. I have asked for something to corroborate the evidence you are using. This request is not only a long, long way from being unreasonable, it is also common sense. The best way of establishing whether a sportsperson is guilty of banned PED use, is a positive drugs test result. The rest is just BS in the ether. It is not a belief. There are published studies, as I made clear when I brought up this alternative. The point was to make you aware that there were plausible alternatives. The fact that you do not know about these, combined with you now using the "burden of proof" line, given your earlier resistance to such heavy-handed treatment of the evidence, is VERY TELLING. Here are a few to get you started: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/can-too-much-extreme-exercise-damage-your-heart/ https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/34/47/3624/619893 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132728/ You might understand why your stance here gives the impression of someone, who has little to no intention of discovering and considering ALL of the available information to help form a rounded opinion. I find a similar assessment can be made of your other opinions on the physical changes in Holyfield. Because the truth is, you don't actually know and your idea of 'likelihood' is a 'best guess'. I think I have now lost count of the number of times you have leveled the terms "not reasonable" or "unreasonable" at me. In this case, you are just simply beyond wrong. Firstly, the point raised was not presented to you as an objection. It was put to you in the form of questions, along with a few others. Since when has asking pertinent questions been considered unreasonable? These constant charges of being unreasonable, from you, are becoming, in themselves, little more than opinionated deflections. You also keep using the word "investigations", without acknowledging that Holyfield himself was not under investigation. You can't even firmly establish what Holyfield's significance was in any investigations. If you're going to cite an article, in relation to negative allegations being made against an individual, it's probably worth citing something that's relevant. The same stuff repeated over and over again, in different ways, does not add to the weight of evidence. It merely means there's a lot of talk (almost all of it speculation) about the same so-called evidence. A big-name sport star, tenuously linked to a drugs distributions investigation is page-filler and more than enough to attract hits to a website. And, you say I'm unreasonable? LOL You literally have ZERO evidence to support Holyfield's use of PEDs, let alone any amounts involved and any beneficial effects. I think this conversation is at an end. I just pray for the poor bast'd on trial, who finds you on his jury.
I do not mind so much that you have acted less like a "machine" regarding your inefficiencies & errors in what you concluded or more so misunderstood or attributed to me... But regret that you did not live up to the kindness & goodwill implict in the "man" part of your moniker. There is no reason to levy unilateral sarcasm, & worse end with a petty "this conversation is at an end" unilaterally unfriendly statement. Combined with an unsupported personal statement about me serving on a jury. We should be able to disagree without being mean or denigrating. By the way, though I never got beyond the selection process, i am proud to have disqualified a man who was going to serve by reporting to the Judge in open court that a man selected referred to the defendants-after told not only not to discuss the case, but most importantly only preliminary accusations had been described by each attorney, no trial or evidence presented-he called presumably his wife during our lunch break & described the accused as "three hoodlum racketeers". I was satisfied that I saw the dude dismissed from the case; talk about your prejudiced jurors! Now that my friend is bias; not me viewing the evidence differently than you. You wrongly describe what is undeniable circumstantial evidence as alternately "hearsay" & "no evidence". Sometimes you meant well but lacked intellectual rigor in what you pondered to or the issue at hand-I will attempt to be more precise. I will again go point by point, & just ask that if you change your mind & decide to respond, so so absent denigration or ill will. 1) The evidence is *not* just an Internet chat". Nor is it about a single matter. It relates to two detailed government accusations. There is no debate that these occurred, & numerous sources reporting it. I respect that you are honest in not believing the evidence, but it is in fact not just "Hearsay"-even Holyfield would not debate that he was named one case, & in the other his name & address was there but slightly altered (& when his phone number was called he answered). Whether you agree or not, that is circumstantial evidence. Holyfield like OJ said he was gonna launch his own investigation because he 8claimed* to be innocent-that does not mean this did not happen with the Government. And the fact that since he was not the target of the initial investigation that they chose not to follow up-does not speak to his innocence. 2) I fully agree that what is most popular does not establish its accuracy at all. But why say this when i have been saying the same thing in some detail? Me describing what I believe is most rational to believe & why is another matter entirely. 3) YOU brought up the issue of a "scientific formula". Hence there is nothing strange about me addressing it & saying that cannot apply in the specific context you asked about. Now you have turned it around & act incredulous that I inform you of this. But when reasoned correctly, a matter can potentially be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Which again is only necessary in criminal matters, not in other courts or to form informed opinions. A preponderance of the evidence suffices. 3) You are honestly mistaken that a negative drug test is always the best way to establish guilt. First off sometimes there are errors, fraud, contamination, unwittingly using a legal substance with illegal things mixed in... I agree *usually* it is good evidence though. But again, God is in the details. And when there is say a full investigation-like of Marion Jones or Barry Bonds, with reams of evidence...Well you do not need to have had Bonds found guilty of using "The Clear" substance to see that his supplies & substances were very well established-not just speculation about his improbably improved performance in his late 30's strangely growing skull (though all these things were suspicious). Saying "anything else is B.S." shows you do not understand that there are many ways to establish facts. Sure there was no single investigation focused on Holyfield. But multiple investigations where in each case it is improbable that it could be a mistake or character assassination-the labs have every reason to hide *not* expose athletes, since anything associated with that brings them down too-means it is fair to assume guilt. 4) Why would you believe I did not know about what you sent me? Instead you sent me proof of what I knew, that intense exercise can cause heart problems sure, but that does not attend to what I very specifically claimed & questioned. That is: how common or likely it is. And you can see just in the summary & conclusions that only certain kinds of cardiac problems result...But A) the studies relate to "intense, extreme, long term endurance training". Holyfield trained intensely, but it was not the types of more purely aerobic training that is represented in the studies by marathon training & cross-country skiing. If he did this volume even on the juice it would be hard to maintain such upper body mass... B) I asked you about how common this is in BOXERS. Especially ones with no known cardiac problems. And the fact is it is between highgly uncommon & vanishingly rare. Although some folks who use steroids &/or HGH might have said symptoms. And when combined with having them soon after getting big, & significant balding within 3 months... Yeah is is highly unlikely that the causation chain involved other factors. At least the PEDs were the main driver & tipping point to these issues. C) Hell the very last point of one of your sources 9again about purely cardiovascular, not anaerobic over-training) says: "Fifth, SCA and SCD are infrequent among exercising young individuals, with an estimated incidence rate of 0.76 per 100,000 person years. Collectively, these data suggest: (1) there is limited evidence that supports the “Extreme exercise hypothesis,” the most compelling relating to the increased risk of atrial fibrillation at high volumes of exercise; (2) cardiac anomalies may be present in a small proportion of the most active veteran athletes; and (3) the combination of high-intensity physical activity in the presence of known or occult CVD, seems to be the major cause of exercise-related fatalities". Check out the conclusions of the skiing study-I believe you will find it consistent with the above details. So I do not believe you can show that the specific heart issues he had either are more common with intense excercise...OR if I am wrong & they are...It is still very rare indeed to have such problems, especially absent per-existing conditions. Oh & show me an inconsistency about me relating to burden of proof-when you made a certain new claim I merely asked you to support it as you demand of me. CONTINUED in the next thread, as I exceeded the character limit!
Continuing my very detailed response to Man-Machine, hopefully some people care to follow all this detail... 5) What about the physical changes in Holyfield do I not know about? How fast he went bald, when photos show this? What he weighed & a close approximation of his muscle mass, seeing as he often was measured & seen in only shorts often so we can estimate his body fat & the changes in his body composition & its rapidity in this very public figure with a high degree of certainty. Perhaps you have not understand, despite me carefully laying this out, that some folks & Holyfield *could* add said upper body mass naturally. As in it is within the genetic capacity of many with the best training-which does not show if he cheated or not, just I am being fair & say his size alone & how he gained in itself is not damning to me. The only thing I wonder about is his traps & neck-although this in itself is not enough to indict him fairly, & I looked for a reason why he could be bigger than scien-terrifically ;-) established is possible for natural athletes in these dimensions. Saying boxing specific training & demands might have Casey Butts PhD underestimate this potential. However, the fact that the most freakish development of PED users tends to occur in the traps shoulders & surrounding areas is at least suspicious. Due to more Androgen receptors so if you nuke the body with much more testosterone than you could ever produce-that is where folks tend to gain most disproportionate mass (Yet bodybuilders can try to neglect said areas to look more balanced, boxers must use them a lot). Though I drew no firm conclusions from just that. 6) You both asked questions AND had manifestly had objections to what I claimed. Both are fine; yet you are erroneously conflating me questioning how reasonable it is for you to withhold judgement, with assuming wrongly I was saying it was unreasonable to raise these arguments & questions. I am not trying to deflect anything. And I do not think you consciously tried to do this either. But it is hard for people to be precise in admitting & critiquing flaws in their own case. While I am also saying that there is no need for the authorities to have made a specific case against him-or chose to pursue it when evidence presented itself-to say that *when* the odds of a mistake or any result of him being falsely implicated-in 2 separate matters-seems so remote- Yes sir this is not just a bunch of observations about his physique (most all of which I say do not plausibly indict him anyway). 7) You are CORRECT in saying the Wikipedia citations should be relevant! I admitted this even though it did not help my case. We differ in that when I showed you numerous other search results, you dismiss everything as reporters copying or inventing gossip to sell a product. Journalists tend to have both professional standards *and* they are careful just to not get sued & hurt their employed & career. It seems clear to me that they reported facts, & while it is *possible* that a strange set of circumstances could have resulted in E.H. being falsely implicated in Federal cases-it is quite unlikely, especially when it happens twice. In fact we see some cases when big name athletes have the evidence for their guilt hidden or ignored-especially when *they* are not the focus of any investigation. But many also have integrity & will not disguise the truth. The evidence is not mere speculation by any stretch. There is no cause to dismiss multiple independent investigations & reports as likely being mistaken & then perpetuated regardless of the truth for profit. These possibilities defy the logical principle of "Occam's Razor", which seeks to dismiss the most unlikely & tortured explanations. Anyway, I hope you can see that we can each believe the other is taking an unreasonable position yet still respect the good intentions & efforts of the interlocutor. Which you believe about me too, & I take no offense. While acting accordingly, disagreeing without being disagreeable.