Is Evander a Steriod Cheat?

Positive drug tests are circumstantial evidence.

 

While he never officially failed a publicly disclosed drug test, you'd have to be extremely naive to think he didn't juice for vast portions of his career. Just far too much circumstantial evidence not to suspect him.

 

Much like MLB I would be surprised to find out someone was not juiced

 

To clarify. All circumstantial evidence mean is that to support the claim (e.g. a boxer is on PEDs), requires other information.

Circumstantial evidence can be anywhere from very weak to very strong, as can direct evidence.

If I were to claim (which I'm not), that I personally saw him taking PEDs while taking about how he was on PEDs, that'd be direct evidence, but because it came from a random annonymous internet account, it'd be very weak.

You need all sorts of information to go from some sample tests to they took drugs in terms of how the analysis, it can sometimes be metabolites of the substance, or a change in level of a naturally occuring substance. So that'd be circumstantial evidence. But an expert who analysed the sample saying it was dirty would be direct evidence (atleast from my understanding of it all). That would also mean that while looking at his phiisique for signs of PED use is circumstantial evidence, someone with expertese saying he shows signs of it, would be direct evidence. I think the only really matters in a legal situation, where circumstantial information requires backing up more information.

tl;dr the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is mostly just a legal technicality, and not to do with the strength of evidence. Atleast as I understand it.

 

They let you carry more muscle and less fat, and easier. But you can be a fat slob on roids, like Teper.

A big thing to look for is overdeleoped traps and upper chest, which I don't really see in that group.

 

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. even before considering how quickly he developed muscles in what parts disproportionatly (top most ones as cited). From Wikipedia:

On February 28, 2007, Holyfield was anonymously linked to Applied Pharmacy Services, a pharmacy in Alabama that was under investigation for supplying athletes with illegal steroids and [url]human growth hormone[/url] (HGH). He denied ever using performance enhancers.[url][49][/url]

Holyfield's name does not appear in the law enforcement documents reviewed. However, a patient by the name of "Evan Fields" caught investigators' attention. "Fields" shares the same birth date as Holyfield, October 19, 1962. The listed address for "Fields" was 794 Evander, Fairfield, Ga. 30213. Holyfield has a very similar address. When the phone number that, according to the documents, was associated with the "Fields" prescription, was dialed, Holyfield answered.[url][50][/url]

On March 10, 2007, Holyfield made a public announcement that he would be pursuing his own investigation into the steroid claims in order to clear his name.[url][51][/url]

Holyfield was again linked to HGH in September 2007, when his name came up following a raid of Signature Pharmacy in Orlando, Florida.[url][52][/url] Signature Pharmacy was under investigation for illegally supplying several professional athletes with steroids and HGH.[url][53][/url]

Clearly he used enough that it helped transform his body.
He did not just train with the 8 time Mr. Olympia coach Lee Haney-he used some of the same drugs all top bodybuilders (excepting some far less popular & lucrative natural & tested competitions) use to compete.

Many boxers used PEDs. But it is false & unfair to assume all or most all did absent any evidence.
Unlike pro bodybuilders, the sport does not demand a level of muscularity (bulk mainly, & paired with low body fat) impossible to obtain naturally.
And it is LEGAL in untested competitions like Mr. Olympia. Has always been, accept for one year, 1990.

Being overly cynical is just as incorrect as being willfully naive & assuming all who never tested positive are clean.
Without specific good evidence nobody can fairly say what percentage of boxers in what era either dabbled with steroids/PEDs-& what % used them enough to gain a large competitive advantage.
Who knows if it was around 20%, 1/2, 75%-you do not know.
Also as ably stated above, circumstantial evidence can be much stronger than dirct evidence.

Tyson was big when an impoverished 13 year old.
Nothing about the growth rate or total size of Lewis or Bowe showed me they could not have been natural.
Anyone COULD have been juicing.

Holyfield's height & lean weight was within what some could reach with his bone structure.
But when you consider where the muscle was stacked-& relatively speaking he had no legs...
Plus all the circumstantial evidence....

Yeah, he was a drug cheat.
It does not take away from his courage.
But it should effect how we rank him all time & relative to peers.
At least many of his peers were likely not gaining unfair advantages through drugs.
And he could not have acccomplished as much if he stayed at a lean 205.

 

I think another big thing is how much they used. Even if almost all the others were on stuff, I think Holy was on a lot more

 

Does that mean it is less bad to cheat a little than a lot? So if you and I took a math test and you cheated on 1 question and I cheated on 5, should my punishment be harsher or can we just sweep yours under the rug because you are not as big of a cheater...by the way I have never cheated on a math test and I wholly deny these allegations.

Is Barry Bonds a bigger cheat than Roger Clemens because it appears he juiced a little heavier?

 

I think so. Most wrong actions are on a scale. Even certain types of murder are worse than others.

 

This is the rock on which he perishes.

You have to give him the benefit of the doubt on everything else, but this is fairly damning evidence!

 

If a similar thing happened to an Olympian, I think there would be a good chance of them having their medals stripped.

 

He also is one of the dirtiest fighters ever.

 

…...of course he was on the juice

 

Cirmcumstantial?

A positive test is pretty direct, IMO.

It might be able to be explained away in some fashion, I suppose, but it is still direct evidence of a substance that triggers the test indicators.