Nov 19, 2009 - 1:25:26 PM By Frank Hyden, MMATorch Contributor
Visual evidence isn't the sole indicator of PED (Performance-Enhancing Drugs) use. After all, there have been relievers in Major League Baseball that have been busted for PED's. Plenty of athletes use them to recover from injury and fatigue, rather than to gain muscle mass. Of course, being able to get stronger as well as recover quicker is a nice bonus. In almost every sport, added strength is an advantage.
I wrote the other day that I believe that Brock Lesnar has used in the past, and is probably still using, PED's. The past aspect of that statement is easy to prove. the guy was in WWE for a handful of years. It's well-known that a lot of wrestlers use PED's. You can look at before and after pictures of them and see for yourself. You can look at pictures of Brock before, during, and after he was a wrestler and see a huge change. I also think he's still on PED's. He might be using different ones. He might be blood-packing instead of using THG, he might be using a diuretic instead of using Madol, but I think he's still using. This stuff can't be tested for, unless you invest in a very large and very expensive laboratory. The guys who are making these designer steroids always try to stay one step ahead of all this drug testing. That's why Brock's claim of never failing in over 75 drug tests doesn't hold much weight for me. It won't surprise me if it comes out that Lance Armstrong was using a PED all those years he won the Tour De France. He passed a whole battery of drug tests, but a lot of this stuff you can't test for.
I don't want to single out Brock in this case. I think it's very possible, if not probable, that a majority of UFC and Strikeforce fighters are using PED's. Oftentimes, fighters have three or four months from the time a fight is announced to the time it happens. You could easily cycle on a steroid for a month or so, then get off, and be clean by the time the fight rolls around. You could blood-pack, where they take a few pints of your blood a few months before your fight, then inject you with that blood right before your fight, to increase blood cell count. If you took 20 random MMA fighters, I would bet that over half of them would test positive for a PED, assuming you could test for everything.
When people think of PED's, they think of steroids or HGH. What about cortisone shots that athletes get to, "play through the pain"? Isn't that basically the same thing? You're using something to gain an advantage, in this case, to play when normally the pain would prohibit that. Training at high altitudes is also something that gives you an advantage. Not everyone has the ability to train at places a mile or so above sea level. It's just that those things are accepted, whereas other forms aren't. They're accepted because they've been done for so long that we're used to it. Where do you draw the line? Is it things that aren't potentially dangerous? Cortisone shots mask the pain, they don't heal it. You could injure yourself further because you don't have the natural pain sensations to tell you when to stop.
A reader by the name of Shannon posted a link in the Comments section that lead to a story about steroid use masking the early signs of diverticulitis. This doesn't prove anything, but it does add a bit more weight to the possibility of Brock Lesnar using PED's. He's not alone, though. There are probably hundreds of athletes who have used PED's, even if you only count the designer steroids or other such manufactured means of gaining an advantage. The only people who refuse to take drug tests, or storm out of interviews when asked, are those who have something to hide. I would have no problem taking a drug test, I have nothing to hide. I'm talking a real drug test, though, something that tests for everything. I'm sure many of the people reading this would have no problem taking a drug test, they have nothing to hide. Albert Pujols has said he'd have no problem taking a drug test at anytime. Brock Lesnar has stormed out of interviews when asked about taking a drug test. That sounds like what Sammy Sosa did in the past. If Brock is truly clean, he should be wanting to take a drug test. In this day and age, no athlete is above reproach.
FAVOR: Would you help MMATorch by taking a short survey to create demographic info for our ad company? CLICK HERE
ALERT: Every Tuesday night, listen to the MMATorch Livecast from 9-10:30 p.m. ET or listen now to the most recent shows by clicking here. Listen live this coming Tuesday as Jamie Penick and Matt Pelkey discuss the latest MMA happenings. Online listen at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mmatorch or call into the show at 646-716-8090 to either just listen or participate.
But the question is: if Brock Lesnar (hypothetically) regularly takes for
example HGH injections and - somehow - is tested positively, what happens
then?
Are there any strict rules for that or a list of ALL the novel PEDs in the
UFC organization according to which there can be some reaction? I mean,
should such thing even become public?
brent
19 Nov 2009, 15:13
Frank:you said "i don't wan't to single out brock in this case" but then
that's exactly what you just did.
your right about a athelete's appearance not having anything to do wether
or not they are using peds. like fedor's protoge kiril getting popped and
then getting the boot from red devil, claiming his trainer gave him an
illegal nose spray. he's built alot like fedor.
or fedor's very good friend josh barnett getting popped for a 2nd time.
he's not exactly svelte either. lots of people that fedor surrounds himself
with are ped users, so that surely means he MIGHT be using as well, right?
SEE WHAT I DID THERE?
BudLight Not CoorsLight
19 Nov 2009, 16:55
Can i ask what the point of this article was? You basically said that some
pro athletes might be using PEDs. WOW!! Thank god us morons have you to
tell us that! Do the UFC not have drug tests? U make it seem like a amateur
organisation that don't know what they're doing.
As for the ludicrous notion that you can tell someone is on steroids by
LOOKING AT THEM! Holy shit does this mean that we should round up Bob Sapp,
Hong-Man Choi etc or maybe just all the best people because they must be
cheating. What a shitty attitude to have that anyone doing anything well
must be cheating.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Anon
19 Nov 2009, 17:36
This article was disgustingly filled with assumptions. I apologize for
being so blunt because I'm sure you meant well, but you came off as a
presumptive ass. You think it's "very possible" that most fighters use? Do
you know any of them? Do you train? Do you not know that MMA gyms function
almost like a support group with a mission, and that using is discouraged?
Going into Lesnar's illness and using it as more evidence that the guy was
probably using is pretty low, too.
Does this upset you? Feel like saying something in retaliation because I've
got you wrong? I bet it's the same way Lesnar feels when asked about
steroids. If you faced a stigma for nearly 15 years, you'd probably get
pissed off, too. Nothing you say in any way points towards Lesnar possibly
using. Take your tinfoil hat off or at least make assumptive conspiracy
theories about something else.
Boles
19 Nov 2009, 21:06
Anon:
He didn't "come off as" a presumptive ass...
brent
19 Nov 2009, 21:35
i would neve call people names, but this article did come across as 1 big
WITCH-HUNT
me
19 Nov 2009, 23:03
> You're using something to gain an
> advantage, in this case, to play when
> normally the pain would prohibit that.
> Training at high altitudes is also
> something that gives you an advantage.
> Not everyone has the ability to train
> at places a mile or so above sea
> level. It's just that those things are
> accepted, whereas other forms aren't.
That's got to be one of the dumbest clumps of sentences I've ever read. Hey
smart guy, guess what? Not everyone has access to a BJJ trainer either!
Does that mean that it shouldn't be "accepted"?
Training at high altitude, isn't unacceptable because the rules of the
fight don't say "no one can go above or below sea level". It's also not
unacceptable because it's simply going to a geographic location. It's not
against the rules to visit a mountain.
It's also not against the rules to hire a wrestling coach. But hey, that
gives you an advantage over someone who doesn't have a coach. So clearly in
your view, that should be wrong.
There's nothing wrong with having an "advantage". That's what the entire
sport is based on--gaining an advantage over your opponent. Like I said,
that's the dumbest cluster of sentences I've ever read.
Frank Hyden
19 Nov 2009, 23:50
To Brent- You're judged by the people you surround yourself with. I think
it's very possible that Fedor is on PED's as well.
To Anon- I'm not a MMA fighter, but I used to be in plenty of locker rooms,
and I talk to a lot of guys who are in locker rooms nearly every day.
And if Brock wants to shut people like me up, take a legitimate drug test,
one that tests for all these PED's.
To me- It's like this, the only difference between taking a PED and
training at a high altitude is that one is accepted, and the others not.
Both things are an effort to try to gain an advantage. Not all PED's are
illegal, if a doctor prescribes it to you.
"me" made my point for me. Athletes will do anything they can to try to get
an advantage. If they can take a pill, or get an injection, and that helps
them win a fight. Yeah, you can bet that they'll do it. And they'll damn
sure do it if it's undetectable in drug tests.
brent
20 Nov 2009, 04:10
Frank: as long as your straight across the board with it, fine. i hate
dudes that say a # like 50% are using, but the 50% that are dirty are
fighters they dislike and the other 50% "clean" fighters are fighters they
like. still don't know why you single out brock when bringing up albert
pujols saying "test me anytime" why just brock? why not all fighters? is it
b/c brock is so big and so fast and achived success at a high level so
quick.
and it's true that he's probably only 2nd behind lance armstrong when it
comes to that question. he passes the same tests that alot of fighters
fail, so why should he be the only fighter responsible for proving his
innocence before anyone else. just b/c he gets tired of being asked it
SOOOO much? i'd bet any figher would be just as frustrated as brock if they
were asked as much as him, yet never tested positive. it's unfair to me.
STF
20 Nov 2009, 11:31
In all fairness Brent a lot of pro wrestlers get the steroids question alot
Frank Hyden
20 Nov 2009, 12:32
Brent, I actually kind of like Brock. I'm not one of those guys you
mentioned. One of my favorite fighters is Anderson Silva, and I think he
might be using. I've been burned by too many athletes, that might be why
I'm so cynical. Maybe that's my problem. Because of the culture of sports
I've grown up in, and having seen so many athletes test positive, I assume
their "guilty", rather than "innocent".
I put those words in quotes because I'm not one of those guys who thinks
users should be thrown in jail or anything outlandish like that.
I consider PED's in the same vein as supplements. I don't have a big
problem with them, but I want to know who's using what, and why. I don't
want to take records away, or put asterisks on them. I just want to know.
PED's don't magically give you muscles, you still have to put in the work.
And btw, I think every fighter should undergo the same scrutiny Brock does.
DonAthos
20 Nov 2009, 14:50
"I wrote the other day that I believe that Brock Lesnar has used in the
past, and is probably still using, PED's. The past aspect of that statement
is easy to prove."
Do you know the meaning of the word "prove"? I'd guess not, seeing as how
you said it would be easy to "prove"... then did everything but. Your
logic went: Brock was a wrestler; many wrestlers use PEDs (note--no
apostrophe); therefore, Brock used PEDs! Also, you said: "look at the
guy!"
Well yeah, I guess that's air tight.
It's kind of like if I said I could prove that Frank Hyden suffers from
mental retardation. Wanna know how?
1) People with mental retardation can't write compelling articles. They
don't understand how to "prove" things or how logic works. They write for
public consumption, but can't manage to figure out the nuances of the
apostrophe.
2) Look at the pic posted. Looks retarded to me.
Ergo, I have "proven" that Frank Hyden is mentally retarded.
Thanks for the lesson in logic, prof.
John
20 Nov 2009, 14:59
Yeah, let's make this about Brock Lesnar and pro wrestling and not:
Stephan Bonnar
Tim Sylvia
Nate Marquardt
Josh Barnett
Chris Leben
Kimo
Royce Gracie
Ken Shamrock
Sean Sherk
Hermes Franca
Vitor Belfort
Kit Kope
Phil Baroni
Edwin Dewees
Baby Fedor
The list goes on. Oh no. Brock Lesnar was in WWE, he's a HW, you a big man,
so he's on steroids. You're a genius.
brent
21 Nov 2009, 00:08
stf-brock is no longer in pro wrasslin, he left that "sport" b/c he was
tired of living a dirty life. we all know that. i think he gets asked about
it alot more than other mma fighters though, which is what brock is now. he
used "something" in the wwe, but i don't live in the past.
frank. i'm not sure about anything anymore. it's very disheartning when
more fans and writers think guilty before innocent. i hope they are wrong.
Frank Hyden
21 Nov 2009, 00:24
To John- I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I think you might have
missed my 2nd comment, where I said I think every fighter should face the
same scrutiny as Brock.
To DonAthos- You got me on the apostrophe thing. I'm not a professional
writer, and I've never claimed to be.
I made the assumption that everyone was sophisticated enough to realize
that pro wrestlers are on PEDs. That's common knowledge, I figured you were
smart enough to know that. That's my mistake. I guess I overestimated you.
And yes, I admit, I'm not Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt. It's a low blow for you
to even go there, to be honest. I would hope that everyone else here (even
Boles, who hates me) would be above that.
Frank Hyden
21 Nov 2009, 00:28
To Brent- I hope I'm wrong, too. I don't want to think that Anderson Silva
is using something, but I've been burned too many times. It's like being
cheated on by 3 girlfriends in a row, you're just going to start
distrusting all women.
George
21 Nov 2009, 00:30
You're a dick, Don. Even if you think the guy's wrong, that's no reason to
make fun of how he looks.
Katie
21 Nov 2009, 12:49
It's one thing to disagree with a guy, but to make fun of how the man looks
is disgusting. You should be ashamed.
STF
21 Nov 2009, 13:45
Brent- Brocks main reason for leaving pro wreslting was the overly hectic
shedule, although it might not have been the only factor. Oh and "donathos"
complaining about an apostrophe is just fuckin sad. I didn't know these
opinion articles where graded for punctuation. You might want to get a
life.
Wallace
21 Nov 2009, 14:44
DonAthos, making fun of someone doesn't prove anything other than how
childish you are.
I think you're totally wrong, but you were all right until you went after
Frank's appearance. That made it personal there, and that's bunk.
Trend Tracker
21 Nov 2009, 18:13
Let's be more specific. PEDs are performance enhancing DRUGS. As Frank
already pointed out, some of these (like cortisone) are approved by a
sports' governing body because over time they a) seem to help athletes
without giving them an UNFAIR advantage and b) they don't appear to be
particularly dangerous. Rulings on those types of drugs may change at any
time.
Current drug tests from any sports organization (and even the WWE if you
choose to believe it or not) regularly test for 1) certain illegal drugs
and 2) over-the-counter or prescription drugs that may give an athlete an
UNFAIR competitive advantage, or drugs that could MASK the usage of the
aforementioned "competitive advantage drugs."
No organization has the time or money to test for every possible drug that
may or may not effect performance, especially the specially engineered
drugs that some athletes may be taking. Some of them, again as Frank
already pointed out, may be impossible to detect with any current known
test.
You know what? That's life.
Organizations are (and should be) allowed to police themselves, and if some
athletes manage to beat the system there is nothing we can do about it. I'm
also okay with that. You know why? Because that's life.
If an organization does its best without spending untold gobs of extra
money to take the tests even further, I'm okay with that, too. There comes
a point where you can over-regulate anything. There is a cost to
regulation. How many readers at this site would pay extra each month for a
PPV to make sure that all UFC fighters had even more expensive tests to
look for even rarer drug usage? People already are balking at the price of
PPVs. No one wants to pay even more for the product. In a perfect world it
would be nice to know, but this is far from a perfect world.
I'm going to assume if someone doesn't get caught, then they are fine. I'll
also assume if someone does get caught, they will be punished. Asking for
more than that is actually pretty ridiculous. Though I'm still not sure how
anyone gets "burned" when one of their favorite athletes gets caught
cheating. I don't live my life through my favorite entertainers or sports
stars. I'm hoping you guys don't either.
As to high altitude training, or hiring better coaches, or anything else
that isn't a drug, I'll let governing bodies decide what is an UNFAIR
advantage in any given situation or sport. That's why they are paid the big
bucks. Does Brock use PEDs? Officially, no. That really should be good
enough for all of us, but it never will be.
As to photographs being evidence? Please.
I was 149 pounds when I graduated high school. I was 185 when I graduated
college, and while there I did a lot of weight training. 10 years later I
was 225 ripped pounds and I never took ANY type of supplement at all. I ate
well (especially lots of chicken breast) and I exercised a lot, especially
weight training. There is no substitute for working out. Just being strong
and muscular and bigger than you were in college doesn't mean anything.
Brock Lesnar obviously reduced his cardio when he went to WWE, he probably
started training for mass as well since Vince always pushes larger
athletes. Brock needed to reduce mass and increase cardio when he joined
UFC. All of these things are done through proper training. Again none of
things proves anything other than Brock knows how to train better than the
average person who reads these discussions on this website.
My point has always been to give someone the benefit of a doubt, and stop
raising red flags just to have discussions like this. If people repeat lies
often enough, they become common accepted truth. Most people believe Brock
has used PEDs because articles and opinion pieces like this keep coming up.
Unless you KNOW something FOR SURE and YOU REALLY can PROVE it, don't
assume the worst about someone. It's not fair to them and it makes you a
little more cynical and a little less human.
Personally it wouldn't surprise me if ANY popular athlete in any sport was
busted for drug use tomorrow, because I'm not naive. But I refuse to assume
any of them are until they are busted. Speculation doesn't help anyone.
One more point. I will not make fun of Frank's spelling or punctuation.
Ever. I've made enough of those types of mistakes over the years, and I
will continue to make them. None of us, as far as I know has a professional
proof reading staff.
I'll mock the no-talent, ass-clown
23 Nov 2009, 22:06
I know this website takes volunteer contributors, but your writing makes me
wish I was illiterate. If I was illiterate at least I wouldn't know how
horrible you are, and I could pretend you knew what you were talking about.
If you didn't have problems with your writing, and logic for that matter,
you wouldn't need so many people defending you in pretty much everything
you've written. The only reason I read your articles is it makes me feel
better about myself as a person. You post your opinion, but when someone
has an opinion that differs, you blast them, and their opinion usually
makes a lot more sense than yours does.
You should be the exception for other volunteers at www.mmatorch.com,
because if it was my website, you would have to pay me large sums of money
to post anything in return for visitors leaving the website whenever they
see your name in front of a column.
The reason I can make fun of your grammar is because, whether you think
you're a journalist or not, YOU'RE WRITING ONLINE! You are in the role of
an educated, knowledgable MMA journalist, even if you don't deserve to be.
You need to research what can and can't write before you put more
slanderous articles online and end up getting the website shut down.
Alright, who's going to come to Hyden's defense this time, or are you going
to let him fight his own battle for a change?
Frank Hyden
24 Nov 2009, 01:34
First off, I don't need other people to "fight my battles". This is a
public forum, a place where people can express their opinion. Some people
agree with me, some don't, that's the way it works.
I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, we all have our
opinions. I would ask you to show an example where I blasted someone for
disagreeing with me.
And did it ever occur to you that maybe someone defended me because they
agree with my opinion?
King of Kings
24 Nov 2009, 13:28
I'm so sick of having to say this, u can't be shut down for an opinion.
Prime example is Fox News, Glen Beck says shit that has been de-bunked
numerous times and geuss what, he's still on the air. I'm getting real
damn sick of people trying to stifle others opinions under the guise of
its"slander"
Trend Tracker
24 Nov 2009, 16:03
As long as everyone is trying to keep things straight, I thought I'd
clarify a point or two.
First of all, Frank and I rarely agree on anything. The only exceptions I
can think of are the few times that he uses established facts. When Frank
says something that is true, I'm forced to agree with him.
I don't think we ever agree on his opinions, though.
Secondly, again just to clarify. When Frank WRITES something that is
published at this site, that could easily be seen as character
assassination, it will not be looked at as slander in a court. The word
"slander" should only be used when someone "talks" defamation about
someone. When it's written and published its called libel.
So, again to clarify, what Frank does could be construed as libelous.
In spite of what "Just the Facts" stated in response to a previous article
by Frank, most smaller sites like this are left alone when it comes to
lawsuits. Frank doesn't influence enough people with his libelous opinions
to matter, and Wade Keller doesn't have enough money to make a lawsuit
worth most attorney's time.
That doesn't mean what he's doing is okay, it just means not enough people
currently care to do something about it legally.
King of Kings-
When politics are involved, people can get by with saying a little bit more
than is normally accepted. The government is careful not to limit voices
when politics are being discussed, so Fox (and other political news
organizations) get much more leeway in what they can say. That being said,
Glenn Beck lost sponsors because what he said was not popular. But his
opinions are usually based on facts, so he is rarely "de-bunked." In his
case, it really was a difference of opinion.
An example: President Obama promised that the unemployment rate would not
go above 9% if he was allowed to spend $750 million on a stimulus package.
If Fox News points out Obama is either a liar or doesn't know how the
economy works when the unemployment rate went over 10%, they are not
slandering Obama. They are offering the two best options for why what he
said, didn't work. Obama later admitted he didn't realize how great the
problem was. He either had to say that or he had to admit he was a liar. So
Fox' opinion was correct.
If Frank would offer two viable possibilities when making his arguments,
that would be deemed less libelous, especially if he didn't push just one.
(And if he offered anything more in the way evidence than his "ability to
see.")
In all of these series of posts, Frank's only offered "evidence" was that
Brock looks different in pictures over the years. I offered another,
perfectly logical, reason why he may have looked different. I can also add
another one as of today. People lose mass and size when they are sick, too.
And it looks like Brock has been sick for quite awhile. It sure makes more
sense than he's using some kind of undetectable drug.
As to logic, Frank says he'd be satisfied if Brock took more thorough and
extensive drug tests. Well, if the drugs Brock is supposedly taking are not
detectable, those new tests wouldn't find anything either. And even if
Frank was finally satisfied, some other writer, somewhere, wouldn't be. And
that's the real danger of these kind of accusations. People are never
willing to admit that enough is enough. Or that they may have been wrong
all along.
King of Kings
25 Nov 2009, 12:35
Thanks Trend. You made my point for me, "becks opinion are usually based
in facts". So you can ignore the times when there not.
My point was that whenever there's an opinion on here or PW there's
always a dog pile of "you can't say that" and it gets old.
Frank Hyden
25 Nov 2009, 12:54
Where to begin...
The drugs I think Brock (and many other athletes) is taking are not
detectable by the current tests they take. They need to take blood samples
and stuff like that.
Secondly, I've written before that I don't consider this to be a huge deal.
I don't care what drugs people are taking, I just want to know which ones.
Next up, someone has to be incredibly naive if they think that wrestlers
don't take steroids. You don't get a body like Brock had without taking
steroids. Have you ever seen the difference between tested and non-tested
bodybuilding competitions? It's night and day. Sometimes the "ability to
see" is all the evidence you need.
You say that it's possible that Brock's sickness is why he's smaller now
than his wrestling days. Dude, he's been "smaller" than his wrestling days
for like 3 years. He hasn't been sick for 3 years. Even if you believe that
BS story about Brock having been at only 60% of his potential, that's been
for like a year. I don't believe that for a second. When Brock comes back,
he'll be just like he was when he fought Mir. He'll be overpowering, he'll
be dominant against some guys, but someone out there will kick his ass. You
know how that's true? Because it happens to everybody. One of these times,
someone is going to kick Anderson Silva's ass. It's already happened to
GSP, he was supposed to be this dominant force we've never seen before. He
destroyed Matt Hughes, who was supposed to be invincible himself. But then
GSP got his ass kicked by Matt Serra. It happens to everybody. Look at
Machida, he was supposed to be invincible, then along came Shogun.
That doesn't take anything away from any of those fighters. They're
fantastic, Brock's fantastic, but nobody is invincible. The 60% stuff,
that's Dana White PR talk.
Trend Tracker
25 Nov 2009, 17:56
Frank-
Of course Brock is smaller than when he wrestled, he had an entirely
different workout routine then. Vince pushed BIG wrestlers to the top back
then, so Lesnar trained for mass and size. I don't have any idea how much
you train yourself, but it really IS possible to get big without steroids.
It's work, but you can do it. Look at some of the lineman in pro football.
Look at Brock's teammate, Jim Kleinsasser, of the Minnesota Vikings. He's
just a tight end and even though they were the same height, Kleinsasser was
actually more muscular when they played together that pre-season. Local
media even joked about it.
No one can tell, "just by looking."
I never said wrestlers don't use steroids, I said they are regularly
tested. Vince has suspended some major stars for using. But it's nothing
like the old days. If they use, they will get caught.
My brother is a top columnist for the the top bodybuilding website. He's
also a bodybuilder. He knows steroids are in heavy use for the top pros. No
one denies that and no one tests. Brock Lesnar looks AVERAGE compared to
top bodybuilders. He's big and muscular but he's not that big and he's not
"cut."
If Brock ever looked like THEM, even I'd wonder, and I give people the
benefit of a doubt.
Your evidence is only speculation. That's all it's ever been.
King of Kings-
Beck does speculate. I said that. But I also said politics are given more
leeway. I personally don't think anyone has a right to an opinion that
harms someone's reputation without offering solid proof or real evidence.
That's just common decency. The problem is most people no longer possess
common decency. And they either don't know it, or they don't care. Or
both.
How bad does slander or libel have to be before YOU personally would get
upset by it?
Frank Hyden
26 Nov 2009, 00:34
Trend Tracker, I don't know if you watch much wrestling or not, but WWE's
drug policy is a bigger joke than MLB's. The only top star they're ever
suspended is Jeff Hardy, and that's only because they thought they could
legitimize their drug program by doing so. John Cena, Triple H, Batista all
use steroids or HGH or whatever. They get muscle tears, their arms are
bigger than their heads, there's no question that they use.
Again, though, I don't really care that much. As I've said before, PEDs
don't give you magic muscles. You still have to put the work in. I respect
the work they put in. I just want to know what they're using, and why.
Honesty is the best policy here. I give Brock credit for this, too. Unlike
a lot of other PED users (John Cena comes first to mind), Brock has never
(as far as I know) said that PED users are bad guys or whatever. Some of
these users have made outrageous statements about how PED users should be
treated. Brock's never done that, I give him credit for that.
As to how Brock looks now, he could still be using, just not using for mass
or size or definition. No matter what he's doing, though, I just want to
know. That's all.
King of Kings
26 Nov 2009, 12:44
Trend-Vince still pushes the big guys over the small.
If I was a celebrity I'd expect rumors and such. Some can and some
can't deal with it, I'd like to think I could. Sure some shit would piss me
off but not to the point of petty law suites.
Trend Tracker
26 Nov 2009, 13:39
We'll stop now. Now you've libeled MLB, Cena, HHH, and Batista, too. If we
keep going you'll probably include everyone that ever lifted a weight. ; )
By the way Mysterio was suspended, too. And Booker T. and Angle most likely
left BEFORE being suspended after probably failing tests.
(But at least they talked about it in interviews and brought up the subject
FIRST. I'm a little bit more free to speculate when they already
half-heartedly admitted they did it.)
I honestly don't see why you think it's important to KNOW if you don't
really care though.
Personally, I don't care if people use, either. I also think if average
people had regular HGH supplements and doctor supervised steroids as a
normal part of preventative health Americans would be a lot, lot
healthier.
But the stigma is there, primarily because of MLB's attitude toward it, and
that stigma is going to be difficult to overcome.
Thousands of Americans die every single year because of drunk drivers but
Congress is more concerned with the "possible" harmful effects of steroid
use. (And many of these Congressman have been caught driving drunk.)
The only people we all KNOW use PEDs regularly are professional
bodybuiders, and they live very long healthy lives, even with all that
extra muscle mass to carry around. That tells me we do not know the whole
story about PEDs.
When wrestlers die young, it's usually some other drug (like ecstasy)
that's involved.
Keep writing. I'll keep reading (and most likely disagreeing.)
King of Kings-
I finally know where you are coming from. Your answer? "Have thicker skin
if you are a public figure."
I no longer totally disagree with you. Nice job.
But, it's STILL libel...
Frank Hyden
27 Nov 2009, 01:13
Well, at the risk of turning this into PWTorch.com (which would be great,
btw, because I love the PWTorch site) WWE has always dumped all over
Mysterio for some reason. I consider him a big name, but they don't.
Anyway, the reason I want to know who's using and what they use, despite
the fact I don't care that much, is so that maybe we can get some good info
about things.
If there's a guy out there that uses this certain PED or that one or
whatever, and he's had good success with it, maybe that opens the door to
it being used by more people.
To me, it's all about health. Let's say John Cena uses Product A, and him
using that gives him 20% more muscle mass without any side effects. Or, he
can use Product B, get 40% more muscle mass, but suffer possible side
effects. Or there's the experimental Product C that could possibly give you
up to 50% or 60% more muscle mass, but definitely gives you bad side
effects.
I don't want guys to use the crap that's definitely bad for you. If it's
out in the open, maybe we can put some standards on it. If it's out in the
open, we can run tests on it and stuff. Let's make it safer to use this
stuff. That's why I want to know.
Trend Tracker
27 Nov 2009, 07:26
I'm FINALLY starting to see where you're coming from, too. I guess we both
would want the same thing. I still don't think there's any reason to think
that the people you named are using. Just like I don't think most NFL
players who are huge are using. It's too easy to assume they are when they
just have a good work ethic and great genetics. Those who do use will
eventually get caught. I don't think the testing by organizations is as big
a joke as you think it is. We can differ on that.
BUT, if PED use was out in the open, and medically supervised, it would
give EVERYONE a clearer picture of the real benefits versus the real
dangers of such substances.
Anything would be better than the current witch hunts.
Obviously risks are real, but we'll never know how great the risk until we
actually see some ongoing data. Right now, there is none, because no one is
allowed to participate in any real study.
If anyone is using now, it's mostly steroids and HGH, they are far easier
to obtain and a lot cheaper to deal with. Just seeing real data on these
two would be a step in the right direction.
King of Kings
27 Nov 2009, 12:51
I agree with u frank and trend that with the stigma of peds it sucks if
some of them could be used medically to help heal quicker but not used
cause of the "steroid stigma" or incomplete study data.
