Sad (or good) thing is: PED use helped some of the greatest performances ever to come to fruition...

I always compare USADA and the UFC to society and the police.
So basically what you are saying.
Those bankrobbers would have an awesome rich life if the police
wasn´t around.
 
NotSoSure said:
TRT Vitor should be allowed. Wanted to see TRTVitor avenge his loss to AS.
Click to expand...
Trtitor definitely smashes pre usada Weidman and gets the gold. Luckily the chis stomped him, I could never stand belfort, he's been juiced since he was a teen, look at all the old roided wrestlers, he won't live much longer
 
icffedor said:
Trtitor definitely smashes pre usada Weidman and gets the gold. Luckily the chis stomped him, I could never stand belfort, he's been juiced since he was a teen, look at all the old roided wrestlers, he won't live much longer
Click to expand...

But TRT Vitor was so much fun!
 
Joe_Armstrong said:
I always compare USADA and the UFC to society and the police.
So basically what you are saying.
Those bankrobbers would have an awesome rich life if the police
wasn´t around.
Click to expand...

Nah....the more accurate comparison is speed control in highways.
 
YodaBonZelda said:
200.gif
Click to expand...
Roids will never fix that paper chin tho lol
 
I mean, athletes on PEDs are going to perform MUCH better. If this wasn't true they wouldn't risk their lives, careers, public personas for it.

I watch fights to see which fighter will win.

Take away PEDs, same guys will probably be winning, assuming everybody's doing it.

I know that won't translate exactly. Wealthier fighters = more sophisticated doping. Different genetic reactions to different drugs.

I imagine a lot of guys were pressured into taking them because other fighters were taking them. Domino effect.

And to echo the thought that they aren't throwing balls into hoops, they are trying to destroy their opponents.

I wouldn't call it cheating if everybody's doing but it is sad.
 
Joe_Armstrong said:
So you are saying people know when to cheat USADA ?
Click to expand...

They have an idea...
For example, they only caught JDS with a diuretic, none of the good stuff that actually "enhances performance". There are many ways around the tests, Jones team was just too dumb.
 
mudrubble said:
I'll give benefit of the doubt in not calling them a cheat for sure. Just won't also proclaim that they're clean. I'll proclaim that they've passed their tests.

To me, it's like anything else in life. I don't have a criminal record so you shouldn't call me a criminal. I don't have a ticket for running a red on my record, so you shouldn't say I ran a red.

But to say "he has NEVER committed a crime or run a red light even...." is too much. Of course I have broken laws - you just can't say that I'm a criminal because you have no proof of that. And you can't say you know I've never run a red. The most we can realistically say is I don't have any of that on my record.

But absence of evidence isn't innocence (except in the legal sense, but not in the moral or ethical sense) it's just absence of guilt.

I feel fair giving him the benefit of the doubt by not labeling him. But I feel like whenever we praise a "clean" fighter we stand 2x the risk of being let down when they are busted. Fact is we know they have "tested clean" but we can't say the ARE clean.
Click to expand...

You're dumb.

You're either clean or you're not. Until someone's been proven guilty, they should be considered clean by all means. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence unless or until proven otherwise.
 
Lockard The GOAT said:
You're dumb.

You're either clean or you're not. Until someone's been proven guilty, they should be considered clean by all means. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence unless or until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

You're dumber, friend Lockard. No. Innocence and absence of evidence of guilt are absolutely different things except in a the legal sense. Nobody is arguing that he's not legally innocent or clean.

I'm simply saying that, dumb as I may be, I'm not dumb enough to believe that everyone about to be proven guilty of a crime tomorrow is actually morally or ethically innocent of those crimes today.

Go ask a guy recovering in hospital if he considers his assaulter "innocent" since the court date hasn't come up yet. Only a moron, friend Lockard, would say yes.

Unless I'm a court of law (and I am not) nobody is fucking innocent of anything until I have proof of that. Otherwise they are simply not apparently guilty.
 
mudrubble said:
You're dumber, friend Lockard. No. Innocence and absence of evidence of guilt are absolutely different things except in a the legal sense. Nobody is arguing that he's not legally innocent or clean.

I'm simply saying that, dumb as I may be, I'm not dumb enough to believe that everyone about to be proven guilty of a crime tomorrow is actually morally or ethically innocent of those crimes today.

Go ask a guy recovering in hospital if he considers his assaulter "innocent" since the court date hasn't come up yet. Only a moron, friend Lockard, would say yes.

Unless I'm a court of law (and I am not) nobody is fucking innocent of anything until I have proof of that. Otherwise they are simply not apparently guilty.
Click to expand...

So, you demand absolute proof before declaring somebody is innocent? I want you to sit and think about that real hard, maybe it will dawn on you how illogical it is.

Someone not yet proven guilty may or may not be actually innocent, but until they're proven so, they should clearly be treated as if they are.
 
Peds help athletes perform at peak levels.
 
Lockard The GOAT said:
So, you demand absolute proof before declaring somebody is innocent? I want you to sit and think about that real hard, maybe it will dawn on you how illogical it is.

Someone not yet proven guilty may or may not be actually innocent, but until they're proven so, they should clearly be treated as if they are.
Click to expand...

Those are two very separate ideas.

TREATING SOMEONE AS THOUGH they're innocent is one thing. DECLARING THEM TO BE INNOCENT is a whole other ballgame.

I will treat someone not proven yet proven guilty as though they are innocent in most cases. Even if I don't believe they are. Treatment has nothing to do with belief in their innocence. It has to do with guilt not being proven yet.

I will NEVER DECLARE someone as innocent, period, unless I KNOW this for a fact.

A declaration is different than defacto treatment.

I will treat you as though you haven't raped any children, for example, Lockard.

If a friend asked me "has Lockard ever raped any children?" the ONLY truthful answer can be "I have NOOOOO fucking clue what Lockard has done in his life"

That doesn't change the way I TREAT you or INTERACT with you, sure. But I would NEVER stick my neck out and DECLARE for anyone I'm not very, very intimately informed about. I don't vouch for humans, my friend, unless I have almost absolute reason to believe my word cannot be tarnished on that. (All I have in this world is my balls and my word stuff)

But I'll still treat them as though they're innocent.

I don't see the connection between the two ideas, to be honest. One is legal, the other is personal.

I'll let YOU sit with that for a moment, friend Lockard.
 
Drugs are a hell of a drug. Anyone can have good success when drugs are involved its nothing special at all.
 
I say us sherdoggers roll up to USADA with our pitchforks and reebok shirts and kick those stupid science bitches out of our sport!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,998
Messages
55,460,310
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top