GSP vs Nick Diaz the true story

[Pascal Bergeron]

gamma ray cheater shouldn't be allowed to fight

 

[car epic win]

hahaha very well made

 

[Franc Mittelo]

GSP was great on that podcast. The one thing I didn't agree with him on was his statements about PEDs working in MMA fighting. I simply don't believe that, because there is no evidence to support it.

 

[Sean Long]

GSP was great on that podcast. The one thing I didn't agree with him on was his statements about PEDs working in MMA fighting. I simply don't believe that, because there is no evidence to support it.

Dont they teach about PED's in nursing school?

 

[NGute87]

GoatSP

 

[Arqueto]

Admission of guilt by GSP, must be worth a couple of million in court, clearly says he poisoned his IV bag.

 

[UFC=Pride]

Gamma rays like the ulk poisoned Nick's iv and glass / cement in his gloves no wonder Nick was so pissed afterwards

 

[snackgod]

GSP was great on that podcast. The one thing I didn't agree with him on was his statements about PEDs working in MMA fighting. I simply don't believe that, because there is no evidence to support it.

it simple when it comes to all peds use if it didn't work than why would so many people keep using them. that cause it does

 

[Franc Mittelo]

Dont they teach about PED's in nursing school?

They do teach pharmacology and how to interpret research. So yeah, this is why I am not convinced about the mythical benefits of PEDs in MMA. If you show me the evidence, I will consider it. I am not going to base my belief on "If they don't work then why to fighters use them?" argumentation. Fighters (for the most part) are not geniuses. A lot of their methods are based on superstition, bro-science and word-of-mouth anecdotal accounts.

Can PEDs (used correctly) make you a healthier human being? Of course, I am not denying this. However, you still have to make a direct connection between fighters using PEDs and their success in the specific context of MMA (the numbers suggest that a fighter is just as likely to lose or win with or without PEDs).

If you can't do this, then all you are saying is "any exogenous technology that makes you a healthier human being is a PED" then the problem becomes, where do we draw the line?

Basically, calling any exogenous technology a PED becomes meaningless, because you could be talking about almost anything that a human being correctly consumes that has a positive health effect. So, what are we talking about when using the word PEDs?

The whole Pro-USADA thing is simply a religious movement based on pseudoscience.

 

[Lifeform]

GSP was great on that podcast. The one thing I didn't agree with him on was his statements about PEDs working in MMA fighting. I simply don't believe that, because there is no evidence to support it.

Could you understand that taking EPO could give you godlike stamina to beat you opponent into a pulp? Not that hard to understand.

 

[Franc Mittelo]

it simple when it comes to all peds use if it didn't work than why would so many people keep using them. that cause it does

That is a fallacy. You are essentially saying "God must exist because billions of people believe in it."

Fighter training is based on a lot of anecdotal word-of-mouth, bro-science, superstition and quackery. They are not a valid and reliable source of evidence for the efficacy of PEDs in the context of MMA.

Certain drugs can make you a healthier human, and being a healthier human being will make you perform certain activities better. That was GSP's main argument. To me, that opens a Pandora's box of any drug being called a PED. Even some drugs that USADA allows could be PEDs and we just don't know it, because we don't exactly how every single drug works in a human being.

This issue is not as simple as the Pro-USADA people often talk about it.

 

[bambammccoy]

Could you understand that taking EPO could give you godlike stamina to beat you opponent into a pulp? Not that hard to understand.

Add to that it helps you put more reps in at the gym. Even Vitor admitted this. He said he was able to have such a powerful spinning kick because TRT gave him the stamina to put in more quality reps to deeply ingraine the muscle memory.

Guy is a mediocre poster who regularly posts very idiotic things. It's clear he has had very little personal experience with Peds.

 

[Franc Mittelo]

Could you understand that taking EPO could give you godlike stamina to beat you opponent into a pulp? Not that hard to understand.

I can understand that. But can you also understand that taking EPO could give you godlike stamina to get beaten up into a bloody pulp by your opponent? And while you take a prolonged beating than you would normally have, if you hadn't taken EPO, you could form a blood-clot and die?

The coin has two sides brother. I realize this, and this why I say PEDs don't work in MMA. You can win but you can also just get beaten up worse than usual, because you were only enhanced to take a longer beating.

Not that hard to understand.

 

[Lifeform]

I can understand that. But can you also understand that taking EPO could give you godlike stamina to get beaten up into a bloody pulp by your opponent? And while you take a prolonged beating than you would normally have, if you hadn't taken EPO, you could form a blood-clot and die?

The coin has two sides brother. I realize this, and this why I say PEDs don't work in MMA. You can win but you can also just get beaten up worse than usual, because you were only enhanced to take a longer beating.

Not that hard to understand.

Yes you would not be guaranteed to win but when the difference between guys is 1% then that edge is enourmous! Look at Jon Jones, people say he is the best ever but he might also have been a drugs cheat his entire career!

Look at Vitor on and off TRT / Johnny Hendricks / Erick Silva lol

 

[snackgod]

That is a fallacy. You are essentially saying "God must exist because billions of people believe in it."

Fighter training is based on a lot of anecdotal word-of-mouth, bro-science, superstition and quackery. They are not a valid and reliable source of evidence for the efficacy of PEDs in the context of MMA.

Certain drugs can make you a healthier human, and being a healthier human being will make you perform certain activities better. That was GSP's main argument. To me, that opens a Pandora's box of any drug being called a PED. Even some drugs that USADA allows could be PEDs and we just don't know it, because we don't exactly how every single drug works in a human being.

This issue is not as simple as the Pro-USADA people often talk about it.

peds help most in recovery from working out faster so a person can work out longer and more often e best shape of there lives. see the changes in jon jones body to prove that.

baseball players know they work so it no big deal when you signed a 200 million contract and know you got it from the peds they takin.

 

[Franc Mittelo]

Yes you would not be guaranteed to win but when the difference between guys is 1% then that edge is enourmous! Look at Jon Jones, people say he is the best ever but he might also have been a drugs cheat his entire career!
Look at Vitor on and off TRT / Johnny Hendricks / Erick Silva lol

Statements like these is why I continue to challenge Pro-USADA ideologies. You are using language that is better suited for track-n-field, cycling and other individual sports where the athlete is essentially competing against itself and time/distance.

For example, in the 100M dash you can make statements like "when the difference between guys is 1%," because Sprinter A runs and you measure his time. Sprinter B runs, and you measure his time. Then you compare the times, and see how each individual is improving toward the goal of running faster. A sprinter only has itself to beat. The other sprinter is not going to trip you or directly stop you from running as fast as you can. It is all on you.

In track-n-field, you win if you can run faster than the other guy. That is the objective of the sport. MMA is completely different. Just because you run faster or you can bench/squat/dead-lift more than your opponent, it doesn't mean you are in a better position to win the fight.

The gap between MMA fighters is impossible to measure. For example, most people will pick Kamaru Usman to outperform Demian Maia in activities such as benching, squatting, dead-lifting and sprinting. But when they fought, Usman didn't brutalize Maia (who is significantly older than Usman).

The eye test tells us that Usman is the better athlete. So, why didn't he completely annihilate the older and less athletic Maia? Because in MMA, skills matter more than any PED usage. Yes, PEDs used correctly can make you generally healthier, and logically, we can hypothesized this may lead to better performances. But this can be said for almost anything substance that improves general health.

You are using a couple of specific examples to support your point. However, somebody has already looked at some MMA results where fighters tested positive, and this data suggested that a fighter on PEDs wasn't any more likely to win. This is better evidence than you singling out Jon Jones and Vitor and even fighters who have yet to test positive.

I have looked at Vitor's record, it is not impressive. His longest winning streak is 5 fights, and this happened before the legend of TRT Vitor (who wasn't even that successful. The legend is based on beating Henderson, Bisping and Rockhold).

 

[Sean Long]

However, you still have to make a direct connection between fighters using PEDs and their success in the specific context of MMA

Jon Jones

 

[Franc Mittelo]

Jon Jones

Even if I agree with your Jon Jones example, how did you determine that he is the rule and not the exception? Better evidence suggest that fighters who test positive for PEDs are not any more likely to win the fight.

 

[The Schmoop]

They do teach pharmacology and how to interpret research. So yeah, this is why I am not convinced about the mythical benefits of PEDs in MMA. If you show me the evidence, I will consider it. I am not going to base my belief on "If they don't work then why to fighters use them?" argumentation. Fighters (for the most part) are not geniuses. A lot of their methods are based on superstition, bro-science and word-of-mouth anecdotal accounts.

Can PEDs (used correctly) make you a healthier human being? Of course, I am not denying this. However, you still have to make a direct connection between fighters using PEDs and their success in the specific context of MMA (the numbers suggest that a fighter is just as likely to lose or win with or without PEDs).

If you can't do this, then all you are saying is "any exogenous technology that makes you a healthier human being is a PED" then the problem becomes, where do we draw the line?

Basically, calling any exogenous technology a PED becomes meaningless, because you could be talking about almost anything that a human being correctly consumes that has a positive health effect. So, what are we talking about when using the word PEDs?

The whole Pro-USADA thing is simply a religious movement based on pseudoscience.

So you don’t believe there’s a direct correlation between significant physique and performance drop offs in fighters like Dan Henderson, Vitor Belfort and Johnny Hendricks? World beaters that suddenly aren’t even top 10 the very second USADA rolls into town?

 

[RiotWyatt]

They do teach pharmacology and how to interpret research. So yeah, this is why I am not convinced about the mythical benefits of PEDs in MMA. If you show me the evidence, I will consider it. I am not going to base my belief on "If they don't work then why to fighters use them?" argumentation. Fighters (for the most part) are not geniuses. A lot of their methods are based on superstition, bro-science and word-of-mouth anecdotal accounts.

Can PEDs (used correctly) make you a healthier human being? Of course, I am not denying this. However, you still have to make a direct connection between fighters using PEDs and their success in the specific context of MMA (the numbers suggest that a fighter is just as likely to lose or win with or without PEDs).

If you can't do this, then all you are saying is "any exogenous technology that makes you a healthier human being is a PED" then the problem becomes, where do we draw the line?

Basically, calling any exogenous technology a PED becomes meaningless, because you could be talking about almost anything that a human being correctly consumes that has a positive health effect. So, what are we talking about when using the word PEDs?

The whole Pro-USADA thing is simply a religious movement based on pseudoscience.

I’ll take the opinions of the pharmaceutical companies and physicians developing, testing and selling these PEDs, the governing bodies researching, regulating and restricting these PEDs, as well as the professional athletes and performers who use these PEDs at the risk of the careers over yours. Thanks.