The FACT that Brock Lesnar tested positive for PEDs, offsets the diverticulitis excuse in my opinion

Leroy Jenkins

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
0
For years and years we have heard this narrative that Brock Lesnar diverticulitis explains all his losses, that without it, things would be different.

Like this diverticulitis excuse, for years we heard these same fans say that Brock was a natural gifted athlete and PEDs had nothing to do with how big/shredded he was.

Now we know for a fact that Brock was always using, anybody with eyeballs already knew this but since 2008 we have to endure this BS thought of Brock being a natural gifted athlete.

Anyways, there is no doubt in my mind that Brock was using in his original 2008-2011 run in the UFC and Im positive he was using it in his NFL/Dyanmite MMA days.


The pee test back then were simply horrible. Brock was on Gear back then, USADA has exposed so many people who were testing clean for years.


So all this diverticulitis excuse to me, means nothing. So the man had trouble with diverticulitis but at the same time was taken roids to keep his size/explosiveness/strength, so in my mind this totally offsets the negatives of diverticulitis.

It's not just the fact he used it during his 2008-2011 UFC run. It's the fact that the man has been using it most of his life.

24g2jxi.jpg


90bf1a9ee29677c22d3c0e49e9c14a2c.jpg


You could tell that Brock was never naturally gifted during high school. Look at him in 1995 @ age 17.

Then In 1996 @ 18 years old, he suddently got huge from just a year ago. That's insane, you can tell right away his traps/delts/body simply got huge in 1 year.


Of course brock apologist will blame it on late growth spur, but this was @ 18 years old. I seen natural gifted athletes, they are huge/strong from around 13/14 years of age.


Anyways he started from his senior year in high school and never stopped taking them. Brock is a an individual who responded very positive to steroids, how you respond to steroids is largely genetic BTW.


So as you can see doing roids for most of you life actually has a huge effect on how your body develops, its a known fact that steroids size/strength stick with you even after you stop. Brock of course was on the most powerful PEDs, specially when he got into WWE.


So yeah stop using the diverticulitis excuse, his years of PEDs offset all of it. Thank you.
 
PEDs gave him diverticulitis
 
I'll get back to you TS, i think you might be onto something but first i'm gonna check out some of his older fights from his first stint in UFC on Fightpass to see if he looked any different. Fightpass is really handy for stuff like this, UFCs entire history a few clicks away. Such a great service.
 
He didn't. He popped for oestrogen blockers I thought (presuming prior use of PEDs granted)

Anyway, he is white and jacked. Would you mind terribly trying to deal with that??
<mma4>
 
So based on Brock at age 17...if he never took up steroids or wrestling...this is his future

anthony-michael-hall-the-breakfast-club.jpg
 
He didn't. He popped for oestrogen blockers I thought (presuming prior use of PEDs granted)

Anyway, he is white and jacked. Would you mind terribly trying to deal with that??
<mma4>

You use estrogen blockers to not get the harsh consequences of being off cycle. If he hadn't used estrogen blockers, his hormones would be so fucked up that it would effect his fighting.

Hell he might grow tits because of all that estrogen.

So yes, it was a PED since it helped offset the estrogen that would fuck up his performance.
 
I'm certain Brock is far genetically superior to Hunt and would beat Hunt regardless of PEDs.
 
I'm certain Brock is far genetically superior to Hunt and would beat Hunt regardless of PEDs.
 
that 1995-1996 transition is the whole question. that would also be the time he could potentially be going through puberty, if it was very late. we've seen kids get big between hs and college, at least i have. and i would say every single one did it by doing a MASSIVE lifestyle transformation...like going to the gym 4-5 hours a day, protein shakes for sure, other stuff for sure.

i think it's obvious he's doing steroids, of course. I didn't realize until this brock issue that the effects with steroids last through your life even if you stop using. is that really true? that's crazy if it's true. that drastically changes the ethical argument, ESPECIALLY if there are no side effects.
 
Brock is tall and wide lots of those types are skinny during high school and can't really put mass on while growing so its not really an indicator
 
I honestly don't think BOrk Ever had 'diverticulitis'. You can't pick and choose what to believe from the tongues of liars....it's always a lie.
 
that 1995-1996 transition is the whole question. that would also be the time he could potentially be going through puberty, if it was very late. we've seen kids get big between hs and college, at least i have. and i would say every single one did it by doing a MASSIVE lifestyle transformation...like going to the gym 4-5 hours a day, protein shakes for sure, other stuff for sure.

i think it's obvious he's doing steroids, of course. I didn't realize until this brock issue that the effects with steroids last through your life even if you stop using. is that really true? that's crazy if it's true. that drastically changes the ethical argument, ESPECIALLY if there are no side effects.

"
The drug was then withdrawn for three months, a period which corresponds to around 15 percent of a mouse's lifespan. After the withdrawal, the mice’s muscle mass grew by 30 percent in six days following load exercise, while untreated mice showed insignificant muscle growth during the same period.

This suggests that the steroids still had a clear effect on the muscles in the first group even after a long period with no steroid use."

http://sciencenordic.com/steroid-effects-can-last-decades

The benefits stay because of how it increases nuclei which stays after steroids.


Lastly it could be even worse.

"Finally there is evidence that steroids impact epigenetics from observations that exposure to chemicals resembling steroids (eg BPA, cadmium, etc) which mimic or disrupt an organisms normal endocrine response (mainly oestrogen and androgen) can alter normal development or influence gene expression."

http://hormonej13.imascientist.org.uk/2013/06/17/which-hormones-have-the-greatest-epigenetic-effect/

So steroids actually influence gene expression.....they actually change your the way your genetics work with epigenetics...meaning that you can all of a sudden activate some genetics that make you get super big, which would never be possible of you were natural.
 
The man is absolutely physically gifted. Pump yourself full of as many roids as you want, you'll never look like that.
 
You use estrogen blockers to not get the harsh consequences of being off cycle. If he hadn't used estrogen blockers, his hormones would be so fucked up that it would effect his fighting.

Hell he might grow tits because of all that estrogen.

So yes, it was a PED since it helped offset the estrogen that would fuck up his performance.
No, "PED" is a misnomer. What he failed for goes hand-in-hand with drugs that actually would help him, which is why they're prohibited. Lots of what we call PEDs don't really do anything for performance, but they're prohibited for other reasons.
 
The man is absolutely physically gifted. Pump yourself full of as many roids as you want, you'll never look like that.

Do you know what epigenetics are?


If I had pumped my self full of roids from age 17-18 on ward.....If I had activated my epigenetic muscle building gene, I might of been that big. Not height wise but muscle wise.


The point is this, without roids, he would never be close to the 300lbs that he was...He would've never activated his epigenetic genes of building muscle/being athletic.
 
Back
Top