Virtually Everyone is On Steroids

[CleverNameEh]

I'm a mathematician so I'm forced to think about everything logically. When you apply the rules of logic learned in discrete math and entry level programming, the question of if everyone is on steroids is obvious.

Assume:

Man A on steroids. Man B natural.

Logic:

Man A > Man B.

How do rankings work?

1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5...

Extrapolate that to:
1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5... = Man A > Man B > Man C > Man D...

Applying the associative property, it's easy to conclude that almost everyone is on something.

In plain English, the natural guy will almost always lose to the guy on PEDs all else being equal. And, in the general case, there's no reason that everything else shouldn't almost always be equal. Most guys in the UFC, it being the premier level of competition, are winners and not losers. The natural guys lose and consequently almost never make it to the UFC.

 

[BrazilianDude]

Man A > Man B isn't necessarily true
Man A > Man A without PEDs, that is true
In general I agree with the general idea, but once they get to the UFC you need to consider punishment
A game theory approach would be much better imo

 

[HAWTRIDDUM]

If tv dinners and mountain dew are considered peds, 95% of sherdog are using them.

 

[rhay777]

I hope the future of mma, and all pro sports, is LESS regulation, not MORE!
"Cheaters" and technology will always find a way when money is involved and it just creates a huge mess.

 

[felmmando]

And, in the general case, there's no reason that everything else shouldn't almost always be equal.

There's every reason to believe everything else won't always be equal. Athletic competition preceded PEDs by centuries and there were vast inequalities. A physical competition between two natural athletes doesn't always result in a tie. However, if drugs are typically all that set one athlete apart from another and everyone in the UFC is taking them, then everyone in the UFC is as good as everybody else. This flies in the face of what we see, so don't you think your deduction goes awry somewhere?

 

[Andy Capp]

I'm a mathematician so I'm forced to think about everything logically. When you apply the rules of logic learned in discrete math and entry level programming, the question of if everyone is on steroids is obvious.

Assume:

Man A on steroids. Man B natural.

Logic:

Man A > Man B.

How do rankings work?

1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5...

Extrapolate that to:
1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5... = Man A > Man B > Man C > Man D...

Applying the associative property, it's easy to conclude that almost everyone is on something.

In plain English, the natural guy will almost always lose to the guy on PEDs all else being equal. And, in the general case, there's no reason that everything else shouldn't almost always be equal. Most guys in the UFC, it being the premier level of competition, are winners and not losers. The natural guys lose and consequently almost never make it to the UFC.

The only problem with this hypothesis is the cost factor. Some guys are always going to be too busy spending their money on training and a place to stay and food to eat to spend any on PEDs. Some of those guys will progress anyway and thereby ensure all things are not equal since they will be ahead in skill of others with equal experience. Then the question becomes, does this person who worked his way up naturally despite being broke ever get motivated to take PEDs? Maybe, and sadly, it probably happens a lot. The more money that comes into the sport, the more motivation there will be to cheat to get ahead. But I hope there will always be a number of guys who just choose to eschew cheating for the sake of their self-respect. Trolls will be drawn to this post like flies to shit for this but I choose to put GSP in that category based upon what I know of his upbringing and work ethic. I know there will always be the smallest shadow of a doubt about every athlete that gets paid, given what we know about PED use these days, but I believe him when he says he will submit to a polygraph test to prove he has never used illegal drugs.

In any case, it's really hard to argue that anyone who thinks they can use without getting caught will do so because of the increasing financial rewards that come from victory. The unfortunate thing these days is that with the USADA testing regimen, I fell pretty sure that you can not get caught if you're willing to spend enough money. To me, that means the guys who are already making the big bucks can continue to use and not get caught while the guys coming up can't afford the good stuff and will only avoid detection by good luck. If they were so inclined, the UFC could take advantage of this to an alarming degree.

 

[Limbo Pete]

"...and everything else is virtually identical."

-Kenny Florian

 

[Clippy]

Interesting

Let me try my own calculations:

{\displaystyle \int _{-\infty }^{\infty }x^{2}|f(x)|^{2}\,dx\ \int _{-\infty }^{\infty }\xi ^{2}|{\hat {f}}(\xi )|^{2}\,d\xi \geq \left({\frac {1}{4\pi }}\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }|f(x)|^{2}\,dx\right)^{2}.}

Fuck I forgot to carry the 1

 

[Slapchoppin]

except natural guys beat roided guys all the time

 

[g*r*b]

That's almost in the same league as the joke with the punchline "assume the cow is a sphere..."

<<bracing for the Honda posts>>

 

[Cygnus-X]

In plain English, the natural guy will almost always lose to the guy on PEDs all else being equal. And, in the general case, there's no reason that everything else shouldn't almost always be equal. Most guys in the UFC, it being the premier level of competition, are winners and not losers. The natural guys lose and consequently almost never make it to the UFC.

Genetics matter more than PEDs. Someone with great genetics will have a higher ceiling than someone with mediocre genetics and PEDs.

The real shit starts when you have someone who is a true genetic specimen and then add the top line gear.

except natural guys beat roided guys all the time

Like when?

 

[superpunch]

There's every reason to believe everything else won't always be equal. Athletic competition preceded PEDs by centuries and there were vast inequalities. A physical competition between two natural athletes doesn't always result in a tie. However, if drugs are typically all that set one athlete apart from another and everyone in the UFC is taking them, then everyone in the UFC is as good as everybody else. This flies in the face of what we see, so don't you think your deduction goes awry somewhere?

The odds of any individual trait being present in one athlete are the same as being present in another athlete.. Thus, you can generalize them. It's called abstract reasoning.

 

[ALAN PARTRIDGE]

TS: what about literally?

NO VIRTUALLY!!

 

[sonofjay817]

The only problem with this hypothesis is the cost factor. Some guys are always going to be too busy spending their money on training and a place to stay and food to eat to spend any on PEDs. Some of those guys will progress anyway and thereby ensure all things are not equal since they will be ahead in skill of others with equal experience. Then the question becomes, does this person who worked his way up naturally despite being broke ever get motivated to take PEDs? Maybe, and sadly, it probably happens a lot. The more money that comes into the sport, the more motivation there will be to cheat to get ahead. But I hope there will always be a number of guys who just choose to eschew cheating for the sake of their self-respect. Trolls will be drawn to this post like flies to shit for this but I choose to put GSP in that category based upon what I know of his upbringing and work ethic. I know there will always be the smallest shadow of a doubt about every athlete that gets paid, given what we know about PED use these days, but I believe him when he says he will submit to a polygraph test to prove he has never used illegal drugs.

In any case, it's really hard to argue that anyone who thinks they can use without getting caught will do so because of the increasing financial rewards that come from victory. The unfortunate thing these days is that with the USADA testing regimen, I fell pretty sure that you can not get caught if you're willing to spend enough money. To me, that means the guys who are already making the big bucks can continue to use and not get caught while the guys coming up can't afford the good stuff and will only avoid detection by good luck. If they were so inclined, the UFC could take advantage of this to an alarming degree.

I remember an article being written about how GSP was very weak physically, how little he could bench and how few chin-ups he could do. Supposedly this trainer put him on a routine that drastically increased his strength. And it was big talk for a while. I have a hunch that perhaps at this time he began to dabble with PED's but resented having to use them in order to level the playing field and it was at this time he began to speak out on the issue. I believe he decided to retire because he was too conscious of his well-being to continue taking them in order to compete and he could see the competition rapidly rising to overtake him. Now he is seriously contemplating a come back because of the recent strict crackdown of rampant PED use. Wait, will this get me banned? It is just a theory. Not an accusation.

 

[Sgt Smith]

a + e + s = c

a - athletic
e - explosive
s - steroids
c - champ

Such an easily solved equation.

 

[the can]

I'm a mathematician so I'm forced to think about everything logically. When you apply the rules of logic learned in discrete math and entry level programming, the question of if everyone is on steroids is obvious.

Assume:

Man A on steroids. Man B natural.

Logic:

Man A > Man B.

How do rankings work?

1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5...

Extrapolate that to:
1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5... = Man A > Man B > Man C > Man D...

Applying the associative property, it's easy to conclude that almost everyone is on something.

In plain English, the natural guy will almost always lose to the guy on PEDs all else being equal. And, in the general case, there's no reason that everything else shouldn't almost always be equal. Most guys in the UFC, it being the premier level of competition, are winners and not losers. The natural guys lose and consequently almost never make it to the UFC.

no mention of GSP, otherwise i thought you were TONYCPA

 

[Drenalin]

Not all fighters need PEDs

 

[Andy Capp]

I remember an article being written about how GSP was very weak physically, how little he could bench and how few chin-ups he could do. Supposedly this trainer put him on a routine that drastically increased his strength. And it was big talk for a while. I have a hunch that perhaps at this time he began to dabble with PED's but resented having to use them in order to level the playing field and it was at this time he began to speak out on the issue. I believe he decided to retire because he was too conscious of his well-being to continue taking them in order to compete and he could see the competition rapidly rising to overtake him. Now he is seriously contemplating a come back because of the recent strict crackdown of rampant PED use. Wait, will this get me banned? It is just a theory. Not an accusation.

Sounds like an accusation to me. And it all sounds like it's founded on made up bullshit. Show me this article.

 

[felmmando]

The odds of any individual trait being present in one athlete are the same as being present in another athlete.. Thus, you can generalize them. It's called abstract reasoning.

The odds may be the same in some abstract sense. When you factor in, say, genetics, nutrition and training, I don't think the odds will be the same. And even if the odds are the same, the person who beats the odds by possessing some adaptive trait (e.g., unusual strength or endurance) still has a competitive advantage, even if there is some sense in which the people who lack that trait were as likely as he to have had it. The odds of being unusually strong may be one in a million, if you like; that doesn't mean that the one who has it is the same as the 999'999 who don't.

 

[felmmando]

A common logical fallacy which is common in humans? I wonder how many common logical fallacies are uncommon among humans.