it’s not letting me edit, but I want to add that, re: “you’re even more cynical than I am” Not only do I not mean that as an insult, I actually kinda admire that
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
The only really great player from his era that I can think of that probably didn’t use anything of the sort is Ken Griffey Jr… unless rumours about him have popped up…
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I’m a firm believer that they should just fucking end the ban on drugs in professional sports. [/quote]
x2.
[/quote]
I’d buy that. People forgoet how great Griffey really was. Looking through his stats of his first few years it looked like he had the talent to challenge for GOAT status.
[/quote]
No one will ever match Babe Ruth’s numbers. There were a few seasons that Ruth hit more homers than a few other teams did.
Griffey is great and is likely clean seeing as how he started to get much worse after age 34 but he never had the potential to be the best ever.
[/quote]
I disagrre. I hate to sound like an asshole but I pretty much disregard athletics from the first half of the 1900’s, and maybe even the first 3/4’s. The facts are that pro sports has gotten bigger, stronger, faster and those guys couldn’t keep up.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]bignate wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]bignate wrote:
its not really news but by the public just drawing more attention to steriods than there needs to be is what causes kids to want them to some degree
“o my favorite sports star used roids so should i”
if the public wants to do any good they need to let go and just do this privately no need to go public with all this[/quote]
Retarded.
Parents or people with sufficient knowledge should be educating children (and adults) about steroids so they understand why they should not take them until a certain age. You cant just brush something as pervasive as performance enhancing drugs under the rug and hope kids don’t hear about them. And there’s always the internet.
Do you really believe that promoting ignorance is the right way to handle this situation?[/quote]
yeh but alot of parents dont know about them and i think we draw alot of uneccassary attention to them, like this makes it seem like steriods did all the work for mark and that he didnt have to work hard to accomplish his record. I think kids see this and think (without enough research) that they can take steriods and do all these amazing things without harm and its not true[/quote]
Yes, you were clear the first time. You just repeated that people are ignorant and that trying to ignore the situation will make it go away. That has never worked for anything. Education is the only answer. I understand that the overwhelming majority of adults aren’t educated enough to talk about this stuff but it has to start somewhere.
[/quote]
ok i can see that being a good point i guess i feel like it would work better to not publicize given our current state but education would end with the best final result.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
The only really great player from his era that I can think of that probably didn’t use anything of the sort is Ken Griffey Jr… unless rumours about him have popped up…
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I’m a firm believer that they should just fucking end the ban on drugs in professional sports. [/quote]
x2.
[/quote]
I’d buy that. People forgoet how great Griffey really was. Looking through his stats of his first few years it looked like he had the talent to challenge for GOAT status.
[/quote]
No one will ever match Babe Ruth’s numbers. There were a few seasons that Ruth hit more homers than a few other teams did.
Griffey is great and is likely clean seeing as how he started to get much worse after age 34 but he never had the potential to be the best ever.
[/quote]
I disagrre. I hate to sound like an asshole but I pretty much disregard athletics from the first half of the 1900’s, and maybe even the first 3/4’s. The facts are that pro sports has gotten bigger, stronger, faster and those guys couldn’t keep up.[/quote]
My friends and our dad’s had a small debate once. Pops said that Joe Dimaggio would be great if you put him on a field today. We argued that an above average, most likely non HOFer, e.g. Tori Hunter would run circles around him in the outfield. Obviously today’s athletes are much bigger and stronger than even the ones from 25 years ago. Modern medicine has been huge in that regard.
The fact still remains that Babe Ruth is the greatest player that ever played. In 1920 Ruth hit 54 home runs, batted .376, 137 rbi and stole 14 bases. The next highest home run total was 19. The next year he hit 59 home runs, batted .378, 171 rbi and stole 17 bases. The next highest home run total was 24. There was another year he hit 60 homers and 54 homers. And center field in Yankee stadium was 450ft away. There will never be numbers like that again.
The only one close is Barry Bonds because he did it for so long. So yes, the average player today is miles beyond the average player of 50 years ago, but no one will ever have numbers like Ruth. This is considered one of those things that isn’t debatable.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
His lie in deflecting suspicion of his steroid use by letting reports “find” a bottle of androstenedione in his locker and attributing his results to that was the start of the movement against prohormones.
I don’t feel sorry for him. It was snake-like of him to concoct this lie. I am not saying he was obligated to admit to using anabolic steroids – no one is obligated to confess to an illegal act – but that does not exonerate him from that particular deception.[/quote]
Lie? How is it a lie if he believed that it was helping? And if he didnt think it helped then why would he be taking it? Your fears of deception are overblown, and as you say, it’s not as if he coulda said “yeah, it helps, but not as much as the gh”[/quote]
If you think that, when suspected of anabolic steroid use for several reasons, concocting a scheme to make people believe that instead androstenedione was the cause, this does not constitutes a lie, you are entitled to your own opinion.
My definition of a lie is a willful effort to cause people to believe something that you know is not true. Your definition of course can be different.
And if you think that an anabolic steroid user adds things like androstenedione to his cycle, you really don’t know about that sort of thing (which is fine: it’s not as if everyone should be expected to.) Even if he were so stupid that he in fact did that, having it “discovered” in his locker still constituted a willful effort to cause people to believe a thing that was not true: that androstenedione was the cause of his large muscle mass gain, bloated face, and perhaps performance enhancement as well.
Many people did believe this and this was the start of the public turn against prohormones and remained a prime driving factor right up through the ban. No one could name a single example of prohormones contaminating the purity and sanctity of sports, except EVERYONE could name McGwire. But what they believed was not true, and McGwire had to have known it was not: that anabolic steroids were the explanation for those things.
But if you don’t want to call that lying, that’s your prerogative, of course.[/quote]
So your position is that he planted the andro bottle in his own locker, hoping the press would find it all so that he could say “that’s it, that’s why I got big, it was the andro, but I’ll stop using it now” … is that correct? If so, you’re even more cynical than I am, and I don’t mean that as an insult.
Maybe I underestimate people’s deception, or maybe you underestimate their stupidity, but to me, it just seems more likely that he had the andro bottle there because he was using it, and when it was seen, started mumbling, hemming and hawing and put everything on the andro. Occam’s razor, and all that.
As far as whether an experienced steroid user would add andro to his cycle, I have heard enough now to believe that andro does nothing (although I do have friends who SWORE that it helped), but the bottom line is this: you are absolutely right that I dont know as much about that sort of thing as you do. My only point though, would be that most athletes have a ‘kitchen sink’ mentality of “throw it in and lets see if it helps.” I realize there are gurus, but I’m just not sure that we are always dealing with a brain trust here.[/quote]
Well, counting e-mail correspondence, I have worked with over 1000 guys on their steroid cycles, which generally included discussion of any previous cycles and in most cases started with their outlining what they had in mind.
NOT ONE OF THEM had previously or at the time wanted to “stack” androstenedione in an anabolic steroid cycle.
Not one.
So I consider the chances that McGwire was doing so to be exceedingly low. Vanishing really.
Yes, you are correct in saying that I believe the “discovery” of the bottle of androstenedione in his locker was arranged by him at the time he was being publicly suspected of steroid use for the purpose of defusing that situation, which it largely did. If you want to call that cynical, you can: myself I think it is just being realistic and is not at all contrary to any facts and consistent with the overall situation.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
The only really great player from his era that I can think of that probably didn’t use anything of the sort is Ken Griffey Jr… unless rumours about him have popped up…
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I’m a firm believer that they should just fucking end the ban on drugs in professional sports. [/quote]
x2.
[/quote]
I’d buy that. People forgoet how great Griffey really was. Looking through his stats of his first few years it looked like he had the talent to challenge for GOAT status.
[/quote]
No one will ever match Babe Ruth’s numbers. There were a few seasons that Ruth hit more homers than a few other teams did.
Griffey is great and is likely clean seeing as how he started to get much worse after age 34 but he never had the potential to be the best ever.
[/quote]
I disagrre. I hate to sound like an asshole but I pretty much disregard athletics from the first half of the 1900’s, and maybe even the first 3/4’s. The facts are that pro sports has gotten bigger, stronger, faster and those guys couldn’t keep up.[/quote]
My friends and our dad’s had a small debate once. Pops said that Joe Dimaggio would be great if you put him on a field today. We argued that an above average, most likely non HOFer, e.g. Tori Hunter would run circles around him in the outfield. Obviously today’s athletes are much bigger and stronger than even the ones from 25 years ago. Modern medicine has been huge in that regard.
The fact still remains that Babe Ruth is the greatest player that ever played. In 1920 Ruth hit 54 home runs, batted .376, 137 rbi and stole 14 bases. The next highest home run total was 19. The next year he hit 59 home runs, batted .378, 171 rbi and stole 17 bases. The next highest home run total was 24. There was another year he hit 60 homers and 54 homers. And center field in Yankee stadium was 450ft away. There will never be numbers like that again.
The only one close is Barry Bonds because he did it for so long. So yes, the average player today is miles beyond the average player of 50 years ago, but no one will ever have numbers like Ruth. This is considered one of those things that isn’t debatable. [/quote]
I get what you’re saying and agree to an extent, but the fact that his numbers will likely never be duplicated [or come close to] doesn’t give him GOAT status. The same can be said of Wilt Chamberlain, and if Wilt were to play in todays NBA he’d come off the bench, despite whatever outlandish claims or outright lies he’d tell to the contrary. I will say that Ruth was probably the most naturally gifted baseball player of all-time. Staying up 'til dawn, fucking hookers, slamming hotdogs during games and still doing what he did is insane.
I hate it when they say they regret it. geeez
[quote]BlaZe wrote:
I hate it when they say they regret it. geeez[/quote]
Well, all the money and fame and poonany…
Of course they are terribly, terribly sorry.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
The only really great player from his era that I can think of that probably didn’t use anything of the sort is Ken Griffey Jr… unless rumours about him have popped up…
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I’m a firm believer that they should just fucking end the ban on drugs in professional sports. [/quote]
x2.
[/quote]
I’d buy that. People forgoet how great Griffey really was. Looking through his stats of his first few years it looked like he had the talent to challenge for GOAT status.
[/quote]
No one will ever match Babe Ruth’s numbers. There were a few seasons that Ruth hit more homers than a few other teams did.
Griffey is great and is likely clean seeing as how he started to get much worse after age 34 but he never had the potential to be the best ever.
[/quote]
I disagrre. I hate to sound like an asshole but I pretty much disregard athletics from the first half of the 1900’s, and maybe even the first 3/4’s. The facts are that pro sports has gotten bigger, stronger, faster and those guys couldn’t keep up.[/quote]
My friends and our dad’s had a small debate once. Pops said that Joe Dimaggio would be great if you put him on a field today. We argued that an above average, most likely non HOFer, e.g. Tori Hunter would run circles around him in the outfield. Obviously today’s athletes are much bigger and stronger than even the ones from 25 years ago. Modern medicine has been huge in that regard.
The fact still remains that Babe Ruth is the greatest player that ever played. In 1920 Ruth hit 54 home runs, batted .376, 137 rbi and stole 14 bases. The next highest home run total was 19. The next year he hit 59 home runs, batted .378, 171 rbi and stole 17 bases. The next highest home run total was 24. There was another year he hit 60 homers and 54 homers. And center field in Yankee stadium was 450ft away. There will never be numbers like that again.
The only one close is Barry Bonds because he did it for so long. So yes, the average player today is miles beyond the average player of 50 years ago, but no one will ever have numbers like Ruth. This is considered one of those things that isn’t debatable. [/quote]
Why does everyone always forget about his pitching stats?
You beat me to it DD…25 wins in a season I believe. I remember reading somewhere that the bat he used weighed a ton. 48oz…that’s not a bat, It’s a log. What do they weigh now 30oz 32oz ?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
His lie in deflecting suspicion of his steroid use by letting reports “find” a bottle of androstenedione in his locker and attributing his results to that was the start of the movement against prohormones.
I don’t feel sorry for him. It was snake-like of him to concoct this lie. I am not saying he was obligated to admit to using anabolic steroids – no one is obligated to confess to an illegal act – but that does not exonerate him from that particular deception.[/quote]
Lie? How is it a lie if he believed that it was helping? And if he didnt think it helped then why would he be taking it? Your fears of deception are overblown, and as you say, it’s not as if he coulda said “yeah, it helps, but not as much as the gh”[/quote]
If you think that, when suspected of anabolic steroid use for several reasons, concocting a scheme to make people believe that instead androstenedione was the cause, this does not constitutes a lie, you are entitled to your own opinion.
My definition of a lie is a willful effort to cause people to believe something that you know is not true. Your definition of course can be different.
And if you think that an anabolic steroid user adds things like androstenedione to his cycle, you really don’t know about that sort of thing (which is fine: it’s not as if everyone should be expected to.) Even if he were so stupid that he in fact did that, having it “discovered” in his locker still constituted a willful effort to cause people to believe a thing that was not true: that androstenedione was the cause of his large muscle mass gain, bloated face, and perhaps performance enhancement as well.
Many people did believe this and this was the start of the public turn against prohormones and remained a prime driving factor right up through the ban. No one could name a single example of prohormones contaminating the purity and sanctity of sports, except EVERYONE could name McGwire. But what they believed was not true, and McGwire had to have known it was not: that anabolic steroids were the explanation for those things.
But if you don’t want to call that lying, that’s your prerogative, of course.[/quote]
So your position is that he planted the andro bottle in his own locker, hoping the press would find it all so that he could say “that’s it, that’s why I got big, it was the andro, but I’ll stop using it now” … is that correct? If so, you’re even more cynical than I am, and I don’t mean that as an insult.
Maybe I underestimate people’s deception, or maybe you underestimate their stupidity, but to me, it just seems more likely that he had the andro bottle there because he was using it, and when it was seen, started mumbling, hemming and hawing and put everything on the andro. Occam’s razor, and all that.
As far as whether an experienced steroid user would add andro to his cycle, I have heard enough now to believe that andro does nothing (although I do have friends who SWORE that it helped), but the bottom line is this: you are absolutely right that I dont know as much about that sort of thing as you do. My only point though, would be that most athletes have a ‘kitchen sink’ mentality of “throw it in and lets see if it helps.” I realize there are gurus, but I’m just not sure that we are always dealing with a brain trust here.[/quote]
Well, counting e-mail correspondence, I have worked with over 1000 guys on their steroid cycles, which generally included discussion of any previous cycles and in most cases started with their outlining what they had in mind.
NOT ONE OF THEM had previously or at the time wanted to “stack” androstenedione in an anabolic steroid cycle.
Not one.
So I consider the chances that McGwire was doing so to be exceedingly low. Vanishing really.
Yes, you are correct in saying that I believe the “discovery” of the bottle of androstenedione in his locker was arranged by him at the time he was being publicly suspected of steroid use for the purpose of defusing that situation, which it largely did. If you want to call that cynical, you can: myself I think it is just being realistic and is not at all contrary to any facts and consistent with the overall situation.[/quote]
I don’t know what type of athletes you’ve worked with, so I can’t really comment on that. My point was just that athletes will do things that don’t make sense, for any of a variety of reasons - a shotgun approach, something that someone told them about, etc. As an example you’ve got the dumbass baseball pitcher taking ephedrine to lose weight, while undereating and not drinking, dying. Not saying there aren’t guy who know their stuff. Just that some guys really get into the science of it, and some just take whatever they can get, or get advice from guys who may not have the knowledge that you do.
I do agree that your theory is not at all contrary to any of the known facts, but as I said, we will just have to agree to disagree on whether it was planted or not
[quote]bond james bond wrote:
You beat me to it DD…25 wins in a season I believe. I remember reading somewhere that the bat he used weighed a ton. 48oz…that’s not a bat, It’s a log. What do they weigh now 30oz 32oz ?[/quote]
People forget because he was far from the best pitcher at the time. He was real good though. He only pitched for about 4 years during a time when the top guys were averaging 30 wins. His offensive numbers are much more outstanding.
He was also the first person to use a bat with a knob at the end.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
His lie in deflecting suspicion of his steroid use by letting reports “find” a bottle of androstenedione in his locker and attributing his results to that was the start of the movement against prohormones.
I don’t feel sorry for him. It was snake-like of him to concoct this lie. I am not saying he was obligated to admit to using anabolic steroids – no one is obligated to confess to an illegal act – but that does not exonerate him from that particular deception.[/quote]
Lie? How is it a lie if he believed that it was helping? And if he didnt think it helped then why would he be taking it? Your fears of deception are overblown, and as you say, it’s not as if he coulda said “yeah, it helps, but not as much as the gh”[/quote]
If you think that, when suspected of anabolic steroid use for several reasons, concocting a scheme to make people believe that instead androstenedione was the cause, this does not constitutes a lie, you are entitled to your own opinion.
My definition of a lie is a willful effort to cause people to believe something that you know is not true. Your definition of course can be different.
And if you think that an anabolic steroid user adds things like androstenedione to his cycle, you really don’t know about that sort of thing (which is fine: it’s not as if everyone should be expected to.) Even if he were so stupid that he in fact did that, having it “discovered” in his locker still constituted a willful effort to cause people to believe a thing that was not true: that androstenedione was the cause of his large muscle mass gain, bloated face, and perhaps performance enhancement as well.
Many people did believe this and this was the start of the public turn against prohormones and remained a prime driving factor right up through the ban. No one could name a single example of prohormones contaminating the purity and sanctity of sports, except EVERYONE could name McGwire. But what they believed was not true, and McGwire had to have known it was not: that anabolic steroids were the explanation for those things.
But if you don’t want to call that lying, that’s your prerogative, of course.[/quote]
So your position is that he planted the andro bottle in his own locker, hoping the press would find it all so that he could say “that’s it, that’s why I got big, it was the andro, but I’ll stop using it now” … is that correct? If so, you’re even more cynical than I am, and I don’t mean that as an insult.
Maybe I underestimate people’s deception, or maybe you underestimate their stupidity, but to me, it just seems more likely that he had the andro bottle there because he was using it, and when it was seen, started mumbling, hemming and hawing and put everything on the andro. Occam’s razor, and all that.
As far as whether an experienced steroid user would add andro to his cycle, I have heard enough now to believe that andro does nothing (although I do have friends who SWORE that it helped), but the bottom line is this: you are absolutely right that I dont know as much about that sort of thing as you do. My only point though, would be that most athletes have a ‘kitchen sink’ mentality of “throw it in and lets see if it helps.” I realize there are gurus, but I’m just not sure that we are always dealing with a brain trust here.[/quote]
Well, counting e-mail correspondence, I have worked with over 1000 guys on their steroid cycles, which generally included discussion of any previous cycles and in most cases started with their outlining what they had in mind.
NOT ONE OF THEM had previously or at the time wanted to “stack” androstenedione in an anabolic steroid cycle.
Not one.
So I consider the chances that McGwire was doing so to be exceedingly low. Vanishing really.
Yes, you are correct in saying that I believe the “discovery” of the bottle of androstenedione in his locker was arranged by him at the time he was being publicly suspected of steroid use for the purpose of defusing that situation, which it largely did. If you want to call that cynical, you can: myself I think it is just being realistic and is not at all contrary to any facts and consistent with the overall situation.[/quote]
I don’t know what type of athletes you’ve worked with, so I can’t really comment on that. My point was just that athletes will do things that don’t make sense, for any of a variety of reasons - a shotgun approach, something that someone told them about, etc. As an example you’ve got the dumbass baseball pitcher taking ephedrine to lose weight, while undereating and not drinking, dying. Not saying there aren’t guy who know their stuff. Just that some guys really get into the science of it, and some just take whatever they can get, or get advice from guys who may not have the knowledge that you do.
I do agree that your theory is not at all contrary to any of the known facts, but as I said, we will just have to agree to disagree on whether it was planted or not[/quote]
OK, fair enough! 
For the sake of trying to do as good a job of getting across why I believe this to be the case, though, a good analogy would be as to whether an adult cigarette smoker is ALSO going to “smoke” some sort of fake or toy cigarettes, out of a more-is-better philosophy.
Nope, they’re going to smoke more real cigarettes if they want more.
And someone who is using anabolic steroids and wants more effect is going to use more of them rather stack androstenedione with them. Even if dumb as a rock and thick as a brick.
This is not a unique opinion of mine, btw. Back in the day, so far as I could tell the general consensus among steroid users was that McGwire’s androstenedione-prominently-displayed-in-his-locker was a plant.
Btw I saw, as I’m sure many have, a video clip of him talking about this interview. Crying like a pussy. Colbert had it right: he needs to inject steroids into his tearducts to man-up those pussy eyes. The reason I mention this is not the rather pathetic crying, but that he was still lying (now on a different matter) in insisting that he used them only for health reasons, and even when asked if strength increase occurred along with it, to deflect that and repeat that he (supposedly) used them only for health reasons.
You don’t bulk up as much as he did simply from using anabolic steroids to aid recovery.
He’s just not an honest individual, judging from that. I don’t know why he 'fessed up (partially) to this now.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
He’s just not an honest individual, judging from that. I don’t know why he 'fessed up (partially) to this now.[/quote]
To sell his soon to come biography, duh!
IMHO, if a professional athlete takes steroids for health reasons (like McGuire’s calf), they’re going to get much stronger overall. Unless you’re in professional curling, where no muscle is needed. Almost every sport requires resistance training, and if you’re taking steroids, and doing resistance training, you’re going to get stronger.
I’m not going to judge whether or not this could turn shitty athletes into amazing athletes (it doesn’t), but I don’t think people should drop a load in their pants every time steroids are talked about in sports.
[quote]Xander89 wrote:
IMHO, if a professional athlete takes steroids for health reasons (like McGuire’s calf), they’re going to get much stronger overall. Unless you’re in professional curling, where no muscle is needed. Almost every sport requires resistance training, and if you’re taking steroids, and doing resistance training, you’re going to get stronger.
I’m not going to judge whether or not this could turn shitty athletes into amazing athletes (it doesn’t), but I don’t think people should drop a load in their pants every time steroids are talked about in sports.[/quote]
Have you used steroids before?
Edit: I realize that some won’t share that sort of info. That’s fine. It just sounds like you are making assumptions and generalizations without any sort of first hand knowledge.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
He’s just not an honest individual, judging from that. I don’t know why he 'fessed up (partially) to this now.[/quote]
To sell his soon to come biography, duh!
[/quote]
I assumed he needed to come out and address the topic before taking over as the hitting coach for the Cards.
I love how Conseco always pops up when shit like this happens. I can’t remember exactly what he said, but basically to the effect that McGwire got off easy with this one. They had Costas lined up ready to slow pitch him some easy questions and avoid the tough ones.
Basically, this entire debacle was a controlled burn so that everyone can save face. McGwire did what he needed to do as far as the MLB is concerned and since the statute of limitations has run out there isn’t anything he can be charged with any way. I just wish he would have been a man about the whole thing.
Weird, gross neck thing aside, what was up with his face? Did he get botox or something? He looked way puffy.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Xander89 wrote:
IMHO, if a professional athlete takes steroids for health reasons (like McGuire’s calf), they’re going to get much stronger overall. Unless you’re in professional curling, where no muscle is needed. Almost every sport requires resistance training, and if you’re taking steroids, and doing resistance training, you’re going to get stronger.
I’m not going to judge whether or not this could turn shitty athletes into amazing athletes (it doesn’t), but I don’t think people should drop a load in their pants every time steroids are talked about in sports.[/quote]
Have you used steroids before?
Edit: I realize that some won’t share that sort of info. That’s fine. It just sounds like you are making assumptions and generalizations without any sort of first hand knowledge. [/quote]
Nope. Never touched a needle. I’m just taking a shot in the dark. I realize if I’m 100% wrong, I’ll get eaten alive. Luckily I have enough self respect to not take it seriously, since you wouldn’t be tearing down any of my beliefs, only correcting my incorrect statements. So please, continue. (no sarcasm, please, do continue)
[quote]Xander89 wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Xander89 wrote:
IMHO, if a professional athlete takes steroids for health reasons (like McGuire’s calf), they’re going to get much stronger overall. Unless you’re in professional curling, where no muscle is needed. Almost every sport requires resistance training, and if you’re taking steroids, and doing resistance training, you’re going to get stronger.
I’m not going to judge whether or not this could turn shitty athletes into amazing athletes (it doesn’t), but I don’t think people should drop a load in their pants every time steroids are talked about in sports.[/quote]
Have you used steroids before?
Edit: I realize that some won’t share that sort of info. That’s fine. It just sounds like you are making assumptions and generalizations without any sort of first hand knowledge. [/quote]
Nope. Never touched a needle. I’m just taking a shot in the dark. I realize if I’m 100% wrong, I’ll get eaten alive. Luckily I have enough self respect to not take it seriously, since you wouldn’t be tearing down any of my beliefs, only correcting my incorrect statements. So please, continue. (no sarcasm, please, do continue)[/quote]
Well doing steroids in bodybuilding doses and using testosterone for TRT aka “health reasons” are two different things. The results would be much different also. A man with low testosterone that goes on TRT would only be replacing his natural levels that have diminished. Ideally the doctor would put him in the top third of the ‘normal’ range. His strength would be what it was if his body was naturally producing that much testosterone. Injectable T is no different than natural T.
A person would get much stronger if bodybuilding doses were used. Many people are claiming MM used bodybuilding doses. [quote]As the Daily News first reported in March 2005, McGwire’s regimen was one-half cc of testosterone cypionate every three days; one cc of testosterone enanthate per week; the veterinary steroids Equipoise and Winstrol V, one quarter cc every three days, injected into the buttocks, one in one cheek, one in the other.[/quote]
Thats a quote from a NY Daily News article. Here’s the math on that using the normal concentrations of the drugs. Test Cyp (likely human grade) 200mg/ml: About 235mg every week. Test enanthate (likely not human grade) 250mg/ml: About 535mg/wk. Equipoise probably 200mg/ml: About 120mg/wk. Winstrol V probably 50mg/ml: Unclear how much of this but the normal dose is 50-100mg every other day.
That totals to about 1 gram of anabolic steroids per week. About 10x as much used for “health reasons”. Winstrol would never be used for health reasons. It has terrible effects on the joints. The equipoise dose is actually too low to matter but it does add to the total amount and is never prescribed to humans by doctors. Using both forms of testosterone is redundant and unnecessary unless he only had a limited supply of both.
So if that report is true than he obviously wasn’t just using to replace his own T levels. He didn’t have the best advice given to him as far as a good cycle goes but its obvious he was looking to get stronger and probably bigger.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]BlaZe wrote:
I hate it when they say they regret it. geeez[/quote]
Well, all the money and fame and poonany…
Of course they are terribly, terribly sorry.
[/quote]
exactly!