[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I am pretty sure that Barry Bons was very good in baseball too before he took steroids. I think steroids are more of a sleeping aid than a performance enhancer. A sleeping aid for those that do not take them and think that if they do they would be champions too. To them I say, good night.[/quote]
???
Glad I’m not the skinny white dude with his girl in the couch there…
Damn, that is impressive!!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think it is safe to say that anyone blaming “roidz” as the single entity sets most of these guys apart will be shit out of luck when they still look nothing like this after fucking their bodies up.
Roelly’s Brother, Quincy, will be lighting up pro stages soon by the looks of it.[/quote]
quincy will never be a top pro, he’s a very good bodybuilder but not pro material imo
roelly on the other hand, after his accident, it only took him 2 or 3 years and he was the
absolute top in holland, won tha amateur ac and exploded onto the pro scene…
quincy never made those leaps.
gene’s are a strange thing…
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Just found this on another site.
In talking about having great genetics, just look at these pics of Zack at 20 years old, and with only 2 years of training. How many people on this site who have been training much much longer look that good? Dorian’s beginner pics show a similar degree of musculature, Ronnie’s as well.
S
[/quote]
Yep - which is why when I see kids who are 19 or 20 swearing they’ll be on the Olympia stage someday, I gotta shake my head. Well, you can see what the top guys looked like at that age with just a few years of training under their belts.
If you aren’t already looking like that by the same age, it’s unlikely you have the genetics to reach the top of this sport.
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I am pretty sure that Barry Bons was very good in baseball too before he took steroids. I think steroids are more of a sleeping aid than a performance enhancer. A sleeping aid for those that do not take them and think that if they do they would be champions too. To them I say, good night.[/quote]
QFT
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I am pretty sure that Barry Bons was very good in baseball too before he took steroids. I think steroids are more of a sleeping aid than a performance enhancer. A sleeping aid for those that do not take them and think that if they do they would be champions too. To them I say, good night.[/quote]
QFT[/quote]
BS.
Claiming they have nothing to do with their success is as dumb as saying it’s the only reason for their success.
No one really knows what would have been, when they started taking, what they were taking, and exactly what % of the results they added.
I know the “steroids don’t put in the work” sentiment is both popular and acceptable on this forum, But the truth is that it’s just as biased.
The bottom line is that the guys took them and risked everything (career, public scrutiny, the asterisk) because they worked. Because on them they could preform better with them. Period.
How much better and whether they deserve to be publicly castrated is another issue.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I am pretty sure that Barry Bons was very good in baseball too before he took steroids. I think steroids are more of a sleeping aid than a performance enhancer. A sleeping aid for those that do not take them and think that if they do they would be champions too. To them I say, good night.[/quote]
QFT[/quote]
BS.
Claiming they have nothing to do with their success is as dumb as saying it’s the only reason for their success.
No one really knows what would have been, when they started taking, what they were taking, and exactly what % of the results they added.
I know the “steroids don’t put in the work” sentiment is both popular and acceptable on this forum, But the truth is that it’s just as biased.
The bottom line is that the guys took them and risked everything (career, public scrutiny, the asterisk) because they worked. Because on them they could preform better with them. Period.
How much better and whether they deserve to be publicly castrated is another issue. [/quote]
Na brah steroidz are teh philosophical sleeping aid.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I am pretty sure that Barry Bons was very good in baseball too before he took steroids. I think steroids are more of a sleeping aid than a performance enhancer. A sleeping aid for those that do not take them and think that if they do they would be champions too. To them I say, good night.[/quote]
QFT[/quote]
BS.
Claiming they have nothing to do with their success is as dumb as saying it’s the only reason for their success.
No one really knows what would have been, when they started taking, what they were taking, and exactly what % of the results they added.
I know the “steroids don’t put in the work” sentiment is both popular and acceptable on this forum, But the truth is that it’s just as biased.
The bottom line is that the guys took them and risked everything (career, public scrutiny, the asterisk) because they worked. Because on them they could preform better with them. Period.
How much better and whether they deserve to be publicly castrated is another issue. [/quote]
Na brah steroidz are teh philosophical sleeping aid. [/quote]
You’re one of the worst, most biased, guys on the board when it comes to teh roidz. You can joke and pull the holier than though crap all you want, but you’re still just as full of it and the next guy.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I am pretty sure that Barry Bons was very good in baseball too before he took steroids. I think steroids are more of a sleeping aid than a performance enhancer. A sleeping aid for those that do not take them and think that if they do they would be champions too. To them I say, good night.[/quote]
QFT[/quote]
BS.
Claiming they have nothing to do with their success is as dumb as saying it’s the only reason for their success.
No one really knows what would have been, when they started taking, what they were taking, and exactly what % of the results they added.
I know the “steroids don’t put in the work” sentiment is both popular and acceptable on this forum, But the truth is that it’s just as biased.
The bottom line is that the guys took them and risked everything (career, public scrutiny, the asterisk) because they worked. Because on them they could preform better with them. Period.
How much better and whether they deserve to be publicly castrated is another issue. [/quote]
You really are becoming more and more irritating lately.
No one said that steroids have ZERO effect on an athlete. It was said that people blaming steroids as the single reason these guys can get that big are WRONG…yet here you are complaining…again.
No offense, but you are starting to sound like guys like Casey Butt…the ones who focus on steroid use as if it either disqualifies the achievements of an athlete or somehow puts an “asterisk” next to their name outside of pro sports.
The point of this thread was to show how much farther along most of these guys are from start to finish…even if they start out very skinny. The ones with the genes for this will show it within the first 3-5 years or less.
This was not a thread about steroid use. However, any guy with any size on him at all will get accused of steroid use no matter what.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I am pretty sure that Barry Bons was very good in baseball too before he took steroids. I think steroids are more of a sleeping aid than a performance enhancer. A sleeping aid for those that do not take them and think that if they do they would be champions too. To them I say, good night.[/quote]
QFT[/quote]
BS.
Claiming they have nothing to do with their success is as dumb as saying it’s the only reason for their success.
No one really knows what would have been, when they started taking, what they were taking, and exactly what % of the results they added.
I know the “steroids don’t put in the work” sentiment is both popular and acceptable on this forum, But the truth is that it’s just as biased.
The bottom line is that the guys took them and risked everything (career, public scrutiny, the asterisk) because they worked. Because on them they could preform better with them. Period.
How much better and whether they deserve to be publicly castrated is another issue. [/quote]
You really are becoming more and more irritating lately.
No one said that steroids have ZERO effect on an athlete. It was said that people blaming steroids as the single reason these guys can get that big are WRONG…yet here you are complaining…again.
No offense, but you are starting to sound like guys like Casey Butt…the ones who focus on steroid use as if it either disqualifies the achievements of an athlete or somehow puts an “asterisk” next to their name outside of pro sports.
The point of this thread was to show how much farther along most of these guys are from start to finish…even if they start out very skinny. The ones with the genes for this will show it within the first 3-5 years or less.
This was not a thread about steroid use. However, any guy with any size on him at all will get accused of steroid use no matter what.[/quote]
I think you missed my point. I was calling everyone who feels the need to point out either what steroids have or haven’t done to a physique / athlete and idiot.
I personally am tired of guys like bones and guys like “casey butt” trying to say what role roids play and what hypothetically would have been with/without them.
I just don’t understand why every jumps down the throat of a guy who over-emphasizes the role of steroids and people that under-emphasis it get a pass. This is why it normally appears I’m defending the prior. Because there is no need for me to call them on their shit.
Bones and I have been through this lots of times. He yells and screams about judging the role drugs play, while judging the role drugs play according to his own standards.
Who do you think is more biased when it comes to AAS? The “natty 4 life” guy or the guys that have big success on them?
Edit:
I guess what I’m trying to say is, the world is as it is. Bonds, on drugs, was probably the best hitter of all time. There is no would have been bonds hitting a few less homers while not on drugs. It just doesn’t exist. You can ONLY judge for what is. Saying, he would have been great without them is in the same parallel dimension as, Ruth would have been better than bonds if he’d worked hard.
Guys keep trying to judge, BBers, ball players, whatever by “what would have been” instead of what is. That goes both ways and it gets tiresome.
But I’ll take my annoying elsewhere, this thread isn’t the place, and I shouldn’t let myself keep getting drawn into this crap.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I am pretty sure that Barry Bons was very good in baseball too before he took steroids. I think steroids are more of a sleeping aid than a performance enhancer. A sleeping aid for those that do not take them and think that if they do they would be champions too. To them I say, good night.[/quote]
QFT[/quote]
BS.
Claiming they have nothing to do with their success is as dumb as saying it’s the only reason for their success.
No one really knows what would have been, when they started taking, what they were taking, and exactly what % of the results they added.
I know the “steroids don’t put in the work” sentiment is both popular and acceptable on this forum, But the truth is that it’s just as biased.
The bottom line is that the guys took them and risked everything (career, public scrutiny, the asterisk) because they worked. Because on them they could preform better with them. Period.
How much better and whether they deserve to be publicly castrated is another issue. [/quote]
You really are becoming more and more irritating lately.
No one said that steroids have ZERO effect on an athlete. It was said that people blaming steroids as the single reason these guys can get that big are WRONG…yet here you are complaining…again.
No offense, but you are starting to sound like guys like Casey Butt…the ones who focus on steroid use as if it either disqualifies the achievements of an athlete or somehow puts an “asterisk” next to their name outside of pro sports.
The point of this thread was to show how much farther along most of these guys are from start to finish…even if they start out very skinny. The ones with the genes for this will show it within the first 3-5 years or less.
This was not a thread about steroid use. However, any guy with any size on him at all will get accused of steroid use no matter what.[/quote]
I think you missed my point. I was calling everyone who feels the need to point out either what steroids have or haven’t done to a physique / athlete and idiot.
I personally am tired of guys like bones and guys like “casey butt” trying to say what role roids play and what hypothetically would have been with/without them.
I just don’t understand why every jumps down the throat of a guy who over-emphasizes the role of steroids and people that under-emphasis it get a pass. This is why it normally appears I’m defending the prior. Because there is no need for me to call them on their shit.
Bones and I have been through this lots of times. He yells and screams about judging the role drugs play, while judging the role drugs play according to his own standards.
Who do you think is more biased when it comes to AAS? The “natty 4 life” guy or the guys that have big success on them?
Edit:
I guess what I’m trying to say is, the world is as it is. Bonds, on drugs, was probably the best hitter of all time. There is no would have been bonds hitting a few less homers while not on drugs. It just doesn’t exist. You can ONLY judge for what is. Saying, he would have been great without them is in the same parallel dimension as, Ruth would have been better than bonds if he’d worked hard.
Guys keep trying to judge, BBers, ball players, whatever by “what would have been” instead of what is. That goes both ways and it gets tiresome.
But I’ll take my annoying elsewhere, this thread isn’t the place, and I shouldn’t let myself keep getting drawn into this crap.[/quote]
Well, at least you explained your point well.
[quote]Amonero wrote:
Glad I’m not the skinny white dude with his girl in the couch there…[/quote]
LOL
Damn! Both brothers are very impressive!
[quote]Seize wrote:
Damn! Both brothers are very impressive![/quote]
Prof. X and Roelly? Ah, got you.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I am pretty sure that Barry Bons was very good in baseball too before he took steroids. I think steroids are more of a sleeping aid than a performance enhancer. A sleeping aid for those that do not take them and think that if they do they would be champions too. To them I say, good night.[/quote]
QFT[/quote]
BS.
Claiming they have nothing to do with their success is as dumb as saying it’s the only reason for their success.
No one really knows what would have been, when they started taking, what they were taking, and exactly what % of the results they added.
I know the “steroids don’t put in the work” sentiment is both popular and acceptable on this forum, But the truth is that it’s just as biased.
The bottom line is that the guys took them and risked everything (career, public scrutiny, the asterisk) because they worked. Because on them they could preform better with them. Period.
How much better and whether they deserve to be publicly castrated is another issue. [/quote]
Na brah steroidz are teh philosophical sleeping aid. [/quote]
You’re one of the worst, most biased, guys on the board when it comes to teh roidz. You can joke and pull the holier than though crap all you want, but you’re still just as full of it and the next guy.[/quote]
Until youve tried the drugs youre talking about your opinion about their effects is useless.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Seize wrote:
Damn! Both brothers are very impressive![/quote]
Prof. X and Roelly? Ah, got you.[/quote]
he said brothers not brothas.
Those backflips were the best part of the video! thats some legit athleticism/body control at that size. Awesome
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I personally am tired of guys like bones and guys like “casey butt” trying to say what role roids play and what hypothetically would have been with/without them.
I just don’t understand why every jumps down the throat of a guy who over-emphasizes the role of steroids and people that under-emphasis it get a pass. This is why it normally appears I’m defending the prior. Because there is no need for me to call them on their shit.
Bones and I have been through this lots of times. He yells and screams about judging the role drugs play, while judging the role drugs play according to his own standards.
Who do you think is more biased when it comes to AAS? The “natty 4 life” guy or the guys that have big success on them?
[/quote]
So, how many cycles have I done? What percentage of those gains have I kept? How much clean weight have I gained while on NO drugs?
If you really think I downplay the role drugs have in the making of top bodybuilders to make my own accomplishments more valid than you truly are stupider than your posts make you sound.
EDIT
I dont actually expect a serious reply because you know nothing about me or my accomplishments. And I dont plan to reply any further either.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I am pretty sure that Barry Bons was very good in baseball too before he took steroids. I think steroids are more of a sleeping aid than a performance enhancer. A sleeping aid for those that do not take them and think that if they do they would be champions too. To them I say, good night.[/quote]
QFT[/quote]
BS.
Claiming they have nothing to do with their success is as dumb as saying it’s the only reason for their success.
No one really knows what would have been, when they started taking, what they were taking, and exactly what % of the results they added.
I know the “steroids don’t put in the work” sentiment is both popular and acceptable on this forum, But the truth is that it’s just as biased.
The bottom line is that the guys took them and risked everything (career, public scrutiny, the asterisk) because they worked. Because on them they could preform better with them. Period.
How much better and whether they deserve to be publicly castrated is another issue. [/quote]
I just had to throw in the “quoted for truth” because I had no idea what Francois was talking about at the time. His horrible butchering of the English language had to be quoted. Now that I was able to decipher his point, I feel obligated to express my disagreement with it.
That is all.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Just found this on another site.
In talking about having great genetics, just look at these pics of Zack at 20 years old, and with only 2 years of training. How many people on this site who have been training much much longer look that good? Dorian’s beginner pics show a similar degree of musculature, Ronnie’s as well.
S
[/quote]
Is that “after” picture somewhere on the net? I’ve done a quick search but couldn’t find it.