TRT to Banned Soon?

Off Topic
61

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Your natural levels are whatever the hand nature delt you at any given point in time. Eveyone thinks they have a good reason for doing a wrong thing. Right now there are any number of people involved in affiars that violate the ‘exclusive’ agreement they have with another; they rationilize them for a variety of reasons; that doesn’t mean they are anything less than a betrayal of honor. The path of least resistance is what water does when it’s rolling down hill; not the path an ethical man chooses to take. [/quote]

Oh for crying out loud, comparing TRT use with adultery?

C’mon man.[/quote]

Wow wow wow. Ignorance and being naive. What a post. I normally respect BC’s posts but this is too much.
[/quote]

The parallel is the deception; I think you boys are sharp enough to get it.
[/quote]

What’s deceptive about being normal? If it was suprapysiologic. I agree completely and think that is completely wrong

62

A person on TRT is not natural. Exogeneous testostetone is still exogeneous testosterone. It does not matter whether eventual levels fall within normal ranges.

In the context of competition, he would have an upperhand over a natural competitor with lower or baseline testosterone levels who does not qualify, or chooses not to go on TRT.

I write this with all the respect in the world to the forum vets who are on TRT. I am also pro steroid use.

Obviously, this does not mean, and it would be stupid to think that someone on TRT cannot:

  • give advice on training and diet to natural guys
  • be compared to naturals and afforded due respect for their accomplishments
63

[quote]dt79 wrote:
A person on TRT is not natural. Exogeneous testostetone is still exogeneous testosterone. It does not matter whether eventual levels fall within normal ranges.

In the context of competition, he would have an upperhand over a natural competitor with lower or baseline testosterone levels who does not qualify, or chooses not to go on TRT.

I write this with all the respect in the world to the forum vets who are on TRT. I am also pro steroid use.

Obviously, this does not mean, and it would be stupid to think that someone on TRT cannot:

  • give advice on training and diet to natural guys
  • be compared to naturals and afforded due respect for their accomplishments[/quote]

Those last two statements seem to contradict the statements about competing? If they can still be compared to naturals then why can’t they compete? Just curious. And really once test is in the normal range the benefit form 400 vs 900 isn’t really that apparent according to studies. That’s all I can comment on is what the studies have said

64

It’s Newsmax. It’s alarmist in order to sell stupid supplements for an advertiser. Think of Newsmax as a political version of whatever a certain supplement company/site/mag formerly(?) run by a man nicknamed “ButtPlug” (not this site, although Mr. Patterson certainly knows of whom I speak).

Any site that props up the toe-sucker (Google it), Dick Morris, who is both corrupt and wrong on every prediction, as an authority has to be looked at with a jaded eye.

65

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
A person on TRT is not natural. Exogeneous testostetone is still exogeneous testosterone. It does not matter whether eventual levels fall within normal ranges.

In the context of competition, he would have an upperhand over a natural competitor with lower or baseline testosterone levels who does not qualify, or chooses not to go on TRT.

I write this with all the respect in the world to the forum vets who are on TRT. I am also pro steroid use.

Obviously, this does not mean, and it would be stupid to think that someone on TRT cannot:

  • give advice on training and diet to natural guys
  • be compared to naturals and afforded due respect for their accomplishments[/quote]

Those last two statements seem to contradict the statements about competing? If they can still be compared to naturals then why can’t they compete? Just curious. And really once test is in the normal range the benefit form 400 vs 900 isn’t really that apparent according to studies. That’s all I can comment on is what the studies have said [/quote]

Well, I was on the fence on this at first because my line of thinking was based on my last statement.

However I realise it is different when we’re talking about a competition, where it is not an issue of respect, but an issue of winning. Competitors should be competing and winning naturally based on the cards they’re dealt if it’s a natural competition and there are monetary or other tangible rewards at stake.

Of course this is not very apparant when we’re talking about a powerlifting meet where there is so little prize money and most take part for the experience, but the principle still stands.

66

With respect to competing, I agree with BlueCollarTr8n. Competitions in general are about showcasing not only the hardest working but also the most genetically gifted.

I wouldn’t hold spots in medical school for people with low(er) IQs just because they can keep pace with a special study guide.

I wouldn’t concoct a handicap for people who are 5’2 so they can compete in the NBA.

I wouldn’t cut any breaks for the woman with the disfigured hand competing in a beauty pageant.

67

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
A person on TRT is not natural. Exogeneous testostetone is still exogeneous testosterone. It does not matter whether eventual levels fall within normal ranges.

In the context of competition, he would have an upperhand over a natural competitor with lower or baseline testosterone levels who does not qualify, or chooses not to go on TRT.

I write this with all the respect in the world to the forum vets who are on TRT. I am also pro steroid use.

Obviously, this does not mean, and it would be stupid to think that someone on TRT cannot:

  • give advice on training and diet to natural guys
  • be compared to naturals and afforded due respect for their accomplishments[/quote]

Those last two statements seem to contradict the statements about competing? If they can still be compared to naturals then why can’t they compete? Just curious. And really once test is in the normal range the benefit form 400 vs 900 isn’t really that apparent according to studies. That’s all I can comment on is what the studies have said [/quote]

Outside the boundaries of competition you are free to define ‘normal’ any way you choose. When choosing to compete the organization governing the competition defines normal…it’s simple enough.

68

[quote]dt79 wrote:
However I realise it is different when we’re talking about a competition, where it is not an issue of respect, but an issue of winning. Competitors should be competing and winning naturally based on the cards they’re dealt if it’s a natural competition and there are monetary or other tangible rewards at stake.
[/quote]

I agree, which is why I think prescription eyeware and LASIK surgery should be banned from sport.

:wink:

69

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
A person on TRT is not natural. Exogeneous testostetone is still exogeneous testosterone. It does not matter whether eventual levels fall within normal ranges.

In the context of competition, he would have an upperhand over a natural competitor with lower or baseline testosterone levels who does not qualify, or chooses not to go on TRT.

I write this with all the respect in the world to the forum vets who are on TRT. I am also pro steroid use.

Obviously, this does not mean, and it would be stupid to think that someone on TRT cannot:

  • give advice on training and diet to natural guys
  • be compared to naturals and afforded due respect for their accomplishments[/quote]

Those last two statements seem to contradict the statements about competing? If they can still be compared to naturals then why can’t they compete? Just curious. And really once test is in the normal range the benefit form 400 vs 900 isn’t really that apparent according to studies. That’s all I can comment on is what the studies have said [/quote]

Outside the boundaries of competition you are free to define ‘normal’ any way you choose. When choosing to compete the organization governing the competition defines normal…it’s simple enough.
[/quote]

A fed can define the rules any way it chooses. IIRC some feds allow medically prescribed TRT use even in the “tested” class and some don’t. I recall at least one poster on this cite disclosed his TRT use/prescription in a “natty” PL fed and obtained express permission to compete tested. Its not cheating when you disclose and the fed allows it.

70

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
However I realise it is different when we’re talking about a competition, where it is not an issue of respect, but an issue of winning. Competitors should be competing and winning naturally based on the cards they’re dealt if it’s a natural competition and there are monetary or other tangible rewards at stake.
[/quote]

I agree, which is why I think prescription eyeware and LASIK surgery should be banned from sport.

:wink:
[/quote]

Do these sports have different feds where people can choose to compete in one where such enhancements are allowed or to compete in another where such enhancements are disallowed?

71

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
However I realise it is different when we’re talking about a competition, where it is not an issue of respect, but an issue of winning. Competitors should be competing and winning naturally based on the cards they’re dealt if it’s a natural competition and there are monetary or other tangible rewards at stake.
[/quote]

I agree, which is why I think prescription eyeware and LASIK surgery should be banned from sport.

:wink:
[/quote]

Not a bad idea at all.

Athletes are now using performance enhancing eye contacts to get an edge. Also, if I recall correctly from the documentary Bigger, Stronger, Faster, Tiger Woods had LASIK surgery to have better than 20/20 vision.

This is crucial especially in a sport like baseball where following the movement of a 85-100MPH projectile is key, I would welcome it.

72

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
However I realise it is different when we’re talking about a competition, where it is not an issue of respect, but an issue of winning. Competitors should be competing and winning naturally based on the cards they’re dealt if it’s a natural competition and there are monetary or other tangible rewards at stake.
[/quote]

I agree, which is why I think prescription eyeware and LASIK surgery should be banned from sport.

:wink:
[/quote]

How about springs instead of feet.

75

[quote]therajraj wrote:
With respect to competing, I agree with BlueCollarTr8n. Competitions in general are about showcasing not only the hardest working but also the most genetically gifted.

I wouldn’t hold spots in medical school for people with low(er) IQs just because they can keep pace with a special study guide.

I wouldn’t concoct a handicap for people who are 5’2 so they can compete in the NBA.

I wouldn’t cut any breaks for the woman with the disfigured hand competing in a beauty pageant.

[/quote]

Those are some tragically bad examples.

Beauty pageants may not make exceptions to someone who walks on stage disfigured or ugly, but they don’t ask you to compete in the ‘plastic surgery and makeup added’ category if you previously were but have addressed it somehow. I’m pretty sure I remember hearing about a transgender Miss USA finalist?

The NBA wouldn’t disallow you from playing because you were 5’2" before some experimental surgery made you 6’1", they’d just check out your ability to play basketball like any other prospect.

And finally, there’s no IQ test on your college or graduate school application. They don’t give a fuck, what they want to know is if you, by some means that isn’t outright cheating, have passed examinations or whatnot.

One of the very few relevant examples I can think of is Oscar Pistorius and his ‘blade’ prosthetics that some believe gave him an unfair advantage over actual human competitors, but in the end he was allowed to compete as well.

Where do you draw the line if you want to be this strict though? As Dr. Pangloss mentioned, lasik eye surgery is commonplace, as are contacts. There are medical grade steroids in use every week in the NFL to deal with issues such as pain tolerance and asthma, shall we scrutinize their use as well? How about genetic diabetics? Deaf athletes wear hearing aids, and in modern times these aids are so advanced that have been worn for so long that it is the patient’s choice whether or not they want to learn sign language. That’s something that will stop being rare in the near future, better petition it or something, can’t be having people competing when their genetics should’ve prevented it.

What about the way modern science saves people’s lives from genetic abnormalities that cause SIDS, or things like tonsillitis and appendicitis every single day? How are we ever going to know which athletes on the field should actually be dead because genetically they couldn’t hack it and needed to be saved by surgery?

I am well aware that I’m starting to get ridiculous here, but that’s kind of the point. This argument seems absolutely absurd to me. Someone on TRT is apparently ‘cheating the system’ even though that same system allows other genetic faults to be overcome. This argument is entirely built on what ‘testosterone’ CAN do when used to boost into superphysiological amounts, not what it actually does when it takes someone from prepubescent boy to ‘standard man.’

76

If a competitor on supplemental testosterone is allowed to claim ‘natural’ status so long as his T levels remain within normal limits, can he do the same with his thyroid (ie, T3/T4) levels? His GH levels? IGF-1? Conversely, can he suppress his estrogen level so long as it remains WNL? And what about insulin? There’s no ‘normal’ limit on insulin level, so does this mean someone can use as much exogenous insulin as he’d like and still claim to be natty?

77

[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
If a competitor on supplemental testosterone is allowed to claim ‘natural’ status so long as his T levels remain within normal limits, can he do the same with his thyroid (ie, T3/T4) levels? His GH levels? IGF-1? Conversely, can he suppress his estrogen level so long as it remains WNL? And what about insulin? There’s no ‘normal’ limit on insulin level, so does this mean someone can use as much exogenous insulin as he’d like and still claim to be natty?[/quote]

It seems to me your example is falling under the guise of someone who is trying to cheat the system. If this person is willing to do all that to win a competition I’m sure he wouldn’t just want his test to be in normal ranges

78

[quote]red04 wrote:

Beauty pageants may not make exceptions to someone who walks on stage disfigured or ugly, but they don’t ask you to compete in the ‘plastic surgery and makeup added’ category if you previously were but have addressed it somehow. I’m pretty sure I remember hearing about a transgender Miss USA finalist?[/quote]

In modern competition they no longer penalize women with missing limbs or as you said not even belonging to the correct gender. It previous generations this would be deeply penalized because they are objectively less attractive traits.

My point is, they have setup conditions for lesser genetically gifted people to have a chance against the elite, not dissimilar to TRT in weight lifting.

[quote]red04 wrote:
The NBA wouldn’t disallow you from playing because you were 5’2" before some experimental surgery made you 6’1", they’d just check out your ability to play basketball like any other prospect.[/quote]

What I going for was instituting some sort of rule change for shorter players to make them more competitive against taller ones. Not exactly as a direct parallel to the TRT situation, but I’m merely trying to highlight the offering of handicaps for the genetically less gifted.

To your experimental surgery hypothetical, if players were getting surgery to increase their height in droves, I would bet the league would prohibit it eventually.

[quote]red04 wrote:
And finally, there’s no IQ test on your college or graduate school application. They don’t give a fuck, what they want to know is if you, by some means that isn’t outright cheating, have passed examinations or whatnot.[/quote]

IQ is an assessment of intelligence. What I meant was letting in dumber people in who can’t pass the test without assistance of some sort.

[quote]red04 wrote:

Where do you draw the line if you want to be this strict though? As Dr. Pangloss mentioned, lasik eye surgery is commonplace, as are contacts. There are medical grade steroids in use every week in the NFL to deal with issues such as pain tolerance and asthma, shall we scrutinize their use as well? How about genetic diabetics? Deaf athletes wear hearing aids, and in modern times these aids are so advanced that have been worn for so long that it is the patient’s choice whether or not they want to learn sign language. That’s something that will stop being rare in the near future, better petition it or something, can’t be having people competing when their genetics should’ve prevented it.

What about the way modern science saves people’s lives from genetic abnormalities that cause SIDS, or things like tonsillitis and appendicitis every single day? How are we ever going to know which athletes on the field should actually be dead because genetically they couldn’t hack it and needed to be saved by surgery?

I am well aware that I’m starting to get ridiculous here, but that’s kind of the point. This argument seems absolutely absurd to me. Someone on TRT is apparently ‘cheating the system’ even though that same system allows other genetic faults to be overcome. This argument is entirely built on what ‘testosterone’ CAN do when used to boost into superphysiological amounts, not what it actually does when it takes someone from prepubescent boy to ‘standard man.’[/quote]

Not sure, good question.

79

Another thing is: Isn’t the range for what’s considered ‘normal’ very large?

if a competitor on TRT is taking test to be in the upper range of ‘normal’ , is it considered any different than someone who is in the middle range of normal (assisted or not)?

Thing is: you can complain all you want and point out all the exceptions as red04 did, but it compromises the integrity of the sport. Either let everything or nothing is what it seems to be coming down to

80

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Your natural levels are whatever the hand nature delt you at any given point in time. Eveyone thinks they have a good reason for doing a wrong thing. Right now there are any number of people involved in affiars that violate the ‘exclusive’ agreement they have with another; they rationilize them for a variety of reasons; that doesn’t mean they are anything less than a betrayal of honor. The path of least resistance is what water does when it’s rolling down hill; not the path an ethical man chooses to take. [/quote]

Oh for crying out loud, comparing TRT use with adultery?

C’mon man.[/quote]

Wow wow wow. Ignorance and being naive. What a post. I normally respect BC’s posts but this is too much.
[/quote]

The parallel is the deception; I think you boys are sharp enough to get it.
[/quote]

But you weren’t sharp enough to make the distinction between deception in tested competitive events and otherwise.

You need to make that distinction because you’ve commented in this thread in both regards. Unless…you really do mean that TRT use is “deception” in all cases?

Edit: Maybe you’ve done this since your quoted post but here is the chance to clarify your position.

Is a 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 year old man “deceiving” anyone and illicitly battling Nature if he is on TRT and not competing in tested competitive events?[/quote]

I clearly referred to the open division from the beginning. Additionally I also mentioned more than once that it would depend on how the rule the written in the given organization.