Shane Carwin linked to steriods case

rovert · 17-08-2010 3:54pm

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

Ordering PED's isnt cheating. So at risk of sounding like a broken record; Until a fighter tests positive for performance enhancers then they can not be labelled a cheat.

Why would you order PEDs if you didnt want to cheat? A bit oxymoronic no?

barochoc · 17-08-2010 3:56pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

I agree here. He should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Just because he said "I didn't do it", doesn't mean he did it!

If he had said "The stories are lies, i didn't do anything wrong" i doubt anyone would be quick to say "well, he said he didn't do it, so he must not have done it"

I hear you, but it amazes me how quick people react & say "It's no surprise" (Basically saying, I knew all along)

I've been a long time MMA & Cycling Fan. Cycling is destroyed with every conceivable drug on the planet. I still watch & marvel because they're still incredible athletes.

Stories come out almost every week about Lance Armstrong cheating yet he never tested positive, even though he was the most tested athlete on the planet at one stage!!!!!

The Athletic commissions in MMA around the USA are very strict on substance abuse & it's the reason most people believe that certain fighters won't & don't fight in USA!

Carwin has not tested positive in competition & if he did while in the UFC they'd have him out on his ass!

Fozzy · 17-08-2010 3:57pm

Clearly he ordered the steroids without ever intending to use them, go easy on him

barochoc · 17-08-2010 3:58pm

rovert wrote: »

Why would you order PEDs if you didnt want to cheat? A bit oxymoronic no?

He probably had a sick horse or similar animal that needed a little help with recovery!

rovert · 17-08-2010 3:59pm

Fozzy wrote: »

Clearly he ordered the steroids without ever intending to use them, go easy on him

and over an 8 month period....

Plastikman_eire · 17-08-2010 4:01pm

rovert wrote: »

Why would you order PEDs if you didnt want to cheat? A bit oxymoronic no?

Who knows?

Why would Brock not continue to use something like HGH to gain an advantage if he knew tests couldnt detect it? I mean he's used it before right?

We can speculate about **** all day long. Until a fighter tests positive we are just talking sh.it

MrStuffins · 17-08-2010 4:02pm

barochoc wrote: »

I hear you, but it amazes me how quick people react & say "It's no surprise" (Basically saying, I knew all along)

I've been a long time MMA & Cycling Fan. Cycling is destroyed with every conceivable drug on the planet. I still watch & marvel because they're still incredible athletes.

Stories come out almost every week about Lance Armstrong cheating yet he never tested positive, even though he was the most tested athlete on the planet at one stage!!!!!

The Athletic commissions in MMA around the USA are very strict on substance abuse & it's the reason most people believe that certain fighters won't & don't fight in USA!

Carwin has not tested positive in competition & if he did while in the UFC they'd have him out on his ass!

Sorry, but unless you stand watching cyclists in the street, can you call yourself a real fan? :pac:

In seriousness though, he hasn't failed any drug tests. If people were convicted for crimes just because their name had been linked to them, we'd all be in prison! (or is it just me? :P)

Until some FACTS are established, i don't think people should be hinting that his non reaction indicated guilt!

(although, if he admits it today, im gonna edit all my posts and then say "I told you so!")

rovert · 17-08-2010 4:04pm

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

Who knows?

Why would Brock not continue to use something like HGH to gain an advantage if he new tests couldnt detect it? I mean he's used it before right?

We can speculate about **** all day long. Until a fighter tests positive we are just talking sh.it

Again not really for all the reasons Ive stated above. Brock never got caught purchasing illegally from a qwack doctor over an 8 month period. If fairness Carwin's situation is a lot more than just a scenario.

Fozzy · 17-08-2010 4:06pm

I just checked where Carwin's first five fights took place. Two in California, two in Texas and one in Hawaii. Those fights all took place before April 2007, which is when California first started testing for steroids

So in at least two of these cases, there was no chance of him failing any test

Plastikman_eire · 17-08-2010 4:12pm

rovert wrote: »

Again not really for all the reasons Ive stated above. Brock never got caught purchasing illegally from a qwack doctor over an 8 month period. If fairness Carwin's situation is a lot more than just a scenario.

Quite the opposite. Carwin, from what I've read, is linked to this because of intials matching his are on an order form belonging to a guy who was busted for distribution. Brock got caught red handed with HGH. So in both cases it is more then a scenario.

Fozzy · 17-08-2010 4:13pm

And Texas didn't have any drug testing at all in 2006. Their policy was that it was up to the promoters to do it, which they usually didn't. UFC didn't do any at 69 in Texas

Fozzy · 17-08-2010 4:18pm

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

Quite the opposite. Carwin, from what I've read, is linked to this because of intials matching his are on an order form belonging to a guy who was busted for distribution. Brock got caught red handed with HGH. So in both cases it is more then a scenario.

His initials were in the court documents along with 21 other sets of initials. But his name was mentioned in court by the prosecutor along with six other names

rovert · 17-08-2010 4:21pm

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

Quite the opposite. Carwin, from what I've read, is linked to this because of intials matching his are on an order form belonging to a guy who was busted for distribution. Brock got caught red handed with HGH. So in both cases it is more then a scenario.

Again I think you are missing out on the context of the two explained. The only reason Brock was caught "red handed" is that the police thought it was illegal steriods. Carwin has been caught buying PEDs for competition while Lesnar never has.

Fozzy wrote: »

And Texas didn't have any drug testing at all in 2006. Their policy was that it was up to the promoters to do it, which they usually didn't. UFC didn't do any at 69 in Texas

Yep, it is kind of confusing there alright.

It is optional in Hawaii as well.

MrStuffins · 17-08-2010 4:22pm

Fozzy wrote: »

I just checked where Carwin's first five fights took place. Two in California, two in Texas and one in Hawaii. Those fights all took place before April 2007, which is when California first started testing for steroids

So in at least two of these cases, there was no chance of him failing any test

Therefore he's guilty?

So every fighter who fought in California before April 2007 is therefore a drugs cheat?

cowzerp · 17-08-2010 4:24pm

Rovert let it lye as he has not been proven to have been doing anything illegal, if people where saying the same about brock you would be screaming blue murder. Even if its proven he bought them it was not proven that he done them regardless how you or i might feel.

Plastikman_eire · 17-08-2010 4:25pm

rovert wrote: »

Again I think you are missing out on the context of the two explained. The only reason Brock was caught "red handed" is that the police thought it was illegal steriods. Carwin has been caught buying PEDs for competition while Lesnar never has.

Yep, it is kind of confusing there alright.

It is optional in Hawaii as well.

No im not missing the point, (lets read between the lines and call a spade a spade here, both Carwin and Lesnar have had "help" getting into the shape they are in) the point as far as I'm concerned, is that neither have ever tested positive so can't be considered to be cheaters.

rovert · 17-08-2010 4:26pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

Therefore he's guilty?

Can we stop with the defensive jumping to this conclusion about other's posts?

MrStuffins wrote: »

So every fighter who fought in California before April 2007 is therefore a drugs cheat?

No the reason why it was mentioned was that people were using the fact Carwin not failing a test as proof of something.

cowzerp wrote: »

Rovert let it lye as he has not been proven to have been doing anything illegal, if people where saying the same about brock you would be screaming blue murder. Even if its proven he bought them it was not proven that he done them regardless how you or i might feel.

Cowerzp where did I say he was guilty? That Brock comment is completely and utterly stupid. Please dont go down that road especially after the last few days, month.

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

as far as I'm concerned, is that neither have ever tested positive so can't be considered to be cheaters.

Carwin wasnt tested during the time he bought these PEDs

cowzerp · 17-08-2010 4:32pm

Your totally trying to label him guilty, that is obvious and i can also read between the lines like you do all the time, you said he bought them for competition, that is a definite statement that he bought them for fighting, stick to the facts which right now are that he may have bought them, thats all. could have been for his mate, his dog or just for giggles, the point is you dont know if he bought them for competition..

rovert · 17-08-2010 4:35pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Your totally trying to label him guilty, that is obvious and i can also read between the lines like you do all the time, you said he bought them for competition, that is a definite statement that he bought them for fighting, stick to the facts which right now are that he may have bought them, thats all. could have been for his mate, his dog or just for giggles, the point is you dont know if he bought them for competition..

Where did I do that? Check out the qualifications I made in this thread heck check out who titled this thread. Personally I dont go out and out accusing people of things without evidence, I leave that to others.

barochoc · 17-08-2010 4:39pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Your totally trying to label him guilty, that is obvious and i can also read between the lines like you do all the time, you said he bought them for competition, that is a definite statement that he bought them for fighting, stick to the facts which right now are that he may have bought them, thats all. could have been for his mate, his dog or just for giggles, the point is you dont know if he bought them for competition..

Now that's calling a spade a spade.

cowzerp · 17-08-2010 4:42pm

rovert wrote: »

Where did I do that? Check out the qualifications I made in this thread heck check out who titled this thread. Personally I dont go out and out accusing people of things without evidence, I leave that to others.

Yeah!

rovert wrote: »

Again I think you are missing out on the context of the two explained. The only reason Brock was caught "red handed" is that the police thought it was illegal steriods. Carwin has been caught buying PEDs for competition while Lesnar never has.

That is an accusation of him buying for competition.

barochoc · 17-08-2010 4:47pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

Sorry, but unless you stand watching cyclists in the street, can you call yourself a real fan? :pac:

I do & will continue to watch cycling at any possible location.

It's not a necessity to prove your worth as a fan either.

The fact I competed for about 10 years as an amateur here in Ireland would also stand to me.

It's a phenomenal sport & I have difficulty choosing between MMA & Cycling for the toughest sport on the planet.

Anyway, back to the main subject

rovert · 17-08-2010 4:48pm

barochoc wrote: »

Now that's calling a spade a spade.

How?

Again where did say he was guilty? Every time that would come up Id would refute it out right and ask where did I say it and I wouldnt get an answer. Again check out my qualifications referring to the title as well as what I chose for the topic title.

No one can deny that:
He has a lot of questions to answer
The balance of evidence doesnt seem to be in his favour
His approach P.R. wise has been notable as well given his typical approach

Yes there is currently a strong case against him IMO but I never said he was guilty.

So please stop with that nonsense.

cowzerp wrote: »

Yeah!

Please dont go down that road.

cowzerp wrote: »

That is an accusation of him buying for competition.

I made that statement in contrast to Lesnar doing HGH in WWE. Nice try.

barochoc · 17-08-2010 4:56pm

rovert wrote: »

How?

Again where did say he was guilty? Every time that would come up Id would refute it out right and ask where did I say it and I wouldnt get an answer. Again check out my qualifications referring to the title as well as what I chose for the topic title.

No one can deny that:
He has a lot of questions to answer
The balance of evidence doesnt seem to be in his favour
His approach P.R. wise has been notable as well given his typical approach

Yes there is currently a strong case against him IMO but I never said he was guilty.

So please stop with that nonsense.

Please dont go down that road.

I made that statement in contrast to Lesnar doing HGH in WWE. Nice try.

Just keep denying it. Eventually we'll all believe you

cowzerp · 17-08-2010 4:58pm

rovert wrote: »

I made that statement in contrast to Lesnar doing HGH in WWE. Nice try.

Exactly, you accused him of buying peds for competition in contrast to lesnar doing hgh in the wwe, the accusation is serious and against the forum charter-if you said he is been linked with buying peds, but there is no proof that he used or intended to use them then you would be playing within the rules but you did not.

rovert · 17-08-2010 5:02pm

barochoc wrote: »

Just keep denying it. Eventually we'll all believe you

One poster to another please stop, if you want to discuss my points go ahead otherwise I dont know what this stuff adds to the topic.

cowzerp wrote: »

Exactly, you accused him of buying peds for competition in contrast to lesnar doing hgh in the wwe, the accusation is serious and against the forum charter-if you said he is been linked with buying peds, but there is no proof that he used or intended to use them then you would be playing within the rules but you did not.

I was talking about the rationale. Brock could have been using them for both comestic and rehab reasons. Anyway this rest of my posts make it clear that I dont think he is absolutely guilty. The other poster was saying that Brock using PED in Wrestling is the same as Carwin using PED in MMA. One is a comestic sport and the other is a competitive one.

barochoc · 17-08-2010 5:12pm

rovert wrote: »

One poster to another please stop, if you want to discuss my points go ahead otherwise I dont know what this stuff adds to the topic.

Are you for real or are you just here to wind people up?

You'll never wind me up because I get endless entertainment from your posts.

You blatantly say one thing & then spend the rest of your time denying having said it, yet it's there for all to see!!!

You try to twist it & worm your way out.

You'll no doubt ask for an example of this yet anyone reading this forum won't need it. Except you!

So what are you adding to the topic other than crapping all over Carwin & hugging Lesnars nuts????????

arybvtcw0eolkf · 17-08-2010 5:13pm

rovert wrote: »

Carwin has been caught buying PEDs for competition

WTF, thats a very serious alligation to make :eek:

Are you totally ignorant of the forum's charter & in particular this rule;

8) No unfounded allegations against fighters, particularly in regard to steroid use. If you want to accuse them make sure you have a bulletproof source or you will be banned.

Rovert, I always suspect you of purposely threading a very thin line - but this time you've crossed it big time.. Post is reported.

rovert · 17-08-2010 5:17pm

Luna Defeated Fence wrote: »

WTF, thats a very serious alligation to make :eek:

Are you totally ignorant of the forum's charter & in particular this rule;

Rovert, I always suspect you of purposely threading a very thin line - but this time you've crossed it big time.. Post is reported.

Plastikman_eire and I were speculating the post was framed in that context. Again look at the OP and the rest of posts.

dartstothesea · 17-08-2010 5:21pm

rovert wrote: »

was talking about the rationale. Brock could have been using them for both comestic and rehab reasons. Anyway this rest of my posts make it clear that I dont think he is absolutely guilty. The other poster was saying that Brock using PED in Wrestling is the same as Carwin using PED in MMA. One is a comestic sport and the other is a competitive one.

Not quite on topic here, but depending on the dosage and length of use, the body conditioning potential held by rhgh goes far beyond what I personally would call "cosmetic" or "rehab". Using GH can effect much more permanent changes in an athlete's body than anabolic steroids.
Whether you use PEDs to get a foot in the door or just to get a rung or two higher on the ladder that leads to the door, it's still help along the way from a PED. It just depends on how big a picture you're willing to look at.

rovert · 17-08-2010 5:26pm

dartstothesea wrote: »

Not quite on topic here, but depending on the dosage and length of use, the body conditioning potential held by rhgh goes far beyond what I personally would call "cosmetic" or "rehab". Using GH can effect much more permanent changes in an athlete's body than anabolic steroids.
Whether you use PEDs to get a foot in the door or just to get a rung or two higher on the ladder that leads to the door, it's still help along the way from a PED. It just depends on how big a picture you're willing to look at.

I take your point

In fairness to Brock (not to hug his nuts :rolleyes:) he was receiving legal doses of the stuff under medical supervision rather than going through what the judge in this case called "drug dealers in lab coats."

cowzerp · 17-08-2010 5:32pm

Im going to close this thread till further notice, it needs to be checked by another mod or admin in relation to allegations etc, if deemed appropiate it will be re-opened.. Thanks

cowzerp · 19-08-2010 2:48pm

Thread has been reopened but under no circumstances are people to say that carwin or anyone else uses steroids or anything illegal that is unproven, thanks.

Gerard.C · 19-08-2010 7:10pm

Do ye think it will do much damage to the sport if it come out that Carwin was infact taking steroids?

Raze_them_all · 19-08-2010 7:20pm

No, Josh Barnett got caught twice and the sports still going good. Unless the sports big stars start failing piss tests in mass numbers it won't effect the sport. It's be like saying would soccer suffer if a player was caught on drugs

Vince135792003 · 19-08-2010 9:31pm

Raze_them_all wrote: »

No, Josh Barnett got caught twice and the sports still going good. Unless the sports big stars start failing piss tests in mass numbers it won't effect the sport. It's be like saying would soccer suffer if a player was caught on drugs

I think comparing Carwin to Barnett is not comparing like with like. Carwin is much more well know today than Barnett was when he was found guilty.

In saying that I agree I don't think the sport or any sport would suffer hugely when 1 star is found to be taking drugs. However it does shine a spotlight on the sport and if more were to come out and found to be guilty that had a similar status to Carwin, there's no doubt the sport would suffer financially.

MrStuffins · 19-08-2010 9:37pm

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I think comparing Carwin to Barnett is not comparing like with like. Carwin is much more well know today than Barnett was when he was found guilty.

This just isn't true!

Raze_them_all · 19-08-2010 9:39pm

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I think comparing Carwin to Barnett is not comparing like with like. Carwin is much more well know today than Barnett was when he was found guilty.

In saying that I agree I don't think the sport or any sport would suffer hugely when 1 star is found to be taking drugs. However it does shine a spotlight on the sport and if more were to come out and found to be guilty that had a similar status to Carwin, there's no doubt the sport would suffer financially.

The second time round Barnett was considered #2 in the world going to fight Fedor.

I don't think the sport would suffer financially tbh alot of people imho think most fighters are on ped's of one kind of another.

Plastikman_eire · 19-08-2010 9:40pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

This just isn't true!

Yeah it is. Barnett has never had a 100ft tall picture of himself in Time sq i'll bet.

Vince135792003 · 19-08-2010 9:42pm

Raze_them_all wrote: »

The second time round Barnett was considered #2 in the world going to fight Fedor.

I don't think the sport would suffer financially tbh alot of people imho think most fighters are on ped's of one kind of another.

Sponsors run from sports with a publically known drug stigma.

I'm not doubting Barnetts credentials and certainly it's a fair comparison to make to Carwin in those terms. I'm talking in terms of fame and notoriety.

My point is at the peak of Barnetts fame, MMA was a growing but still small audience. Carwin on the other hand was in the main event of the second most bought MMA show in North America of all time

Raze_them_all · 19-08-2010 9:44pm

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Sponsors run from sports with a drug stigma.

I'm not doubting Barnetts credentials. I'm talking in terms of fame and notoriety.

My point is at the peak of Barnetts fame MMA was a growing but still small audience. Carwin on the other hand was in the main event of the second most bought MMA show in North America of all time.

North america yes, I'm betting Carwin would love the fame Barnett had with the asian market.

MrStuffins · 19-08-2010 9:45pm

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

Yeah it is. Barnett has never had a 100ft tall picture of himself in Time sq i'll bet.

When Affliction were putting every penny of their T-Shirt money into marketing his fight with Fedor, his mush was all over the place.

He is also a massive star in Japan and a former UFC HW Champion*

Vince135792003 · 19-08-2010 9:49pm

Raze_them_all wrote: »

North america yes, I'm betting Carwin would love the fame Barnett had with the asian market.

Barnett never drew tv ratings for Pride. They could take him or leave him and it didn't matter a dam to their business. There were very few consistent foreign draws in Pride (Cro Cop, Sapp and Silva the exceptions). Even Fedor was not a major tv draw in Pride. Pride drew and made money because of it's Japaneese stars.

But back on topic this drug story is an American one not an Asian one and I would contend my point still stands that Shave Carwin is on different level of fame in 2010 today than Barnett was in his prime.

MrStuffins · 19-08-2010 9:52pm

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Barnett never drew tv ratings for Pride. They could take him or leave him and it didn't matter a dam to their business. There were very few consistent foreign draws in Pride (Cro Cop, Sapp and Silva the exceptions). Even Fedor was not a major tv draw in Pride. Pride drew and made money because of it's Japaneese stars.

But back on topic this drug story is an American one not an Asian one and I would contend my point still stands that Shave Carwin is on different level of fame in 2010 today than Barnett was in his prime.

And you think Shane Carwin is a draw in North America?

Most casual fans had barely heard of the guy before UFC 116. The other guy, whatever his name is, was the draw!

Vince135792003 · 19-08-2010 9:56pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

And you think Shane Carwin is a draw in North America?

Most casual fans had barely heard of the guy before UFC 116. The other guy, whatever his name is, was the draw!

This show did better than Coutures. His highlight reel of knock outs certainly added to the marketability of the fight. Alot of people watched that fight and indeed his one with Mir which obtained I believe 800 thousand buys with GSP in the main event. So he's has alot of exposure. He's a very well known name in MMA right now and has certainly more fame in America now (where this story is based) than Barnett ever had in the US.

I don't want to deflect from the topic though at hand.

MrStuffins · 19-08-2010 9:57pm

Vince135792003 wrote: »

This show did better than Coutures. His highlight reel of knock outs certainly added to the marketability of the fight. Alot of people watched that fight and indeed his one with Mir which obtained I believe 800 thousand buys with GSP in the main event. He's a very well known name in MMA right now.

I don't want to deflect from the topic though at hand.

Nobody bought the PPV to watch Shane Carwin!

TheTMO · 19-08-2010 9:57pm

I'm not going to claim any particular fighter is on steroids (I've been banned before) but if you honestly think that it is possible to keep some of the muscle mass that the heavyweights in the UFC have, whilst training in such a high intensity cardio sport,then you are quite frankly, delusional. I've seen certain fighters gain 20lbs lean mass in 12 months and people defending them to the hilt saying their just hard workers with incredible genetics. I'm sorry to burst the fantasy buble but it is simply not possible to gain 20lbs lean muscle in 12 months without some help. These aren't fighters starting out in the gym (before anyone cries 'newbie gains') but fighters who have been going to the gym for years and then suddenly, in one year, magically double in size.
Do people honestly think its possible to be +250lbs of lean muscle whilst training very high cardio every day?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, NFL players don't get tested for steroids unless the clubs authorize it (which never happens) and as such you see some of these so called 'genetic freaks' in NFL. In rugby meanwhile people get tested regularly and quess what, overall the players are noticably smaller. Why is this? Why is it that you only see these +250lbs lean muscle monsters in NFL and UFC (in rugby there are players that weight who are lean but one must disregard the +6'5 second rows and backrows as obviously their height skews their weight)

It's not a coincidence, its down to the simple fact that steroid use is rampant in the two sports.

MrStuffins · 19-08-2010 9:59pm

TheTMO wrote: »

I'm not going to claim any particular fighter is on steroids (I've been banned before) but if you honestly think that it is possible to keep some of the muscle mass that the heavyweights in the UFC have, whilst training in such a high intensity cardio sport,then you are quite frankly, delusional. I've seen certain fighters gain 20lbs lean mass in 12 months and people defending them to the hilt saying their just hard workers with incredible genetics. I'm sorry to burst the fantasy buble but it is simply not possible to gain 20lbs lean muscle in 12 months without some help. These aren't fighters starting out in the gym (before anyone cries 'newbie gains') but fighters who have been going to the gym for years and then suddenly, in one year, magically double in size.
Do people honestly think its possible to be +250lbs of lean muscle whilst training very high cardio every day?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, NFL players don't get tested for steroids unless the clubs authorize it (which never happens) and as such you see some of these so called 'genetic freaks' in NFL. In rugby meanwhile people get tested regularly and quess what, overall the players are noticably smaller. Why is this? Why is it that you only see these +250lbs lean muscle monsters in NFL and UFC (in rugby there are players that weight who are lean but one must disregard the +6'5 second rows and backrows as obviously their height skews their weight)

It's not a coincidence, its down to the simple fact that steroid use is rampant.

Pure speculation!

Vince135792003 · 19-08-2010 10:06pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

Nobody bought the PPV to watch Shane Carwin!

You don't get it.

Your completely ignoring my point and I have said it 4 times and expanded more each time. I've offered lot of evidence citing why I believe Carwin is more famous in America in 2010 than Barnett was in his prime in America (which is not to discredit Barnetts MMA ability). It's a pretty simple conclusion to come to. Carwin has simply had alot more tv exposure in the US than Barnett ever has had. You've offered no evidence to back your point up other than Affliciton t-shirts. If you find something more substantial PM me.

Back on topic, no sport wants the drug stigma. 1 well know face won't hurt too much. But 2, 3, 4 well known fighters and all of a sudden sponsorship becomes challenging.

Raze_them_all · 19-08-2010 10:10pm

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I never said that.

Your completely ignoring my point and I have said it 4 times and expanded more each time. I've offered lot of evidence citing why I believe Carwin is more famous America in 2010 than Barnett was in his prime in America (which is not to discredit Barnetts MMA ability). It's a pretty simple conclusion to come to. Carwin has simply had alot more tv exposure in the US thant Barnett ever has had. You've offered no evidence to back your point up. If you find some PM me.

Back on topic, no sport wants the drug stigma. 1 well know face won't hurt too much. But 2, 3, 4 well known fighters and all of a sudden sponsorship becomes challenging.

You never said america, you said more famous.

Actually if people are caught taking peds, getting sponsorship for the individuals would be quite hard not for the company, they suspend/fine/fire them and they are seen as not tolerating cheats which is a good business look

Shane Carwin linked to steriods case

Comments