Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
17-08-2010, 16:12   #61
Plastikman_eire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovert View Post
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.
Plastikman_eire is offline  
Advertisement
17-08-2010, 16:13   #62
Fozzy
Registered User
 
Fozzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 8,401
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 is offline  
17-08-2010, 16:18   #63
Fozzy
Registered User
 
Fozzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 8,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plastikman_eire View Post
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
Fozzy is offline  
Thanks from:
17-08-2010, 16:21   #64
rovert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 18,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plastikman_eire View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozzy View Post
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.
rovert is offline  
17-08-2010, 16:22   #65
MrStuffins
Registered User
 
MrStuffins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 14,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozzy View Post
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?
MrStuffins is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
17-08-2010, 16:24   #66
cowzerp
Registered User
 
cowzerp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rush Fight Academy
Posts: 10,099
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.
cowzerp is offline  
17-08-2010, 16:25   #67
Plastikman_eire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovert View Post
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.
Plastikman_eire is offline  
17-08-2010, 16:26   #68
rovert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 18,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrStuffins View Post
Therefore he's guilty?
Can we stop with the defensive jumping to this conclusion about other's posts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrStuffins View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cowzerp View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plastikman_eire View Post
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

Last edited by rovert; 17-08-2010 at 16:30.
rovert is offline  
17-08-2010, 16:32   #69
cowzerp
Registered User
 
cowzerp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rush Fight Academy
Posts: 10,099
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..
cowzerp is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
17-08-2010, 16:35   #70
rovert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 18,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowzerp View Post
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.
rovert is offline  
17-08-2010, 16:39   #71
barochoc
Registered User
 
barochoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dublin
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowzerp View Post
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.
barochoc is offline  
17-08-2010, 16:42   #72
cowzerp
Registered User
 
cowzerp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rush Fight Academy
Posts: 10,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovert View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by rovert View Post
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.
cowzerp is offline  
(2) thanks from:
17-08-2010, 16:47   #73
barochoc
Registered User
 
barochoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dublin
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrStuffins View Post
Sorry, but unless you stand watching cyclists in the street, can you call yourself a real fan?
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
barochoc is offline  
Thanks from:
17-08-2010, 16:48   #74
rovert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 18,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by barochoc View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cowzerp View Post
Yeah!
Please dont go down that road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cowzerp View Post
That is an accusation of him buying for competition.
I made that statement in contrast to Lesnar doing HGH in WWE. Nice try.

Last edited by rovert; 17-08-2010 at 16:53.
rovert is offline  
17-08-2010, 16:56   #75
barochoc
Registered User
 
barochoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dublin
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovert View Post
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
barochoc is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet