Shane Carwin linked to steriods case

Raze_them_all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

seadnamac

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 in the two sports.

That is not true. 12 players from each NFL team are randomly tested every week, with steriods being the main drug they are testing for.

And if you're going to make sweeping statements like gaining 20 pounds of lean muscle in year is impossible then you should at least have something to back it up with besides you saying so.

MrStuffins

Vince135792003 wrote: »

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 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.

I disagree.

Back on Topic, there once was a time when drugs cheats were rarely caught out. When one was, they were condemned like rapists and were cast out.

these days, they're being caught all over the place, in all sports, and they're not condemned in the same way.

Especially in MMA. Fighters come back from drugs bans in the UFC and the ban is never mentioned again.

Vince135792003

Raze_them_all wrote: »

You never said america, you said more famous.

Read everything that I wrote.

Just for the record though, based on the ppv and tv numbers (it was free in alot of countries like Mexico) Carwin is more famous in America and the in the world than Josh Barnett is.

Vince135792003

MrStuffins wrote: »

these days, they're being caught all over the place, in all sports, and they're not condemned in the same way.
.

The Tour de France suffered massively in terms of sponsorship in the last 10 years due to the stigma of drug taking. If you are a major company, it's obviously a factor when you consider sponsoring a sport particualrly one that it's in its infancy like MMA.

It's one of the reasons sponsors flocked to golf. It was the safest sport to sponsor with rarely any controversy (up until Tiger this year).

MrStuffins

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Read everything that I wrote.

Just for the record though, based on the ppv and tv numbers (it was free in alot of countries like Mexico) Carwin is more famous in America and the in the world than Josh Barnett is.

I get what you're saying, but your logic is flawed.

Alan Belcher fought on UFC 100. 1.6m buys.

UFC 103 had an estimated 500k buys, featuring a guy with a sililar profile to Barnett, Vitor Belfort.

Does this mean Belcher is "more famous" than Vitor? Does it f*ck!

bret69

MrStuffins wrote: »

Nobody bought the PPV to watch Shane Carwin!

That's beside the point. Even though the majority of people bought it for Brock, Carwin is now more famous because of it.

My little brother and his friends know who Carwin is. My friends who watch casually know who he is. Anybody who is a pretty big mma fan obviously knows who Carwin is.

Barnett on the other hand is known only by big mma fans for the most part.

While neither man is overly famous, you'd have to say since the Brock fight, more people know who Carwin is than Barnett.

MrStuffins

Vince135792003 wrote: »

It's one of the reasons sponsors flocked to golf. It was the safest sport to sponsor with rarely any controversy (up until Tiger this year).

Yeah, but look at Athletics. Ben Johnson was held up like a child molester when he was caught "cheating" and was never allowed recover.

Then you look at Christine Ohuruogu who served a suspension for dodging drugs tests. She comes back, wins an Olympic Gold Medal and nobody cares about her past!

MrStuffins

Vince135792003 wrote: »

My logic is for the 5th time that Carwin has had way more tv and media exposure in America (UFC unleashed, countdown shows, UFC ppvs, ESPN recaps etc..) than Barnett ever has had at a time when MMA market is massively bigger in the US than it was when Barnett was at his peak.

The US is not the centre of the World!

Barnett is a big star in Japan through his Pride days and through other MMA orgs.

He is also a Pro Wrestler for NJPW........... that's pretty mainstream if you ask me.

Vince135792003

MrStuffins wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but your logic is flawed.

My logic is for the 5th time that this is an American sports story. With that point being made Carwin has had way more tv and media exposure in America (UFC unleashed, countdown shows, UFC ppvs, ESPN recaps, newspaper coverage etc..) than Barnett ever has had at a time when MMA market is massively bigger in the US than it was when Barnett was at his peak.

On topic,when it comes to deciding where they'll put their money, the image of of the sport is a factor for big mainstream business and no sport wants the drug stigma. That's one of the reasons why Dana White is so positive about regulation.

Fozzy

Just for the sake of it, I put Josh Barnett and Shane Carwin into Google Trends. Looking at the whole world, Carwin's level of interest is way above Barnett's in the last couple of years. Just looking at Japan, it only shows Carwin's results because not enough Japanese people were looking up Barnett on the internet

TheTMO

seadnamac wrote: »

That is not true. 12 players from each NFL team are randomly tested every week, with steriods being the main drug they are testing for.

And if you're going to make sweeping statements like gaining 20 pounds of lean muscle in year is impossible then you should at least have something to back it up with besides you saying so.

The NFL in all its wisdom, trusted the clubs to carry out the tests for them.. The club doctors probably know whos on cycle and whos off and can rotate as needed.

I dont think saying that gaining 20lbs of lean muscle in 12 months not being possible is a sweeping statement. Three stone of lean muscle added in 12 months on an already muscluar frame is impossible, its science.

You are delusional. I cant actually believe you think its possible for some of the heavyweights in the UFC to carry such muscle mass whilst doing a sport thats cardio means its seriously catabolic.

cowzerp

TheTMO wrote: »

The NFL in all its wisdom, trusted the clubs to carry out the tests for them.. The club doctors probably know whos on cycle and whos off and can rotate as needed.

I dont think saying that gaining 20lbs of lean muscle in 12 months not being possible is a sweeping statement. Three stone of lean muscle added in 12 months on an already muscluar frame is impossible, its science.

You are delusional. I cant actually believe you think its possible for some of the heavyweights in the UFC to carry such muscle mass whilst doing a sport thats cardio means its seriously catabolic.

Thread carefully, this could be deemed that your accusing lots of the heavyweights of been on steroids and if it is deemed that way a ban will be heading your way, leave the speculation at that.

TheTMO

cowzerp wrote: »

Thread carefully, this could be deemed that your accusing lots of the heavyweights of been on steroids and if it is deemed that way a ban will be heading your way, leave the speculation at that.

I am not accusing anyone in particular, I am merely saying that steroid abuse is rampant and not merely in the HW section though I am using it as an example because its easier to spot there. Thats hardly ban worthy, to be honest I think this is more to do with passionate fans like yourself not wanting to talk about the elephant in the room. I will admit there are plenty of heavyweights that aren't on steroids but there are some that I have no doubt in my mind are. I just think its incredibly foolish to believe that these athletes are capable of keeping such physiques whilst at the same time training such high intensity cardio every day. To put this in perspective, some UFC fighters have better physiques than natural world champion bodybuilders I mean come on :rolleyes: somethings wrong there when, in 12 months, a fighter manages to suddenly get bigger and in better shape than a pro natural bodybuilder whose been training consistently (and only concentrating on his physique) for 10-20 years. You can try argue that its simply down to UFC fighters being genetic freaks but that doesnt wash with me considering rugby has a far bigger playing population, concentrates more on weights and has some of the most genetically gifted people playing it (Pacific Islanders) and yet not one player is in the same shape as some UFC fighters.

The sports that are most heavily tested, don't have genetic freaks, go figure.

As an aside though, I have no problem with steroid use in UFC because as a viewer I want to see the strongest, quickest, and fittest fighters fighting, it leads to better fights, simply as. If UFC turn a blind eye (whilst acting like they are doing something) like the NFL do then I'll be happy. But what annoys me is people who seem to think that no UFC fighter is on steroids because quite frankly anyone who knows anything about muscle building and limitations knows that there are quite clearly fighters on juice (and lets not forget, I am not talking nonsense as fighters have been caught in the past and very recently)


EDIT : I was actually just wondering there whether fighters over 35 are actually allowed to take test? I know in America (and here) you can legally be prescribed testosterone by your doctor once your 35 or older (as your natural levels drop) so would the atheltics commission allow it? Considering they wouldnt be getting any advantage, its legally prescribed and it would simply level the playing field for older fighters?? Always wondered that.

cowzerp

its nothing to do with passion, its the forum charter-i have suspicions too but keep them to myself as there not allowed here without facts to back them up, then ya can post away.

Plastikman_eire

TheTMO wrote: »

EDIT : I was actually just wondering there whether fighters over 35 are actually allowed to take test? I know in America (and here) you can legally be prescribed testosterone by your doctor once your 35 or older (as your natural levels drop) so would the atheltics commission allow it? Considering they wouldnt be getting any advantage, its legally prescribed and it would simply level the playing field for older fighters?? Always wondered that.

I assume you can. I remember Rogan mentioning during a PPV that couture is undergoing hormone replacement therapy.

Fozzy

Dan Henderson got a drug test exemption at one point because he was being prescribed testosterone by his doctor. It was mentioned in the Wrestling Observer as part of a bigger story on steroids in MMA. It was in California when he recieved the exemption, I'm not sure what fight it was exactly or if he still gets the same exemption elsewhere these days, but most commissions do allow for it as long as it's all made clear in advance and it's on the level

The problem with that system is that guys who have taken steroids can stop taking them, their natural testosterone levels will be low due to the steroids that they've been taking, they go to their doctor and he'll then prescribe them testosterone legally to get them up to regular levels (in theory, there's been cases in the past of doctors prescribing stuff legally but giving their clients too much. Doctors like Carwin's being prosecuted should be lowering the cases of doctors not doing things like this by the book)

seadnamac

TheTMO wrote: »

The NFL in all its wisdom, trusted the clubs to carry out the tests for them..

I'm not sure about that, you may be right, do you have a link or something to back that up?

The club doctors probably know whos on cycle and whos off and can rotate as needed.

Pure and utter speculation. If this was the case why would anyone in the NFL get banned for steriod abuse? Because they do.

I dont think saying that gaining 20lbs of lean muscle in 12 months not being possible is a sweeping statement. Three stone of lean muscle added in 12 months on an already muscluar frame is impossible, its science.

First of all 20 pounds is less than one and half stone and not three stone like you say. I very much doubt it is impossible, unlikely for the normal trainee, yes probably. Impossible for any athlete in the world. I doubt it. And it doesnt become science just because you say so. If it's science then show us this science.

You are delusional. I cant actually believe you think its possible for some of the heavyweights in the UFC to carry such muscle mass whilst doing a sport thats cardio means its seriously catabolic.

You mean I am delusional because I took you up on some completely unsubstantiated claims where you haven't provided any evidence? Awesome.

TheTMO

seadnamac wrote: »

I'm not sure about that, you may be right, do you have a link or something to back that up?

I read about it in early 2008 in an article in the guardian about steroid use in sports around the world.

Pure and utter speculation. If this was the case why would anyone in the NFL get banned for steriod abuse? Because they do.

Usually because either (1) Doctors lists come out (2) For whatever reason the steroids dont come out of the players system when predicted or (3) The club is disciplining the player a la Mutu at Chelsea

First of all 20 pounds is less than one and half stone and not three stone like you say. I very much doubt it is impossible, unlikely for the normal trainee, yes probably. Impossible for any athlete in the world. I doubt it. And it doesnt become science just because you say so. If it's science then show us this science.

I quite clearly momentarily mixed up kilos with lbs, the theory is still the same. Can you answer me this, why is that no rugby player puts on 20lbs of lean muscle in a year despite having a playing population in the millions and the most genetically gifted people (Pacific Islanders) playing it? Like I am not saying adding 20lbs of weight here, I am talking about 20lbs of LEAN muscle and onto an ALREADY muscular frame. The science being that the body doesn't keep adding muscle forever unless unnaturally induced to. Everyone reaches a peak where they can't grow anymore without steroids which is why, when I see an athlete who hovers at the same size for years and then, suddenly, in 12 months, double in size, I get suspicious. You honestly think its possible for a guy 6'3 or under to be 18 stone of LEAN muscle? that my friend is delusional.

You mean I am delusional because I took you up on some completely unsubstantiated claims where you haven't provided any evidence? Awesome.

I just really think you dont understand body science. In you're world people can become 250lbs+ of lean muscle (at an average height) through hard work and genetics. There is no evidence because it can't be disproven i.e can you disprove a 2 legged unicorn doesn't exist? Because frankly unless they can carry out tests on every human being in the world then they cant disprove anything. But look at the facts, WHY IS IT THAT NFL AND MMA ARE THE ONLY SPORTS IN THE WORLD WITH ATHLETES THAT SIZE? could it be, I dont know, because they are not as strictly tested as other sports?


Oh and lets not forget, dozens of fighters have already tested positive and very recently as well, so on the basis of facts how can you disagree with me saying that there are some fighters most definitely juicing?

seadnamac

TheTMO wrote: »

I read about it in early 2008 in an article in the guardian about steroid use in sports around the world.



Usually because either (1) Doctors lists come out (2) For whatever reason the steroids dont come out of the players system when predicted or (3) The club is disciplining the player a la Mutu at Chelsea



I quite clearly momentarily mixed up kilos with lbs, the theory is still the same. Can you answer me this, why is that no rugby player puts on 20lbs of lean muscle in a year despite having a playing population in the millions and the most genetically gifted people (Pacific Islanders) playing it? Like I am not saying adding 20lbs of weight here, I am talking about 20lbs of LEAN muscle and onto an ALREADY muscular frame. The science being that the body doesn't keep adding muscle forever unless unnaturally induced to. Everyone reaches a peak where they can't grow anymore without steroids which is why, when I see an athlete who hovers at the same size for years and then, suddenly, in 12 months, double in size, I get suspicious. You honestly think its possible for a guy 6'3 or under to be 18 stone of LEAN muscle? that my friend is delusional.



I just really think you dont understand body science. In you're world people can become 250lbs+ of lean muscle (at an average height) through hard work and genetics. There is no evidence because it can't be disproven i.e can you disprove a 2 legged unicorn doesn't exist? Because frankly unless they can carry out tests on every human being in the world then they cant disprove anything. But look at the facts, WHY IS IT THAT NFL AND MMA ARE THE ONLY SPORTS IN THE WORLD WITH ATHLETES THAT SIZE? could it be, I dont know, because they are not as strictly tested as other sports?


Oh and lets not forget, dozens of fighters have already tested positive and very recently as well, so on the basis of facts how can you disagree with me saying that there are some fighters most definitely juicing?

Listen you may be right and I never actually said that I don't believe that there are fighters juicing but if you're going to tell us all about how you know for sure that they are and state facts and impossibilities, then you should be able to provide some kind of a credible reference to back it up. And you haven't done that so I'm out.