The Jimbo Slice memorial thread, feat Nate Dogg - The new Off Topic thread

To me, the weightlifting house guy is just saying "yeah there's a problem, but what's your solution". Really just clickbait.

I don't think Clarence is claiming to have the solution in his video, he's merely highlighting how ridiculous the current situation is and how it clearly does not work.

Elite level sport is not a healthy pursuit, and athletes who care about winning are always going to find a way to take drugs. Until society accepts that as truth, I think there needs to be more videos like Clarence's one to educate people.

Cill94 wrote: »

To me, the weightlifting house guy is just saying "yeah there's a problem, but what's your solution". Really just clickbait.

I don't think Clarence is claiming to have the solution in his video, he's merely highlighting how ridiculous the current situation is and how it clearly does not work.

Elite level sport is not a healthy pursuit, and athletes who care about winning are always going to find a way to take drugs. Until society accepts that as truth, I think there needs to be more videos like Clarence's one to educate people.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of his video. He hasn't said he's offering a solution nor did he ask for solutions to be put forward.

He's just saying that he disagrees with Clarence that the removal of anti doping would improve the four key areas he outlined and that ultimately he disagrees that testing, as flawed as it is, is better than not testing.

It's a disagreement on points made by Clarence, who acknowledged them as good points. It's a good discussion to have; I disagree that it's a clickbait response.

DylanJM wrote: »

There was a lot more in there than just "what's your solution?". The way things currently stand with regards to the illegality of PED/steroids (in most countries) and the stigma surrounding them means that untested sport is a essentially pipedream. It would greatly impact general participation and essentially kill youth participation.

The main problem is greed and corruption rather than the testing. A properly implemented and well funded testing program can absolutely minimise (you will never squash it fully) the amount of doping that goes on. Testing methods are improving every year and many AAS are pretty much unusable due to how long their detection times now are. However widespread corruption and brown envelopes are constantly undermining this. The goal should be to crush the corruption not remove testing. The corruption will still be there and the corrupt people will find other avenues to fúck over other athletes in order to benefit their own.

Does the fact that it's unlikely to happen anytime soon make the point any less valid though? How else would things ever change if we didn't at least create the conversation?

I think killing youth participation is a big assumption. For one thing, the majority of kids participate in sports without ever going on to do it professionally. Big difference between recreational and professional and most people know this. Also, parents already allow kids to participate in sports like rugby and boxing, which we know for a fact can have serious effects on brain health. So I wouldn't assume that a parent wouldn't allow a child to play a sport as a child because of the dangers of pursuing it into adulthood.

I think corruption is only one part of the problem, which you're correct about us probably never being able to fully eradicate. The other part of the problem is holding athletes to a bizarre ethical standard. Sports aren't healthy, and yet we allow athletes to make that decision for themselves, in every domain except pharmaceuticals.

It's fine for a grown man to make the decision to make his living in a sport where he routinely runs into other men on a rugby pitch at car-crash forces. ..But we're not going to let him take steroids because it's bad for his health?

Cill94 wrote: »

Does the fact that it's unlikely to happen anytime soon make the point any less valid though? How else would things ever change if we didn't at least create the conversation?

I think killing youth participation is a big assumption. For one thing, the majority of kids participate in sports without ever going on to do it professionally. Big difference between recreational and professional and most people know this. Also, parents already allow kids to participate in sports like rugby and boxing, which we know for a fact can have serious effects on brain health. So I wouldn't assume that a parent wouldn't allow a child to play a sport as a child because of the dangers of pursuing it into adulthood.

I think corruption is only one part of the problem, which you're correct about us probably never being able to fully eradicate. The other part of the problem is holding athletes to a bizarre ethical standard. Sports aren't healthy, and yet we allow athletes to make that decision for themselves, in every domain except pharmaceuticals.

It's fine for a grown man to make the decision to make his living in a sport where he routinely runs into other men on a rugby pitch at car-crash forces. ..But we're not going to let him take steroids because it's bad for his health?

I'm not saying it's not a valid point I just don't think it's something that will ever realistically happen on a large scale in sports.

Unless there's going to be some regulation (brings us back to square one) then moving to untested sports will have a massive impact on both the youth and female sections of sport. Parents will not want their kids being exposed to AAS and likewise most women (I would guess) wouldn't be keen on exposing themselves to the risk of virilisation (look at female competitors in untested BB or PL).

I'm not anti PEDs btw. I just don't see moving to untested sports all round as a realistic option.

Cill94 wrote: »

I agree that I don’t think it will happen in our lifetimes at least.

There are women already using drugs outside of those sports and the drugs have advanced to the point where women can enhance performance with minimal virilisation. I believe Anavar is the PED of choice for bikini competitors, and they look pretty feminine. I’m sure female athletes in other sports are already availing of this.

The testing is what limits the virilisation currently, look at female olympic weightlifters from the early 2000-2012 compared to now. Big change but even now you still see some pretty obvious signs in some lifters.

In regards to bikini and female bodybuilding it mainly comes down to judging criteria for the divisions. Each division has a certain "look" and the drugs used and dosages are a reflection of that. Bikini doesn't require a whole lot of muscle so milder drugs and doses are used. In untested sports strength that wouldn't apply, people would take whatever is needed to win. I would wager female participation in the IPF is considerably greater than in untested feds and I believe the drug issue is a big part of that.

Mellor wrote: »

Haven’t got around to the videos yet. But interested in how it’s supposedly safer.

Anybody doping to dangerous level in spite of the rules, is not going to sudden start using PEDs responsibly because they are permitted.

People wouldn't be using drugs like Tren, it would all be regulated and what's available would be safe. That's the contention made.

I would disagree with that contention. There will still be people at a disadvantage with regard to the resources and support they have. Knowing their competitors will be doping, they're likely to consider pushing beyond what's healthy.

Just need some billionaire to come along and set up a new competition with big prize funds for winners/records and zero drug testing

Mellor wrote: »

I understand that some black market AAS may be dangerous due to a lack of quality control. (actual compound not match the label, dose not matching the label). But my understanding was that the real danger of AAS is by and large down to the dose.
If PEDs were fully legal. I fail to see any scenario where the average dose does not increase. Meaning more people will be overdosing.

my understanding would be this. Most steroids are made legit for legit human consumption so dose and irresponsible use would be the main cause of issues.

However Tren isn't. It's for livestock. :rolleyes

Cill94 wrote: »

I don't have an in-depth knowledge on anabolics but I've heard many an elite lifters state that most people overestimate what dosage is needed to optimise performance.

If that's the case then the benefits of legality would be more research and education around what is both the safest and most optimal dosages.

Another major problem is that the illegality and stigma has prevented conducting enough research to know the extent of how harmful these drugs actually are. As Clarence mentions in that video, there's a wide range of substances that could have very different health outcomes but similar performance ones.

Assuming all of those benefits come to pass, I still think the dosages start to increase. Not necessarily amongst the elite, but those chasing the elites. There are a lot of people without a whole lot of resources or support to be kept from straying beyond the boundary.

Dtp1979 wrote: »

I hear ya lads. It wasn’t that long ago I was downing 4g’s of creatine.

Creatine is so last year

Just had MyProtein powdered peanut butter for the first time, delish! Tastes just like the real thing.

Mr. CooL ICE wrote: »

I've seen memes/references to this online recently. Save me watching - is this guy advocating for drinking jizz for gainz?

If so, it reminds me about the time I tried making protein ice cream. I didn't research any recipes or anything. I just mixed some vanilla whey and a tin of coconut milk and froze it. Before freezing, it looked like jizz. Like, really, really looked like jizz. If you scooped some on a spoon and let it drip off, it, well you know. If you saw me with the big tub of this stuff after making it, you'd think I'd lost my mind, but probably admired my 'work ethic'.

That’s me done with ice cream. Thanks