# PEDs in the NBA



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

> Whistleblower: NBA, NCAA, and Tennis Players, and Boxers, Used PEDs
> 
> More than a dozen athletes who haven’t been exposed yet used performance enhancing drugs from the Biogenesis clinic, said Porter Discher, a former employee who directed investigators to MLB players that used them.
> 
> He told ESPN that the leagues include tennis, MMA, the NBA, college sports, and professional boxing. He doesn’t think it includes anybody from the NHL or NFL.


http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/204551-whistleblower-nba-ncaa-and-tennis-players-and-boxers-used-peds/

Here we go. Who's it gonna be??


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

LeBron


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

> Whistle-blower: Not only MLB players
> 
> The man who turned the Biogenesis clinic from a quiet investigation in Miami into a national scandal says there are at least a dozen more athletes whose names haven't been exposed and that they come from across the sports world.
> 
> ...


http://m.espn.go.com/general/story?storyId=9508288&src=desktop


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Bosch = c Bosh?


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Hard not to draw a link in your mind between the Miami clinic and Dwyane Wade's bulging cranium.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Hard not to draw a link in your mind between the Miami clinic and Dwyane Wade's bulging cranium.


Rashard Lewis is his teammate.


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

Really? No NFL players but you have tennis players? Wouldn't have thought that but ok.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

> @TJQuinnESPN
> Some perspective on Fischer's statement: if it's 12 names & 6 sports, not too many per sport. And no, LeBron is not one. No big names.


...


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

RollWithEm said:


> Rashard Lewis is his teammate.


Lewis should probably go back to juicing. He hasn't been worth a shit since they caught him


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

I brought up performance enhancing drugs in another thread not to long ago. I' said then, players were using some form of PEDS. Did you really think it was only all the athletes in the other sports on PEDS ? And in due time I'm sure it will all slowly leak out (NBA). Just like with MLB where it started with just a few names here and there. Remember when Jose Canseco wrote his tell all book ? And how people laughed at the notion the league was using PEDS. Now who looks foolish. 

You would think all these big name athletes getting busted and facing consequences internally or publically would make them rethink their choices. But I just don't see it happening. The NBA could potentially be embarking a very dark era.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Realizing pro sports players use PED's isn't some sort of brilliant foresight, its common sense.

I just hope some big name players fall. The NHL did this a few years back and slapped some nobody players around the league for using steroids and it was forgotten after the story was written. You need a big name guy or two or nobody will care.

"Reggie Evans leads list of 4 players using anabolic steroids!" AKA Who gives a ****.

Now "Dwyane Wade caught for using HGH, explaining his jaw tripling in size!" Now there we go. That's something people would care about.


----------



## EpicFailGuy (Mar 5, 2010)

R-Star said:


> Realizing pro sports players use PED's isn't some sort of brilliant foresight, its common sense.
> 
> I just hope some big name players fall. The NHL did this a few years back and slapped some nobody players around the league for using steroids and it was forgotten after the story was written. You need a big name guy or two or nobody will care.
> 
> ...


You nailed it. MLB is only getting somewhere with their process because it's not the Astros' 4th string catcher.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

El Shaqtus said:


> You nailed it. MLB is only getting somewhere with their process because it's not the Astros' 4th string catcher.


Baseball is dead.


Also, testing technology will never outpace the development of new PEDs.


----------



## EpicFailGuy (Mar 5, 2010)

Baseball has found many creative ways to shoot themselves in the foot.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Baseball is dead.
> 
> 
> Also, testing technology will never outpace the development of new PEDs.


New PED's maybe. But its not as though these guys are taking brand new shit every year. Once the next big juice cocktail for the rich comes out, these guys seem to stick to it.

Testing just isn't all that encompassing to begin with. Hard to catch anyone when you're going out of your way to do a piss poor job of testing people on a regular basis.


----------



## EpicFailGuy (Mar 5, 2010)

Especially when the "random" tests aren't random at all.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

El Shaqtus said:


> Especially when the "random" tests aren't random at all.


I think random stands for testing skinny nobody players that you're 99% sure are clean.


Guys in wrestling blew the whistle on random tests over a decade ago. They're a joke. I mean I know its wrestling, but I doubt the standards are much different.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Baseball has been tainted by the scandals and their league has suffered tremendously for it. The NBA and NFL will not make the same mistake. They may implement stricter drug testing for the future, but they won't have the retroactive hunt like they had in the MLB. 

My guess would be that they will announce strict rules "coming up" and allow any players on it enough time to cycle out.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Baseball is not dead, it's jut not a TV sport. Average attendance for MLB games is almost twice as high as NBA games, and they play twice as many games.

MLB will always do well because people like to be outside in the summertime.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Baseball is in great financial shape from all that I can tell. The thing with the steroids that upsets people is the way they distort the history of the game. Kareem's scoring record isn't that big of a deal in the NBA for example, but in baseball the numbers have a special meaning. The game has been a huge part of American culture since the 1870's and beyond, and the numbers on the backs of the trading cards are important in a way that isn't relevant to other sports.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

We'll put an asterisk next to Barry Bonds' name, sure, as soon as we put one next to Babe Ruth's name. Getting to break records before black people were allowed to play? Excuse me, where is that asterisk? 

"I think pro-athletes should be forced to use steroids. I think we as fans deserve the greatest athletes science can create! Lets go! Anything that will make you run faster, jump higher! I have High-Definition TV! I want my athletes like my video games! Lets go! I could care less if you die at 40. You hate life after sports anyways. I'm doing you a favor."


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

I agree with Daniel Tosh ^


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Lebron isn't one, He was born a freak...Also he just played in the Olympics etc. 

Wouldn't be surprised with Jameer Nelson, Nate Robinson etc and some other shorter bulkier players did as well.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

doctordrizzay said:


> Lebron isn't one, He was born a freak...Also he just played in the Olympics etc.
> 
> Wouldn't be surprised with Jameer Nelson, Nate Robinson etc and some other shorter bulkier players did as well.


LeBron has gained very very considerable size since his early days. Either way I don't give a shit espeically if they're using HGH because that shit is actually good for you in the longrun


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> Also, testing technology will never outpace the development of new PEDs.


Well the baseball power numbers bear out the fact that the new testing protocols have been pretty effective at weeding it out. I won't bother contesting the Chris Davis' transformation from a below average power hitter to an historically great one is likely chemically fueled. And it's pretty obvious that Robbie Cano's overnight transformation from a stringbean into an NFL fullback is also very likely chemically powered. But it's pretty obvious that PED usage just isn't as pervasive as it was 6-8 years ago.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

E.H. Munro said:


> Well the baseball power numbers bear out the fact that the new testing protocols have been pretty effective at weeding it out. I won't bother contesting the Chris Davis' transformation from a below average power hitter to an historically great one is likely chemically fueled. And it's pretty obvious that Robbie Cano's overnight transformation from a stringbean into an NFL fullback is also very likely chemically powered. But it's pretty obvious that PED usage just isn't as pervasive as it was 6-8 years ago.


HGH is still very prevelant though


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

*O LOOK AS SOON AS I SAY THAT HERE COMES AN ADRIAN PETERSON INTERVIEW ON FRONT PAGE OF ESPN TODAY*


http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9...n-minnesota-vikings-certain-players-using-hgh


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Peterson acknowledged social media speculation that he used the drug to aid his recovery last year from knee surgery and said he is eager to prove he is clean.

"You've got HGH, something that doesn't show up on a test, and you've got guys out there trying to provide for their families," Peterson said. "They're going to try to get that edge, get that advantage, especially if they're not worried about trying to get caught. Yeah, it's being used."

Peterson said he heard from plenty of people on Twitter who were convinced his MVP performance last season -- which began less than nine months after major knee surgery -- was aided by HGH or another performance-enhancing drug. He specifically noted having seen the Twitter handle @HGHPeterson.

"[Testing] will bring a lot of people to light," Peterson said. "It'll clear a lot of people, on the outside, their curiosity when it comes to different players. So I'm all-in for it. I don't worry about those types of supplements, using those, because I'm all natural.

"I work hard. This right here, it's a test for me personally that I know that, 'Hey, I'm clean as a whistle,' and other guys as well. And then, like I say, it'll bring some guys to the forefront and be like, 'Hey, I guess this is how this guy's been performing so well.'"


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Quick google search and LeBron James name gets connected to PEDS. Not surprised. 

*LeBron James Steroids? Miami Heat Star Implicated In PED Scandal By Former Anthony Bosch Employee *

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3027822/posts


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

LeGoat06 said:


> HGH is still very prevelant though


Yeah, but that's more placebo effect than anything else. Again, if it's enhancing performance it's doing a shit job as the power numbers have collapsed since the new testing regimens were implemented.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

E.H. Munro said:


> Yeah, but that's more placebo effect than anything else. Again, if it's enhancing performance it's doing a shit job as the power numbers have collapsed since the new testing regimens were implemented.


HGH and PEDS have a lot more to do then actual statistical numbers. It gives guys an advantage to stay healthy, and to recover from injuries. Thats a huge advantage. Being able to play versus sitting on the sidelines in a suit alone is a major advantage guys taking PEDS have over guys that are not.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

We're discussing two different things, some athletes use HGH because they think it makes them heal faster, but as much of that recovery is due to the placebo effect as anything else (because in actual scientific testing the effect isn't all that dramatic). 

When we're discussing PEDs we're discussing all the excess testosterone that actually enhances performance and the estrogen masking agents to hide the unnatural testosterone levels from all the standard screens. Manny Ramirez, for example, got busted taking a female fertility drug, whose only possible use for a guy is hiding excess testosterone from screens that evaluate the ratio of testosterone/estrogen.

But, again, if PED usage in baseball were as pervasive now as it was 6-8 years ago the power numbers would be higher. They've seen a 15% drop since the heyday of the juice era. And the new normal for power is much lower now than then.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

23AJ said:


> Quick google search and LeBron James name gets connected to PEDS. Not surprised.
> 
> *LeBron James Steroids? Miami Heat Star Implicated In PED Scandal By Former Anthony Bosch Employee *
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3027822/posts


If you read the tweet above from an ESPN report (more reputable than freerepublic.com) you'd notice that LeBron is not one of the players on the list. You'd also know that he was in the Olympics recently, which has much more stringent testing than the NBA.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hibachi! said:


> If you read the tweet above from an ESPN report (more reputable than freerepublic.com) you'd notice that LeBron is not one of the players on the list. You'd also know that he was in the Olympics recently, which has much more stringent testing than the NBA.


You have to have some sympathy for 23AJ. He can't pretend to be serious while attributing the Heat's success to Dwyane Wade so he's gone back on the LBJ attack.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Everyone who was on the Olympic team is probably above suspicion for a very simple reason. If you were dirty you would not subject yourself to the type of testing regime that they use in the Olympics, and those guys never forget or forgive. They keep those samples and if someone comes up with a better way to test, they'll run the test again and then punish you for thinking you could outsmart them.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> We're discussing two different things, some athletes use HGH because they think it makes them heal faster, but as much of that recovery is due to the placebo effect as anything else (because in actual scientific testing the effect isn't all that dramatic).
> 
> When we're discussing PEDs we're discussing all the excess testosterone that actually enhances performance and the estrogen masking agents to hide the unnatural testosterone levels from all the standard screens. Manny Ramirez, for example, got busted taking a female fertility drug, whose only possible use for a guy is hiding excess testosterone from screens that evaluate the ratio of testosterone/estrogen.
> 
> But, again, if PED usage in baseball were as pervasive now as it was 6-8 years ago the power numbers would be higher. They've seen a 15% drop since the heyday of the juice era. And the new normal for power is much lower now than then.


HGH doesn't help an athlete heal faster? 

You have no idea what you're talking about EH.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I guess the doctors that wrote this are stupid too? If only they had R-star's training in running an oil drill they would be qualified to do medical research



> Claims that growth hormone enhances physical performance are not supported by the scientific literature. Although the limited available evidence suggests that growth hormone increases lean body mass, it may not improve strength; in addition, it may worsen exercise capacity and increase adverse events. More research is needed to conclusively determine the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance. ...
> 
> Although growth hormone is reportedly used to enhance athletic performance and has been called the “most anabolic substance known” (15), its efficacy for this purpose is not well established. Some have suggested that growth hormone is a “wonder drug” (16) that results in “ripped muscle” (17) and provides “stamina-increasing properties” (18). Exogenous growth hormone therapy in growth hormone–deficient adults (that is, those with growth hormone deficiency due to hypothalamic or pituitary defects) results in increased lean mass and decreased fat mass (19), and comparable body composition changes are seen in healthy elderly adults who receive growth hormone (20). Some experts, however, have suggested that the strength-enhancing properties of growth hormone among healthy adults have been exaggerated (15). Serious side effects, including diabetes, hepatitis, and acute renal failure, may occur in athletes using high-dose growth hormone.


Unlike you I actually do read on occasion.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> I guess the doctors that wrote this are stupid too? If only they had R-star's training in running an oil drill they would be qualified to do medical research
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I actually do read on occasion.


Ahhh, a random quote.


Shut down the thread everyone. EH posted an random quote.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Not to mention, the only thing your article says is "some doctors speculate the results of taking HGH are exaggerated"

A far cry from you saying its a placebo. Be hey, lets just keep ****ing around and doing the typical EH. He knows everything. Anyone who disagrees is an idiot. Hey look, he posted a vague article that actually agrees with me more than with him. Oh well, lets just pretend it completely proves his point.


Good one with the whole oil drill line EH. Really zinged me there...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Ahhh, a random quote.
> 
> 
> Shut down the thread everyone. EH posted an random quote.


No, what I posted was a link to the abstract of an actual medical research report on all the available HGH studies. Which do, in fact, show that HGH's real world effect isn't terribly dramatic. It's biggest impact is indeed likely the placebo effect (because the research in _that_ area shows that the expectations actually can lead to improved condition if the person taking the placebo really believes that it's helping them).


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> No, what I posted was a link to the abstract of an actual medical research report on all the available HGH studies. Which do, in fact, show that HGH's real world effect isn't terribly dramatic. It's biggest impact is indeed likely the placebo effect (because the research in _that_ area shows that the expectations actually can lead to improved condition if the person taking the placebo really believes that it's helping them).


Yea..... the quote doesn't show that at all EH.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Not to mention, the only thing your article says is "some doctors speculate the results of taking HGH are exaggerated"
> 
> A far cry from you saying its a placebo. Be hey, lets just keep ****ing around and doing the typical EH. He knows everything. Anyone who disagrees is an idiot. Hey look, he posted a vague article that actually agrees with me more than with him. Oh well, lets just pretend it completely proves his point.


Actually, R-Star, I'm not the one pretending that he knows more about medical science than actual medical researchers. That would be you. We went through the last time the subject came up and I linked you to a bunch of medical studies, which if memory serves you rejected then too because you knew better than the doctors studying the subject.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Yea..... the quote doesn't show that at all EH.


I'm sorry that you can't read.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Although the limited available evidence suggests that growth hormone increases lean body mass, it may not improve strength; in addition, it may worsen exercise capacity and increase adverse events. More research is needed to conclusively determine the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance. ...

Some experts, however, have suggested that the strength-enhancing properties of growth hormone among healthy adults have been exaggerated*

Bolded are the only two sections that give anything close to your opinion. And even there the best it comes up with is "suggested results are exaggerated" (opinion), and "may not improve strength, more research is required".


What reading problems am I having here? Or is it you just talking out of your ass again?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

E.H. Munro: Some athletes use HGH because they think it makes them heal faster, but as much of that recovery is due to the placebo effect as anything else (because in actual scientific testing the effect isn't all that dramatic). 

R-Star: U HAV NO IDEA WUT UR TALKING ABOUT, I M R-STAR, THE WORLD'S SMARTIST GUY!!!!

Now, since you're disagreeing with my reading of the scientific literature, you are either claiming that the scientific literature says that there's no effect at all or that the scientific literature shows that there's a dramatic effect and that hGH turns people into supermen. And I would disagree with both statements because that's clearly not what the available literature says.

Having read the available literature not even hGH's most vigourous proponents claim the latter. They do extoll the benefits for the elderly, whose bodies generally produce very little of the hormones naturally. But we're not discussing those people here. We're discussing athletes whose bodies obviously produce a hell of a lot more of it than people like us do. And the Danish study they reference illustrates that at super-increased levels it actually hindered performance in cyclists. So, again, according to the doctors that study it, the effects just aren't that dramatic
.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> R-Star: U HAV NO IDEA WUT UR TALKING ABOUT, I M R-STAR, THE WORLD'S SMARTIST GUY!!!!
> 
> .


IM RSTAR! KING OF THE INTERWEBZ!


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> E.H. Munro: Some athletes use HGH because they think it makes them heal faster, but as much of that recovery is due to the placebo effect as anything else (because in actual scientific testing the effect isn't all that dramatic).
> 
> R-Star: U HAV NO IDEA WUT UR TALKING ABOUT, I M R-STAR, THE WORLD'S SMARTIST GUY!!!!
> 
> ...


:laugh:

So I _have_ to either be saying that vague article says HGH either works 100% or doesn't work at all? That is the stance I _have_ to take if I disagree with your placebo argument?


Get ****ing real old man. Your world of delusion is quite pathetic. Do you honestly think anyone's saying "Yea, that's right. EH is right! HGH is a placebo, that extremely vague article proves it."


Not to mention, trying the "I M R-STAR, THE WORLD'S SMARTIST GUY!!!!" take is hilariously ironic at this point since you EH are the one who runs into every debate posting shit like "I know you think ice cream is cold, but a study done in Saudi Arabia proves that ice cream is actually the warmest substance on earth." or "A book I found from 1897 proves without question that basketball was actually created in ancient Chinese culture thousands of years ago!"

I mean honestly, I like to argue, but you of all people trying to label me as the sites know it all is priceless. 


Hey look, I took your bait. That means we don't have to talk about the fact your article doesn't support your placebo claims at all, right? You got me again EH.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> :laugh:
> 
> So I _have_ to either be saying that vague article says HGH either works 100% or doesn't work at all?


I don't even know what you mean by "hGH works 100%" and I doubt you do either. The scientific research establishes that it's mildly beneficial, especially to the elderly who just don't produce much naturally. If you're disagreeing with that conclusion you either believe that the impact is more dramatic or non-existent. Personally I'm going with the science here. They probably know a little more about this than either of us.

Of course, we all know that what's really going on is that you're on the rag again and running around the site looking for a fight. I could have stated that fire engines were generally red and you still would have rushed in to declare me a moron. Cinco de Mayo was right about you.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> I don't even know what you mean by "hGH works 100%" and I doubt you do either. The scientific research establishes that it's mildly beneficial, especially to the elderly who just don't produce much naturally. If you're disagreeing with that conclusion you either believe that the impact is more dramatic or non-existent. Personally I'm going with the science here. They probably know a little more about this than either of us.
> 
> Of course, we all know that what's really going on is that you're on the rag again and running around the site looking for a fight. I could have stated that fire engines were generally red and you still would have rushed in to declare me a moron. Cinco de Mayo was right about you.


See, the problem here is the article you posted doesn't support that claim at all, now does it?

And when I point that out with excepts from said article, you quit talking about it and start trying to change the subject.

Do you think anyone is having trouble seeing that?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Neither the abstract nor any of the linked studies show anything like a dramatic impact on athletic performance as a result of hGH. So what scientific evidence are you basing your assertion on? I keep asking you for the evidence here but you keep trying to distract people with your lame attempts to pick a fight.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Neither the abstract nor any of the linked studies show anything like a dramatic impact on athletic performance as a result of hGH. So what scientific evidence are you basing your assertion on?


Personal experience? The widespread use of HGH in pro sports?

Hey, I know. Maybe pro athletes are all being duped into taking a drug that's really a placebo. 


The common knowledge on HGH is that it increases muscle growth, lowers body fat, and has been linked to increasing healing times and rejuvenating older men. 

You posting an article that's best shots are:

*Although the limited available evidence suggests that growth hormone increases lean body mass, it may not improve strength; in addition, it may worsen exercise capacity and increase adverse events. More research is needed to conclusively determine the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance. ...

Some experts, however, have suggested that the strength-enhancing properties of growth hormone among healthy adults have been exaggerated*

really doesn't help disprove anything. In fact if you read the best they can come up with is "it may not' or "some experts suggest".

I'm surprised you didn't post this part of the article:

*Limitations: Few studies evaluated athletic performance. Growth hormone protocols in the studies may not reflect real-world doses and regimens.*


See, what I'm doing here is stating my opinion. You on the other hand are doing a "I'm right! Anyone who disagrees is WRONG! You know why? This extremely vague article!" as per usual. 

EH, the only guy on the forum who's never been wrong. 



EH Munroe said:


> Actually Drunk-Star, king oF tHe InteRweBZ, I once said I thought Jerryd Bayless would be a star and he didn't turn out to be, and I admitted being off on that, which proves I always admit when I'm wrong.


Oh ok. Sorry.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Personal experience? The widespread use of HGH in pro sports?


That would be anecdotal evidence.



R-Star said:


> Hey, I know. Maybe pro athletes are all being duped into taking a drug that's really a placebo.


Which is, oddly enough, not what I said.



R-Star said:


> The common knowledge on HGH is that it increases muscle growth, lowers body fat, and has been linked to increasing healing times and rejuvenating older men.


As the literature says, especially in older people whose bodies no longer produce it in sufficient amounts. But we aren't discussing 60 year olds. The Danish study they reference established that at a certain point excess hGH decreases athletic performance. The other well-established side effects demonstrated from scientific studies include edema and joint pain. Yeah, nothing helps athletic performance like fluid retention and swollen knees.



R-Star said:


> EH, the only guy on the forum who's never been wrong.


Ironically enough, unlike you, I actually do admit when I'm wrong. You, on the other hand, just get more belligerent and insulting hoping to distract people with a fight. Sorry, R-Star. Not biting. If you want an argument go fight with your wife.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> That would be anecdotal evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, you skipped the majority of my post and still refuse to acknowledge the article you posted didn't support your claim. That's cute. 

Its nice you mention athletic performance after I posted


Learn how to read said:


> Limitations: Few studies evaluated athletic performance. Growth hormone protocols in the studies may not reflect real-world doses and regimens.



I admit I'm wrong all the time EH. I'm an opinionated man, so it happens quite often. You on the other hand have come up with one time being wrong about 1 prospect as if that's some sort of golden moment that shows how you always admit when you're incorrect. Its ****ing hilarious how out of touch you are.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

EH do a little more research on TRT (Testosterone replacement therapy) and the effects its having on the MMA sports world. I think your opinion will change about this being a placebo effect.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

El Shaqtus said:


> You nailed it. MLB is only getting somewhere with their process because it's not the Astros' 4th string catcher.


Wrong baseball process is bull****. It's happening from within. The players have gained huge contracts for putting up huge numbers, and at the same time crippling integrity of baseball while doing it. Hence the reason why their HOF will be questioned because of the PED's that has been in baseball for years.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

E.H. Munro said:


> Neither the abstract nor any of the linked studies show anything like a dramatic impact on athletic performance as a result of hGH. So what scientific evidence are you basing your assertion on? I keep asking you for the evidence here but you keep trying to distract people with your lame attempts to pick a fight.


You don't think HGH has a dramatic impact on athletic performance? Wow. So.. you have a hormone that is going full blast when we're all 18, by age 35, it's dramatically decreased.. and I'm supposed to believe that the difference between Michael Jordan's athleticism.. and the athleticism of gee... I don't know.. EVERYONE ELSE who hasn't been accused of HGH injecting (Bonds, others) DECREASES, and yet.. it's just a coincidence. 

I know a doctor.. Dr. Scott is how I know him... this guy has to be about 60. In 1996 he was this gangly, swell, smiley MD who everyone thought of as the nice guy at the gym. Then I saw him in 2006. He told me he was on HGH. He added about 25 lbs., but it was solid rip, he was completely cut in the abs... 8-pack... and.. the MFer probably does cardio about 75 minutes straight when he feels like it.. and not coasting either. Now, any time you want to come to Matteson, IL... I'll bring you right to him and have you talk to about 100 people who will tell you what he used to look like. The only point is, I've seen it first hand.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> You don't think HGH has a dramatic impact on athletic performance? Wow. So.. you have a hormone that is going full blast when we're all 18, by age 35, it's dramatically decreased.. and I'm supposed to believe that the difference between Michael Jordan's athleticism.. and the athleticism of gee... I don't know.. EVERYONE ELSE who hasn't been accused of HGH injecting (Bonds, others) DECREASES, and yet.. it's just a coincidence.
> 
> I know a doctor.. Dr. Scott is how I know him... this guy has to be about 60. In 1996 he was this gangly, swell, smiley MD who everyone thought of as the nice guy at the gym. Then I saw him in 2006. He told me he was on HGH. He added about 25 lbs., but it was solid rip, he was completely cut in the abs... 8-pack... and.. the MFer probably does cardio about 75 minutes straight when he feels like it.. and not coasting either. Now, any time you want to come to Matteson, IL... I'll bring you right to him and have you talk to about 100 people who will tell you what he used to look like. The only point is, I've seen it first hand.


EH's stance was on younger guys, not 60 year olds, but I agree with you.

The only argument against HGH being a wonder drug in this thread has been a very flimsy article that doesn't even really detract from anything people have said about the benefits of HGH.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I don't think the return for taking PEDs is worth the risk for NBA players. Not saying that the league is completely clean but I would be surprised if the usage is as common as other sports. The same can be said for the league since the unfair advantage that PEDs produce isn't worth the damage that the league might sustain if one of its star players gets busted for PEDs. Therefore I don't see the NBA ever pursue a deep investigation into this issue. The league is fine as it is and theres no reason to stir things up.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> I don't think the return for taking PEDs is worth the risk for NBA players. Not saying that the league is completely clean but I would be surprised if the usage is as common as other sports. The same can be said for the league since the unfair advantage that PEDs produce isn't worth the damage that the league might sustain if one of its star players gets busted for PEDs. Therefore I don't see the NBA ever pursue a deep investigation into this issue. The league is fine as it is and theres no reason to stir things up.


I agree the league won't put much effort in. At least I doubt they will.

But the idea that PED aren't worth the risk to NBA players, insinuating somehow that it makes more sense for other leagues (NFL, MLB) but not the NBA, I disagree with. Some people see the word PED's and immediately think brute strength gains and picture body builders and juiced up muscle heads. 

Stamina, recovery rates, lean muscle mass. That's the new age of PED's if you have the money.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> I don't think the return for taking PEDs is worth the risk for NBA players. Not saying that the league is completely clean but I would be surprised if the usage is as common as other sports. The same can be said for the league since the unfair advantage that PEDs produce isn't worth the damage that the league might sustain if one of its star players gets busted for PEDs. Therefore I don't see the NBA ever pursue a deep investigation into this issue. The league is fine as it is and theres no reason to stir things up.


Really ? I think that's a really glass half full out look. And I don't believe thats the answer. 

What we know is that there is a list of players. Who do play in the NBA along with other sports such as (MLB,Tennis,MMA,Boxing,NCAA) etc 

WE have to wait and see who the names are on this list. To make a fair assessment of whos doing what with this one situation. The whistle blower has already come out and, said there has been hundreds of athletes who used this clinic down in Miami Florida FOR PEDS. 

The guy is locked inside of a house, blinds closed, carrying a gun every where he goes, has no friends, because of the information that has been leaked, and is still going to be leaked. Documents on this situation were stolen out of his vehicle by someone breaking into his car. 

I have a feeling things are much worse then we even realize. 

And as far as the folks posting about no basketball players who were in the olympics would try and do this. I find that foolish. MMA fighters for example are probably the most tested athletes in the United States, they're tested by the government. And these guys have been busted before. Nothing will stop a person trying to get a competitive edge it seems.

Also this stuff seems to have been nearly undetectable it was really good. So will see .. I have linked an article from CBS sports that talks about everything I've posted. 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/07...linics-client-list-included-nba-ncaa-players/


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

What I'm saying is there isn't enough public demand for catching NBA players with PEDs. For a sport to make changes there has to be a demand for change. Hockey/football changed their policies in regards to concussions because their retired players were killing themselves. Baseball made changes because guys were hitting 60-70 homeruns and throwing 90+ into their 40s. In all those sports there has to be some anomaly to the sport that is reducing its value for the sport to do something about it. Right now there isn't enough evidence to suggest that successful NBA players relied on PEDs for their success. I'm not saying that that's not possible, it's just that we are very far away from coming to that conclusion. Before we do that, the league isn't going to start an investigation for the sake of busting its own players and ruining their careers.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> What I'm saying is there isn't enough public demand for catching NBA players with PEDs. For a sport to make changes there has to be a demand for change. Hockey/football changed their policies in regards to concussions because their retired players were killing themselves. Baseball made changes because guys were hitting 60-70 homeruns and throwing 90+ into their 40s. In all those sports there has to be some anomaly to the sport that is reducing its value for the sport to do something about it. Right now there isn't enough evidence to suggest that successful NBA players relied on PEDs for their success. I'm not saying that that's not possible, it's just that we are very far away from coming to that conclusion. Before we do that, the league isn't going to start an investigation for the sake of busting its own players and ruining their careers.


A couple things. You're focusing on stats and concussions. Both of which have little to do with the NBA, in comparison to the MLB/NFL. I agree that if the names (NBA Players) on the list are lower tier guys, this will probably get brushed under the table.

That being said NBA players would be using PEDS for strength , training advantage, and injury recovery, along with other effects to help their performance and coincide with more productivity on the court. 

If what you're saying also comes to be true. The NBA will either be on the wrong, or right side of history, when the final jury on PEDS in sports is inked in concrete if its something will ever accept as a society or always consider it cheating. 

IMO if they opened up the flood gates to PEDS, we have to divide the time line. A time before PEDS and Technology and medical enhancements were at the point they are now versus say 20 years ago. Not only is PEDS a moral debate it's also a debate in regards to advantage and that makes it hard to compare/contrast players of decades before, and to come after. Because as great as PEDS are in 2013, imagine what they will be like 2050 and the super talented natural born athletes that get to use them how it will help their performance. 

So I stand on the line of keeping PEDS out as much as possible. And leaving it to what most consider healthy supplements, diets, training, and advancement through hard earned diligence and legal attributions. 

I may be wrong, but I feel once this list is released, all the names are outed, and the hundred or so other athletes that could potentially be linked to this clinic may not destroy an era of athletes and leagues so to speak, but it will leave us all with a whole different perspective about the players we came to admire.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

23AJ said:


> A couple things. You're focusing on stats and concussions. Both of which have little to do with the NBA, in comparison to the MLB/NFL. I agree that if the names (NBA Players) on the list are lower tier guys, this will probably get brushed under the table.


I think you completely missed my point on this one. The focus here is change. MLB/NFL made changes to their league policies because PED/concussions have made a detrimental impact to their league value. PED's effect to the NBA thus far have been minimal, and that's why I believe that the league would just let it be as long as it stays that way. It's the same thing for soccer. FIFA isn't going destroy the image of its players just because they want to be on the "right side of history in the fight against PEDs." There needs to be a public demand for the league to do something first for them to do anything.


----------



## xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxdaddykb (Jun 17, 2012)

I've thought for a long time LeBron took SOMETHING, look at him in high school then again less than one year later. No one grows like that naturally.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Lebron has been participating in International competitions since 2001 I think. They test rigorously in International ball too. He was in Athens at the age of 19. Maybe he was smart enough to dope and get away with it, but it seems more likely that he is just a freakish athlete since he hasn't been caught and since he was willing to risk getting caught in all of those competitions. Honestly he's not exactly that peculiar historically. There have been a lot of great athletes. Ricky Davis is probably about as athletic as Lebron, but Lebron has skills and Ricky Davis is probably not smarter than a fifth grader.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> Lebron has been participating in International competitions since 2001 I think. They test rigorously in International ball too. He was in Athens at the age of 19. Maybe he was smart enough to dope and get away with it, but it seems more likely that he is just a freakish athlete since he hasn't been caught and since he was willing to risk getting caught in all of those competitions. Honestly he's not exactly that peculiar historically. There have been a lot of great athletes. Ricky Davis is probably about as athletic as Lebron, but Lebron has skills and Ricky Davis is probably not smarter than a fifth grader.


Ricky Davis? No one has ever combined the size, quickness, and pure strength of Lebron. Hes like something out of a nightmare. 

I used to think Artest was a freak body wise, then Lebron came in and ended up bigger, stronger, and quite a bit faster than Artest ever was.

Ricky Davis isn't a guy I'd compare him to. Maybe athletic wise, but size and strength? I don't see it.

HGH has been out since before Bron was in the league, and as far as I know you still can't really test for it. If you look, Lebron's skyrocketed since he was drafted body wise. You expect a guy to grow, and a freak like Lebron to grow even more, but his gains have been ridiculous. Plus if you look when his headband is off, his head looks all weird now. There's bones jutting out at the side of his head. Weird bone growth is a distinct trademark of HGH, although its usually the caveman brow that is the telltale, or your jaw tripling in size like Wade.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Steroids make your head grow. I don't know of any evidence that HGH does.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Look it up brah.

HGH and bone growth/calcification is something its known for. 

https://www.google.ca/search?q=HGH+...lla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Diable said:


> Lebron has been participating in International competitions since 2001 I think. They test rigorously in International ball too. He was in Athens at the age of 19. Maybe he was smart enough to dope and get away with it, but it seems more likely that he is just a freakish athlete since he hasn't been caught and since he was willing to risk getting caught in all of those competitions. Honestly he's not exactly that peculiar historically. There have been a lot of great athletes. Ricky Davis is probably about as athletic as Lebron, but Lebron has skills and Ricky Davis is probably not smarter than a fifth grader.


Testing, get the **** out of here with this nonsense. Have you ever heard of cycling ?? MMA fighters are tested a lot more by the athletic commission for their fights then any NBA player has ever been tested. These guys are getting leveled hard right now by the mma media and etc for cycling on and off of TRT and other PEDS before testing.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Interesting i keep seeing more rumor buzz about LeBron James and Jameer Nelson being a few of the NBA players that are part of the Biogenesis PEDS scandal.


http://www.sportsgrid.com/nba/lebron-james-steroids-peds-ryan-braun-alex-rodriguez/


----------



## dreamwarrior (Jul 1, 2013)

How devastating would it be to the NBA if it was Lebron?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

dreamwarrior said:


> How devastating would it be to the NBA if it was Lebron?


Very, the rumor mill right now is that everyone that works from ESPN is trying to actually cover up any link of LeBron to this scandal. And people are pointing to his announcement of not playing in the olympics etc is because of this. Obviously its' all just rumors. However if this woman is telling the truth, Bron and Nelson were at this clinic. And this guy reporting it has apparently broken a lot of stories the big guys don't break for whatever reasons.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I honestly would not give two shits if Lebron or anyone else did steroids.

I personally see it as an enhancement to the game, like new age sneakers versus chuck taylors.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> I honestly would not give two shits if Lebron or anyone else did steroids.
> 
> I personally see it as an enhancement to the game, like new age sneakers versus chuck taylors.


But if you do that it ruins the historical reverence we give sports. Can't compare past generations of players, eras etc to the 2013 athlete because the guys in the 1980s didn't have a Biogenesis clinic to help their god given natural talents to become even more exceptional athletes. And I'm sure the 2013 PEDS won't hold a candle to the 2050 PEDS and etc etc 

I'm on the side of the fence that PEDS etc should all be banned. 

However if the NBA doesn't test for it, guys are going to take advantage of the loop hole. Hell professional athletes try and get away with it in sports like Boxing, MMA, and MLB for example where they do testing for PEDS!


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

77AJ said:


> But if you do that it ruins the historical reverence we give sports. Can't compare past generations of players, eras etc to the 2013 athlete because the guys in the 1980s didn't have a Biogenesis clinic to help their god given natural talents to become even more exceptional athletes. And I'm sure the 2013 PEDS won't hold a candle to the 2050 PEDS and etc etc
> 
> I'm on the side of the fence that PEDS etc should all be banned.
> 
> However if the NBA doesn't test for it, guys are going to take advantage of the loop hole. Hell professional athletes try and get away with it in sports like Boxing, MMA, and MLB for example where they do testing for PEDS!


Again I don't give a shit. There was a guy in the history forum in the draft you quit arguing that Mikan's dominance shouldn't be as praised because the key was narrow and there was no shot clock. 

I would rather be entertained for the moment then wondering if it tarnishes the comparisons to greats of the past.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Again I don't give a shit. There was a *guy *in the history forum in the draft you quit arguing that Mikan's dominance shouldn't be as praised because the key was narrow and there was no shot clock.
> 
> I would rather be entertained for the moment then wondering if it tarnishes the comparisons to greats of the past.


As long as we're talking about dominance, that guy is probably the greatest poster on this Web site.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

77AJ said:


> EH do a little more research on TRT (Testosterone replacement therapy) and the effects its having on the MMA sports world. I think your opinion will change about this being a placebo effect.


Oh, no, testosterone is the life blood of athletic performance. We aren't discussing that, though. And players don't use hGH for the testosterone, there are far better ways of boosting that.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hoodey said:


> You don't think HGH has a dramatic impact on athletic performance? Wow. So.. you have a hormone that is going full blast when we're all 18, by age 35, it's dramatically decreased.. and I'm supposed to believe that the difference between Michael Jordan's athleticism.. and the athleticism of gee... I don't know.. EVERYONE ELSE who hasn't been accused of HGH injecting (Bonds, others) DECREASES, and yet.. it's just a coincidence.


Barry Bonds (and Clemens for that matter) were using more testosterone boosting agents than anyone this side of the professional bodybuilding circuit. That was the performance booster, testosterone, whose natural production also decreases with age. Manny Ramirez, for example, wasn't taking massive amounts of a female fertility drug to cover up his hGH usage (in fact, as far as I know he never touched the stuff). _However_, all that estrogen hid his unnatural testosterone levels from the then standard tests (which measured the ratio of T/E)


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

EH the first step is denial. 

Athletes are using PEDS in every single high competitive sport league from professional to collegiate, all the way down to High School sports. 

These PEDS are not legal, and are being used to get a competitive edge over the athletes that are not using PEDS and playing by the rules that have been established. 

Your arguments are futile at best, and come off as if you're in denial. The studies you've pointed to are hardly influential and law. In fact just read a few interviews done with Victor Conte. He would laugh at your arguments about testing via the olympics, boxing commissions etc THE PED game is always going to be ahead of testing, and athletes are always going to cheat. Even your beloved NBA players.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

wade is definitely on PEDs, he's got that unnatural head and neck growth like barry bonds


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

JerryWest said:


> wade is definitely on PEDs, he's got that unnatural head and neck growth like barry bonds


There is an interview done by a big sports story breaker incarerated bob where he interviewed a lady who was a personal assistant of the Miami Clinic. She is on record that Jameer Nelson went in there, and that the initials L.J. (LeBron James) and J.N. (Jameer Nelson) were on several files she saw. And she was asked directly by Anthony Bosch to delete all files with those initials. Also apparently from her interview. She said the person paying for the L.J. client was a Mr. Paul. Who many suspect could be Rich Paul .. If you don't know who he is, he's been running with Bron since high school. Here is link to his profile ..

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8...n-james-close-friends-now-agent-espn-magazine

Also a Link to the interview and investigation that was done by incarerated bob with the assistant from the Florida biogenesis clinic.

http://ibnsportswrap.com/article.php?articleID=28


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jerks...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

77AJ said:


> EH the first step is denial.


Denial of what? Athletes use PEDs. And not simply hGH. And if they're looking for huge performance gains, hGH ain't the way to go. Testosterone is. And the masking agents to hide it. This is why guys like Bonds, Clemens, etc. had both a clinical consultant (BALCO) as well as personal trainers well versed in the stuff. And I'm positive that the problem is even more extensive than is being reported. However, in baseball the power numbers are down so much that it's pretty obvious that testing is more effective (and in the baseball thread I pointed out a couple of guys that just started crushing out of nowhere that are likely users).



77AJ said:


> Your arguments are futile at best, and come off as if you're in denial. The studies you've pointed to are hardly influential and law. In fact just read a few interviews done with Victor Conte. He would laugh at your arguments about testing via the olympics, boxing commissions etc THE PED game is always going to be ahead of testing, and athletes are always going to cheat. Even your beloved NBA players.


You're confusing me with someone else as I haven't made these arguments at all. Not that this will prevent R-Star from agreeing with you. Also, if Jameer Nelson is on PEDs, he's getting ripped off, because they ain't working.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Denial of what? Athletes use PEDs. And not simply hGH. And if they're looking for huge performance gains, hGH ain't the way to go. Testosterone is. And the masking agents to hide it. This is why guys like Bonds, Clemens, etc. had both a clinical consultant (BALCO) as well as personal trainers well versed in the stuff. And I'm positive that the problem is even more extensive than is being reported. However, in baseball the power numbers are down so much that it's pretty obvious that testing is more effective (and in the baseball thread I pointed out a couple of guys that just started crushing out of nowhere that are likely users).
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing me with someone else as I haven't made these arguments at all. Not that this will prevent R-Star from agreeing with you. Also, if Jameer Nelson is on PEDs, he's getting ripped off, because they ain't working.


The tactic of you leaving a thread you've lost until... AJ comes along to bully around is pretty much your trademark, isn't it? Why don't you go back a few pages and quote all the people who were laughing at your "HGH is a placebo" posts?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Left a thread? I was out on Saturday. I'm pretty sure that most people here have lives and most of have days when we're just not on the web. Unlike some people I don't spend every second of every day watching this board. Occasionally I like to do stuff. And I did answer that one guy that claimed that hGH was a bigger performance booster than testosterone because he knew a guy that denied he was using both. Which in evidential terms is called anecdotal and not scientific evidence. Also, for those of us that have mastered the preferences panel, this is page 2 of the thread, I can't "go back pages".


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I know those 2 extra posts I make a day are fairly time consuming. You acting like you have any sort of interesting life in the real world brings a smile to start my day though.


Anyways, yea... You ran away from the thread. You made multiple posts in other threads, yet hid from this one until AJ started posting AJ stuff. Normally maybe that would just be a coincidence, but you're known for leaving threads when your debate falls apart, only to return when a weak poster tries to keep the thread going days later.

It's not really all that sneaky EH.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Anyways, yea... You ran away from the thread. You made multiple posts in other threads, yet hid from this one until AJ started posting AJ stuff .


No, I did not make "multiple posts in other threads" on Saturday, which was the only day I was away. And, yes, I did respond to the _one_ poster that agreed with your assertions that hGH is a wonder drug, despite the scientific studies that demonstrate that it's only mildly beneficial and mostly to much older people whose bodies no longer produce it in sufficient amounts. 

But, hey, thanks for, yet again, making up other people's actions and arguments for them. However, could you please stop making mine for me, because you say some of the most mind-numbingly stupid shit when you do as you're on your "IM THE KING OF THE INTERWEBZ!!!!" schtick. It's getting old.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> No, I did not make "multiple posts in other threads" on Saturday, which was the only day I was away. And, yes, I did respond to the _one_ poster that agreed with your assertions that hGH is a wonder drug, *despite the scientific studies that demonstrate that it's only mildly beneficial and mostly to much older people whose bodies no longer produce it in sufficient amounts. *
> 
> But, hey, thanks for, yet again, making up other people's actions and arguments for them. However, could you please stop making mine for me, because you say some of the most mind-numbingly stupid shit when you do as you're on your "IM THE KING OF THE INTERWEBZ!!!!" schtick. It's getting old.


What studies? Because the article you posted doesn't really support that claim. We already went over that prior to you running away from the thread.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

> Portland's Terrel Harris has been suspended without pay for five games for violating the terms of the NBA/NBPA Anti-Drug Program.


....


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

That'll teach 'em. 

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

If Kobe really is "shattering" normal recovery time for his injury it will make me more suspicious of him than anyone else. In fact, at his age with that injury, if he does recover lightning quick, someone inquisitive may be too suspicious not to investigate. I do hate the idea of athletes juicing, especially basketball players, almost to the point where I wouldn't even want to know if they were.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If Kobe really is "shattering" normal recovery time for his injury it will make me more suspicious of him than anyone else. In fact, at his age with that injury, if he does recover lightning quick, someone inquisitive may be too suspicious not to investigate. I do hate the idea of athletes juicing, especially basketball players, almost to the point where I wouldn't even want to know if they were.


If he comes back in time for the opener he's more than likely been on some kind of PED. And that doesn't bother me. Just like it doesn't bother me that Wade's face has completely transformed since entering the league. I just really don't care. I just like watching good basketball.

I'm surprised more people aren't suspicious of Timmy. Some 37 year old man having his best season in at least five years isn't weird to anyone else?


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Luke said:


> I'm surprised more people aren't suspicious of Timmy. Some 37 year old man having his best season in at least five years isn't weird to anyone else?
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Nope. Diet.

Gluten sucks. Gluten gives you the physique of EH Munro.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Luke said:


> If he comes back in time for the opener he's more than likely been on some kind of PED. And that doesn't bother me. Just like it doesn't bother me that Wade's face has completely transformed since entering the league. I just really don't care. I just like watching good basketball.
> 
> I'm surprised more people aren't suspicious of Timmy. Some 37 year old man having his best season in at least five years isn't weird to anyone else?


If the MLB has taught us anything, it's that nobody is exempt regardless of what they're image or personality is like.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Kobe's a blowhard. There is no way he's ready for the start of the season. It's all hot-air.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Kobe's a blowhard. There is no way he's ready for the start of the season. It's all hot-air.


And yet I wouldn't put it past him. He recovers from injuries like nobody's business. 

The thing is though, it's just not realistic without something to be going on. I would have to guess that he'd be taking something. It's like when everyone was like "Oh Lance Armstrong is just one of the greatest athletes in the world. He transcends what normal people can do." Athletes are still human. You don't just tear your Achilles and come back months before even the best athletes do, just because you've got a strong desire to play the game. But without proof, I'm just gonna sit back and enjoy my ignorance.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Ender said:


> ....


Finally, a big name player gets busted.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

If Kobe does come back early, HGH is the exact drug a guy his age would be using to speed up recovery.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

If Terrel Harris can't get away with it, what makes you think Kobe will?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Exactly. The league just came out with a clear "We aren't ****ing around here!" then threw the mic on the floor as they left the room.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> What studies? Because the article you posted doesn't really support that claim.


Actually it did, it contained links to every single scientific study done on hGH. You can actually read them for yourself. You don't have to limit yourself to the study's abstract.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> Nope. Diet.
> 
> Gluten sucks. Gluten gives you the physique of EH Munro.


Ain't that the truth. Mine's gotten a lot better since I eliminated it from my diet.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> If Kobe does come back early, HGH is the exact drug a guy his age would be using to speed up recovery.


There are a lot of steroids that would probably be a heck of a lot more effective and that he would have time to get out of his system before the fall training camp. Even something like prednisone would have a bigger impact.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

As I'm getting up there in age, I've pondered have my testerone levels tested. Just haven't gotten around to it since I can deadlift 445 pounds, catch two handers off the backboard and still see my abs. Anyone know anything about that DHEA cream? It's like $30 a jar which seems way too cheap.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> There are a lot of steroids that would probably be a heck of a lot more effective and that he would have time to get out of his system before the fall training camp. Even something like prednisone would have a bigger impact.


For healing an acl tear? No, it absolutely would not.

Increase muscle growth around the area on rehab better than HGH? Sure. Promote better healing and recovery? No.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> As I'm getting up there in age, I've pondered have my testerone levels tested. Just haven't gotten around to it since I can deadlift 445 pounds, catch two handers off the backboard and still see my abs. Anyone know anything about that DHEA cream? It's like $30 a jar which seems way too cheap.


Does seem way too cheap. But prices in Canada are probably way higher.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Actually it did, it contained links to every single scientific study done on hGH. You can actually read them for yourself. You don't have to limit yourself to the study's abstract.


Well no, if you look back I actually bolded out and quoted your articles best claims multiple times to show you it basically refuted everything you're claiming, and then you left the thread for 1 week and got mad and called it a busy EH Saturday.

For a guy touting his own math skills I find that rather funny.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> For healing an acl tear? No, it absolutely would not.
> 
> Increase muscle growth around the area on rehab better than HGH? Sure. Promote better healing and recovery? No.


Prednisone won't help you a ton if you're looking to bulk up. Again, what you're looking for there is increasing testosterone (not all steroidal drugs boost testosterone production). On the other hand, for reducing inflammation and speeding recovery of connective tissue, prednisone is more effective than hGH. It's also banned and using while testing is ongoing is probably a bad idea. But post surgery last spring and through the rehab? It would be long gone from his system by the time the testers were looking for samples.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Well no, if you look back I actually bolded out and quoted your articles best claims multiple times to show you it basically refuted everything you're claiming,


Umm, no, you didn't. You read the abstract and that was it. You bolded the sections of the abstract where the study's authors addressed the questions that they would be looking at. You actually would have to read the actual article thereafter. Or you could, you know, look at the data tables and the links to all the other medical studies which refute your claims that hGH raises dead men from the grave and turns them into Marvel superheros.


----------



## Zei_Zao_LS (Apr 1, 2005)

I'm with Daniel Tosh on PEDs in professional sports. Let them get all the advantages they can, it's all about the product!


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

kbdullah said:


> Really? No NFL players but you have tennis players? Wouldn't have thought that but ok.


The pressure of competing every day on your own with absolutely no one to fall back on on any given day to make a living... versus being a millionaire or hundred thousand per year athlete with teammates to often fall back on on your worst off nights (if you're on a good team).... So much worse.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Do you think anyone is having trouble seeing that?


"Anyone" really doesn't care.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

HGH doesn't really promote much muscle growth unless used in conjunction with a steroid. It will lower body fat, drastically reduce healing time (which does benefit muscle growth), but by and large a steroid is necessary to get the results these athletes desire in the strength/bulk department. I find that HGH is more beneficial to what American team sport athletes need especially outside of football.

The leagues have pushed these players to the max with the scheduling and at this point its more of an economic issue than anything within the sport. Fans might say they care if its cheating, but they really don't. They just dont want to get lied too and have their favorite players suspended or worse. It hurts their team period. 

Science will always be a step ahead. They should really take a look at the banned substance list and rework it so players dont have to go outside the box to far to get what they want as far as results. There are a lot of safer alternatives banned.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Umm, no, you didn't. You read the abstract and that was it. You bolded the sections of the abstract where the study's authors addressed the questions that they would be looking at. You actually would have to read the actual article thereafter. Or you could, you know, look at the data tables and the links to all the other medical studies which refute your claims that hGH raises dead men from the grave and turns them into Marvel superheros.


Go back and look. I have sections bolded from the article. Or just keep trying to play revisionist history on something that happened little more than a week ago.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Prednisone won't help you a ton if you're looking to bulk up. Again, what you're looking for there is increasing testosterone (not all steroidal drugs boost testosterone production). On the other hand, for reducing inflammation and *speeding recovery of connective tissue, prednisone is more effective than hGH.* It's also banned and using while testing is ongoing is probably a bad idea. But post surgery last spring and through the rehab? It would be long gone from his system by the time the testers were looking for samples.


Again, no. That is just a 100% false statement.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Zei_Zao_LS said:


> I'm with Daniel Tosh on PEDs in professional sports. Let them get all the advantages they can, it's all about the product!


I think I'm with this. Let everyone get any advantage they can, and that evens the playing field. I admit I'm not very informed on the dangers of PEDs though, so that may be a horrible idea.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I think I'm with this. Let everyone get any advantage they can, and that evens the playing field. I admit I'm not very informed on the dangers of PEDs though, so that may be a horrible idea.


When you have the money to pay for blood test from a doctor and weekly to testing to make sure all your levels and liver are good like pro athletes do. It literally isn't much harm at all unless your using a Roid like Winstrol which can drastically reduce your bone marrow and cause your joints to break down


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Good old Winny.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Geaux Tigers said:


> HGH doesn't really promote much muscle growth unless used in conjunction with a steroid. It will lower body fat, drastically reduce healing time (which does benefit muscle growth), but by and large a steroid is necessary to get the results these athletes desire in the strength/bulk department. I find that HGH is more beneficial to what American team sport athletes need especially outside of football.
> 
> The leagues have pushed these players to the max with the scheduling and at this point its more of an economic issue than anything within the sport. Fans might say they care if its cheating, but they really don't. They just dont want to get lied too and have their favorite players suspended or worse. It hurts their team period.
> 
> Science will always be a step ahead. They should really take a look at the banned substance list and rework it so players dont have to go outside the box to far to get what they want as far as results. There are a lot of safer alternatives banned.


Not to mention the substances on the list that are outright absurd, like DHEA, for example. And I'm sure that's not the only banned substance that offers little in the way of performance benefits.



R-Star said:


> Again, no. That is just a 100% false statement.


I know, all those stupid doctors that prescribe prednisone to patients to help them with just those issues. If only they'd consult with the petroleum engineer that struggles with basic math they'd know what idiots they were.


----------



## UD40 (May 12, 2005)

Sort of just jumping in here. Has there been clear definitions as to what PEDs consist of? Obviously roids and the such, but for instance, I had a bunch of friends in college who played football and couldn't take pre-workout supplements or drink more than a cup or two of coffee during the season because the NCAA considers caffeine to be a performance enhancer.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Not to mention the substances on the list that are outright absurd, like DHEA, for example. And I'm sure that's not the only banned substance that offers little in the way of performance benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> I know, all those stupid doctors that prescribe prednisone to patients to help them with just those issues. If only they'd consult with the petroleum engineer that struggles with basic math they'd know what idiots they were.


As opposed to an angry 70 year old man on a basketball forum who pretends to be on the cutting edge of PED information? 

You keep bringing up my job for some reason like it's an insult. I think you must be confused.

You're also confused by the fact that not judging every NBA player by advanced stats like you do somehow brings my math into question.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

You may want to read about prednisone (which, hilariously enough is actually prescribed for rheumatic flare-ups and post surgical usage) before telling those of us that have been prescribed it for just these uses that our doctors don't know as much about medicine as a petroleum engineer that struggles with basic math.

(And, yes, the fact that you can't grasp the difference between a concrete statistic and an abstract one is just the thing that should terrify us in an engineer.)


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> You may want to read about prednisone (which, hilariously enough is actually prescribed for rheumatic flare-ups and post surgical usage) before telling those of us that have been prescribed it for just these uses that our doctors don't know as much about medicine as a petroleum engineer that struggles with basic math.


We aren't talking about HGH anymore? Or that it's a placebo?

We aren't talking about the fact your article says no one was tested with real world amounts of HGH? Or that athletic gains were not measured? Or recovery from major injury was also not measured?

Your biggest counter point in the last few days is stating my job title and insisting I have issues with math. Id be surprised how feeble that is if it wasn't coming from a guy who's a couple steps away from the geriatric ward.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

opcorn:


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Pop corn will have to wait. I'm on my way to town for a new car seat for the kid and some food and beer for camping this weekend.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

R-Star said:


> Good old Winny.


I ****ing hated it when I took it.. It literally has one use and that's to take 2 to 3 weeks out of a competition for serious body builders to make your muscles look hard and dry. Besides that it's the shittiest cutter ever


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> We aren't talking about HGH anymore? Or that it's a placebo?


Well, you claimed that hGH was far more effective in dealing with connective tissue problems than a drug that's used for that express purpose. Which is pretty hilarious.



R-Star said:


> We aren't talking about the fact your article says no one was tested with real world amounts of HGH? Or that athletic gains were not measured? Or recovery from major injury was also not measured?


No, the tests done were on strength, muscle mass, and exercise capacity. Again, if you'd read more than the abstract you would have learned something. Not being omniscient I love learning new stuff. And yes, the pull quote you keep referring to comes right from the abstract. Go back and look again, see the heading right there at the top where you got that quote from? Where in 48 point bold type it reads "Abstract"? That's the abstract. It's the summation of what the related article is meant to address.

So, to sum up, hGH is mildly beneficial. Especially to older folks whose bodies no longer produce it in anything like the necessary amounts. But, again, we're not talking about those folks, we're discussing people that won the athletic lottery whose bodies likely produce all of it that they need. So, if they're looking for a performance boost, there are so many more effective PEDs out there, especially in a sport like basketball where the testing is so shoddy (I mean it's not like I wasn't making jokes about Kevin Garnett's PED dealer back in 2012 when he flipped the switch back five years in the weeks after the all star break). And yes, as Bryant would be, specifically, looking to reduce inflammation in connective tissue there are corticosteroids for just that purpose far more effective than hGH.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Pop corn will have to wait. I'm on my way to town for a new car seat for the kid and some food and beer for camping this weekend.


I'm sick of you talking about all the other things you have to do besides bicker with Munro. You sit here and call him old and he'll mock your job until I'm bored with it.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> I'm sick of you talking about all the other things you have to do besides bicker with Munro. You sit here and call him old and he'll mock your job until I'm bored with it.


I hate it when a guy doesn't care about a good streak...


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

LeGoat06 said:


> I ****ing hated it when I took it.. It literally has one use and that's to take 2 to 3 weeks out of a competition for serious body builders to make your muscles look hard and dry. Besides that it's the shittiest cutter ever


You got my vote.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> I'm sick of you talking about all the other things you have to do besides bicker with Munro. You sit here and call him old and he'll mock your job until I'm bored with it.


Have you just r-stared R-star?
Good form, sir!


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

You know you've made it when your username becomes commonly used as a verb.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Geaux Tigers said:


> I hate it when a guy doesn't care about a good steak...


I'm all for good steaks. I've got a petite sirloin on the menu tonight.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

E.H. Munro said:


> I'm all for good steaks. I've got a petite sirloin on the menu tonight.


I have like 40 petites in my freezer. hate em but there so cheap. everytime rib-eye goes on sale i get two or three big slabs and have each cut into about 9 or 10 steaks. I fkn love Ribeye


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Petite sirloin is a very good cut of beef. Not as good as a good ribeye, I agree. But still a damn good cut of beef.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Well, you claimed that hGH was far more effective in dealing with connective tissue problems than a drug that's used for that express purpose. Which is pretty hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A couple things I find odd here.

1) the majority of the things I've quoted are not in the abstract. If anyone cared enough about our argument or your link you originally posted, that much is very apparent. Yet you're under the assumption if you keep repeating yourself then everyone posting here is dumb enough to buy it.

2) Why did you not mention the part in my quote where your article specifically says the people weren't tested with real world doses of HGH? And that even with the paltry amounts of HGH used, they saw noticeable gains on most tests?

Also, why do you keep trying to hammer home recovery time, and say doctors are on your side about HGH having placebo type recovery benefits, when the article clearly shows there was no testing done on recovery time from serious injury? Are you under the assumption that posing random articles and just repeating that doctors agree with you it makes it fact?


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

R Star puts the R in stReak...and he bailed. One of my better typos though. Sirloin though? Cmon.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> A couple things I find odd here.
> 
> 1) the majority of the things I've quoted are not in the abstract. If anyone cared enough about our argument or your link you originally posted, that much is very apparent. Yet you're under the assumption if you keep repeating yourself then everyone posting here is dumb enough to buy it.


The only stuff you quoted was from the abstract. You never bothered to read beyond it because you keep referring back, specifically, to a sentence regarding the questions they're going to be looking at.



> 2) Why did you not mention the part in my quote where your article specifically says the people weren't tested with real world doses of HGH? And that even with the paltry amounts of HGH used, they saw noticeable gains on most tests?


One of the studies actually did involve increasing hGH dosing to see its impact on athletic performance and found that at sufficient dosage it actually decreases performance. (Again, if you'd actually taken the time to read even the text of the study you would have seen that)



> Also, why do you keep trying to hammer home recovery time, and say doctors are on your side about HGH having placebo type recovery benefits, when the article clearly shows there was no testing done on recovery time from serious injury? Are you under the assumption that posing random articles and just repeating that doctors agree with you it makes it fact?


I think it's apparent at this point that the term "placebo effect" means something different in Canuckian than it does in English, and that what we have here is a communications gap. Belief in a treatment, even when there is no treatment going on, does, in some cases, have a measurable impact. In English, when we're discussing the placebo effect, this is what we're discussing. The fact that many patients in clinical trials see improvements despite not actually getting anything (and it's most prominent in pain management).

Now you made the claim that it was "100% false" that a corticosteroid specifically used for rheumatic issues, post surgical recovery and connective tissue inflammation was better for those specific issues than hGH. Do you have any evidence for this claim aside from a story you heard one time? I gave the most comprehensive study there is on it, with pages and pages of data tables for you to comb through, establishing that it's mildly beneficial. So there's your challenge, find us actual scientific evidence of your claims. I won't hold my breath.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Geaux Tigers said:


> R Star puts the R in stReak...and he bailed. One of my better typos though. Sirloin though? Cmon.


Hey, man, petite sirloin over a good old fashioned charcoal fire makes for a great meal.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> The only stuff you quoted was from the abstract. You never bothered to read beyond it because you keep referring back, specifically, to a sentence regarding the questions they're going to be looking at.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which doesn't at all confirm your claims in this thread. Yet you keep assuming if you call me out for not reading it (again, multiple quotes from varying parts of the article) it will constitute as an argument.

You know, why not go ahead an quote the article where it says taking a regular persons dose of HGH has negative gains. Go ahead. Oh wait... is it going to contain words like "may have" followed by "more testing needs to be done"?

Anyone who reads your link will quickly see it's two guys who set out to disprove HGH, and when they weren't able to, even when studying on low dosage levels, they filled an article with "some doctors say...." and "more studies need to be done" all the while glossing over the glaring holes in the testing.



But yea, thanks for explaining placebo to me. In Canuckia it means snow, so your explanation of the word really helped. It brings a smile to my drunk, Canadian, petroleum engineering face that you actually sat there, wrote that post and thought "Ha! Now everyone will think he didn't know what placebo meant! Who's King oF tHe IntErwebZ now bitch?"

You are old man..... You are.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Which doesn't at all confirm your claims in this thread. Yet you keep assuming if you call me out for not reading it (again, multiple quotes from varying parts of the article) it will constitute as an argument.


No, just a pull from the section of the study that we refer to as the abstract.



R-Star said:


> You know, why not go ahead an quote the article where it says taking a regular persons dose of HGH has negative gains. Go ahead. Oh wait... is it going to contain words like "may have" followed by "more testing needs to be done"?


I have no idea what this means and I suspect that you don't either. In the study they do admit that they're mostly discussing medical dosages of hGH, which may not reflect how much of it that gym queens are using. _However_, in the primary study dealing with athletic performance they did keep increasing the dose to see what sort of effect it has on performance. And at a certain point it decreased performance. Now, if you're claiming that at multiple levels of that point of performance decrease the effect reverses itself, do you have any scientific evidence of this? Again, you're the one claiming that hGH turns corpses into Marvel superheros, you'll need to show us actual scientific proof of this claim, not "I heard some guy say..."



R-Star said:


> Anyone who reads your link will quickly see it's two guys who set out to disprove HGH, and when they weren't able to, even when studying on low dosage levels, they filled an article with "some doctors say...." and "more studies need to be done" all the while glossing over the glaring holes in the testing.


Actually anyone that took the time to read it, and the data tables, and the linked studies, would find that it's mildly beneficial. And this, ultimately, is the proof that you didn't bother to read it. All it disproves are the superman stories that idiots repeat.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> No, just a pull from the section of the study that we refer to as the abstract.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We agree on something finality. HGH is mildly beneficial...... In limited dosages like you admitted your link actually tested people on.

I'm 30, so I know actual people EH. The demographic that uses PED's. I work in an industry rife with PED's, I have a sibling who won body building competitions. I'm not going to funerals every other week, and telling people about the prescription a doctor gave me when I hurt my knee from getting out of bed the wrong way. You have sad, pathetic stories of your own(and a contradictory web link), and I have my own.

Are we still not talking about how multiple posts of yours state doctors specificallt say HGH does not promote recovering from major injury even though the article clearly states that wasn't even tested for anyone who wants to read it?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> We agree on something finality. HGH is mildly beneficial.


Which is what I've said from the beginning



R-Star said:


> In limited dosages like you admitted your link actually tested people on.


The research study was a survey of all of the available literature on hGH. The athletic tests openly took the participants past the levels normally produced by the human body and found a point where athletic performance declined while not finding any dramatic improvements prior to that point. If you're asserting that there's a level well past that where it suddenly does have a dramatic impact, do you have any scientific proof of this? And, no, calling me a senile old man is not scientific proof. You will need an actual scientific study to back up your scientific claims. There's your challenge. Bring us scientific proof of your claims.



R-Star said:


> Are we still not talking about how multiple posts of yours state doctors specificallt say HGH does not promote recovering from major injury even though the article clearly states that wasn't even tested for anyone who wants to read it?


Noooo. Again, please stop inventing my arguments for me, because, honestly, logic isn't your thing. I have said from the very start that it's mildly beneficial because that's what the actual scientific studies establish. What it isn't is a wonder drug. And for every possible use of it, if you're an athlete, there are better options available. _Especially_ in a sport like the NBA where testing isn't very serious. 

There is a reason to use it if you're in an athletic field with an aggressive testing regime and many of those more effective drugs will show up. Not really necessary in the NBA. For someone that undergoes mid season surgery, like Rondo or Bryant, why would they use a less effective drug like hGH when their doctors would gladly prescribe them corticosteroids to help with the post-surgical recovery? And those drugs would be long out of their systems by the time testing comes around again (and what's really hilarious is that many of those corticosteroids actually _are_ wonder drugs, but since it doesn't fit into your chosen narrative we have the spectacle of the engineer denying science).


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Which is what I've said from the beginning
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Go ahead and quote that part of the article. Feel free to link the graphs.

If you decide to cut an paste what you find useful to you, and leave off the part that states what you and the article are saying is pure conjecture I'll link that part myself. Again.


Why you somehow think you can keep mentioning a shitty linked study and label it "The best HGH study in the galaxy that is 100% backed up and reputed." is beyond me. What baffles me even more though is how you're under the assumption you can just lie about what the actual study says. It's clear in saying that at best, some doctors are unsure about the benefits of HGH, and that the study finds more time and study needs to be done. Not really what you've sold it to be in your posts, is it? What it is though, is the exact reason you quietly left the thread for over a week, only to predictably come back in when others left and AJ came in with "HGH is like steroids bro!" posts. Which is funny because you then argued you only left the thread for one day, because you had a real busy Saturday because you're cooler than me.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Do you have any scientific proof of your claims? Or is this just more bluff and insults? Nope, just more bluff and insults. So we can assume that you're admitting that this is all just "some guy once told me..." stories? You can hurl as many insults as you'd like. What I've stated is the results of the actual scientific studies. You young earth creationists can deny science all you'd like, but you're still wrong.

The really hilarious part is that 2377AJ didn't say what you're asserting he did (he was referring to testosterone boosting, which I think even you young earth creationists will agree is a huge performance enhancer) and I wasn't the one arguing with him. Hint, he and I actually agree on most of this, he mistook me for another poster at one point, and I even warned you not to make the same mistake but at the end of the day you just hate reading.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> *Do you have any scientific proof of your claims?* Or is this just more bluff and insults? Nope, just more bluff and insults. So we can assume that you're admitting that this is all just "some guy once told me..." stories? You can hurl as many insults as you'd like. What I've stated is the results of the actual scientific studies. You young earth creationists can deny science all you'd like, but you're still wrong.
> 
> The really hilarious part is that 2377AJ didn't say what you're asserting he did (he was referring to testosterone boosting, which I think even you young earth creationists will agree is a huge performance enhancer) and I wasn't the one arguing with him. Hint, he and I actually agree on most of this, he mistook me for another poster at one point, and I even warned you not to make the same mistake but at the end of the day you just hate reading.


So this is what I get when I ask you to quote your article?

Instead of posting an article, misquoting it multiple times in a self righteous manner, and then sulking and falling apart when called on it, maybe quit making shit up in the future. This isn't the first time you posted a link and lied about what it says, assuming no one will actually put the effort in to read it.

And to the bolded part, no, I do not. Neither do you. If I put a few minutes in to look I'm sure I could find more viable information than your opinion piece you posted.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> So this is what I get when I ask you to quote your article?
> 
> Instead of posting an article, misquoting it multiple times in a self righteous manner, and then sulking and falling apart when called on it, maybe quit making shit up in the future. This isn't the first time you posted a link and lied about what it says, assuming no one will actually put the effort in to read it.
> 
> And to the bolded part, no, I do not. Neither do you. If I put a few minutes in to look I'm sure I could find more viable information than you opinion piece you posted.


No, I did not "lie about what it says". And, no, I'm not the one making scientific claims here, _you are_. Bring us scientific proof of your scientific claims. I'm not budging on this. You can hurl as many insults as you like, stomp your feet and cry like a spoiled six year old, yell "liar, liar, pants on fire!" all you want. But you made specific, testable, scientific claims. So bring us the hard evidence of these assertions. As in actual scientific studies, not "I'm 30 and know some guy that works out!" That is not scientific evidence. So this remains your challenge. Bring us proof or begone.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> No, I did not "lie about what it says". And, no, I'm not the one making scientific claims here, _you are_. Bring us scientific proof of your scientific claims. I'm not budging on this. You can hurl as many insults as you like, stomp your feet and cry like a spoiled six year old, yell "liar, liar, pants on fire!" all you want. But you made specific, testable, scientific claims. So bring us the hard evidence of these assertions. As in actual scientific studies, not "I'm 30 and know some guy that works out!" That is not scientific evidence. So this remains your challenge. Bring us proof or begone.


So again, me asking you to back up your "100% of doctors agree with me that HGH is a placebo(thanks again for explaining the word to me)" claims results in you pulling a "no, you prove it first you Canuckian drinking engineer!!!"

Let me clarify something that should be simple to you. You, posting claims that are supposedly backed by doctors, are not in any position to try to call me out on my opinion and ask for scientific proof before providing some of your own. Hey, maybe you could even quote your article. You know, the most distinguished article on HGH ever written.


Oh, are we still saying I didn't read the article? I was too busy trying to brush up on my math skills.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

For the 3,942nd time, stop making my arguments for me, because honestly you suck at it. If I'm going to choose another poster to make my arguments for me it'd be KAS, because he's pretty logical. You, on the other hand, need to stop it.

Now, _again_, you made the claim that hGH was far more effective for post-surgical recovery than the corticosteroids that doctors prescribe instead of it (and to be clear, if doctors in the US feel it's warranted they _could_ choose to prescribe hGH instead, they just don't). Now, surely, you would only be making such a scientific claim as a result of reading an actual scientific research study that establishes this. So, please, we're all genuinely curious, share it with us. We would love to read it.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

"You bring the science!"

"No you bring the science! I'm not backing down!"






Someone had to bring it.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> For the 3,942nd time, stop making my arguments for me, because honestly you suck at it. If I'm going to choose another poster to make my arguments for me it'd be KAS, because he's pretty logical. You, on the other hand, need to stop it.
> 
> Now, _again_, you made the claim that hGH was far more effective for post-surgical recovery than the corticosteroids that doctors prescribe instead of it (and to be clear, if doctors in the US feel it's warranted they _could_ choose to prescribe hGH instead, they just don't). Now, surely, you would only be making such a scientific claim as a result of reading an actual scientific research study that establishes this. So, please, we're all genuinely curious, share it with us. *We would love to read it.*


_We_ would, would we?

:laugh: Anyone still reading this is doing one thing, laughing their ass off watching you nose dive in a matter of a few posts.



EH said:


> The article clearly shows there's a huge drop off the more HGH used. You're just too stupid to read anything outside the abstract!





R-Star said:


> Well no. It doesnt say that. Feel free to quote that part of the article though and I'll quote the part that shows that's conjecture. Oh, and I read the article just so you know.





EH said:


> You didn't read the article! You don't even know what placebo means you idiot!





R-Star said:


> ......so now you don't want to talk about the article you've been referring to for weeks?





EH said:


> You quote your article R-Star! we're all on to you here buddy! All of us. You remember that 1 post you made saying HGH speeds healing more than cortecosteroids? Well prove it!



Let me explain something old timer. You spent 10's of paragraphs self quoting an article you originally called the greatest work on HGH compiled by doctors, repeating over and over again I didnt read it, to now refusing to even acknowledge it when I asked to back up what you're supposedly quoting verbatim from it.

That being the case, it's pretty comical to see you grasp at straws now demanding I back up my opinion in 1 post. Which I still stand behind mind you.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I'm sorry, where is the scientific study proving your claim that hGH is a wonder drug that turns athletes into supermen and is better for post-surgical recovery than the corticosteroids that doctors prescribe instead? Again, you've made specific testable claims, so we're still waiting for the evidence. Now, this is no longer a challenge, bring us the study or leave the thread. Those are your options now.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> I'm sorry, where is the scientific study proving your claim that hGH is a wonder drug that turns athletes into supermen and is better for post-surgical recovery than the corticosteroids that doctors prescribe instead? Again, you've made specific testable claims, so we're still waiting for the evidence. Now, this is no longer a challenge, bring us the study or leave the thread. Those are your options now.


:laugh:

****ing pathetic. Maybe I'm as out of touch as I accuse you to be, but I'm pretty sure more than a few people enjoyed me absolutely breaking you and your argument down. "quote it R-Star! Or leave!" Oh I get it, someone mentioned R-Starring R-Star, so you think by jumping on someone else's joke, people will somehow forget this pathetic failure of an argument?

I'm off to bed in a couple minutes EH. I just want you to do one thing for me. Just quote that article of yours one more time ok? 


Do you want me to write your reply for you? You know I could do that right?


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

UD40 said:


> Sort of just jumping in here. Has there been clear definitions as to what PEDs consist of? Obviously roids and the such, but for instance, I had a bunch of friends in college who played football and couldn't take pre-workout supplements or drink more than a cup or two of coffee during the season because the NCAA considers caffeine to be a performance enhancer.


The NCAA is less up-to-date than Hammurabi's Code. With that said a lot of those pre workout mixes are dosed with amphetamines and more substances. Either way my take is if you can buy it OTC it shouldn't be banned.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Geaux Tigers said:


> The NCAA is less up-to-date than Hammurabi's Code. With that said a lot of those pre workout mixes are dosed with amphetamines and more substances. Either way my take is if you can buy it OTC it shouldn't be banned.


Yeah, there are just a lot of absurdities on the list. If I'm recalling aright I believe there are even a few OTC cold/allergy medications on the banned list, to go along with non-performance enhancers like DHEA. It's really silly.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> :laugh:
> 
> ****ing pathetic. Maybe I'm as out of touch as I accuse you to be, but I'm pretty sure more than a few people enjoyed me absolutely breaking you and your argument down.


So, yet _again_ where is your proof that hGH is a miracle healing drug? This was _your_ claim. It's easily testable, so there has to be scientific proof, right? You've used every debating trick for morons you can think of, but at the end of the day you made a scientific claim, so it should be relatively easy for the self-proclaimed science expert to give us that evidence. Now where is it?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

E.H. Munro said:


> So, yet _again_ where is your proof that hGH is a miracle healing drug? This was _your_ claim. It's easily testable, so there has to be scientific proof, right? You've used every debating trick for morons you can think of, but at the end of the day you made a scientific claim, so it should be relatively easy for the self-proclaimed science expert to give us that evidence. Now where is it?


As long as you get blood tests each week to check your levels to make sure your not getting blood clots. But doing that each week costs a lot and hgh in general cost a lot. And yes if you do it properly like seeing a doctor every week it is good for you. But i'm not about to go researching shit just for some guy I don't know on a forum. Look it up yourself


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> So, yet _again_ where is your proof that hGH is a miracle healing drug? This was _your_ claim. It's easily testable, so there has to be scientific proof, right? You've used every debating trick for morons you can think of, but at the end of the day you made a scientific claim, so it should be relatively easy for the self-proclaimed science expert to give us that evidence. Now where is it?


Sorry for the wait. I didn't feel like getting out of bed to do it last night, as I was posting from my ipad

http://www.hghhelp.info/hghhealingandperformance.php

*He also emphasizes that recovery periods are cut in half by the remarkable treatment. He believes that once conclusive scientific tests show the effectiveness of the drug during the post-operative recovery period, then HGH will become "the standard of care for sports medicine and surgeons" in the future*


http://www.hgh.info/researchsummarieshgh.html

_*Ronald Klatz M.D., President and Founder, American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine and author of "Grow Young with HGH – The Amazing Medically Proven Plan to Reverse Aging"
"HGH is the first anti-aging therapy proven by double placebo controlled studies".*_ ~ hahhahahahahhah..... R-Star

*Drs. Ramias, Shamos, and Schiller of St. Joseph Hospital Medical Center In Phoenix AZ:
The Doctors found HGH to be a potent anabolic agent "Daily Administration of human growth hormone in the first week after trauma would enhance the metabolic status... resulting In reduced morbidity and earlier discharge from hospital." (May 1992 Journal of Surgery. Vol 11 1, 495-502.)*


This is all from taking 2 seconds on google EH. I'm sure if I put in time I could find quite a bit more relevant material. Not to mention just hop on over to a PED forum and read results from the horses mouth. Although I know guys on a steroid forum who actually use HGH are idiots or morons, and an elderly man on a basketball forum is the real go to guy on the subject. 

100% reputable proof? Nope. Just like your link. They're opinion pieces because serious testing on HGH is in its infancy. You can find opinions on both sides of the argument.


What is funny is you spent days supposedly quoting your article, and now when asked to actually take word for word quotes from said article you refuse to even acknowledge you posted an article in the first place.


I'll ask again. Please make direct quotes from your article saying doctors support your claims. We both know the reason you have not done so is because the studies do not support your claims, and you lied about what was in the actual article hoping no one would actually fact check you. I know, I read the thing.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

jesus, get a room you two


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

LeGoat06 said:


> As long as you get blood tests each week to check your levels to make sure your not getting blood clots. But doing that each week costs a lot and hgh in general cost a lot. And yes if you do it properly like seeing a doctor every week it is good for you. But i'm not about to go researching shit just for some guy I don't know on a forum. Look it up yourself


So you're r-star? That would explain a lot. But, not being a professional athlete when my knee flares up I go see my doctor. Sometimes it's just a cortisone shot, sometimes they'll put me on corticosteroids as well to get the knee back to baseline. If only my doctors had your specialized medical training,


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Sorry for the wait. I didn't feel like getting out of bed to do it last night, as I was posting from my ipad
> 
> http://www.hghhelp.info/hghhealingandperformance.php
> 
> ...


Actually if you had put in time to learning, you might have learned something about "Dr." Klatz. The really hilarious part is that, unlike you, I've read his book. The studies he's referencing are over twenty years old (the book itself is some 15 years old or so) and even the author of the studies that Klatz is using to draw his conclusions from rejects Klatz's reading of them (Dr. Daniel Rudman). Klatz is also an hGH salesman, so his opinions on out of date research study aren't exactly credible. 

Finally, this is how science works, one person conducts an experiment and reports the results, and then others begin performing more studies to see if they can replicate those results and even explain them. In the 20 years plus since Rudman's original report on the results he got from a dozen patients at a Wisconsin medical school researchers have conducted more than three dozen different studies to doublecheck and explain the original reports. And the results have been extremely mixed.

Oh, and one last item, the claims of hGH salesmen, without actual scientific results to back them up, are not scientific proof of _your_ claims. If hGH raises people from the grave and gives them superpowers, why do doctors continue to prescribe corticosteroids instead in these instances that _you're_
claiming hGH is more effective?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Actually if you had put in time to learning, you might have learned something about "Dr." Klatz. The really hilarious part is that, unlike you, I've read his book. The studies he's referencing are over twenty years old (the book itself is some 15 years old or so) and even the author of the studies that Klatz is using to draw his conclusions from rejects Klatz's reading of them (Dr. Daniel Rudman). Klatz is also an hGH salesman, so his opinions on out of date research study aren't exactly credible.
> 
> Finally, this is how science works, one person conducts an experiment and reports the results, and then others begin performing more studies to see if they can replicate those results and even explain them. In the 20 years plus since Rudman's original report on the results he got from a dozen patients at a Wisconsin medical school researchers have conducted more than three dozen different studies to doublecheck and explain the original reports. And the results have been extremely mixed.
> 
> ...


So what you're saying is I should have just lied about what my link said then, like you did right?


Listen, it's been real and all, but seeing as how you refuse to even talk at all about your previous claims or the article you posted, I'm done here.


You win.....



_the ..... represents the fact I was joking. You made yourself look absolutely pathetic in your last 10 posts or so._


----------

