# What would you think if Lebron was juicing?



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

With all this Barry Bonds hoopla, I wanted to know what everyone would think if an NBA star like Lebron James was juicing. What if it comes out in a few years that Lebron has been on steroids since he was 12, or another player? Will that change your perspective and do you think some of his numbers should have an asterisk by them?


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

i dont agree with the *asterisk, i say ban them from the sport and erase their accomplishments


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

A bit OT, but i don't see why everyone hates barry bonds for juicing. All other power hitters in baseball did it, so he had to to keep up. I swear if i hear one more thing about barry bonds and steroids :azdaja: 

And lebron ain't on steroids. Where would he get steroids from when he was 12 and poor as ****. Are you seriously that dumb?


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

mo76 said:


> A bit OT, but i don't see why everyone hates barry bonds for juicing. All other power hitters in baseball did it, so he had to to keep up. I swear if i hear one more thing about barry bonds and steroids :azdaja:
> 
> And lebron ain't on steroids. Where would he get steroids from when he was 12 and poor as ****. Are you seriously that dumb?


I think it's funny that barry bonds is so scrutinized, when baseball knew steroids was heavy in baseball when mark maguire was chasing the single season record, but since baseball needed their fans back they overlooked it.


Also, why hasnt anyone realized that while he may have been using steroids, he most likely went up against more than a few juiced up pitchers.

Also, why is it everyone thinks Roger Clemens just has a really great workout regimen and that is why he throws just as hard as he used to when he was young?

But I digress.


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

i would lose a lot of respect for lebron and his game. but i would still be a fan of his game.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Steroids probably wouldn't matter much if there are refs fixing games.

Solve one problem at a time, please.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

He's not. 

New thread. Next question.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i'll just say it's foolish to think players in any physical sport aren't using when there isn't a strong testing policy in place. steroids make you better, and if you can get better with minimal chance of getting caught, some will do it.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Well I didn't think any less of Rafael Araujo when he got busted for roids.


----------



## R-X (Jun 29, 2007)

I'm surprised people are automatically shooting this question down...its a hypothetical...

you could say it about Dwight Howard, Josh Smith, or any freak athelete in the NBA...Lebron is just the example in this case...

So if it was later determined that they were juicing...would you lose respect?

Basketball is a tough one tho...cuz you could be a complete athletic freak...but you actually need some skillz to go with it. I.e. - Kobe is a great athlete, but its his insane skills that make him so good...i dont think he'd need roids, but then again wouldnt they make him that much better?

Imagine a juiced up Nash backing down guys like Kidd!


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Wow, 10 posts already in this thread and the Shaq took roids folks haven't popped into the thread.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

I think this whole cloud of controversy really puts the spotlight on Shaq as far as the NBA is concerned. He's been the epitome of dominance by sheer strength, so his accomplishments will be looked at most closely. The NBA really needs to consider putting in a stronger policy to make sure the fans know that Shaq's achievements haven't been tainted.


----------



## DJ Sueko (Jul 17, 2007)

Rodman juiced


----------



## Yao Mania (Aug 4, 2003)

And we all know Yao Ming's genetically engineered to be 7'5". So what?


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

mo76 said:


> A bit OT, but i don't see why everyone hates barry bonds for juicing. All other power hitters in baseball did it, so he had to to keep up. I swear if i hear one more thing about barry bonds and steroids :azdaja:
> 
> And lebron ain't on steroids. Where would he get steroids from when he was 12 and poor as ****. Are you seriously that dumb?


you do know high school kids dope more than pros, right?


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Doesn't really matter. Roids would make you stronger but basketball is not about pure strength as hitting is to baseball. Still need other skills.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

This is all I hear about anymore in sports. Steroids. Steroids. Steroids. I don't want to hear another ****ING WORD ABOUT STEROIDS!!! That's all I've heard for every single day, for the last 5 years!!! I don't want to hear anything about Steroids for the rest of my life! It's just annoying. At this point, I don't even care.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Jizzy said:


> Doesn't really matter. Roids would make you stronger but basketball is not about pure strength as hitting is to baseball. Still need other skills.


roids make you stronger, faster, quicker, jump higher. things that have no impact in basketball.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Yao Mania said:


> And we all know Yao Ming's genetically engineered to be 7'5". So what?


Exactly, and he did what he was supposed to do.

I don't have a problem with steroids at all, if people want to do that to their bodies for our entertainment by god let them. Makes everything more interesting, and it's a personal choice.

Barry Bonds > Your Mom


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

kflo said:


> roids make you stronger, faster, quicker, jump higher. things that have no impact in basketball.


They also help with muscle recovery, so people would be fresher for games.


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

Pimped Out said:


> you do know high school kids dope more than pros, right?


I don't doubt that many high school basketball players take creatine because it prevents muscle fatigue. To me, this doesn't qualify as doping. 
I doubt many use anabolic steroids or HGH though. Maybe football is a different story. 
What I am sure of however, is that Lebron wasn't shooting roids when he was 12 like the thread starter suggested.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Yeah, doping is heavy in high school football.

Haven't really seen it much at all in baseball, but that might be because our team always was horrible. 

Basketball, haven't seen it at all, except the coach's son took steroids, because he thought they were something else


----------



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

Mebarak said:


> Well I didn't think any less of Rafael Araujo when he got busted for roids.


Is it humanly possible for _anyone_ to think less of Rafael Araujo?


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

mo76 said:


> A bit OT, but i don't see why everyone hates barry bonds for juicing. All other power hitters in baseball did it, so he had to to keep up. I swear if i hear one more thing about barry bonds and steroids :azdaja:
> 
> And lebron ain't on steroids. Where would he get steroids from when he was 12 and poor as ****. Are you seriously that dumb?


i doubt he was "poor as ****" and if he did do steroids, he could have got em like he got that Hummer


----------



## Flash is the Future (May 12, 2006)

Hmm. Interesting. As a casual baseball fan, I have no problem with Barry Bonds potentially taking steroids, but as a die-hard basketball fan, I'd be pissed if a big name was on steroids, if that makes any sense.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

The one guy in the NBA who really merits this sort of scrutiny is Karl Malone because of the abnormal style in which his career progressed.Up until the age of around 30 he was a really good player,but probably not quite a hall of fame caliber player.He had the best seasons of his career in his mid thirties at a point where nearly every other player in the history of the game is declining to one degree ot another.

Mostly this thread makes me wonder about whether or not Kobe is on the juice.That would go a long ways towards explaining why he's such a jerk.He displays the classic mental side effect of steroids while Lebron shows none of them.Hey this crap goes both ways I guess.


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

ElMarroAfamado said:


> i doubt he was "poor as ****" and if he did do steroids, he could have got em like he got that Hummer


His mom would take out a loan to buy him steroids based on his potential for future earnings? I don't think any bank would go for that.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

I would laugh. A lot.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Diable said:


> The one guy in the NBA who really merits this sort of scrutiny is Karl Malone because of the abnormal style in which his career progressed.Up until the age of around 30 he was a really good player,but probably not quite a hall of fame caliber player.He had the best seasons of his career in his mid thirties at a point where nearly every other player in the history of the game is declining to one degree ot another.
> 
> Mostly this thread makes me wonder about whether or not Kobe is on the juice.That would go a long ways towards explaining why he's such a jerk.He displays the classic mental side effect of steroids while Lebron shows none of them.Hey this crap goes both ways I guess.


karl malone's career averages before he turned 30 were 26 ppg, 11 rpg, 3 apg, 58% ts%. 3 seasons of 29+ ppg. 4 straight 1st team all-nba's. he was already well on his way to the hof. 

that said, he's certainly a candidate. 

kobe appears to have the same personality traits as when he was a skinny h.s. kid. 

again, i don't put it past anyone, really, because the incentive is there, although there are risks of exposure.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

ChrisRichards said:


> i dont agree with the *asterisk, i say ban them from the sport and erase their accomplishments


cosigned


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

I would lose respect for him. But I don't think it's happening.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Lebron's case, for me, is strange. When he was a kid writing for Slam in his (i think) second-to-last year as a high school player he was somewhat skinny and had the normal traits of a kid. A year or something later and BAM! a physycal specimen.

I don't know about him. And others (Karl Malone is a good example).

Question: doesn't athletes who compete in the World Champioships and Olympic Games get tested for this kind of chemical enhancers?


----------



## Dynasty Raider (Nov 15, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Lebron's case, for me, is strange. When he was a kid writing for Slam in his (i think) second-to-last year as a high school player he was somewhat skinny and had the normal traits of a kid. A year or something later and BAM! a physycal specimen.
> 
> I don't know about him. And others (Karl Malone is a good example).
> 
> Question: doesn't athletes who compete in the World Champioships and Olympic Games get tested for this kind of chemical enhancers?


YOU, as a Kobe lover, have no rights to comment. What ever happened to Kobe's GUNS???? You know the ones he had over one summer when Samake was on the team. Suddenly they disappeared after Samake was banned from the league for using steroids. Where would Kobe get his juice without anyone finding out if he couldn't get them from Samake?

I think this is a better question surrounding Kobe, than LeBron.


LeBron is a growing boy who always had definition. It is natural for him to continue to develop until 21. Kobe was naturally a SKINNY kid way past 21 so for him to SUDDENLY develop 'GUNS' like he HAD was much more questionable than LeBron growing into a man.

I may be a Kobe hater WITH good reasons, but you LeBron haters are just so transparent (Kobe-Lovers). Kobe cannot touch what LeBron has going for himself, so face it.

Is Kobe juicing? How can any normal person get up enough consistent shots to make 81. I doubt if you can even raise your arms for 41 shots --- with a ball --- running up and down the court --- go on, try it. Then ask yourself again IS KOBE JUICING?????


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Dynasty Raider said:


> YOU, as a Kobe lover, have no rights to comment.


Who the **** are you tell anyone what kind of rights they have just cuz they like a certain player?? Grow the **** up and learn some objectivity.


----------



## mysterio (May 20, 2003)

Everyone knows juicing makes you invisible.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X_CCLk8B43s"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X_CCLk8B43s" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I don't get why there is this such moral outrage over steroids.

We want to see good basketball right? Why does it really matter if it's due to steroids, pilates, genetics, weights, whatever?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> I don't get why there is this such moral outrage over steroids.
> 
> We want to see good basketball right? Why does it really matter if it's due to steroids, pilates, genetics, weights, whatever?


Uh? 

Maybe because a soccer/basketball/football/cyclist/track/etc/athlete juicing up is not only getting unfair advantage but is also negating the sports side of it all...

I thought the Ben Johnson case was good enough to tell people straight...


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Jamel Irief said:


> I don't get why there is this such moral outrage over steroids.
> 
> We want to see good basketball right? Why does it really matter if it's due to steroids, pilates, genetics, weights, whatever?


Because people that don't want to break the law or destroy their bodies would also like to play in the major leagues.


----------



## mysterio (May 20, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> I don't get why there is this such moral outrage over steroids.
> 
> We want to see good basketball right? Why does it really matter if it's due to steroids, pilates, genetics, weights, whatever?


Secondary effects. Thousands of kids in this country (if not millions) have at some point dreams of going pro in a sport, and if steroid use is widespread, then many of these kids will choose to use them. Using the most advanced training methods doesn't pose the danger that steroid use does.

Of course, there has to be an absolute zero tolerance policy along with very strict testing policies to eliminate the problem. It's not the athletes' fault. If it happens to be part of the game, then it's part of the game.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Indifferent.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Brandname said:


> Because people that don't want to break the law or destroy their bodies would also like to play in the major leagues.


Are you one of those people though?

I gave up my major league dreams 4 years ago.

Now I am just a fan, and all I really care about is good intense sporting competition. 

If that means these idiots want to cut down on their life that's on them.



mysterio said:


> Secondary effects. Thousands of kids in this country (if not millions) have at some point dreams of going pro in a sport, and if steroid use is widespread, then many of these kids will choose to use them. Using the most advanced training methods doesn't pose the danger that steroid use does.
> 
> Of course, there has to be an absolute zero tolerance policy along with very strict testing policies to eliminate the problem. It's not the athletes' fault. If it happens to be part of the game, then it's part of the game.


Good post.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Uh?
> 
> Maybe because a soccer/basketball/football/cyclist/track/etc/athlete juicing up is not only getting unfair advantage but is also negating the sports side of it all...
> 
> I thought the Ben Johnson case was good enough to tell people straight...


Guys who are born taller have an unfair advantage too.

How are sports enhancement drugs negating the sports side?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Guys who are born taller have an unfair advantage too.
> 
> How are sports enhancement drugs negating the sports side?


I think the question is so simple i will waste no more time on the subject:

1- We are talking about sports, here;
2- Sportsmanship dictates you bring your natural best to the table;
3- Guys who brake the rules are knowned as cheaters and stripped of their accomplishments;
4- Because it's fraking sports we are talking about!!!!! If you wanna see supped up guys going at eachothers you can create whatever "Master Series" or "Strong Man Race" or something tou want. Just don't call it "sport";
5- To the best of my knowledge, guys who are caught usind artificial enhancing methods are viewed as cheaters, losers, and are a disgrace to the respective sport, wether it's track (Ben freking Johnson), cycling (the monumental scandal around the Tour de France);
6- If you want to play sports, you do it fair and square; If you are not up to it, please start a league (for whatever sport) who accepts guys like that;
7- It's a freaking disgrace and i'm apalled to see someone defend it.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Jamel Irief said:


> Are you one of those people though?
> 
> I gave up my major league dreams 4 years ago.
> 
> ...


Of course I'm not one of those people. But that doesn't mean that I can't empathize with those who are.

On principle, I don't agree with any circumstances that would require someone to do something dangerous or illegal just to be able to compete with the best.


----------



## hi im new (Jul 4, 2005)

Brandname said:


> Because people that don't want to break the law or destroy their bodies would also like to play in the major leagues.


Well said.


----------



## hi im new (Jul 4, 2005)

I also agree with PauloCatarino. I've been telling my friends for a while now that they need to create a Steriod and Non-steriod league for every sport now (this is assuming that steriods are legal). That way all the small balled, small dicked, infertile, no brained, liver tumored, jaundiced, fluid retentioned, high blood pressured, double D breasted, cheating mother ****ers can finally be legit and not have this **** on their conscience.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> I think the question is so simple i will waste no more time on the subject:
> 
> 1- We are talking about sports, here;
> 2- Sportsmanship dictates you bring your natural best to the table;
> ...


Some decent arguements but mainly some horrible ones.

Of course society hates steroid users, I already acknowledged that in the first post of this thread. Who cares about society? Society thinks Fergie makes good music. 

What if steroids weren't against the rules like they weren't in baseball forever? You aren't a cheater if you aren't breaking a rule.

Tell me why steroids are bad for sports outside of "society says so!" and "it's against the rules! never argue rules!"


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Jamel Irief said:


> What if steroids weren't against the rules like they weren't in baseball forever? You aren't a cheater if you aren't breaking a rule.


*
They're illegal.* Murdering the opposing team's starting pitcher isn't explicitly against the rules in baseball, either. But I don't think anyone would consider that fair play. 

To put it another way, if baseball had to explicitly list all the things that would be considered cheating or against the spirit of the game, the document would be infinitely long. Some things are perceived to be self-evident (i.e. illegal activities). The ones that aren't quite so obvious are explicitly written into the rules.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

R-X said:


> Imagine a juiced up Nash backing down guys like Kidd!


:rofl2:


----------



## Jenness (Apr 18, 2007)

Zaza Pachulia has a lot of back acne. I noticed it one time and I instantly thought steroids. Perhaps nothing, perhaps something but in the absence of any more information or suspicion, it's just a case of back acne.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Lebron's case, for me, is strange. When he was a kid writing for Slam in his (i think) second-to-last year as a high school player he was somewhat skinny and had the normal traits of a kid. A year or something later and BAM! a physycal specimen.
> 
> I don't know about him. And others (Karl Malone is a good example).
> 
> Question: doesn't athletes who compete in the World Champioships and Olympic Games get tested for this kind of chemical enhancers?


What's your point? He's was 16 then, and is 22 now. 18-22 are prime ages for working out. Four months ago my boy's brother was VERY skinny. Now he's still slim, but much more muscular. Now imagine a few years of NBA level trainers.

Also, if he's taking steroids its definitely not for size or strength.

he really isn't that big at all.

http://www.sportscave.com/MLBHOTNOT/lebron.jpg

http://lebrontalk.com/content/images/wallpapers/battlegrounds05_lebron2.jpg

He knows how to use his body to play strong.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Come on people, this guy played footbal in HS for crying out loud!!


----------



## fuzznuts (May 23, 2006)

I took the human growth hormone in high school.. 

gained some height and definitely a lot of mass. Helped out playing soccer and volleyball.

no side effects (yet).

If Lebron was juicing, I would be very suprised.. I wouldnt turn my back on him or the nba, but I would be shocked


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

Damn Lebron actually looks kinda skinny in the forward facing pic, but his back is well-developed in the 2nd one. Low bodyfat for sure. Was the first pic from 2006 cause I see Tayshaun in the background so I assume it is when they lost to Detroit.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

bullybullz said:


> Come on people, this guy played footbal in HS for crying out loud!!


So did Allen Iverson and Nate Robinson :biggrin:


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

different_13 said:


> So did Allen Iverson and Nate Robinson :biggrin:


And Charlie Ward...


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

hi im new said:


> I also agree with PauloCatarino. I've been telling my friends for a while now that they need to create a Steriod and Non-steriod league for every sport now (this is assuming that steriods are legal). That way all the small balled, small dicked, infertile, no brained, liver tumored, jaundiced, fluid retentioned, high blood pressured, double D breasted, cheating mother ****ers can finally be legit and not have this **** on their conscience.


I have read some research and saw some videos about guys who have used steroids for 20-50 years (yes, one guy was like 70 and still juicing and lifting). In this group of guys, none of them had the violent tempers or small balls or whatever else. While I'm on the fence when it comes to steroids, under very strict supervision and with the best medical advice possible, it might be possible to use steroids in a responsible manner and reduce or virtually eliminate those side effects.


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Lebron's case, for me, is strange. When he was a kid writing for Slam in his (i think) second-to-last year as a high school player he was somewhat skinny and had the normal traits of a kid. A year or something later and BAM! a physycal specimen.
> 
> I don't know about him. And others (Karl Malone is a good example).
> 
> Question: doesn't athletes who compete in the World Champioships and Olympic Games get tested for this kind of chemical enhancers?


I think if someone like lebron just did a regular weight training program for 4 months, it would produce the results you see today. Honestly, if you think Lebron is on steroids then you must think half the people at your gym are on steroids too.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

I dont have a problem with adults using roids but I do have a problem with kids having to start using roids at the age of 12 to even compete...if you wanna start in high school to go to college to make the pros you gotta make some tough decisions at too early of an age to know the right one for you...

If you don't think Lebron wasn't hustling and making money on the court in high school (pick up games) you're an idiot...


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

mo76 said:


> I think if someone like lebron just did a regular weight training program for 4 months, it would produce the results you see today. Honestly, if you think Lebron is on steroids then you must think half the people at your gym are on steroids too.


you might wanna do some internet research on high school steroroid usage... its way bigger then you think...


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

Dragnsmke1 said:


> you might wanna do some internet research on high school steroroid usage... its way bigger then you think...


Why, it doesn't affect me? Not to sound too cocky, but my build is similar to lebron's and i've never done steroids.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

mo76 said:


> Why, it doesn't affect me?


not now but DID it affect you?


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

mo76 said:


> Why, it doesn't affect me? Not to sound too cocky, but my build is similar to lebron's and *i've never done steroids.*


I notice youre not in the pros...was everyone that much better then you or did they have an advantage?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

you don't just take steroids to look like ronnie coleman. steroids and other ped's can be targeted for specific results. 

these guys aren't huge. but they certainly benefited from ped's.

justin gatlin









tim montgomery


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

Dragnsmke1 said:


> I notice youre not in the pros...was everyone that much better then you or did they have an advantage?


you are delusional. do you realize how small the percentage of the population that "makes the pros" is? No high school athlete that I played against made it to pro basketball, or used steroids for that matter.


----------



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

Brandname said:


> *They're illegal.*


Not necessarily (the performance enhancers that Bonds is accused of using were in fact legal while he was using them).



Brandname said:


> To put it another way, if baseball had to explicitly list all the things that would be considered cheating or against the spirit of the game, the document would be infinitely long. Some things are perceived to be self-evident (i.e. illegal activities). The ones that aren't quite so obvious are explicitly written into the rules.


As far as I know MLB's CBA doesn't ban "violating the spirit of the rules", whatever those might be.


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

kflo said:


> you don't just take steroids to look like ronnie coleman. steroids and other ped's can be targeted for specific results.
> 
> these guys aren't huge. but they certainly benefited from ped's.
> 
> ...


Good point, but lebron has been under a microscope for so long, and he just doesn't seem like the type of person to take steroids. I think he is just a gifted athlete, i could be wrong, but i doubt it.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Not necessarily (the performance enhancers that Bonds is accused of using were in fact legal while he was using them).


link?


----------



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

kflo said:


> link?


Link? The FDA didn't ban tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) until the tail end of 2003. Therefore, prior to be outlawed, it was a legal supplement (the fact that Balco shouldn't have filed false paperwork with the FDA isn't an issue, none of the athletes that used THG would have had any reason to know that). The FDA press release about THG is dated 28 October, 2003. Therefore, until (roughly) that date THG was a legal substance.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

mo76 said:


> you are delusional. do you realize how small the percentage of the population that "makes the pros" is? No high school athlete that I played against made it to pro basketball, or used steroids for that matter.


I was actually being nice and assuming youre game was good... I know the % is low which is even more reason to use steroids...


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

ehmunro said:


> Not necessarily (the performance enhancers that Bonds is accused of using were in fact legal while he was using them).
> 
> As far as I know MLB's CBA doesn't ban "violating the spirit of the rules", whatever those might be.


THG is an anabolic steroid. They're listed as "controlled substances" in the US, and are illegal to obtain or distribute without a prescription. It was banned as soon as the FDA learned about it. If you're arguing that it's ok because you can invent new steroids before the FDA finds out about them and makes them illegal, I'm not sure that's a really solid refutation of my point.

As far as steroids being against the "spirit of the rules", maybe I should have been more specific. How about explicitly against the rules:



> In truth, steroids have been banned in baseball since 1991 -- in a policy baseball officials made little effort to publicize. A source provided a copy of the seven-page document to ESPN The Magazine on the condition of anonymity. Titled "Baseball's Drug Policy and Prevention Program," the memo was sent to all major-league clubs on June 7 of that year by then-commissioner Fay Vincent. He spelled out components of the program, and ordered, "This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids."


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroidsExc&num=19

They have been against the rules for a long time. They just didn't have a testing policy to go along with the rule. Pretty ****ty, I know. But that doesn't make steroids ok in baseball. It just means people broke rules without getting caught because of a non-existent enforcement policy.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Link? The FDA didn't ban tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) until the tail end of 2003. Therefore, prior to be outlawed, it was a legal supplement (the fact that Balco shouldn't have filed false paperwork with the FDA isn't an issue, none of the athletes that used THG would have had any reason to know that). The FDA press release about THG is dated 28 October, 2003. Therefore, until (roughly) that date THG was a legal substance.


thg was created as an undetectable steroid. it wasn't marketed as a legal supplement. it was unknown to the fda until they were alerted. none of the athletes using thg were ever public about it. this was a covert operation that they were all in on.


----------



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

Brandname said:


> THG is an anabolic steroid. They're listed as "controlled substances" in the US, and are illegal to obtain or distribute without a prescription. It was banned as soon as the FDA learned about it. If you're arguing that it's ok because you can invent new steroids before the FDA finds out about them and makes them illegal, I'm not sure that's a really solid refutation of my point.


BALCO marketed THG as a supplement, avoiding FDA oversite (until the FDA tested the substance in 2003 and eventually banned it). The fact is that it was legal until the FDA ruled otherwise. Bonds, McGwire, Giambi, Sheffield, et al had no way of knowing that THG _should have_ been illegal (note: this does not construe an endorsement of America's insane drug laws, as far as I'm concerned they're still ****ed; this is simply a commentary based on the laws as they stand). 



Brandname said:


> As far as steroids being against the "spirit of the rules", maybe I should have been more specific. How about explicitly against the rules...
> 
> They have been against the rules for a long time. They just didn't have a testing policy to go along with the rule. Pretty ****ty, I know. But that doesn't make steroids ok in baseball. It just means people broke rules without getting caught because of a non-existent enforcement policy.


THG wasn't marketed to athletes as an anabolic steroid, though. It was sold to them as a performance enhancer that would avoid detection, androstene that worked, as it were. You can argue they should have known better, but it doesn't change the fact that the players that used THG were using a legal substance prior to FDA action.



kflo said:


> thg was created as an undetectable steroid. it wasn't marketed as a legal supplement. it was unknown to the fda until they were alerted. none of the athletes using thg were ever public about it. this was a covert operation that they were all in on.


BALCO was not some secret crime syndicate meeting in abandoned warehouses down by the waterfront. BALCO was a high profile corporation that was very public about what they were doing, for christ's sake, they sponsored track & field events. That they weren't marketing their services to _you_ doesn't mean that they weren't marketing them. I doubt that Rolls Royce dealers spend a whole lot of time attempting to sell you a Phantom, that doesn't mean they don't advertise their autos. BALCO was a public company that marketed its services to athletes for a premium price. They classified their drugs as nutritional supplements to avoid FDA oversight. Was what that illegal? Sure. But that was the company's lookout, not the athletes'.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

ehmunro said:


> BALCO marketed THG as a supplement, avoiding FDA oversite (until the FDA tested the substance in 2003 and eventually banned it). The fact is that it was legal until the FDA ruled otherwise. Bonds, McGwire, Giambi, Sheffield, et al had no way of knowing that THG _should have_ been illegal (note: this does not construe an endorsement of America's insane drug laws, as far as I'm concerned they're still ****ed; this is simply a commentary based on the laws as they stand).
> 
> THG wasn't marketed to athletes as an anabolic steroid, though. It was sold to them as a performance enhancer that would avoid detection, androstene that worked, as it were. You can argue they should have known better, but it doesn't change the fact that the players that used THG were using a legal substance prior to FDA action.


No offense, but I think you're being truly naive if you think that the athletes that used these substances were unaware that they were anabolic steroids. 

If you believe the leaked grand jury testimony, Barry Bonds' own girlfriend testified that he would go into his room with Greg Anderson and lock the door with his bag of steroids. Of course he knew he was taking an illegal substance of the time. They all did. They're not stupid.

In addition, some of the first steroids he used were Stanozolol/Winstrol, which were known for a long time to be anabolic steroids. Classified as controlled substances.


----------



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

Brandname said:


> No offense, but I think you're being truly naive if you think that the athletes that used these substances were unaware that they were anabolic steroids.


What they thought isn't really relevant though, is it?



Brandname said:


> In addition, some of the first steroids he used were Stanozolol/Winstrol, which were known for a long time to be anabolic steroids. Classified as controlled substances.


I hadn't read anywhere that he tested positive for other steroids, just THG, which was still legal when he was using it.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

ehmunro said:


> What they thought isn't really relevant though, is it?


It sounded like that's what you were arguing. You seemed to imply they were absolved from guilt because they didn't know they were putting a steroid in their bodies, rather than a supplement. 



> I hadn't read anywhere that he tested positive for other steroids, just THG, which was still legal when he was using it.


Truthfully, I didn't even know he ever tested positive for THG.


----------



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

Brandname said:


> It sounded like that's what you were arguing. You seemed to imply they were absolved from guilt because they didn't know they were putting a steroid in their bodies, rather than a supplement.


I started by pointing out that your comment about them being illegal wasn't necessarily true, and that a lot of baseball players could slip through the "_They're legal_" loophole. I suppose they could technically be guilty of putting a legal substance in their bodies, and maybe they knew that the PEDs in question should have been illegal. But that falls into the whole _morality vs. ethics vs. the law_ free for all. 



Brandname said:


> Truthfully, I didn't even know he ever tested positive for THG.


Now I thought they had him on the THG part. I was under the impression that they took blood samples a long time ago in relation to this case, maybe I was just assuming that they came back positive.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the notion that balco was guilty of simply failing to report it's product properly to the fda and was otherwise publicly on the up-and-up with respect to thg is frankly ludicrous. we have guilty pleas from the chemist, a trainer, a coach, the founder and a VP. this WAS a covert ring.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

THG was specifically designed for the purpose of evading the law and evading detection by the authorities.It might not have been technically illegal in itself,but it's completely illegal to distribute a product that hasn't been subjected to bureaucratic oversight.The entire thing was a criminal conspiracy with the intent of circumventing various laws and regulations.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Diable said:


> *THG was specifically designed for the purpose of evading the law and evading detection by the authorities.*It might not have been technically illegal in itself,but it's completely illegal to distribute a product that hasn't been subjected to bureaucratic oversight.The entire thing was a criminal conspiracy with the intent of circumventing various laws and regulations.


I've been under the impression that *this *is actually how they were marketed to athletes, rather than as a supplement.


----------



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

kflo said:


> the notion that balco was guilty of simply failing to report it's product properly to the fda and was otherwise publicly on the up-and-up with respect to thg is frankly ludicrous. we have guilty pleas from the chemist, a trainer, a coach, the founder and a VP. this WAS a covert ring.


Let's try it this way. BALCO is a 20+ year old company, not some secret criminal organisation. They had official representatives at the Seoul Olympics (to help with the blood and urinalysis). Their business was blood and urinalysis services, and nutritional supplements. They have been very up front about their selling supplements to athletes; like that whole Team ZM whatever thing they had going with Marion Jones and a few other track stars, or their public "work" with Bill Romanowski. What they weren't was up front with the FDA about what they were selling (as far as PEDs go). The FDA has no authority over nutritional supplements. Thus, for example, you can go right down to your local Walgreen's and by a bottle of DHEA (a downstream derivative of HGH) and the FDA has no say in the matter. Similarly you can buy a whole host of supplements that increase the body's production of testosterone. Nothing the FDA can do about it (these substances are obviously banned in international athletic competitions). If you sell "supplements" rather than "drugs" you fall outside the FDA's purview. Now, if you are marketing an anabolic steroid as a natural "supplement" and selling it on store shelves, well, it won't be long until the FDA gets a sample and tests it. And then the jig is up. If, however, you market it only to professional athletes at very high prices, the odds that the FDA gets their hands on it are very remote (if memory serves it was a pissed off track coach that sent the FDA a sample of THG for analysis), and that's what BALCO was counting on. That the athletes and their trainers would be happy enough with the results that none of them would volunteer unnecessary information to the FDA (the _see no evil, hear no evil_ school of ethics).



Diable said:


> THG was specifically designed for the purpose of evading the law and evading detection by the authorities.It might not have been technically illegal in itself,but it's completely illegal to distribute a product that hasn't been subjected to bureaucratic oversight.The entire thing was a criminal conspiracy with the intent of circumventing various laws and regulations.


Brandname and I weren't discussing what BALCO was doing, simply what the athletes were. Whatever the lab was up to doesn't change the fact that it isn't illegal to use a legal substance.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

can we agree that balco developed thg with intent to create an underground, undetectable steroid network? the whole point was keeping it a secret?

if we can agree on that, we then have an underground criminal network that hinges its success (i.e., not getting arrested) on simply unaware athletes not discussing it based on some unspoken school of ethics?


----------



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

kflo said:


> can we agree that balco developed thg with intent to create an underground, undetectable steroid network? the whole point was keeping it a secret?
> 
> if we can agree on that, we then have an underground criminal network that hinges its success (i.e., not getting arrested) on simply unaware athletes not discussing it based on some unspoken school of ethics?


Well, sure, but what they were doing isn't really much different (in spirit) than what Tyson Chicken did to the state of Arkansas (in bypassing EPA regulations and creating a pollution hellhole that the taxpayers have to foot the bill for). And last time I checked Tyson Chicken wasn't the mafia. Corporate malfeasance is universal.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Brandname and I weren't discussing what BALCO was doing, simply what the athletes were. Whatever the lab was up to doesn't change the fact that it isn't illegal to use a legal substance.


That's a completely incorrect analysis.Your logic is simply misguided.A substance that isn't specifically cleared for distribution can not be legally distributed or legally consumed.Companies spend years and years and millions and millions of dollars to gain the approval of the FDA and other oversight agencies because they can be punished severely if they don't.THG was illegal because it was not legal...And the athletes who took it did so in the clear knowledge that it was not legal.That's especially true of track and field athletes who have acquired a very broad understanding of this area of the law over the past generation.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Well, sure, but what they were doing isn't really much different (in spirit) than what Tyson Chicken did to the state of Arkansas (in bypassing EPA regulations and creating a pollution hellhole that the taxpayers have to foot the bill for). And last time I checked Tyson Chicken wasn't the mafia. Corporate malfeasance is universal.


this was an underground drug ring. they knew what they were doing was illegal, and they knew they were at risk if they were found out. the entire point was that it was a completely unknown and undetectable powerful steroid. it was absolutely necessary that it stay unknown. that a necessary part of their illegal business ring was left to chance from the athletes requires a suspension of belief.


----------



## bluecro (Oct 13, 2006)

I doubt that Bron is juicing.


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

I would lose a lot of respect for LeBron, then later when he stops I'll probably start liking him again.


----------



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

Diable said:


> That's a completely incorrect analysis.Your logic is simply misguided.A substance that isn't specifically cleared for distribution can not be legally distributed or legally consumed.Companies spend years and years and millions and millions of dollars to gain the approval of the FDA and other oversight agencies because they can be punished severely if they don't.THG was illegal because it was not legal...And the athletes who took it did so in the clear knowledge that it was not legal.That's especially true of track and field athletes who have acquired a very broad understanding of this area of the law over the past generation.


ummm. No. The FDA only has purview over "drugs", not supplements. Distributors of melatonin, DHEA, and countless other hormones do not need FDA approval to sell their products at all. Whether or not you like it, that _is_ the law. BALCO certainly knew what they were doing (in claiming that THG was a hormonal supplement rather than an anabolic steroid), but just because the makers knew what was involved does not mean that anyone else knew. The athletes knew they were taking performance enhancers, but not all performance enhancers are anabolic steroids (many of them are, in fact, perfectly legal, though banned in international athletic competitions). If you were a professional athlete, and someone told you that they had developed a supplement that could not be detected by current doping tests, then what you're buying (in theory) is a legal substance that would give you an edge in athletic competitions, that's certainly unethical, but not necessarily illegal (unless they knew how THG was made, which is unlikely).



kflo said:


> this was an underground drug ring. they knew what they were doing was illegal, and they knew they were at risk if they were found out. the entire point was that it was a completely unknown and undetectable powerful steroid. it was absolutely necessary that it stay unknown. that a necessary part of their illegal business ring was left to chance from the athletes requires a suspension of belief.


I'm sorry, there's no such thing as an "underground" ring that publicises their work, as BALCO clearly did. They flat out promoted their work with several track stars, football players, and baseball players. If they were an "underground" organisation they wouldn't have had their own ****ing track team. They made no secret at all about their working with pro athletes to help them enhance performance. What they did was lie about what they were doing (to the proper authorities).


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> ummm. No. The FDA only has purview over "drugs", not supplements. Distributors of melatonin, DHEA, and countless other hormones do not need FDA approval to sell their products at all. Whether or not you like it, that _is_ the law. BALCO certainly knew what they were doing (in claiming that THG was a hormonal supplement rather than an anabolic steroid), but just because the makers knew what was involved does not mean that anyone else knew. The athletes knew they were taking performance enhancers, but not all performance enhancers are anabolic steroids (many of them are, in fact, perfectly legal, though banned in international athletic competitions). If you were a professional athlete, and someone told you that they had developed a supplement that could not be detected by current doping tests, then what you're buying (in theory) is a legal substance that would give you an edge in athletic competitions, that's certainly unethical, but not necessarily illegal (unless they knew how THG was made, which is unlikely).


for supplements to be legal, they need to identify what it actually is, and what it actually contains. their "story", if exposed, was that it was a supplement, which they knew of course it wasn't. 

that the athletes didn't know the chemical process with which thg was made doesn't mean they weren't aware of the type of substance they were taking. 



ehmunro said:


> I'm sorry, there's no such thing as an "underground" ring that publicises their work, as BALCO clearly did. They flat out promoted their work with several track stars, football players, and baseball players. If they were an "underground" organisation they wouldn't have had their own ****ing track team. They made no secret at all about their working with pro athletes to help them enhance performance. What they did was lie about what they were doing (to the proper authorities).


balco in no way publicized thg. they were a legitimate business that did some illegitimate business. they absolutely had an underground ring within their legitmate business, which was absolutely secret. and intended to stay that way or risk losing it all, including their freedom. and they were certainly aware of this risk. again, you're suggesting that they left this risk with severe consequences to chance and some unspoken code with the athletes, who thought they were just using a legal supplement. this whole thing was built on a code of secrecy all around. because they all knew the consequences.


----------



## Lebbron (Nov 20, 2005)

hi im new said:


> I also agree with PauloCatarino. I've been telling my friends for a while now that they need to create a Steriod and Non-steriod league for every sport now (this is assuming that steriods are legal). That way all the small balled, small dicked, infertile, no brained, liver tumored, jaundiced, fluid retentioned, high blood pressured, double D breasted, cheating mother ****ers can finally be legit and not have this **** on their conscience.


First of all, most of these things are myths about steroids or maybe they are in some but you can find some that don't have that many negative effects. Secondly, I do not doubt that steroids are prevelant in basketball. They would help your game enormously. Baseball has only begun to look at steroids, cycling and track and field are the only sports right now really trying to clean up and look what it's done to them they are ridiculed. If there are steroids in the NBA, and I'm almost sure that there are lots, I'd rather not know about it for as long as possible.


----------



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

kflo said:


> for supplements to be legal, they need to identify what it actually is, and what it actually contains. their "story", if exposed, was that it was a supplement, which they knew of course it wasn't.
> 
> that the athletes didn't know the chemical process with which thg was made doesn't mean they weren't aware of the type of substance they were taking.


Right, _BALCO_ broke the law, not Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, et al (I will leave Romocop out of this since by his own admission he was taking steroids outside what he got from BALCO). What they did might be unethical, but that's the extent of it. There are PEDs that aren't anabolic steroids, the athletes were specifically buying performance enhancers for which there were no tests, but they would have no way of knowing which side of the line the performance enhancers fell on (and I sincerely doubt that they had any desire to know).



kflo said:


> balco in no way publicized thg. they were a legitimate business that did some illegitimate business. they absolutely had an underground ring within their legitmate business, which was absolutely secret. and intended to stay that way or risk losing it all, including their freedom. and they were certainly aware of this risk. again, you're suggesting that they left this risk with severe consequences to chance and some unspoken code with the athletes, who thought they were just using a legal supplement. this whole thing was built on a code of secrecy all around. because they all knew the consequences.


_You're_ arguing that BALCO told all the athletes that they were _publicly_ working with (I mean, Marion Jones was a public spokesperson for them) exactly what they were up to, and apparently relied on the athletes (nor any of their various hangers on) not sharing that information. All I've maintained is the far more reasonable position that Victor Conte and his partners decided to skirt the law by pretending that a newly developed anabolic steroid was a hormonal supplement (thus avoiding FDA oversight) and staying under radar by only selling it to people that were going to ask no questions and were unlikely to share with the proper authorities samples of the performance enhancers they were taking (as that would lead to the PED being effectively banned and cost them their edge). My position happens to pass the Occam's Razor test.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Right, _BALCO_ broke the law, not Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, et al (I will leave Romocop out of this since by his own admission he was taking steroids outside what he got from BALCO). What they did might be unethical, but that's the extent of it. There are PEDs that aren't anabolic steroids, the athletes were specifically buying performance enhancers for which there were no tests, but they would have no way of knowing which side of the line the performance enhancers fell on (and I sincerely doubt that they had any desire to know).


i agree that it's a much harder case for criminal prosecution against the athletes, as there are elements that are difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt with respect to knowledge and intent. 



ehmunro said:


> _You're_ arguing that BALCO told all the athletes that they were _publicly_ working with (I mean, Marion Jones was a public spokesperson for them) exactly what they were up to, and apparently relied on the athletes (nor any of their various hangers on) not sharing that information. All I've maintained is the far more reasonable position that Victor Conte and his partners decided to skirt the law by pretending that a newly developed anabolic steroid was a hormonal supplement (thus avoiding FDA oversight) and staying under radar by only selling it to people that were going to ask no questions and were unlikely to share with the proper authorities samples of the performance enhancers they were taking (as that would lead to the PED being effectively banned and cost them their edge). My position happens to pass the Occam's Razor test.


you honestly believe that occam's razor in this case is that professional athletes with their entire careers to lose weren't going to ask questions about what they were putting in their bodies? occam's razor, to me, points more directly to an explicit code of silence. if they knew their ped's, if discovered, would be banned, certainly that would throw a flag to the nature of their activities, no?


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

as much as i dislike him i really duobt that Lebron James did steroids, dont come at me with that race card bull**** but i mean if you look at it, MOST BLACK PEOPLE are just built like that n **** ...really, there are some black guys i know that have never worked out or done any kind of physical exercise besides play basketball and they are built like ****ing athletes, like if they work out atleast a couple times a week but DO THEY ?? No.....so it is very likely LebRon just grew into that body......


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

dp


----------



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

kflo said:


> you honestly believe that occam's razor in this case is that professional athletes with their entire careers to lose weren't going to ask questions about what they were putting in their bodies?


Yeah, I'm pretty sure that an athlete buying untestable performance enhancers would want no knowledge whatsoever of whether or not the enhancer fell into the loosely defined category of "anabolic steroid" because if they knew they would be in legal trouble (unless they chose not to use the performance enhancer). Whereas if they had no idea, and had the promise of the lab that it was a non-steroidal performance enhancer, the most that would happen is what's happened to Bonds, public censure for "cheating". The same way that lawyers that defend organised crime figures probably don't ask too many questions of their clients. If you don't know, you're always better off.



kflo said:


> if they knew their ped's, if discovered, would be banned, certainly that would throw a flag to the nature of their activities, no?


Not necessarily. There are OTC cold medications that contain banned chemicals. _Banned_ in the competitive sense does not in any way equate to _illegal_. If the athletes submitted their PED to the FDA for analysis, and it _was_ legal, there would be a resulting test for the PED, and it would get added to the banned chemical list for the Olympics, etc. and no longer be of any use to them. Why would they volunteer to lose their edge? Why would BALCO expand their list of potential prosecution witnesses by making it explicit to their clients what they were doing? All sides in this had strong motivations not to share THG samples with the FDA. BALCO would be infinitely better off not sharing unnecessary information (with their clients) than they would be flapping their gums, which, as it turned out, how it happened as Conte got less time for his steroid operation than the yard manager of the business next door got for driving with a suspended license (six months for a second offense).


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty sure that an athlete buying untestable performance enhancers would want no knowledge whatsoever of whether or not the enhancer fell into the loosely defined category of "anabolic steroid" because if they knew they would be in legal trouble (unless they chose not to use the performance enhancer). Whereas if they had no idea, and had the promise of the lab that it was a non-steroidal performance enhancer, the most that would happen is what's happened to Bonds, public censure for "cheating". The same way that lawyers that defend organised crime figures probably don't ask too many questions of their clients. If you don't know, you're always better off.


the worst that would happen is that they would be suspended from their sport and their careers would possibly be over. which is exactly what happened to some. 



ehmunro said:


> Not necessarily. There are OTC cold medications that contain banned chemicals. _Banned_ in the competitive sense does not in any way equate to _illegal_. If the athletes submitted their PED to the FDA for analysis, and it _was_ legal, there would be a resulting test for the PED, and it would get added to the banned chemical list for the Olympics, etc. and no longer be of any use to them. Why would they volunteer to lose their edge? Why would BALCO expand their list of potential prosecution witnesses by making it explicit to their clients what they were doing? All sides in this had strong motivations not to share THG samples with the FDA. BALCO would be infinitely better off not sharing unnecessary information (with their clients) than they would be flapping their gums, which, as it turned out, how it happened as Conte got less time for his steroid operation than the yard manager of the business next door got for driving with a suspended license (six months for a second offense).


because all of their clients would need to be flippin morons for wanting to be ignorant on what they were doing to themselves and what risk they were exposing themselves to. they would have ALL needed to unconditionally trust these guys with their entire careers, while also suspending belief. "this stuff's great - i sure don't want to know what it is." "q: could i get in trouble for this? a: don't worry. response: ok."


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

ElMarroAfamado said:


> as much as i dislike him i really duobt that Lebron James did steroids, dont come at me with that race card bull**** but i mean if you look at it, MOST BLACK PEOPLE are just built like that n **** ...really, there are some black guys i know that have never worked out or done any kind of physical exercise besides play basketball and they are built like ****ing athletes, like if they work out atleast a couple times a week but DO THEY ?? No.....so it is very likely LebRon just grew into that body......


Good point, that's what i was saying, i just didn't want to "go there"


----------



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

kflo said:


> the worst that would happen is that they would be suspended from their sport and their careers would possibly be over. which is exactly what happened to some.


Does this prove your contention that they'd absolutely want to know the legality of what they were using? If they knew what they were doing, the worst that could happen is _jail_, which is a whole lot worse than anything else. All this does is reinforce my point about them _not_ wanting to know. 



kflo said:


> because all of their clients would need to be flippin morons for wanting to be ignorant on what they were doing to themselves and what risk they were exposing themselves to. they would have ALL needed to unconditionally trust these guys with their entire careers, while also suspending belief. "this stuff's great - i sure don't want to know what it is." "q: could i get in trouble for this? a: don't worry. response: ok."


In other words, you think that the best way for a conspiracy to survive is for the conspirators to tell everyone humanly possible what they're up to? If you were a criminal, your career would be pretty short. Standard rule of thumb, if you're going to commit a crime, leave as few witnesses as humanly possible. There was zero motivation for Conte & Co. to tell _anyone_ what they were up to. None. And there was no compelling reason for the athletes to want to know. The BALCO people involved didn't need to tell athletes that THG was an anabolic steroid to tell them the possible side effects of their usage (which are a whole lot milder than you seem to think, the steroidal myths are terribly overblown). The athletes' concern began and ended with the question of performance gains versus health concerns. The question of legality wouldn't enter into it, _because if they knew they could get in legal trouble_. If they were blind to what BALCO was doing, then legally they were in the clear (because THG wasn't illegal until sometime around October of 2003). If BALCO told them about what they were up to, they became co-conspirators. Now I understand that the stereotype is that athletes are lazy and stupid (I mean, how else do you get to be a world class athlete unless you're as dumb as a bag nails?), and perhaps you're just assuming that (along with the steroid horror stories), but I tend to think that most of them are smarter than you're giving them credit for. I'm pretty sure they understood that having knowledge of a criminal conspiracy makes them co-conspirators (given that they were using THG), and that having no knowledge meant that they couldn't be charged with anything. And hey, guess what? They weren't.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Does this prove your contention that they'd absolutely want to know the legality of what they were using? If they knew what they were doing, the worst that could happen is _jail_, which is a whole lot worse than anything else. All this does is reinforce my point about them _not_ wanting to know.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you think that the best way for a conspiracy to survive is for the conspirators to tell everyone humanly possible what they're up to? If you were a criminal, your career would be pretty short. Standard rule of thumb, if you're going to commit a crime, leave as few witnesses as humanly possible. There was zero motivation for Conte & Co. to tell _anyone_ what they were up to. None. And there was no compelling reason for the athletes to want to know. The BALCO people involved didn't need to tell athletes that THG was an anabolic steroid to tell them the possible side effects of their usage (which are a whole lot milder than you seem to think, the steroidal myths are terribly overblown). The athletes' concern began and ended with the question of performance gains versus health concerns. The question of legality wouldn't enter into it, _because if they knew they could get in legal trouble_. If they were blind to what BALCO was doing, then legally they were in the clear (because THG wasn't illegal until sometime around October of 2003). If BALCO told them about what they were up to, they became co-conspirators. Now I understand that the stereotype is that athletes are lazy and stupid (I mean, how else do you get to be a world class athlete unless you're as dumb as a bag nails?), and perhaps you're just assuming that (along with the steroid horror stories), but I tend to think that most of them are smarter than you're giving them credit for. I'm pretty sure they understood that having knowledge of a criminal conspiracy makes them co-conspirators (given that they were using THG), and that having no knowledge meant that they couldn't be charged with anything. And hey, guess what? They weren't.


noone's come close to suggesting the conspirators tell everyone humanly possible. however, their CLIENTS were the USERS. you're assuming the USERS were taking RISKS without any knowledge of the nature of the risk they were taking. that they were staking their careers on ignorance. and you suggest i'm the one suggesting lazy and stupid? 

they could all ultimately take the standard approach of denial. which they did. they all had their stories straight at the outset.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Yeah, after reading the testimony given by Bonds's girlfriend, I have a hard time getting on board with his claim that he "unknowingly" took steroids.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

how many of the guys who knowingly took illegal steroids have been ciminally prosecuted?


----------



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

kflo said:


> noone's come close to suggesting the conspirators tell everyone humanly possible. however, their CLIENTS were the USERS. you're assuming the USERS were taking RISKS without any knowledge of the nature of the risk they were taking. that they were staking their careers on ignorance. and you suggest i'm the one suggesting lazy and stupid?


How were they "staking their careers on ignorance"? They were taking performance enhancers for which there were no tests. They did _not_ need to know whether or not the chemical fell into the ill-defined category of "anabolic steroids" to ask what the side effects were, and BALCO didn't need to tell the athletes that they (BALCO) were breaking the law to answer the question. BALCO's malfeasance had zero bearing on the health questions, you still have not demonstrated even a single reason why an athlete would voluntarily become a co-conspirator (especially ones like Marion Jones or Barry Bonds that were making advertisements for BALCO) or why Victor Conte, et al, would increase the possible witness pool against them. Because _if_ they told the athletes what they were up to, then the athletes _would_ become criminally liable _and_ have valuable testimony to offer to decrease any criminal sentence they might incur. It's whole lot easier, when you're skirting the law, to not give out information you don't have to. And that information is information they certainly had zero motivation to share, and the athletes in question had zero motivation to find out.



kflo said:


> they all had their stories straight at the outset.


I see, and where did they hold this meeting where all the athletes (and their lawyers) coordinated their answers? Yes, this is _far_ more likely than a case of athletes looking for an untraceable edge deciding to not ask legal questions and accept at face value BALCO's assertion that THG was a legal hormonal supplement. I mean, I know, for a fact that every single lawyer that defends high level drug dealers goes through an exhaustive process of tracing where every dollar came from, because they absolutely want to know the answers.



kflo said:


> how many of the guys who knowingly took illegal steroids have been ciminally prosecuted?


One of my ex-room mates did six months time for steroid possession/use. In this particular case, because of _what_ BALCO was doing, being informed put them in the line of fire (the more people knowingly involved the easier it is to invoke RICO). Why would they want to know? There's zero reason. If they didn't know (even if willfully), they couldn't even be charged. If they knew, they could be. You're assuming that they're too stupid to realise this, I generally think they're smart enough to work that out on their own.



brandname said:


> Yeah, after reading the testimony given by Bonds's girlfriend, I have a hard time getting on board with his claim that he "unknowingly" took steroids.


That depends on what else he was taking. If he were using more than THG, if Greg Anderson were procuring other drugs for him (such as HGH, which has been suggested, or those mysterious Mexican pills he was alleged to be taking), he would certainly know exactly what they were. However, again, _why_ would someone like Barry Bonds _want_ a definitive answer to the question of THG's legality? If he knew, he would become part of a criminal conspiracy, if he doesn't he's untouchable. He's never even been charged with perjury (even with the loosey-goosey federal standards where perjury convictions are a dime a dozen), as regards the BALCO case, so the prosecuting attorneys seem to be under the impression that they can't get anywhere with it. The simplest scenario remains the most likely one; namely that the athletes restricted themselves to the necessary information and the BALCO officers involved told no one what they were doing. It doesn't matter what an athlete _knows_ so long as he doesn't "know".


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

ehmunro said:


> That depends on what else he was taking. If he were using more than THG, if Greg Anderson were procuring other drugs for him (such as HGH, which has been suggested, or those mysterious Mexican pills he was alleged to be taking), he would certainly know exactly what they were. However, again, _why_ would someone like Barry Bonds _want_ a definitive answer to the question of THG's legality? If he knew, he would become part of a criminal conspiracy, if he doesn't he's untouchable. He's never even been charged with perjury (even with the loosey-goosey federal standards where perjury convictions are a dime a dozen), as regards the BALCO case, so the prosecuting attorneys seem to be under the impression that they can't get anywhere with it. The simplest scenario remains the most likely one; namely that the athletes restricted themselves to the necessary information and the BALCO officers involved told no one what they were doing. It doesn't matter what an athlete _knows_ so long as he doesn't "know".


Well that's kind of the thing. The athletes knew what they were taking for the most part, but likely never explicitly asked to maintain plausible deniability.


----------



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

Brandname said:


> Well that's kind of the thing. The athletes knew what they were taking for the most part, but likely never explicitly asked to maintain plausible deniability.


I said at the start that none of them wanted to know, and I stand by it. There's just no reason to want to. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by knowing.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> How were they "staking their careers on ignorance"?


ask tim montgomery or dwain chambers or c.j. hunter how they were staking their careers on ignorance. they couldn't fall back on ignorance to save their careers or their status in their sport. and THAT is the greatest risk all of the steroid users take (and fear) when they decide to go over to the dark side. ask them whether they feared failing a drug test and banishment or getting indicted, and i'd wager they feared the drug test. 

as for why someone would want to question thg's legality? maybe so they could decide to or not to take it with full knowledge of the risks, instead of no knowledge? they could have been breaking the law just by using thg and they wouldn't have known it, and you're saying they wouldn't want to know. look, i don't want to know if this is illegal, because if it is, and i don't know about it, then it's not really illegal.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

What people don't understand is that while Bonds may have actually taken steroids, he wasn't the only one.

It's pure ignorance to think ONLY batters were taking steroids, when in fact PITCHERS stand far more to gain from it.

Quicker recovery, faster fast balls, overall strength.

I just love how there's no spotlight on Clemens AT ALL.

And why do people still continue with the lame topic of Lebron Juicing. Look at him. He looks NOTHING like someone with steroids would. He just has great genetics.


----------



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

kflo said:


> ask tim montgomery or dwain chambers or c.j. hunter how they were staking their careers on ignorance. they couldn't fall back on ignorance to save their careers or their status in their sport. and THAT is the greatest risk all of the steroid users take (and fear) when they decide to go over to the dark side.


No it isn't. The biggest risk they face is being arrested and convicted for participation in a criminal enterprise. No matter how you try to spin this jail remains the biggest risk. Whether or not THG was legal, by using a performance enhancer they risked banning. Let me repeat that, _even if THG were perfectly legal they would be banned for using a PED_. So anyone (competing in international athletic events) that's decided to use a PED has already decided that the performance edge is more valuable than the risk of banishment. By asking messy legal questions, that they _don't_ need answers to, they face additional problems. And players in the NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA don't even risk banishment for the use of non-banned supplements. Meaning that the only risks they'd face was jail if they were cognisant of BALCO's actions. Nope. Still zero motivation to ask messy legal questions that entangled them in a conspiracy.



kflo said:


> ask them whether they feared failing a drug test and banishment or getting indicted, and i'd wager they feared the drug test.


Of course they probably feared banning more than indictment, _by not "knowing" they were free of the threat of legal repercussions_.



kflo said:


> as for why someone would want to question thg's legality? maybe so they could decide to or not to take it with full knowledge of the risks, instead of no knowledge? they could have been breaking the law just by using thg and they wouldn't have known it, and you're saying they wouldn't want to know. look, i don't want to know if this is illegal, because if it is, and i don't know about it, then it's not really illegal.


If they knew the substance was illegal, and that the medical lab they were doing business with was engaged in a conspiracy to skirt FDA regulations, and they used the _untestable_ performance enhancer anyway, then they would become part of the conspiracy. If, however, they _didn't_ "know" then taking the performance enhancer _wasn't_ illegal. This is referred to as _good faith_, if you buy a "supplement" from a medical laboratory, and they assure you that the supplement is perfectly legal, regardless of your suspicions, you're covered. Because presumably the medical lab knew whether or not what they were selling was legal. They, as mere athletes, had no way of knowing the contents of the items they purchased from a _legitimate business_. If they didn't buy supplements with the intention of violating the law, they didn't violate the law, if they bought anabolic steroids, without a medical prescription, they were breaking the law. Which makes more sense? That all these athletes decided to risk jail and criminal convictions unnecessarily? Or that they decided not to ask any messy legal questions that would get them in trouble. You're still convinced that they're all too stupid to have worked it out, yet fiendishly clever enough to execute a mass conspiracy. I just think that they were bright enough to figure out that so long as they didn't "know" they were free and clear. Just as they ended up being. Almost all of them admitted to using, and none of them saw even a charge filed. There was nothing the prosecutors could do unless the athletes were intentionally trying to circumvent the law.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

creatine is a performance enhancing supplement not banned by the ioc. you're saying these athletes didn't feel compelled to know whether the clear was a "creatine" like supplement or a steroid like ped. and that he automatically assumed the risk of a banned ped and suspension. 

and again, not a single athlete i'm aware of has been indicted on charges of using steroids. again, they fear being exposed and banished. the jail threat doesn't even register. it's almost always the distributors in these cases. 

the good faith argument would hold if it was a reasonable assumption. it's simply not. they paid alot of money for an undetectable performance enhancer. it's simply not a reasonable assumption that balco duped these athletes into believing they were taking a legal supplement. there was no good faith assumption. they weren't arrested because they were users, and weren't caught with a large stash of illegal drugs.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Tragedy said:


> And why do people still continue with the lame topic of Lebron Juicing.


Look at who the thread starter is.


----------



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

kflo said:


> creatine is a performance enhancing supplement not banned by the ioc. you're saying these athletes didn't feel compelled to know whether the clear was a "creatine" like supplement or a steroid like ped. and that he automatically assumed the risk of a banned ped and suspension.


And there are lots of legal, non-steroidal performance enhancers that _are_. So what? Creatine is legal because it doesn't confer much of a performance edge. If it did it would be on the banned substance list. What they were taking was an untestable PED (because no tests had been devised for it yet), that conferred an edge. If they're getting that sort of edge, odds are that what they're taking is going to be on the _banned_ list and that by using it they're risking banishment. They didn't care. They wanted the edge. If they knew they were circumventing the law to get the edge, they risked jail time. So what benefit do they get from knowing? None. You have to get over your resentment for athletes, they're no more stupid than yourself.



kflo said:


> not a single athlete i'm aware of has been indicted on charges of using steroids. again, they fear being exposed and banished. the jail threat doesn't even register. it's almost always the distributors in these cases.


In other words, the athletes were too stupid to know better, and fiendishly clever enough to execute a mass conspiracy. And BALCO was fiendishly clever enough to execute a criminal conspiracy, but stupid enough to create dozens of possible witnesses by revealing their plans to everyone. That is _so_ much more likely than a scenario where the athletes didn't ask messy legal questions that would entangle them in a criminal conspiracy and BALCO kept their mouths shut so that there would be no witnesses. And all those lawyers defending organised crime figures zealously track down every dollar they're paid to make certain that the money doesn't come from the proceeds of an illegal operation. Because that's the sort of thing that they really really want to know. And Santa Claus is really busy every December 24th.



kflo said:


> the good faith argument would hold if it was a reasonable assumption. it's simply not. they paid alot of money for an undetectable performance enhancer. it's simply not a reasonable assumption that balco duped these athletes into believing they were taking a legal supplement. there was no good faith assumption.


The good faith exception does hold, and did hold, because they bought their "supplements" from a _medical laboratory_ that assured them that they were buying "supplements" that conveyed a performance edge and _not_ "anabolic steroids". If a _medical laboratory_ assures you that they are selling you a _legal supplement_, then you are well within your rights to take them at their word. How could a layman be expected to know the difference between a mere hormonal supplement and an anabolic steroid? (Regardless of whether or not they _know_.) They are not attempting to circumvent the law, and therefore can't be held criminally liable as part of BALCO's conspiracy. No matter what they _know_, if they don't "know", they're in the clear. However, if they were active participants in the scheme to circumvent FDA regulations, US law, and change the course of athletic events, what we have is what's referred to as a _racketeering_ (RICO) case. _If_ the prosecutors could demonstrate that the athletes "knew", then they'd've had those RICO indictments in the mail before the ink was dry on the grand jury transcripts. For federal prosecutors whoring for higher office, that's the Holy Land. Superstars/celebrities/public figures in the dock before a jury with an amorphous federal charge hanging over them (see Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby for reference). Unfortunately for the prosecutors, the athletes didn't "know", so there were no good witnesses available (because BALCO's higher ups were smart enough not to go flapping their gums about what they were up to). So what the prosecutors were stuck with was corporate malfeasance that didn't even get them six months of jail time for the masterminds.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> And there are lots of legal, non-steroidal performance enhancers that _are_. So what? Creatine is legal because it doesn't confer much of a performance edge. If it did it would be on the banned substance list. What they were taking was an untestable PED (because no tests had been devised for it yet), that conferred an edge. If they're getting that sort of edge, odds are that what they're taking is going to be on the _banned_ list and that by using it they're risking banishment. They didn't care. They wanted the edge. If they knew they were circumventing the law to get the edge, they risked jail time. So what benefit do they get from knowing? None. You have to get over your resentment for athletes, they're no more stupid than yourself.


now you're just being an a**hole. you have to get over yourSELF. odds were not only that they were taking a banned substance, but also an illegal one. intentionally sticking your head in the sand doesn't obsolve you.



ehmunro said:


> In other words, the athletes were too stupid to know better, and fiendishly clever enough to execute a mass conspiracy. And BALCO was fiendishly clever enough to execute a criminal conspiracy, but stupid enough to create dozens of possible witnesses by revealing their plans to everyone. That is _so_ much more likely than a scenario where the athletes didn't ask messy legal questions that would entangle them in a criminal conspiracy and BALCO kept their mouths shut so that there would be no witnesses. And all those lawyers defending organised crime figures zealously track down every dollar they're paid to make certain that the money doesn't come from the proceeds of an illegal operation. Because that's the sort of thing that they really really want to know. And Santa Claus is really busy every December 24th.


lol at continuing to label asking what is this that i'm putting in my body and making me superperform as messy legal questions. 




ehmunro said:


> The good faith exception does hold, and did hold, because they bought their "supplements" from a _medical laboratory_ that assured them that they were buying "supplements" that conveyed a performance edge and _not_ "anabolic steroids". If a _medical laboratory_ assures you that they are selling you a _legal supplement_, then you are well within your rights to take them at their word. How could a layman be expected to know the difference between a mere hormonal supplement and an anabolic steroid? (Regardless of whether or not they _know_.) They are not attempting to circumvent the law, and therefore can't be held criminally liable as part of BALCO's conspiracy. No matter what they _know_, if they don't "know", they're in the clear. However, if they were active participants in the scheme to circumvent FDA regulations, US law, and change the course of athletic events, what we have is what's referred to as a _racketeering_ (RICO) case. _If_ the prosecutors could demonstrate that the athletes "knew", then they'd've had those RICO indictments in the mail before the ink was dry on the grand jury transcripts. For federal prosecutors whoring for higher office, that's the Holy Land. Superstars/celebrities/public figures in the dock before a jury with an amorphous federal charge hanging over them (see Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby for reference). Unfortunately for the prosecutors, the athletes didn't "know", so there were no good witnesses available (because BALCO's higher ups were smart enough not to go flapping their gums about what they were up to). So what the prosecutors were stuck with was corporate malfeasance that didn't even get them six months of jail time for the masterminds.


again, you're the one assuming stupidity of the athlete. that they were actually duped into believing they were actually taking legal supplements. and i have contempt for them? i'm realistic about this. that they thought they were simply taking legal supplements is on the face of it absurd. as it is to label them as laymen. as for rico for individual steroid end-users, good luck. as for the jailtime of the masterminds, its irrelevant what the athletes knew. conte's crimes were the same whether bonds admitted knowing it was a designer steroid or not. as for circumventing u.s. regulations, thg was unknown to anyone outside of the program. it wasn't openly marketed as a supplement. it was completely private all along. there wasn't deceit in labeling. there was no known product.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

and somebody let me know the next time an athlete caught using ped's gets arrested for game-fixing like nba ref donaghy.


----------



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

kflo said:


> now you're just being an a**hole. you have to get over yourSELF. odds were not only that they were taking a banned substance, but also an illegal one. intentionally sticking your head in the sand doesn't obsolve you.


If a _medical laboratory_ assures you that you're using a legal substance, you would, in fact, be in the clear. In that instance, the offense is _theirs_, not yours. And yes, you would be _absolved_. The law doesn't yet require people to second guess professionals. If a medical professional assures you that you're using something legal, what is a prosecutor going to charge you with? 



kflo said:


> lol at continuing to label asking what is this that i'm putting in my body and making me superperform as messy legal questions.


Are you being intentionally dense here?

"What is this stuff?"
"Tetrahydrogestrinone."
"What?"
"THG"
"OK. What is it?"
"A hormonal supplement, helps boost the body's testosterone production."
"Is it a steroid?"
"No."

At this point they could, _if they really wanted to expose themselves to criminal liability_, grill the BALCO official they were speaking with about the production, whether or not it was FDA tested, etc.. But, of course, _if they knew, current drug laws *require* them to inform the proper authorities or face conspiracy charges_. But, yeah, you're right, kflo, these dumb jocks are so ****ing stupid that they'd demand to be in on the conspiracy so that they could face criminal liability. Oh, that's right, I forgot, according to you there are no criminal repercussions to their actions (you may want to tell that to the hundreds and hundreds of non-drug dealers doing time in the US for being part of a criminal conspiracy because they failed to report a friend/lover/business partner/etc. to the authorities as the insane laws require, they'll be comforted to know that there was no legal risk to not reporting a conspiracy). So why would they _just have to know to assess the risks_ (your words)? If, as you maintain, there's zero risk, then there's no reason to get involved with the legality of the PED at all. If there's zero risk, then there would be no reason to challenge BALCO's assertion that the substance was legal. If there was a risk, then knowing the legalities involved them in a criminal conspiracy. You need to pick a position here. You can't argue this out of both sides of your mouth. Either there's a legal risk, in which case _not knowing_ provided the athletes legal protection, or there's zero legal risk, in which case there'd be no motivation for them to challenge BALCO's claims.



kflo said:


> again, you're the one assuming stupidity of the athlete. that they were actually duped into believing they were actually taking legal supplements.


Could you point out where I said they were duped? Anywhere? You won't find me saying that anywhere, because I didn't. The only one assuming that the athletes are idiots is yourself. The assurance of the manufacturer that the substance was enough to safeguard them from conspiracy charges. Why would they demand in on the conspiracy? You have provided us with zero motivation for them to do so.



kflo said:


> as for rico for individual steroid end-users, good luck. as for the jailtime of the masterminds, its irrelevant what the athletes knew. conte's crimes were the same whether bonds admitted knowing it was a designer steroid or not. as for circumventing u.s. regulations, thg was unknown to anyone outside of the program. it wasn't openly marketed as a supplement. it was completely private all along. there wasn't deceit in labeling. there was no known product.


Again, tell that to all the non-drug dealers doing jail time in the US for failing to report conspiratorial enterprises they had knowledge of. They'll be comforted to know that they won't face any legal repercussions, and only the kingpins will go to jail. (Also be thankful for the barrier, because they'd kick your *** if they had half a chance.) Found any motivation yet for Conte and Valente to begin telling all and anon what they were up to and creating unnecessary witnesses yet?


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

ehmunro said:


> "What is this stuff?"
> "Tetrahydrogestrinone."
> "What?"
> "THG"
> ...


But why was Bonds [supposedly] being so secretive about it, then? If he was being injected with/putting under his tongue what he thought was a legal substance, why did he have to do it when nobody was around but Greg Anderson. And why couldn't he carry any of the stuff (Anderson had to personally keep all of the steroids so that Bonds wouldn't be caught)?

And why did he tell his girlfriend he was taking a steroid?


----------



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

Brandname said:


> But why was Bonds [supposedly] being so secretive about it, then? If he was being injected with/putting under his tongue what he thought was a legal substance, why did he have to do it when nobody was around but Greg Anderson. And why couldn't he carry any of the stuff (Anderson had to personally keep all of the steroids so that Bonds wouldn't be caught)?
> 
> And why did he tell his girlfriend he was taking a steroid?


Presuming that the ex-girlfriend is telling the truth (and let's face it, ex-girlfriends aren't exactly the most reliable sources of information), I would guess that the answer would be found in Gary Sheffield's statement that Barry was taking other things besides what he got from BALCO. (Bonds was the one that set Sheffield up with BALCO.)


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> If a _medical laboratory_ assures you that you're using a legal substance, you would, in fact, be in the clear. In that instance, the offense is _theirs_, not yours. And yes, you would be _absolved_. The law doesn't yet require people to second guess professionals. If a medical professional assures you that you're using something legal, what is a prosecutor going to charge you with?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


except bonds testified that he thought the clear and cream were flaxseed oil and arthritic rubbing balm. 

"I never asked Greg" about what the products contained, Bonds testified. "When he said it was flaxseed oil, I just said, 'Whatever.' 

**********************

"Do you know why BALCO would have been testing for your testosterone level?" he was asked. 

"I have no idea," Bonds replied




ehmunro said:


> Oh, that's right, I forgot, according to you there are no criminal repercussions to their actions (you may want to tell that to the hundreds and hundreds of non-drug dealers doing time in the US for being part of a criminal conspiracy because they failed to report a friend/lover/business partner/etc. to the authorities as the insane laws require, they'll be comforted to know that there was no legal risk to not reporting a conspiracy). So why would they _just have to know to assess the risks_ (your words)? If, as you maintain, there's zero risk, then there's no reason to get involved with the legality of the PED at all. If there's zero risk, then there would be no reason to challenge BALCO's assertion that the substance was legal. If there was a risk, then knowing the legalities involved them in a criminal conspiracy. You need to pick a position here. You can't argue this out of both sides of your mouth. Either there's a legal risk, in which case _not knowing_ provided the athletes legal protection, or there's zero legal risk, in which case there'd be no motivation for them to challenge BALCO's claims.


bonds and the other athletes were granted immunity to testify against the distributers and providers. 

********************

Montgomery said he met Conte for the first time at the 2000 Summer Games. He also said that was when he first heard Conte discuss "the clear." 

Conte brought some of the drug to Sydney, Montgomery said, and the sprinter understood it to be a substance designed to behave like a steroid while allowing the user to pass drug tests. 

"This was the magic potion," Montgomery told the grand jury. 


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/24/MNG547B7Q91.DTL



ehmunro said:


> Could you point out where I said they were duped? Anywhere? You won't find me saying that anywhere, because I didn't. The only one assuming that the athletes are idiots is yourself. The assurance of the manufacturer that the substance was enough to safeguard them from conspiracy charges. Why would they demand in on the conspiracy? You have provided us with zero motivation for them to do so.


if they believed they were taking legal supplements, they certainly were duped, no? this is your position. so yes, you continue to say they were duped.

******************************

"And did he talk to you about the fact it was a steroid at the time?" 

"Yeah, I mean, I -- I don't know if we got into a conversation about it, but we both knew about it, yes," Giambi told the grand jury. 

Giambi said Anderson described "the cream" and "the clear" as "an alternative to steroids, but it doesn't show on a steroid test. 

"And he started talking about that it would raise your testosterone levels, you know, which would basically make it a steroid ... or maybe he said it's an alternative of taking an injectable steroid," Giambi said. "That might be a better way to put it." 

**********

Did he ever say, 'Don't be talking about getting stuff from me?' " asked Nedrow. 

"That's what I mean by saying that he made it so, you know, private, that you know, 'Hey, don't say anything, don't talk about anything,' " Giambi told the grand jury. "You know, I assumed because he's Barry's trainer -- you know, Barry -- but he never said one time, 'This is what Barry's taking, this is what Barry's doing.' He never gave up another name that he was dealing with or doing anything with." 

***************

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/02/MNG80A523H1.DTL

right - no knowledge of wrongdoing whatsoever. granted immunity nonetheless.

heck - anderson even told him to stop taking a different steroid and replaced it with the clear and cream. 



ehmunro said:


> Again, tell that to all the non-drug dealers doing jail time in the US for failing to report conspiratorial enterprises they had knowledge of. They'll be comforted to know that they won't face any legal repercussions, and only the kingpins will go to jail. (Also be thankful for the barrier, because they'd kick your *** if they had half a chance.) Found any motivation yet for Conte and Valente to begin telling all and anon what they were up to and creating unnecessary witnesses yet?


again, please provide the name of the athlete doing time for being a steroid user. i'll repeat it again - the athletes fear is punishment from the sport that makes them rich and famous.


----------



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

kflo said:


> bonds and the other athletes were granted immunity to testify against the distributers and providers.


_Offered_ immunity for their testimony against BALCO. Not surprisingly most of them had nothing to offer because they had no valuable testimony to give. Guess maybe BALCO's officials aren't quite the idiots you're assuming.



kflo said:


> Montgomery said he met Conte for the first time at the 2000 Summer Games. He also said that was when he first heard Conte discuss "the clear."
> 
> Conte brought some of the drug to Sydney, Montgomery said, and the sprinter understood it to be a *substance designed to behave like a steroid while allowing the user to pass drug tests.* ...
> 
> ...


That should end it right there. So, by your own hairy thundering we now know you're wrong. Thanks for presenting us with proof.



kflo said:


> if they believed they were taking legal supplements, they certainly were duped, no?


No. Stop being a celticsblogger. Are lawyers that work for organised crime figures "duped" about where the money's coming from? (Because it is _illegal_ to accept money that results from a drug-related enterprise.)



kflo said:


> right - no knowledge of wrongdoing whatsoever. granted immunity nonetheless.
> 
> heck - anderson even told him to stop taking a different steroid and replaced it with the clear and cream.


Right, by Giambi's own admission he started juicing in 2001 using standard testosterone and HGH, obtained from dealers at gyms. Later, Greg Anderson advised him to stop doing them and switch over to something else. Every statement of Giambi's that was released pretty much agrees with what I've said, that they _knew_ what they were doing but didn't "know". Essentially you're entire snitfit here boils down to "YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY LEAKED SHOWS THEY HAD NO OFFICIAL KNOWLEDGE." Giambi specifically states this. The _prescription_ drugs he got from Anderson had zero to do with BALCO (who aren't in the Clomid business). So Giambi's testimony about all the other drugs that he got from _Greg Anderson_ isn't really relevant where _BALCO_ is concerned. This is one reason why there were nearly no repercussions for BALCO, there were no effective witnesses for the prosecution to use, so they settled for what they could get. 



kflo said:


> again, please provide the name of the athlete doing time for being a steroid user. i'll repeat it again - the athletes fear is punishment from the sport that makes them rich and famous.


If there were no legal repercussions to fear, then your claim that they would _have to know_ the legality of the substance is false. If there were no possible legal repercussions, then there would be no reason for them to challenge the BALCO assertion that THG was an alternative to steroids. If the only worry is that the Anti-Doping Agencies would add their performance enhancer to the banned list, then their only motivation would be to keep quiet and not ask too many questions, _because if it actually works it's going to be banned in athletic competition_. So, again, you're attempting to "prove your point" by saying that I'm right.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> The good faith exception does hold, and did hold, because they bought their "supplements" from a medical laboratory that assured them that they were buying "supplements" that conveyed a performance edge and not "anabolic steroids". If a medical laboratory assures you that they are selling you a legal supplement, then you are well within your rights to take them at their word.


ok - so we agree this is completely false. they weren't under some false delusion they were buying legal supplements. 



ehmunro said:


> This is referred to as good faith, if you buy a "supplement" from a medical laboratory, and they assure you that the supplement is perfectly legal, regardless of your suspicions, you're covered. Because presumably the medical lab knew whether or not what they were selling was legal. They, as mere athletes, had no way of knowing the contents of the items they purchased from a legitimate business.


"Conte brought some of the drug to Sydney, Montgomery said, and the sprinter understood it to be a substance designed to behave like a steroid while allowing the user to pass drug tests"

he didn't understand it to be a legal supplement. they weren't under any notion that it was a legal supplement. 



ehmunro said:


> Whereas if they had no idea, and had the promise of the lab that it was a non-steroidal performance enhancer, the most that would happen is what's happened to Bonds, public censure for "cheating".


they had no such promise from the lab. again, wrong.



ehmunro said:


> Not necessarily (the performance enhancers that Bonds is accused of using were in fact legal while he was using them).


wrong.



ehmunro said:


> The FDA didn't ban tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) until the tail end of 2003. Therefore, prior to be outlawed, it was a legal supplement (the fact that Balco shouldn't have filed false paperwork with the FDA isn't an issue, none of the athletes that used THG would have had any reason to know that). The FDA press release about THG is dated 28 October, 2003. Therefore, until (roughly) that date THG was a legal substance.


wrong.



ehmunro said:


> BALCO marketed THG as a supplement, avoiding FDA oversite (until the FDA tested the substance in 2003 and eventually banned it). The fact is that it was legal until the FDA ruled otherwise. Bonds, McGwire, Giambi, Sheffield, et al had no way of knowing that THG should have been illegal


again wrong. and they all had every reason to believe it wasn't legal.



ehmunro said:


> Brandname and I weren't discussing what BALCO was doing, simply what the athletes were. Whatever the lab was up to doesn't change the fact that it isn't illegal to use a legal substance.


they were never using a legal substance.



ehmunro said:


> If you were a professional athlete, and someone told you that they had developed a supplement that could not be detected by current doping tests, then what you're buying (in theory) is a legal substance that would give you an edge in athletic competitions, that's certainly unethical, but not necessarily illegal (unless they knew how THG was made, which is unlikely).


none seemed to be under the delusion that they were using a legal supplement. nor did their testimony say balco presented it as such. they weren't, in theory, buying a legal substance. 

kelli white's testimony:

"Shortly thereafter, in December, 2000, my coach introduced me to BALCO founder Victor Conte. Conte initially gave me a package containing both legal supplements, as well as a substance which later became known as the clear or the designer steroid THG. At the time, I was unaware that anything I received from Mr. Conte was a prohibited performance enhancing substance as I was told by both my coach and Mr. Conte that the vial they had given mecontained flaxseed oil. *A few weeks later, Mr. Conte admitted to me that the substance he had given me was indeed not flaxseed oil, but rather a prohibited substance that if not taken properly, could yield a positive drug test.* "

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:va1qOLmQqw8Jversight.house.gov/documents/20050615105348-72046.pdf+kelli+white+balco+testimony&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

wrong again. conte, balco's founder, fesses up to an athlete. who'd a thunk it. 



ehmunro said:



> All I've maintained is the far more reasonable position that Victor Conte and his partners decided to skirt the law by pretending that a newly developed anabolic steroid was a hormonal supplement (thus avoiding FDA oversight) and staying under radar by only selling it to people that were going to ask no questions


a position obviously false.


----------



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

kflo said:


> ok - so we agree this is completely false. they weren't under some false delusion they were buying legal supplements.


Did you not read your own links? I guess not. Read the articles you're referencing, it helps.



kflo said:


> "Conte brought some of the drug to Sydney, Montgomery said, and *the sprinter understood it to be a substance designed to behave like a steroid* while allowing the user to pass drug tests"
> 
> he didn't understand it to be a legal supplement. they weren't under any notion that it was a legal supplement.


Where did Mongomery say that he was buying a steroid? (In fact, he says just the opposite.) Where did he claim that Conte told him that THG was a steroid? Performance enhancers that work get banned. That's the reality. The legality of THG, _by your admission_ was irrelevant for the athletes. So the only question was whether or not the product worked. If the product worked, it _would_ be banned by the various Anti-Doping Agencies, regardless of legality. So, again, you're simply wrong. You've officially declared that there were no possible legal repercussions for using the drugs, so your insistence that they would have to know if they'd go to jail is stupid. If you're now backing off your position that there were no legal consequences, you're going to have to explain _why_ they'd want to know that BALCO was involved in a drug related criminal enterprise, since federal law _requires_ you to inform immediately or face conspiracy charges as a result. (Of course, since they didn't have anything to offer as far as BALCO was concerned, they couldn't really be charged with not informing)



kflo said:


> they had no such promise from the lab. again, wrong. ... and they all had every reason to believe it wasn't legal. ... they were never using a legal substance. ... none seemed to be under the delusion that they were using a legal supplement. nor did their testimony say balco presented it as such. they weren't, in theory, buying a legal substance


THG was not banned until October of 2003 (or thereabouts), it was, for the purposes of the law, legal until the FDA outlawed it. Just LSD was legal until it was outlawed. Thankfully we do not yet live in a Soviet-style society where things are illegal unless the government officially approves. In order for a chemical to be illegal, a government body must declare it so. You remain wrong about this. You can stomp your feet and whine all you want, it won't change things. THG was not illegal until the FDA classified it as a controlled substance in the fall of 2003. 



kflo said:


> kelli white's testimony:
> 
> "Shortly thereafter, in December, 2000, my coach introduced me to BALCO founder Victor Conte. Conte initially gave me a package containing both legal supplements, as well as a substance which later became known as the clear or the designer steroid THG. At the time, I was unaware that anything I received from Mr. Conte was a prohibited performance enhancing substance as I was told by both my coach and Mr. Conte that the vial they had given mecontained flaxseed oil. *A few weeks later, Mr. Conte admitted to me that the substance he had given me was indeed not flaxseed oil, but rather a prohibited substance that if not taken properly, could yield a positive drug test.* "


Could you show me anything in there about the _legality_? In international athletic competitions, performance enhancers that work are prohibited (which is why creatine isn't). Anything that boosts testosterone is going to end up on the prohibited list (which is what "the cream" was for, it boosted epitestosterone levels and allowed THG users to pass standard screens by equalising the testosterone/epitestosterone ratios). Since they were taking a substance that "acted like a steroid" (Conte's actual words) , they were boosting testosterone, if it was an effective enough boost, it would be prohibited by the various Anti-Doping Agencies. Gee, Conte was careful in his use of language, and never called THG a steroid. Who'da thunk it?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

lets review once more.

balco did not present the clear or the cream as legal supplements. they did not ascert to the athletes that the product was legal.

the athletes did not believe they were taking legal supplements. 

the athletes were well aware they were taking a powerful, undetectable, steroid-like drug. 

for the product to be a legal supplement, it's provider would have needed to disclose it's contents. the athletes were under no delusions as to the contents. the wink and nod story was flaxseed oil (which is also what was on the containers it was shipped in). which they unequivocally knew to be false. they therefore were well aware that they were not taking a legal supplement. thg wasn't legal until it was illegal. you see, there's actually a process you must go through to introduce a supplement or a drug to the marketplace. 

noone believed they were taking legal supplements. noone presented them as such. they therefore couldn't make a good faith argument that they were. 

if i receive a new product from my doctor in a brown bag that gets me high, has hallucinogenic qualities, costs alot of money, and he tells me to keep it away from authorities, but tells me it's really a cold medicine supplement, i can't argue that i believed that to be the case. the marketing, distribution, use, is all illegal. i can't claim good faith. 

lsd was well known by the government for years prior to being made illegal. it wasn't an unknown underground synthetic "supplement".


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)




----------



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

kflo said:


> lets review once more.
> 
> balco did not present the clear or the cream as legal supplements. they did not ascert to the athletes that the product was legal.


In fact, _by the statements *you* presented in evidence_ BALCO sold THG as an _alternative_ to steroids. 



kflo said:


> the athletes did not believe they were taking legal supplements.


As I pointed out from the start, what they _believed_ wasn't relevant.



kflo said:


> for the product to be a legal supplement, it's provider would have needed to disclose it's contents. the athletes were under no delusions as to the contents. the wink and nod story was flaxseed oil (which is also what was on the containers it was shipped in). which they unequivocally knew to be false. they therefore were well aware that they were not taking a legal supplement. thg wasn't legal until it was illegal. you see, there's actually a process you must go through to introduce a supplement or a drug to the marketplace.


Is there? Please quote for me the federal law that requires _supplements_ to be approved by the FDA. (It'll be tough since the FDA doesn't have any authority over the supplement industry despite their best efforts over the last 20 years. This is why ephedra had to be banned by act of Congress, the FDA had no authority to regulate its sale or distribution.) What athletes _know_ isn't relevant, just what they "know". At the end of the day none of them "knew" enough to secure anything more than a token conviction of Conte and Co.. Seemingly indicating that Conte isn't the moron that you're painting him to be. And that the athletes weren't so stupid either.



kflo said:


> lsd was well known by the government for years prior to being made illegal. it wasn't an unknown underground synthetic "supplement".


It was certainly well known to the CIA, but not to the FDA, nor the various state governments that had to add it to the list of controlled substances. This process has been repeated with every new synthetic drug that comes along. Things that are not illegal are legal. They might be unethical, but they're still legal.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> In fact, _by the statements *you* presented in evidence_ BALCO sold THG as an _alternative_ to steroids.


and not a legal supplement. right.



ehmunro said:


> As I pointed out from the start, what they _believed_ wasn't relevant.


relevant to what? to the criminality of balco's actions? to the criminality of their own actions?




ehmunro said:


> Is there? Please quote for me the federal law that requires _supplements_ to be approved by the FDA. (It'll be tough since the FDA doesn't have any authority over the supplement industry despite their best efforts over the last 20 years. This is why ephedra had to be banned by act of Congress, the FDA had no authority to regulate its sale or distribution.)


lol. the clear and the cream WEREN'T SUPPLEMENTS, AND THE ATHLETES AND BALCO KNEW THIS TO BE THE CASE. supplements don't need to be approved by the fda. they DO need to identify what is in them, and what they do. a drug company can't simply call their next drug a supplement and legally sell it. and they certainly can't do so and covertly sell it through an underground network. 



ehmunro said:


> What athletes _know_ isn't relevant, just what they "know". At the end of the day none of them "knew" enough to secure anything more than a token conviction of Conte and Co.. Seemingly indicating that Conte isn't the moron that you're painting him to be. And that the athletes weren't so stupid either.


conte, and the athletes knew exactly what they were doing. i've stated that all along. i never said they were stupid about it either. the athletes were provided the clear and the cream. through an underground distribution. of an illegal substance. which is why conte and anderson were convicted of steroid distribution and money laundering. and the guy who created this legal until it was illegal substance plead guilty for conspiracy to distribute steroids. 




ehmunro said:


> It was certainly well known to the CIA, but not to the FDA, nor the various state governments that had to add it to the list of controlled substances. This process has been repeated with every new synthetic drug that comes along. Things that are not illegal are legal. They might be unethical, but they're still legal.


drugs do fall under fda regulations, and need approval before they can be sold legally. they are not legal until they are illegal. it's the other way around. it's a rather involved process for approval as well.

you may also want to familiarize yourself with the definition of a dietary supplement first. you seem extremely confused.

http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/dshea.html#sec3

you see, you can't simply invent a drug, call it a supplement, and distribute through a secretive underground distribution channel. and i'm finding it hard to believe that you believe you actually could.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i'm hoping this is the end.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

kflo said:


> i'm hoping this is the end.


You've already gotten to the point of refuting posts point-by-point. I wouldn't count on it ending any time soon.


----------



## BDB (Dec 19, 2006)

Q:What would you think if Lebron was juicing?

A:I'd think Barry Bonds is the best player in baseball.


----------



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

BDB said:


> Q:What would you think if Lebron was juicing?
> 
> A:I'd think Barry Bonds is the best player in baseball.


[/thread]


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

> Giambi escaped punishment from commissioner Bud Selig because of his charitable work and cooperation with baseball's steroids investigator.



What bull ****.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

does anyone here play high school or college? do you juice? does someone on the team juice? what would you think if they made it?


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

i would be thinking..."i wonder if it tastes good..." then i'd probably drink it


----------

