And another Austrian one, Another win for the law enforcement route Options

[D-Queued]

I want to make it clear: that's not a quote of me.

No sweat Steve, and thanks for staying with the dialog.

Please explain how hypocrisy is lying. First, you will have to show how Schwarzenegger in any way lied, Lister's example notwithstanding (which, technically, I could argue might not e a lie at all).

This is a very interesting dialog. Perhaps we can agree that there were ethical boundaries, if not legal ones, and that Arnold has found himself tangled up in those boundaries time and again.

Legal issues, and/or doping violations, are far more black and white and, arguably - though not necessarily backed up in practice, easier for us to argue about and agree upon.

Doping itself is only a small part of the larger ethics in sport issues.

In my opinion, Arnold crossed the ethical line when he started using steroids. The practice may have been consistent within the sport, but the sport and its athletes have long pretended to use 'conventional' means to attain the grotesque (meant in all definitions). That is hypocritical and unethical. Arguably, this is also a form of fraud - but we can limit the discussion to ethical or not to avoid the inflammatory.

This type of behavior, of course, is also consistent within Hollywood and the fashion industry. Ageless beauties claiming no surgical procedures or Botox injections provide an underlying comedy to any drama. When people like Billy Crystal, who looked like Meg Ryan's grandfather in 'When Harry Met Sally', and then couldn't move his eyebrows during the Oscar ceremonies a few years later, you have to laugh. Especially when you recall that he was the originator of the 'You look marvellous' lampoon.

If Arnie is just an actor, then we are just talking about Hollyweird. I have less problem with him smoking dope, shooting steroids, womanizing, or carrying on like some over-inflated superstar if he represents himself as an actor, than I do if he is promoting himself as a champion of sport and an icon of health and healthy lifestyle for impressionable kindergarten students and 97 lb weaklings.

Arnie's personal life choices appear to have ethical issues.

Dave.

[diknutz]

I want to make it clear: that's not a quote of me.
Please explain how hypocrisy is lying. First, you will have to show how Schwarzenegger in any way lied, Lister's example notwithstanding (which, technically, I could argue might not e a lie at all).

from ole merriam-webster...hypocrisy ": a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not"

the definition of feign? well, okay, also from m-w, "
1 a : to give a false appearance of : induce as a false impression <feign death> b : to assert as if true : pretend"

now the big one...

lie - "1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to [b]create a false or misleading impression[/b]"...

wow! "to give a false appearance"..."to create a false impression"..pretty similar, don't you think?


are we going to now argue that accepting the president's nomination to an advisory council whose purpose is mainly to promote HEALTH among our nation's youth (among others of his public actions/statements), did not create an impression that we know runs contrary to his stated beliefs...i.e. a FALSE impression?

hey, you're the one who stated he was a hypocrite...now i've shown you that hypocrisy and lying are synonymous...by my way of thinking that puts the onus on you to show me how he is NOT a liar.

[MacRoadie]

So let me get this straight. Arnold took steroids:

1. At a time when they weren't illegal
2. In a "sport" where they weren't illegal
3. In a "sport" where everyone else was taking them
3. In a "sport" that has never actually been a sport, in the Olympic movement or under the auspices of the IOC.

He also freely admitted taking them, although there is some debate as to the semantic differences between "tissue building' and "muscle growth".

Oh yeah, and he can't ever be a role model for any anti-drug or anti-steroid campaign because that makes him a hypocrite.

Do I have it straight?

This post has been edited by MacRoadie: Dec 3 2009, 06:37 PM

[D-Queued]

Dave.

[patrick]

So let me get this straight. Arnold took steroids:

1. At a time when they weren't illegal
2. In a "sport where they weren't illegal
3. In a "sport" where everyone else was taking them
3. In a "sport" that has never been actually been a sport, in the Olympic movement or under the auspices of the IOC.

He also freely admitted taking them, although there is some debate as the the semantic differences between "tissue building' and "muscle growth".

Oh yeah, and he can't ever be a role model for any anti-drug or anti-steroid campaign because that makes him a hypocrite.

Do I have it straight?

absurd, huh?

[D-Queued]

absurd, huh?

Yup

[diknutz]

So let me get this straight. Arnold took steroids:

1. At a time when they weren't illegal
2. In a "sport where they weren't illegal
3. In a "sport" where everyone else was taking them
3. In a "sport" that has never been actually been a sport, in the Olympic movement or under the auspices of the IOC.

He also freely admitted taking them, although there is some debate as the the semantic differences between "tissue building' and "muscle growth".

Oh yeah, and he can't ever be a role model for any anti-drug or anti-steroid campaign because that makes him a hypocrite.

Do I have it straight?

i hung me a negroe before it was illegal...God says it's okay though? He says that if it ain't against no law, then it's a true and righteous act. But if I'd do it again today, I'd go to Hell for it because the legislature is God's hand here on earth, and what they say might as well come straight outa his mouth...you know, God changed his mind about what was right and wrong.

do i have it straight?

i think he'd be a great role model if he had the balls to admit that he knew full-well that taking steroids was just as WRONG when he did it as it is now. If he doesn't have the balls (insert steroid joke here), or he really doesn't believe that it was wrong (because he equates legislation with morality), then I don't think he's role model material...

[MacRoadie]

i hung me a negroe before it was illegal...God says it's okay though? He says that if it ain't against no law, then it's a true and righteous act. But if I'd do it again today, I'd go to Hell for it because the legislature is God's hand here on earth, and what they say might as well come straight outa his mouth...you know, God changed his mind about what was right and wrong.

do i have it straight?

Apparently, you don't.

Since the very earliest forms of written law, the act of murder has been considered morally and legally wrong. That certain societies millenia later are still willing to place less value on one human life than another makes the act no less morally corrupt, and no less wrong. I'm not quite sure where your assertion that God has been somewhat ambiguous on the subject is founded.

When steroids were first utilized by "athletes" in non-Olympic competition (and I use the word loosely), they were used freely and publicly and as such, could not be used in a manner designed to deceive or cheat. In fact, they were freely and openly exchanged in gyms around the world. There was no moral imperative against steroids as PED's at that time, no public outrage, no public concern for that matter. There were no laws nor a history of legal precedence against steroid use either.

Further, on it's very face, equating murder with taking a substance to increase your body size in a non-sporting competition is ludicrous. In an enlightened society, the latter can never rise to the level of the former. There have to be hierachies and degrees. Then again, if you place the taking of human life in heinous acts of violence on the same level of moral dilemna with taking a substance to make your muscles bigger then maybe you DO have it straight.

Next time, see if you can work in a Nazi or Hitler reference and really knock it right out of the park.

This post has been edited by MacRoadie: Dec 3 2009, 07:35 PM

[Steve in ATL]

I know it's not you speaking, but how can the act of taking steroids, getting huge and winning body building in a era of widespread steroid use, and then saying it wasn't for muscle building be anything but?

It's the usual 'win at all costs, then deny deny deny'.

Well, the way the board software works it made it look like it was me that said it. Not your fault, I'm just wanted it to be clear to others that may have come late to the party.

As for the widespread use of steroids in bodybuilding - no one, not even AS, denies that they were used. It was not illegal at the time to do so. People were more open about it (AS discussed it on a regular basis), and so were more likely to be honest about how they used them.

For a bodybuilder, the most dangerous time for muscle loss is when they are "cutting" for a competition. They are essentially starving themselves to lose fat to ridiculously (even for cyclists) low body fat percentages. So it would make weird sense that this would be a time to take steroids - when you could not eat enough to maintain muscle size (because you were trying to burn fat), but had the protein intake to do so. The steroids would essentially force the body to maintain mass.

Is this the only time that AS used steroids? I have no flippin' idea. But neither does anyone else except AS and his doctor / trainer / whoever. It is not an explanation that lacks logic, however little we might like the logic. Also, it's important to remember that AS was quite young, and not terribly educated, when he gave that quote. He knew, essentially, what his trainers told him.

So, to sum up: He's never EVER denied taking steroids. It was not, at the time he was competing, illegal for him to do so. He has provided information as to how he used them that some believe to be wrong (or a lie). He was, later in life, invited to be a member of the PCfPF. That president continued his predecessor's "Just Say No" policies. This does not make AS a hypocrite.

So let me get this straight. Arnold took steroids:

1. At a time when they weren't illegal
2. In a "sport" where they weren't illegal
3. In a "sport" where everyone else was taking them
3. In a "sport" that has never actually been a sport, in the Olympic movement or under the auspices of the IOC.

He also freely admitted taking them, although there is some debate as to the semantic differences between "tissue building' and "muscle growth".

Oh yeah, and he can't ever be a role model for any anti-drug or anti-steroid campaign because that makes him a hypocrite.

Do I have it straight?

Yes. Exactly.

[diknutz]

Apparently, you don't.

Since the very earliest forms of written law, (wrong..it was considered wrong even before we learned how to write...see the point yet?)the act of murder has been considered morally and legally wrong. That certain societies millenia later are still willing to place less value on one human life than another makes the act no less morally corrupt(exactly, and it follows that, just because certain societies freewly and openly used steroids doesn't mean that they didn't know it was wrong), and no less wrong. I'm not quite sure where your assertion that God has been somewhat ambiguous on the subject is founded.(you're the one trying to claim that morality exists only because of our ability to write)

When steroids were first utilized by "athletes" in non-Olympic competition (and I use the word loosely), they were used freely and publicly and as such, could not be used in a manner designed to deceive or cheat (no, the deception on arnold's part came later, when he accepted an assignment to be a role model for your children..are you just baiting here? is it really that hard to understand? are you really trying to give credence to the "everyone was doing it so it was okay" mentality? ). In fact, they were freely and openly exchanged in gyms around the world. There was no moral imperative against steroids as PED's at that time (there has always been a moral imperative against cheating, just because certain groups decide collectively to ignore it doesn't make it any less of an imperative...hey, didn't you just say that...oh wait, you think it ONLY aplies to murder), no public outrage, no public concern for that matter. There were no laws nor a history of legal precedence against steroid use either. (ahh, so PUBLIC OPINION and legislation are our moral compass? glad i'm not part of that crew)

Further, on it's very face, equating murder with taking a substance to increase your body size in a non-sporting competition is ludicrous(nobody equated them, well except you... merely showed some paralells in the mentality that allows dumbasses to convince themselves that they're in the right, when they know that they are not). In an enlightened society, the latter can never rise to the level of the former. There have to be hierachies and degrees. Then again, if you place the taking of human life in heinous acts of violence on the same level of moral dilemna with taking a substance to make your muscles bigger then maybe you DO have it straight. (nobody but you placed the two acts on the same level...i merely pointed to paralells. imagine it, two parallel lines, yet one is below the other. this whole paragraph is a cop-out on your part, and i'm tired of this partiucular cop-out...grow some and let's have a talk, or shut up)

Next time, see if you can work in a Nazi or Hitler reference and really knock it right out of the park. (don't know why, but okay. Hitler passed laws in nazi germany that legalized immoral acts. it was people like you, who equate legislation with morality, that allowed him to get away with it for a time. Hey dude, it wasn't illegal, and everyone was doing it.)

you got a few big words in there...good job...next time try and get a thought or two in there too...not just some regurgitated pc b.s.

[diknutz]

So, to sum up: He's never EVER denied taking steroids. It was not, at the time he was competing, illegal for him to do so. He has provided information as to how he used them that some believe to be wrong (or a lie). He was, later in life, invited to be a member of the PCfPF. That president continued his predecessor's "Just Say No" policies. This does not make AS a hypocrite.
Yes. Exactly.

If he weren't a hypocrite he would've thanked president Bush for the nomination but said, "hey, I don't really agree with the message you're trying to put out. In fact, I think it's okay to take some drugs. I did it, and it helped make me the success that I am. In fact, the only reason I can think of not to take steroids or smoke pot, is that they're now illegal. Is that what you're trying to tell the kids mr. president, that the only reason not to take drugs is that a piece of paper says it's illegal?"


that's hypocrisy 101...he took the nomination knowing that he didn't agree with the mission...or worse yet, he thought that he was somehow the exception to the rule.


This post has been edited by diknutz: Dec 3 2009, 09:36 PM

[D-Queued]

.... In an enlightened society...

Let us know when you find one.

diknutz' analogy was excellent. But, it was an anology. Of course it was a more polarized scenario - that makes the illustration stronger.

In fact, the death penalty is still not considered murder in some enlightened societies - yet is simply punishment for a crime.

We don't need to stoop to Hitler references to see this.

Dave.

[diknutz]

Let us know when you find one.

diknutz' analogy was excellent. But, it was an anology. Of course it was a more polarized scenario - that makes the illustration stronger.

In fact, the death penalty is still not considered murder in some enlightened societies - yet is simply punishment for a crime.

We don't need to stoop to Hitler references to see this.

Dave.

thanks dave, i didn't forsee this being a touchy subject...but upon retrospect, i see how it hits close to home

i don't understand why the pc crowd thinks it's wrong to learn from history...fact is, the thinking that allows a child to justify to himself stealing a pack of gum from 7-11, is not completely different from the thinking that let AH convince himself that jews were the root of all the world's woes...if that makes you cringe because acknowledging it forces you to acknowledge some similarities between yourself and one of the most evil human beings in history...GOOD...welcome to being human.

OBVIOUSLY (and by that i mean; in an enlightened society, it goes without saying, and by that i mean, you shouldn't have to say it(yet here i am saying it...like you said, let me know when you find an enlightened society)) the violence and atrocity of one doesn't even come close to comparing to the other...but i'm not drawing a parallel between the violence and atrocity, i'm drawing a parallel between the thought process that allows people to convince themselves that wrong is right.

if all you can learn from nazi germany is that killing jews is wrong, you need to learn how to learn.

i will not post in this thread again...i'm beat...outnumbered at least.

[MacRoadie]

you got a few big words in there...good job...next time try and get a thought or two in there too...not just some regurgitated pc b.s.

Hope you didn't spend too much time on that. Funny how I'm PC when I'm the one saying the guy who took steroids: broke no laws, suffered no moral lapse, cheated no one, deceived no one, and has no reason to apologize for anything, much less being on the President's Commission. Did defending steroid users somehow become politically correct in the last few days?

Why don't the lot of you sit down and come up with just one cogent argument as to how AE should have KNOWN he was cheating/doing something wrong, based on the general sentiment and mindset of HIS time in the early 1970's (he won his first Mr. Universe in 1969), not an argument contemporaneous with the strong anti-doping mindset of thirty years later. Talk about being PC and marching in lock-step.

While you're at it, take some time to look up the definitions of "a priori" and "posteriori" (yes, they're Latin but at least they are small words). Better yet, see if you can find the CliffsNotes versions of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason (now THOSE will be chock-full of gol-durned big city-fied words and such).

By the way, if dumbing down my vocabulary will make the logic easier for you to comprehend, I'm willing to do what it takes (within reason).

This post has been edited by MacRoadie: Dec 3 2009, 11:37 PM

[MacRoadie]

Here's an open question for you all to ponder.

You repeatedly say that AE did something wrong, that he cheated. I welcome you to provide a logical argument supporting the assertion that he did something wrong.

In the process, keep a few things in mind:

He did not take an illegal substance (either illegal under civil or criminal laws or under sporting law)
He took substances that were available to all of his competitors.
He took substances that were very likely being consumed by the vast majority of his competitors, so there was no underlying assumption of an unfair advantage.
He took substances that were generally accepted as MAIN STREAM by his sport
He never once attempted to hide his use of these products from his competitors or the public.
He took the substances at a time when there was little or no public stigma attached to chemical supplements in sports.

Since we all love definitions, how about these:

Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others,[1] Cheating implies the breaking of rules. The term "cheating" is less applicable to the breaking of laws, as illegal activities are referred to by specific legal terminology such as fraud or corruption. Cheating is a primordial economic act: getting more for less, often used when referring to marital infidelity. A person who is guilty of cheating is generally referred to as a cheat (British English), or a cheater (American English).

Where was the unfair advantage, the deception, fraud, trickery, imposture or imposition? At whose expense (other than his own and his own health)? Which rules were broken?

Another example where cheating has occurred is in sport. An implicit agreement exists among participants that they will play by the rules and eschew unfair measures to win. Cheaters violate the rules of competition.

Again, if AE's competitors were taking the same PED's, what implicit agreement was broken? If the stuff was available to everyone, where were the unfair measures? If steroids weren't illegal, then which rules of competition were broken?

Can athletes today be viewed in the same light as those in the 1960's, 1970's? Of course not. By the same token, those early athletes can't be judged using the same criteria as individuals using PED's today.

This post has been edited by MacRoadie: Dec 3 2009, 11:36 PM

[D-Queued]

Look, the arguments are good. Which is why this conversation is good.

We all appear passionate that we need to draw firm lines. Yet, there is clearly an ethical dilemma here.

We cannot condone something just because everyone was doing it.

Believe it or not, doping in sport is being cited as one of the top twenty trends of the decade.

We cannot be blind to its origins in modern culture. Forget about the greeks. The dawn of real chemical enhancement arguably started with the isolation and manufacturing of testosterone and its derivatives.

We had hundreds, if not thousands of posts arguing how T could not possibly help cycling and, therefore, we should find Landis' positive to be irrelevant. But, Landis' doping is very relevant.

In the case of AS (who is AE?), we have a true icon. What made him good has made sport bad. It isn't even Shakespearean to observe that greatest strengths are often greatest weaknesses, One of Arnie's greatest strengths is that Arnie appears to have been extremely calculating through his life. We could temper that observation by calling him 'driven'. Arnie is a self-made man in arguably the truest sense. He has inspired many - probably millions minimally. Yet, what made Arnie great invites copy-cats.

The same suggestion that it was ok for Arnie because everyone else was doing it has a powerful echo in today's peloton. Apparently the vast majority are doing it. Is this right? Does that make it right?

It is absurd to suggest that campaigns such as 'Be like Mike' don't work.

In viewing doping in cycling, we have to see its place in doping in sport. For doping in sport, we have to look at the icons.

Whether he broke explicit laws or rules while pumping up, the Austrian Oak is an icon of doping in sport.

Many laws and rules only come into play after we, society, decide we don't like that any more.

Dave.

This post has been edited by D-Queued: Dec 4 2009, 01:37 AM

[MacRoadie]

Look, the arguments are good. Which is why this conversation is good.

We all appear passionate that we need to draw firm lines. Yet, there is clearly an ethical dilemma here.

We cannot condone something just because everyone was doing it.

Believe it or not, doping in sport is being cited as one of the top twenty trends of the decade.

We cannot be blind to its origins in modern culture. Forget about the greeks. The dawn of real chemical enhancement arguably started with the isolation and manufacturing of testosterone and its derivatives.

We had hundreds, if not thousands of posts arguing how T could not possibly help cycling and, therefore, we should find Landis' positive to be irrelevant. But, Landis' doping is very relevant.

In the case of AS (who is AE?), we have a true icon. What made him good has made sport bad. It isn't even Shakespearean to observe that greatest strengths are often greatest weaknesses, One of Arnie's greatest strengths is that Arnie appears to have been extremely calculating through his life. We could temper that observation by calling him 'driven'. Arnie is a self-made man in arguably the truest sense. He has inspired many - probably millions minimally. Yet, what made Arnie great invites copy-cats.

The same suggestion that it was ok for Arnie because everyone else was doing it has a powerful echo in today's peloton. Apparently the vast majority are doing it. Is this right? Does that make it right?

It is absurd to suggest that campaigns such as 'Be like Mike' don't work.

In viewing doping in cycling, we have to see its place in doping in sport. For doping in sport, we have to look at the icons.

Whether he broke explicit laws or rules while pumping up, the Austrian Oak is an icon of doping in sport.

Many laws and rules only come into play after we, society, decide we don't like that any more.

Dave.

You keep missing our point, over and over.

We are not suggesting it was ok "because everyone else was doing it". That is a logical fallacy most often employed to justify an activity that is already by some legal, ethical or moral standard, wrong. "Officer, I was only speeding because everyone else was speeding". The argument is made to justify willfull disregard for an established law.

I keep asking for some support for the assertion that, contemporaneous with his steriod use, there was some existing criteria, yardstick, barometer, or whatever measuring analogy you choose to use by which an argument can be made that what AS did was wrong by legal, ethical, moral or societal standards in place at the time.

You keep going back to comments like "one of the top twenty trends of the decade" and "Many laws and rules only come into play after we, society, decide we don't like that any more." I want to know what the arguments are in the absence or benefit of hindsight. Everyone makes excellent arguments against doping and the lessons we have learned over the years. They are excellent arguments when applied today. How do we apply those standards to someone who used steroids before those lessons were learned? How do we hold him to the standards of the last decade for actions FOUR decades ago?Is he guilty of a lack of forethought? Should he have foreseen where steroid use would evolve?

Your analogy to the current peloton fails logically for the same reason. A cyclist today, arguing that he is just doing what everyone else is doing is still breaking the law, violating WADA rules, and breaking an ethical trust with his competitors and the public because he has taken an oath not to cheat (by the current definition).

Jefferson owned slaves. Slavery was inarguably a horrible blight on the history of this country and it's African-American citizens. Should we discount everything else that he accomplished as a statesman, architect, and critical thinker? We couldn't have put a man on the moon without the aid of German scientists, many of whom were members of the Nazi party (and not all of whom were "forced" to do so either). Do we discard the miriad scientific advances acheived as a result of man's venture into space? Hell, even the Nobel Prizes were commissioned by Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, in an attempt to mitigate his impending legacy as a purveyor of death.

To say that AS can't still serve as a positive role model and today speak out in favor of clean sport reeks of myopia and bigotry.

This post has been edited by MacRoadie: Dec 4 2009, 04:54 AM

[D-Queued]

You keep missing our point, over and over.

...

I keep asking for some support for the assertion that, contemporaneous with his steriod use, there was some existing criteria, yardstick, barometer, or whatever measuring analogy you choose to use by which an argument can be made that what AS did was wrong by legal, ethical, moral or societal standards in place at the time.

...

All good points - and plenty more of course.

And here I thought we were about the same age.

First, bodybuilding sprang from Carnival perforances - a carny act.

The Oscar winning 1936 musical film The Great Ziegfeld, depicts this beginning of modern bodybuilding, when Sandow began to display his body for carnivals.

Second, popularization of bodybuilding came through the Charles Atlas 97 lb weakling ads in comic books. Both promoting 'kick sand in your face' stereotypes, and represented an early example of advertising preying on young, developing minds.

Third, bodybuilding was arguably the first 'big' application of steroids (but the Russian weightlifters introduced them)

The craze for bodybuilding in the 1970s led to a number of high profile steroid users becoming famous for their physique and power. Some, such as Arnold Schwarzenegge, became intrnational celebrities. The effect of steroids on women was ery contoversial, leading to accusations that women had denied their feminity in teir efforts to succeed in sport. When steroid use spread to other sports and was clearly implicated in Olympic events, the landscape of sport, doping and anti-doping changed forever.

...

So even though the first signs of usage came as early as the late 1940s, it was really the early 1960s that saw wider acceptanceof their value for strengthand fitness development. By then,the issue was political and needs to be understood in the context of the Cold War (see below for further comment on the politicization, and how Arnie represented both sides of that debate)

(From: A history of drug use in sport 1876-1976: beyond good and evil. pp 69)

In other words, there was controversy. There were ethical, moral and societal standards that were violated. And, virtually every account of this goes through bodybuilding - and through its poster child.

Even the IFBB reacted early on to introduce doping tests

Rise of anabolic steroids
This period also saw the rise of anabolic steroids used both in bodybuilding and many other sports. In bodybuilding lore, this is partly attributed to the rise of "mass monsters", beginning with Arnold Schwarzenegger ... who defied their natural genetics to attain size and hardness previously unimagined. To combat this, and in the hopes of becoming a member of the IOC, the IFBB (which was, in fact, run by supplement kings Joe and Ben Weider) introduced doping tests for both steroids and other banned substances.

...

Steroid use is prevalent among professional bodybuilders because such big growth and size is impossible without them.

(all of the above quotes courtesy of Wikipedia)

The 'public' wasn't happy with the steroid craze, of course, which led to the Anabolic Steroid Control Act.

The American Fight Against Steroids in Body BuildingSubtitle
Check out how and why people are outraged at steroid usage in America. Learn what you and others can do about the fight against steroids in bodybuilding.

...

However. Despite having doping tests, majority of professional body builders continued using steroids during and before major competitions. It was not until 1970s that steroid abuse was publicly discussed. At this time, anabolic steroids were legal in the US. The US Congress delayed but had to act on the public outcry. Congress finally constituted the Anabolic Steroid Control Act in 1990 placing anabolic steroids in the Schedule III of Controlled Substance Act.

(courtesy of knol)Of course, even Vince McMahon (founder of WBF) has been under investigation for steroid traficking. And, no surprise, the IFBB abandoned its steroid testing when it had to compete with McMahon's WBF for the top 'athletes', even though McMahon was forced to utilize them due to the traficking investigations.

In fact, the IOC's ongoing repudiation remains a solid statement about the ongoing inability of bodybuilding to meet ethical, moral and societal standards.

There is a dark attraction to bodybuilding and to drugs in American culture.

That AS's rise coincided with the GDR doping programs presented that odd confluence of repulsion, attraction and curiousity. In fact, there are arguably strong parallels to Ponce de Leon and the American dream of instant gratification and overnight success in Steroids.

AS spoke funny, but still spoke our language. He was kind of an 'uh-huh', ok in your living rooms, version of the hard core steroid abuse at the Olympics of the '70s and '80s. Some sort of Archie Bunker - he's ok 'cuz he came from Austria but now he is Republican' phenomena. He isn't bad, but those East German women sure are.

Dave.

[Steve in ATL]

All good points - and plenty more of course.
Some sort of Archie Bunker - he's ok 'cuz he came from Austria but now he is Republican' phenomena. He isn't bad, but those East German women sure are.

Dave.

A) What does his politics have to do with it?
B) Hey - weren't steroids banned from use in the Olympic Games (in ref. to "those East German women...") at the time?

Moving goalposts much?

[D-Queued]

A) What does his politics have to do with it?
Hey - weren't steroids banned from use in the Olympic Games (in ref. to "those East German women...") at the time?

Moving goalposts much?

1) His 'politics' is a reference to societal norms and his societal acceptability. I don't think Archie Bunker (a fictional character in a sitcom) would support him (a projection based on the Archie Bunker character) if he were a Democrat (occasionally stereotyped and or characterized as 'Socialists' or 'socialist leaning' by the right wing, and thus stereotyped as having more in common with the former GDR...).
2) I am just quoting the sources - you figure out the goalpost problem

And, please acknowledge that there is/was controversy and that ethical, moral and societal standards that were violated. I did a fair amount of research to provide this. It would be appreciated if you would acknowledge it rather than start nit-picking.

Otherwise, you are just being defensive and wasting bandwidth.

Dave.