http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/29...in-austria.html

Maybe as far away as Sacramento, California?

Who lives in Sacramento?

Dave.

The Austrian Oak, aka The Governator.

Alois? aka Arnold Strong (funny parallel in that name)?

1974. "I take steroids because they help me an extra 5 percent. Women take the (contraception) pill. They are somewhat similar. I do it under a doctor's supervision."

1977: "Yes I have used them, but no, they didn't make me what I am. Anabolic steroids were helpful to me in maintaining muscle size while on a strict diet in preparation for a contest."

1987: "I don't worry about it, because I never took an overdosage."

1992: "In those days you didn't have to deal with the black market. You could go to your physician and just say, 'Listen, I want to gain some weight, and I want to take something.' Then the physician would say, 'Do it six weeks before competition, then it will be safe.' And that's what you would do. The dosage that was taken then versus taken now is not even 10 percent. It's probably 5 percent."

1996: "I used steroids. It was a risky thing to do, but I have no regrets. It was what I had to do to compete. The danger with steroids is overusage. I only did it before a difficult competition – for two months, but not for a period of time that could harm me. And then afterward, it was over. I would stop. I have no health problems, no kidney damage or anything like that from using them."

Dave.

So, IOW, he took steroids - legally - and he doesn't obfuscate about it.

Remarkable.

Remarkable?

Bigger, Stronger, Faster... the movie... ?

The review

Anabolic steroids were first introduced to the US Olympic team, accidentally by a Russian coach, in the 1950s. Peanuts and vitamin C can be dangerous. Only three people have been known to have died as a direct result from using steroids. A physician speaks of a "benefit-to-risk ratio" when considering using any type of drug or engaging in a risky activity (such as bungee jumping, rock climbing, motorcycle racing, skydiving).

The media, with political enhancement, have unleashed a stereotype of "roid rage," similar to the "reefer madness" hysteria of the 1930s. Yet the government and the press haven't been able to avoid dishonestly presenting the issue as black and white: President George H.W. Bush signed the control act outlawing steroids (passed by Congress against expert recommendations not to associate steroids with narcotics) while naming Arnold Schwarzenegger, poster boy of steroids, chairman on the President's Council for Physical Fitness.

What really seems to bother Chris, John Romano, body-builder Greg Valentino (man with world's biggest, ugliest biceps), among others, is the apparent hypocrisy of idols like Schwarzenegger ("Work hard, play by the rules") and Carl Lewis (relying on a legal loop hole of "inadvertent use" to explain away a failed drug test) in misrepresenting themselves to the public by claiming to be what they aren't.

Arnie didn't really tell the truth.

Dave.

I don't see how the hypocrisy of saying "Play by the rules" (if it is indeed that, since Ahnuld never had any steroid rules to play against) and being placed on the President's CFPF is "not really telling the truth."

Maybe you have a different definition in Canuckistan?

This is a silly thing to debate here, but Mr. Natural wasn't.

Dave.

Well, yeah. Especially since he's never billed himself (or been billed) as "Mr. Natural."

He is, and has, actively promoted himself as ant-drug.

This is consistent with the taint around body building, and promotion of products like FRS Free Energy (to add a cycling analogy on promoting supplements) or even eating your Wheaties as the tonic for high perfrmance.

In 1985, for example, Schwarzenegger appeared in Stop the Madness, an anti-drug music video sponsored by the Reagan administration.

Aside from the steroid use, that 'personal endorsement' came after

an interview in adult magazine Oui from 1977 surfaced, in which Schwarzenegger discussed attending sexual orgies and using substances such as marijuana.[106] Schwarzenegger is shown smoking a marijuana joint after winning Mr. Olympia in the 1975 documentary film Pumping Iron. In an interview with GQ magazine in October 2007, Schwarzenegger said, "[Marijuana] is not a drug. It's a leaf. My drug was pumping iron, trust me."

Above all courtesy of Wikipedia.

Dave.

if you've never seen "pumping iron", you need to...my guess is that president bush never did.

Apparently you missed this part of the wikipedia article:

Schwarzenegger has admitted to using performance-enhancing anabolic steroids while they were legal, writing in 1967 that "steroids were helpful to me in maintaining muscle size while on a strict diet in preparation for a contest. I did not use them for muscle growth, but rather for muscle maintenance when cutting up." He has called the drugs "tissue building."[29]

And apparently by your line of reasoning, no one who has done drugs in the past has any right to change their own moral code or reasoning.

In light of that, I look forward to your criticism of Jesus Manzano and David Millar.


My guess is, however, that your criticism is better saved for the Former President (who probably did not know what he was buying into), which would make it a non-cycling related political issue.

This is still a silly debate, and now you are trying to turn it into a political issue.

Nope, I sure don't feel like you are stuffing words in my mouth at all.

Of course I saw the Wiki piece you quoted. That is yet another classic denial by admission statements.

Please explain how 'tissue building' is not for "muscle growth".

The inconsistency in that statement is well into absurdity.

But, if there is a political statement to be made, perhaps doping denial has a lot to do with political insincerity.

With respect to Jesus and David, they both came clean. Neither of them claimed anything along the lines of 'I didn't inhale', or it was just for 'tissue building' but not muscle growth.

Both admitted they did it to cheat.

That admission works for me.

Dave.

Dude, you're the one who brought GW Bush into it, not me. Don't get your panties in a bunch just because...

What you haven't done is shown how Schwarzenegger has ever lied about his steroid use (which differentiates him from Millar and Manzano since he didn't lie, and it wasn't cheating when he did it...).

I just don't want you to be a hypocrite like Ahnuld, Dave.

I think that's pretty much a lie.

Ok, ok, I am not arguing any more.

But, a few more comments as clrifications only if you will.

First, the intent of the steroid use all along has been to deceive. One of my favorite statements (not in Wiki), was that they didn't use as much then as they do now. Suggesting, somehow, that small amounts are ok - kind of like the no inhale thing.

Second, it wasn't GW that I mentioned, but GHW.

And, it wasn't political so much as it was further example of using success obtained by drug use (aka abuse) specifically pursued for personal profit to then promote health/healthy lifestyle. With his Presidential appointment, he was charged - by the President - to become a role model for 5 to 8 year olds.

Oh, to be a 97, or even 67 lb weakling.

Honestly, we might as well start using silicone enhancement to promote health.

Dave.

P.S. I am very much a fan of Ahnold, including for the best one liner in the history of cinema - which is censored on this site. I just don't consider myself confused about what the nature of his self-made situation is. His first movie, Hercules in NY, in many ways is the best definition of how Hollywood he is/was. They didn't like his <now signature> accent so they dubbed him. Thus a perfect 'dubbed falsehood' if you get the point.

Hypocrisy IS lying...the most sissy form of lying in fact.

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).

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'.

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

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.

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.

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?

Dave.

absurd, huh?

Yup

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...

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.

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.


Yes. Exactly.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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:




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?



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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

i know i said i wouldn't...

He did something wrong because he cheated...from the definition of cheating you provided..."Cheating is a primordial economic act: getting more for less"..regardless of who was doing it, or how legal it was when he did it...there can be no argument that taking steroids was a way to get a result without the effort...a way to get more for less.

the hypocrisy is that he doesn't believe he did anything wrong, and yet allows himself to be cast as a role model for a set of beliefs that ABSOLUTELY would say that what he did was wrong...in other words, he doesn't believe in the anti-drug crusade (at least he doesn't buy into it lock-stock-and-barrel, his public comments about his own drug-use tell us this), but allows himself to be one of its poster-boys...remind anyone of a senator in a men's room at the minn-st.paul airport...who would say that he's not a hypocrite?

he could be a great role model if he'd speak his mind on the matter...if he'd speak genuinely about how he reconciles his belief that what he did was okay, with his current public image...

regarding the re-assessment of past acts using present criteria...cheating, getting more for less, has ALWAYS been taboo in society, certainly in the culture of athletics...so yes, we can hold him to that standard because that standard existed when he took steroids..."everyone was doing it", and"it wasn't illegal" are excuses...not reasons...the REASON he took steroids was to get into competition shape without having to do competition work...cheating, even if every mf-er on the planet was doing it too...even if his doctor "made" him do it.

to me, this starts to get at the difference between doping and other performance enhancing technologies... doping makes the body stronger whereas other technologies simply allow us to get more from our existing body...in body-building though, the body is all there is...i guess someone could wear a carbon fiber banana-hammock...

summary...your assertion that there was no moral imperative to not cheat (get more for less) during the 1960's is untrue...Getting more for less (cheating), as you rightly point out, has been a moral taboo for the entirety of our history (even during the 1960's)...pointing to evidence that a group of people chose to collectively (face it, it's easier as a group anyway) ignore that imperative, does not prove that the imperative didn't exist..nor is it sufficient to point to an absence/presence of written laws on the matter.

speaking of Jefferson, it's been a while but if i remember, his writings on the subject of slavery are some of his most wishy-washy and painful writings...because he struggled with his own hypocrisy on the subject. i find it admirable that he tried to address the issue, rather than simply being a tight-lipped passenger on whatever train happened to be the most popular at the time.

I'm happy to acknowledge it. Why was it changing? It wasn't because everyone saw unfairness in bodybuilding, because at the time it was just emerging as a "sport." It was because of the unfairness in Olympic competition that societal opinions were being swayed.

I'm not the one being defensive. I'm "nit-picking" and "wasting bandwidth." Nice strawmen there, Dave.

Anyway, I will note again that your try to equate Olympic competition (were steroids were illegal at the time) with bodybuilding competition (where they were not). It would be nice if you would acknowledge THAT instead of nit-picking over such substantive issues as to how much research you did and how many electrons are being wasted...

Anyway, with all your research, you didn't find this article? Huh.


This single sentence shows that you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. None whatsoever. You should stop now before you make yourself look more silly.

1. Thanks for acknowledging. Please note, however, that the concern was with regard to both unfairness in Olympic competition AND societal norms about the 'steroid craze' (teenagers, etc. following their role models)

2. I apologize if my comments sounded defensive.

3. I am not trying to equate Olympic competition. Rather, was providing backup that Steroid usage was a concern within body-building itself and in, and of itself, harmed its own reputation. And that Arnold is and was seen as the pre-eminent 'Mass Monster'.

4. Thanks for the article. It is refreshing to see the trend towards increasingly anti-doping stance. I am not arguing that he hasn't moved in this direction (that is another poster). However, even in this article we need to reconcile blatant insincerity and obviously deceptive statements such as:

Arnold Schwarzenegger, as promoter of the Arnold Classic, has previously urged bodybuilding officials to crackdown on steroid use in the IFBB and called a steroid summit with leaders in the industry to institute steroid testing in the sport. This is widely considered as nothing more than a publicity stunt

...

(reconcile this): I did not use them for muscle growth, but rather for muscle maintenance when cutting up

(with this): You could go to your physician and just say, ‘Listen, I want to gain some weight, and I want to take something.’

Why would you want to gain some weight when you were cutting up?

Independent of how he has modified his comments, the use of steroids - even when not illegal - violated societal norms and was a practice of deceit.

Finally, this single sentence of yours

This single sentence shows that you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. None whatsoever. You should stop now before you make yourself look more silly.

is effectively blatant name-calling and clearly and ad hominem attack.

Obviously, with all of these posts, I have more than a slightest idea of what I am talking about - even if you want to argue, somehow, that you do not believe my arguments are well-formed.

Please provide an apology.

Dave.

are you serious.... that's me laughing at you.

here you go smarty-guy.

"steroids were helpful to me in maintaining muscle size while on a strict diet in preparation for a contest. I did not use them for muscle growth, but rather for muscle maintenance when cutting up."

now, please show me where i said he was using them to get bigger muscles...i didn't; i said he was using them to get into competition shape...you need to think before you open your smart-aleck mouth again...

and since we're on the subject of your silliness, why don't you stay out of conversations unless you're willing to man-up and actually express an opinion...you're a coat-tail critic...

edit...
well, i did find a couple more gems in the article that YOU linked, so...what's your response to this?
"I used steroids. It was a risky thing to do, but I have no regrets. It was what I had to do to compete

or this?
"Anything when you want to be a champion, you use anything that comes around."

not for competition huh??? sorry, can't help it...

something tells me that you may not understand the difference between a reason and an excuse...

edit...no, "coat-tail critic" summed it up nicely.

As ususal, you totally missed the point.

Steroids do not allow one to avoid work. Steroids enable one to work harder. That you miss the simple, basic fact tells me, once again, everything I need to know about the rest of your opinions.


So if this were an ad hominem, which it wasn't, I'm to apologize to you for an "attack" on someone else now?

Please. You are slipping, Dave. I expect better of you. Please check who my post was directed at. Hint: T'wasn't you.

In any event, bullshit. That the OP can't grasp simple physiological facts of steroid use (such as why they work, then I can call that silly. The ignorance demonstrated in that one sentence was pretty blatant, even for this forum.

Hi Steve,

No sweat...

Not sure what you were calling BS on, though, but don't have the time or energy right now to go back and try and figure it out.

Adapting Bruno, 'I am hoping that this will be the biggest thread starring a gay Austrian since Terminator 2.'

Dave.

steve, steroids enable one to do more work NOW, in order to do less work LATER...you left out the last part out of simple oversight i'm sure...you're out on a limb here...also, the "simple physiological facts" about steroid use have zero to do with the issues in this thread..AS used steroids for to get ready for competition...he has admitted this...if it is your contention that the method by which AS used steroids, or how steroids work in the body, has something to do with the conversation here, why don't you make that statement, and then back it up by showing us how that is the case..you know, construct an argument...freeloader.

now pleases, pull your f%ing powermeter out of your ass...i used the word "work" in the general sense, not the scientific sense of the word....AS used steroids as a way to maintain his competition weight, while starving himself pre-competition...a shortcut at best (more for less...cheating...remember?), at worst, what he did (maintaining his muscle mass without eating) may not even be possible without steroids...in short...like i said, to get into competition shape without doing (all of the otherwise necessary...does this qualifying phrase really change the meaning...NO) competiton work(even if that "work" is simply having to eat like a human being in order to have/maintain gigantic muscles)....you're really grasping at straws here just to make yourself look better...and that FACT (coupled with my realization that this thread is pretty typical of you) would tell me all I need to know about you...if i was you...

now, rather than trying to act like the only guy in the room with a college degree, why don't you refute the argument...that AS cheated, even though he wasn't breaking a written rule, and that in his subsequent career, he has allowed/fostered a public image that does not jive with his stated beliefs about drug-use...and that that IN-action is hypocritical. If the simple physiological facts of steroid use matter to your argument, feel free to tell us why...

patiently waiting,

you mean does not "jibe" with his stated beliefs, don't you?

no, i meant jive...probably a southern-american bastardization of jibe with...

(jyv)
verb tr., intr.
1. To deceive, to flatter, to taunt, to talk nonsense.
2. To go together, to fit in.

usage example...

"Designwise, the focus remains on the house-garden connection -- the need for garden rooms and plants to jive with architecture and interiors." — Turning over a new leaf; Los Angeles Times; May 21, 2000

dancing...sailing...coreographed movements around an armature...the wind or music...a person can see a song by watching folks dance to it, a sailor can see the wind by watching a boat sail to it...

No - you left it out. Here's your original quote: "...the REASON he took steroids was to get into competition shape without having to do competition work...". So the work before wasn't competition work? I think you are confused... In any event, no, it does not allow you to do less work later, either.



Until you tried to make them so simplistically wrong.



You constructed the argument that using steroids allows one to do less work. I argued against that. Don't get your panties in a bunch because I spotted it, and you are dead wrong.





I will when you pull your head out of yours.



I don't care what sense you used it in - your usage was wrong.



So make up your mind - was it now (before starvation) or later (during starvation)? You are still apparently confused about your timing of the steroid use. And by your definition, intervals (more fitness for less overall work / time) are cheating. Congratulations on that leap of illogic.



I'm not grasping at anything. I'm pointing out your erroneous contention that steroids allow one to do less work, when in fact, it's the opposite that is true.



That's not a fact - that's your contention, and it's still wrong.

And if you were me what? Exactly who's dragging he argument away from AS and steroid use now, Hmmm? Physician, heal thy pot which is calling the kettle black.



I'm not acting like I'm the only one here with a college degree, but at least I'm acting like I paid attention in class. You should try it some time. I say this not only because YOU were the one to make the original erroneous statement on steroid use, but also because you are apparently having trouble understanding the definition of cheating. Cheating is breaking an agreement based upon pre-determined rules. Since this does not fit your pre-determined conception of AS, you are moving the goalpost to make cheating anything that you personally object to, especially with 30 YEARS of hindsight. The lack of logic in this argument of yours as to what constitutes cheating is stunning.