[Bo Inaka]

It's probably pointless to speculate on what has caused the deepening voice, as I said.  As far as acne, if you look at Cindy going all the way back to when she was a fitness model, she's always had trouble with acne.  If anything, her skin seems clearer now than it did just a couple years ago, but, again, this may mean nothing.  Mood swings can easily be attributed to steroid use, true, but they can also be attributed to stress, sleep deprivation, diet, and a host of other "natural" causes.  My point is that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other, and I prefer to believe the best of her (and most people) until such evidence exists.

You are of course correct that we have no conclusive evidence.  What we do have is reasonable suspicion based on musculature far in excess of what is commonly seen on natural female athletes along with admittedly circumstantial factors such as deepening voice and acne into her mid 20s, neither of which are unheard-of.  The moodiness referred to earlier is admittedly  also of uncertain origin.  If you look at this as a probability, each included factor reduces the level of probability to some degree.  If we posit that 20 percent of women engaged in natural bodybuilding experience deepening voice in adulthood naturally, that 40% of natural bodybuilding women have acne into their mid 20s, and that 90 percent of them experience moodiness or depression while dieting in advance of a contest we get .4x.2x.9=.072 or 7.2% that have all three, assuming that each of these variables is independent.  Naturally, we can play with those numbers until we have carpal tunnel syndrome, but my point is that for all these variables to come together in one person is improbable.    7.2 percent is not insignificant, but it was heavily influenced by the 90% thrown in for fun.  If 25% of bodybuilding women had moodiness,  2% of this population would have all 3.  But I have no real statistics here.  Also, I will admit that my statistical skills are rusty and limited at best. What I see in your position is a triumph of hope over experience. I see people using whatever performance enhancement they can when they are in competition, especially if they suspect others of doing the same thing. You may see my view as pessimistic.  We aren't going to really get anywhere here, so can we call a truce?  I still think we both like to look at pictures of Cindy.
[/quote]

On a separate but related topic, I think both amateur and professional levels of the sports could only benefit in the public eye if there were mandatory testing for performance enhancing drugs.  The problem, of course, is money.  Sort of a vicious cycle- the sport might be more popular if drug testing were mandatory, which might make it feasible to spend the money on drug testing, but because the sport isn't generally popular or accepted, the money isn't there, so drug testing isn't fiscally possible, so the sport isn't likely to gain popularity, et. al.  I'd love to see a realistic approach to that conundrum.

Well, adding the word realistic puts an interesting spin on things.  What is realistic, after all?  Do we count in or out the possibility of politicians posturing for votes and feigning moral outrage to decry performance enhancing substances?  If we count that in, do we then think that it is realistic to imagine politicians perceiving enough support to legally mandate testing in professional sports as they have in many communities for high school sports?  Is it likely that the voting public would support such testing? 
On other levels, I think it is quite unlikely that professional sport will do anything that it sees as against its commercial interests unless it feels compelled to do so.  Sport is a spectacle.  More spectacle=> more interest=> more ticket sales.  Record setting performance is a way to increase how spectacular a game is.  Other than political means, I can only see some sort of ethical convergence driving a move toward fully drug tested sports.  I can imagine some basic agreement that sport is a demonstration of what people can do, not what science can do, but it requires a population of educated, concerned people.  In the US at least, I don't see that as realistic in the near future.  Of course, drugs may be on their way out anyhow.  Gene manipulation is perhaps not too far down the road, and that might be impossible to detect.

I think it might be more interesting to discuss what it means to be human and separately to decide if the desire to improve oneself by any means available is necessarily a bad thing.
Bo.

[stmercy2020]

You are of course correct that we have no conclusive evidence.  What we do have is reasonable suspicion based on musculature far in excess of what is commonly seen on natural female athletes along with admittedly circumstantial factors such as deepening voice and acne into her mid 20s, neither of which are unheard-of.  The moodiness referred to earlier is admittedly  also of uncertain origin.  If you look at this as a probability, each included factor reduces the level of probability to some degree.  If we posit that 20 percent of women engaged in natural bodybuilding experience deepening voice in adulthood naturally, that 40% of natural bodybuilding women have acne into their mid 20s, and that 90 percent of them experience moodiness or depression while dieting in advance of a contest we get .4x.2x.9=.072 or 7.2% that have all three, assuming that each of these variables is independent.  Naturally, we can play with those numbers until we have carpal tunnel syndrome, but my point is that for all these variables to come together in one person is improbable.    7.2 percent is not insignificant, but it was heavily influenced by the 90% thrown in for fun.  If 25% of bodybuilding women had moodiness,  2% of this population would have all 3.  But I have no real statistics here.  Also, I will admit that my statistical skills are rusty and limited at best. What I see in your position is a triumph of hope over experience. I see people using whatever performance enhancement they can when they are in competition, especially if they suspect others of doing the same thing. You may see my view as pessimistic.  We aren't going to really get anywhere here, so can we call a truce?  I still think we both like to look at pictures of Cindy.

No argument there.  I'll agree to your truce if you'll promise to stop trying to burst my dreamy soap bubble of fantasy with the pin-prick of reality… ;D

Seriously, I understand that circumstantial evidence does mount up and can carry nearly the same weight as conclusive evidence, but my courses in criminal justice have taught me to always be skeptical.  After all, there are three kinds of lies- lies, damn lies, and statistics!

Well, adding the word realistic puts an interesting spin on things.  What is realistic, after all?  Do we count in or out the possibility of politicians posturing for votes and feigning moral outrage to decry performance enhancing substances?  If we count that in, do we then think that it is realistic to imagine politicians perceiving enough support to legally mandate testing in professional sports as they have in many communities for high school sports?  Is it likely that the voting public would support such testing? 
On other levels, I think it is quite unlikely that professional sport will do anything that it sees as against its commercial interests unless it feels compelled to do so.  Sport is a spectacle.  More spectacle=> more interest=> more ticket sales.  Record setting performance is a way to increase how spectacular a game is.  Other than political means, I can only see some sort of ethical convergence driving a move toward fully drug tested sports.  I can imagine some basic agreement that sport is a demonstration of what people can do, not what science can do, but it requires a population of educated, concerned people.  In the US at least, I don't see that as realistic in the near future.  Of course, drugs may be on their way out anyhow.  Gene manipulation is perhaps not too far down the road, and that might be impossible to detect.

I think it might be more interesting to discuss what it means to be human and separately to decide if the desire to improve oneself by any means available is necessarily a bad thing.
Bo.[/quote]

Heh.  Government meddling in what can only be described as a fringe sport?  Somehow, I think not.  Your other question is intriguing, though.  I think there are some situations in which it would be morally and ethically wrong to try to improve yourself "by any means available"- specifically, if those means cause you to harm or become a danger to others.  Becoming a danger to yourself shouldn't be considered criminal, merely stupid.

[cpbell0033944]

It's probably pointless to speculate on what has caused the deepening voice, as I said.  As far as acne, if you look at Cindy going all the way back to when she was a fitness model, she's always had trouble with acne.  If anything, her skin seems clearer now than it did just a couple years ago, but, again, this may mean nothing.  Mood swings can easily be attributed to steroid use, true, but they can also be attributed to stress, sleep deprivation, diet, and a host of other "natural" causes.  My point is that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other, and I prefer to believe the best of her (and most people) until such evidence exists.

On a separate but related topic, I think both amateur and professional levels of the sports could only benefit in the public eye if there were mandatory testing for performance enhancing drugs.  The problem, of course, is money.  Sort of a vicious cycle- the sport might be more popular if drug testing were mandatory, which might make it feasible to spend the money on drug testing, but because the sport isn't generally popular or accepted, the money isn't there, so drug testing isn't fiscally possible, so the sport isn't likely to gain popularity, et. al.  I'd love to see a realistic approach to that conundrum.

Interesting debate, stmercy and Bo.  I suspect that non-tested BBing might die a death, either because of falling interest, or gene therapy making steroids irrelevant.  In my ideal world, all FBBs would be drug tested, as would all male BBs.  One can hardlly call the physique of someone like Ronnie Coleman inspiring to a teenage boy or aesthetically pleasing, IMO any more than the appearance of some Pro FBBs as sexy or feminine/female.  I would argue with Bo as to his assertion that it's impossible to build a physique like Cindy's drug-free; look at Johanna Dejager and Rhonda Dethlefs to see what is possible without drugs.

Without wishing to incur the wrath of Lingster, I will state that I suspect (please note, I am giving an opinion, not stating any factual info.) that Cindy first took steroids to a significant extent in the run-up to last year's Canadian Nationals.  I say this because her skin started to look rough in some photo-shoots she did during her contest prep, and, having seen the video of one of those shoots on YouTube, her voice is quite gravelly and low.  However, comparing this to her appearance and voice in the YouTube video of her armwrestling the old guy with the moustache (dduring her off-season), we can see that her skin is smooth and clear, and her voice is higher and less rough.  This fits-in with the thing that she was moaning about during her contest prep this time around, which was that she seems genetically gifted in her ability to build muscle, yet finds it hard to drop her BF %age.  Therefore steroids have been of little use to her during the off-season, but their ability to maintain muscle mass whilst getting ripped means that they're useful to her in contest prep. 

[AlexG]

Gentlemen, enough!  I don't want this thread to degenderate into a Drugs R Us thread, especially given the fact that none of us really knows whether or not Cindy has skirted over into the dark side of the sport.

I'm certain that if she were here to see this she'd be very hurt by such a discussion in the wake of her recent (even amazing) achievement at the nationals by winning her pro card.

“I like a good story well told. That is the reason I am sometimes forced to tell them myself.”
~ Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens (1907)

[cpbell0033944]

Gentlemen, enough!  I don't want this thread to degenderate into a Drugs R Us thread, especially given the fact that none of us really knows whether or not Cindy has skirted over into the dark side of the sport.

I'm certain that if she were here to see this she'd be very hurt by such a discussion in the wake of her recent (even amazing) achievement at the nationals by winning her pro card.

Yes, you're right, Alex.  Very poor form on our part, and I'm really not bothered whether she has or not; (I was responding specifically to Boinaka) she has acheived great things in this past few days, and she is fantastically feminine, cute, muscular and sexy, as well as seeming to have a great personality and being wise beyond her years, which is partly why I am confident that she'll do whatever is right for her.

[TC2]

Yeah considering she removed her comments again, it's no surprise that a bunch of a**holes are harassing her at her website again.

[00tree]

I'm happy she finally went pro.  ;D

[Bo Inaka]

In case it wasn't obvious already, I consider myself a fan of Cindy's.  I was treating this exchange as a mental exercise rather than wanting to pass judgment on her choices. 
I am sure she has worked very hard and made sacrifices for something she apparently enjoys.  She has been awarded a pro card for her hard work, which must be very welcome recognition indeed for her. 
On the point of her choices, I'm actually torn.  I sometimes like the results, and sometimes find myself reflecting on what she appears to be doing to herself and its consequences. After reading her blog regularly, I am seeing more person and less pretty image, and that is making things difficult for me. I am nearly sure that it would be better for her to get out of bodybuilding and move on with life. Celebrity has a dark side. Fans like us can be that dark side.  Do we really love her, or do we just like to drool? Cindy might very well be hurt if she were to read this thread, and that is my point. Friends are good to have.  I'm not sure that fans are healthy to have. I imagine most of us have realized that we are not immortal, and perhaps this would be a good time for her to recognize that too.

Sorry if this has been a downer.

Bo.

[cpbell0033944]

In case it wasn't obvious already, I consider myself a fan of Cindy's.  I was treating this exchange as a mental exercise rather than wanting to pass judgment on her choices. 
I am sure she has worked very hard and made sacrifices for something she apparently enjoys.  She has been awarded a pro card for her hard work, which must be very welcome recognition indeed for her. 
On the point of her choices, I'm actually torn.  I sometimes like the results, and sometimes find myself reflecting on what she appears to be doing to herself and its consequences. After reading her blog regularly, I am seeing more person and less pretty image, and that is making things difficult for me. I am nearly sure that it would be better for her to get out of bodybuilding and move on with life. Celebrity has a dark side. Fans like us can be that dark side.  Do we really love her, or do we just like to drool? Cindy might very well be hurt if she were to read this thread, and that is my point. Friends are good to have.  I'm not sure that fans are healthy to have. I imagine most of us have realized that we are not immortal, and perhaps this would be a good time for her to recognize that too.

Sorry if this has been a downer.

Bo.

I consider my self more than just a slack-jawed drooler.  Not that I don't drool over her, of course. 😉 ;D

[Bo Inaka]

I consider my self more than just a slack-jawed drooler.  Not that I don't drool over her, of course. 😉 ;D

Hey, whatever else you do with a slack jaw, I want you to keep it to yourself, OK? 😉

Bo.

[Author]

Posts