[BlackKusanagi]

I must say, she deserved it. XD

[greyfox]

It always suprises me how people like greyfox here have no problem with women permanently damaging their health and appearance thru steroid abuse. But should a woman succeed the old fashioned way – naturally, thru hard work and perseverance over a 13 year competitive career – they get called a cheat and a liar and have their achievements rubbished.

I agree it's kinda pointless debating it further though. The only thing we can conclusively prove is that Greyfox is a libelous bigot.

Anyway – congratulations to Johanna on her Pro card and the vindication of her decision to stay natural.

Acctually you can't conclude that I am a "libelous bigot" because none of you can prove me wrong for the simple fact that you dont KNOW that JD hasent taken roids; nor can you provide any explanation/defense to the medical facts i cited earlier (other than JD's word or the belief that there are exceptional cases in medical science).

In addition, those women who take those drugs do so on their on behalf and should be mature and responsible enough not do to so when endangering their health; I never once pushed for women to take roids, I only addmited that I like the look that they produce (like many of you here, im sure).

To conclude, I would like to note that I not once gave any snyde remarks or took part in childish name calling; exactly like what has been done to me.

Jdfan You may disagree with me, maybe you dont like me, but at least I can say that I debated a touchy subject without stooping to your level. If I am wrong about JD that I will glady take back my opinion, but I doubt that I am.

[00tree]

Gawd I thought that this was finished.

Look, here's what I see. no one has given any "proof" of anything one way or the other. the only thing that has been proven is that we all have different opinions. I think Joann is natural and greyfox doesn't and thats okay, he is entittled to this belief just as much as I am to mine. This thread isn't supose to be a steroid discution, its a thread dedicated to Joann and her acheivements.

No one should have to have the last word and name calling is not cool we know where people stand. No amount of droning is going to change someones mind in this matter. Now can we please get back to the subject at hand which is how amazing JD is.

[jdfan]

…To conclude, I would like to note that I not once gave any snyde remarks or took part in childish name calling…

Dude, you came into a pro Johanna thread and repeatedly stated in an arrogant and complacent manner that Johanna takes steroids – side-stepping or rubbishing the substantial evidence and arguments others posted in her defence.

As regards name calling – you are effectively calling Johanna a liar (since she claims to be natural) and a cheat (since she has won many natural BBing contests). These are serious allegations without a shread of proof – just your complacent statement that it's 'impossible' for Jo to be natural based on what the pro-steroid BB establishment say.

The thread had moved on to Johanna's Pro card victory – but you choose to restart the argument by again rubbishing the CBBF doping tests and by refusing to conceed that passing tests repeatedly over a 10 year period makes it any more likely she really is natural.

Libelous = maliciously defamatory. I think that's an accurate description of your allegations.

Bigot = a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

OK – maybe 'utterly intolerant' is too strong. But you're certainly smug, complacent and unwilling to conceed that you might not be right all the time.

OK – I'm ready to move on to discussing how great Johanna looks now.

[greyfox]

Dude, you came into a pro Johanna thread and repeatedly stated in an arrogant and complacent manner that Johanna takes steroids – side-stepping or rubbishing the substantial evidence and arguments others posted in her defence.

As regards name calling – you are effectively calling Johanna a liar (since she claims to be natural) and a cheat (since she has won many natural BBing contests). These are serious allegations without a shread of proof – just your complacent statement that it's 'impossible' for Jo to be natural based on what the pro-steroid BB establishment say.

The thread had moved on to Johanna's Pro card victory – but you choose to restart the argument by again rubbishing the CBBF doping tests and by refusing to conceed that passing tests repeatedly over a 10 year period makes it any more likely she really is natural.

Libelous = maliciously defamatory. I think that's an accurate description of your allegations.

Bigot = a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

OK – maybe 'utterly intolerant' is too strong. But you're certainly smug, complacent and unwilling to conceed that you might not be right all the time.

OK – I'm ready to move on to discussing how great Johanna looks now.

I disagree, JD made a claim and I disagreed and cited why. And I did no side-stepping as my main argument has stayed in tact, I only adressed other issues as others brought them up. I made the comment about the other comps because it was brought up by someone else, I had to make a rebuttle; which I think is perfectly sane given the nature of "testing" in those contests.

And for the final time i cited medical facts that your very own resident biologist acknowledged as being at least lucid.

I was not malicous, Do you want to know what I could have done, what showing malic really is? I could have made a thread in the IFBB Pro Section at BB.com and let 30-50 or so people rip into JD post after post, while laughing at all those who support her natural claims here. BUT I didnt do that, did i?  I choose to debate this internally because it was the right thing to do

and I dont understand how I am smug; I said before that IF I am wrong, I would happily take back my statements.

But, the one thing that I do agree with you on is that I am ready to move on.

The End, agree to disagree, and btw 00tree- it was finished untill jd resorted to unsubstainiated defamation, and thank you for your unbias comments.

[jdfan]

IMHO your opening statement was malicious defamation:

Jd is not natural, she takes steriods. Claiming to be "natural" is laughable.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion – but you present this like a statement of fact when actually, your 'evidence' is no more than the second hand opinions from steroid users who have a vested interest in smearing natural athletes.

The facts are: Hard exercise and good nutrition build muscle. Certain drugs help build muscle but often produce unwanted side effects. Johanna has no side effects and has tested negative for banned substances many times over a 10 year period. In addition Johanna has staked her reputation on being natural and has no reason to lie since drugs are widely accepted in the sport.

We agreed testing is not perfect – but a number of athletes *have* tested positive at Johanna's competitions over the years. Therefore by submitting herself to those tests for over 10 years, there is at least *some* likelyhood that Jo actually is natural.

Another piece of evidence I would add: slow rate of change. Jo's build hasn't changed dramatically since she first appeared on the scene. She just slowly improves each year. Again, this is consistent with natural training. Unlike some girls who add a massive amount of muscle in a few short years.

I dont understand how I am smug; I said before that IF I am wrong, I would happily take back my statements.

By your own admission there is nothing J can do to prove she is natural – so clearly you will never take back your statements.

I did no side-stepping

Fortunately you side stepped the motive question to save us from more baseless accusations and character slurs. Thanks for that.

To justify your allegations you'd need to produce either:

a) a visible side effect
b) a positive test result.

You have neither which makes your allegations baseless malicious defamation. Please lets not hear any more of your BS in this thread.

[cpbell0033944]

I promised myself I wouldn't reply to this until we'd dropped this stuff, but I just wanted to clarify my position.  Whilst I am a trained biologist, I am not an expert on steroids and their effects.  My opinion (based on academic learning) is as follows:

Testing for steroid abuse is fraught with difficulties.  Biology, as the study of living things, has to encompass a range or spectrum.  By this I mean that one person may have a certain level of circulating testosterone that is due solely to biology, whereas a different person with the same levels may only be able to attain that level by taking artificial testosterone-mimicking substances.  This does, indeed make it difficult for Jo or anyone else to prove their innocence, but, by the same token, it makes it unwise to accuse someone of steroid abuse without strong evidence.  In science, opinion without evidence is worthless.

Additionally, science rarely provides 100% certainty.  As a biologist, I am trained to use statistical tests to determine the probability that the result I observe is due to some effect, not pure random chance.  We work on a 95% confidence interval,which is the scientist's equivalent of "beyond reasonable doubt" in legal matters.

There is no doubt that few women could attain Jo's physique naturally.  However, there are always pieces of data, or, in this case, a person, who lies outside the normal range.  We call such data "outliers". 

(cont'd in next post) 

[cpbell0033944]

(cont'd from previous post)

The dificulty arises when we we have to determine whether a particular piece of data is at the extreme end of the range, or is a chance event, an outlier, which we can safely discard.  To translate: even with the abilty to perform complex statistical calculations on Jo, it would be near-impossible to determine whether her physique is down to her being unusually genetically-able to build muscle naturally, or whether she represents an outlier, in other words, she is taking steroids.   

As we cannot do this, our best effort is to make a considered judgement based on the evidence we have.  In doing so, I consider it highly likely that she is natural.  My reasons for this are as follows:

1.  Her progress has been slow and steady, rather than exhibiting dramatic gains followed by stagnation as is often seen with steroid use.

2.  The risk to her reputation if found-out is high, given her anti-drugs stance.

3.  She has contested many shows in which drug-testing has been used.  Despite the weakness of such tests, simple statistics tell us that, whilst the odds of her passing one test whilst on steroids is fairly high, the odds of her passing many tests without being found-out diminishes rapidly.

4.  She displays none of the signs of steroid use, and her appearance has changed over the years only to the extent that I would expect to be due to ageing.  She has a smooth voice, clear skin, shows little or no sign of "roid jaw", nose changes, receding hairline or acne.

[greyfox]

Look, this is getting out of hand. And I do apologize for that.

I'll sum up this entire argument with a fair and balanced perspective.

My argument, JD, as a woman, cannot produce the levels of testostrone needed to attain her muscular development. Medical Science supports this, period end of story of my arguement

Overall defense (that to me made the most sense):

1) Hold that there are very exceptional circumstances in medical science, and JD is one of these cases.— every point that cpbell made above (which i think is the best sum of your arguement) comes down to this

I am willing to acknowledge the defense as barley plausible if you will in turn accept that that postition is indeed highly highly unlikly.

I have adressed everypoint that cp made directly (in previous posts) above except for number 1; slow and steady progress does not mean no roid use, it IMO means she didn't take incredibly intensive cycles or had a very hard time responding to the drugs (perfect exmaple= dave palumbo). If she was natural there would be a limit due to her low test levels; its just like saying your local gym rat with insane genetics can attain a Mr.O physque without the drugs, it wll just take a lot longer…

[cpbell0033944]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.  I agree that rapid improvements are not always seen in steroid use, just that they are often present because athletes use excessive cycles, and that this seems to me to be another factor in why I believe she is clean.  I accept that it is unlikely that any one FBBer will be able to grow such musculature naturally, however I argue that many women build muscles around the world and so it's quite likely that one finds that she is able to do so.

[Author]

Posts