[cpbell0033944]

Not the most flattering pic of her, facially (a combination of the angle and that she appears exhausted from the w/o), but that upper arm and shoulder development – hoky smokes, Bullwinkle!  😮  ;D  8)

Source: http://www.amg-lite.com/hdphysiques/

Very impressive.  Nice spot, Alex. 🙂

[cpbell0033944]

I just found this you tube clip, and fell out of my chair

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMFlMWdQyNM&feature=related

They are some sexy legs!

Impressive gams! 😮

[cpbell0033944]

🙂

Brilliant as always, jdm, but my reaction was aaaaarrrrgggghhhh!  because to me she represents a nightmare called Thatcher Mark 2.

[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.

[cpbell0033944]

The big, stompy boots get my approval (I love depictions of musclegirls in big tough boots). 8)

[cpbell0033944]

Thanks fellas!

Yes, she loves bubble gum.

She's not too bright. Real short on the IQ level which is part of the comedy of the toon.

Sorry to hear she's not too bright.  At least in fiction, this trait wouldn't wind me up as it would in reality.  Who are the other girls in your initial posted ensemble piece?

[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.

[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]

Some new ones of Sheila . . .  ;D  8)

Source: http://www.amg-lite.com/sheila_bleck/

Incredible pecs!

[cpbell0033944]

No offence taken, Britons are getting ever fatter, unfortunately. ::)

[Author]

Posts