[quote]alexus wrote:
the only issue i have with steroids is cheating. but if people are competing in non-tested federations then steroid use isn’t cheating. but still… the women on steroids shouldn’t be competing in mens divisions - should they? or perhaps non tested female figure athletes should really be competing against natural dudes?
wtf??[/quote]
" but still… the women on steroids shouldn’t be competing in mens divisions - should they? "
that part confuses me . not sure if women ever lift in mens division in a non-tested fed ; Ive only attended tested meets .but either way , my remark was in response to BG’s statement questioning the fairness of a drug-enhanced female lifter competing as a female …as in whats the difference if all the competitors have the same training options . I most likely took BG’s statement out of context though .
[quote]Arthritisboy wrote:
Fuckin’ weird looking kitchen.
[quote]marlboroman wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
When a woman has more test running thru her system than any drug free man, is it really fair for her to compete as a woman? [/quote]
a test-enhanced female competing against other test-enhanced females in a non-tested fed isnt fair ?
to me that’s a perfectly level playing field . any female or male p’lifter who doesnt care to compete against test-enhanced lifters needs to lift in a tested fed .
[/quote]
I can agree with this.
But are you a PL? Because your valid point aside, in the real world, I’ve never been to a meet where all the female lifters were juiced. Kinda burns the level playing field theory doesn’t it? And I can assure you the line between “tested” and “untested” in the world of PL is as blurry as your vision after doing X, smoking a blunt of hydro and having an astigmatism.
So while your point, as expressed above, is perfectly valid, it’s less compelling where the rubber meets the pavement - in the real world of PL lifting.
[quote]alexus wrote:
thanks marlboroman. yeah, i kinda thought that was um… obvious. and a big clit is still a big clit - right? it dosen’t find itself hooked up to testicles and shooting sperm all of a sudden - does it? [/quote]
too bad he was actually able to articulate his opinion in an intelligent manner, and you were…
what were you doing?
[quote]alexus wrote:
the only issue i have with steroids is cheating. but if people are competing in non-tested federations then steroid use isn’t cheating. but still… the women on steroids shouldn’t be competing in mens divisions - should they? or perhaps non tested female figure athletes should really be competing against natural dudes?
wtf??[/quote]
see my prior reply. women like this compete against “unassisted” women all the time.
And not to get off track here, but “non-tested federations” is exactly why PL will NEVER be taken seriously - ever.
If your problem is limited to “cheating” (and that of course is a valid standpoint), do you care to research if the woman in question always competed in so called non-tested feds? At least then, you’d have a valid point as it concerns this single woman. However, as I pointed out in an earlier thread, the line is much more blurry in practice and the black and white lines you so cleanly allude to here, do not exist in the real world of PL.
And you do realize I said “when a woman” - not any woman in particular. So I was making a general point about PL and “cheating”. Cheating was exactly what I was alluding to.
Get it?
[quote]marlboroman wrote:
[quote]alexus wrote:
the only issue i have with steroids is cheating. but if people are competing in non-tested federations then steroid use isn’t cheating. but still… the women on steroids shouldn’t be competing in mens divisions - should they? or perhaps non tested female figure athletes should really be competing against natural dudes?
wtf??[/quote]
" but still… the women on steroids shouldn’t be competing in mens divisions - should they? "
that part confuses me . not sure if women ever lift in mens division in a non-tested fed ; Ive only attended tested meets .but either way , my remark was in response to BG’s statement questioning the fairness of a drug-enhanced female lifter competing as a female …as in whats the difference if all the competitors have the same training options . I most likely took BG’s statement out of context though . [/quote]
I didn’t mean it literally. Of course she shouldn’t compete with men - even though of course she is demonstrating about the same strength of unassisted men in the same weight class. Did you consider the latter?
My larger point was, and I’ve already clarified this - these women do not always only compete against similar women.
And maybe she should compete with men now that I’m thinking of it. PL is one of the few “sports” (I’m being kind) that a woman can actually gain somewhat equal footing thru the use of anabolics. Take basketball in contrast. No amount of anabolics will make a woman competitive with pro basketball players. I’d suspect the same for football too. 3 displays of limit strength though (the big 3)? She’s right in the ballpark man.
So, is my off-handed comment really that outrageous?
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
Fuckin’ weird looking kitchen.[/quote]
was that her balls hanging out the side of her suit?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]marlboroman wrote:
[quote]alexus wrote:
the only issue i have with steroids is cheating. but if people are competing in non-tested federations then steroid use isn’t cheating. but still… the women on steroids shouldn’t be competing in mens divisions - should they? or perhaps non tested female figure athletes should really be competing against natural dudes?
wtf??[/quote]
" but still… the women on steroids shouldn’t be competing in mens divisions - should they? "
that part confuses me . not sure if women ever lift in mens division in a non-tested fed ; Ive only attended tested meets .but either way , my remark was in response to BG’s statement questioning the fairness of a drug-enhanced female lifter competing as a female …as in whats the difference if all the competitors have the same training options . I most likely took BG’s statement out of context though . [/quote]
I didn’t mean it literally. Of course she shouldn’t compete with men - even though of course she is demonstrating about the same strength of unassisted men in the same weight class. Did you consider the latter?
My larger point was, and I’ve already clarified this - these women do not always only compete against similar women.
And maybe she should compete with men now that I’m thinking of it. PL is one of the few “sports” (I’m being kind) that a woman can actually gain somewhat equal footing thru the use of anabolics. Take basketball in contrast. No amount of anabolics will make a woman competitive with pro basketball players. I’d suspect the same for football too. 3 displays of limit strength though (the big 3)? She’s right in the ballpark man.
So, is my off-handed comment really that outrageous?[/quote]
not outrageous . thats what I meant by taking your comment out of context . I forgot I was on the GTL board , as opposed to the PLing forum .
am I a PLer you ask ?
I train as a PLer , I think as a PLer , and Ive competed 3 times . my 4th meet was blown off course due to a groin injury , which I’ve just had fixed . I took it up in my mid 40’s after training as an obnoxous drunk for 20 years…so my abilities as a PLer lag far behind most others . am I a PLer ? labels mean nothing
So… pound-for-pound who is the strongest female bench presser?
