http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUBd_...layer_embedded
Printable View
Sounds like he is still hiding something, by the way he is telling the story. Is it just me or do you agree ?
not really....they are just dancing around words... "treatment" "tests" "levels".....his testosterone was high because the "treatment" aka steroids (hormone replacement therapy) he had been legally taking through his doctor wasn't cleared through the athletic commission based on those levels..Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie
I agree. Something isn't adding upQuote:
Originally Posted by charlie
I don't care where his levels were at fight time. This shit is cheating like a mutherfucker!
Just because you cycle off doesn't mean shit, during your whole camp you were able to train harder and recover faster than you would have been otherwise.
Dana white says he is disgusted with him, he would not say he is disgusted with him due to a failed steroid test or a bogus test replacement therapy. So yeah he is hiding something for sure.
Not being combative, I promise. Just asking a question that I want answered from your perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ehsan_Karam
Against what is Nate Marquardt cheating? Just the ruleset proposed by the Athletic Commission? In that regard, yes, I guess he would be cheating. But the way that most people flip out about steroids, I often get the impression that they think steroids are cheating against an ideal of human purity, natural athleticism, or some other abstract concept... However, those parameters are hard to defend, because it would cast into question ANY sort of performance-enhancer. Caffeine, for example, masks your body's perception of fatigue. Creatine has been proven in research to add an average of 10% to all lifts. It is also theorized that high-repetition squats cause a spike in testosterone production. So where should the commission draw the line?
Furthermore, I have a hard time seeing who or what steroids really, directly harm, other than (at times) the athlete himself/herself. I think that should be the real concern, and not its validity as a moral or immoral action.
Your thoughts? Seriously just asking... I'm a strength coach, and have never used any hormonal PEDs, but I work with and train with and compete with a ton of guys who have.
You can check out the whole interview at the link below. I feel for the guy, he gets all chocked up at one point.
http://www.no-gi-grappling.com/no-gi-newsroom.html
His testosterone levels were above a limit set forth by the athletic commission. Anything above would be considered not within the rules set by the athletic commission like you say. If his testosterone levels were low to begin with and he needed this so called therapy then the treatment should only bring his levels back to normal levels, not spike them well above the allowed amount. He was above the threshhold, therefore cheating.
excellent point, considering this forum is full of people who believe that pot is an 'enhancer' as well, and I know for damn sure another 50% of those people or more smoke before they roll.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardC
In that sense, absolutely. No arguments there, and I appreciate your response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank R.
I'm thinking more of the underlying issue, though.
Some food for thought...
I have a client, in real life, that tore his labrum at work. Caught a water heater full of water while up on a ladder.
He began training with me to help rehab his shoulder, but continued to have problems. Of his own accord, he went and bought a very mild prohormone (legal), and did one cycle of it. Same substance as an old designer steroid called Promagnon-25. After he finished his cycle, along with the exercises we were doing, his doctor cleared him for full work duty. His shoulder went from 80% disability to 1%, according to the doctor.
Is that dude a cheater? Or does this just apply to athletes?
Just applies to athletes that are in competition IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardC
Haha look at this guy trying to be like my boy chael
Cool. Now we're having a discussion!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Brown
I appreciate your response.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Brown
"He got caught..." "He ran out of time..."
I think it went like this in Nate's head, "Chael started using testosterone "therapeutically" and beat me maybe I could use it the same way from my doctor and that will get me over the top to win a championship."
He will nvr be as good as chaEl
He will nvr be as good as chael
I would love to be on approved doctor supervised HRT. I would. Apparently a vast majority of pros does it one way or another so they're might be a pattern. And yes, its all about recovery time. More hard training in a shorter amount of time equals more results.
What I wanna know is did they start doin it at the top or use it to get to the top? Then keep doin it just more sophisticated. I bet the latter.
I dont for the record, but plan to when my body naturally declines.
Doctor supervised HRT is just to bring your test levels back within the "normal" range. Theoretically, it works in the same way that testosterone boosters like d-aspartic acid and tribulus are supposed to. I wouldn't say that anyone uses it to get to the top, so to speak. More along the lines of continuing to perform at a high level, even past your athletic prime.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby rivers
I am 98% certain that I will do HRT when I hit 40 or so.
There's doctors and there's sports enhancement doctors provided by the program. They have totally diff definitions of HRT.