OldManMuscle
New member
After I got over the shock today of learning that the mighty Luke Wood passed away in Sept 2011, just days after discussing my fave topic, calves, with me at his Bankstown gym (in defence of my ignorance, I went to live in Thailand just before his death, I didn't read the Australian papers for months and we weren't actually besties, although, like most people, I thought he was a top bloke, as was/is his betrothed), I got to thinking about the context in which his name had come up in this forum.
Basically someone here listed all the bodybuilders they'd assumed had died early deaths from steroid abuse.
So it's a Saturday night, my Alcoholics Anonymous meeting finished early (yes, I'm a complicated man), and I thought I'd put out a few questions re the meaning of 'natural".
Now Luke apparently died of kidney failure, which could have been the result of many different things.
But most importantly, Luke never failed a drug test (as far as I know). So any suggestion he was not natural is not supportable by evidence. Unless the evidence of your own eyes is sufficient for you to ignore the allegations you are cowardly slandering a dead man and you decide to brand him 'non-natural' anyway ...
There are some very grey areas ... Do you accept that anyone who competes in the INBA and passes the drug test despite having used drugs 5 or more years ago is a bona fide 'natural'? This is perfectly acceptable according to the INBA guidelines, and as long as any ban had been served, someone who had even failed the drug test 5 or more years previous would still be eligible to win and hold the title of Natural Mr Australia.
And do you accept that someone who took substances like peptides before they were banned is 'natural', because they weren't banned at the time of use? It looks like ASADA is not going to accept that defence and may even try to prosecute footballers who ASADA can prove took peptides a coupla years ago.
Or what if they took them this year, not knowing what they were actually ingesting? Footballers do what their sports scientists and doctors tell them to. They're not paid to study pharmacology or law, you know.
Personally, I'm prepared to buy shares in the first company that runs a pro-drug use Olympics, NRL, AFL or Mr Olympia. Because as I said in another thread, we're most of us 'cheats' and few of us truly 'natural'.
Anyway, apologies for the long-windednesss of this thread. I know some of you guys hate to read. I hope your brains don't start hurting. I hope you can also tell when I'm being a smart arse for the sake of some fun on a Saturday night ...
Basically someone here listed all the bodybuilders they'd assumed had died early deaths from steroid abuse.
So it's a Saturday night, my Alcoholics Anonymous meeting finished early (yes, I'm a complicated man), and I thought I'd put out a few questions re the meaning of 'natural".
Now Luke apparently died of kidney failure, which could have been the result of many different things.
But most importantly, Luke never failed a drug test (as far as I know). So any suggestion he was not natural is not supportable by evidence. Unless the evidence of your own eyes is sufficient for you to ignore the allegations you are cowardly slandering a dead man and you decide to brand him 'non-natural' anyway ...
There are some very grey areas ... Do you accept that anyone who competes in the INBA and passes the drug test despite having used drugs 5 or more years ago is a bona fide 'natural'? This is perfectly acceptable according to the INBA guidelines, and as long as any ban had been served, someone who had even failed the drug test 5 or more years previous would still be eligible to win and hold the title of Natural Mr Australia.
And do you accept that someone who took substances like peptides before they were banned is 'natural', because they weren't banned at the time of use? It looks like ASADA is not going to accept that defence and may even try to prosecute footballers who ASADA can prove took peptides a coupla years ago.
Or what if they took them this year, not knowing what they were actually ingesting? Footballers do what their sports scientists and doctors tell them to. They're not paid to study pharmacology or law, you know.
Personally, I'm prepared to buy shares in the first company that runs a pro-drug use Olympics, NRL, AFL or Mr Olympia. Because as I said in another thread, we're most of us 'cheats' and few of us truly 'natural'.
Anyway, apologies for the long-windednesss of this thread. I know some of you guys hate to read. I hope your brains don't start hurting. I hope you can also tell when I'm being a smart arse for the sake of some fun on a Saturday night ...
