How do you define 'natural'?

[El Testicle]

You mean I too can look like this

if i just stick to eating right and my creatine?! wow , so psyched right now!

 

[Matt]

Bazza20, you just don't get it. If you or anyone else was to publish what you call "evidence" under your real name, you will be taken to court and you will lose big time. Simple. If you don't believe me, try it. It's easy. State "Luke woods was on drugs" in this forum. Post your real name and a scan of your drivers licence. Then count down the minutes before the lawyers sue you.

You will also go down as a creep who trashtalks dead men.

And you call me a moron?

hate to break it to you, but:

a) there is no such thing as "slander" or "libel" anymore: they were combined together years ago as defamation. just for future reference, slander was verbal and libel was print/written.

b) you can't have defamation of character without causing the plaintiff damages, usually in the form of financial loss due to the defamation causing negative impact to their reputation.

 

[nazzysmith]

hate to break it to you, but:

a) there is no such thing as "slander" or "libel" anymore: they were combined together years ago as defamation. just for future reference, slander was verbal and libel was print/written.

b) you can't have defamation of character without causing the plaintiff damages, usually in the form of financial loss due to the defamation causing negative impact to their reputation.

Defamation is real though..


Ask thes guys...

Cyber poison-penner hunted down and sued | theage.com.au

 

[jj80]

Someone post their license along with the accusation ronnie coleman is on steroids...

Would amount to the same thing.

How does being dead make you immune to criticism? It doesn't, that's fucking stupid. Some might not even consider it criticism, just a statement 'he likely used PEDs' doesnt necessarily pass judgement on his choices.

 

[jj80]

Wait ... damn, I just fed a troll.

 

[Matt]

Defamation is real though..


Ask thes guys...

Cyber poison-penner hunted down and sued | theage.com.au

oh i agree that its real. all i'm saying is: how does saying the was on PEDs cause him financial loss?
in the examples of CEOs etc, that can damage their reputation, and the reputation of their companies, causing them financial loss.
its not like Luke Woods or his beneficiaries are going to suffer financial loss due to the above statements and, as far as i'm aware, you can only attach punitive damages to a case, not claim them independently

 

[Stiffy]

oh i agree that its real. all i'm saying is: how does saying the was on PEDs cause him financial loss?
in the examples of CEOs etc, that can damage their reputation, and the reputation of their companies, causing them financial loss.
its not like Luke Woods or his beneficiaries are going to suffer financial loss due to the above statements and, as far as i'm aware, you can only attach punitive damages to a case, not claim them independently

could if his family is getting royalties and earnings from the use of his image/photos and "reputation". Theres also the possibility it may cause distress to his family whom some members may be unaware of the high likelihood he was quite a steroid user.

 

[Bazza20]

Wait ... damn, I just fed a troll.

Yep brick picked it from the start.

 

[NJA82]

OP, you question in your initial post, "should athletes that have taken steroids 5 or more years ago but no have not since then" i wasnt aware that was the rule and accepted but would even heavy AAS use 5 or more years ago be able to be maintained in any human? Even with perfect training and diet would one be able to retain the size and strength they gained during their AAS use?

Serious question as im unaware just how long the extra mass would be able to be maintained, maybe there is a reason they say 5 years?