So you would consider wrestling a sport, eh? I can understand not letting steroids in sports, but I consider wrestling to what it is, entertainment.
Ahh, a very noble and cunning debate strategy. Traditionally a counterpoint should be offered against something I actually said, but by throwing in a counterargument to a point I never attempted to make you might confuse the judges into believing I think something stupid.
No of course I don't consider wrestling a sport. That would be why I never indicated in any way that wrestling was a sport.
What I said, which shouldn't have been that hard to understand, was that status as a sport is irrelevant. Anabolic steroids are not just banned in sport, they are banned in America. Now, you think that we should remove all the laws banning illegal drugs, remove the integrity of doctors and the Hippocratic oath. I will deal with why each of these is monumentally stupid as it becomes relevant.
Have you ever noticed that TNA doesn't, or rarely, drug tests. hence why Kurt Angle, Jeff hardy and others have travelled to TNA after being suspended for drug use. Maybe steroids play a part in rarely getting injured.
Because there is no logical indication that this is what happens. We're not allowed to simply make up information. TNA has a roster of around sixty superstars, half of whom are extremely banged up, the other half of whom work high risk matches on a regular basis. If I may quote Konnan from his time of Wrestlezone, a lot of the younger guys aren't on the juice. I remember one debilitating injury in recent history, which was Kaz destroying his leg with a stupid bump.
Now your argument is that your magical happy wonder drug stops people getting injured, in which case surely those wrestlers not on the juice would still be out of commission on a regular basis. This doesn't happen.
Everybody in TNA works a lighter schedule and spends less time on the road.
Everybody in TNA has a statisticially lower chance of getting injured that in WWE.
What you presented is vague speculation not backed up by any fact. What I presented is a direct correlation backed up by evidence from fucking Konnan. I suppose you think you're better than Konnan? Well you are, he's a homophobic, bitchy worm... but I'm quoting him anyway.
I happened to think he was actually quite good. And, if you read what I said originally, his injuries played a PART in his firing, not the cause.
Firstly, you're wrong.
Secondly, I notice you've used the phrase "if you read what I said originally", which is sort of the wrestlezone equivalent of a politician telling people to check his voting record. Nobody expects the people to actually do it. Well I did, and what you actually said was, "huge part" but more importantly you said that steroids would have prevented his injuries.
I then submitted evidence using dates and punctuation that Kennedy was more than likely juicing when he got injured, and the anabolic steroids didn't help with shit. (that's didn't help with Kennedy to you.)
You say hypothetically, there are still people who are going to use them. Noone has the authority to state if the WWE is steroid free or not, because noone can be certain.
Steroids are able to be legally obtained by a medical practitioner, hence they are allowed under certain conditions. What if these conditions were made slightly more leniant. Couldn't hurt much now could it. Steroids could be allowed for the less debilitating injuries, to improve performance.
No, but it has the most thorough drug policy of any wrestling company in the world, and more frequent injuries than BIG Japan pro wrestling. That rather undermines your argument, or it would if your argument was in any was consistent. You flip schizophrenically between wanting all illegal drugs legalised and relying only on "personal choice", and wanting steroids to be regulated by doctors. Make you're main up.
What I quoted above is another nice example of you contradicting yourself. You originally cited Chris Masters as your example, a man with no injuries or performance problems. Are you willing to admit being wrong with that example?
It could sound that way to you, but to me it sounded like steroids can help wrestlers perform better. Better for everyone, no? I can see where you're coming from, pessimist. If everyone had that attitude, wrestling would not be the same. "I can't jump from the ladder, I might hurt myself". Wrestling is about taking risks.
Pessimist. You call me a pessimist? I've been very politely refraining from overtly pointing out that you want professional wrestlers to kill them for your own enjoyment, but I guess the gloves are off now. Taking bumps and taking steroids are about as alike as driving a car and mainlining heroin. Both have an inherent risk to them, but in the case of both former examples the individual has been extensively trained to be aware of and to minimise the risk. The later examples are of illegal methods of self harm, the practical benefit of which (getting bigger or feeling good) do not justify the inherent cost.
I never once claimed that. I said that those who are suffering from injuries can use steroids to heal quicker to be able to perform better. Not that they need it to wrestle. I even stated that they should not be made compulsory.
You never claimed that wrestlers need roids to perform? One second.
They don't tune in to see 2 men TRY and wrestle due to battered bodies, but to see men wrestle to the full extent.
I think that constitutes a fairly solid implication that some talent require steroids to work. Are you willing to retract the above statement.
So you wouldn't consider Batista at all successful. Multiple world titles are doing well in your career. And as for getting bigger, if you wrestle a power style (Like Batista) would they not help. Would increased size not equal increased strength.
Quite successful. Not very good. Batista is particularly injury prone in spite of his short career and use of the magical, wonder, happy drug. He's sloppy, possessing of a massive attitude problem, prone to phoning it in and prone to tear his back when taking a simple bump.
It isn't a free pass, it's allowing those who are living dangerous lifestyles the ability to recover better. I already stated how it doesn't constitute giving them steroids whenever they damn want them.
I'm going to keep citing Chris Masters until you retract that statement. You said how an uninjured man who was taking steroids simply because he wanted to should have avoided suspension. You're also about to claim that wrestlers should have free access to crack, heroin, meth and any other drug they please.
But we aren't talking about that, now are we? And if these wrestlers choose to want to take something to relax them, then it's up to them.
Oh. My. God.
Let me contextualise the above comment to prevent unnecessary scrolling. I harmoniously suggested that, since Hippo wants to give wrestlers free access to steroids, we should also give them free access to crack cocaine.
He has now agreed with me.
Hippo apparently thinks that either all drugs should be legal to you if you're a professional wrestler, or that all drugs should be legal full stop. People who perform on a television show chiefly aimed at children should be allowed to very publicly maintain a crack addiction.
No, they still have the choice to use steroids if they want, but to stay within reason. See, best of both worlds.
But it's not the best of both worlds. 'Within reason' means 'when an expert thinks the side effects are counterbalanced by the recovery benefits', which is what we have right now. You want to include 'whenever the wrester wants them' (as aptly displayed by your argument to legalise cocaine). That's not the best of both worlds.
Making something available and compulsory are not the same thing. Viagra is made available for men, but they don't have to use it. It can help them, but they have the choice to use them or not. And as for the under card doing the same, they're the undercard for a reason. They aren't as good.
Most men aren't lucky enough to work in a hyper competitive profession that revolves around sexually pleasing women. If I'm wrong about this please let me know so I can drop out of university.
Wrestlers currently work a profession where they are constantly pressured to work a ridiculous schedule and to grow in physical size. If you freely legalise steroids within the industry then talent are going to be under enormous pressure to use them, and the death toll is going to grow increasingly higher. You might not care, but I do.
So allow doctors to judge whether a superstar is allowed to use them, when serious injuries don't automatically require them. Let a doctor decide.
Have you ever heard of the Hippocratic oath? It's more or less the foundation of all medicine dating back to the ancient Greeks. It's quite long and complex, but what it basically boils down to is that doters are not allowed to harm their patients. Prescribing anabolic steroids to a patient who doesn't need them but simply feels like getting bigger would violate the Hippocratic oath, and any competent doctor wouldn't do it.
Steroids kill people. Doctors don't prescribe medication that kills people just so Chris Masters can go up another t-shirt size.
Rape is illegal because it damages others, hence making it illegal. Heroin also. Steroids can only, possibly, damage the user. They made their choice.
Explain to me the difference between heroin and steroids please? I see them both as illegal, unhealthy and potentially fatal drugs. Am I missing something?
Marijuana is outlawed by the law, yet the wwe never suspends people for using it.
The WWE tests for pot and punishes their talent if they test positive. Keep up.
I support making them available in moderation. Not whenever they damn want.
So you are taking back the Chris Masters remark? Good. Now perhaps you could define what the fuck moderation is. I would view it was being "when an expert says so", which is the point I've been making since the beginning. You have clearly said that wrestlers should get steroids when they are not necessary, so I'd like to hear how access to steroids when you don't need them differers from access to steroids whenever you damn want.
As I have said before, it is their choice if they take the drugs or not, so it's them who are ultimately made to pay for it.
If they miss out on a push because the guy was better, noone cares. And was it not you who said steroids don't improve wrestling ability.
The WWE is already known as a hive of law breaking, because wrestlers are still taking drugs. Jeff Hardy is on meth, yet he was getting pushed. Kurt Angle was recently arrested for assault and drug possession. Steroids aren't the only law breaking that goes on in wrestling.
So now we're back to personal choice over law. This is getting ridiculous. Either you support the choices of doctors, in which case you can concede the argument now, or you support putting the decisions in the hands of the talent, legalising cocaine (optional, but apparently you do) and relying on personal choice.
You can't wave the flag of personal decisions, then backtrack every time I call you on it. Make your mind up what you're trying to argue or I'm done here.
