[Puffer Fish]

The law cannot act on a single positive test, either, given the unreliability of said tests.

You don't listen, do you? Not true.
Go back and reread the posts, and then get back to me.

[Godstud]

The issue is when those organizations punish people who are not bodybuilders in competitions.

There is no evidence of this. These organizations can however punish people who they think are breaking the law, by selling and using steroids at their gyms.

Do you think it is "cheating" when a bodybuilder takes steroids who is not in a competition?

No, but it's ILLEGAL. Why do I have to state the obvious?

You don't listen, do you? Not true.

No. You are making a false claim. The law cannot act on a false positive test, but I've already stated that an organization doesn't have the same rules to follow.

Go back and reread the posts, and then get back to me.

You go back and read them.

You seem to think that illegal drug use is just fine. I do not agree.

[Puffer Fish]

There is no evidence of this.

Well, there we disagree. One can only go back and read those articles I posted, and decide for themselves.

(No, I'm not talking about the article in Swedish that you can't read)

It seemed pretty obvious to me, from what was in those articles.

I even highlighted the specific parts in those articles that showed this.

[Godstud]

You are reading into those articles, what you want them to say.

Steroid abusers are being targeted for enforcement. I see nothing wrong with this, and your claims of innocent people being punished is not supported.

Melodrama and fear-mongering is what this thread is about.

[Puffer Fish]

You are reading into those articles, what you want them to say.

I believe the facts in those articles are fairly obvious, especially to anyone with any common sense who is able to read between the lines.

Would you like me to try sending an email to the authors of those articles and ask what their opinion was about these "facts" we have that are in dispute?

[Godstud]

I believe the facts in those articles are fairly obvious, especially to anyone with any common sense who is able to read between the lines.

Facts are not "fairly obvious", nor do they require "common sense", or "reading between the lines". You are dealing ONLY with supposition.

We are not disputing facts, since you have yet to present any to support your argument.

[Puffer Fish]

Let's look at the facts.

This is what the article says:
"But there’s one more part of the equation that’s even crazier: the doping authorities claim jurisdiction over each and every gym member in the country, not just the ones that compete! That means that they have the right to raid any gym, accompanied by police agents, and force anyone they choose to pee in a cup."

That's not consistent with what you said, is it?

more from the article...
"The following month, he received a letter in the mail. While the criminal investigation was not resolved, the decision of the anti-doping disciplinary commission was a heavy fine of 3,350 euros and … a four-year ban on setting foot in a gym. Yes, not just a ban on bodybuilding competition, but a prohibition against working out at all in any gym!"

Didn't have any trial for that, did he??
Once again, seems not to be consistent with your claim that "The law cannot act on a false positive test".

This is just part of the reason I feel you are intentionally trolling us. Because so many of your statements are obviously in complete disregard to what the articles stated.

[Godstud]

"But there’s one more part of the equation that’s even crazier: the doping authorities claim jurisdiction over each and every gym member in the country, not just the ones that compete! That means that they have the right to raid any gym, accompanied by police agents, and force anyone they choose to pee in a cup."

Yes, if the police have a reason to be suspicious, they can force a test. That's nothing new, where it comes to drugs, and gyms are more likely to be able to identify offenders.

"The following month, he received a letter in the mail. While the criminal investigation was not resolved, the decision of the anti-doping disciplinary commission was a heavy fine of 3,350 euros and … a four-year ban on setting foot in a gym. Yes, not just a ban on bodybuilding competition, but a prohibition against working out at all in any gym!"

I posted an article below that explains this. He was not banned from working out in ANY gym, but the ones associated with the anti-drug program. It wasn't a ban from any, or all, gyms, but most have signed on with the anti-doping program.

Didn't have any trial for that, did he??

An organization that you belong to, or club, doesn't follow the rule of law. I've only said this numerous times, but you fail to acknowledge or understand this fact. Is it fair? nope, but then doing drugs like steroids is a choice. It's also illegal, there.

Once again, seems not to be consistent with your claim that "The law cannot act on a false positive test".

The organization (NADO), punishing him is NOT the law. That's not say I agree with these draconian measures, but apparently the problem was severe.

How private gyms are working to keep their members from doping
Since the early 2000s, recreational trainers in Belgium – especially in Flanders – have been forbidden from using substances banned by the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which governs elite athletes. They also face the same sanctions as elite athletes. To vet people, anti-doping officials use muscle profiling. Although doping controls are meant to be random, it is often male weight trainers with a more muscular appearance who are tested for the use of steroids.

Police are able to conduct a home search based on a positive test, and an athlete may be subject to both a doping and a drug investigation for the same offense. These people face criminal prosecution for the use or possession of illegal substances and they also face sanctions from the Flemish national anti-doping organization (NADO). If a person tests positive, and it’s a first offence, they may be banned by NADO Flanders for two years from every gym and any form of organized sport in the region. They may also receive a fine of, on average, €1,000-2,000, although fines can be as high as €25,000.
http://static6.businessinsider.com/priv ... ng-2016-12

Note,: They are not talking about a FALSE positive.

This is just part of the reason I feel you are intentionally trolling us. Because so many of your statements are obviously in complete disregard to what the articles stated.

I am not trolling you, but your evasion and diversion is duly noted. You are simply not reading or competently understanding my argument, which I have attempted to clarify a great many times. You are operating on the basis of assumptions and supposition.

What I am saying is not in complete disregard to the article, but you seem to think that it lists all facts, when in fact it does now.

[Puffer Fish]

Note,: They are not talking about a FALSE positive.

What are you talking about?!?
By definition, they wouldn't know if it was false positive.

This guy got those sanctions placed on him due to ONE test.

[Godstud]

By definition, they wouldn't know if it was false positive.

Well...

The Myth of the Steroid Test False Positive
Because the testing process is so closely controlled by the standards laid out by the World Anti-Doping Agency, the chances of an outlier or an incorrect reading are extremely unlikely. And it's also not like a dude, no matter how manly he may seem, will spontaneously start producing synthetic testosterone.
https://gizmodo.com/the-myth-of-the-ste ... ve-5867293

Belgium and Sweden both operate under the World Anti Doping Agency's guidelines.

This guy got those sanctions placed on him due to ONE test.

Yes. He got caught. I guess maybe he'll learn from this. If he's innocent(extremely unlikely), then that's a sad instance of injustice.

Again, you're talking about the rare instance of an innocent person being punished. It happens even where the law is concerned, as justice isn't 100% foolproof.

[Puffer Fish]

If they want to force suspects to submit to urine tests, that's fine, but there needs to be more probable cause than just "they looked too muscular".

It's an invasion of people's privacy, and ultimately civil rights.

[Godstud]

@Puffer Fish That's why they do more than simply make them submit a test. They talk to other people who train with and around them.

Too muscular, too fast IS a sign of steroid use.

It's an invasion of people's privacy, and ultimately civil rights.

Train at home if you want privacy to do illegal drugs, and work out.

[Godstud]

@Puffer Fish That's why they do more than simply make them submit a test. They talk to other people who train with and around them.

Too muscular, too fast IS a sign of steroid use.

It's an invasion of people's privacy, and ultimately civil rights.

Train at home if you want privacy to do illegal drugs, and work out. You are waiving that privacy at those gyms when you sign up under certain conditions. This particularly so in those "clean" gyms.

[Hindsite]

Train at home if you want privacy to do illegal drugs, and work out. You are waiving that privacy at those gyms when you sign up under certain conditions. This particularly so in those "clean" gyms.

We are simply arguing that it is unreasonable to force someone to pee in a bottle to test for illegal drugs simply because that person is considered too muscular and is lifting heavy weights in a gym. Most people do not have all the heavy weight lifting equipment at home, since it requires a lot of space. I always went to a military gym even after I retired from the Army. It has been over 10 years since I went to one of the gyms on Fort Gordon and probably over 20 years since I did any heavy lifting. I never got as muscular looking as a few of the other guys, but I never saw or heard of anyone there being forced to pee in a bottle. That is ridiculous.

[Godstud]

We are simply arguing that it is unreasonable to force someone to pee in a bottle to test for illegal drugs simply because that person is considered too muscular and is lifting heavy weights in a gym.

This isn't the case, however. It's just been simplified to the point of absurdity.

Most people do not have all the heavy weight lifting equipment at home, since it requires a lot of space. I always went to a military gym even after I retired from the Army. It has been over 10 years since I went to one of the gyms on Fort Gordon and probably over 20 years since I did any heavy lifting. I never got as muscular looking as a few of the other guys, but I never saw or heard of anyone there being forced to pee in a bottle. That is ridiculous.

Yes, it is ridiculous, as I doubt you'd ever have to pee in a bottle, as if you spent years in a gym. A quick consult with anyone there would identify if you were under suspicion of using steroids. The part that people ignore is the part where there has to be a suspicion on the part of the gym, that a person is doing steroids, and the people working at the gym spends a lot of time looking at the same people coming and going, and can identify someone who probably takes steroids. It's not that hard, as there are many side effects from prolonged steroid use.

How to Tell If Someone Is Using Steroids
The average steroid user doesn’t look like a steroid user. But there are still ways to tell if someone is juicing
“Faster than normal progress is always the obvious indicator,” Benda says. “After about three years of lifting, the ability to gain muscle significantly drops. If someone tells me they gained 25 pounds of muscle in a year, I know they’re either new to lifting, they’re juicing, or they’re full of crap.”

Another tell: someone looks like a near-contest-ready bodybuilder or cover model for months on end, without gaining fat or losing muscle.

There is, however, one sneaky-effective way to tell if a guy is juicing, or has in the past: Talk to him about steroids. “The average anabolic steroid user is more knowledgeable about androgens than most doctors,” Scally says.

Unless the guy is a doctor, you can guess that his deep knowledge of male hormones came about through enlightened self-interest.
https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a195 ... eroid-use/


Also, and I am not sure if you read my previous posts, this is something that the government and the gyms in Belgium, Sweden, etc., have cooperated on to reduce illegal drug use in the gyms. I posted links.

It is not clear whether or not this is effective(they said as much), and I am sure there will be the odd person annoyed by it, but the majority of muscular people going to the gym have nothing to fear. You have nothing to fear if you aren't in those countries, either... well beyond doing illegal drugs.

The possession or sale of anabolic steroids without a valid prescription is illegal. Simple possession of illicitly obtained anabolic steroids carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a minimum $1,000 fine if this is an individual's first drug offense.
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs ... ds/public/

[Puffer Fish]

This isn't the case, however. It's just been simplified to the point of absurdity.

It needs to be simplified so people can understand it, and the point can be clearly and concisely gotten across why it is wrong.
Then, after people understand that, we can get more into the finer details, and people can decide for themselves whether the premise holds.

This particularly so in those "clean" gyms.

Let me emphasize again that if it is a clean gym, and the private company that runs the gym has freely & independently decided for themselves that they're going to make their facility a clean gym, then there is not so much of an inherrant issue with that. A private company should be able to have whatever terms they want, and members know what they're signing onto.

It only becomes an issue when government is involved, and the private owners running all the gyms in the country do not have a choice, and individuals are forced -by government - to be a member of a doping organization as a condition of them being allowed to go to a private gym.

If that's not the case, then I see no problem here.
(Or at least no really big problem)

Yes, it is ridiculous, as I doubt you'd ever have to pee in a bottle, as if you spent years in a gym. A quick consult with anyone there would identify if you were under suspicion of using steroids.

Only because he doesn't have big muscles.
If he did have huge rippling muscles, it is very likely they would force him to pee in a bottle.

The story really sounds like law enforcement were using any excuse to find some suspicion, based on flimsy reason, and in reality using simple physical appearance as the main basis for deciding who they would single out.

[Puffer Fish]

the majority of muscular people going to the gym have nothing to fear. You have nothing to fear if you aren't in those countries, either... well beyond doing illegal drugs.

That's such a fallacy only the most ignorant would believe, that one has nothing at all to fear if they're not doing anything illegal.

If you don't believe that, then we need to have another long discussion that will likely take up many pages in a separate thread.

It's called CIVIL LIBERTIES. And not automatically assuming everything always operates strictly according to the law, or that all laws are always just or fair.
Something the population in the UK doesn't seem to know much about, these days.

[Godstud]

That's such a fallacy only the most ignorant would believe, that one has nothing at all to fear if they're not doing anything illegal.

It's not fallacy. It's fact. The chances of you being convicted, if you are innocent, are extremely tiny. That would make the generalization that you have nothing to fear if you are not doing anything illegal, correct. You are free to fear-monger, however.

It only becomes an issue when government is involved, and the private owners running all the gyms in the country do not have a choice, and individuals are forced -by government - to be a member of a doping organization as a condition of them being allowed to go to a private gym.

If that's not the case, then I see no problem here.

This isn't the case, so it isn't a problem. It's gyms that don't want drug abusers and sellers in their gyms, cooperating with lawful authorities, in these countries. These people DO have a choice. They can go to gyms not associated with, or cooperating with the law.

Only because he doesn't have big muscles.
If he did have huge rippling muscles, it is very likely they would force him to pee in a bottle.

Source, please. Please show me the law against this in Georgia, USA, and tell me all about American laws, in this regard. I know of no American gyms testing for steroids, unless they are cooperating with an organization that wants its members clean, like the IFBB.

It's called CIVIL LIBERTIES. And not automatically assuming everything always operates strictly according to the law, or that all laws are always just or fair.

These are no the same everywhere, and these do not give you the right to break laws.

No one here said that the laws were absolutely just and fair. There's not a perfectly just law in existence.

That said, these drugs(steroids) are illegal because they cause harm to people. You seem to be against enforcing drug laws. Why is that?

Something the population in the UK doesn't seem to know much about, these days.

Irrelevant to a discussion of gyms in Sweden and Belgium.

You seem to be ignoring my arguments, and evidence, that contradict your fears. Why is that?

[Puffer Fish]

It's not fallacy. It's fact. The chances of you being convicted, if you are innocent, are extremely tiny. That would make the generalization that you have nothing to fear if you are not doing anything illegal, correct. You are free to fear-monger, however.

If you believe that, then the real disagreement lies somewhere deeper and is not really just about steroid enforcement in Europe.
Unfortunately that would involve getting into a long topic that deserves its own separate thread.

I'm just trying to point out that the issue of how laws are enforced is as important as what those laws actually say is illegal.
The one does not necessarily carry over into the other. But that's an assumption a lot of people mistakenly make.

These are no the same everywhere, and these do not give you the right to break laws.

If you always prevent civil liberties from getting in the way of government enforcing laws, you would have a totalitarian state.
Something you seem incapable of realizing.

Ultimately nearly anything can be rationalized in the name of law enforcement.
That's basically the type of system in China and North Korea.

I know it may not make sense to you how enforcing steroid law does that, but it's one step at a time, a slippery slope and a gradual progression. If A can be done, why not B ? And so forth.

[Godstud]

If you always prevent civil liberties from getting in the way of government enforcing laws, you would have a totalitarian state.
Something you seem incapable of realizing.

If you're going to throw stones... There is a balance, and that's something you seem incapable of realizing.

Ultimately nearly anything can be rationalized in the name of law enforcement.

That's not true. You are exaggerating AGAIN. We are not discussing that.

That's basically the type of system in China and North Korea.

Belgium and Sweden are not China or DPRK. There is no comparison.

Note: Steroids are completely legal in China (with exception of professional athletes of course), and are commonly used in medical treatments.