illegal to be muscular in Sweden/Belgium - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15047502
Puffer Fish wrote:If you throw a dice 6 times, the probability of getting a six at least one of those times is 33.5%.

The equation to find that probability is:
(1-n)^t

where in this case
( 1 - 1/6 )^6


Nice, but how does that contradict what I said ?
Ter wrote:(like throwing a dice 6 times will not give you a 100% probability of getting a six)


Anyway, back to you...
So a 2% probability of a false positive gives an 8% probability of a false positive is n = 4 ?
That is what you said and it is wrong, sorry.

Puffer Fish wrote:You'll remember at least one of those men in the story got into trouble for "slightly elevated levels of testosterone".

That's obviously not so very reliable. Especially for a bodybuilder, since having huge muscles and intensely working out by itself tends to raise natural testosterone levels slightly beyond normal levels.


Modern doping tests can differentiate between naturally occurring nandrolone and the one present because of steroid doping.
see https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/ ... n-athletes

Puffer Fish wrote:It would also not be too difficult for the police lab to accidentally make a mistake, and get two of the samples mixed up, or if the police had some reason for intentionally wanting to frame someone.

This is extremely unlikely.
Every sample that is collected is clearly marked and the identity of the person tested is checked twice.
For the testing Authority to want to frame someone that is another absurd statement from you. You are entering the twilight zone of conspiracy theories now.

Puffer Fish wrote:There needs to be more reliable suspicion for requiring them to undergo these tests rather than just "how they look", and if the competition requires them to submit to tests (which is fair enough), those tests should not be used for legal purposes.

Of course there are legal repercussions because doping is against the law.
#15047505
Ter wrote:Of course there are legal repercussions because doping is against the law.

Do you even realize how you are going around in circles and not seeing the point?

Why should the competition force them to routinely submit to tests that might result in them being subjected to legal sanctions by government even though they are innocent?
#15047506
The government could screen everyone for drugs.

Presumably none of you would have a problem with that?

Anyone in society could be required to submit to a random urine test, for no specific reason, and then if the tests come back positive, for whatever reason, everything that happened to those men in those stories would happen to you?
#15047508
Ter wrote:Ok I give up.
You win.
Doping in sports should be allowed.
Nobody can test any athlete.

Why do you have to be this obtuse?

That's not what I said.

What I was trying to say is, if the government is going to force an athlete to submit to a test, a test that could carry legal sanctions, then they should have some probable cause that goes well beyond just the athlete looking too muscular.

If a competitive sports body wants to force one of its [voluntary] member athletes to submit to a test, then fine, but the results of those tests should not be used by the government.
The worst that should be able to happen to that athlete, if the test is positive, is them being kicked out of the organization and no longer being able to compete in that organization.
#15047518
Puffer Fish wrote:Why do you have to be this obtuse?

That's not what I said.

What I was trying to say is, if the government is going to force an athlete to submit to a test, a test that could carry legal sanctions, then they should have some probable cause that goes well beyond just the athlete looking too muscular.

If a competitive sports body wants to force one of its [voluntary] member athletes to submit to a test, then fine, but the results of those tests should not be used by the government.
The worst that should be able to happen to that athlete, if the test is positive, is them being kicked out of the organization and no longer being able to compete in that organization.

I agree as long as the overly muscular person is not driving a motor vehicle.
#15047523
Puffer Fish wrote:How about ban you from a certain place you like to go to for four years based on a strong suspicion
They cannot do that, and they don't. They have to have an actual basis for that. They ban people CONVICTED, not suspected. Regardless of the odds of a test, they'd still have to provide physical evidence beyond the test, since "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not something you can get with a test that has an unreliability factor.

Ter's comparison to an alcohol test when you see someone driving erratically, is very good. The same can apply to a person who appears to be over-developed. Of course, questioning the person, or others, to find out if this muscle growth seemed abnormal or too fast, would also be part of the process, beyond just a drug test.

You might just have to get used to people not agreeing with you, on this subject, @Puffer Fish. There are side-effects and clues that tell people when others are using steroids.
#15047560
Godstud wrote:side-effects

Severe acne, oily skin and hair

Hair loss

Liver disease, such as liver tumors and cysts

Kidney disease

Heart disease, such as heart attack and stroke

Altered mood, irritability, increased aggression, depression or suicidal tendencies

Alterations in cholesterol and other blood lipids

High blood pressure

Gynecomastia (abnormal development of mammary glands in men causing breast enlargement)

Shrinking of testicles

Azoospermia (absence of sperm in semen)

Menstrual irregularities in women

Infertility

Excess facial or body hair (hirsutism), deeper voice in women

Stunted growth and height in teens

Risk of viral or bacterial infections due to unsterile injections
#15047643
Godstud wrote:They cannot do that, and they don't. They have to have an actual basis for that. They ban people CONVICTED, not suspected.

Sigh... They did it to that man in the story. He was not convicted, yet he had the ban.

Godstud wrote:They have to have an actual basis for that.

Again, ROUND and ROUND we go. I'm tired of engaging in circular argument with you.

The whole issue centers around what this "basis" is.

You seem like a decently intelligent human being, it's hard to believe you could be this block-headed.
At this point I'm left to believe you're intentionally trolling in this thread. I can't thing of another more plausible explanation.

Are you not able to connect these things in your head?


Godstud wrote:Regardless of the odds of a test, they'd still have to provide physical evidence beyond the test

Well, guess what? They didn't. That should have been COMPLETELY OBVIOUS to you from the stories in those articles.
#15047644
No, it was not obvious, because I wasn't making assumptions, which you were, and said as much. You even mentioned having to "read between the lines", which indicates that you weren't operating on what actually happened, but what you think happened.

I am no more "blockheaded", than you are, and you having to insult someone only shows how absolutely weak your argument it.

Puffer Fish wrote:At this point I'm left to believe you're intentionally trolling in this thread. I can't thing of another more plausible explanation.
You can't imagine someone not agreeing with your conclusions, so you make a childish assumption that someone is trolling you? Good grief.... :roll:

Puffer Fish wrote:Are you not able to connect these things in your head?
I can see that you're all about "connecting" things, regardless of whether they exist or not. Sorry. I deal with facts, and not conjecture, which your whole argument is based upon.
#15047645
Godstud wrote:Ter's comparison to an alcohol test when you see someone driving erratically, is very good.

Driving doesn't carry over into other things, because people have a lot fewer rights, in relation to driving, then they do to other activities.

I've seen people try to make the driving argument analogy in relation to limiting gun rights in US.
In some ways it's a disingenuous one. It also makes me strongly question the current laws on driving rights, because that seems to set a precedent on the taking away of other rights.

Saying "this is how it works with driving" doesn't carry over into "this is how it should work with everything else".
For one thing, you're assuming all those laws related to driving are entirely reasonable from a moral and individual rights perspective. That's not necessarily the case. Society has chosen to sacrifice some natural rights in that instance in the name of practicality and the public good. We should not be so quick to apply that same sort of procedure in other areas.

If we treated all human rights the way we do driving, people wouldn't have many rights at all, it would become a lot like a police state.
Last edited by Puffer Fish on 10 Nov 2019 07:18, edited 1 time in total.
#15047646
:roll: It's not disingenuous. Are you trying to be an asshole to other posters and imply that they aren't arguing in good faith, or are YOU trolling?

Police often can make searches and give tests based on suspicion, and you don't have to like, or agree with them, but they exist.

I can see you are a libertarian, and so I don't think we'll ever come to an agreement on this, as I see the need for society to curtail some rights, to protect people.

Note: In order to ban anyone of anything, it has to go to court and the person has to be found guilty. Now, if a business chooses to ban a person because of this incident, then it's not up to the courts.
Last edited by Godstud on 10 Nov 2019 07:21, edited 1 time in total.
#15047647
Godstud wrote:Are you trying to be an asshole to other posters and imply that they aren't arguing in good faith,

It's very hard for me to believe you are arguing in good faith.

If you are, I'm having an impossible time understanding why you make many of the statements that you are, and why your logic process doesn't seem to be following.


Godstud wrote:I can see you are a libertarian,

Maybe my mistake is not realizing how authoritarian things run in the UK (which I presume you're from), and how people have been conditioned to accept that level of control, in all aspects of life, as normal.
Last edited by Puffer Fish on 10 Nov 2019 07:23, edited 1 time in total.
#15047648
Puffer Fish wrote:It's very hard for me to believe you are arguing in good faith.
Ditto.

Puffer Fish wrote:If you are, I'm having an impossible time understanding why you make many of the statements that you are, and why your logic process doesn't seem to be following.
You aren't trying to follow my reasoning. You are steadfastly trying to sell me yours.

Puffer Fish wrote:Maybe my mistake is not realizing how authoritarian things run in the UK (which I presume you're from).
:lol: You're be very wrong making that assumption. Am I to assume you a 'Merican?
#15047651
Godstud wrote: You aren't trying to follow my reasoning. You are steadfastly trying to sell me yours.

Do you not realize how singling out individuals because they look too muscular, forcing them to take a test that may not really be reliable, and then searching their homes and banning them from gyms based on the results of that test, is a civil rights issue?

Can you at least agree that, if that is happening, there is a problem?
#15047653
Coming back to this thread is like going back to the place where one vomited last night.
Anyway ...

The countries where this supposedly occurs are nanny states.
They have thousands of laws and rules many of which are meant to protect the people from themselves.
So they decided that steroids are not good for health, and that their use in body builder's competitions is a form of cheating.

@Puffer Fish you mentioned several times that the doping tests produce a number of false positives. Do you know how often that happens ? Please let me know.
As I said earlier, will a repeat test not give abundantly clear results ?

As I understand your complaint, you object to a person being banned from gyms after found positive for steroids. You object to the Authorities searching that person's home for more illegal substances.
I see not much wrong with these measures. Why do you ?

A solution for you would be to move to a country where there are less regulations. I live in one of those but there are many disadvantages to that.
#15047655
@Puffer Fish

The results were telling: 21% of sexual minority boys reported lifetime use of anabolic androgenic steroids at least once, compared with 4% of heterosexual boys. Furthermore, 4% of sexual minority boys reported severe lifetime use (≥40 times) vs 0.7% of heterosexual boys.

Are you a homosexual? Just wondering if this is a LGBTIQ thing as studies show women prefer masculine men more for a short-term fling than for marriage,
Last edited by ingliz on 10 Nov 2019 09:05, edited 1 time in total.
#15047656
You cannot ban anyone from a gym unless they are convicted of something, as that's a punishment of which I found no evidence of, in the articles you presented. Getting a search warrant after a person tests positive for drug use is perfectly valid, of course. I can see why law enforcement might find this reasonable, as pretty much everyone who engages in steroid use, ends up selling them, too(I saw a recent documentary on steroid abuse).

Suspecting certain people of steroid use is acceptable, as there are side effects and signs of such use. Suspicion is valid, given how illegal they are, in some places. It's not about being "too muscular". That's just a knee-jerk reaction to this attempt to enforce anti-steroid laws.

Puffer Fish wrote:Can you at least agree that, if that is happening, there is a problem?
It's only a problem if you see drug enforcement as something you don't want.

I body build, and am in a gym for at least an hour every day. I don't use steroids. Most countries make them illegal, as they are harmful. You'd be hard-pressed to validate a search or even suspect me of steroid abuse, however, since talking to my fellow gym-goers wouldn't yield results to arouse suspicion. You are forgetting that they investigate in other ways, aside from simple drug testing.

This original statement from you, was emotional and not based in fact.
Puffer Fish wrote:No, what this really is is an attack on masculine men. The society is complaining that it's their fault because they shouldn't have been so muscular in the first place.
Pure supposition and emotionalism. Nevermind that steroid are ILLEGAL... :roll:

One incident, in 2010, does not make profiling a real thing, either... :knife:


Ter wrote:As I understand your complaint, you object to a person being banned from gyms after found positive for steroids.
I found no evidence of this claim in the articles he presented. in fact, simply testing positive for steroids cannot get you banned, legally. if the gym decides to do so, that's a different matter, entirely.

Ter wrote:You object to the Authorities searching that person's home for more illegal substances.
I see not much wrong with these measures.
QFT. I find no problem with this, either, as it's quite normal for steroid abusers to be sellers. Also, if you test positive, then it's a valid reason to suspect that you may have steroids in your possession.

I am no capitalist, but are you claiming that ad[…]

Why a Flat-Rate Tax is Unfair: A Quick Overview […]

You might as well have shared the U.S. State Dept[…]

Thank you for your interest in this tread, SSDR. […]