[Puffer Fish]

If steroids are illegal, then enforcing the drug laws has nothing to do with the OP's statement.

The issue is that "enforcing" these laws, like the agressive way they are enforcing them in Belgium/Sweden, will easily send innocent people to prison, and seems to be an attack on their lifestyle.

[Godstud]

Innocent people don't test positive for drug use, and are rarely convicted. Criminals having their lifestyles attacked, is perfectly acceptable.

[Ter]

Individuals shouldn't be subject to a test - a test that could potentially bring back false positive results - based on what they look like. Singled out for what their hobby/lifestyle happens to be.

@Puffer Fish
I am a little puzzled by your point of view concerning the use of anabolic steroids in sport.
You repeat several times that the false positive outcome of the test is high. How high ? 1%, 5%?
I am sure the person tested can request a second test if he/she does not agree with the outcome. As far as doping is concerned, a second test is a standard procedure by the way.

It is quite accepted that in order to have the athletes compete on a level playing field, certain substances and other elements are prohibited. Like for instance a certain new type of swimming suit is prohibited in swimming competitions because it reduces the drag in the water too much and would give an unacceptable advantage to the athletes who could afford to purchase it.

Which brings me to the question : what is your motivation to plead against testing athletes/body-builders ?
Have you been caught doing that ?

[Hindsite]

The issue is that "enforcing" these laws, like the agressive way they are enforcing them in Belgium/Sweden, will easily send innocent people to prison, and seems to be an attack on their lifestyle.

I am certainly not convinced that those women bodybuilders that have muscles like men don't use steroids or some type of drug along with their weight training. They get the idea from men.

[Puffer Fish]

:roll: Innocent people don't test positive for drug use, and are rarely convicted. Criminals having their lifestyles attacked, is perfectly acceptable.

You're being disingenuous. Those people faced all sorts of invasion of their lives and legal sanctions even when they were not convicted.

Then I feel you're being a bit disingenuous once more by lumping steroid uses as "criminals". It's obviously not the same type of crime as stealing or typical illegal drug use. For such a low level crime, I don't believe it warrants that aggressive level of law enforcement. (Not saying the law shouldn't be enforced, but the issue is how it's enforced, and what lengths should be gone to to enforce it)

And yes, innocent people do test positive for drug use. There's a huge issue with these urine tests, and you are ignorant if you think all medical tests are foolproof. It's far from a scientifically precise test.

Which brings me to the question : what is your motivation to plead against testing athletes/body-builders ?
Have you been caught doing that ?

What is your motivation not to be concerned about the rights of other people?
Is it because you're not a bodybuilder so this doesn't affect you?

This whole thing really seems to me like an exemplification of the majority stepping on the rights of the minority.

And yes, to more specifically answer your question, in a broader type of way this issue has affected me personally (though it was not being muscular / steroid use).

If I can point out the famous quote by Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Puffer Fish]

I am certainly not convinced that those women bodybuilders that have muscles like men don't use steroids or some type of drug along with their weight training. They get the idea from men.

That's probably completely true. Women pretty much have to take steroids to become bodybuilders and get those huge bulging muscles.
However, you'd still be surprised how much muscle a woman can put on without steroids if she professionally sticks to an intense bodybuilding workout regimen for hours every day.

However, bringing up women is pretty much a moot point because this problem in Sweden/Belgium is virtually entirely a male one.

(Again, a non-issue, but one last thing to point out, there is an exception among women of African ancestry because there's a much larger percentage of them with hormone levels that could enable them to develop some serious muscle tone if they wanted to. So it's not entirely true to claim that all women need steroids to be able to develop huge muscles)

[Puffer Fish]

A question to ask ourselves:
If, just completely hypothetically, every person in society was a professional bodybuilder, and it was common for everyone to intensely workout and develop huge muscles, would what the police are doing be seen as acceptable here?
I think the answer is most certainly not.

Think about that and give it some thought. This is only seen as acceptable because people with scary freakishly huge muscles are seen as "the other", it's not normal, and so others in society see it as acceptable that they fall under suspicion. See it as acceptable that they be forced to submit to compulsory urine tests, based on nothing other than how they look, and be subject to invasive searches of their home, and even legal sanctions, based on a test that is often wrong.


More can be read about how drug tests are not always right here: https://www.drugs.com/article/false-pos ... tests.html

There's an issue of even requiring someone to submit to a drug test when that test may not yield correct results, and lead to legal issues.
(Again, that's usually why in other countries police are first required to have probable cause)


I also find it very ironic that steroid use is seen as illegal, yet an exception is made if an individual wishes to undergo a sex change transition.

[Godstud]

@Puffer Fish I am not being disingenuous. You are merely angry at me because I do not agree with you. If you commit no crime, then you are not going to be charged.

I body build. If I got a false positive, I'd merely request the test was redone. Mind you, I don't take anything beyond protein(whey) supplements.

I don't believe it warrants that aggressive level of law enforcement.

That's your opinion. I disagree, particularly if these drugs are seen as harmful.

And yes, innocent people do test positive for drug use.

They cannot convict on a test result alone, because any defense lawyer will demonstrate that there this will not convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

People NOT convicted do not suffer any penalties. It's up to you to show this, and not just make things up.

Yes, criminals have their lives impacted by their actions. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them? Is that your point?

Women pretty much have to take steroids to become bodybuilders and get those huge bulging muscles.

False. Please provide evidence for this claim. You're talking from a very sexist view.

This says otherwise:
Women gain the same percentage of muscle mass as men during strength training. In fact, women gain as much size and sometimes more strength than men. The only difference is the starting point. Men start off with more muscle mass and more strength, but the relative increase in muscle size is the same between men and women.
https://mennohenselmans.com/natural-mus ... ial-women/

[Puffer Fish]

People NOT convicted do not suffer any penalties.

Did you read those stories?
So you'd be okay with police coming into your home and tearing through everything, going through all your belongings?

You're okay being randomly required to submit to a urine test, and not allowed to leave the building for several hours until you're able to urinate and provide a sample?

If the test results for some reason seem a little suspicious to them, even though it could be perfectly normal, you're okay with police carting away your computer, keeping it for several weeks, and searching through everything?
You're okay with a 4-year ban on being allowed to go to any gym? Even though you have not been convicted?

[Godstud]

If police have a warrant to search, there has to be reason. They can't just do it on whim. Are you ignoring that fact?

You're okay with a 4-year ban on being allowed to go to any gym? Even though you have not been convicted?

Please provide some evidence that this, in fact, happened. Forgive me if I doubt your word. You've already made some clearly false statements.

[Puffer Fish]

If police have a warrant to search, there has to be reason. They can't just do it on whim. Are you ignoring that fact?

It seems we're going round and round in circles. We've already discussed this.

(What I mean is the reason to search was the urine test. That's the whole issue)

Please provide some evidence that this, in fact, happened. Forgive me if I doubt your word. You've already made some clearly false statements.

Then the issue is you doubt the truth of all the facts in these stories I copied and posted.

[Puffer Fish]

The story in the original link wasn't in English, so I'll translate some excerpts from it:

At 6:00 on Wednesday, they started striking a handful of gyms. Civilian policemen went into the gym and looked for suspects.
- We have had training in how to detect those who may be suspected of being involved in doping.
- Now we have a little chat with some of them we select. You listen to how they respond, is it straightforward or evasive. During the conversation, a suspicion can be built up and then they have to pass urine tests, says Mikael Larsson.
Police Chief Anders Gennebäck was in charge of the operation.
- You always have to ask yourself whether muscle growth is reasonable. As a parent or girlfriend or boyfriend you may not be so naive. If you are in your 20s and weigh 90 kilos in muscle, you should [wake up and pay attention].

The article strongly gives the impression that these people were forced to submit to urine samples based on how they looked. If one read between the lines in that article, it seemed like police were basically using a quick little conversation with them as just an excuse to be able to claim they appeared to behave "suspiciously", as grounds to require the urine test.

[Godstud]

The article strongly gives the impression that these people were forced to submit to urine samples based on how they looked.

Suspicion might be enough for a urine test(not a search). Suspicion is enough to make a person submit to a breathalyzer, which is similar.

If one read between the lines in that article,

I think that this is the problem. You are reading between the lines, and not taking it verbatum. Do you normally rail against authority?

[Puffer Fish]

Suspicion might be enough for a urine test(not a search).

But there was no real suspicion in the first place for the test, other than they looked "too muscular".

So you seem to be going around in circles with me.

[Ter]

But there was no real suspicion in the first place for the test, other than they looked "too muscular".

Looking too muscular only gives rise to a suspicion.
The doping test will show it the suspicion was warranted.

Like a driver who drives erratically might be pulled over on suspicion of being intoxicated.
The breath and blood test will prove if the suspicion was warranted.

Like the passenger who walks past customs in the airport in a strange way.
Checking his luggage might prove if the suspicion was warranted.

And so on and so forth.

There are laws that prohibit the use of steroids for athletes in order to provide a level playing field for the other athletes. And maybe also to protect the athlete's health.

[Puffer Fish]

Looking too muscular only gives rise to a suspicion.
The doping test will show it the suspicion was warranted.

And therein lies the problem, for those of you unable to see it.

Neither appearance, nor urine testing, is really a reliable way of telling whether that person uses steroids.

I presume you wouldn't have a problem if the government forced everyone to submit to one of these tests? And then started ransacking through homes and confiscating computers, even though many of these tests gave false positives.

How about ban you from a certain place you like to go to for four years based on a strong suspicion, as a result of one of these not completely reliable tests, even though you were never convicted?

Just as an example to illustrate the math... If a test has a 2% false positive rate, and I force you to take it 4 times (as many of these bodybuilders are being forced to repeatedly resubmit to it over the years), there's now an 8% chance you will test positive.
If there's a room with 30 people in it and I force all of them to take the test, there's more than a 50% chance at least one of those people will be hit with a false positive.

I think people only don't see a problem with this because they're not super-muscular and personally falling under suspicion.

[Ter]

And therein lies the problem, for those of you unable to see it.

Neither appearance, nor urine testing, is really a reliable way of telling whether that person uses steroids

Urine testing for certain drugs is reliable.
You say it is not reliable, then prove it instead of constantly repeating your claim.

I presume you wouldn't have a problem if the government forced everyone to submit to one of these tests? And then started ransacking through homes and confiscating computers, even though many of these tests gave false positives.

That is an absurd example. Which Government is doing that to "everyone" ?

Just as an example to illustrate the math... If a test has a 2% false positive rate, and I force you to take it 4 times (as many of these bodybuilders are being forced to repeatedly resubmit to it), there's now an 8% chance you will test positive.

Wrong.
The probability of getting a false positive result remains 2%

(like throwing a dice 6 times will not give you a 100% probability of getting a six)

[Puffer Fish]

Wrong.
The probability of getting a false positive result remains 2%

(like throwing a dice 6 times will not give you a 100% probability of getting a six)

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

[Puffer Fish]

Urine testing for certain drugs is reliable.

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.

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.

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.

[Puffer Fish]

That is an absurd example. Which Government is doing that to "everyone" ?

Why would you have a problem with everyone being required to submit to these tests, if you don't have a problem with very muscular people being required to submit?

And what you stated is exactly my point. No government would go out there and force random people to submit to drug tests, without some level of basic probable cause. People would be outraged and complain.