[Puffer Fish]

So people are only being banned from gyms that are "Clean Centres".

No, that's only in Denmark and Norway.

False. They have to be found guilty. This article doesn't support what you say are saying.

No they don't. No point in arguing with you if you can't be bothered to read the article.

Not to mention I've explained to you in multiple posts why that's not the case, but you seem to have a short memory, or are unable to grasp multiple attempts at explanations to you.

If I didn't before, I'm going to flat out accuse you of intellectual laziness now.

Don't bother responding again unless you're willing to put in the effort to read through this debate and spend some mental energy understanding it.

[Puffer Fish]

if you don't want the fine, don't do the crime.

"If you can't do the crime, then don't do the crime.", is an old saying, that is quite applicable.

Those who believe that always applies when it comes to law enforcement are extremely ignorant.

That's the very mentality that justifies all these totalitarian nanny-state laws.

Any time efforts are being made to enforce laws, there is the very real potential for innocent people to have their rights infringed upon.

We are talking about discrimination here.

Normal people aren't made to pee in cups and subject to drug testing, with potential sanctions on their life based on that. The population as a whole would never stand for that.

These tests are not necessarily inherently always accurate, and opens up the door to potential law enforcement abuse when they can be applied based on little more than physical appearance.

Tell me, are you okay with doing away with any need for police to have search warrants as well? No, I presume not, because there is some inherent importance when it comes to civil liberties and probable cause.

You CAN NOT divorce a the results of a drug test from the original reason for that test, when it comes to probable cause. We could force the entire population to submit to that test, and would ensnare a lot of innocent people into that net.

It would be like if police started singling out black men to search their cars, and then in one of those cars police found some white powder in a bag and arrested the man, but the powder turned out to be powdered sugar coating from a donut.
Maybe that's the best analogy I can give to try to make you understand here.

If you don't see a problem with that, there's no helping you.

[Puffer Fish]

Yes, IF they are found guilty. I find nothing wrong with this.

That makes no sense. "Found guilty" by NADO, or a court of law?

They don't get a jury trial from NADO, and the standard of evidence used by the doping agency is certainly very far from "a shadow of a doubt".

[Godstud]

It makes perfect sense. A court of law cannot enforce laws that are not within it's realm of control. Period.

They don't get a jury trial from NADO, and the standard of evidence used by the doping agency is certainly very far from "a shadow of a doubt".

There is no evidence to support the idea that anything but absolute guilt, is punished, by LAW. You are making conclusions not supported by any of the articles.

Sure, an organization can ban you from their gyms for suspicion, but they don't operate on the same tenets as law enforcement, and the justice system, in these countries.

[Hindsite]

If you don't see a problem with that, there's no helping you.

That is right, there is no helping him. But I doubt that it is because he doesn't see a problem with it. I think it is because he wants to win arguments.

[Godstud]

I do not see a problem with it, @Hindsite because the only people being punished are people doing illegal activities. Steroids(drug use), is illegal in these countries, and they are taking measure to control or even reduce the crime.

This isn't about "winning" any argument, and I thought you were going to try to be more polite? You're failing, so far. Assuming I have some ulterior motive to the discussion is very rude.

I see no problem with countries enforcing laws, and with bodybuilding organizations punishing cheaters.

[Ter]

You don't listen, do you?

The issue is that people's rights can be infringed on even if they did not actually do something illegal.

You are wrong. For better or for worse, the Authorities in those countries have decided that using steroids for reasons other than medical ones is illegal.
(I remember reading that Sylvester Stallone got into some serious trouble in Australia because he was found in possession of Human Growth hormone and syringes)

Not to mention, even if they did do something illegal, we're talking about excessive law enforcement tactics to try to enforce something that's not absolutely critical to be illegal. (i.e. we're not really talking about a serious crime like hard drug selling or robbery)

So now you are admitting that what he did was illegal, but "not absolutely critical to be illegal" in your own words ! It is either illegal or not, there is no grey zone in between.

Those who believe that always applies when it comes to law enforcement are extremely ignorant.

That's the very mentality that justifies all these totalitarian nanny-state laws.

Any time efforts are being made to enforce laws, there is the very real potential for innocent people to have their rights infringed upon.

We are talking about discrimination here.

Normal people aren't made to pee in cups and subject to drug testing, with potential sanctions on their life based on that. The population as a whole would never stand for that.

Laws are made to be enforced.
Testing for doping is the same as testing for alcohol or other substances in drivers of automobiles.
There is no possible way one could be against that.
As I mentioned earlier, chosing an extremely muscled person for doping testing could be compared with testing an erratic driver. There is a suspicion of doping/intoxication.

You are desperately trying to convince people with ridiculous examples to prove your point but in my opinion there is no hesitation to defend testing for doping. Level playing field and all that.

[Hindsite]

You are wrong. For better or for worse, the Authorities in those countries have decided that using steroids for reasons other than medical ones is illegal.

What you don't seem to understand is that we are not arguing for the use of illegal drugs. 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 muscular. That is, as the subject line states, it is "illegal to be muscular in Sweden/Belgium" is unreasonable.

[ingliz]

We are simply arguing that it is unreasonable to force someone to pee in a bottle to test for illegal drugs

The US Government doesn't think so.

The SAMHSA guidelines for workplace drug testing recommend that employers use hair, oral fluid, and sweat patch specimens to complement urine tests.

[Hindsite]

The US Government doesn't think so.

The Federal guidelines for workplace drug testing recommend that employers use hair, oral fluid, and sweat patch specimens to complement urine tests.

You are so deceptively funny by misquoting my statement by deliberately removing "simply because that person is considered muscular" from the end of my sentence. You changed the entire meaning of what I was saying, but I believe you knew that all the time.

[Puffer Fish]

Laws are made to be enforced.

Yes, and that's why I think we should be very careful and thoughtful about what type of laws we have, and about how those laws will be enforced.
Because laws can have all sorts of effects/consequences that are not necessarily obviously evident from those laws themselves, but come about through their application and enforcement. There can be all sorts of unanticipated or unintended consequences. Enforcement of the law is not exactly the same thing as what the law itself says.

[Puffer Fish]

Testing for doping is the same as testing for alcohol or other substances in drivers of automobiles.

Again, would be okay with racial discrimination and police deciding which random driver to pull over to the side of the road for testing?

Especially for a test that could sometimes yield inaccurate results.

These police really had no adequate probable cause to be forcing those men to submit to tests. (Other than their suspiciously muscular appearance)

[Godstud]

Given the laws and how the organization and anti-drug measures they have taken to prevent doping and steroid abuse, I am even more convinced that this is a meaningless rant re: illegal to be muscular.

[Puffer Fish]

I am even more convinced that this is a meaningless rant re: illegal to be muscular.

We have already explained to you it's not literally illegal to be muscular, but it is tantamount to an attack on those who are muscular.

Where someone who is muscular could suffer legal consequences, even when they were not actually using steroids, when they wouldn't have otherwise suffered those legal consequences if they had not had a big muscular size in the first place.

[Godstud]

We have already explained to you it's not literally illegal to be muscular, but it is tantamount to an attack on those who are muscular.

It's not, though. It's an attempt to reduce the use of steroids and catch users/cheats. Not everyone who is muscular is being targeted. Only the most extremely huge men who are likely users and which are suspicious, are.

The gyms generally know who the abusers are, incidentally...

You are only citing your opinion over and over again. The facts do not support this view.

Where someone who is muscular could suffer legal consequences, even when they were not actually using steroids, when they wouldn't have otherwise suffered those legal consequences if they had not had a big muscular size in the first place.

There is ZERO evidence that this has happened, however. People who abuse and use steroids are being punished for their illegal activities. That is all.

[Puffer Fish]

chosing an extremely muscled person for doping testing could be compared with testing an erratic driver. There is a suspicion of doping/intoxication.

I do not think that is a fair analogy.

Someone should have a right to be "insanely" muscular if they so choose. Driving erratically on a public road is not something you can or should be expected to have a right to, without police pulling you over.

Having a certain color of skin could also be used as the basis for "suspicion", in some neighborhoods. Would you be okay with that?

[Puffer Fish]

There is ZERO evidence that this has happened, however. People who abuse and use steroids are being punished for their illegal activities. That is all.

It's obvious that it could happen, and almost certainly already has happened.
These urine tests are not completely accurate. One test is all it takes to potentially suffer legal consequences.
(and yes, I would include their home being searched among those potential consequences)

[Puffer Fish]

It's not, though. It's an attempt to reduce the use of steroids and catch users/cheats. Not everyone who is muscular is being targeted. Only the most extremely huge men who are likely users and which are suspicious, are.

Oh, so that makes it okay then?

Discrimination is still discrimination. It doesn't matter how small the group is.

Do we not care because only a tiny fraction of the individuals in society have insanely big muscles? What percentage of society has to be targeted before we start caring?

You're familiar with the concept "tyranny of the majority over the minority".

It is possible (though very difficult) for an individual to have insanely big muscles without steroid use. It's a lifestyle for these people.
One could even draw a comparison to gays, lesbians, and transgendered people.

[Godstud]

It's obvious that it could happen, and almost certainly already has happened.

We are not dealing with "What ifs", or fear-mongering about what could happen. We're dealing with facts.

I do not see the potential problems that you see.

These urine tests are not completely accurate. No, they are not, and further testing is absolutely required if someone tests positive.

They do this everywhere for drugs. The law cannot act on a single positive test, either, given the unreliability of said tests. A person who tests positive in a urine test could, however, be subject to a blood test, which is not unreliable.

One test is all it takes to potentially suffer legal consequences.

No, it is not. Please provide some evidence of this.

It is enough, though, to arouse suspicion to allow a search. If you don't have illegal drugs, however, you don't have to fear this. You could also request a blood test to confirm the test.

Discrimination is still discrimination. It doesn't matter how small the group is.

No. It's suspicion where it is warranted. As mentioned MANY times, steroid use has many visible side effects. Steroids are illegal.

Do we not care because only a tiny fraction of the individuals in society have insanely big muscles? What percentage of society has to be targeted before we start caring?

Irrelevant. This is an emotional argument with no basis in reality.

You're familiar with the concept "tyranny of the majority over the minority".

Stop the melodrama. This is not tyranny. It's enforcement of anti-drug and anti-doping laws.

It is possible (though very difficult) for an individual to have insanely big muscles without steroid use.

Yes, and a simple test would show that they are not, or some questions to the gym would make the need for a test unnecessary, as people who go to a gym for many years have gradual progression, and not the kind that you see with steroid use.

It's a lifestyle for these people.
One could even draw a comparison to gays, lesbians, and transgendered people.

No. That's bullshit, and you know it. A dishonest argument is just that.

[Puffer Fish]

I see no problem with countries enforcing laws, and with bodybuilding organizations punishing cheaters.

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

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