illegal to be muscular in Sweden/Belgium - Page 5 - 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.
#15050731
Ter wrote:Sorry you are wrong. Being intoxicated with alcohol in a public place is not allowed. The police can take you in and keep you in a cell till you sober up.

Yes, you are probably correct on that. I used to see it all the time at bars when I was a young man and nothing much was done about it other than calling them a taxi to take them home. My wife had to go pick up one of my sons one night because he was believed to be too drunk to drive otherwise the police would have to take him in until he sobered up, but he still would not have been charged with a crime, like being drunk and disorderly, or even driving under the influence, since he did not attempt to drive because he was in the back seat. You may also be talking about those that are so intoxicated they can't stand up or even communicate. It could be just a matter of degree.
#15050781
Yes, @Ter, public drunkenness is illegal in most places. I guess Hindsite doesn't realize this.

Georgia Law... @Hindsite
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-41(a) Public Drunkenness: ... Simply being intoxicated and in a public place is not enough to be charged with Public Drunk. Your behavior must be such that your intoxication was made known to others around you by disorderly or disruptive, or otherwise obnoxious acts or even just loud, offensive language.
#15050927
Godstud wrote:Yes, @Ter, public drunkenness is illegal in most places. I guess Hindsite doesn't realize this.

Georgia Law... @Hindsite
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-41(a) Public Drunkenness: ... Simply being intoxicated and in a public place is not enough to be charged with Public Drunk. Your behavior must be such that your intoxication was made known to others around you by disorderly or disruptive, or otherwise obnoxious acts or even just loud, offensive language.

That must be why the police officer told my wife that my drunk son did not do anything wrong. Neither should it be wrong to lift weights in a public gym to become muscular.
#15050962
@Hindsite It's not illegal to lift weights to gain muscle. Steroids are illegal, and when people display signs of using steroids(excessive muscle growth is only ONE effect), it raises suspicion, and police can act on that.

No one's saying people can't build muscle. They simply can't use steroids to do it, and when they do and get caught, then they have to face the music.
#15051120
Godstud wrote:@Hindsite It's not illegal to lift weights to gain muscle. Steroids are illegal, and when people display signs of using steroids(excessive muscle growth is only ONE effect), it raises suspicion, and police can act on that.

Thank goodness that the police have to have more than seeing someone with big muscles to act in the USA. We have a Constitution that protects our citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police would need a court order signed by a judge in this nation. You are just jealous of men with big muscles, like me.
#15051122
Thank goodness that the police have to have more than seeing someone with big muscles to act in the USA.
They can, actually, if steroids are illegal(it's just another drug). As I, and others have said, numerous times, but that you constantly fail to grasp, is that there's more to it than simply having big muscles. Steroid use can be very obvious, as there are numerous side effects, beyond just overdeveloped muscles.

Hindsite wrote:We have a Constitution that protects our citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police would need a court order signed by a judge in this nation.
Police can do tests based on suspicion(sobriety and drug tests), and don't need a court order, for these. If they want to search a residence, then that most certainly is the case, even in Sweden. The people ranting and raving about this are simply looking at any reason to hate Sweden, and not actually looking at facts.

The gym ban he got was from the body building organization(IFBB) that he belonged to, and not from the actual authorities. You can' however, be banned from associating with criminal associates, so maybe that's a possible reason for it. We are not, however, given the full story. We are given a rant by someone without most of the facts.

Hindsite wrote:You are just jealous of men with big muscles, like me.
:roll: I am in the gym 6 days a week, for 1-2 hours. I hardly am jealous of an old man who's so insecure that he has to make up a story to support an argument. Weak trolling.
#15051130
Godstud wrote: :roll: I am in the gym 6 days a week, for 1-2 hours. I hardly am jealous of an old man who's so insecure that he has to make up a story to support an argument. Weak trolling.

My muscles now are not so big anymore, since I haven't weight trained in a long time. But I just got you to admit that you are jealous of men with big muscles. 1-2 hours in the gym 6 days a week is proof enough. The police in Thailand should be making you pee in a bottle all 6 days you are in the gym. But I am glad the police did not interrupt my workouts with nonsense.
Praise the Lord.
#15051131
I can testify to my own misadventure in this context :
The last time I went swimming in my small speedo somebody must have called the Authorities because I was tested for testosterone gel, viagra, Human Growth Hormone and oyster extract. It all came back negative thanks to god. My super big package must be due to some African gene I kept from my ancestor's time in that continent. Pffffhhhuit !
:excited: :D :lol:
#15051139
Hindsite wrote:My muscles now are not so big anymore, since I haven't weight trained in a long time.
Right, so you weren't being truthful. You don't have big muscles.

Hindsite wrote: But I just got you to admit that you are jealous of men with big muscles.
:lol: I admitted nothing of the sort. I work out for myself, not so I can be like others. I also don't envy, nor am I jealous of others, ever. Those are petty and childish emotions best suited to grumpy old men in Georgia.

Hindsite wrote:The police in Thailand should be making you pee in a bottle all 6 days you are in the gym. But I am glad the police did not interrupt my workouts with nonsense.
They should do that because you can't create an argument to support your position? :lol:

Also:
1) I do not do steroids. I do not do drugs of ANY kind. I never saw much point in them.
2) You don't work out, so you can't be interrupted.

@Ter That's a much more believable story than the "ILLEGAL TO BE MUSCULAR IN SWEDEN/BELGIUM" story, which is not supported by what actually happened.
#15051422
Drlee wrote:Uhhh. Alrighty then. How, in the name of all that is Holy, did he do this?

Just saying......

It's a mystery. The police obviously have a secret method that they're not disclosing. Tricks of the trade. I suspect they might have somehow rigged the toilets, and been willing to go to all the trouble to do that.
#15051424
Godstud wrote:@Hindsite It's not illegal to lift weights to gain muscle. Steroids are illegal, and when people display signs of using steroids(excessive muscle growth is only ONE effect), it raises suspicion, and police can act on that.

And then innocent people can suffer inconvenience, humiliation, invasion of their privacy, potential loss of their rights, and legal sanctions from the government.

Something people without "suspiciously big muscles" will never have to worry about or face.


Hindsite is right. People in the US would never put up with this crap. You people of the UK have been conditioned to just accept these type of excesses & actions as normal functions of government.
It's the nanny-state. And I have no doubt there are some underlying societal anti-masculinity biases here.
#15051425
Godstud wrote: Police can do tests based on suspicion(sobriety and drug tests), and don't need a court order, for these.

Yes, but in those cases the suspicion isn't based on "big muscles".

(And even in those cases those suspicions can sometimes violate or infringe on civil liberties, but that's getting off on a different topic)

That's a pathetic argument and you should have known it.
#15051427
Godstud wrote:The gym ban he got was from the body building organization(IFBB) that he belonged to, and not from the actual authorities.

Once again, if you read the story it implies that being a member of that organization is compulsory in that country if you want to be allowed to go to a gym.

That's the issue.

Now, if that was true, then that would basically be government enforcing the decision of an organization. I think we can agree on that, yes?

Now, if people are allowed in Belgium to go to a private gym without being a member of that organization, if that is what the situation really is and I completely misinterpreted that article, then I see no problem here.
#15051453
@Puffer Fish Post the original post in ENGLISH. The one I could read said nothing of the sort.

He got the ban from the bodybuilding organization he was part of, not the authorities, who cannot ban punish anyone with probation or the like, unless they are convicted.
#15051593
Godstud wrote:He got the ban from the bodybuilding organization he was part of, not the authorities, who cannot ban punish anyone with probation or the like, unless they are convicted.

This was the article in Belgium that is in English.

My understanding from what I read in the article is that if he is banned by the bodybuilding organization, he is then automatically banned by the authorities from being able to use a private gym. Since it seems (at least from what I read in the article) that Belgium requires all gym members to belong to the organization.

Let me quote from the article again, just so we can save time and frustration.

"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!"
"The punishment is idiotic. 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."

It seems like Belgium has empowered the organization with legal powers, so in effect they are practically an arm of government, in a way.
Presumably if he doesn't pay the fine, the organization will just put sanctions on him from being able to use the gym, or expel him from the organization, in which case the government will not allow him to go into any private gym in the country.
Last edited by Puffer Fish on 29 Nov 2019 04:40, edited 1 time in total.
#15051595
Puffer Fish wrote:My understanding from what I read in the article is that if he is banned by the bodybuilding organization, he is then automatically banned by the authorities from being able to use a private gym.
You are reading that into it, as it doesn't say that, and the "authorities" cannot ban him unless he has actually broken a law, or is convicted of something. I think your understanding of it is flawed, because of preconceived idea of oppression.

Puffer Fish wrote:Since it seems (at least from what I read in the article) that Belgium requires all gym members to belong to the organization.
Please provide a source to support this claim. It seems incredibly outlandish, and unbelievable, to be perfectly honest, that the state controls gyms. Even a visitor to Belgium can use a gym without being part of an organization.

I suppose if that organization has gyms, then it can most certainly ban people from it, much as you could be banned from YMCA, in North America, under extreme circumstances(eg. convicted of selling steroids at a YMCA).
#15051598
Godstud wrote:You are reading that into it, as it doesn't say that, and the "authorities" cannot ban him unless he has actually broken a law, or is convicted of something.

I will have to refer you to another article:

Anti-doping is not just something that exists in elite sports; it’s increasingly being applied to recreational gym users. While most countries focus on prevention and education, a handful have taken the drastic step of introducing doping controls in commercial gyms. In 2003, Belgium became the first country to introduce such measures. Sweden, Denmark and Norway soon followed their lead.

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 offence. These people face criminal prosecution for the use or possession of illegal substances and they also face sanctions from the Flemish national anti-doping organisation (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 organised 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.

https://theconversation.com/doping-cont ... hink-68797


It sounds to me like authorities actually do ban them, if the doping organization thinks they were breaking the law.
#15051600
@Puffer Fish
Can you not compete in body building without steroids or other doping ?

or, in other words,

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

you could also carry a little vial with piss from a law-abiding citizen and surreptitiously hand that in :)
#15051601
@Ter I agree. I feel no pity for people who compete illegally, get caught and then have to pay a fine or get other measures instituted against them.

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

@Puffer Fish The key words in that article are "elite athletes". This is not referring to just anyone who goes to a gym, but people who compete.

The article you quoted wrote: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 offence. These people face criminal prosecution for the use or possession of illegal substances and they also face sanctions from the Flemish national anti-doping organisation (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 organised 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.
Yes, IF they are found guilty. I find nothing wrong with this.

Searches are based on suspicion and do need warrants. Nothing says otherwise, so we can assume the law is followed.

Puffer Fish wrote:It sounds to me like authorities actually do ban them, if the doping organization thinks they were breaking the law.
False. They have to be found guilty. This article doesn't support what you say are saying.

They are not issuing fines to innocent people.

Also, from the article:
There is no legal obligation to sign up to be a “Clean Centre”, but gyms that do are perceived to have a reputational advantage. About half of Norway’s fitness centres now have a Clean Centre certificate.
So people are only being banned from gyms that are "Clean Centres".
#15051604
Ter wrote:@Puffer Fish
Can you not compete in body building without steroids or other doping ?

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.

They're using physical appearance, leading to one single urine test as the means to determine "probable cause".

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)
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]

As president, he can certainly stop it. Why sho[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s) […]

Europeans and Russians are educated, this makes t[…]