Godstud wrote: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.
Godstud wrote: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)
Godstud wrote: 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.