12.05.05 - By Gail Carelli: I just heard a little while ago that James Toney was stripped of his heavyweight belt by the NY State Athletic Commission. Apparently, Toney failed a drug test, and Commission rules mandate that the challenger who wins a title fight and subsequently fails a drug test is immediately stripped of his title. Which means, the belt goes back to John Ruiz. But before everybody goes nuts about this, let's slow down a minute and really take a close look at what happened. That means you too, Norman Stone.
The substance James Toney allegedly tested positive for is an anabolic steroid called Nandrolone. As it happens, Nandrolone is found in many legal, over the counter supplements. It is also possible that Nandrolone can be naturally produced by the body. See the article Nandrolone Explained on the BBC Health web site. Further, it is also possible to test positive for the steroid if you've recently eaten a large quantity of meat contaminated with it. Somehow, the thought of James Toney eating large quantities of meat does not strike me as being at all unusual. Nor does the idea that the meat we regularly buy and eat has been shot up full of hormones, antibiotics, and steroids.
Consider this article by University of Bristol Senior Lecturer Paul May, who writes:
"The findings are that dietary supplements themselves are harmless and produce no increased levels of nandrolone. Exercise alone, too, doesn't cause any problems. But a combination of both dietary supplements (none of which contain a banned substance) and exercise, can result in a positive nandrolone test. The reason for this is still unclear, but one theory is that there is a link between heavy training, the dehydration that goes with it, and their effects upon the components of high protein diets. Until more work is done, however, the 'nandrolone mystery' goes on..."
The fact is, Nandrolone the substance is nothing new. Atheletes testing positive for Nandrolone is nothing new. And athletes who have later been cleared of wrongdoing after testing positive for Nandrolone? You guessed it. Nothing new. I would suggest that, given Nandrolone's track record for erroneously fouling up athelete's careers and reputations, maybe we should give James Toney the benefit of the doubt, and a chance to prove he is innocent of wrongdoing. Doesn't a Champion deserve at least that much?
12.05.05 - By Gail Carelli: I just heard a little while ago that James> Toney was stripped of his heavyweight belt by the NY State Athletic> Commission. Apparently, Toney failed a drug test, and Commission rules> mandate that the challenger who wins a title fight and subsequently> fails a drug test is immediately stripped of his title. Which means,> the belt goes back to John Ruiz. But before everybody goes nuts about> this, let's slow down a minute and really take a close look at what> happened. That means you too, Norman Stone.>
The substance James Toney allegedly tested positive for is an anabolic> steroid called Nandrolone. As it happens, Nandrolone is found in many> legal, over the counter supplements. It is also possible that> Nandrolone can be naturally produced by the body. See the article> Nandrolone Explained on the BBC Health web site. Further, it is also> possible to test positive for the steroid if you've recently eaten a> large quantity of meat contaminated with it. Somehow, the thought of> James Toney eating large quantities of meat does not strike me as> being at all unusual. Nor does the idea that the meat we regularly buy> and eat has been shot up full of hormones, antibiotics, and steroids.>
Consider this article by University of Bristol Senior Lecturer Paul> May, who writes:>
"The findings are that dietary supplements themselves are harmless and> produce no increased levels of nandrolone. Exercise alone, too,> doesn't cause any problems. But a combination of both dietary> supplements (none of which contain a banned substance) and exercise,> can result in a positive nandrolone test. The reason for this is still> unclear, but one theory is that there is a link between heavy> training, the dehydration that goes with it, and their effects upon> the components of high protein diets. Until more work is done,> however, the 'nandrolone mystery' goes on...">
The fact is, Nandrolone the substance is nothing new. Atheletes> testing positive for Nandrolone is nothing new. And athletes who have> later been cleared of wrongdoing after testing positive for> Nandrolone? You guessed it. Nothing new. I would suggest that, given> Nandrolone's track record for erroneously fouling up athelete's> careers and reputations, maybe we should give James Toney the benefit> of the doubt, and a chance to prove he is innocent of wrongdoing.> Doesn't a Champion deserve at least that much?
Um..depends on how much was in his system. All of the above reasons listed may produce small amounts of nandrolone naturally. If he had higher levels then that comes unnaturally and he is guilty. Pretty simple really.
-- v/r Beau
Ghosts don't exist and there is nothing to be afraid of....except for SuperAIDS.
(1) James Toney looks like someone who takes steroids, especially for> the Booker fight> (2) James Toney has gained about 40lbs of muscle> (3) James Toney gained all this muscle in his mid-late-30s.> (4) James Toney tested positive for steroids>
When it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, one must reluctantly> accept that it's a duck.>
Is it just me but the Toney I saw fight Ruiz could be describe as anything but MUSCULAR. In fact, he seemed a bit flabby to me and did *not* at all look like somone on roids.
Are We Rushing To Judgement About James Toney?>> >>
No.>> >
(1) James Toney looks like someone who takes steroids, especially> for>> > the Booker fight>> > (2) James Toney has gained about 40lbs of muscle>> > (3) James Toney gained all this muscle in his mid-late-30s.>> > (4) James Toney tested positive for steroids>> >
When it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, one must> reluctantly>> > accept that it's a duck.>> >
Is it just me but the Toney I saw fight Ruiz could be describe as> anything>> but MUSCULAR. In fact, he seemed a bit flabby to me and did *not* at> all>> look like somone on roids.>
Toney is very muscular - he's just fat as well.>
When he fought Booker, everyone thought he would be very overweight at> 225. He wasn't - he looked like someone on steroids, though he wasn't> cut.>
By the time he fought Ruiz, he added some more fat on top of the> muscle, so it wasn't as obvious.>
Let me get this straight, a guy can be both muscular and fat at the same time? This statement seems to defy logic. Plus that statement about "fat on top of the muscle", what have you been smoking lately?
Let me get this straight, a guy can be both muscular and fat at the> same time? This statement seems to defy logic. Plus that statement> about "fat on top of the muscle", what have you been smoking lately?
Ever look at the front line of a football team? Those guys have bigger beer guts than I do (which takes some doing), but they're still strong as hell.
How about Olympic weightlifters? Big bellies on them all--but they can still clean and jerk a couple or three hundred pounds.
Use your eyes, not your prejudices.
Chris
-- I want to die in my sleep, like my Uncle Jack not screaming in panic like his passengers. ---Jack Handy
(1) James Toney looks like someone who takes steroids, especially for> the Booker fight> (2) James Toney has gained about 40lbs of muscle> (3) James Toney gained all this muscle in his mid-late-30s.> (4) James Toney tested positive for steroids>
When it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, one must reluctantly> accept that it's a duck.>
On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:56:50 -0700, "Chris Pisarra" <Chris@Pisarra.com> wrote:
punk-tilous burbled to the world:>
(judicious snippage)>
Let me get this straight, a guy can be both muscular and fat at the>> same time? This statement seems to defy logic. Plus that statement>> about "fat on top of the muscle", what have you been smoking lately?>
Ever look at the front line of a football team? Those guys have >bigger beer guts than I do (which takes some doing), but they're still >strong as hell.>
How about Olympic weightlifters? Big bellies on them all--but >they can still clean and jerk a couple or three hundred pounds.>
Use your eyes, not your prejudices.>
Chris>
Big as hell and faster than all git-out. The collisions must be devastating to the body in the long careers of these men.
5016 <huwgareth@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1116107571.160884.118040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
Mr.Will wrote:> > I always wonder how the likes of Holyfield and Golota> managed.........> >
Mr.Will>
Well, they're clearest examples of steroid use in heavyweight boxing.> Nobody looks the way Holyfield did without using steroids. And Golota> has acne all over his back, benches 500, and severe anger management> problems.>
Not true, Frank Bruno actually has a better physique than Holyfield and he never did steroids. I don't think that Holyfield has ever done steroids for the simple fact that as he got bigger, he didn't really get faster and stronger. But then there is the fact that to add weight we summoned the help of Lee Haney....yikes. I can't defend Commander on that one...
