because he failed a diuretic test.. the same test jay cutler failed in 2001 but was not dq'd this is why team nasser doesnt accept this disqualification
in the RLS he did.. actually imo he beat ronnie in this pose in 96.. check the comparison video again..
Nasser admitted he had a weak back , it's blatantly obvious to anyone who doesn't purchase his underwear. His back sucked Great bodybuilder from the front though
why did nasser get dq'd anyway?so yates could win again?
Nasser 95-98 was an amazing BB, one of the greatest evernever has there been such a combination of massive size, tiny waist, ripped conditioning and hardness, shape and symmetry.Nasser was not blocky, he had an incredible V taper and aesthetic shape.Nasser's back in those years was as thick and wide as Yates but just not as dry hence looked slightly less detailed.It is erroneous to say nasser had a weak back, Paul Dillet had a weak back
There was no actual diuretics testing in the 96 OMatarazzo snitched to De milia that Nasser had used some diuretic. De milia wanted to make an example out of someone after the death of Munzer to show the public the IFBB was "testing". Unfortunately because of Snitch Matarazzo .Nasser was the victim.repeat, there was NO testing for any drugs @ teh 96 OLevrone alludes to the whole situation in Nasser on the Way Part 7- he states "Nasser,you still have the 3rd place trophy! i would have done excatly the same thing as you if they had done waht they did that to me, i would have kept the trophy!"
LOL, so true ....but here we go again with team Nasser trying to get one fucking person to agree that Nasser's back "wasn't that bad"
Absurd as defending Ronnies calves or Dorians torn up arm.
Ronnie even in 96 was awesome , he didn't beat Ronnie in any back pose nevermind held his own with DorianYou can make a case from the front in certain poses , but ain't happening from the back
put him beside nasser seriously nasser in 96 carried huge amounts of hard muscles,.. may be the biggest in the history of the sport, even bigger than markus in 2002 and of course much better in shape.. also bigger than ronnie in 2003 who was at nearly 300 pounds not as dry and hard as nasser in 96..
Well in both cases these flaws were less of a liability than having one of the biggest and complex muscle groups being missing in actionThey say ' Hey his back is wide it's just not as detailed ' when in reality it's lacking some much more Nasser was an outstanding bodybuilder from the front , he will get credit for that. Guy was a monster and competing near 300 in contest condition before anyone
yes ronnie was very good in 96 but his back at this point was still not one of the best ever.. not only nasser but also kevin was better than ronnie in the RLS.. check the comparison again..
but this contradicts your previous claim that his built was not made to compete at over 260 pounds hahaha..typical ND,.. changing his opinions according to each thread..
prove that anything written in Flex mag, which you accept as gospel truth, is true.when you have met with BB's and people on the inside, in the industry, you know the truthwhen you havent ,you are jsut another one of the ignorant blind sheep
Ronnie's back 1996 infinitely better than Nasser , Nasser does NOT hold his own with this he just doesn't
sure ronnie's RDB was great but his RLS was not the same level at all.. nasser and levrone both beat him in this pose in this year..
We'll agree to disagree
why so agitated, tiny?
go and wash your ass well then be ready to take this