Please answer question regarding IFBB rules re porn?

[Eyeball Chambers]

Bump for possible multiple unsanctioned IFBB meltdowns!

[emn1964]

Bump just for grins

[flexnfemme]

Wonder why Bob is so eager to toe the boss's line?  He always claims to have the pros' best interests at heart, but one wonders if he really does ...................

what else is he going to do for a living...lets see...the resume would include gossiping about other men, rude, arrogant, wife beatinh...maybe he could be a NY cop!!!

[The ChemistV2]

Anyone notice someone changed the title of my post? Hmmmmmmmm

[The Squadfather]

hahahhaa, oh brother, sounds like "the Chemist' is VERY concerned with gay porn.

[The ChemistV2]

hahahhaa, oh brother, sounds like "the Chemist' is VERY concerned with gay porn.

No, I'm talking about the fact someone changed the title of my post from the original: Bob Cicherillo-Please answer question about IFBB rules? Obviously Bob didn't want to answer it...and isn't true that you pack more Fudge than a Keebler Elf ?

[Chick]

Just a question that I'm curious about. In the mid 70's Serge Nubret was suspended from the IFBB for allegedly appearing in Porno films which later were revealed to be no more explicit than what you'd see in a R rated movie. Apparently this supposedly reflected badly on the IFBB. Without naming names, We know of an IFBB female pro who has magazines and sells films of herself and other IFBB pro's in which they are clearly exposing their hideously masculinized genitalia and engage in real, not simulated, explicit sex scenes.

Also a male IFBB pro that is filmed sodomizing a defenseless Citrus fruit for the pleasure of sexual deviants. This pro is not only not reprimanded, but has won a recent pro show. My question to you Bob is, are there no longer anything in the IFBB rules concerning pornography  and in your personal opinion do you really believe competing in a non IFBB sanctioned event reflects worse on the IFBB than the above mentioned behavior?

Can't answer for what they did or didn't do in the 70's...

The rules regarding "porn" and releated things are classified in the "Code of Conduct", not the rules. They are there as a guideline, as most of them would be very hard to enforce given peoples rights, etc.

My personal opinion is that both aren't in the best interest of the federation, or the athlete...I would sugest to any IFBB pro to not do either.

[G o a t b o y]

The rules regarding "porn" and releated things are classified in the "Code of Conduct", not the rules. They are there as a guideline, as most of them would be very hard to enforce given peoples rights, etc.

So, people have the "right" to make porn and fuck grapefruits in their off time, but they don't have the "right" to do a PDI show in their off time?  C'mon, Bob, that doesn't make any sense.  Either the IFBB has the right to regulate bodybuilders' "off hours" activities or they don't, but you can't argue athletes have "rights" in some areas and not in others.  Last I checked, there was no Constitutional ammendment protection specifically for fucking citrus fruits. 

[Chick]

So, people have the "right" to make porn and fuck grapefruits in their off time, but they don't have the "right" to do a PDI show in their off time?  C'mon, Bob, that doesn't make any sense.  Either the IFBB has the right to regulate bodybuilders' "off hours" activities or they don't, but you can't argue athletes have "rights" in some areas and not in others.  Last I checked, there was no Constitutional ammendment protection specifically for fucking citrus fruits. 

Athletes don't have the right to compete in another federation, when they sign the dotted line and agree to NOT compete elsewhere....simple as that. The IFBB does NOT have the right to "regulate" your "off hours" activities...as long as it doesn't violate the contract you signed.

And yes, I can argue that we have rights in some areas, and not in others...it's called LIFE...check it out sometime.

[Tre]

...sodomizing a defenseless Citrus fruit

LOL @ defenseless citrus fruit!!

[Tre]

On a completely unrelated note, I wonder how many IFBB pros fail to pay their taxes and end up with state and federal tax liens filed against them in Los Angeles County?

True, but how many actually own property against which a lien can be placed? 

[G o a t b o y]

Athletes don't have the right to compete in another federation, when they sign the dotted line and agree to NOT compete elsewhere....simple as that. The IFBB does NOT have the right to "regulate" your "off hours" activities...as long as it doesn't violate the contract you signed.

So, when they sign on the dotted line, don't they also agree NOT to do porn, since that is in the IFBB rules as well?

And yes, I can argue that we have rights in some areas, and not in others...it's called LIFE...check it out sometime.

You're the one who decided to base your argument on "rights" (see your original post).  I'm saying I don't see where one has the "right" to do porn despite their employer's wishes.  Remember, it was you who said the IFBB couldn't enforce the porn rule because of the athlete's rights.  If they do have that right, please cite the law or court ruling that gives it to them.   

[Tre]

Like $125,571 for example? 

To owe that much, he had to have made a lot, eh? 

[Chick]

So, when they sign on the dotted line, don't they also agree NOT to do porn, since that is in the IFBB rules as well?



You're the one who decided to base your argument on "rights" (see your original post).  I'm saying I don't see where one has the "right" to do porn despite their employer's wishes.  Remember, it was you who said the IFBB couldn't enforce the porn rule because of the athlete's rights.  If they do have that right, please cite the law or court ruling that gives it to them.   

No, they agree to abide by the rules, which are a seperate part from the Code of conduct...as was explained.

How about the Constitution? Perhaps the "freedom of speech" part may come into play here.

[The ChemistV2]

Can't answer for what they did or didn't do in the 70's...

The rules regarding "porn" and releated things are classified in the "Code of Conduct", not the rules. They are there as a guideline, as most of them would be very hard to enforce given peoples rights, etc.

My personal opinion is that both aren't in the best interest of the federation, or the athlete...I would sugest to any IFBB pro to not do either.

Thank you for clearing that up Bob. I appreciate you taken the time to answer that. I can understand the distinction between a rule and code of conduct. Kind of a gray area but makes sense.

[HowieW]

Why have any RULES if the drug rule is not enforced then it should be "We Don't have any RULES".

We all know we have written rules for drugs , judging and conduct, etc.
The real rules are the "understood " rules.
I sincerely wish, the IFBB would simply put down in writting what they actually do.
If they don't want drug testing, I am fine with that as a fan, but don't have 48 pags of rules on testing them.
It insults me when they do that.It is kinda like saying I am too dumb and belive the pros are drug free>
Same with the judging standard, If mass and freaky cuts are the main criteria , say so.
If doing some porn or on line nude posing or wrestling is allowed, fine with me, just don't pretend that the rule against it is enforced now.

I am not picking on just the IFBB here. Look at all the hypocrites in other sports.
Pretty sad we all can't just be honest and candid , live life in the open and not hide who/what we really are.

[HowieW]

Athletes don't have the right to compete in another federation, when they sign the dotted line and agree to NOT compete elsewhere....simple as that. The IFBB does NOT have the right to "regulate" your "off hours" activities...as long as it doesn't violate the contract you signed.

And yes, I can argue that we have rights in some areas, and not in others...it's called LIFE...check it out sometime.

Good reply here Bob. I think it is that simple and as long as the pro doesn't broadcast what they do in their private life, , why should anyone else care.
I won't bug ya on the IFBB pro drug policy, we beat that like a "dead horse" already.besides there is so much in the news media hype  about steroids and HGh in sports, it makes me bored.

Hey , they PBW radio show was pretty good, I sincerely enjoyed it. I feel some big kid listening in and really get a kick out of it. At 49, I still have a real passion for bodybuilding. See ya at the ASC.
My sis will be with me, she is an actual MD, she got the brains and ambition in the family LOL.
I bet she flirst with you big guy hehehe.
Howard

[emn1964]

No, they agree to abide by the rules, which are a seperate part from the Code of conduct...as was explained.

How about the Constitution? Perhaps the "freedom of speech" part may come into play here.

The US Constitution has no play in here.  The First Amendment only prohibits GOVERNMENTAL restrictions on free speech.  Private citizens are free to contract away their rights to speak on certain subjects or engage in activity which, if prohibited by the government, would otherwise be unlawful restrictions on free speech.

[G o a t b o y]

No, they agree to abide by the rules, which are a seperate part from the Code of conduct...as was explained.

So, they agree to abide by the "rules", but they DON'T agree to abide by the "code of conduct"?  If they are not required to abide by it, why have it in the first place?

How about the Constitution? Perhaps the "freedom of speech" part may come into play here.

Actually, no it doesn't.  The Constitution prohibits the government from making laws restricting or criminalizing speech. It does not say private employers have to keep porn-mongers or grapefruit mollesters in their employ.

But then you already know this.  If you don't, you must not have had much legal instruction in cop school, huh?   

[G o a t b o y]

The US Constitution has no play in here.  The First Amendment only prohibits GOVERNMENTAL restrictions on free speech.  Private citizens are free to contract away their rights to speak on certain subjects or engage in activity which, if prohibited by the government, would otherwise be unlawful restrictions on free speech.

Bob already knows this.  He's just grasping at straws here because he's losing the argument.

[HowieW]

Bob already knows this.  He's just grasping at straws here because he's losing the argument.

No he really didn't, the code of coduct is general policy of how to act, no more, no less.
It is up to the IFBB if they want to pursure matters of personal conduct.
The bigger issue is why would anyone care? I don't.
The one issue I do have is when guys that get busted with drugs that are against the IFBB rules are then alllowed to still compete?? I never understoood that one.

[G o a t b o y]

No he really didn't, the code of coduct is general policy of how to act, no more, no less.

I was referring to Bob's comments about the Constition and freedom of speech.  Please read more carefully before you post, Howard.

[G o a t b o y]

No he really didn't, the code of coduct is general policy of how to act, no more, no less.
It is up to the IFBB if they want to pursure matters of personal conduct.

And it's also up to the IFBB if they want to pursue "rules" (as opposed to "matters of personal conduct").

The fact of the matter is, the IFBB chooses to enforce some policies, yet not enforce others no matter what you call them.  Bob  is trying to argue that IFBB actions are not arbitrary and based on the whims of the "boss" (whoever it may be at any given point in time), but that it operates in a fair legal framework.  The point of the argument is to get Bob to admit that the "rules" are really a sham, and there is no fair and consistent framework that one would expect to find in a "federation", but rather the IFBB arbitrarily does whatever the fuck it wants, much like a private employer would (except unlike a private employer, it doesn't actually pay these guys anything).

[dantelis]

I think if you do a search it would prove quite fruitful. 

Hope you aren't suggesting we search for the grapefruit video.   

[G o a t b o y]

Hope you aren't suggesting we search for the grapefruit video.   

Nah, the guy you're talking about doesn't make enough money to have racked up that much in back taxes.

Besides, he lives in NYC, not LA County.