Author Topic: Nightmare scenario for the IFBB (Read 26877 times)

HowieW · « **on:** March 28, 2008, 02:52:47 PM »

Team U champ and IFBB natural pro Gregg Rando, a legally blind pro bodybuilder enters the NY pro.
He stays drug free, looks decent, but places well down in the line up with his smaller mass.
He quietly leaves the contest and heads to a lawyers office in NY that has experience with pro athletes and due process for athletes.
Rando and his lawyer file suit in a NY venue where the meet was held. The suit is based on the grounds that the IFBB pro div. failed to enforce their own drug testing rules. As an active IFBB pro Rando would have the legal standing needed to file such a suit.They could contend that Rando, a drug free bodybuilder who followed the rules, was denied a FAIR and equitable shot at prize money.
Imagine the IFBB having to defend their current "lack of testing" policy against Rando, a blind pro , sitting in court in front of a judge

The IFBB lawyers might try to pull " the random testing " thing , but it would fold quickly.
All the other side would have to do is to demand the IFBB show the court their records of actual steroid testing over the last few years ( as evidence). This would prove they don't do any testing and Rando would win the case with ease and whatever judgement $$$ that went with it.

What do you think?
Howard

Van_Bilderass · « **Reply #1 on:** March 28, 2008, 03:01:31 PM »

You are stupid. Especially considering you took a heavily juiced bodybuilder to use as an example.

Chick · « **Reply #2 on:** March 28, 2008, 03:02:58 PM »

Quote from: HowieW on March 28, 2008, 02:52:47 PM

Team U champ and IFBB natural pro Gregg Rando, a legally blind pro bodybuilder enters the NY pro.
He stays drug free, looks decent, but places well down in the line up with his smaller mass.
He quietly leaves the contest and heads to a lawyers office in NY that has experience with pro athletes and due process for athletes.
Rando and his lawyer file suit in a NY venue where the meet was held. The suit is based on the grounds that the IFBB pro div. failed to enforce their own drug testing rules. As an active IFBB pro Rando would have the legal standing needed to file such a suit.They could contend that Rando, a drug free bodybuilder who followed the rules, was denied a FAIR and equitable shot at prize money.
Imagine the IFBB having to defend their current "lack of testing" policy against Rando, a blind pro , sitting in court in front of a judge
The IFBB lawyers might try to pull " the random testing " thing , but it would fold quickly.
All the other side would have to do is to demand the IFBB show the court their records of actual steroid testing over the last few years ( as evidence). This would prove they don't do any testing and Rando would win the case with ease and whatever judgement $$$ that went with it.

What do you think?
Howard

The IFBB could only be held accountable in this senario, IF they chose to announce they were testing, then failed to test everyone equally...They are under no obligation to test, as it clearly states in the rulebook, they "reserve the right" and athletes "may be subject to".....nowhere does it say the testing is mandatory, or absolutely will be given. The shows are not represented as "drug free" or "tested shows"...

Following your senario....there is no reason to believe that Rando is anymore drug free than anyone else....he would have to have had a drug test by an accredited lab that would show he was clean. Past shows mean nothing...

Sorry bro, your ficticious senario falls apart right from the beginning....

HowieW · « **Reply #3 on:** March 28, 2008, 03:04:41 PM »

Quote from: Van_Bilderass on March 28, 2008, 03:01:31 PM

You are stupid. Especially considering you took a heavily juiced bodybuilder to use as an example.

wtf? Gregg Rando is the legally blind pro that won the overall at the Team U at around 190 ripped lbs at around 5'9". I doubt you need to be juiced to do that, just diet and train your ass off with great genetics.

Wait a min, I forgot the get big rule of any guy with any muscle is juiced to the gills.

Van_Bilderass · « **Reply #4 on:** March 28, 2008, 03:05:58 PM »

Quote from: HowieW on March 28, 2008, 03:04:41 PM

wtf? Gregg Rando is the legally blind pro that won the overall at the Team U at around 190 ripped lbs at around 5'9". I doubt you need to be juiced to do that, just diet and train your ass off with great genetics.

Wait a min, I forgot the get big rule of any guy with any muscle is juiced to the gills.

WTF man, are you just playing stupid or what?

columbusdude82 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 28, 2008, 03:06:34 PM »

Howie, how many threads do you need to start on the same subject?

Don't you have taxes to file? Dogs to walk? A kitchen to clean?

Maybe you can read to underprivileged kids at your local elementary school? Volunteer to be a counselor or something?

Seriously bud you need to find something else to occupy your mind.....

HowieW · « **Reply #6 on:** March 28, 2008, 03:13:28 PM »

Quote from: Chick on March 28, 2008, 03:02:58 PM

The IFBB could only be held accountable in this senario, IF they chose to announce they were testing, then failed to test everyone equally...They are under no obligation to test, as it clearly states in the rulebook, they "reserve the right" and athletes "may be subject to".....nowhere does it say the testing is mandatory, or absolutely will be given. The shows are not represented as "drug free" or "tested shows"...

Following your senario....there is no reason to believe that Rando is anymore drug free than anyone else....he would have to have had a drug test by an accredited lab that would show he was clean. Past shows mean nothing...

Sorry bro, your ficticious senario falls apart right from the beginning....

Sorry Chic , but their is already a sports legal precedent based on my scenario.
The Circuit Ct for the NJ/NY area ruled against a boxing federation that failed to provide consistant and fair drug testing consistant intheir own rules. It was for a Lt Hvy wt chamionship fight and the loser filed on grounds that they did NOT drug test the title bout ( for steroids). The judge ruled this violated the "public trust" and faith in fairly run athletics.The legal precedent is there already my friend.Unlike some of these meatheads, I fact check and base my info on actual facts and refrences . In all modesty, I have pretty decent academic background and know a little bit about doing research, seriously.I didn't pull this idea out my butt, trust me.
Seriously , check it out under the Ct of appeals rulings for the Circuit Ct of the NY/NJ area.
The IFBB would have to show they do some form of actual testing over the last few years. How many actual steroid tests have they done with pros over the past 5 years? This little bit of info would sink their case.
Howard

Tre · « **Reply #7 on:** March 28, 2008, 03:15:38 PM »

Howie - the 'IFBB' and the 'IFBB Professional League' are completely different things.

HowieW · « **Reply #8 on:** March 28, 2008, 03:17:57 PM »

Quote from: Tre on March 28, 2008, 03:15:38 PM

Howie - the 'IFBB' and the 'IFBB Professional League' are completely different things.

The IFBB pro league has a 48 pg addendum on banned substances, check it out
Please check your facts, thanks

HowieW · « **Reply #9 on:** March 28, 2008, 05:01:55 PM »

Quote from: AVBG on March 28, 2008, 03:36:57 PM

Flawed argument Howie.. Rando is as much drug free as all the other IFBB pros.. I recall his training partner posting on MD at least a year ago and he admitted to administering Rando's drugs.

Aaaaaaaaaaaah, rumors. I love how everyone makes their counter arguments on actual verified facts.
ie....I know a guy who said x,y, z
Plus, Rando is my hypothetical guy in a hypothetical scenario based on sound legal precedent and the IFBB's own rules. * Do you guys understand the difference between a logical argument based on principle vs a personal attack based on certain , trivial details? I was simply trying to make a counter point to the flawed POLICY of the IFBB's lack of active testing.
Anyhoo, you will pleased to know I give up on this LOL
I am going to an ATL area NGA natural pro show sat night.
Of course they will all secretly be useing the juice as NOBODY can bodybuilding without it.

Havee a great weekend, Howard

Meltdown · « **Reply #10 on:** March 28, 2008, 06:15:15 PM »

That's why they the IFBB should DELETE that Stupid Fukin Rule.No Drug testing = IFBB Pros Drug Rule.

Red Hook · « **Reply #11 on:** March 28, 2008, 06:53:40 PM »

Chick · « **Reply #12 on:** March 28, 2008, 08:07:37 PM »

Quote from: HowieW on March 28, 2008, 03:13:28 PM

Sorry Chic , but their is already a sports legal precedent based on my scenario.
The Circuit Ct for the NJ/NY area ruled against a boxing federation that failed to provide consistant and fair drug testing consistant intheir own rules. It was for a Lt Hvy wt chamionship fight and the loser filed on grounds that they did NOT drug test the title bout ( for steroids). The judge ruled this violated the "public trust" and faith in fairly run athletics.The legal precedent is there already my friend.Unlike some of these meatheads, I fact check and base my info on actual facts and refrences . In all modesty, I have pretty decent academic background and know a little bit about doing research, seriously.I didn't pull this idea out my butt, trust me.
Seriously , check it out under the Ct of appeals rulings for the Circuit Ct of the NY/NJ area.
The IFBB would have to show they do some form of actual testing over the last few years. How many actual steroid tests have they done with pros over the past 5 years? This little bit of info would sink their case.
Howard

Actually, they would have to show a precedent, as in frequent drug tests, in order for that to be accurate. By consistently NOT testing, they've shown no predisposition, or pattern to claim anything except that they're consistant and all was treated fairly.

The ruling in the boxing case was probably based on the fact that they set a precedent by testing previous bouts.

timfogarty · « **Reply #13 on:** March 28, 2008, 09:47:00 PM »

2001, which is when he won TU

2005, as a pro

2006

Disgusted · « **Reply #14 on:** March 28, 2008, 09:49:04 PM »

Quote from: Chick on March 28, 2008, 08:07:37 PM

Actually, they would have to show a precedent, as in frequent drug tests, in order for that to be accurate. By consistently NOT testing, they've shown no predisposition, or pattern to claim anything except that they're consistant and all was treated fairly.

The ruling in the boxing case was probably based on the fact that they set a precedent by testing previous bouts.

They tested for diuretics in 2001 no?

Chick · « **Reply #15 on:** March 28, 2008, 09:58:41 PM »

Quote from: Disgusted on March 28, 2008, 09:49:04 PM

They tested for diuretics in 2001 no?

If you're talking about the Olympia, I believe that was the year they attempted to test....it was thrown out due to a non-accredited testing company being used (alledgedly)

Tombo · « **Reply #16 on:** March 28, 2008, 10:10:22 PM »

Greg rando natural?

Disgusted · « **Reply #17 on:** March 28, 2008, 10:11:14 PM »

Quote from: Chick on March 28, 2008, 09:58:41 PM

If you're talking about the Olympia, I believe that was the year they attempted to test....it was thrown out due to a non-accredited testing company being used (alledgedly)

Wouldn't that set a precedent? They found 5 different diuretics in Jay that year, but then he threatened to sue. That is when the story about the non accredited lab cam to light. Non the less, they did test that year.

webcake · « **Reply #18 on:** March 28, 2008, 10:13:37 PM »

He certainly looks natural

chaos · « **Reply #19 on:** March 28, 2008, 10:20:09 PM »

Another night of Chick defending the IFBB tooth and nail.........

Chick · « **Reply #20 on:** March 28, 2008, 10:22:03 PM »

Quote from: Disgusted on March 28, 2008, 10:11:14 PM

Wouldn't that set a precedent? They found 5 different diuretics in Jay that year, but then he threatened to sue. That is when the story about the non accredited lab cam to light. Non the less, they did test that year.

That was 7 years ago, Jim.....and not a test since...hardy a precedent.

Chick · « **Reply #21 on:** March 28, 2008, 10:23:52 PM »

Quote from: chaos on March 28, 2008, 10:20:09 PM

Another night of Chick defending the IFBB tooth and nail.........

Where is any defending of the IFBB?

No wonder some of you think the way you do.....I explain why there is no testing, and how the rules read...it's got nothing to do with defending the federation.

Stavios · « **Reply #22 on:** March 28, 2008, 10:25:21 PM »

Quote from: Van_Bilderass on March 28, 2008, 03:01:31 PM

You are stupid. Especially considering you took a heavily juiced bodybuilder to use as an example.

hahaha

Disgusted · « **Reply #23 on:** March 28, 2008, 10:26:48 PM »

Quote from: Chick on March 28, 2008, 10:22:03 PM

That was 7 years ago, Jim.....and not a test since...hardy a precedent.

Actually I can't believe I posted on this thread.

I couldn't care less what these guys take anyway. Howie needs a new hobby.

chaos · « **Reply #24 on:** March 28, 2008, 10:35:40 PM »

Quote from: Chick on March 28, 2008, 10:23:52 PM

Where is any defending of the IFBB?

No wonder some of you think the way you do.....I explain why there is no testing, and how the rules read...it's got nothing to do with defending the federation.

The whole thread reaks of the newest cologne being hawked by Bob Chick, "The IFBB Defense"....

Author Topic: Nightmare scenario for the IFBB (Read 26877 times)

Stavios