I have made no statement on Mike. I'm asking you to explain how you come to the conclusion that in the absence of drugs there would be nothing else to him?
By your words, you infer as much. Ok then, allow me to put it as plainly as I can.
His life, his appearance, are built upon presenting a physique (and by association a "healthy" lifestyle) based primarily on drugs and lying about their use. No drugs, no physique, no Mike as he wishes to be known.
Simple really. If you fail to see this it's not because you are blind but rather due to you're choice to look the other way. Or not.
I don't actually know much about Mike, but for what it's worth I do like him.
Someone here posted that he used to take his dog to sick children in hospital, to give them some enjoyment during a hard time. That act (if true) has nothing to do with steroids. Can you explain how that act and the person behind it amounts to nothing in your eyes?
Easily. The Hells Angels have Christmas Toy Runs for children.
And yes, I am well aware that O'Hearn is not as scummy as the 81 but you asked and I easily made the point albeit by a rather rough example but I think the subject warranted as much. If I have to explain this to you then I am convinced that you are simply asking questions until you get a reply that you are comfortable with. I have no problem with your thoughts on Mike.