# Brock Lesnar fails drug test (big surprise)



## Kickboxer101 (Jul 15, 2016)

So Brock Lesnar has failed a drugs test for an out of competition drug test.

Is anyone surprised Lesnar is on something lol "I'm a white boy and I'm jacked"

More like "I'm a white boy and I'm juiced"

Honestly I've always been a big fan of the sport but now it's getting pathetic how many people are failing drug tests. To me if you have to use steroids or whatever you call it these days you're a coward who needs to rely on other things than your skills to win.
Brock Lesnar flagged for potential doping violation


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 15, 2016)

Performing enhancing drugs won't give a person any skill.  All the steroids in the world aren't going to make me hit 70 home runs in the MLB or get a 1,000 rushing yard season in the NFL or anything else like that.

I hate it when people call steroids a shortcut, because they're not; they still have to work their butts off.

People vilify steroid users like they vilified Tiger Woods or the like.  It's easy to be honest when you don't have the opportunity nor need to cheat or steal.  It's easy to stay loyal to your wife when some of the best looking women you've ever met are throwing themselves at you on a daily basis.

While I'm definitely against steroids (and everything else I mentioned), I'd love to say I wouldn't do them if the need to do so presented itself.  But if I was a prospect that being a step faster or hitting a bit harder was the difference between making millions and a lifetime of a minor league salary struggling to put food on the table, I hate to say it, but I'm not quite sure I'd make the morally right choice.  Especially when the competition is doing the same thing.

I'll step off my soapbox now.


----------



## Steve (Jul 15, 2016)

I think you're delusional.   PEDs are the difference between hitting 20 HRs and 40 in a season.   They don't make bad players good.   But they do make good players appear to be great.   Bret Boone had never hit more than 24 HRs in any season, From 1992 to 2000.   In 2001, the M's picked him up.  He came into spring training looking like Tarzan, according to one of the other guys on the team, and miraculously hit 37 home runs, almost doubling his RBI production.   He was injured a bit in 2002, but still managed more offense than any year prior to 2001, and repeated in 2003.  When the MLB started paying too much attention to steroids, his offensive production miraculously vanished, and a few years later, so did Boone.   

I haven't heard anything so ridiculous in a long time... Seriously.  If you're going to rant about something, at least make it something that isn't so demonstrably untrue.   

There are so many examples of athletes performing above their skill level in every sport, I can't imagine how you could say that PEDs are other than a shortcut.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 15, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> Performing enhancing drugs won't give a person any skill.  All the steroids in the world aren't going to make me hit 70 home runs in the MLB or get a 1,000 rushing yard season in the NFL or anything else like that.



They ENHANCE your skills; runners run faster, swimmers swim faster, fighters hit harder. With less work.



JR 137 said:


> I hate it when people call steroids a shortcut, because they're not; they still have to work their butts off.



Sorry, do you actually have any idea whatsoever what these things do? And what long term damage they do, both to the athlete and the sport.?
I didn't think so.



JR 137 said:


> People vilify steroid users like they vilified Tiger Woods or the like.  It's easy to be honest when you don't have the opportunity nor need to cheat or steal.  It's easy to stay loyal to your wife when some of the best looking women you've ever met are throwing themselves at you on a daily basis.



Yes, it is easy. It's called integrity. I highly endorse it as a personal and professional attribute.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 15, 2016)

Not to defend Lesner, but I have some experience with drug testing due to working in NCAA athletics for 15 years...

The article says his test has been flagged; it's not 100% conclusive.

The way drug testing works (or at least did when I sent samples to the Center for Drug-Free Sport) is the athlete fills 2 cups in the same sitting (the A and B sample they're referring to).  Sample A is given a broad and wide range test.  If sample A gets flagged, sample B is tested for the specific substance rather than everything.

I had an athlete's A sample get flagged for ephedrine, which is banned.  Testing sample B revealed it was actually pseudoephedrine, aka Sudafed, which isn't banned.

I had athletes' A sample test positive for marijuana. Sample B showed they were either over or (rarely) under the allowed limit.

Chances are quite good that he legitimately failed the test and his sample A was more throughly tested.  What does raise some doubt in my mind (very little doubt though) is that he was tested several times in a short time span and only 1 test came back positive.  Seems odd unless it was the last test that came back positive.  If that's the case, he figured they were done testing him so he started taking the banned substance, then they surprised him with another test.

Most of the pro athletes using PEDs aren't taking steroids.  They're taking high priced designer PEDs that are a series of different chemicals and hormones at different stages.  Manny Ramirez is a great example - he tested positive for a female hormone.  He insulted the public's intelligence by saying it was for a medical condition he didn't want to discuss.  Come to find out, it was standard procedure to take them to counteract side effects of the PEDs he was taking.

As for the Olympic Skeleton competitors who were banned for taking Propecia (the hair loss drug).  They insulted us by wanting sympathy for being punished unfairly for taking a drug that wasn't a PED.  Propecia is banned because it can be used as a masking agent (covers up banned substances).  They knew it all along and had no answer to why they knowingly took a banned masking agent.

Or Roger Clemens saying he was taking Vitamin B shots.  Or Barry Bonds saying he took flax seed oil.  Or Sammy Sosa suddenly not understanding English when testifying before congress.  

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2016)

Mark hunt is inimpressed.

Mark Hunt Comments On Brock Lesnar's USADA Infringement


----------



## Buka (Jul 15, 2016)

Steroids are just wrong. Period. You know why? Because they have been deemed so by the governing body of the various sports.
That's good enough for me. I don't question rules in sports, I follow them. It's what all athletes do. If you don't follow them, you're a cheater. It doesn't matter in which way you are cheating, you're cheating. That's not difficult to understand. It's the bottom line in integrity, in sportsmanship and in life.

How they (steroids) work is a different discussion. You can take all you want and sit on your buttocks - nothing is going to happen. You won't perform any better than if you didn't take them. What they do is allow you to work out more, and recover quicker - in order to work out even more, and recover quicker so you can work out more....and on and on. I think short cut is the wrong term, it's a long cut. An illegal one.

Drug testing - that's a different conversation all together. I wouldn't trust drug testing any more than I would trust Clinton and Trump.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 16, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> They ENHANCE your skills; runners run faster, swimmers swim faster, fighters hit harder. With less work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know how to chop up the quote, so I'll just go in order...

Ever been around professional athletes?  Ever see them work out?  Trust me, they don't say "I shot up today, so I don't have to do as many sprints, reps, etc.". That's what I meant by they're not a short cut. They work just as hard when they're taking them.  A short cut is a quick and easy/lazy route.  They're not taking them as a shortcut, they're taking them to get to the next level.  Two completely different things.

Trust me, I've seen short term and long term effects of steroid use.  They're not good, to put it mildly.  I know far too many idiots who did them because of some perceived Napoleon complex.  And yes, I was a medical professional for 15 years, working as an ATC, so I know a bit about physiology, athletes' work demands, and a whole host of other things.  I guess you thought wrong.

Integrity isn't an easy thing.  It's easy for someone to say they wouldn't do something when they don't have that temptation staring them in the face 24/7.

I'm pretty sure you didn't get where I was coming from in my post.  It was meant to say don't judge others; the whole holier than thou mentality.

I've never done steroids.  Never had the perceived need to.  I'm quite sure I wouldn't, but if a 10 year $100 million dollar contract was staring me in the face, it wouldn't be easy to keep my integrity.  I personally know a few former pro athletes who didn't get to the next level because they refused to take them.  And I know a few who did take them.  I don't judge any of them.  

I've never cheated on my wife.  Never will.  No one is worth losing the 3 loves of my life (my wife and 2 daughters) over.  But people judged Tiger Woods, and somewhat deservingly so.  But how many of us knew what he really went home to?  How many of us had thrown in our faces and as often as what he had (meaning beautiful women every single day)?  It's easy to be an armchair quarterback.  Again, my point was judgement.

As I stated earlier, I am in no way advocating steroid use.  I did a lot of work in my previous career to keep athletes from using them.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> I think you're delusional.   PEDs are the difference between hitting 20 HRs and 40 in a season.   They don't make bad players good.   But they do make good players appear to be great.   Bret Boone had never hit more than 24 HRs in any season, From 1992 to 2000.   In 2001, the M's picked him up.  He came into spring training looking like Tarzan, according to one of the other guys on the team, and miraculously hit 37 home runs, almost doubling his RBI production.   He was injured a bit in 2002, but still managed more offense than any year prior to 2001, and repeated in 2003.  When the MLB started paying too much attention to steroids, his offensive production miraculously vanished, and a few years later, so did Boone.
> 
> I haven't heard anything so ridiculous in a long time... Seriously.  If you're going to rant about something, at least make it something that isn't so demonstrably untrue.
> 
> There are so many examples of athletes performing above their skill level in every sport, I can't imagine how you could say that PEDs are other than a shortcut.



You actually proved my point about them being performance enhancing, not performance "giving."  If Brett Boone couldn't hit 20 HRs in a year without them, do you think he'd have fared any better with them?  They took him from an average player to a very good player.  If he wasn't a good player to begin with (by that I mean good compared to guys like you and I), PEDs wouldn't have turned him into a 40 HR guy.  Maybe this sums up my point better -  he wouldn't have gone from a rec league guy to a 40 HR MLB guy because he did PEDs.  PEDs didn't teach him how to swing, they made him swing harder.  In order to enhance his performance, he needed performance to begin with.  

I look at a shortcut as a way of not having to put the work in.  He or any other athlete who's doing them doesn't work less because they're on them.  They were pushing themselves to the limit before they took them, and unless they're complete morons, they're pushing themselves to the limit while on them.  I don't call pushing yourself to the limit a shortcut.  Raising that limit with PEDs is definitely cheating, not a shortcut IMO.

And as I stated previously, I am in no way, shape or form advocating steroid use.  I did a lot of work in my previous career to keep athletes off of them.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2016)

Its a matter of perspective, really.  Boone was in the MLB because he was a solid fielder, gold glove most years at second base.   He isn't there because he's an offensive powerhouse. 

But given steroids, he can sign a fat contract. 
There are a lot of guys in AAA clubs that have all the technique Boone had, but can't generate the bat speed because they aren't juicing. 

So, are steroids a shortcut to technique?  No.  I understand what you're saying.  However steroids are a shortcut to appearing to have better technique than they actually have.   When we are talking about elite level athletes, steroids absolutely take average players and make them appear to be great.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 16, 2016)

@Dirty Dog ,

Curiousity question if I may... What are you disagreeing with in my post?  There were several points I made.  I'm not trying to start an argument, just trying to see and consider a different point of view.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Jul 16, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> I don't know how to chop up the quote, so I'll just go in order...
> 
> Ever been around professional athletes?  Ever see them work out?  Trust me, they don't say "I shot up today, so I don't have to do as many sprints, reps, etc.". That's what I meant by they're not a short cut. They work just as hard when they're taking them.  A short cut is a quick and easy/lazy route.  They're not taking them as a shortcut, they're taking them to get to the next level.  Two completely different things.
> 
> ...



If those players aren't good enough to reach the next level then they just need to suck it up and get on with it. I don't care if I get offered a huge contract but the way I can take it is to juice I wouldn't do it. It's stupid and they're illegal for a reason. Yeah maybe they train hard still but they can still make the fighter go at a higher pace for a longer time or take more damage than they would otherwise or hit harder.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 16, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> If those players aren't good enough to reach the next level then they just need to suck it up and get on with it. I don't care if I get offered a huge contract but the way I can take it is to juice I wouldn't do it. It's stupid and they're illegal for a reason. Yeah maybe they train hard still but they can still make the fighter go at a higher pace for a longer time or take more damage than they would otherwise or hit harder.




It's easy to take the moral high ground when you aren't in the position to make that decision. The pressure to take performance enhancing substances can be huge, from team mates, team medics, coaches etc. from your country's political leaders even. There is a pressure on you to perform at your very best, to not let your team down, there's huge amounts of money involved and/or national pride. There's the fact that if you do well you can look after your family for life instead of them sacrificing themselves for you while you watched lesser athletes beat you because they dope and you don't. No, it doesn't make it right to dope in any sport, but knowing the reasons why will go a long way to understanding why it's so hard to stamp out, after all it's not just individuals, it's institutions and even countries who condone and encourage doping.  It takes a very brave person to refuse when pressured so, look at Greg LeMond and how much he's suffered by refusing to dope. It's a big issue worldwide and in all sports. In horseracing in the US it's legal to dope horses, it's not in the UK and Europe and the doping tests are very stringent here so you have mixed messages there to start with.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Jul 16, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> It's easy to take the moral high ground when you aren't in the position to make that decision. The pressure to take performance enhancing substances can be huge, from team mates, team medics, coaches etc. from your country's political leaders even. There is a pressure on you to perform at your very best, to not let your team down, there's huge amounts of money involved and/or national pride. There's the fact that if you do well you can look after your family for life instead of them sacrificing themselves for you while you watched lesser athletes beat you because they dope and you don't. No, it doesn't make it right to dope in any sport, but knowing the reasons why will go a long way to understanding why it's so hard to stamp out, after all it's not just individuals, it's institutions and even countries who condone and encourage doping.  It takes a very brave person to refuse when pressured so, look at Greg LeMond and how much he's suffered by refusing to dope. It's a big issue worldwide and in all sports. In horseracing in the US it's legal to dope horses, it's not in the UK and Europe and the doping tests are very stringent here so you have mixed messages there to start with.


Teams mates I can see but why would coaches advise it because if the fighter  gets caught it makes his gym look bad and it's not just their illegal in the sport it's the fact they're seriously dangerous I wouldn't risk my life for any money


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 16, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> @Dirty Dog ,
> 
> Curiousity question if I may... What are you disagreeing with in my post?  There were several points I made.  I'm not trying to start an argument, just trying to see and consider a different point of view.



Because I disagree with some of what you've said, but I don't bother arguing, as a rule. I stated my position, both factual and opinion, and that's it. Feel free to pound your poor dead horse as much as you like, though.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 16, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Teams mates I can see but why would coaches advise it because if the fighter  gets caught it makes his gym look bad and it's not just their illegal in the sport it's the fact they're seriously dangerous I wouldn't risk my life for any money



I said all sports, many coaches do in fact tell those they coach to dope, that's why there is drugs testing. Doping these days is sophisticated and planned methodically with cycles of drug taking and 'clear' periods to fool the drug testing. There's a good many in UK MMA who dope even though you refuse to believe it. The coaches know that here they won't be caught because it's not illegal. In countries where it's illegal coaches can easily deny anything to do with what their fighter is doing plus as I said they plan the cycles of using to avoid positive drug tests, it can be done easily enough, those found out are usually careless. 
 Lance Armstrong never got caught doping, he was informed on then admitted it, it went on for years. The whole team were doping, the team principles authorised and arranged it. In Russia the drug testing labs 'overlooked' positive drug tests as did the officials.
whether the allegations are true or not I don't know but this article certainly shows ways that doping can be done and not detected. Top athletics coach Alberto Salazar faces doping claims - BBC News

Three doctors charged in Armstrong doping case - BBC News
Somalian coach Jama Aden arrested in Spain over doping investigation
Track & Field Coaches Who Dope Athletes


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 16, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Because I disagree with some of what you've said, but I don't bother arguing, as a rule. I stated my position, both factual and opinion, and that's it. Feel free to pound your poor dead horse as much as you like, though.



I wasn't looking for an argument, just clarification of what your specific facts that I got wrong were.  I'm not being sarcastic when I say this - perhaps you could refute a fact or two I had wrong so that I could be more informed.

I guess not though.  I thought you were better than this.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 16, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I said all sports, many coaches do in fact tell those they coach to dope, that's why there is drugs testing. Doping these days is sophisticated and planned methodically with cycles of drug taking and 'clear' periods to fool the drug testing. There's a good many in UK MMA who dope even though you refuse to believe it. The coaches know that here they won't be caught because it's not illegal. In countries where it's illegal coaches can easily deny anything to do with what their fighter is doing plus as I said they plan the cycles of using to avoid positive drug tests, it can be done easily enough, those found out are usually careless.
> Lance Armstrong never got caught doping, he was informed on then admitted it, it went on for years. The whole team were doping, the team principles authorised and arranged it. In Russia the drug testing labs 'overlooked' positive drug tests as did the officials.
> whether the allegations are true or not I don't know but this article certainly shows ways that doping can be done and not detected. Top athletics coach Alberto Salazar faces doping claims - BBC News
> 
> ...



I heard a head of a drug testing agency say on a broadcast that the testers are and will always be a step behind the dopers.  It makes sense - the doping athletes and their cohorts will always look for a way to beat the test.  Once they find it, it takes the testers a while to figure out how they're beating the test, then some more time to revise their methods and procedures.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> If those players aren't good enough to reach the next level then they just need to suck it up and get on with it. I don't care if I get offered a huge contract but the way I can take it is to juice I wouldn't do it. It's stupid and they're illegal for a reason. Yeah maybe they train hard still but they can still make the fighter go at a higher pace for a longer time or take more damage than they would otherwise or hit harder.


Well, now, just for the record, I'd juice like crazy.   If it meant the difference between $60,000 per year on a farm league team, or $600,000 or possibly more in the MLB, you bet your *** I'd juice,   Particularly true if I'm supporting a family.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> I wasn't looking for an argument, just clarification of what your specific facts that I got wrong were.  I'm not being sarcastic when I say this - perhaps you could refute a fact or two I had wrong so that I could be more informed.
> 
> I guess not though.  I thought you were better than this.


DD likes to start trouble, and then act like he's above the fray.  It's his MO.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 16, 2016)

*Admin's Note:*

Please keep this discussion civil.


----------



## Buka (Jul 17, 2016)

Steve said:


> Well, now, just for the record, I'd juice like crazy.   If it meant the difference between $60,000 per year on a farm league team, or $600,000 or possibly more in the MLB, you bet your *** I'd juice,   Particularly true if I'm supporting a family.



There is that, yes. 
It's easy for me taking the moral high ground from the comfort of my circumstances. I'd like to think I'd be red, white and blue honest throughout anything. I'd like to think that.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 17, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> I heard a head of a drug testing agency say on a broadcast that the testers are and will always be a step behind the dopers.  It makes sense - the doping athletes and their cohorts will always look for a way to beat the test.  Once they find it, it takes the testers a while to figure out how they're beating the test, then some more time to revise their methods and procedures.



Some of the athletes from the London are just now being prosecuted because the drugs testers held on to their samples until tests came in that would prove they were doping. That means the drugs testers are at least four years behind the dopers.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 17, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Some of the athletes from the London are just now being prosecuted because the drugs testers held on to their samples until tests came in that would prove they were doping. That means the drugs testers are at least four years behind the dopers.



Wow.  Worse than I thought.  I'm just dumbfounded by that one.

There was an ESPN 30 for 30 about Ben Johnson and the runners during that Olympiad.  The tester held onto samples from then and re-tested them about 10 or so years later when he had better technology available.  I think he said 80% of them that were negative tested positive with better technology (don't hold me to the exact number).  So many were positive that he stopped.  He said something like he couldn't do anything at that point, he did it out of curiosity, and he got disgusted by the results, so he stopped.  He didn't test half the samples he had.

If you've got access to it (it's available on Nextfix here), it's a good episode.  The Marion Jones one was as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 17, 2016)

Olympics: 23 athletes caught out after London 2012 drug retests


----------



## Buka (Jul 17, 2016)

MMA should learn from not the Olympics, but rather, from the off-shoots of the Olympics.

Watch Weekend Update: Kevin Nealon on the All-Drug Olympics from Saturday Night Live on NBC.com


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2016)

Things even worse today. State sponsored doping ( trying saying 'no' to Putin and the secret service) Russia state-sponsored doping across majority of Olympic sports, claims report


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 18, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Things even worse today. State sponsored doping ( trying saying 'no' to Putin and the secret service) Russia state-sponsored doping across majority of Olympic sports, claims report



Well, the Soviets did develop, test and use a lot of steroids back in the day.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 18, 2016)

Wouldn't surprise me if he did, but until they actually release "what" he tested for I withhold judgment.  He was tested multiple times in a 9 day period and only one of the tests came back positive.

There are many substances that are legal that will fail a test and only further testing will show.  For example, many asthma inhalers will fail a test (one speculation that has been given in this case).  Or the example of Machida, he bought an over the counter health food store supplement that is legal, but was added to the banned substance list the year prior.  I know it is the fighters responsibility to know what's on the list, but if I got a vitamin supplement from my local grocery store, I might not think to look for it on the list.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 19, 2016)

Steve said:


> DD likes to start trouble, and then act like he's above the fray.  It's his MO.



Sorry you think that, Steve. I certainly don't intend what you describe.
As I see it, I state my position, and if it's a factual matter I try to be willing to provide references. If it's a matter of opinion, I try to give some reason why I think the way I do.
If someone asks for clarification, I can try to provide it.
After that, it's flogging a dead horse, and I don't see any reason to do that, generally.
This post, for example, is extremely unlikely to get any further response from me. You (or anyone) can comment of course, but I'm unlikely to reply again.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 19, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> Well, the Soviets did develop, test and use a lot of steroids back in the day.



Every country did, back in the day, and do, still. As someone else mentioned, it's an ongoing issue. They develop new PED, then new testing has to be developed. Then new drugs are developed...


----------



## Steve (Jul 19, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sorry you think that, Steve. I certainly don't intend what you describe.
> As I see it, I state my position, and if it's a factual matter I try to be willing to provide references. If it's a matter of opinion, I try to give some reason why I think the way I do.
> If someone asks for clarification, I can try to provide it.
> After that, it's flogging a dead horse, and I don't see any reason to do that, generally.
> This post, for example, is extremely unlikely to get any further response from me. You (or anyone) can comment of course, but I'm unlikely to reply again.


 You crack me up.  It's like you fart in a room and are surprised when people think it smells bad.   Not being personally accountable is akin to blaming the dog.


----------



## Steve (Jul 19, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Every country did, back in the day, and do, still. As someone else mentioned, it's an ongoing issue. They develop new PED, then new testing has to be developed. Then new drugs are developed...


My lay understanding is that it's more to do with new masking agents than new PEDs.   i don't really know, but that's what I've read.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 19, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Every country did, back in the day, and do, still. As someone else mentioned, it's an ongoing issue. They develop new PED, then new testing has to be developed. Then new drugs are developed...



Kind of reminds me of Lance Armstrong.   If you watched any of his interviews he always said something very specific.  "I have never used any BANNED substances".  He never said he wasn't taking PED's.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2016)

Steve said:


> You crack me up.  It's like you fart in a room and are surprised when people think it smells bad.   Not being personally accountable is akin to blaming the dog.



Crop dusting?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 19, 2016)

Steve said:


> My lay understanding is that it's more to do with new masking agents than new PEDs.   i don't really know, but that's what I've read.



It's not my area, but I suspect it's some of both. New ways to hide it, new ways to uncover it, new combinations, new ways to sneak in a clean sample from someone else, new ways...


----------



## Skullpunch (Jul 22, 2016)

I usually don't get too up in arms over steroid busts but here's what makes this particular case completely fukked.  Dana White enabled an exemption to USADA testing for Lesnar (but not Hunt) - it's obvious he booked this fight on short notice in order to slip him through the loophole that would enable this.  So not only did his opponent cheat but his CEO helped him do it - keep in mind that we're not hitting a ball with a stick here (I honestly give zero fukks about steroids in those sports) - but rather we're killing brain cells and ripping joints apart.  Roids are a wee bit more consequential here than they are in baseball.  His opponent cheated and his employer committed blatant fraud, both in ways that jeopardized his safety.  On top of that, Hunt made about 7% of what Lesnar made.  The whole thing just exudes fraud every which way.


----------

