Hey Seb, thanks for the video. You certainly made some great points. I've also read some other good counterpoints from other people, so I'll eventually make a follow-up video. I'm actually really happy there's an intelligent discussion about this topic now. 5 years ago the debate was like: "Doping is bad" or "Everyone uses PEDs so we should just allow it". This is a huge discussion with many great arguments.

Watched Clarence's video, watched More Plates More Dates video, and now I'm here.

I think clarence’s points are more valid on this one personally

I feel like Clarence's opinion comes from someone who lived through the process of competing and getting to see and feel how bad the situations is, while your opinions seems to be more from the point of view of big fan/follower of the sport. And this comes through when you compare how both feel about young weightlifters. Clarence's wishes he knew how bad things were before entering competition while you are more concerned about what it would do to the longevity of the sport if young weighlifters got discouraged. Both have certain degree of truth but to me clarence's view of it is more oriented towards preventing frustration that he wished was prevented on his case, and for that I believe he comes from a better place

Why does everybody assumes american lifters are all clean? just because the are not winning medals doesn't mean they are clean!

Name-dropping Sally from down the road geez haha

Lasha is a walking pharmacy. Can’t wait to see him 500 total though 😬😬

He is right, this sport can't exist without steroids, This sport is made from steroids, period

But the state of elite sports is already about who has the best genetics for drugs.

So basically it shouldn't be called anti doping, it should be called controlled doping

I think Clarence's biggest point imo is that PED's should be researched into more to make them safer, which in turn makes it much more reasonable to be against anti-doping. As much as it would be great for top level sports to be completely drug-free and promote a drug-free culture, I think it would produce a much more realistic and more promising net positive in the future if PED's were researched into becoming much safer, more accessible, and less scrutinized throughout the sport's world. I guess the biggest question to answer is *how safe* can these drugs be to where they're not a grand disservice to one's health. The progression of anabolics research could also maybe result in even stronger and more harmful drugs, but to be fair, athletes are already doing that anyways without said research, so I suppose it can be a coin toss in that regard. It's tricky to say. In terms of USA athletes becoming world champions, just because the USA has stricter testing, doesn't mean there can't be any outliers or any sort of corruption to have that specific athlete excluded or snuck through the system. I think you propose some decent points here and there, but I also think some of these are proposed under the assumption that Clarence is assessing a solution, rather than criticisms against anti-doping.

I found your counter argument very valuable? However, it sort of lost a bit of value when you said that American athletes are clean. Are we still believing this?

My thoughts (rebuttals) on your rebuttals to Clarence's points: 1. Unlevel Playing Field - I think the argument that countries with the resources developing a super steroid or something like that don't really make sense to me. If anything I think the desire to create an undetectable super steroid is the same if not more when anti-doping exists compared to anti-doping. For example, let's say a country with the scientists and resources i.e. Russia pours money into making some undetectable analog of Trenbolone with 0 side effects. In a world with anti-doping, Russia now has this Super Trenbologna while other countries are supposed to be "clean" giving them a hugeeeeeeeee advantage. In a world with no anti-doping, Russia still has a huge advantage, but not as large because other countries are all using normal tren and Winstrol and whatnot. You mention what teenagers and their parents would want to enter a sport knowing that the end result would be steroids, but is that any more ethical than it is now? The way it works now is teens and parents go into the sport thinking it's this clean fair sport, when in reality the kids eventually all get on huge amounts of gear anyway, and the parents might not even know sometimes. Lastly, you mention that sport might turn into a competition of the most talented hardworking people with the best response to drugs instead of a competition of the most talented hardworking people. I dont understand this point??? Response to drugs is already a hugeeeee part of top-level weightlifting! The scenario you are referring to if anti-doping is gone is already the reality. 2. Corruption - Yes there are other outlets for corruption to happen, but does that mean that we should just ignore the blatant amount of corruption in the aspect? I think it's fair to argue if anti-doping is eliminated, then there can't be corruption in anti-doping. I think it's much easier to prevent corruption in something like bribing officials at weigh-ins over anti-doping which is much harder to regulate. 3. Demonises PEDs - You talk about why don't we just create two federations, an untested and tested one. This opens the can of worms into making lots of little federations like in powerlifting and is in my opinion one of the big reasons powerlifting won't be an Olympic sport for a long time. Also, natural bodybuilding and powerlifting (like the USAPL) are already filled with people who use drugs anyway, so it doesn't really solve the problem in my opinion. By creating an untested federation, you will still have plenty of cheaters in the tested federations. Lastly, I think your shoplifter analogy is a bit incorrect. I think it's more like this. Almost everybody (at the highest level) shoplifts, but only a very, very, very few amount of them get caught. Since everyone is already shoplifting anyway, it's not fair to those who get caught, so let's just let everyone do it. Additionally, I think PED's are bad overall, but unlike shoplifting, they don't harm other people. 4. Dangerous Compounds - I don't think Clarence is arguing at all the PED's are safe. But he is saying that steroids with little research pulled from the trash can decades ago and substances like Oral trenbolone are more dangerous than the PED's people would use if anti-doping didn't exist. Sure drugs can be hard to get and tainted, but it's not the biggest problem? Getting your whole team cycled on test and Winstrol or ten or halo or whatever you want is not some huge difficult expenditure that even poorer countries can't afford. I live here in the US and the average joe can get his hands on these substances if he wants to, I'd doubt a whole country couldn't figure it out for their athletes. Lastly, I'm not saying all the American athletes are on gear, but to immediately assume they are clean is a mistake in my opinion. I think it's much more likely for these American athletes to be clean, but it's still definitely a possibility that people like CJ Cummings or Katherine Nye are not clean. But really who cares if they are clean or not? I don't think it should matter. I don't mean any hate, big fan of the channel and keep it up!

Thumbs up for any video on YT with time stamps.

Clarence has more insight into this than almost everyone else. He could've easily become a competitive world class weightlifter (in competition) if he had the resources of a more weightlifting focused country behind him.

This is not even a major disagreement. The comments are artificially inflating the issue. Both stances agree on the same problem of the uneven playing field, which would exist regardless. The only question is whether it's worthwhile to even it out a little bit with regulations than without, even though it will never be truly even. The inherent talent or genetic factor is a nonargument on fairness, as the definition of fair in sports never extended to genetics, it was a matter of rules and removal of special treatment, the context was never about making sure the person that wins is the one who put in the most number of hours of work, this is a very rudimentary outlook, there are always external uncontrollable factors: different training techniques and body builds and the factor of luck, all of this contributes to the uneven playing field but also the excitement and fun in a sport.

I agree with some of your points, but I think war on doping in sports will be as successful as war on drugs was. You can talk about it, try to crack down on it (no pun intended) and regulate the crap out of it, but when there's need there will ample supply.

How do you really know if an athlete is clean? Not getting caught is not clean. How do we know that the US is just not better at doping? If Lance Armstrong retired earlier we may have never known about his massive doping. In the end, there is nothing more more unfair than genetics.

I think powerlifting (untested federations) is actually a good real life example of how it actually does cause a leveled playing field when put into practice. Granted, powerlifting doesn’t have state sponsored programs which could likely have compounds developed, but I think the drugs that already exist are probably as good as it will get tbh. Halo and tren in competition is more than sufficient, and other compounds during training blocks that work more than sufficiently as well

Beautiful video Seb! Loved the counter arguments. This video is a prime example of how to disagree professionally. Do Jerks, Do not be a jerk, ;)

A lot of pretty great points. At the end there's one that sticks out though: You said that people like Kate Nye prove you can still win as a "clean" athlete. This assumes she is actually clean though. Passing a lot of drug tests doesn't mean you aren't using drugs. If we assume she is clean, then that leads to some other follow-up assumptions: - either, drugs don't work to a level that can't be overcome - or, drugs aren't prevalent in that weight class. Both of which I find highly questionable.

This is the way that disagreements and different opinions should be done. Thank you for the discussion.

17:09 look at the countries who medal most its inversely proportional to how much they test

If removing anti doping would make sports become a chemistry war, why is Russia doping his athletes with old compounds like trembolone, instead of researching new, better compounds that would also very likely be undetectable with current methods? It's just because that's not how science works, just wanting get something and being willing to put work on something won't make you be able to get it. Other than peptides, PED research seems pretty stagnated (even if it's currently not really being researched)

I’m a massive Clarence fan but you make some good points. It’s a hard problem with no easy, obvious solutions.

Does Sally down the road have big numbers?

Diplomatic, respectful and well put together arguments. Great video, Seb.

Best you can do is have tested and untested comps.

I want to see natty lifters so I have something to compare myself to. I also want to see the Lashas lifting ridiculous weights. I think the best solution is a Natural federation and a Enhanced federation.

I would make one counter-argument for your second to last point about a substance being relatively safe, readily available, and performance enhancing. Your claim is that if a substance meets all three criteria, then it wouldn't be a banned substance and that's why you used Creatine as an example. My counter-argument is that testosterone meets all three criteria. It is a naturally occurring hormone that at TRT doses is relatively safe, enhances performance, and is readily available around the world. Why is this banned by WADA?

Clarence mentioned in his video for weightlifters more drugs isn't better. For instance, Clarence said when his bodyweight went up "cycling" is what I'm going to assume his overall strength increased however he became worse at the Olympic lifts because of mobility and he probably felt less healthy as well when on cycle your risk of injury is significantly increased. So i don't think you will see the same extreme abuse you see in powerlifting and bodybuilding.

I respect the opinions of both of you, but I fall into the category of stopping the anti-doping. Saying that parents won't get their children to train weightlifting because in order to become a world champion or win the Olympics is in my opinion a fundamentally flawed way of looking at it. 99% of all parents who let their children do sports or encourage them to do sports aren't doing so in hopes of them becoming world champions. That happens later. Children who play football, basketball, go skiing or do running don't enter with the intent of becoming the best in the world. Of course there are some who do. But most people enter their sport because they think it looks fun or their friends are doing that sport. Even if some countries do develop better drugs, in my opinion the difference between no drug and designer drugs is MUCH bigger than the couple of small % you might get from taking a new drug that isn't designed yet. I don't think there will ever exist a gap in the effectiveness of drugs that'll make one country win over another, if doping is allowed that is.

Its nice to see an articulate and respectful response. Both of you have well thought out arguments. Though I side with Clarence on this one. To summarize in a short comment, I believe competition is the best form of regulation in most things in life. Absolute centralized power tends to breed more corruption than it prevents. As a wise man once said "Placing the state in charge of moral principles is equivalent to putting the proverbial fox in charge of the chicken coop" - Murray Rothbard

My biggest issue with your argument is when you said the public perception of bodybuilding and strongman is worse because of the drug use. Strongmen athletes are by far more popular than Olympic weightlifters, some have millions of followers on social media while even the most popular Olympic lifters barely reach 6 digit followers. Same with bodybuilders, many people know the big names from the IFBB and Olympia Competitors... but who honestly can name 5 bodybuilders from drug tested federations. Any strength sport will struggle to compete with the more staple sports, in terms of popularity. But the most popular competitions and strength athletes are the ones with unregulated drug use. Humans bodies are built for running, not lifting crazy weights and getting huge and jacked. Many of the most popular and commonly played sports have running as a key component of the game. (Basketball, football, American football, baseball, tennis) Coming from a former track/cross country runner who now solely trains Olympic lifting as a “hobby” I can say running form and progressing in running speed is much more natural. Most people struggle with running only because of being overweight (whole other conversation). Point being, the limit for muscle growth and strength gains is a lot smaller than most people realize. Besides the occasional genetic outlier, most people are just never going to clean and jerk 400+ lbs, deadlift 4-5 times bodyweight or have 20+ inch arms without taking some sort of performance enhancer. We’re just not built for it. If anti-doping worked 100% of the time strength sports would honestly be a lot more boring and probably would be even less popular.

I believe that your assumption that some countries would have access to some drugs that other countries wouldn't is faulty. Even in currently heavily drug tested countries with heavy penalties for drug usage, it is relatively easy for anyone to acquire these substances and use them, whether they're created in that country or not. If we take the example of Mr Olympia, it takes place in the US, and the US has usage and possession of these peds as a felony. This has not discouraged their usage or limited their availability within that country. In addition, the sport would eventually self regulate the level of PED usage. It is one thing to ask someone if they are willing to die in 5 years to get a gold medal, but another thing entirely when said athlete sees a former competitor die of excessive drug usage. This obviously does not stop some outliers from doing excessive things to win but I don't think that will ever be stopped. You can't stop some people from over-using peds if they think that's what they need to win, drug tested or not. Is there any actual upper limit of what current lifters are using when they get popped? If they are taking a specific ped and they know that if they get tested they will get caught, what's stopping them from over-using said ped. One thing that we don't generally see is what their reference ranges were when they did pop. Was it just over the limit or way beyond it? Love your content, really appreciate your views on this.

Both these video's a soo good and informative! How hard would it be to see a interview/debate between both of you in the future?

Isn’t it kinda poetic how the fitness community of youtube who most likely spends the least amount of time on the website also happen to be the most polite and truly mature people here who are capable of taking and giving criticism just like mentally healthy human beings.

How does being genetically gifted differ from being genetically more gifted to respond to steroid use? If you wanted to level out the playing field every athlete should have the same hormones, testosterone levels etc. Sports will never be fair no matter if steroids are used or not. Sorry kids hard work does not beat talent.

Can you imagine how much Lasha would lift if he was on gear!

the two things I don't understand about anti-doping is Why are they illegal for the negative health impacts? Every single athlete has sustained a sports injury that has affected them long term. How is it an unfair advantage? Are we really saying that an athlete in the USA has the exact same access to nutrition, coaching, legal supplements, and biology as an athlete in north korea? I can't really see how PEDs are any different from any other facet of the lifestyle of an athlete.

What do you think? Not what Clarence nor I think.

I like how NOBODY is talking about drug use in e.g. football/soccer and everything's fine and dandy?

I also disagree in removing antidope rules. It's the future of the kids and the sport that end up being jeopardized by doping and number chasing in sports. And my counter to the argument that "you need PED's to be elite" is simply: Imagine if the world never had PED's in sports. Would viewers (your customers) care about the numbers on the stage/screen? Would they be less impressed if the heaviest CJ was just 200kg? Would the stories of Pyrros Dimas, Michael Jordan or even Clarence be less inspiring? I highly doubt it. The only thing they need to improve is MARKETING to get more money/funding to enforce this rule universally (and no it's not impossible to enforce anti-doping). Not simply relying on dope itself to progress the sport will greatly benefit future athletic growth and ofc REMOVING the cherry picking executives of the sport.

Great video! New sub from Clarence’s channel. I do think Goldman’s dilemma is worth revisiting as it doesn’t seem to hold up anymore.

Have 2 separate categories. In one let people take literally anything they want and not test for anything. In the other one test for any and all compounds or markers known to science. Like be extremely rigorous. The only problem with steroids is the stigma. If it weren't illegal nobody would care. In the current situation, literally all the top athletes are on something, and EVERYONE knows this but for some reason we pretend they're not because of some "tests".

Agree with Clarence. Anti-doping strongly favors the wealthier athletes/nations that can develop PEDs that are not detectable and won't trigger blood passports either. As for health concerns, there is a strong argument that doping can actually be healthier as the body doesn't break down in the same way. Further, anyone who thinks elite level sport is about health is undoubtedly not an elite athlete. Moderation is healthy, but pushing your self to the absolute limit is abusive to the body and that goes for any sport. Take a step back and ask yourself why are we trying to police sport with anti-doping, but no other industries? Why is it fair for upwards of half of college students to be taking unprescribed ADHD meds to get ahead of their clean counterparts? Why aren't they tested? What about silicon valley techies taking modafinil or micro-dosing with LSD or psylocibin tested given the immense advantages those substances give them over their clean counterparts in that industry? Drugs pervade every single industry in our society and while the romantic notion of being clean is nice when you're young and naive, the fact of the matter is that is not reality and it never will be in sport just as it never will be in any industry. Doctors take drugs. Judges take drugs. Policemen take drugs. Firefighters take drugs. Most of our senior citizens take drugs. Women and teenage girls take drugs to not get pregnant. Drugs are everywhere...but somehow we're to believe it's just athletes that shouldn't be taking them? It's an absolute fantasy to think anti-doping is working the way it's intended to. Better to accept reality than to deny it.

I personally don't like the "genetically gifted one should win" argument. Why should someone who's mad passionate about a certain sport accept the potential he or she has been born with which they have no control over it ? Why should you just accept that you "suck" because of genetics ? It's not like enhanced athletes sit on their asses all day. I would %100 support the idea of a "super drug" that would eliminate genetics out of the equation. PS: I'm a pharmacist so I know drugs can't just "eliminate" genetics out of the equation that's not how they work but you get the idea.

When you have drug testing, it happens this: some athletes are being popped for dug used, other who also take drugs are not popped and let to compete. Not on purpose not popped (although sometimes yes), they just find ways to pass. And this can't be surpassed, no matter what you do with the testing. And so the athletes who got popped, have their lives destroyed, but others who take drugs win medals. Let's look at it from another point of view. Imagine you're one teenager, who enjoy strength sports and wants to train hard, get stronger and compete against other guys/girls. After few years of training you find out about PEDs and want to try them, to boost your strength even further (assuming you're over 18). I'm saying if you want to use PEDs to get stronger, that should be purely your choice to make, of course you need to be aware of the dangers. And after you get very strong, naturally you'd want to compete with other strong people. How do you do that, if PEDs are not allowed in competitions? I think that untested federation is a good idea. However, it is not good if you want to get as strong as possible and compete, there not to be a way for you to do it. Also another point: it isn't true, that if PEDs are legal, richer countries will produce better PEDs. Actually, most often even nowadays athletes are being popped for PEDs, which exist for many decades, nothing modern. We actually do not have any new PEDs that are more effective than the ones discovered in the 60s and 70s of 20 century. And they are not expensive at all. Methandienone is one of the most effective steroids ever used and 15 years ago you could buy it in a regular pharmacy in Bulgaria under the name Bionabol for about £2 for 40 tablets of 5 mg. The other strongest steroid id Nandrolone, which is also not expensive. So if PEDs are legal in competition, any country could afford these drugs. With all this, I'm not saying there are no bad effects of non-testing. Countries will use it on kids and so on, but actually that's going on now too.

With the first argument, one issue is that it actually describes the current situation instead of the situation it was intended to describe, which is one that would exist if PED's were permitted. It overlooks how the countries that invest more into PED's already have an advantage. Clearly, the legal framework, as it is now, allows that advantage to persist because it is in fact easier for certain countries to covertly invest in PED's. This is something Clarence discussed in detail in his previous video. A response to that might be something like, "those countries just need better regulatory authorities", but again, Clarence's previous video details why this is extremely difficult to do, and that in any event, it's very unlikely to be effective or even happen. In order to mitigate (or even eliminate) the advantage that those countries have, the better option is to give other countries the same *opportunity* for that advantage. Permitting and regulating PED usage would allow this to happen. The concern that this would create and foster an advantage in favour of countries that invest in PED's isn't validated. First, this is because the advantage already exists. Second, it exists despite the laws and institutions designed to prevent this. The only conclusion is that there is clearly a link between the current legal framework and these advantages.

Seen the script on Instagram, so excited for this vid

Very refreshing to see a well articulated exchange of ideas. If you and clarence did a video where you discussed it together, I would tune in.

Clarence talks as if Americans are cleaner for sure, who can prove that? Why can't they just be better at evasion? In US swimming team everyone has a "medical condition" thus the exemption from drug use. Meanwhile China's weightlifting team has never been caught since 2013 and is being tested more than ever (more than 600 times a year if I didn't remember it wrong, see WH's previous videos) while some USA fanboys keeps telling me that LU must be juicy due to his longevity. Smh.

Your arguments seem overly idealistic and misplaced. Clarence's arguments come across as grounded in reality, a reality that has been made perfectly clear by the war on drugs, and even by prohibition in the early 1900s. Prohibition has never worked, and will never work. The only fair option is to allow the production and use of all substances so they may be studied and used properly, instead of abused like they are now.

6:32 I disagree, and I think that is precisely one of the main reasons why not testing would result in a more level playing field (which is never completely level of course, there will always be athletes that are better funded, have better coaches, or simply better genetics so the end result is never simply a function of the effort put in). PED's are surprisingly straightforward. Anabolic steroids work far, far better than anything else ever developed for improving muscle mass, strength and power. Different anabolic steroids simply have different side effects profiles and different effective dosages, but you can always equate between them for a similar anabolic effect. Testosterone, nandrolone or methandienone are still the most widely used PEDs today by people looking to get bigger and stronger, they have been around for half a century and they still work as well as anything developed today. Most PED's introduced after the 1970s, including many designer steroids, steroidal prohormones and SARMs, were only introduced as a work around the legal status of AAS or specifically to pass drug tests that did not test for these substances. They are not more effective than traditional steroids, in fact they're usually less effective, and they tend to be worse in terms of side effects, but athletes use them because it's still far better than taking nothing. In an untested world athletes from poorer countries can still load up on test and dbol (because they are dirt cheap) and these will work just as well as any fancier drugs the athletes from wealthier nations might be given. These might have the benefit of a more custom tailored PED regiment, with perhaps a few other drugs or even nutritional supplements to promote some added synergy, but this the cherry on top and will produce a small added effect at best. If you look at untested powerlifting and strongman competitions, the issue of the athletes' country of origin and whether this gives them an unfair advantage due to having access to better PEDs never comes up at all. It simply doesn't matter.

I understand the urge to draw parallels to explain why making weightlifting a free for all isn't the right answer. However, I think we need to look at this specific context, instead of making comparisons to things like shoplifting or even strongman. In the current state of weightlifting, there's no way to fully enforce testing because of the international aspect and the time it takes to enter a given country. Making the sport un-tested would at least take away the advantage of time and bureaucracy. Then yes, there's an advantage for countries with more developed science, but that was already there. So at least some of the advantage would be nullified.

In terms of fairness, Clarence believes that for now the best to worst systems are: 1. perfect testing 2. no testing 3. imperfect testing and his logic is that since we don't have 1, we should have 2, and that is a obvious thought process, to have the second best thing if we can't get the best. However, we should always pursuit for the best thing and not settle for the second best. Isn't that also the spirit of sports as well? Always trying to be higher, faster, stronger, and better, and to pursuit for a perfect testing system, we need at least have a testing system at all. If we are going down the road of no testing, then no matter how testing science develops or how the system perfects, we are never gonna have the best, a perfect testing system, because there would be no system to begin with, no system to perfect, nothing to build on. We can't act like the current testing system is hopeless and stationary when in fact the testing has gradually become more strict and better over the years. It has many flaws but we should believe that we are going to fix them. I'll leave the comparison of current testing and no testing and which is better alone, but just by looking at the argument that we shouldn't settle for the perhaps second best thing, we should have testing and try to perfect it rather than abandoning it completely.

Strongman has been running forever without testing, testing athletes before events for heart attack risk, blood pressure etc Level playing field

The one point I do not understand is this: Are there different Anti-Doping Agencies for every sport? Because the medal example might be true for the US in weightlifting but let's just look at them in ANY other olympic sport, let alone all the other sports that exist.

We have two issues, human evolution and our current physiologic/genetic state. Currently, we have a dilemma where we are attempting to push the human body to untoward limits and unlocking more capability. The PED helps with unlocking more capabilities than an athlete who doesn’t use them. Greg Doucette does a very good job explaining an individuals own genetics coupled with an individuals ability to respond to PEDs, the two factors don’t always add up, when they do you the sky is the limit (metaphorically). I am a pharmacist, in response to the metabolism of these andergenic hormones and the glucuronosyltransferase family and the numerous polymorphisms being used as a “biological passport” does hold weight. However, the absence of testing, especially robust measures does lead to more unethical behaviour. I do believe we need to have an ethical measuring stick to enhance the sport, robust testing and adherence is a key part of this. Mr Kennedy also does provide some insight on the use of more dangerous or untested compounds without the benefit of proper clinical trial to determine safety and efficacy and ultimate harm to the athlete over time. Drugs like testosterone proportionate have been proven to be somewhat dangerous because of the abuse potential and overall long term damaging effects to the human endocrine system, this is why testosterone propionate is a C(V), schedule V, pharmaceutical under the DEA’s list of legend drugs. The others have been proven to have long term physiological effects such as organomegaly, congestive heart failure, non-viral hepatitis, fatty liver disease, choleastic liver failure, osteoporosis, extreme risk for TIA, stroke, heart attack, PE, and DVT. Keep in mind, those of us in medicine do not recommend or support the use of PEDs for things other than physiological hormone replacement therapy. Outside of this indication, the use of these drugs becomes recreational at best, highly damaging and life span reducing at worst.

I was so sad to see Clarence video, which really shows the dedication a young athete can put into an endeavour which he/she later might come to regret because of lies and deceit from adults, coaches and people that should know better. Sport today might be unfair and filthy, but what would we want for our kids? Taking medals in championships of the table, what goals can't you achieve clean? The bar is always there for us making it possible for us to test and surpass our limits, regardless of how high or low that limit might be. I thank you and applaud you Seb for havíng the peoples lift in the news show, a lift can be beautiful or impressive regardless that it's not done on an international competition or big enough to place if done in competition. I strongly feel that our community benefits from more arenas where great achievements can be saluted.

Has Clarence NOT played BIOSHOCK?

Hey, I just saw part 2 of Clarence video, responding to this one. I even felt compelled to leave a comment, I think I should leave it here too so that get a chance to see it. So this is what I wrote under Clarence second video: "I first saw the W|H-video, and thought he had some valid points. Then I saw the original video from Clarence, and understood much better his points. Now I saw this video, and when I see the clips from W|H that Clarence responds to here, it becomes completely obvious who "won" the arguments, and also that the W|H-arguments at times are kind of ugly and in a subtle way are trying to make it seem like Clarence's arguments are uneducated and naive (W|H of course don't say that out loud, but they hint at it in a way that seems very sneaky to me now when I think about it)." So this might sound harsh on you, but the more I think about it, the more I feel that you are the one that really have double standards. And like other comments here points out: You have no problems in promoting e.g. Lasha and Loredana Toma; that is completely double standards (I repeat myself, but English is not my first language), and that "don't sit well with me". Coming from Sweden where both doping and street drugs are highly demonized, I am so completely tired of these arguments why we should keep the war on street drugs, even when we can compare to e.g. the Netherlands and see for ourselves what the consequences are in that case. I haven't really thought much about doping before I saw your videos, but it seems to me that it's exactly the same double standard that I hear from you, and from the people here in Sweden that supports hard punishment for using street drugs (and even have them in your system), and if you are unlucky in your youth and gets caught with something, then it will haunt you for >10 years, if you get caught with not even that large amount of some narcotics in customs you can go to prison for >10 years etc. (And in Sweden, that's about as hard of a punishment you can get, save 1st degree murder.) Well, that's my two cents on the issue; I really love your content usually, because I am completely in love with this sport now, and it's incredible to see your footage from competitions and training-sessions, I learn so much, and seeing Loredana Toma doing just here warm-up and training gives me so much input to better my own snatch. But I feel that you were dishonest, and most of all, as I have now repeated, have double standards. I really hope that you make a reply to Clarence second video. But I have not seen any, even though its been a year, and I suspect the reason for that is that you realize that you lost this discussion big time, and on top of that, you do come forward as being very radicalized by the anti-doping propaganda. So maybe you realized yourself that it's better to do your awesome weigthtlifting-journalism, and keep you eyes closed about the fact that most top lifters are on gear.

Not very knowledgeable when it comes to this topic but I did watch both of your videos with great interest, you laid out your opinion in a structured and respectable way. I don't have an opinion that's well thought out enough, as i'm not that well informed. Cheers.

I think drug use should not be allowed for minors under any circumstances, and any coach administering or facilitating his minor athletes to use drugs should get at least an 8 year or longer ban from the sport. Secondly, the history of anti-doping came mainly from cycling, athletes as early as the 1920s would be doing cocaine and morphine, and by the 60s we had cyclists dying of heart attacks or nodding off and crashing from amphetamine and opiate use in sport, so I think no street drugs should be allowed in competition at all. This is basically what Strongman already does, strongman athletes will be banned for street drugs, Mariusz Pudzianowski was banned for cocaine once, for example. That said, I think what Clarence is alluding to for a "safer drug" is probably testosterone, nandrolone, and HGH, of which medical doses are considered safe for even longterm use, but the dosages for medical use generally are something like 250mg of testosterone or nandrolone per week, and 1-2iu HGH per day, or even lower, not bodybuilding style doses of grams a week like Bostin Loyd. The fact that WADA more or less all but outlaws even TRT at something like 60-80mg per week via patches hurts a lot of athletes that actually do have legitimate medical needs for TRT, nevermind performance enhancement use. I think the most fair rule going forward would be to at the very least legalize medical dosages of testosterone and HGH for adult athletes, or even possibly a blanket rule that athletes can use anything legal in their country and prescribed by a legitimate medical doctor at a generally recognized medically reasonable dosage. Those basically are the standards everyone else has to live under for their jobs, and I think this is the fairest middle path for athletes going forward to eliminate corruption and make it fair for everyone.

I believe drugs are bad, because that's what my mommy told me.

Splitting hairs on the PEDs reminds me of another area that could split hairs on who is a better lifter than another, and that is having the right body proportions and thus levers to maximize lifts. Body weight and gender are not the only factors. Be nice if there could be anthropomedic codes assigned to each lifter that adds or subtracts from their total to gauge a true ability. This will never happen and I therefore agree with Clarence that there are too many factors to trace including natural hormone productions.

I appreciate the counterpoints from Seb, and I suspect some of the early dislikes I'm seeing may have less to do with disagreement with the arguments presented and more to do with hardcore fans reflexively defending Clarence. Personally I'm a fan of Clarence's videos but I largely disagree with his arguments on doping. With that said, I think that it's overall a good thing that he's come out to be more open about his usage and his opinions, I only wish for as many people as possible to engage with the actual substance of the issues at hand rather than leaping to simplistic conclusions about it. I think Clarence makes a far better defender of the position to end drug testing than the person who carelessly suggests that all the Olympians should get as juicy as possible because they think that sounds more fun (I'm sure we've all heard this ad nauseum).

Great video! Its great to see that the main public personnas of this sport are so respectful, thoughtful and thorough in their arguments. Looking forward to more contributions to the discussion.

On snap.... Haven't finished the vid yet, but this tea is going to be hot!

Wow, I really didn't think there could be a rebuttal to Clarence's video because it was incredibly convincing, but your points are equally valid if not more so, especially about the escalation theory. If contestants could take more drugs, the country with the better backing would create more powerful drugs for their competitors, making the sport a competition of chemistry and biology. And you also run the risk of harming more people and furthering the drug industry, which is already grossly corrupt and damaging. I don't think there is a solution that man can come up with. Greed is so pervasive that no human establishment can fix this issue. History shows that no human ruler has ever been able to squash out greed.

But no top athlete will go to the none drug tested compitions because they'll lose sponsors and money or they'll just compete in both and still cheat in the drug tested compitions

I posted on his post anti-doping isn't going to work. If they allow doping there will still have to be regulation. Athletes may opt for smaller doses of safe steroids and others may abuse huge doses. Others may decide to use ‘dangerous’ steroids if they’re effective. Some may use horse steroids like I eat cheetos. Where do you draw the line? If suddenly large numbers of athletes are dropping dead from the abuse of large doses or dangerous drugs that won’t go over well for the sports involved. If they allow doping they still have to make it “safe”. I don’t think anyone believes sports are drug free these days

Good arguments on both sides. The only thing I would mention is the safety issue of steroids is quite overblown. Steroids are a known quantity, and can be taken for long periods of time with little to no health risks. To indicate that any steroid course compromises health is just not accurate. Can they be abused, and thus create health risks? Of course. If you take only 3-5x the recommended dose of Tylenol, you can destroy your liver, but it's still available OTC. It's seems rather arbitrary that some substances can be legal, readily available and safe that clearly help performance (creatine), and others cannot (many steroids).

Could you please do a spotlight on Sally down the road! What're her best lifts?

13:40 - There's an argument to be made that correct use of PEDs will actually improve athletes health; the amount of damage to the musculoskeletal system current olympic level training requires could be treated with chemistry (and its inevitable advancement), making the athletes not only healthier now, but after they stop competing.

I really like your point about sacrificing your body from training is expected, but forcing people to use PED’s if they want to be competitive is too far. I have beloved this for a long time and am glad someone like you shares my opinion. As some background I watched clarence’s video and really liked it but your points are very good and similar to the thoughts and criticisms I had.

Exactly my thoughts. I agree with most of the points he made but the conclusion of removing it for good as the only option feels illogical. You don’t solve a problem by removing it, you don’t fix a car by taking the train

I just wish it was all clean its so depressing as a kid from the UK who wants to compete lmao

It’s definitely a quandary. A free for all would see weightlifting turn into the freak show that is Open class bodybuilding, while the current testing regime is indiscriminate and allows for both rampant PED use in certain countries and corruption. The answer is better, more precise tests. The problem is that unless testing becomes so good that it gets and maintains an advantage over PED use and detecting them, then we will forever be chasing our tails.

I think that there are no "clean countries" as was stated. As Clarence said, there are certain ways how to beat doping test, or how to deal with them. For example, how many lifters have been caught for human growth hormone? Insulin? There are also mask substances, which can confuse doping tests. If we look back and see that an athlete was caught and later passed the doping test with an even better result, does it mean that he is on creatine now? To the topic, I can imagine something like a natural federation of bodybuilders. With very strict Lifetime bans etc. And I also imagine that the result will be similar. It would be very rare to C&J 200, and the popularity of this sport will decrease. And moreover, with lack of popularity will come a lack of money. And Who would pay for a better anti-doping test?

whats the name of the PHD resercher you named at the begging?

I broadly agree with this video. Get rid of anti doping, and suddenly everyone will have to roid up to stand any chance at all, at any level. The current level of antidoping at least keeps the PEDs to a lower level than in other sports, which is at least less dangerous.

Also to point 1, PED's don't affect everyone the same way obviously,, I think Clarence should have realized that before making that one his points, some people may take something and get their snatch increased by 2 kilo and some people may get their snatch increased by 8 kilo, it should be understood by now equality doesn't exist in general, just because one guy took xyz doesn't mean if you take xyz you should expect the exact same results

I agree more with you Seb, but I would also like to add an argument which you touched upon (teenagers in Thailand) but I feel did not press enough. That is regarding the abuse of children a non-regulated environment would allow. I think that a non-regulated sporting world would create a world in which powerful countries would compete in how early and how forcefully they would start to chemically and physically mold children into future medal-making machines. I don't believe that we can expect a 10-year old or so to be able to make rational informed decisions about their future. We already know that Thailand started pushing drugs to children as young as 13. and East German athletes in many cases had their lives destroyed by the drugs. In my view I can not accept a non-regulated sporting world because I believe we would be robbing many many children of happiness and health. Big fan btw Seb, keep it up!

so why mk677 (greline secretagog -->growth hormone) is banned? you can buy it on amazon

Drugs testing in sports ? what's the point ? if the federation or governing body wants you caught you will be, if you outlive your usefulness or cease to be a draw or make money for your sport you will get caught. Just ask Lance

7:20 If people knew that you need to take loads of gear to become the best, then (1) they'd probably stop glorifying competitive athletes. And (2) maybe they'd stop pushing their kids to do sport they can become successful in, but rather find sports that they enjoy doing. I think thats a good end result ngl. Competing for fun is cool and all, but being obsessed about being better than everyone else is just cringe

Thanks Seb. By the way, doping in professional sport in Germany is sanctioned with up to 5 years in prison and 10 years if you willingly risk serious health issues or death. It is generally a more severe crime (according to the law) than shoplifting. People need to acknowledge that. It is a crime against peoples health, an economic offence and fraud. Not just bad manners. Usually I would not never support harsh sanctions, but a strict sanction like this could maybe help people changing their mind. It is the sport of weightlifting and not the sport of who dopes the best. Just because it is not perfect doesn't mean it is worthless, at least we are trying to make it as fair as we can.

Good response, Mr. Weightlifting House. Much like the other viewers, I really appreciate the nuance from you and Clarence when discussing this topic of anti-doping; it shows that the weightlifting community (at least those with the most influence) aren't just a bunch of meatheads who can only look through a binary lens.

My opinion for those who actually care, on what an ideal situation would be. The laws against peds come from stigma of drugs as cheating and unethical in sports, partly. If we removed the stigma that peds are evil and stopped the constant lying to the public that all professional athletes are natural then it would become more acceptable. We could remove anti-doping, but still have alternative drug tested competitions for those who just don’t want to take them for health reasons. Similar to powerlifting and bodybuilding. Obviously there will still be those who chose to cheat in the drug tested competitions, but it would still be a less of a problem because those competitions would most likely be a lot less popular. With drugs being less demonized more countries can put more money into research and testing, thus advancing the science must faster. This would help make drugs a lot safer AND cheaper because they would be much easier to come by. Not only that but athletes can be over looked by doctors without the fear of being punished or arrested, adding an extra level of safety. With drugs being safer and cheaper, it would make it more likely for all athletes to have good quality drugs. Young athletes can have realistic goals and not have to go through the heartbreak of eventually realizing that they will never win an Olympic gold unless they take drugs and that their whole view of sports was a lie. We could get rid of these huge scandals that plague weightlifting, and maybe even make it a more popular sport. Of course nothing in the world is perfect, there will always be corruption and unfairness. The goal shouldn’t be to completely eliminate it because it’s just not realistic. The goal should be to make things as close to fair and equal as possible.

The whole point is absurd. Lasha didn't get caught with PEDs, decide that they were unethical, and add 80kg to his total from hard work and determination. It doesn't matter if you consider these equal, or one superior: 1. No testing = level playing field 2. Better testing = level playing field. This is present in every ethical argument and political discussion in our present time. IT DOESNT MATTER IF YOU CONSIDER THESE EQUAL, OR ONE BETTER THAN THE OTHER, because one of them is an achievable reality, and one is a utopian vision. The federations in question aren't capable of making PED use impossible, just as you cannot prove the counterfactual. To prevent and restrict is in no case equal to allow. One is action, one is inaction. One costs an infinite amount, one is completely free. They are not equal. The 30 minute ethical discussion on whether or not its the morally superior route is literally a pointless discussion to have, as demonstrated by the past 80 years of competition. Lasha didn't add 80kg to his total after quitting PEDs, we all know this. Making these arguments from a point of ethics and theory is preventing the sport and the human race from accepting the reality of the situation and adapting instead of continuing to bash our heads against a wall for another 80 years.

The argument regarding increased funding and research for PEDs in wealthy countries also ignores the fact that funding is already uneven across countries just for training programs alone. The money for facilities, coaches and paying athletes so they can be full time professional athletes arguably plays a bigger role than just PED funding. If your country's athlete can only afford to be semi-pro because they don't get paid enough by the countries sport commission to only train full time thats a far bigger disadvantage imo. PED funding is the differentiator for the top competitors, for the rest they might be struggling to even get enough money to fund their sport program and get the most out of their athletes. Just consider the mostly semi-pro players of the Uruguay or Canadian rugby team vs a tier-1 nation like England or NZ where players get paid a per match fee of £10k+ or a weekly NZ$7,500 "assembly fee".

I think a constructive intelligent conversation about this is extremely promising for the future. I really like that this is the direction we are going

Solution... For all Olympic sports, have two categories. "Group B", would be the ultra, overtly tested group. Has a completely separate competition. Gets medals as well, and has to be "OK" with performing in an almost empty arena. "Group A". Open season. Take whatever you want, whenever you want. There will be many more people in this category anyway, so all the efforts of testing will now be sent to the group that'll be much smaller. Everyone wants to see the plates almost falling off the bar anyway, so the arena's will be packed with this group. Extend all the sporting events out, another 10 days. So there's a mirror image of the events taking place. This is the only solution.

To me, knowledge and connections is the key to dealing with all drugrelated issues. So if you want drugs to do less harm the worst thing you can do is trying to make them disappear. There is not one country in the world where hard laws against drugs has led to fewer deaths and incarcerations. So I would argue that it also causes more general harm, because it also suppresses the gathering of information and hide problems. Sweden is hard on drugs and we recently became number one in the EU on drugrelated deaths. I think research, education and harmreduction overall is a much better way to deal with this problem.

He comes to this conversation with an obvious long held and we'll structured opinion. You come with unthought through counter points.

Wtf do you mean by "the country that dopes"? Are you implying that there are clean athletes at the highest level?

Well done. Both provocative pieces that have their own valid points. The answer may likely be somewhere in the middle, where certain PED’s could be tested and approved. Perhaps similar to formula 1 technology, where a special brake cooling system or downdraft spoiler comes out, gets banned for the season until tested again, determined “safe/beneficial” to the overall F1 program, and the technology is distributed to the rest of the teams. ?

for a lot of cyclist its better for their health to take certain drugs due to their rigureous training... see how sometimes drug testing makes it harder for athletes to stay healthy

If a country does not having doping protocols that are being executed equal to the USA/Denmark model(s) that country should not be a member of the IOC. This means no China, no North Korea, no Iran, etc. This should be for all sports, not just weightlifting The indifferentism shown to other sports should tell you everything you need to know.