fucking HOT!!!

Dude...not that big.

Damn Oddeye, you are gross. Looking at a woman's big clit?! Eeyuck. Everyone knows that clits aren't sexy; the hottest parts of a woman's body are her abs and her knee-pits, and the important thing here is that Holly Holm has bangable sets of both.

i too, am aroused

abs and knee pits? disgusting

I don't see why sports and sports-entertainment brands don't just legalize doping. The majority of athletes do it regardless of regulations, and it's their body anyways - keep your laws off mine, etc!

I understand that some athletes don't want to feel pressure to pop potentially harmful pills in order to stay competitive in their careers. I also understand that some audience members (usually the older, more conservative folks) are concerned about "sportsmanship" and "authenticity" in the athletics they consume. That's fine: the obvious solution is to just divide sports into two leagues - the Steroid League, and the Non-Steroid League. Unsanctioned steroid use might still occur in the Non-Steroid League, but there'd be far less incentive for "cheating" if steroid users had a perfectly legal (and potentially higher-paying) alternative, while management could feel free to prosecute Non-S dopers same as ever.

Freedom leads to a diversity of experience, which leads to a better society for all. We shouldn't be persecuting fine athletes like Holly Holms, but rather, welcoming them, and finding ways that they can be whom they wish to be.

Re the argument that a steroid league would reduce pressure in the non-steroid league: not necessarily. There's still an incentive to get a leg up on the competition, and I don't think the steroid league would carry the same prestige and payments as the clean one�it'd be more of a freak show than a sporting event. You'd be better off cheating in the regular league than just being another roided chump in the drug league.
Even if it worked, it seems pretty immoral to encourage people to destroy their bodies and lives for our amusement.

Re the freedom argument: More complicated. The

Oops, hit enter too soon.

Re the freedom argument: More complicated. Steroid use has significant negative outcomes for both individuals (destroyed bodies, early death) and for society (tainted sports, valorization of cheating, uneven competitions). There are also questions about whether the agent in these situations counts as meaningfully free. There are significant (social and economic) pressures to encourage use, it's not clear that the potential user has complete information about the risks they're running, and steroids themselves damage one's capability to make rational decisions.

I guess I wouldn't be opposed to people using steroids if these concerns about how "free" of a choice they are really making could be ameliorated. Your proposal for dual leagues is probably one of the most plausible schemes for amelioration, but I think it would still run into basically the same problems as the current situation, with the addition of being morally problematic as a spectacle of self-inflicted harm. (That is, even if we allow people to drink themselves to death, it's another question if this is a good thing to put on TV.)

"it seems pretty immoral to encourage people to destroy their bodies and lives for our amusement."

So now you have it in for the entire entertainment industry?

C'mon Homer, I responded to one of your tl;dr libertarian rants and you can't even do a follow up? I'm hurt.

OZ: Lou Reed producing a few good albums and dying of heroin is the best possible outcome for all involved. Just as an example.

Still way better than Cock Magic.

Vagina Power.

Yeah, I'm sure she signed a sponsorship deal because she believes in the product and not because they're offering her money to do pretty much nothing.

I'm sure Matt Hughes drank all of those Xyience Xenergy drinks too, right?

well yeah, quoth her manager re: the company's products: "holly didn't really use them, so it's no big deal... i'm sure she didn't use any of them. she might have taken a picture with one."



don't get me wrong, i was stoked on the win (rousey post-correia left a really bad taste in my mouth, with all the arrogant shit talking, and twenty seconds into rd 1 i saw the writing on the wall) and i am pumped she's the champ. i just don't believe any professional athlete is "clean" in the way we think they are/should be.

Rousey has never not been a terrible person and she has always been overrated. People climbed over one another to talk about how great her striking has gotten over the years and it was all a total charade. Remember when her yutz of a coach said she was going to run off and win a bunch of boxing titles?

Seeing as how most dudes get popped for 'roids after a loss, let them all get juiced to the gills, if they want. I would never hold anyone's sponsorship against them though (unless it was something totally reprehensible, like that one MMA clothing company that used a bunch of Nazi imagery) because that's the only way anyone is getting paid in a post-Reebok UFC world where Dana can fly snow in for his kids (seriously), but some fighters are keeping day jobs.

i definitely agree that her bandwagon became huge simply because she was a dominant female (whether that's due to stacked cards or judo talent is up for debate, i'd say a mix of both).

i was being too hasty with the sponsorship crack. i'd be interested to know your opinions on how reebok's involvement has changed/will change the sport for the average fighter. all the fighters i know are still working bringers in some industrial-neighborhood kenpo gym and the events all have live music intermissions so actual sponsorship of any kind would change their lives immeasurably.