Another idea that strengthens my "No anti-doping decreases overall harm" argument I made: In a world without anti-doping what if instead, we used all the money put into anti-doping into harm reduction and education. Instead of WADA, we have WADAA (World Anti-Drug Abuse Agency). A lot of people think: being against anti-doping = pro drug abuse. Not at all. "No-anti-doping" means no drug testing, but it doesn't mean pro-drug abuse. If WADAA educated the public about the potential dangers of PEDs, not lies but real nuanced discussions talking about the safest PEDs to use, the importance of monitoring health, showing higher doses isn't always better, discouraging children from PEDs, etc, etc (a lot more points). This organization could also conduct research on existing PEDs for safe use, something which is highly lacking right now. This would not only have a positive impact on athletes but also on recreational PED users (which in this reality is massive. How many uneducated teen bodybuilders are taking PEDs right now?). As for what a no-anti-doping/legal PEDs world would look like exactly (regulations, ban on sales for under 21-year-olds, etc), that's another long discussion/video. Right now WADA's campaign is causing the following issues (in terms of harm): It's halting harm reduction from being more widespread (because of its influence). This is making it harder for recreational PED users and athletes to look after their health (Denmark as an example) It's halting PED research into safe use. A lot of recreational PED users and athletes are relying on bro-science. It's forcing athletes (if they want to win) to take dangerous PEDs since they're restricted on what they can use (contaminated underground lab gear, untested designer compounds) It's most likely influencing laws around the world making PEDs illegal. This increases drug-related crime which you can argue is unnecessary and can involve deaths. It's halting the development of drugs that can improve the quality of people's lives. TRT, HRT is more difficult to go on in some countries because of the demonization of PEDs by WADA. WADA's dishonesty is also causing emotional harm which is not talked about enough (see 7:24 and comments on this video) It's creating a world of fear, shame, and judgment for those who want to use PEDs. Also, I realize that saying "anti-doping forces athletes to take dangerous PEDs" is true, but it only covers one aspect. "No anti-doping decreases overall harm" is a much better argument to make, since there are many additional points. This is a huge discussion.
Abandoning drug testing wouldn't accomplish much. Why would that stop athletes to seek and abuse non tested high-risk to high-reward PEDs? Instead, reforming anti-doping, making it more transparent and more consistent, should be the preferred way, in my opinion. Anti-doping should first and foremost protect the athletes health, but then again is it healthy or even naturally possible to snatch 400lbs or breaking a current WR? Your point in your previous video was spot on, awareness should be raised about enormous pressures placed on athletes that compete on the elite level which necessitates the use of PEDs.
Instead of looking for drugs they should look at the athletes health markers and if their health markers are off by a certain margin then they shouldn't be allowed to compete so that would give the athlete incentive to stay healthy obviously this can be skewed by a little bit with other medications to put them back into the "healthy range" but still I think it would be far better than what's happening now.
If they focus testing anywhere it should be at the youth and amateur level, and it must be done with the intention of protecting kids from themselves and from dipshit coaches rather than with the intent to criminalise the actions of youth athletes. Every pro athlete starts as an amateur, but testing is almost absent from this crucial part of a pro athlete's development. In my sport you are already salaried by the time they are testing you with any semblance of consistency, if they ever do.
19:52 , 20:56 As fas as I understood, his argument is that even if you remove anti-doping, people perception's of PED won't change. Nowadays there is a large portion of the general population that finds modern bodybuilding aberrant, unnatural. If we remove anti-doping something similar may happen with the olympics. Personally I'm not sure.
@@abdellahelazhari8127 Clarence uses drugs too and still gets outsquatted. Doesn’t this mean toshiki can still use the “but I squat more so your wrong move”?
@@xylophoneize anti doping +anti = anti anti doping (which means you are anti to anti doping movement) but then If you add another anti its anti anti anti doping (which Most likely means The anti doping guys being anti anti anti doping) simple
And that is what bothers me the most. You have those other fitness guys who will use a plethora of excuses to support the current system. The current system is built on lies and in the case of the Olympics, has been ran like professional wrestling at one time, with bribery.
People like Clarence speed up the process of weightlifting being kicked out from the Olympics. Sarah Davies and other clean athletes are the ones who actually fight for the sport.
i love this community because people are able to have a level-headed discussion about anti-doping or other issues that matter greatly in things these creators love to do
Worth every second. Also, does anyone else find it ironic that these gym bros can have a more civil debate than many politicians have in parliament? I say, bravo to you good sirs, jolly good debate 👏
People in government can't have real debates because both sides do not have their country's best interest in mind, and their legislature has nothing to do with the betterment of society. Nearly all of their "debates" are for show, intended to create an illusion that the "views" they hold are for some purpose other than the advancement of their own interests.
Love how you have sparked up this very interesting debate and other youtubers have responded in a respectable manner giving their opinion whether they agree or not. Keep up the good work Mr. Kennedy
As someone who entered the world of academic research somewhat recently and realized how many people make illogical, unsupported arguments (my former self included), I appreciate how thoroughly you justify your position and the quality of your research. Can’t wait for this to be a video essay channel forever now 💯
The best part about the arguments between them? No strawman or other bs like ad hominem in their arguments, just straight up opinion that backed up by facts and we all can learn from both prespectives as well. Truly one of the great discussion that I see in the fitness discussion so far.
@@desoaable True, the respectfulness of the disagreements is admirable! Love the requests for clarification on points that Clarence doesn’t think make sense. So wholesome and civil 😭
More of an analogy than a comparison. But you could say steroids are part of the war on drugs. There's obviously drug-related crime with anabolics. I know nothing on that though.
I never commented on the first video but the comments surrounding the illusion of clean sport being sold to young kids really does resonate with me. At 25 years old I have committed 16 years of my life to track and field reaching international standard as a junior only to push my body to it's breaking point and mentally ruin myself in the pursuit of being the best. Even going to the point of taking a career path after university of a dead end job which I am ultimately now stuck in and hate. All just to allow myself the time to focus on training and chasing my dream of becoming a professional athlete, only to come to the realisation that my life's ambition is essentially impossible to achieve without PEDs which morally I am strongly against. I currently feel I'm at the lowest point of my life and ultimately i am left wishing I was never even talented at sport in the first place so I would have never attempted to chase a dream which was essentially unachievable. I'm really thankful that Clarence is putting high quality well informed content out there which could potentially help to clear up the lies which we are fed as children that sport is clean and all the drug cheats get caught.
I feel you bro i went through something very similar but eventually caved, i was 23 super miserable feeling a failure so i was like ok I'm taking the shit i managed to have a 12 year pro career don't know of it was worth it or not but at that point i think it was that or full blown depresion
Damn bro. Curious as to how that happens, not knowing that high level athletes are all juiced to the gills.. not trying to be a dick, I swear. Was it coaches or older athletes saying that sports are clean, or did the thought never enter your mind sort of thing?
@@trilisser Because it's not something that's widely spoken about in public? If you don't specifically seek out such information chances are you won't find it
Clarence, only 3 minutes in and need to add that when you say state sponsored doping, you really need to include the Nike doping scandal in that as well, just because it was a company, doesn’t mean the state didn’t know about it, and how quickly it was swept under the carpet.
@@clarence0 It's a bit of a tangent but who really gets hurt more when an athlete uses PED's. Is it the athlete, coaches, support staff, or, is it the general public who are unaware until their idol gets popped. If you dope in any form that's up to you! What annoys me, is when athletes only cry about it if caught, or nations with a clear history of doping take aim at other nations, and start firing from the hip with some freedom bullets.
@@nj2526 health wise - athletes take all the risk Coahes and support staff - don't care unless their medals are being taken away General public - generally don't care unless its about spreading false hope, general morals about cheating, selling crappy programs due to 'natty status' or the destruction of a huge role model
I thought the internet was all about 280-character discussions with 0 arguments and there you are, starting a great debate with smart people on both sides. Thanks for this treat!
Great response. Not just the topic and the research, but the actual way you went through his criticisms, responded to them levelheadedly, accepted the ones where he bested you, and provided logical counter claims. I plan on using this series in my English classes to show students how discourse should be done.
In both videos, Clarence has demonstrated an impressive degree of critical thinking. I appreciate how his analysis is usually well-rounded and draws from multiple fields, including basic science and historical perspectives. Clarence, if you're reading this, hats off to you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, down the road, you eventually do a PhD thesis or something on this topic.
I'm 19 now I live in the US and it's definitely been quite demoralizing seeing the amount of corruption in sports I really wanted to be at a high level competitively in Weightlifting but I think I'll just stick to doing this recreationally maybe eventually this will get better but who knows again thank you Clarence for doing this stay safe you 200% Natty Vegan Bodybuilder 🤍
The roll out of Clarence’s opinions on doping was set up better than the MCU. He drops hints heavily that he’s using more and more frequently, to admitting, to giving his thoughts on Anti-Doping. Next we’ll be finding out the intricacies of his cycle and what his natty limit was before he turned to the dark-side. Maybe I’m wrong.
One of the poorest guys in my class was a state wrestler. But he was a farm kid and had access to hog and cow steroids. He was huge, and very agressive.
The thing that doesn't sit well with me when it comes to anti doping is that, a future where we've made such leaps in improving our everyday lives and activities through performance enhancing medication (if we want to) is improbable in our lifetime because progress in that field is now somehow tied to the legal frameworks imposed by sports entertainment. It's ironic cause we're making so many attempts to improve our lives otherwise.
I don't know anyone that takes medicine to improve their lives, unless they have an underlying medical condition or illness that requires it. Nothing is free. Improving an aspect of your life with non-essential medication will cause a diminution of another aspect of your life
Besides the fact that Clarence has put out two solid and highly informative videos, he then opens himself to criticism and engages in civil discourse responding to said criticism. An example for all of us
I feel like we need a video of Clarence going through different lifters and telling us with his natty or not super eyes whether they are life long natty, currently on the juice, or used juice but currently natty
13:37 based. Another great video and I hope these videos keep inspiring people to ask questions and learn so that we may get a better solution for the future of all sports. The point about being honest about athletes and their use of PEDs and teaching the public, especially children, about this reality is a discussion that should definitely exist more openly.
He literally just needs a good coach and properly funded doping to be competitive on the world stage. I'm sure this subject is something that he's very much deeply opinionated about
This was incredible. I personally believe that the money these organizations make on the backs of their top athletes should bar them from testing in the first place. These federations have had their cake and been eating it too for far too long, pretending they want to ban these fighters and play by the rules when it’s a bunch of BS...
@@manofgod7622 clearly haven't thought it through a lot, clarence's arguments are bulletproof. PEDs that are easy to test for are safer to use and PEDs that are harder to test for are more harmful to health. If PEDs were legal then people would take the safer drugs and would be able to do proper post-cycle care with the help of their doctor which they can't do when PEDs are illegal.
@@AmisTheos BS. Even if PEDs were legal there would always be athletes who go for the stronger illegal PEDs. They would still win competitions, probably die sooner, but still a win nonetheless. That's like saying if marijuana were legal everywhere, then people wouldn't do cocaine. And you don't even win medals doing cocaine!!
@@ronniemillsap for the sake of argument. I think it's only logical you separate what can be separated. Especially when the morality and legality asks different questions and have different issues
@@danielhenderson762 yeh but it’s all fun and games wanting to say well stop ped use but it clearly doesn’t work which Clarence explained. Doesn’t work so it’s clearly not the right strategy to have.
@@psilocybinenthusiast3695 what? How is this an argument against anything that I said? I'm just saying it makes sense to separate morality and legality when discussing the issues
I believe in your last list the first question should be, "what problem is anti doping trying to solve?" A good argument can only be made once everybody agrees on the foundational premises and I believe there are multiple pivots like fairness, health, accessibility to Peds etc. Without agreeing on a common foundation you'll only be talking past each other. Once that is established then the efficacy of that system, the fallout from the system, intentional and unintentional and finally alternatives addressing the shortcomings etc can be discussed.
i love the simplicity, how its not you sitting in front of a camera talking, its just evidence after evidence and your not hiding behind fear its just what you think and why, very professional and i personally believe this is a good, well informed discussion rather than just finger pointing
fuuuuckin hell, you slam-dunked his arguments. GJ Clarence, even better than your first video honestly. I agree with you, as a non-competitive lifter I tried peptides when I was 19 to decrease recovery time. Knowing that it was a legal gray area, I didn't consult with a doctor, and beyond that since it is a legal gray area the fact is very few doctors could give me any actual informed guidance. With PEDs largely being illegal, recreational users ultimately are at the mercy of their own research standards. I waded through whitepapers going back to the 60s to make sure I wasn't fucking with my hormones or creating a time bomb, but I doubt the large majority of users of PEDs do the same level of research, or are capable even to understand that research enough to make an informed decision. I am a college educated scientist, so I have relevant background/training to make a somewhat informed decision, but I doubt everyone using tren can even understand the forward of a whitepaper. With most PEDs being essentially illegal, no doctors are available to give informed advice to users, so it ultimately results in far greater harm. Use without education is the norm, which would happen less often if PEDs were legal and not so stigmatized.
29:30 Seb makes the argument that WADA will ban a substance if it violate 2 of the 3 criteria: 1- enhances performance 2- creates a health risk to the user 3- violates the spirit of sport in that it is not easily accessible to all the athletes In his video he made mention of creatine and how even though it does enhance performance, it is not unsafe to use and is easy and readily available to athletes all over the world, therefore it is not banned. My argument is that TRT doses of testosterone will certainly enhance performance, at those doses it is not unsafe to use, and it is easily and readily available all over the world; Yet it is banned.
@@Unloadonyou that in the USA, but really i dont know if anywhere. certainly the average gym goer in my country doesnt use. Ive never ever been offered to buy... And the SARMS i have actually found in market are way too expensive for the average gym goer. like 5x more expensive than whey, and 4lbs whey being about 1/10th of the median salary
@@vittocrazi Whether you can afford it or not is irrelevant. Testosterone is readily available. Trust me when I tell you the average user doesn't even look like they use. People think steroids are magic and don't require hard work.
At the points on 34:50 I almost started crying. The 4th point I almost started crying, I also somewhat agree with the 3rd point aswell. By gloryfying highlevel sports we make people turn something enjoybale into something in which we have to dedicate ourselves fully to, which can be detrimental in the long run as it takes away other aspects of life. Plus being a highlevel athlethe you don't really produce anything worthwhile to society other than the funds you acquire which can in theory are other peoples money. Thereby you can redistribute other peoples money to help like with charities or starting something prosocial for yourself. I really think sports is at it's best when it promotes health, social interaction and fun, and the other things that highlevel sports bring are illusions of what is good.
Do you think the “American athletes most likely clean” applies to the elite US shot putters like kovacs and crouser? The popular belief in the throws world is that kovacs’ 2019 throw of 22.91m is the clean WR. Just curious, really liking this discussion series
Most of the parents that have their children involved in this already know what will be required for their children to even have a chance to compete. This is a very difficult discussion. It makes me cringe mostly for 14-16 year old kids that are forced to take this. If you’re an adult competitor that’s one thing, but a kid , and young teenage girls!? Man oh man...
At my high school a football players dad was giving his son EQ. Kid went on to be a top running back at his college and a first round draft pick in the NFL, he was #9 pick.
The questions you posed at the end are, in my opinion, good questions to ask when it comes to deciding whether or not the current anti-doping system is performing adequately and, if it is not, whether the solution is to just straight-out eliminate anti-doping (i.e. a free for all) or put in place a different sort of anti-doping approach (say, for example, a system that tests athlete's basic health markers to ensure some sort of "minimal health to compete"). I do have some issues at least one item from list of "things that are possible right now that can be encouraged". Why is it your opinion that "people and parents in particular should discourage children from high level sport"? Sports -- high level or even a few levels below it -- are not risk free endeavors; the "payback" of a gold medal, a shiny $10 or 10-GBP object for winning a regional comp, or a PR that ranks you as the best within a 150 kilometer radius of where you sleep at night is somewhat minor compared to negative things that only COULD happen to you in pursuit of any of these goals. . . but that's kind of the point and kind of the learning experience that make sport beneficial for youth. I've seen a very high proportion of folks who worked to compete at the top of the national-collegiate (Div 1 in US), regional-international, and international-Olympic/professional level go on to then accomplish quite a bit in their post-sporting, professional lives. Did the drive that got them fairly high-up in the sporting world (heck, I'll even allow for the possibility that some of them took PEDs) not provide life lessons that they then took forward to success in their longer-term, definitely-not-in-sports careers? Might the drive that makes Clarence Kennedy want to chase a 200kg snatch and 230kg C&J, even if he's not going to do it on a formal competition platform, also facilitate the development (or just solidify the existence of) drive that will make him successful in other, more long-term endeavors in life? Is it not possible that his acquisition of broader bases of knowledge, and development of an ability to clearly articulate his views on portions of this knowledge, be related to this drive for excellence that most likely had to be, at least in part, fostered by his participation in high-level (or at least higher-level) sport? My kids do participate in sport and are encouraged to pursue it to that highest level. . . they're not lied to and told that it will be easy and that it will only require hard work and chicken/broccoli/rice; but they are told that sacrifices may have to be made as they seek to progress from one level to the next, and that they should move forward only when they've closely considered the reality of those sacrifices.
I really like this long-form format of back and forth debate. Calm disposition and logical arguments without interrupting without emotionally charged language that spirals into fights. The real winners are the viewers - I think we all gain a much more nuanced view of both sides and are able to come to better decisions. Be great to see presidential debates conducted in this manner as well.
In an utopia where PED's are legal all around the world the following would probably happen: - Pharmaceutical companies would see it as a business opportunity - More secure and effective drugs would be developed - Lot's of trials and research in universities would start, benefiting sick people, average joes and athletes - Those studies would be shared across the scientific community, making some substances replicable on other countries, creating competition between labs, lowering price overall (and be fairer as a result) - Creating more jobs / profits on research labs, pharmacies and sports doctors, nutritionists, trainers and fitness business as a consequence - People dreams (about being successful at sports / fitness goals) would not be shattered or be more securely attainable / realistic - Sports would see a revolution both in securing athletes health and longevity on their careers and also on performance peaking
The argument that I would make for the 13:30 statement around performance being down would be as a matter of the prestige of weightlifting in the current era as compared to the 80s. The best genetics aren’t weightlifting currently as there is more incentive for them to be playing any number of sports which are far more lucrative.
Thanks to CrossFit, weightlifting is actually more widely recognised and even prestigious in Western countries than it was in the 80’s. The big change was the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain into capitalist countries. There is definitely less prestige in those countries than there used to be. As far as more lucrative sports attracting would be weightlifters I think that is a faulty argument. In nearly every sport, taller people have an advantage. Because of the weight classes weightlifting has and always had more than it’s fair share of shorter people.
@@22448824 Crossfit has been good for general gym culture for sure. (barbells and platforms being in big box gyms i think definitely can be credited to crossfit), but it doesn't attract elite genetics during their formative years. Basketball, Football, Baseball, Soccer, Hockey are picking up the best -- (both cricket and rugby can be added to make the list more international). During the 1980's it was the height of the cold war. Competition between USSA and USA was at peak fervor. This was much more important for Olympian in general. Also the amount of money in sport (for the athlete) has dramatically increased. The NFL paid something like 90k on average in the early 80s. Now it is something like 3 million.
It's been nice to hear so much about your thoughts Clarence, it's also been nice to see that you're able to hold fairly controversial views without being dogmatic, and welcome fair criticism and opposing arguments from "the other side"
Level the field. Openly share the best drugs, and provide access for all. I am fine with a top fuel dragster class of competition. We all have to balance risk with reward.
great, then make sure no kids are ever taught to play sports and look to play for a living etc. i'm, fine with it if sports arent marketed to children if you want to juice everyone
I’d prefer that and the kids knowing what they’re gonna have to get into to go pro at the highest levels of the sport, than the lie we tell them now about how they can get to the highest levels without drugs- only for them to realise they can’t when they grow up, and have their entire life be a lie. Read some other comments in this section, loads of people have gone through that.
@@ronniemillsap I am asuming a touch of sarcasm there, but considering all the top (heavy) wrestlers in my high school were on roids. (In a rural school) We should probably only have high cardio / low strength sports (like soccer) in schools.
The 3 questions at the end are really good. For me I'd say 1: I believe it would ultimately result in more harm within sports if PEDs were allowed, seeing how insanely driven the kind of people who compete at the highest level are. 2: Without anti-doping it would probably be more fair. The difference in advantage that a country with special designer drugs has compared to a country that would use standard run-of-the-mill PEDs would be way smaller than a country that has state-sponsered doping and one that does not. 3: Anti-doping probably creates more corruption. Yes, corruption will try to manifest with just about anything, but anti-doping creates a way bigger potential for corruption. To use the example Seb used: lying about bodyweights could happen, but it's probably way easier to police that. And the advantage gained is very small compared to using PEDs, seeing how you probably never could get away with being more than say 5 kg overweight.
Wealthy countries = better PEDs is a bit reductive too. That's not really how the politics of doping works. Even poor nations can afford to pump money into doping programs.
@extra extra I'mjust messing around. :) There is a small fluctuation in his voice at that point if you pay close attention. This of course doesn't really justify my comment, but Clarence is so incredibly collected and his tone is so flat throughout his videos that even this ever so slight raising of his voice stands out to me. That was the joke.
I like that you're willing to make the point that we should discourage children from high level sports and stop glorifying them. I feel more and more like sports are best when they're enjoyed with the people around you and when competition can be kept at a healthy level. Idolizing high level sports leads to a culture where a lot more people are interested in watching sports than getting involved with them for their practical benefits.
I don't know if it's just me, but I don't think Seb really knows much about anabolic steroids or PED's in general. How they're used and what they can or can't do. How different drugs are tested for. The general effective dossing of anabolic for various goals which can be vastly different. He's seems to just be a little lacking in general knowledge of the topic.
Very good debate Clarence. Really love you are doing more of talking. You should write a research paper and get it publish. This will bring on more professional views and feedback of the topic.
@@clarence0 I think WADA can't risk losing (more) face for that introspection, and it's indeed a long shot they are doing it internally. If powers that be really cared about sport, WADA would be a health organisation for the athletes. Any other pursuit is futile because it's our evolutionary trait to develop and use tools (doping in this case) to prevail against the odds.
I want to comment on some of the end questions here: 1. Depends on which sport, in professional cycling there has been a sucessful reduction in usage of harmful compounds like EPO, which mainly was achieved through governing bodies like Wada, UCI and the MPCC. Of course Doping still happens, but not even close to that rampant level of the 90's. 2. The Advantage only applies if they don't get caught. A fair System punishes those who don't follow regulations and rewards those who do. 3. Nationalism and Money corrupts people, I'm sure every sportsperson would prefer a fair and sportsmanlike contest, but they are not the ones to decide, it's the owners and politicians who are corrupting sport for their own gain. With or without Anti-Doping Bodies Huge fan btw
this TOPIC i probably very important for the entire CENTURY if not more. humans are able to manipulate his body in sport but not only. the problems we are solving argumenting here. are way more important than we think
The problem with equating doping to true immoral activities (theft, murder, rape, etc.), is that the legal system is flawed. A legislator can appoint literally any activity as a crime, pass a bill to a congress or senate and have it approved, if he so chooses under the pretense of democracy. People are automatically equating PED's with evil because of a legislation and not because it's immoral, which already proves one of Clarence's points.
Legal systems are the real conspiracy, real Illuminati, who says they should have any power to even make laws surrounding non-super immoral “crimes” ... absolute joke, wake up world, same 60 year old frail obese politicians smoking and eating McDonald’s making laws about how us commoner peasants must live our lives
These are great videos, highly enjoyable. Both of you guys did a great job and remained professional and cordial. Bravo to you both! If only we could get this respectable back and forth in other areas of discussion more important than, don't hate me, weightlifting; then I think people would be much better served.
Hey Clarence I agree with most of what you have said in both parts of these videos. I think the best way tho to prevent doping as much as possible is to strike lifters and coaches with not only permanent bans to competing but also with HUGE financial fines so that lifters would be afraid to even try to cheat the system even if the chance of suceeding is much greater than in failing. I think it would also scare coaches away of promoting or even talking about drugs in the early stages of the development of the lifter that they are coaching. I think in general we as humans are motivated either by fear of something or by the sense of acomplishment, so in order to prevent doping as much as possible, fear of cheating the system must be higher than the reward of winning the olympic gold (which I agree is very hardly attainable but not necessarily impossible). Hopefully you can elaborate more on this if you think that it is a valid argument
To understand where this approach falls apart, read about the concept of deterrence in the context of penology. The perceived likelihood that one will be caught is far more effective as a deterrent than the severity of the punishment.
