<div>
(faz @ Sep. 04 2006,11:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(quadancer @ Sep. 02 2006,02:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Faz, the pics of the brits were awesome. Now, despite what I said before, these guys are
freaky! But not with unnatural size, but maxing out the body and getting freaky CUT! I do believe that they both are natural, however, to get where they are takes a bit more dedication than most of the rest of us 'normal' guys have time or inclination for. I'd say they were at their 'genetic limits' if there really is such a thing.
For me, and maybe some others, size counts more when you have to run around in a shirt all day. I'd rather be just a bit chunky with beef (like Omega man?) than look just like anyone else on the street in my clothes. And this I can do with food alone, no doubt.</div>
quad they are definatly natural...the npa has a 7yr non drug taking stance...but i agree about them being ripped but thats the condition you have to get in to win a natty comp..its all about illusion..you look good in your pic mate but if you lost a stone tanned up under the right lights you would look even bigger
</div>
Question being though is if there's any way to effectively enforce that rule.
All in all for people at the extremes of mass use is obvious, but for somewhat normal sized people it's impossible to know. While a guy may not be huge and just cut really well, the lack of raw mass doesn't preclude steroid use or the use of other hormones like GH. And since Coleman tests 'clean' for his shows I think it's fairly obvious testing can be very loose and/or easy to circumvent.