Axtech wrote:It makes less sense to completely disregard the possibility of steroid involvement than to consider it as a possibility.
http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/benoitpressrelease wrote: 1. The authorities stated that all drugs found in the house were believed to be legal prescriptions.
2. Steroids were not, and could not, be related to the cause of death (asphyxiation). Authorities had no factual basis to speculate as to Benoit’s state of mind, and rightly did not do so.
3. Toxicology tests have not even been completed, so there is no current evidence that Benoit even had steroids or any other substance in his body. In that regard, on the last test done on Benoit by WWE's independently administered drug testing program, done on April 10, 2007, Benoit tested negative.
4. The physical findings announced by authorities indicate deliberation, not rage. The wife's feet and hands were bound and she was asphyxiated, not beaten to death. By the account of the authorities, there were substantial periods of time between the death of the wife and the death of the son, again suggesting deliberate thought, not rage. The presence of a Bible by each is also not an act of rage.
5. WWE strongly suggests that it is entirely wrong for speculators to suggest that steroids had anything to do with these senseless acts, especially when the authorities plainly stated there is no evidence that Benoit had steroids in his body, pending the toxicological reports, and that they had no evidence at this time as to the motive for these acts.
Driven wrote:Lando wrote:fine. insanity. there's no justifiable reason to kill a child, the effects of steroids seemed to be the most logical explanation.
So for any person who's ever killed someone under the age of 10, chances are it's because of steroids?
He could have been affected by the steroids, but I don't think this was a case of roid rage.
Driven wrote:Lando said that he couldn't fathom anyone doing that, and because he's associated with steroids and pro wrestling, automatically made the assumption of 'roid rage. It was a premature idea.
Axtech wrote:It makes less sense to completely disregard the possibility of steroid involvement than to consider it as a possibility.
Random Name wrote:Axtech wrote:It makes less sense to completely disregard the possibility of steroid involvement than to consider it as a possibility.http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/benoitpressrelease wrote:
3. Toxicology tests have not even been completed, so there is no current evidence that Benoit even had steroids or any other substance in his body. In that regard, on the last test done on Benoit by WWE's independently administered drug testing program, done on April 10, 2007, Benoit tested negative.
5. WWE strongly suggests that it is entirely wrong for speculators to suggest that steroids had anything to do with these senseless acts, especially when the authorities plainly stated there is no evidence that Benoit had steroids in his body, pending the toxicological reports, and that they had no evidence at this time as to the motive for these acts.
Lando wrote: number 3 is not a fact. It's extremely easy to beat drug testing, especially in an industry that doesn't police it because they're against it, but because they're forced to by law.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests
Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC - 6 hours • PHPBB Powered
Serving Our Lady Peace fans since 2002. Oskar Twitch thanks you for tasting the monkey brains.