I piss of Craig Davidson author of the esquire roid article

[NoNameNecessary]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading through all of this. Thank you all.

[EMISGOD]

Craig Davidson also has a pretty amusing story on nerve.com called XXL, though I presume it's not the same one as in Esquire that I invite you all to check out...

[EMISGOD]

i hate each and every one of you.

This was not a very pleasant thing to say...I think you need to haul yourself into the corner for a little "time-out" there, Mister!

[EMartNJ]

This was not a very pleasant thing to say...I think you need to haul yourself into the corner for a little "time-out" there, Mister!

nah. . .

you have to wonder who actually reads his blog though

[psych]

This was not a very pleasant thing to say...I think you need to haul yourself into the corner for a little "time-out" there, Mister!

lol @ this thread

i'm sure davidson is enjoying himself reading this thread too

i do agree a few things might have been exagerated for the sake of the story, but it still reinforces some of the negative stereotypes bbers have to deal with.

as for OP lol .. oh man lets just leave that alone lol .....

[EMartNJ]

as for OP lol .. oh man lets just leave that alone lol .....

i think you people are looking at this the wrong way

[user98511001541]

i think you people are looking at this the wrong way

how else are we supposed to look at it???

[Branch Chain Blink]

how else are we supposed to look at it???

x2?

[EMartNJ]

how else are we supposed to look at it???

in a way that doesnt make me look like a jackass

he was a lot more professional than i expected it was a failed experiment probably shouldnt have posted it. Regardless were straying from the point that his article was hurtful to a cause many of you believe in.

[Branch Chain Blink]

in a way that doesnt make me look like a jackass

he was a lot more professional than i expected it was a failed experiment probably shouldnt have posted it. Regardless were straying from the point that his article was hurtful to a cause many of you believe in.

The media already hates steroids. People write stupid, uneducated **** about them all the time. Nothing we can do is going to change that.


And no, you shouldn't have posted it, because all you're doing is making yourself look like an idiot.

[EMartNJ]

The media already hates steroids. People write stupid, uneducated **** about them all the time. Nothing we can do is going to change that.


And no, you shouldn't have posted it, because all you're doing is making yourself look like an idiot.

ill redeem myself

[NoNameNecessary]

ill redeem myself

The only way to redeem yourself was if you went back in time and changed the thread title to "Failed attempt to piss off Craig Davidson - I get pwned".

[Branch Chain Blink]

The only way to redeem yourself was if you went back in time and changed the thread title to "Failed attempt to piss off Craig Davidson - I get pwned".

Yes, this would make me lol

[EMartNJ]

you just gotta trust me on this one

[EMISGOD]

nah. . .

you have to wonder who actually reads his blog though

I read it. If all of his stuff is as good/amusing as the nerve.com article: http://www.nerve.com/fiction/davidson/xxl/, I'd say he's on to something. If it is as dry as his Esquire article: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=106542271, it will be very difficult for me to continue following his writing. I personally suggest that everyone read both, however, if you're interested in this debate at all.

in a way that doesnt make me look like a jackass

You didn't need his help there...

he was a lot more professional than i expected it was a failed experiment probably shouldnt have posted it. Regardless were straying from the point that his article was hurtful to a cause many of you believe in.

I don't know that it was particularly hurtful. The nerve.com article would be moreso there, despite the grandiose hyperbole in it...the problem with the Esquire article is that Davidson did not clean up the details. Sure, it's a little thing to confusing serving size (13g) with a full can (32.5g) regarding protein content of tuna, but that error is incredibly magnified when the author insists he choked down 20 cans of tuna in one day, which would put him at almost double the protein target number he set for himself and triple the number, in terms of gram to ratio of bodyweight.

This is only one example, but it's telling that both Davidson and the Esquire editors did not notice such an elementary error. Then again, they are probably admittedly neither bodybuilders nor interested in the culture nor nutritionists or dietitians and very likely know no better. I found him to either be grossly downplaying his research or to be possessing outright a rather astonishing degree of ignorance into the activity he was undertaking.

This, then, gets down to motivation. WTF was he attempting to do here? Was he trying to portray it as some lunkhead who wants to get juiced and starts grasping at random electronic straws scattered around the internet, hoping one of them hits? If he was trying to approach it from a boxer's standpoint, it's hard for me to believe any trainer would not be giving him some very strongly-worded advice and perhaps several well-placed foots in the ass. It's nothing new for a writer to take on jobs merely to learn more about a specific activity. I've done it, Hemingway did it, narrowing it to sports, George Plimpton made an entire career out of it, damn near. This is the concept most confusing to me of this entire thing. The point is entirely elusive about what he hoped to accomplish, other than to know what it is to be a pincushion or to walk into a forest of porcupines blindfolded.

[EMartNJ]

I read it. If all of his stuff is as good/amusing as the nerve.com article: http://www.nerve.com/fiction/davidson/xxl/, I'd say he's on to something. If it is as dry as his Esquire article: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=106542271, it will be very difficult for me to continue following his writing. I personally suggest that everyone read both, however, if you're interested in this debate at all.



You didn't need his help there...



I don't know that it was particularly hurtful. The nerve.com article would be moreso there, despite the grandiose hyperbole in it...the problem with the Esquire article is that Davidson did not clean up the details. Sure, it's a little thing to confusing serving size (13g) with a full can (32.5g) regarding protein content of tuna, but that error is incredibly magnified when the author insists he choked down 20 cans of tuna in one day, which would put him at almost double the protein target number he set for himself and triple the number, in terms of gram to ratio of bodyweight.

This is only one example, but it's telling that both Davidson and the Esquire editors did not notice such an elementary error. Then again, they are probably admittedly neither bodybuilders nor interested in the culture nor nutritionists or dietitians and very likely know no better. I found him to either be grossly downplaying his research or to be possessing outright a rather astonishing degree of ignorance into the activity he was undertaking.

This, then, gets down to motivation. WTF was he attempting to do here? Was he trying to portray it as some lunkhead who wants to get juiced and starts grasping at random electronic straws scattered around the internet, hoping one of them hits? If he was trying to approach it from a boxer's standpoint, it's hard for me to believe any trainer would not be giving him some very strongly-worded advice and perhaps several well-placed foots in the ass. It's nothing new for a writer to take on jobs merely to learn more about a specific activity. I've done it, Hemingway did it, narrowing it to sports, George Plimpton made an entire career out of it, damn near. This is the concept most confusing to me of this entire thing. The point is entirely elusive about what he hoped to accomplish, other than to know what it is to be a pincushion or to walk into a forest of porcupines blindfolded.

well written.

But my point is he still hasnt commented on the validity of the article which i think screams that he doesnt want to admit he made it up. . . thats the real point of the post. he dances around it

he also calls steroids narcotics in that nerve article which just isnt true

[EMISGOD]

well written.

But my point is he still hasnt commented on the validity of the article which i think screams that he doesnt want to admit he made it up. . . thats the real point of the post. he dances around it

he also calls steroids narcotics in that nerve article which just isnt true

Well, perhaps the "real" point was obfuscated when you elected to title the thread with braggadocious bull**** that you pissed off a guy from another country who wrote an article that you didn't like...

He, in point of fact, HAS commented on the validity of the article, inasmuch as he went through the whole clandestine cloak and dagger **** to get the pins and the gear, as well as specifically stating he went through all of that. Did you actually read any of what he wrote to you or were you too busy trying (in vain) to think up clever responses?

You seem to want something iron-clad here, I guess, some picture (oh noez, Photoshop FTW) or video footage (oh noez, CGI FTW) or perhaps having the author within your direct line of sight at all times for three months while he shoots **** right into his old bum-bum and eats all your tuna at the pace of 20 cans a clip because he can't accurately count grams of protein...maybe his next article, you two can work that out and you can counsel him with your wise and sage advice about the intricate ins and outs of PCT...

As to the "narcotics", very few people in general know what the word was intended to mean, so him using it in the context of "illegal" drug contraband as well his absence of accuracy in the details (as I've already mentioned) is not particularly surprising...perhaps he is the spearhead of the new evolution for the word "narcotic" as it moves into an expanded meaning...while inaccurate, his use of "narcotic" here is nowhere near as glaring as the protein gram counting mistake...

[psych]

Well, perhaps the "real" point was obfuscated when you elected to title the thread with braggadocious bull**** that you apissed off a guy from another country who wrote an article that you didn't like...

He, in point of fact, HAS commented on the validity of the article, inasmuch as he went through the whole clandestine cloak and dagger **** to get the pins and the gear, as well as specifically stating he went through all of that. Did you actually read any of what he wrote to you or were you too busy trying (in vain) to think up clever responses?

You seem to want something iron-clad here, I guess, some picture (oh noez, Photoshop FTW) or video footage (oh noez, CGI FTW) or perhaps having the author within your direct line of sight at all times for three months while he shoots **** right into his old bum-bum and eats all your tuna at the pace of 20 cans at a time because he can't accurately count grams of protein...maybe his next article, you two can work that out and you can counsel him with your wise and sage advice about the intricate ins and outs of PCT...

lol
damn i love it when you post XD

[EMartNJ]

Well, perhaps the "real" point was obfuscated when you elected to title the thread with braggadocious bull**** that you apissed off a guy from another country who wrote an article that you didn't like...

He, in point of fact, HAS commented on the validity of the article, inasmuch as he went through the whole clandestine cloak and dagger **** to get the pins and the gear, as well as specifically stating he went through all of that. Did you actually read any of what he wrote to you or were you too busy trying (in vain) to think up clever responses?

You seem to want something iron-clad here, I guess, some picture (oh noez, Photoshop FTW) or video footage (oh noez, CGI FTW) or perhaps having the author within your direct line of sight at all times for three months while he shoots **** right into his old bum-bum and eats all your tuna at the pace of 20 cans at a time because he can't accurately count grams of protein...maybe his next article, you two can work that out and you can counsel him with your wise and sage advice about the intricate ins and outs of PCT...

what does him being canadian have to do with anything? He made up the side effects in the article and refused to comment on them. out of 8 emails he included ONE sentence not even an entire email ONE sentence on the validity of his side effects. the point is he lied and wont admit it. eh?

[EMISGOD]

what does him being canadian have to do with anything? He made up the side effects in the article and refused to comment on them. out of 8 emails he included ONE sentence not even an entire email ONE sentence on the validity of his side effects. the point is he lied and wont admit it. eh?

I see. You feel the side effects he describes in his article are entirely fictitious and since your mind is made up on that, nothing less than a direct admission from him to that effect will suffice, eh?

A further point is that Davidson bailing out of conversation with you makes him smarter than one more person and that would be me, as he evidently saw this long before I did...I thought you might have had even the glimmering of an actual point, but evidently I was mistaken...

So, just to clarify, since I've already wasted time on this and might as well screw it all the way over and go whole hog, are you saying the sides he described are fictitious and don't exist at all or that him saying he had them to any extent is a lie or are you saying that he had them but is dramatically over-emphasizing them? Also, at what point did you examine him to verify that you are standing on a factual basis here? What were the circumstances and when was this?

[EMISGOD]

Since I note that Davidson has made yet another BLOG post about this and apparently is still reading:

CRAIG:

The can of tuna on the "howstuffworks" site was cute, but it doesn't say 13g for the can. It somewhat clearly says "per serving". The can label also says 2.5 servings per can, which makes it, again, 32.5g for the can, NOT 13. I find it impossible to believe you (and by extension, Esquire) cannot intellectually negotiate a nutritional label...

The can in that picture, incidentally, is Chicken Of The Sea, the same tuna I eat plenty of (never 20 cans in a day, though)...

Feel free to post that information, which is an actual correction, at any point, Craig and in that instance, both you and the proofs at Esquire pooched it.

[EMartNJ]

I see. You feel the side effects he describes in his article are entirely fictitious and since your mind is made up on that, nothing less than a direct admission from him to that effect will suffice, eh?

A further point is that Davidson bailing out of conversation with you makes him smarter than one more person and that would be me, as he evidently saw this long before I did...I thought you might have had even the glimmering of an actual point, but evidently I was mistaken...

So, just to clarify, since I've already wasted time on this and might as well screw it all the way over and go whole hog, are you saying the sides he described are fictitious and don't exist at all or that him saying he had them to any extent is a lie or are you saying that he had them but is dramatically over-emphasizing them? Also, at what point did you examine him to verify that you are standing on a factual basis here? What were the circumstances and when was this?

Judging by what the people in the steroid section said and my own opinion I do not think that the side effects he 'experienced' are plausible and if they happen in some capacity he grossly exaggerated them. The fact that he refused to offer any evidence outside of his article regarding his sides leads me to believe that I am right.

Admittedly I went about this the completely wrong way and should have approached it more civilly to make my point more valid that he exaggerated and/or made up a lot of the article.

Regardless my point stands that his experience is highly unlikely to be true and his refusal to provide any other evidence is testament to this.

[EMISGOD]

Judging by what the people in the steroid section said and my own opinion I do not think that the side effects he 'experienced' are plausible and if they happen in some capacity he grossly exaggerated them. The fact that he refused to offer any evidence outside of his article regarding his sides leads me to believe that I am right.

Well, this is a start. What possible evidence could he offer and why would he ever need to? The article is sold and the check from Esquire will cash and the truth is still the truth, no matter if Emart17 believes it for what it is or not...

Admittedly I went about this the completely wrong way and should have approached it more civilly to make my point more valid that he exaggerated and/or made up a lot of the article.

Regardless my point stands that his experience is highly unlikely to be true and his refusal to provide any other evidence is testament to this.

You are not exactly using particularly scientific qualifications here...everyone who posts in the steroid section could also be lying. In fact, everyone online and everyone writing for any periodical in the entire world could also be lying, for that matter.

You conjecture that his experience is "highly unlikely" to be true is a rather ill-informed opinion and nothing more. His silence is not an admission of guilt or even a slight concession that you have a point as much as a dismissal of you as a gnat that is not worth his time to even raise a hand to wave you away...you don't know his body chemistry or even what he was taking. Quite frankly, neither does he, but given that he was there to experience the effects (positive and negative) and you are getting all of your information on the subject in general several times removed and then making the idiotic error of trying to apply it to him specifically, it is nonsense not to take him at his word because of anything you're typing. Even assuming you're right in actuality, the burden is on you to prove him guilty (which you have not even remotely done), not for him to prove himself innocent.

[EMartNJ]

Well, this is a start. What possible evidence could he offer and why would he ever need to? The article is sold and the check from Esquire will cash and the truth is still the truth, no matter if Emart17 believes it for what it is or not...



You are not exactly using particularly scientific qualifications here...everyone who posts in the steroid section could also be lying. In fact, everyone online and everyone writing for any periodical in the entire world could also be lying, for that matter.

You conjecture that his experience is "highly unlikely" to be true is a rather ill-informed opinion and nothing more. His silence is not an admission of guilt or even a slight concession that you have a point as much as a dismissal of you as a gnat that is not worth his time to even raise a hand to wave you away...you don't know his body chemistry or even what he was taking. Quite frankly, neither does he, but given that he was there to experience the effects (positive and negative) and you are getting all of your information on the subject in general several times removed and then making the idiotic error of trying to apply it to him specifically, it is nonsense not to take him at his word because of anything you're typing. Even assuming you're right in actuality, the burden is on you to prove him guilty (which you have not even remotely done), not for him to prove himself innocent.

I disagree with the gnat comment because he did take time to write several emails (six or seven) and write two entries in his blog on it. As far as the rest is concerned I agree that innocent until proven guilty is the correct doctrine to apply in this case however my only recourse in this case is anecdotal and based on my own brosearch. There are members on this board that agree with me despite the lack of admissable evidence.

[carpet1456]

Feeling = mutual.. oh yeah, 3 more days till reneg

LMFAO!!!!!!!!
he has a countdown.. I love it

[Kernkraft]

I read it. If all of his stuff is as good/amusing as the nerve.com article: http://www.nerve.com/fiction/davidson/xxl/, I'd say he's on to something. If it is as dry as his Esquire article: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=106542271, it will be very difficult for me to continue following his writing. I personally suggest that everyone read both, however, if you're interested in this debate at all.



You didn't need his help there...



I don't know that it was particularly hurtful. The nerve.com article would be moreso there, despite the grandiose hyperbole in it...the problem with the Esquire article is that Davidson did not clean up the details. Sure, it's a little thing to confusing serving size (13g) with a full can (32.5g) regarding protein content of tuna, but that error is incredibly magnified when the author insists he choked down 20 cans of tuna in one day, which would put him at almost double the protein target number he set for himself and triple the number, in terms of gram to ratio of bodyweight.

This is only one example, but it's telling that both Davidson and the Esquire editors did not notice such an elementary error. Then again, they are probably admittedly neither bodybuilders nor interested in the culture nor nutritionists or dietitians and very likely know no better. I found him to either be grossly downplaying his research or to be possessing outright a rather astonishing degree of ignorance into the activity he was undertaking.

This, then, gets down to motivation. WTF was he attempting to do here? Was he trying to portray it as some lunkhead who wants to get juiced and starts grasping at random electronic straws scattered around the internet, hoping one of them hits? If he was trying to approach it from a boxer's standpoint, it's hard for me to believe any trainer would not be giving him some very strongly-worded advice and perhaps several well-placed foots in the ass. It's nothing new for a writer to take on jobs merely to learn more about a specific activity. I've done it, Hemingway did it, narrowing it to sports, George Plimpton made an entire career out of it, damn near. This is the concept most confusing to me of this entire thing. The point is entirely elusive about what he hoped to accomplish, other than to know what it is to be a pincushion or to walk into a forest of porcupines blindfolded.

Great points and well written Emis.

[PrisonerDilemma]

Damn

Good way to procrastinate for finals

[UHCougar05]

lol
damn i love it when you post XD

Me too. EMI is the kind of guy that can tell you to go to hell, but word it in such a way that you'll actually enjoy the trip.

[EMISGOD]

I disagree with the gnat comment because he did take time to write several emails (six or seven) and write two entries in his blog on it. As far as the rest is concerned I agree that innocent until proven guilty is the correct doctrine to apply in this case however my only recourse in this case is anecdotal and based on my own brosearch. There are members on this board that agree with me despite the lack of admissable evidence.

I'm referring more to the last "brush-off" email he sent to you as well as his lack of apparent further participation with you. The BLOG entries do not seem to be specifically about you; the first one was about your thread and the second was about other threads as well as the daring and elan some displayed in pointing out the author's errors, which he seemingly steadfastly refuses to acknowledge.

I found his BLOG posts amusing. Fiction writers don't need fact-checkers...three cheers for rationalization! It has evidently not dawned on him that fiction writers tend to more thoroughly check facts and implications than do non-fiction writers, but it's a case of everyone except him, I guess.

Your brosearch is tailored to agree with your opinion, so no real surprise there. That you found persons to agree with you adds nothing to the argument one way or another. It is perfectly meaningless, considering that ANYONE who looks long and hard enough can find persons to agree with them about anything...

Mr. Davidson is far from a perfect writer and his excuses about his rather clumsy handling of protein gram counting do not help his cause much. However, if you're going to take umbrage with something he has written, it probably should be something you can back up and demonstrable, such observing something on a nutrition label that anyone who has vision and cognizance of English can read and see for themselves or your "narcotic" observance. It's interesting, given the seeming emphasis on protein that he made, that he would muff it so badly. I imagine that he himself wishes he would have recognized the actual protein content of tuna in the can before slugging down 20 of them in one day...

[EMartNJ]

I'm referring more to the last "brush-off" email he sent to you as well as his lack of apparent further participation with you. The BLOG entries do not seem to be specifically about you; the first one was about your thread and the second was about other threads as well as the daring and elan some displayed in pointing out the author's errors, which he seemingly steadfastly refuses to acknowledge.

I found his BLOG posts amusing. Fiction writers don't need fact-checkers...three cheers for rationalization! It has evidently not dawned on him that fiction writers tend to more thoroughly check facts and implications than do non-fiction writers, but it's a case of everyone except him, I guess.

Your brosearch is tailored to agree with your opinion, so no real surprise there. That you found persons to agree with you adds nothing to the argument one way or another. It is perfectly meaningless, considering that ANYONE who looks long and hard enough can find persons to agree with them about anything...

Mr. Davidson is far from a perfect writer and his excuses about his rather clumsy handling of protein gram counting do not help his cause much. However, if you're going to take umbrage with something he has written, it probably should be something you can back up and demonstrable, such observing something on a nutrition label that anyone who has vision and cognizance of English can read and see for themselves or your "narcotic" observance. It's interesting, given the seeming emphasis on protein that he made, that he would muff it so badly. I imagine that he himself wishes he would have recognized the actual protein content of tuna in the can before slugging down 20 of them in one day...

I would love to respond to this but I'm on a concerta kick and need to write two papers on the Muslim Middle East (not fun) What I will say is I'm having a hard time deciding which side of the middle ground you're leaning towards here.