<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Everyone is going to assume this article is about the conduct of Sarah Villegas in her online campaign against Natalia Coelho. Do I support potentially violating someone\u2019s medical records, using doctors, talking heads, and various social media platforms to force a competitor to prove themselves or prove their honesty by jeopardizing something as private as their medical records? Absolutely, not. Federations often require athletes to submit to urinalysis, blood tests, and even polygraphs. You see this often with natural federations testing athletes for anabolic steroids or other performance enhancing drugs. While I have heard of one natural federation that used to publish failed tests on an online \u201cwall of shame,\u201d most federations will keep results between the competitor and the organization, private. That\u2019s the proper way to do things. At least in my opinion. But in the case of Villegas, she\u2019s not representing the IFBB Pro League or the NPC. She\u2019s a competitor that\u2019s not had good luck against Coelho and she\u2019s taken to social media on a crusade to get Natalia to prove that she\u2019s in fact not using PMMA. That\u2019s completely different. That said, she\u2019s also not the first. We\u2019ve seen this happen before. At one point, some websites asked and then all but asserted that Hadi Choopan was using SEO\u2019s (or site enhancing oils). They couldn\u2019t prove it and they tried to pressure The Persian Wolf into exonerating himself by showing medical evidence. Of course, Choopan didn\u2019t oblige. Why would he? Nonetheless, should competitors or media outlets that engage in that sort of behavior be permitted to get away with it?<\/p>\n
The net in its essence is a place for the exchange of ideas. Some ideas we like, others we don\u2019t. The concept of regulating the internet isn\u2019t something I\u2019m too fond of. When it comes to sick stuff, I\u2019m all for policing the interwebs and prosecuting criminals; however, when it comes to unpopular opinions, I tend to oppose silencing those voices. I think making unfounded accusations is low, but does it happen? Of course it does. It happens in sports, it happens in politics, it happens even in cook-offs and bake-off\u2019s. I don\u2019t like the idea of social media platforms shadow banning people who support Trump or using things like action blocks for those who post more content than others. I don\u2019t want to see people get banned for criticizing certain countries or badmouthing illusory trade deals. I look on the internet as one giant message board and the less interference users have, the better.<\/p>\n
People should be free to say whatever they want. It\u2019s up to the community to determine what\u2019s acceptable and what\u2019s not. That\u2019s how we arrive at the topics following and reach. But what if the audience rewards folks who make royal asses of themselves? What if negativity or toxicity sells more than wholesomeness? Well, that might be the way the cookie crumbles, but I certainly don\u2019t want to be the moral police. I don\u2019t want to decide what\u2019s acceptable from what\u2019s not.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n