Cory Everson/testing
Kathi Iannamico
because of steroid testing:
I would find it very hard to believe that someone with her build (and
high-pitched voice) ever seriously considered steroids. Her most famous
contribution to the sport was her perfect symmetry, not the kind
of mass that Murray, Francis or Riddell, among others, carry. It may
be more feasible to believe that because female bodybuilders were
becoming very sophisticated in ways to 'beat' steroid testing, including
the administering of a drug which erased all traces of suspicious chemicals
from the body, and were abusing drugs to bulk as large as many men,
(You've got to see photos of Bev Francis' at the last Ms. O contest),
Cory decided to let her titles speak for themselves, and make a career
from other facets of the sport.
Remember, that in her last Ms. O, Cory Everson was not in her best
form, and it was only her symmetry and favored status that lead her
to just skim by Sandy Riddell, who was much, much bigger. Maybe she
didn't want to put her body through the abuse that other bodybuilders
were subjecting theirs to.
Adam Silver
From what I've heard, Cory Everson used Anavar, a light steroid that
contributes a lot more to strength rather than mass.
--
--------------------------------------
Adam H. Silver
sil...@umd5.umd.edu (Internet)
--------------------------------------
Ron Cecchini
Exactly, and well said. I've read in a few different places that Cory
never-ever even *wanted* to compete! She was just naturally good at it!
She never had a passion for it. So, when she finally came close to losing,
I guess she just figured that it would be best to quit while still on top.
And, yeah, there are women *much* bigger than Cory - and who can probably
even get bigger (but I don't think they will)
Ron
kpjo...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
>
> Exactly, and well said. I've read in a few different places that Cory
> never-ever even *wanted* to compete! She was just naturally good at it!
> She never had a passion for it. So, when she finally came close to losing,
> I guess she just figured that it would be best to quit while still on top.
>
> And, yeah, there are women *much* bigger than Cory - and who can probably
> even get bigger (but I don't think they will)
>
> Ron
I think most people prefer a woman that is built but still retains her
femininity. Cory has an excellent shape but is not too large. I sure hope
people do not begin to judge women by men's standards like MASS. Then it
might go from bodybuilding to whoever can get the closest to a male build.
Am I making any sense??
Kevin
Lou Hoebel
Not to me or my wife. My 67 year old mother agrees with you :-).
Please don't start a flame war about feminity..thats subjective.
A Good starting place is Pumping Iron II: The Women.
Its about a ~1980 "World Cup for Women" held in Las Vagas.
Bev Francis vs. Carla Dunlap vs McLeash. One of Bev's
first BB compititions after some *serious* powerlifting.
We were SHOCKED with the final placings and the scoreers comments.
McDish does nothing for me 'cause of her personality as much as anything else.
Its not just MASS. Its *overall* development, which includes mass.
Its routine, its posing and personality....all very subjective but
I think it has very very little to do with feminity in the mass market
appeal sense.
Three tapes to watch are Pumping Iron, Pumping Iron II and Arnolds
Strength Training Workout ( this has Arnold and McDish). I highly
recommend this viewing.....non lifters will like Pumping Iron..check it
out. We got them at a Blockbuster store.
--
->Louis Hoebel
Computer Science Department hoe...@cs.rochester.edu
University of Rochester {ames|rutgers}!rochester!hoebel
Rochester NY 14627 716 275 5414
J Green
>I think most people prefer a woman that is built but still retains her
>femininity. Cory has an excellent shape but is not too large. I sure hope
>people do not begin to judge women by men's standards like MASS. Then it
>might go from bodybuilding to whoever can get the closest to a male build.
>
>Am I making any sense??
no, not really! ;-)
why should "a natural healthy muscular body" be defined as a "male build"???
(i'm not talking about the use of steriods, but *natural* bodybuilding).
I think it's very unfair that men's bodybuilding is judged mostly on mass
and less on symmetry (example, Bob Paris is "Mr. Symmetry" but has trouble
placing in the Mr. O. top 3), while women's bodybuilding tends to be judged
more on routine and "femininity". It really irks me to hear the commentators
(ESPN is bad for this) saying "oh, isn't her routine wonderful!" when talking
about women, but when talking about men they say things like "he is the MOST
symmetrical, but he's just not as big as Lee". I think there's a very bad
double standard here. I'm not saying that women should be judged only on
mass, and I'm not saying that women should be as big as the men!
What i *am* saying is that men and women should be judged by the same
standards. in other sports women and men are judged the same. in
track and field, the person who runs the fastest (or throws the farthest)
is the winner. you don't hear comments like "she's the fastest i've seen,
but she's not feminine enough".
Bodybuilding standards should be more than just "who is the biggest
male bodybuilder" and "who is the most feminine female bodybuilder".
Bodybuilders should be judged on how beautiful their bodies are.
Symmetry is MUCH more important than who is simply the biggest, and that
goes for male *and* female bodybuilders.
btw, many women (most of the ones i showed Arnold pictures to in high school
and college) are extremely turned OFF by huge men. probably as much as you
are turned off by huge women. I'm just glad that didn't keep Arnold or Lee
from winning the Mr. O! :-)
my $.02, or probably more like $2.00! :-)
Janice
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ____ *
* /\/ _\__ *
* _ / ..\ Janice Green *
* ((`_ _ _ _ /``. .__,/ SSDC2@BROWNVM *
* \; ~ ~ ~ `.``~~~'\ Research Programmer *
* : . `.`~~~~'\ Social Science Data Center *
* /~~/_ _ _ `~~~ \| Brown University *
* /~~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ \~ \ Providence, RI (USA) *
* \_,, \__,, *
* *
* I love my (2) Chinese Shar-pei, rollerblading, and pumping iron! *
* *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ron Cecchini
[stuff deleted]
>I think most people prefer a woman that is built but still retains her
>femininity. Cory has an excellent shape but is not too large. I sure hope
>people do not begin to judge women by men's standards like MASS. Then it
>might go from bodybuilding to whoever can get the closest to a male build.
>
>Am I making any sense??
Loud and clear. Cory is just...well...almost perfect looking! Physique-wise.
I *have* seen women much bigger than her, and yeah - they look like men!
(Must be the 'roids...) But I don't think women's bodybuilding is going to
shift in that direction.
Ron
Ron Cecchini
[stuff deleted]
Before Janice sends me hate mail - I agree with you! I wish men's
bodybuilding wasn't such a, uh, freak show. For example, I like Haney, but
I think he's got terrible look abs. They're gross! Paris has always
been one of my favorites, and it irks me too that he is never going to win.
It especially irks me since I am not a person of great stature (5'6.5'' -
gotta get that .5 in there!).
>no, not really! ;-)
>why should "a natural healthy muscular body" be defined as a "male build"???
>(i'm not talking about the use of steriods, but *natural* bodybuilding).
I don't think that this is what was said. I think what was said that,
in the person's opinion, women shouldn't try to get as huge as possible.
You can have a "natural healthy muscular body" without being a monster;
hence, it is not defined as a "male build".
[stuff deleted]
>btw, many women (most of the ones i showed Arnold pictures to in high school
>and college) are extremely turned OFF by huge men. probably as much as you
>are turned off by huge women. I'm just glad that didn't keep Arnold or Lee
>from winning the Mr. O! :-)
I know, it wierd, isn't yet? Girls hate huge guys. Guys love huge guys.
My girlfriend has threatened to leave me if I ever look like that (which
wouldn't occur in this life time), and yet, I still strive to look exactly
like that!
ROn
Barry Merriman
[Women bodybuilders]
> were abusing drugs to bulk as large as many men,
> (You've got to see photos of Bev Francis' at the last Ms. O contest),
Why do you assume that Bev Francis uses steroids? Just think for a minute:
if steroids take you up to that size, and many top women use them, why
aren't there any other women as developed as her?
If anything, its the naturally small women who would be tempted to
take steroids, not the ones who were naturally large.
Don't you suppose that its her years of powerlifting training + natural
genetic ability that gave her that mass? I do. (Note: she tested
clean at numerous powerlifting championships back in her lifting days,
and she was, if anything, even bigger back then.)
Don't automatically equate ability with chemical assistance.
Just admit that there are some women who can get naturally huge.
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
ba...@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
Rick Marsico
(Barry Merriman) says:
>
>Why do you assume that Bev Francis uses steroids? Just think for a minute:
>
>Don't automatically equate ability with chemical assistance.
>Just admit that there are some women who can get naturally huge.
>
Prove it. Better yet, point out one pro woman or man who does not rely
on steroids (and extensive training). If Bev Fancis does not use steroids,
then she must have a major hormone imbalance.
Rick
Claude Poux
there is an interesting discussion brewing around here
about this very point that i would like to submit to
the field for comment.
the idea is that women
bodybuilders are criticized not so much because they are getting
bigger, but because in getting bigger they are approaching (and
exceeding in some cases) men in size. could it be the case that this
is an example of men getting nervous about women and equality -- and
in this case, equality in size? size=power, power=men, so
size=men in most people's minds. therefore, if a woman becomes big and
muscular, woman=man. but femininity is not = power = men = size in
many minds -- in fact, femininity as we may think of it alludes to
having a smaller physique and being submissive to man. if one thinks
about it, in an "equal" relationship that is regarded as the
contemporary "model", the woman is
still forced to use her wits to maintain that
"equality" because she, most of the time, cannot hold her own against a
man as an equal in physical strength or size. further, since time
immemorial, women have been encouraged to get into shape not by
getting bigger, but by trimming down. men, on the other hand, are
always encouraged to get bigger. i would think that century after
century of encouraging women to get smaller has resulted, or
certainly contributed, in women being smaller than men in general.
and finally, one way to try to insure that women stay small, and do
not become interested in getting bigger, is by suggesting that
size=masculinity.
there is plenty to munch on here!
poo
Rick Marsico
Poux) says:
>
>In article <1992Jan9...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
>kpjo...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
>the idea is that women
>bodybuilders are criticized not so much because they are getting
>bigger, but because in getting bigger they are approaching (and
>exceeding in some cases) men in size. could it be the case that this
>is an example of men getting nervous about women and equality -- and
>in this case, equality in size? size=power, power=men, so
>
>poo
>
The only reason that I would think of criticizing a women bodybuilder,
is for the unnatural act of introducing male hormones into their bodies.
I have no problem with natural female body builders. However, you will
be hard pressed to find a professional or a major amateur who is natural.
Rick
greg andress
>and less on symmetry (example, Bob Paris is "Mr. Symmetry" but has trouble
>placing in the Mr. O. top 3), while women's bodybuilding tends to be judged
>more on routine and "femininity". It really irks me to hear the commentators
>(ESPN is bad for this) saying "oh, isn't her routine wonderful!" when talking
>about women, but when talking about men they say things like "he is the MOST
>symmetrical, but he's just not as big as Lee". I think there's a very bad
>double standard here. I'm not saying that women should be judged only on
>mass, and I'm not saying that women should be as big as the men!
>What i *am* saying is that men and women should be judged by the same
>standards. in other sports women and men are judged the same. in
>track and field, the person who runs the fastest (or throws the farthest)
>is the winner. you don't hear comments like "she's the fastest i've seen,
>but she's not feminine enough".
>
>Bodybuilding standards should be more than just "who is the biggest
>male bodybuilder" and "who is the most feminine female bodybuilder".
>Bodybuilders should be judged on how beautiful their bodies are.
>Symmetry is MUCH more important than who is simply the biggest, and that
>goes for male *and* female bodybuilders.
>
You have just hit the core of the problem. Track and field is not
subjective. If you get to the finish line first (and didn't cheat
along the way) you win. How you look while you're getting there
is meaningless. Bodybuilding is purely subjective. If you've got
what the judges like, you will win. You state that symmetry is
more important than size and that the women should be judged by the
same standards as the men (I agree). The current crop of judges seem
to disagree. For the women, there is still a definite need to
appear to be sexy (witness the almost universal use of breast implants).
Until this double standard changes (or hell freezes over which ever
comes first) you will not see women judged the same as the men.
Greg Andress
gand...@digi.lonestar.org
Ron Cecchini
[stuff deleted]
>Prove it. Better yet, point out one pro woman or man who does not rely
>on steroids (and extensive training).
Mike Ashley.
[stuff deleted]
Ron
Ron Cecchini
[stuff deleted]
>the idea is that women
>bodybuilders are criticized not so much because they are getting
>bigger, but because in getting bigger they are approaching (and
>exceeding in some cases) men in size. could it be the case that this
>is an example of men getting nervous about women and equality -- and
>in this case, equality in size? size=power, power=men, so
>size=men in most people's minds. therefore, if a woman becomes big and
>muscular, woman=man. but femininity is not = power = men = size in
>many minds -- in fact, femininity as we may think of it alludes to
>having a smaller physique and being submissive to man. if one thinks
>about it, in an "equal" relationship that is regarded as the
>contemporary "model", the woman is
>still forced to use her wits to maintain that
>"equality" because she, most of the time, cannot hold her own against a
>man as an equal in physical strength or size. further, since time
>immemorial, women have been encouraged to get into shape not by
>getting bigger, but by trimming down. men, on the other hand, are
>always encouraged to get bigger. i would think that century after
>century of encouraging women to get smaller has resulted, or
>certainly contributed, in women being smaller than men in general.
>and finally, one way to try to insure that women stay small, and do
>not become interested in getting bigger, is by suggesting that
>size=masculinity.
All I have to say is that I really don't think the majority of men out there
are walking around all paranoid about the idea of women getting to be the
size of Bev Francis. I don't think judges are trying to keep the femininity
in women's bodybuilding because they fear a race of giant amazon women
taking over the world. Its very simple. Women are feminine. Men are
masculine (lets ignore the special cases, ok?).
And if you think that women are smaller than men in general, because of
centuries of paranoid men telling them to stay small, then dude - wake up!
I'm pretty sure I'm not being sexist when I say: In general, women are smaller
than men. Do you really disagree with this?
Ron
Mick Washbrook
>
> It especially irks me since I am not a person of great stature (5'6.5'' -
> gotta get that .5 in there!).
Gotcha beat there: I'm 5' 5 1/2".
> I know, it wierd, isn't yet? Girls hate huge guys. Guys love huge guys.
This is one guy that loves huge guys, and in the kind of circles I move
in, muscular hypertrophy is definitely appreciated. I don't think I've
ever seen a physique that's been *so* huge that it looks gross, as
long as it's proportional, of course.
Has anybody out there read Fussell's book "Muscle"? I thought it was
funny, but very negative. Comments?
"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."
Hassan i Sabbah
Claude Poux
Ron,
I am not talking about individual men walking around paranoid about being
dominated by amazon women! I am addressing the patriarchy as
institution. Men are territorial, historically spea) is the
being labeled masculine if they are big and muscular) is a
trickle down effect of male institutions acting to preserve their
power. I challenge you to define the terms feminine & masculine
(by the way, saying that women are feminine is a tautology)
in a way such that one definition is not derived
from the other, or is not a binary opposite of the other. And as to
your comment about special cases -- bah humbug! We're talking about a
gamut here, not anomalies! And your comment about
women are smaller than men -- well, so
what! Your concern here is a bit missplaced. For instance, someone
without a clear understanding of racism might be afraid to state that
African Americans have lower SAT scores than others because it might
be a racist thing to say -- not realizing that there are a number of
valid, non-racist reasons why this is the case. Women are often smaller
than men physically, yes, but it is the WAY in which size is defined
that is sexist. Again, big=man=power=dominance="masculine" in many
minds, and small=woman=weakness=submission="feminine" in the
view of many. This is WRONG, dude!
That should clear it up.
Poo
Lou Hoebel
Oh Rick..this sounds like something said by a man who is intimidated by
big muscular women. ( I'm just teasing here...when my wife says it
she is *tres serious'*...as the french say).
When Bev was power lifting she weighed 180+ and for competitions she
weighs much less.as low as 140's. She is just a BIG Muscular woman who
trains hard. I don't think she needs help in getting big!
Claude Poux
(Claude Poux) writes: (the last response was incorrectly posted, and i
have corrected the copy -- see well below all of the following discussion.
>In article <=_pr...@rpi.edu> cecc...@cs.rpi.edu (Ron Cecchini) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan10....@athena.mit.edu> p...@athena.mit.edu (Claude Poux) writes:
>>
>>[stuff deleted]
>>
>>>the idea is that women
>>>bodybuilders are criticized not so much because they are getting
>>>bigger, but because in getting bigger they are approaching (and
>>>exceeding in some cases) men in size. could it be the case that this
>>>is an example of men getting nervous about women and equality -- and
>>>in this case, equality in size? size=power, power=men, so
>>>size=men in most people's minds. therefore, if a woman becomes big and
>>>muscular, woman=man. but femininity is not = power = men = size in
>>>many minds -- in fact, femininity as we may think of it alludes to
>>>having a smaller physique and being submissive to man. if one thinks
>>>contemporary "model", the woman is
>>>still forced to use her wits to maintain that
>>>"equality" because she, most of the time, cannot hold her own against a
>>>man as an equal in physical strength or size. further, since time
>>>immemorial, women have been encouraged to get into shape not by
>>>getting bigger, but by trimming down. men, on the other hand, are
>>>always encouraged to get bigger. i would think that century after
>>>century of encouraging women to get smaller has resulted, or
>>>and finally, one way to try to insure that women stay small, and do
>>>not become interested in getting bigger, is by suggesting that
>>>size=masculinity.
>>
>>All I have to say is that I really don't think the majority of men out there
>>are walking around all paranoid about the idea of women getting to be the
>>size of Bev Francis. I don't think judges are trying to keep the femininity
>>in women's bodybuilding because they fear a race of giant amazon women
>>taking over the world. Its very simple. Women are feminine. Men are
>>masculine (lets ignore the special cases, ok?).
>>
>>And if you think that women are smaller than men in general, because of
>>centuries of paranoid men telling them to stay small, then dude - wake up!
>>I'm pretty sure I'm not being sexist when I say: In general, women are smaller
>>than men. Do you really disagree with this?
>>
>>Ron
Ron,
I am not talking about individual men walking around paranoid about being
dominated by amazon women! I am addressing the patriarchy as
institution. Men are territorial (historically speaking), and women
being labeled masculine if they are big and muscular is a
trickle down effect of male institutions acting to preserve their
power. I challenge you to define the terms feminine & masculine
(by the way, saying that women are feminine is a simple tautology,
and has nothing to do with advancing discussion)
in a way such that one definition is not derived
from the other, or is not a binary opposite of the other. And as to
your comment about special cases -- bah humbug! We're talking about a
gamut here, not anomalies! And your comment about
women are smaller than men -- well, so
what! Your concern here is a bit missplaced. For instance, someone
without a clear understanding of racism might be afraid to state that
African Americans have lower SAT scores than others because it might
be a racist thing to say -- not realizing that there are a number of
valid, non-racist reasons why this is the case. Women are often smaller
than men physically, yes, but it is the WAY in which size is defined
that is sexist, not the fact of size, Ron.
Again, as I stated in my original comment,
Lou Hoebel
She is tall and has long muscles.
She uses tremendous form when she lifts and has said she is trying to look
"good" and not just get big.
Ron Cecchini
[stuff deleted]
>Ron,
>
>I am not talking about individual men walking around paranoid about being
>dominated by amazon women! I am addressing the patriarchy as
>institution. Men are territorial, historically spea) is the
>being labeled masculine if they are big and muscular) is a
>trickle down effect of male institutions acting to preserve their
>power.
I don't think every man in history who was called masculine was necessarily
"big and muscular".
> I challenge you to define the terms feminine & masculine
>(by the way, saying that women are feminine is a tautology)
...and saying that men are masculine is, as well.
>in a way such that one definition is not derived
>from the other, or is not a binary opposite of the other. And as to
>your comment about special cases -- bah humbug! We're talking about a
>gamut here, not anomalies!
> And your comment about
>women are smaller than men -- well, so
>what! Your concern here is a bit missplaced. For instance, someone
>without a clear understanding of racism might be afraid to state that
>African Americans have lower SAT scores than others because it might
>be a racist thing to say -- not realizing that there are a number of
>valid, non-racist reasons why this is the case. Women are often smaller
>than men physically, yes, but it is the WAY in which size is defined
>that is sexist. Again, big=man=power=dominance="masculine" in many
>minds, and small=woman=weakness=submission="feminine" in the
>view of many. This is WRONG, dude!
What *are* you trying to say? Are you saying that it is wrong for us
to even *like* our women "normal", for lack of a better word? And when
I say "normal", understand that it is not normal for a man to look like
Lee Haney.
All I'm saying is this: The average, "in shape" male is going to appear
a bit muscular. The average "in shape" female, while maybe having some
good muscle tone and definition, does not have bulging muscles.
Wait, I'll say it a little differently. Even if the man and woman didn't
use weight resistance training (lets just say that they had a low level of
bodyfat), the man will still appear to be more muscular. The woman's
muscles may be showing very nicely, but the man's will still be bigger.
These are the facts. Men tend to be more angular and muscular, and women
are curvier and smoother. *NOW*, whether or not it is correct/incorrect to
associate "weakness" or "submission" with "woman" is a different story.
I would also say that being "small" has always been associated with
"weakness", no matter what the sex is, and perhaps justly so.
Ron
p.s. Masculine refers to being a man, feminine refers to being a woman.
Period. And this is *NOT* a "binary opposite" definition, because
I don't believe men and women are opposites.
(well, maybe in a couple of things...)
Rick Marsico
(Lou Hoebel) says:
>
>Oh Rick..this sounds like something said by a man who is intimidated by
>big muscular women. ( I'm just teasing here...when my wife says it
>she is *tres serious'*...as the french say).
>When Bev was power lifting she weighed 180+ and for competitions she
>weighs much less.as low as 140's. She is just a BIG Muscular woman who
>trains hard. I don't think she needs help in getting big!
>
to say that old testosterone Bev wasn't using the juice as a power
lifter?
RIck
Lou Hoebel
far beyond anythinbg else that its hard for people to appreciate what
she can do. Check out American Muscle ( the 24th and 27th of Jan. on ESPN
if I remember those dates right). They have clips of Bev at Ms. O in
1990 and 1991. She is much much smaller in 1990...in an effort to
look more "feminine"....but she looks bigger and better than ever for
1991. She is just an amazing person with an amazing body. I have alot
of respect for her and her ability.
We all have our own opinions about size and shape and what we like.
We all lift for various reasons and with various results.
{ pretty amazing insight, huh? :-)}
One thing I'd like to say ( somewhat in response to Disco Junkie)
is that watching film is much better than looking at pictures.
We've been watching some muscle building on and of for a few years
(Pumping Iron is one of our favorite flims). Now we read some Mags
and have been lifting serious ( regular) for 4 months. Pictures
of Haney never impressed me....film of Haney is much more impressive.
We seem to be able to tell how placings will go in NPC events etc
even when this is differnt from our own personal favorite physiques.
I'm real anxious to see a quality competition in person.
Once again....thats how I see it.
your milage may vary.
->Lou
Warren Hennig
>>>Prove it. Better yet, point out one pro woman or man who does not rely
>>>on steroids (and extensive training).
>>
I remember seeing an article in the last month or so in one of the mags
which had two of the women who finished in the top ten at the Ms. O who
talked about when they used steroids in the past. They made the big gains
and then stopped using the drugs for various reasons (banned from
competition, etc). It would appear that most of the mass can be maintained
once the gains are made.
Just because someone says they don't use a product does not mean that this
is the case. Remember Ben Johnson.
--
Warren Hennig w...@apss.apss.ab.ca 403-427-2772