NY Times Steroids Article (long)

tion=top

<snip/>

This guy sounds like a winner.

Oft said but worth repeating; When you read a newspaper article that you know to be innacurate, it makes you wonder about the accuracy of reporting in other areas.

4g test? He must have big 'ol man boobies by now.

It's because fact-checkers get exactly zero respect in the biz.

-Adam ('it's'

It certainly does. Any time I have ever read a newspaper article dealing with a) a subject I know well; or b) an event I was actually at, I am shocked at the level of inaccuracy. I also know journalists who have confessed to fabricating stories, adding details to spice things up, and inventing interview subjects (yeah, I have sleazy friends). Makes me really wonder if there is any such thing as actually getting a story right.

Of course there is! It's called fiction.

Cheers, Nina Will Write for Food.

Hang on, what is blatantly false about 4000 milligrams a week? I assure you people take that much and think it is doing more than 1000 milligrams a week.

Overall the article shows a VAST improvement in steroid reporting over what you would have found in the early 90's. Few but a hard core former user who is also into steroid pharmacology and is an accomplished columnist could do better and there just ain't many of those, if any.

The New York Times is purposely printing a whole series of steroid and prohormone articles in a an attempt to rally support behind the Sweeney / Osbourne bill, which will be pushed in the house in January. This is how the media works. Special interests control what stories you see and what you don't. But you already knew that

tion=top

The Muscle Media look......