# Finally: Ammo for Ronda fans - Holly Holm steroids rumor.



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

> *Holly Holm's endorsement of company linked to banned supplements questioned*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://mmajunkie.com/2015/11/holly-holms-endorsement-of-company-linked-to-banned-supplements-questioned


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Nike hired sweat shop workers.







WHY IS JON JONES STILL ALLOWED TO FIGHT THOUGH?!?!?!?!?!?


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

It's a good rumor but they signed her in June and cut ties with the PED before that. It was really poor judgement on her part to sign with a company for a sponsorship when she has ample opportunity to be sponsored by whatever she....oh....


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

MMAJunkie on the Zuffa payroll now.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

TERRIBLE thread title sporty.
It should be something like "How Low Will Dana Go"


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

Holly seems confident enough in herself to not abuse her body via overtraining or using PED's. 

I doubt Dana has anything to do with this. Religion is constantly being attacked by the media which caters to a religion is 100% evil bias. They won't let someone like Holly Holm, who is a decent example of religion having the potential to be a positive influence, retain her positive image if they can help it.


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 21, 2012)

Trix said:


> Holly seems confident enough in herself to not abuse her body via overtraining or using PED's.
> 
> I doubt Dana has anything to do with this. Religion is constantly being attacked by the media which caters to a religion is 100% evil bias. They won't let someone like Holly Holm, who is a decent example of religion having the potential to be a positive influence, retain her positive image if they can help it.


What the hell would religion have to do with anything? It's not like America isn't 80% religious. I agree with the no PEDs thing. She really doesn't seem like she would use something like that. It was probably a dumb move to get a little cash.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> What the hell would religion have to do with anything? It's not like America isn't 80% religious. I agree with the no PEDs thing. She really doesn't seem like she would use something like that. It was probably a dumb move to get a little cash.


America might be majority religious by demographics. But corporations and the news media constantly push an anti religious bias.

They won't let someone like Holly Holm be an example of religion being a positive influence after they've worked night and day to mind control people into believing religion can only be a negative influence.

The political tagline over the last 10 years has been.

1. All religious people are genocidal, homicidal, maniacs.
2. Citizens must abandon rights and freedom so the government can protect us from said religious people.
3. Losing rights and freedom, like the right to bear arms -> results in people having greater rights and freedom.

Holly Holm doesn't fit the dialogue which means she will face criticism and be attacked if she becomes a prominent enough figure in society for people to question whether it is true that all religious people, islamic or otherwise are crazy.

Dana doesn't benefit by having Holly Holm's credibility being attacked. The more credible Holly is, the bigger the rematch between Holly and Ronda is. This has nothing to do with Dana, this is journalists digging up dirt on Holly because she contradicts the status quo consensus political angle and is a decent representative of religion. All of which corporations, banks and other evil figures in the world do not approve of.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

No wrong doing on Holly's part at all, but something tells me desperate Ronda fans are going to latch onto this. It's the only way their universe will make sense.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

Trix said:


> America might be majority religious by demographics. But corporations and the news media constantly push an anti religious bias.


Anti-islamic bias perhaps, but certainly not anti-religious, not at all.


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 21, 2012)

Trix said:


> America might be majority religious by demographics. But corporations and the news media constantly push an anti religious bias.
> 
> They won't let someone like Holly Holm be an example of religion being a positive influence after they've worked night and day to mind control people into believing religion can only be a negative influence.
> 
> ...


I think you're spending too much time on the internet. We still live in a nation where not being christian is basically a death sentence if you want to be a politician. We have god in our pledge and on our money and have entire states that are so devout that they downgrade modern scientific principles because it conflicts with the bible. 

What banks and corporations are so incredibly prejudice against religion? The super pacs for all the christian candidates would seem to contradict your statement. 

If Holly Holm is held back it will be because Dana or Reebok doesn't want a woman to overshadow Rousey not because she happens to be christian. Being christian is the most marketable trait possible in a country so swamped in them.

The paranoia about losing rights is absolutely ridiculous, but there are so many people on the hard right that feel that way. Next time you support a "Tea Party" candidate look up their donors.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Rygu said:


> Anti-islamic bias perhaps, but certainly not anti-religious, not at all.


The ms goes out of its way to defend Islam, actually. Very strange time will live in.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

Calminian said:


> The ms goes out of its way to defend Islam, actually. Very strange time will live in.


The liberal media maybe, the rest knows how ridiculous it is, even by religious standards.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> I think you're spending too much time on the internet. We still live in a nation where not being christian is basically a death sentence if you want to be a politician. .....


"Christian" has become a very relative term. Obama's brand basically denies every tenant of the faith. There's a big difference between his faith and Holly Holm's. And Obama is clearly more sympathetic to Islamic rights that Christian rights. 

Times have definitely changed. I think it's going to be very difficult for a deviant Christian to become president, especially one that take the Bible literally.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Rygu said:


> The liberal media maybe, the rest knows how ridiculous it is, even by religious standards.


liberal media and main stream media are one in the same.


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 21, 2012)

Calminian said:


> "Christian" has become a very relative term. Obama's brand basically denies every tenant of the faith. There's a big difference between his faith and Holly Holm's. And Obama is clearly more sympathetic to Islamic rights that Christian rights.
> 
> Times have definitely changed. I think it's going to be very difficult for a deviant Christian to become president, especially one that take the Bible literally.


I agree taking the bible literally will be virtually impossible if a politician wants to be president. It requires denial of several current scientific theories and a stronger value on faith than evidence. I really don't see how Obama is more sympathetic to Islamic rights than Christian rights. 

I do have a question for you though and I'm not being sarcastic. How do you mix free market principles and hard self reliance with the idea of following Jesus and the principles he represented in the Bible? I'm from West Virginia and just about everybody here is an Obama hating republican that feels like their rights are being trampled on. I don't get it.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

Rygu said:


> Anti-islamic bias perhaps, but certainly not anti-religious, not at all.


Its anti-religious.

Any news story with the slightest chance of slandering religion is exaggerated and publicized as much as it can be times 10.

If 2 religious people out of the 300+ million people in america decide vaccinations are against Jesus, there will be 10,000 news stories publicizing it pretending that all religious people are against vaccinations and mud hut dwelling simpletons.

If a religious person laughs at their kid for being gay, there will be news stories everywhere about it and a million attempts made to brainwash people into believing that all religious people have gays chained up in their basements who are being exploited as slaves or dead gays buried in their back yard.

Anytime a religious person does anything that is the least bit controversial or negative, it will be exaggerated and publicized to support their media bias that says all religious people are backwards, unintelligent, uneducated, barbaric, violent savages.

Anytime an atheist or person of differing religious orientation does something negative, it will be swept under the rug, spinned by the media or ignored. Example of that is the student who asked students if they were religious. He shot all the christians in the head, and shot those of other faiths in the legs or in places that wouldn't be fatal. Media ignored it because it conflicts with their pre determined bias.

The media angle is definitely biased and anti religious.



GlassJaw said:


> If Holly Holm is held back it will be because Dana or Reebok doesn't want a woman to overshadow Rousey not because she happens to be christian. Being christian is the most marketable trait possible in a country so swamped in them.


If Holly Holm fought in bellator or another organization the UFC might benefit by trivializing her success and downplaying how good she is. But because Holm fights in the UFC, it means any hit to Holly's credibility is a hit to the UFC's credibility. 

Saying the UFC will attack Holly's credibility is like saying the UFC will attack the credibility of Jose Aldo to keep him from overshadowing Conor McGregor. It doesn't make sense. The way to build Conor is by saying that Conor is fighting and beating the best fighters in the world. Making Conor's opponents look bad, makes Conor look bad. It cheapens his wins and diminishes from his success.

The same applies here making Holly look bad makes Ronda look bad. The UFC would never go that road. There's no sense to it.



GlassJaw said:


> The paranoia about losing rights is absolutely ridiculous, but there are so many people on the hard right that feel that way. Next time you support a "Tea Party" candidate look up their donors.


What's ridiculous about being concerned about losing rights? Someone could just as easily say that those aren't concerned about losing rights are living under a mindset of denial or entitlement. What do the facts say?


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 21, 2012)

Trix said:


> What's ridiculous about being concerned about losing rights? Someone could just as easily say that those aren't concerned about losing rights are living under a mindset of denial or entitlement. What do the facts say?


If you look at American history it's easy to tell why things are different now. God was inserted into everything in the 40's because the percentage of christian Americans were at an all time high. For the past 6 decades Christianity has been safe because of that fact. Things are changing now and finally Christianity is ridiculed some of the time. Everyone gets picked on in the media it isn't an issue about being right or left. 

You're absolutely right that everyone should be concerned about losing rights. My point is that there really isn't evidence to support some attack on citizens rights in this country. I just don't buy this Christian persecution thing. What has being a Christian stopped you from doing?


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

Trix said:


> Its anti-religious.
> 
> Any news story with the slightest chance of slandering religion is exaggerated and publicized as much as it can be times 10.
> 
> ...


Pretty much only with islam though, rarely will a mainstream media source shit on christianity or catholics. Either way, we both know the media is run almost entirely by Murdoch on this side of the world so I guess we're both part right and part wrong.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

me coming in to this thread...










The internet and religious debate is never a good mix!


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> I agree taking the bible literally will be virtually impossible if a politician wants to be president. It requires denial of several current scientific theories and a stronger value on faith than evidence.


If you mean evolution, this is actually a matter of faith just like creation. It's something that ostensibly happened in the past, that has not been observed and cannot be tested. 



GlassJaw said:


> I really don't see how Obama is more sympathetic to Islamic rights than Christian rights.


There are a lot of examples. He's definitely more concerned about offending muslims than christians. 



GlassJaw said:


> I do have a question for you though and I'm not being sarcastic. How do you mix free market principles and hard self reliance with the idea of following Jesus and the principles he represented in the Bible? I'm from West Virginia and just about everybody here is an Obama hating republican that feels like their rights are being trampled on. I don't get it.


I don't get the question. Why do you think free market principles contradict the Bible.


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 21, 2012)

Calminian said:


> I don't get the question. Why do you think free market principles contradict the Bible.


I'm just going to address the last question and agree to disagree on the rest. The story of Jesus is the story of a man who travels around the middle east helping the sick and the poor. He is often quoted supporting the poor over the rich with things like, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."Matthew 19:24. Free market capitalism is a system that doesn't guarantee anything for anyone. It would just as soon leave the poor behind as add one more to the wealthy. How is that system compatible with the teachings and intentions of Jesus?


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> I'm just going to address the last question and agree to disagree on the rest. The story of Jesus is the story of a man who travels around the middle east helping the sick and the poor. He is often quoted supporting the poor over the rich with things like, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."Matthew 19:24. Free market capitalism is a system that doesn't guarantee anything for anyone. It would just as soon leave the poor behind as add one more to the wealthy. How is that system compatible with the teachings and intentions of Jesus?


I would disagree with your assessment of republicanism. Conservative principles are better for the poor. Jesus encouraged charity. When taxes are low, charitable giving increases. Statistics also show republicans are much more charitable than democrats. 

Liberals generally believe government should support everyone. Conservatism says government should stay out, considering how wasteful government is. Christians are to give directly, not through government. 

Also, democrats in office have been shown to be much more wealthy than republicans in office. Media doesn't talk about that one.

That's why I tend to be conservative, anyway. Let me know if that answers.

How do we get on these tangents?


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

WTF are you crazy bunch talking about religion for??? 

I personally am not reading into this whole Holly/Roids connection, she did an ad or two for a company that does supplements for the recreational supplement user, doesn't mean she put banned shit into her body.


----------



## rul3z (Jun 27, 2010)

Trix said:


> America might be majority religious by demographics. But corporations and the news media constantly push an anti religious bias.
> 
> They won't let someone like Holly Holm be an example of religion being a positive influence after they've worked night and day to mind control people into believing religion can only be a negative influence.
> 
> ...


Fantastic comment; I honestly never thought there is a lot of people who even dare talk about how the majority of media how it's one sided and just doing brain wash and mind controlling people. Hats off to you.

Holy is truly a respected fighter and maybe even a character; I don't know her. People can just check how classy she was in victory, how she went to check for her opponents status after being KTFO, and I'm sure she whispered some nice words in the ear of Rowdy too.

All respect to the new champ.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

oldfan said:


> TERRIBLE thread title sporty.
> It should be something like "How Low Will Dana Go"


It would be a nicer title, no doubt, but it would be speculative from my end. This reflects the reality better, something some Ronda fans could grasp as the only possible reason for her loss or to destroy the nice girl image of Holly, which I think was what led Ronda out if her temper coming to the fight, rather than her fearing Holly could be really a threat in the Octagon. Ronda doesn't share the love of the public.

Fact 1 is: It was a bad association Holly did. Pure business, though. I am sure preparing to fight Ronda Rousey is not cheap and that deal certainly helped her funding her camp, let alone using some LEGAL products that firm sells too.

Fact 2 is: Holly Holm passed all the tests she went through. And there were plenty. Basically one every month, so she is clean as clean can be in my books.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Evolution is a scientific theory, a proven one might I add.

Holm has been through a lot of testing in her life Id be surprised to see her pop dirty now.


----------



## rul3z (Jun 27, 2010)

slapshot said:


> Evolution is a scientific theory, a proven one might I add.
> 
> Holm has been through a lot of testing in her life Id be surprised to see her pop dirty now.


Agree; simply such a classy fighter and person will never be!


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)




----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

CupCake said:


> I personally am not reading into this whole Holly/Roids connection, she did an ad or two for a company that does supplements for the recreational supplement user, doesn't mean she put banned shit into her body.


What do you think about the bodybuilders analysis from the weigh in? I means its a little 'below the belt' but very enlarged clitoris is usually one of two things - 1. the mother was taking testosterone during pregnancy prescribed by a doctor for something which results in girl have an enlarged clitoris, or consistent anabolic or testosterone use in a female which results in protruding and enlarged clitoris.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> What do you think about the bodybuilders analysis from the weigh in? I means its a little 'below the belt' but very enlarged clitoris is usually one of two things - 1. the mother was taking testosterone during pregnancy prescribed by a doctor for something which results in girl have an enlarged clitoris, or consistent anabolic or testosterone use in a female which results in protruding and enlarged clitoris.


It can be neither of those things. Some girls just...have it. It doesn't offer concrete proof of steroid use, you can have an engorged clitoris for plenty of reasons. It's not proof of any wrong doing...it may just be genetics who knows.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

When some random roider with a youtube channel shows you camel toe pix....

what more proof do you need?? Give poor Ronda her belt back.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Unless her huge clitoris KO'd Ronda in the middle of a grappling exchange I say there nothing more to see here...except cameltoe...glorious, glorious cameltoe.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

CupCake said:


> It can be neither of those things. Some girls just...have it. It doesn't offer concrete proof of steroid use, you can have an engorged clitoris for plenty of reasons. It's not proof of any wrong doing...it may just be genetics who knows.


Are you sure about that? I only say that because I went out with girl once who had this and she said it was because her mother was prescribed norethisterone during pregnancy which confuses the body a bit, and its banned now apparently. 
Reading up on it now it seems the only other 'genetic' cause is congenital adrenal hyperplasia where a newborn baby has ambigious genitalia. 

Then it can be acquired in later life by a hormonal imbalance in the body which of course can happen naturally or by creating that imbalance unnaturally with steroids. The problem is when you align yourself with a sponsor known for anabolics creating that imbalance unnaturally seems a lot more likely....especially in a sport riddled with steroids


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> Are you sure about that? I only say that because I went out with girl once who had this and she said it was because her mother was prescribed norethisterone during pregnancy which confuses the body a bit, and its banned now apparently.
> Reading up on it now it seems the only other 'genetic' cause is congenital adrenal hyperplasia where a newborn baby has ambigious genitalia.
> 
> Then it can be acquired in later life by a hormonal imbalance in the body which of course can happen naturally or by creating that imbalance unnaturally with steroids. The problem is when you align yourself with a sponsor known for anabolics creating that imbalance unnaturally seems a lot more likely....especially in a sport riddled with steroids


It could be *a *cause for sure, I'm just saying I know people who have zero links to any steroids, treatments etc. be it themselves or parents, that have an engorged clitoris. It can happen naturally.

I could be wrong and Holly could've had "help", but from my experience it can happen naturally.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> What do you think about the bodybuilders analysis from the weigh in? I means its a little 'below the belt' but very enlarged clitoris is usually one of two things - 1. the mother was taking testosterone during pregnancy prescribed by a doctor for something which results in girl have an enlarged clitoris, or consistent anabolic or testosterone use in a female which results in protruding and enlarged clitoris.


It might be *usually* one of two things. But this isnt usual. This is a highly dehydrated woman. And my understanding is that genitalia are full of blood not water. So, what we need are considerably more close up images of dehydrated vaginas so we can make a decent assessment.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Soojooko said:


> It might be *usually* one of two things. But this isnt usual. This is a highly dehydrated woman. And my understanding is that genitalia are full of blood not water. So, what we need are *considerably more close up images of dehydrated vaginas so we can make a decent assessment*.


Disclaimer:

_Posting images of dehydrated vaginas is not permitted on this forum, no matter how big and juicy they may seem.

Any posting of dehydrated vaginas will result in Infraction and will be deleted after everybody has saved them to their hard drive._


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

CupCake said:


> It could be *a *cause for sure, I'm just saying I know people who have zero links to any steroids, treatments etc. be it themselves or parents, that have an engorged clitoris. It can happen naturally.
> 
> I could be wrong and Holly could've had "help", but from my experience it can happen naturally.


Further reading says it can be caused by too much masturbation lol, or it could be a pseudo penis! 

I wonder if Ronda found out something before the weigh in that we don't know and this was her reason for the outburst which lets face it came out of nowhere, after a bunch of promo work that had no animosity. 
Reminds me of Weidman vs Vitor. I wonder what the people posting down syndrome pictures would have to say if it was the case, and the Karma brigade!! :laugh:


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> I wonder if Ronda found out something before the weigh in that we don't know and this was her reason for the outburst which lets face it came out of nowhere, after a bunch of promo work that had no animosity.


As I said in another post, my money is on whispers leaking out of the film set with Cyborg and Tate. You know the kind of thing: "My buddy knows a girl whose dog shits in the garden of the uncle of the producer on the film "Fight Vally".. and he said that Holly called Ronda a "c*unt muppet" in front of everybody".


----------



## Goat Man (Oct 19, 2007)

oldfan said:


> TERRIBLE thread title sporty.
> It should be something like "How Low Will Dana Go"


Exactly!!


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> What do you think about the bodybuilders analysis from the weigh in? I means its a little 'below the belt' but very enlarged clitoris is usually one of two things - 1. the mother was taking testosterone during pregnancy prescribed by a doctor for something which results in girl have an enlarged clitoris, or consistent anabolic or testosterone use in a female which results in protruding and enlarged clitoris.


Joe Rogan said that wasn't Holly's enlarged clitoris, but her penis bended rearward.



CupCake said:


> Disclaimer:
> 
> _Posting images of *dehydrated* vaginas is not permitted on this forum, no matter how big and juicy they may seem.
> 
> Any posting of *dehydrated* vaginas will result in Infraction and will be deleted after everybody has saved them to their hard drive._


Perfectly understood. Only properly hydrated vaginas will be allowed to be shown around here.
You got it. :thumb02:


----------



## Goat Man (Oct 19, 2007)

Rygu said:


> Anti-islamic bias perhaps, but certainly not anti-religious, not at all.


The reality is, however, that the smaller group of ant-religion (anti-Christian) speaks with a loud voice and amplified media attention. It's not unlike the attention the LGBT community garners. 

If you bought into the amount of play the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transvestite agenda receives, you'd think half the population was LGBT. Look at the news, politics, television shows, etc. The American public believes that around 25% of the population is gay/lesbian. Fact is, according to Gallup, only 3.8% identify as LGBT.

Small populations with loud voices have profound effects on social trends.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Goat Man said:


> The American public believes that around 25% of the population is gay/lesbian. Fact is, according to Gallup, only 3.8% identify as LGBT.


So, this means 21.2% are still in their closets, right?


----------



## Goat Man (Oct 19, 2007)

Rygu said:


> Anti-islamic bias perhaps, but certainly not anti-religious, not at all.





Calminian said:


> I would disagree with your assessment of republicanism. Conservative principles are better for the poor. Jesus encouraged charity. When taxes are low, charitable giving increases. Statistics also show republicans are much more charitable than democrats.
> 
> Liberals generally believe government should support everyone. Conservatism says government should stay out, considering how wasteful government is. Christians are to give directly, not through government.
> 
> ...


I'm a republican because not everyone can be on welfare.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

slapshot said:


> Evolution is a scientific theory, a proven one might I add....


You'll have to define the term. If you mean small changes yes, I look a little different than my parents. But we're all still humans. If you're talking about changing from one kind of an animal to another, it's pure faith. It's never been observed, nor is there any evidence of it in the fossil record. If you believe it, it's a matter of faith. Just say'n. 

Here's a hilarious video of a guy asking for evidence for evolution at 2 major universities (UCLA and USC), both of students (science majors) and professors.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

unsubscribed.:thumbsdown:


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

oldfan said:


> unsubscribed.:thumbsdown:


Im assuming its all the god talk thats bringing you down brother... and not the dehydrated vaginias?


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Keep this on topic guys, we have a debate section for all this off-topic stuff.


----------



## HorsepoweR (Jun 1, 2007)

Are Ronda fans going to be like most BJ Penn fans? A million excuses for one fight. She got tore up, get over it.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Sorry Homer I was born a snake handler and I'll die a snake handler.


----------



## Goat Man (Oct 19, 2007)

Calminian said:


> You'll have to define the term. If you mean small changes yes, I look a little different than my parents. But we're all still humans. If you're talking about changing from one kind of an animal to another, it's pure faith. It's never been observed, nor is there any evidence of it in the fossil record. If you believe it, it's a matter of faith. Just say'n.
> 
> Here's a hilarious video of a guy asking for evidence for evolution at 2 major universities (UCLA and USC), both of students (science majors) and professors.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ


I actually enjoyed this. Enlightening


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Goat Man said:


> I actually enjoyed this. Enlightening


Ray Comfort's the man. Glad you enjoyed.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

posting in a religion thread


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

The fact no one associated with the UFC have jumped on social media going nuts over Holly's endorsement pretty much says no one is reading that much into it.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

That's because the UFC are shitting themselves now. 
Packages that big are a result of hormone imbalances one way or another. Have a look at China (WWE) and female bodybuilders online since we can't post pictures here. 
Holly has extra male hormones in her body at some point in her life for that to happen. I would like to know why and until then she is highly suspicious in my mind.
She is sponsored by and advertises an anabolic company. People Seem to be afraid to acknowledge what is right in front of them in sport riddled with steroids.

What kind of preacher is her old man? One of those guys on TV asking old people for money? Catholic priest?

'Their amino acid formula #Azid is delicious and is helping me get leaner, harder and keep training as intense as ever!' she wrote, posting an Intel Pharma advertisement that features her picture.


“Holly didn’t really use them so it’s not a big deal,” Lenny Fresquez, Holm’s manager, told the newspaper. “I’m sure she didn’t use any of them"


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

/case_closed


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Holm has a rather broad jaw and a pretty thick neck, which makes her about as suspicious as Rafael Dos Anjos.

But regardless of whether she took something or not, it would not have been the deciding factor. Jackson-Winkeljohn won that fight with good strategic game-planning. This was a legit win.

Rousey should switch camp or at least Tarverdyan.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Seriously though this thread is actually happening?


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Apparently a guy takes big balls to be a champ, but a female champ but a lady can't be champ with a big knicker-nubbin?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

CupCake said:


> Apparently a guy takes big balls to be a champ, but a female champ but a lady can't be champ with a big knicker-nubbin?


I find it very unfair that women get bigger genitalia from steroids and men's get smaller.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> I find it very unfair that women get bigger genitalia from steroids and men's get smaller.


To be fair I've never heard a bird bragging about her 8 inch fanny so I don't think it's a positive thing.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Packages that big are a result of hormone imbalances one way or another...
> Holly has extra male hormones in her body at some point in her life for that to happen. I would like to know why and until then she is highly suspicious in my mind.


Since you seem to know a lot about "big packages" association with roiding, crack this one for us, please.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Since you seem to know a lot about "big packages" association with roiding, crack this one for us, please.


BOOM! :thumbsup:


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Yeah cyborg had it chopped off didn't she? 
Cyborg is so great, pin up girl for MMA!


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Yeah cyborg had it chopped off didn't she?
> Cyborg is so great, pin up girl for MMA!


I thought about that default joke myself. Good joke even so, but back to that question...


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Clitoromegaly is otherwise a rare condition and can be either present by birth or acquired later in life. If present at birth, congenital adrenal hyperplasia can be one of the causes, since in this condition the adrenal gland of the female fetus produces additional androgens and the newborn baby has ambiguous genitalia which are not clearly male or female. In pregnant women who received norethisterone during pregnancy, masculinization of the fetus occurs, resulting in hypertrophy of the clitoris;[10] however, this is rarely seen nowadays due to use of safer progestogens. It can also be caused by the autosomal recessive congenital disorder known as Fraser syndrome.[11]

In acquired clitoromegaly, the main cause is endocrine hormonal imbalance affecting the adult woman, including polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)[12] and hyperthecosis. Acquired clitoromegaly may also be caused by pathologies affecting the ovaries and other endocrine glands. These pathologies may include virulent (such as arrhenoblastoma) and neurofibromatosic tumors.[13] Another cause is clitoral cysts.[14}

Female bodybuilders and athletes who use androgens, primarily to enhance muscular growth, strength and appearance (see Use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport), may also experience clearly evident enlargement of the clitoris and increases in libido.[15][16] Women who use testosterone for therapeutic reasons (treating low libido, averting osteoporosis, as part of an anti-depressant regimen, etc.) experience some enlargement of the clitoris, although the dosages warranted for these conditions are much lower. Pseudoclitoromegaly or pseudohypertrophy of the clitoris "has been reported in small girls due to masturbation: manipulations of the skin of prepuce leads to repeated mechanical trauma, which expands the prepuce and labia minora, thus imitating true clitoral enlargement".[2]


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

So, I can see you can copy and paste as good as myself (although your source is missing), but what is the conclusion you got?
Holly Holm's is suspected for taking roids because she has big package, but Cyborg, who was a heavy roider in the past, officially busted, BTW, has a rather regular sized package... :confused02:


----------

