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’s 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 “wall of shame,” most federations will keep results between the competitor and the organization, private. That’s the proper way to do things. At least in my opinion. But in the case of Villegas, she’s not representing the IFBB Pro League or the NPC. She’s a competitor that’s not had good luck against Coelho and she’s taken to social media on a crusade to get Natalia to prove that she’s in fact not using PMMA. That’s completely different. That said, she’s also not the first. We’ve seen this happen before. At one point, some websites asked and then all but asserted that Hadi Choopan was using SEO’s (or site enhancing oils). They couldn’t prove it and they tried to pressure The Persian Wolf into exonerating himself by showing medical evidence. Of course, Choopan didn’t oblige. Why would he? Nonetheless, should competitors or media outlets that engage in that sort of behavior be permitted to get away with it?
The net in its essence is a place for the exchange of ideas. Some ideas we like, others we don’t. The concept of regulating the internet isn’t something I’m too fond of. When it comes to sick stuff, I’m 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’s. I don’t 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’t 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.
People should be free to say whatever they want. It’s up to the community to determine what’s acceptable and what’s not. That’s 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’t want to be the moral police. I don’t want to decide what’s acceptable from what’s not.
Do I like what Sarah Villegas is doing? No. In fact, I don’t like it when competitors are accused of using SEO’s, either, but it happens. I think that if competitors use AAS, that’s one thing. Is it fair? Well, it’s not if they’re using them in natural competition. But others might view performance enhancing drugs as cheating in any regard. Do we let those people dictate their norms over us all? Others might draw the line with insulin, a drug used to treat diabetes. Others might draw the line with growth hormone. Then of course there’s peptides, SARM’s, and SERM’s. To me, bodybuilding is such a drug-dominated sport that once gear is allowed, can we really throw shade at anything else? There are competitors who even use stem cells. So should we be so shocked that someone is using PMMA? But is it cheating? Isn’t it all cheating? Again, that’s a loaded question. You may feel comfortable deciding it, but I don’t. Who am I to determine what’s fair game and what’s not?
Now, if the public wants to lobby the IFBB Pro League to sanction Sarah, that’s another story. But does the Federation want to get into the business of policing what competitors say on social media? That might expose them to a whole host of unnecessary headaches. Not only that, but to punish a certain type of behavior, they’d have to implement rules. Those rules would then have to be given to the competitors. Imagine being fined or suspended for breaking a rule that you didn’t even know existed. Imagine implementing a rule and dishing out punishments – retroactively. That’s a lawsuit waiting to happen. But assuming that punishments weren’t dished out retroactively, how much time and effort do you think the Pro League would want to invest in order to get such a rule (or rules) put into place to silence unpopular speech? The same way I wouldn’t want to police the net, I’m sure the Federation wouldn’t want to, either.
The only entity that could dish out punishment would be the federation. There’s some talk about getting promoters involved (e.g. not letting Sarah compete at the Olympia) but that too sounds like a horrible idea. It’s a terrible idea because if the athlete has already signed a contract and the promoter reneged based on online speech, that’s another potential lawsuit, as well. Moreover, promoters don’t have that kind of power. Moreover, while a lot of contracts do have decorum clauses, Sarah’s commentary didn’t put the event in a bad light. If anything, it’s putting a fellow competitor under scrutiny. Not only that, but promoters are more than likely totally opposed to getting in the middle of something like this. They’re about working an event, not getting dragged into an online soap opera.
At the end of the day, what Sarah is doing is speech. What sites have done to Hadi is speech. Speech that’s defamatory is usually handled by lawsuits. Other types of speech might be dealt with by laws or organization by laws. The net is full of ideas and full of speech. Some make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, while other examples make you want to drive your fist into a wall. Speech is speech. The good, the bad, and everything in between. I may hate what Sarah is doing, but I don’t think she should be punished for it by the Federation. I mean, I’d love to see it happen to her, but overall, I would hate to see prior restraints or limits placed on speech for the sake of punishing one bad apple. Just because what she’s doing is royally f*cked up, shouldn’t be a reason to remove everyone’s right to speak. That’s just my position. Everyone has an opinion. I’d like to keep it that way.
What’s your take on Sarah Villegas’ behavior? What’s your take on offensive, unpopular speech online? As always, I hope you enjoyed reading my article here – at IronMag. I look forward to reading your feedback in the comments. Please copy and paste a link to this article for all your social media feeds. It’s bound to generate lively conversation.
Author Bio:
Christian I. Duque is the owner of StrengthAddicts.com, a physique and strength website founded in 2008. He has worked for a number of bodybuilding websites, including RX Muscle and Muscular Development. Christian has written nearly 1,000 published articles for IronMag Blog, as well as articles for StrengthAddicts, RX Muscle, and others. By day, he is also a licensed attorney practicing in the areas of family law, immigration, and criminal defense.
