Wow, massive logic failures on show in replies here. Necessary but not sufficient. https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Confusion-of-N

Wow, massive logic failures on show in replies here. Necessary but not sufficient. https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Confusion-of-Necessary.html#:~:text=A%20necessary%20condition%20is%20a,the%20occurrence%20of%20the%20event https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definition.... For Arnold to win and get famous, steroids were a necessary (but not sufficient) condition. Arnold can be as wondrous, beautiful, tall, wise and shrewd as possibly imaginable but he doesn't win body building comps without them. From there no toe-hold of fame to get to hollywood and beyond. Same for Dwayne Johnson, no way he's in hollywood if not already famous. Are we sensible enough to mention pro-wrestling's steroid issues without going silly about it? This non-acting fame achievement coming first is not so much true for Judy Dench, Brad Pitt, Meryl Streep or Bruce Willis, for example. No idea of their drug habits or lack thereof but hard to see them as necessary whatever they are or aren't. Just like Lance Armstrong. Every cyclist you have ever met (and indeed every cyclist you haven't) doesn't win like he did even if they took the same drugs, blood doping and whatever else, with teams of doctors and pharmacologists to make it all world standard. Like his teammates didn't win. Like all the other Tour de France entrants didn't win. Lance doesn't win you've never heard of him. Lance didn't take all those performance enhancing drugs he isn't even hired as a domestique at the Tour - as amazing as his abilities are. Necessary, but not sufficient. It's a thing really worth knowing whether you venerate Arnold S. or Lance A. or both or neither or not. Separate to that. Working out your answer for why you think Arnold and Lance should be thought of differently is instructive and I stand by that recommendation.