I just saw Ryan in the final.
Sorry to say it, but that kid is Juicing.
He looks like he has put on about 25 pounds of pure muscle since last year and his bowling arm is ridiculously larger than his non bowling arm.
Those are juicing effects.
Seen it in too many other juicing athletes.
It is sad he has chosen to take this path.
Perhaps I am wrong and he maybe just really works out a lot and never trains his non bowling arm, but really works out his face since that is now heavily muscled too.

What are the rules in bowling on Juicing?
Or maybe there are none.

What an odd thing to bring up ... I dunno he just looks like he's heavier, not necessarily more ripped. Considering his age 10 - 15 lbs of muscle and 10 - 15 lbs of fat wouldn't be hard to do over a 2 - 3 year span and would make him look much more filled out. Also he muscles the snot out of the ball, meaning he's sort of doing a curl on every throw. Not really a free swing.

Doubt there is any drug testing on the PBA tour or in any tournament.

Here is a before and after pic.
Left pic is 2011 and right pic is today.

One more from the side, this kid is now huge!
Those are all muscles, not fat.
Look at those hams and glutes.
His back is thick and his neck very thick.
Juice...

Who knows for sure why Ryan Ciminelli's left arm is larger than his right arm? It seems there are any number of explanations, including a possible genetic predisposition. Is there any doubt that Michael Phelps had a genetic advantage with a body shaped like a surfboard, and hands and feet like flippers when he competed in Olympic swimming? In my opinion, Ryan Ciminelli, like any other athlete in the spotlight, deserves the benefit of the doubt concerning drug use unless proven otherwise.

My theory is his left arm started to grow with the switch to rolling DV8's "damn good" equipment. Now, Ryan "Hellboy" Ciminelli has the "Left Hand of Doom".

I'm surprised this isn't a topic that gets more discussion. Perhaps its because we all tell ourselves that muscles aren't necessary in bowling. But do we really believe that at the professional level, more muscle mass won't make a great bowler an elite bowler?

I'm not making any accusations, but is it really all that hard to believe that a young talent like Cimineli, who everyone said would win and win on tour but hasn't yet fulfilled that destiny, might be intrigued to turn to something synthetic to give himself an edge? Doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

Look at baseball's home run heroes of decades past. Babe Ruth was certainly not a fit individual. Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris were fit, but neither were "muscle men" (not to mention Mantle was a drunk, and was known to play hung-over.) I have studied coaching material from the 70s, and they used to teach hitters that the art of the home run was pure technique and the ability to read the pitcher; muscles supposedly had little to do with it.

Then came the 90s and suddenly guys who look like Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds are the ones holding the records.

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there are a few tour players using PEDs in hopes of gaining an edge.

Let me just say that if he is hitting the gym hard and pumping a lot of iron to get buff and doing this naturally I am 100% behind him and commend him for his effort.

But bowling is not about muscles per say, it is about split second timing and accuracy.

Look at little Pete Webber, a buck 30 sopping wet, 50+ years old yet in the top 5 in most of these tournaments.

He is not a monster, he is an artist.

And that is bowling, the ability to paint the lane with a bowling ball brush using the oil just right to create a winning painting.

But let's add to the discussion, by questioning the reasoning above. For generations we've been telling ourselves that you don't need muscles to be a good bowler. And its true. BUT...would a good bowler with more muscle be a better bowler? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe Pete Weber would be better, or maybe his style would be different if he had more muscle and he wouldn't be nearly as good. I don't know the answer. No one does. But I think we really need to consider that today's game is a power game, and the pure finesse strokers that rise to the top are in the minority these days. Would a great bowler who needs an edge NOT benefit from taking PEDs? I don't think anyone can argue that; not in today's game where carry is HUGE, and power is a large factor of carry.

Not only the muscle but you also have to consider that some athletes take PED's simply to extend their careers, come back from injuries faster, etc.

There are a lot of factors that could make players consider them, but I have never really heard anything about the PBA actually testing for them.

I can tell you at the Regional level I have never once heard of a player being tested so I doubt the National level is any different.

That's a result of using balls with asymmetrical cores...


No muscles required for experience, strategy and confidence which is what won that game for Chris Barnes.