lamont peterson still ibf champ!

[ruthless rocco]

fightnews reports that he's still ibf champ after investigation.

IBF: Peterson is still champion; must face Judah

[superheavyrhun]

Good to see the IBF are taking drug testing and its results seriously.

[shza]

Good to see the IBF are taking drug testing and its results seriously.

The appointed doctors concluded that his T-levels were not abnormally high and thus did not give him an unfair advantage. That was what he said all along -- that he had abnormally low levels and had the procedure just to bring him up to normal. I don't see how how that means the IBF isn't taking drug testing seriously. (They would have been justified in smacking him a little for simply failing to disclose, however, despite the fact that in the end really the only resulting harm was the rematch getting scrapped -- but that's a different issue.)

[Althugz]

Good to see the IBF are taking drug testing and its results seriously.

The appointed doctors concluded that his T-levels were not abnormally high and thus did not give him an unfair advantage. That was what he said all along -- that he had abnormally low levels and had the procedure just to bring him up to normal. I don't see how how that means the IBF isn't taking drug testing seriously. (They would have been justified in smacking him a little for simply failing to disclose, however, despite the fact that in the end really the only resulting harm was the rematch getting scrapped -- but that's a different issue.)

So basically what I was saying all along
Look back in my posts and I told everyone that after a proper investigation, he would be found to be ok. (while everyone was cunting me off)
Whoever made the point about Peterson being 3.77:1 has no point..because in boxing you are allowed to be 4:1 (or maybe even 6:1 - I forget) so according to the commisions, this is not performance enhancing.

Hate to say I told you so..Who am I kidding. Course I don't. Let's try looking at things objectively fellas. Well done to the IBF for taking into account the facts. The only thing he was guilty of was not informing the testers that he was normalising his testosterone with exogenous testosterone.

Can we stop this butthurt..facts are facts. It could all be bullshit but Peterson and his team made their case perfectly. You can't make someone guilty on assumptions. Like "assuming" Enzo took his shit "by accident".

[Beanz]

What a load of tosh. If you had to prove that every athlete had gained an unfair advantage from taking a banned substance, rather than just establish the substance had been used, most cheats would get off Scot free. What kind of pseudo scientific method makes rules about disclosure and using banned items simply disappear because they didn't work, or excuse the user, despite needing it for medical reasons, needing to inform anyone about it?

[shza]

What a load of tosh. If you had to prove that every athlete had gained an unfair advantage from taking a banned substance, rather than just establish the substance had been used, most cheats would get off Scot free. What kind of pseudo scientific method makes rules about disclosure and using banned items simply disappear because they didn't work, or excuse the user, despite needing it for medical reasons, needing to inform anyone about it?

There are normal ranges of testosterone in human males. They can take a blood test to determine whether he was within those levels. They determined he was. Hardly seems complicated or "pseudo science." As I mentioned, I do agree that they could have smacked him on the non-disclosure point (which is conceptually separate).

[IamInuit]

Time for a reality check. Steroids of a plethora of colours have been a part of the sports medicine world in regards to fast healing for decades. In this Ped paranoid world, it just so happens that this claim by the Peterson camp is probably legit. Problem is in this wired world a positive test means guilt. Who cares what the explanation is. Lets not forget where this kid and his brother came from.

[Spicoli]

Maybe I'm going way too Simple Simon but, it is a banned substance? And he did take it? Is there an asterisk allowed because a guys testosterone level is naturally lower and that allows a pass on a banned substance? Who takes these blood tests and which are allowed and which are not. Hopefully its not the same commissions, appointed Dr. etc that "forget" to conduct routine post fight tests

[captainanddew]

would not give an advantage?"? I will take the word of Victor Conte. He knows about drug cheating.

A normal level is 1:1.

Peterson's was 3.77 to 1. Per Conte that is definitely a performance enhancing level.



If his testosterone was abnormally low he was supposed to let the commission know he was doing thisr Do you know why he didn't do so? He was cheating.

[shza]

Maybe I'm going way too Simple Simon but, it is a banned substance? And he did take it? Is there an asterisk allowed because a guys testosterone level is naturally lower and that allows a pass on a banned substance? Who takes these blood tests and which are allowed and which are not. Hopefully its not the same commissions, appointed Dr. etc that "forget" to conduct routine post fight tests

I'm pretty sure the upfront rule actually is more nuanced than "you can't take the following substances under any circumstances," and actually does give a pass under circumstances like these (although, again, he was supposed to inform them of the fact he was getting this treatment before it happened to get picked up on a test).

[archery1]

What a load of tosh. If you had to prove that every athlete had gained an unfair advantage from taking a banned substance, rather than just establish the substance had been used, most cheats would get off Scot free. What kind of pseudo scientific method makes rules about disclosure and using banned items simply disappear because they didn't work, or excuse the user, despite needing it for medical reasons, needing to inform anyone about it?

There are normal ranges of testosterone in human males. They can take a blood test to determine whether he was within those levels. They determined he was. Hardly seems complicated or "pseudo science." As I mentioned, I do agree that they could have smacked him on the non-disclosure point (which is conceptually separate).

He used a subcutaneous synthetic testosterone pellet whilst training for a world title fight. This should set alarm bells ringing. The story that his testosterone levels were lower than the reference range is highly dubious given it came out after he was caught. If true why not disclose it in the first instance? Additionally, if his levels were abnormally low (which I doubt given his appearance in the build up) then this needs investigating. Simply administering exogenous testosterone would be a quick fix and not address the underlying cause.

His story has more holes than Swiss cheese.

[captainanddew]

He went and got testosterone. Didn't tell anyone.

He signed up for testing, where he is required to disclose anything he has taken. He doesn't disclose it.

He is told he tested positive. Does he immediately tell them? I have taken something under a doctor's supervision. Does he tell them that


NO. He sat on his ass. He told them to test the B sample. He was hoping it came back lower. When it didn't then all of a sudden he has an excuse.

3 times he could have disclosed it.

He was cheating. And if he wasn't he had so many chances to disclose the treatment.

Either way his ass should have a long suspension.

Just a question: Why hasn't any specifics been provided by his team that could be verified. Such as when I was tested originally, how low his testosterone levels were

If you had a positive test and had a legitimate medical condition, wouldn't you disclose the information with great detail to clear your name?? Not make vague statements.

[Althugz]

NO. He sat on his ass. He told them to test the B sample. He was hoping it came back lower.

Again, more misinformation. He wasn't ever high to begin with? He was within the legal, normal acceptable range.

I get that this is a forum and everyone has a free opinion but if you don't know the facts, why bother? He was found to have exogenously increased his testosterone to normal levels. He had a feasible explanation for it - he was found not guilty. The end.

[Althugz]

What a load of tosh. If you had to prove that every athlete had gained an unfair advantage from taking a banned substance, rather than just establish the substance had been used, most cheats would get off Scot free. What kind of pseudo scientific method makes rules about disclosure and using banned items simply disappear because they didn't work, or excuse the user, despite needing it for medical reasons, needing to inform anyone about it?

There are normal ranges of testosterone in human males. They can take a blood test to determine whether he was within those levels. They determined he was. Hardly seems complicated or "pseudo science." As I mentioned, I do agree that they could have smacked him on the non-disclosure point (which is conceptually separate).

The story that his testosterone levels were lower than the reference range is highly dubious given it came out after he was caught.

His medical records obviously would have proven his low testosterone levels and the date that the testosterone was prescribed....next...

[archery1]

What a load of tosh. If you had to prove that every athlete had gained an unfair advantage from taking a banned substance, rather than just establish the substance had been used, most cheats would get off Scot free. What kind of pseudo scientific method makes rules about disclosure and using banned items simply disappear because they didn't work, or excuse the user, despite needing it for medical reasons, needing to inform anyone about it?

There are normal ranges of testosterone in human males. They can take a blood test to determine whether he was within those levels. They determined he was. Hardly seems complicated or "pseudo science." As I mentioned, I do agree that they could have smacked him on the non-disclosure point (which is conceptually separate).

The story that his testosterone levels were lower than the reference range is highly dubious given it came out after he was caught.

His medical records obviously would have proven his low testosterone levels and the date that the testosterone was prescribed....next...

Please do not quote one line from my post.

I think it is naive to consider that medical records and lab test results cannot be manufactured especially given the vast sums of money at stake. That's not to say they were but it is a possibility.

The testosterone he was administered may or may not have turned out to be performance enhancing, as mentioned I'm sceptical that it was for legitimate medical reasons but that's a moot point. The Peterson camp had a duty to disclose all of this prior to or even in the immediate aftermath of his test, the fact is they didn't. He tested positive for a banned substance and should be punished accordingly.