Should Floyd be allowed to use xylocaine for his hands?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

True, xylocaine does not enhance a boxer's abilities. But the opponent, who did not use xylocaine, is capable of injuring his hands during the fight thus rendering them ineffective. Now, does that look like a level playing field?

---

The opponent has the option of using it though, he is not doing something his opponent is not allowed to do.

Like I said before, I would be fine with the NSAC banning Xylocaine, but I don't think Floyd should be singled out as not being allowed to use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

I don't see how anyone could argue that a pain killer wouldn't enhance your performance????

Didn't Clottey essentially lose the Margarito fight because he broke his hand? Didn't Vitali lose the Byrd fight due to a shoulder injury?
Pain killers are performance enhancers. It should be illegal and would certainly not be a "level" playing field if you are numbed up and the other guy isn't. Paulie M. fought many fights basically 1 handed because his hands were hurt. If he were able to take a pain killer and not feel the pain of landing a punch he wouldn't have favored his hurt hand, thus enhancing his performance.

I would almost argue that a pain killer has a more direct impact enhancing your performance than steroids would. Steriods cannot improve your boxing ability, only your strenght and stamina. And actually the accusations from Sr. are that Pac is on something that makes him impervious to pain???? Maybe it's a full body xylocaine shot.

---

Strength and stamina are direct factors in boxing ability. The only purpose of taking PEDs is to enhance ability, which it does in many ways, otherwise they would be rendered useless to athletes. And Mayweather beat Jesus Chavez with a broken hand. Roy Jones beat Hopkins with a broken hand. Margarito also hurt his hand during the Clottey fight. It wasn't Clottey's hand problem it was his no heart problem.:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blegit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

I don't see how anyone could argue that a pain killer wouldn't enhance your performance????

Didn't Clottey essentially lose the Margarito fight because he broke his hand? Didn't Vitali lose the Byrd fight due to a shoulder injury?
Pain killers are performance enhancers. It should be illegal and would certainly not be a "level" playing field if you are numbed up and the other guy isn't. Paulie M. fought many fights basically 1 handed because his hands were hurt. If he were able to take a pain killer and not feel the pain of landing a punch he wouldn't have favored his hurt hand, thus enhancing his performance.

I would almost argue that a pain killer has a more direct impact enhancing your performance than steroids would. Steriods cannot improve your boxing ability, only your strenght and stamina. And actually the accusations from Sr. are that Pac is on something that makes him impervious to pain???? Maybe it's a full body xylocaine shot.

---

Strength and stamina are direct factors in boxing ability. The only purpose of taking PEDs is to enhance ability, which it does in many ways, otherwise they would be rendered useless to athletes. And Mayweather beat Jesus Chavez with a broken hand. Roy Jones beat Hopkins with a broken hand. Margarito also hurt his hand during the Clottey fight. It wasn't Clottey's hand problem it was his no heart problem.:p

---

While I agree that PEDS only purpose would be to enhance performance, I think xylocaine is the same. My brother just got surgery after cutting his arm with a saw and they gave him xylocaine. He was able to have a conversation while they are giving him stitches and not feel the pain. How can anyone argue that not feeling any pain in your hands wouldn't enhance your ability to punch someone with full force and not holding back if you have an injury?

My argument is xylocaine has a direct impact on the ability of a fighter to not feel pain. People quit in fights because of pain. If you eliminate pain, it enhances your performance.

The argument that it will hurt him in the long run is irrelevant because PEDS will hurt you in the long run also. Your liver will be damaged and you may die sooner. Both substances will allow a person to perform better than they would without them.

Also the argument that it's ok cause the other boxer could do it also is irrelevant. If a boxer is taking a PED that is not detectable by urine test, and only urine tests are required, both boxers could use the PED and then it would be a level playing field??

Bottom line to my argument. Xylocaine is a drug and it shouldn't be legal before a fight because it would give a fighter an advantage over the other.

Floyd is a bitch. Can't suck up the pain like Donaire.

Well if Manny has some mud he'd like to sling at Floyd then that's just great. Two of the worlds best fighters in a political bitch fight FUCKIN BUS STOP WANKERS!!!!!!!! :mad: :bawling: :mad:











:foruml10gc5: :bananna8:











:vd: God, Jimmy... Get a grip man.... Get-a-Grip :-\

Okay i'm back in the room. But seriously I'm sick of this shit man. I really am.

In all fairness, this thread has been started much in the same way Floyd started his slanderous accusations of Manny.
Neither hold much water with out documented facts but in Floyds current defence, this nonsense is complete and utter unfounded drivell and with out any basis of fact, documented fact (or fiction for that matter), logic or folklore. If you ask me, this thread should be condemned to the realms of spoof.



So there. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blegit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

I don't see how anyone could argue that a pain killer wouldn't enhance your performance????

Didn't Clottey essentially lose the Margarito fight because he broke his hand? Didn't Vitali lose the Byrd fight due to a shoulder injury?
Pain killers are performance enhancers. It should be illegal and would certainly not be a "level" playing field if you are numbed up and the other guy isn't. Paulie M. fought many fights basically 1 handed because his hands were hurt. If he were able to take a pain killer and not feel the pain of landing a punch he wouldn't have favored his hurt hand, thus enhancing his performance.

I would almost argue that a pain killer has a more direct impact enhancing your performance than steroids would. Steriods cannot improve your boxing ability, only your strenght and stamina. And actually the accusations from Sr. are that Pac is on something that makes him impervious to pain???? Maybe it's a full body xylocaine shot.

---

Strength and stamina are direct factors in boxing ability. The only purpose of taking PEDs is to enhance ability, which it does in many ways, otherwise they would be rendered useless to athletes. And Mayweather beat Jesus Chavez with a broken hand. Roy Jones beat Hopkins with a broken hand. Margarito also hurt his hand during the Clottey fight. It wasn't Clottey's hand problem it was his no heart problem.:p

---

While I agree that PEDS only purpose would be to enhance performance, I think xylocaine is the same. My brother just got surgery after cutting his arm with a saw and they gave him xylocaine. He was able to have a conversation while they are giving him stitches and not feel the pain. How can anyone argue that not feeling any pain in your hands wouldn't enhance your ability to punch someone with full force and not holding back if you have an injury?

My argument is xylocaine has a direct impact on the ability of a fighter to not feel pain. People quit in fights because of pain. If you eliminate pain, it enhances your performance.

The argument that it will hurt him in the long run is irrelevant because PEDS will hurt you in the long run also. Your liver will be damaged and you may die sooner. Both substances will allow a person to perform better than they would without them.

Also the argument that it's ok cause the other boxer could do it also is irrelevant. If a boxer is taking a PED that is not detectable by urine test, and only urine tests are required, both boxers could use the PED and then it would be a level playing field??

Bottom line to my argument. Xylocaine is a drug and it shouldn't be legal before a fight because it would give a fighter an advantage over the other.

---

My thoughts exactly, you were just ahead of me. This answers killersheep's comment to my previous post.

Although I am against the use of xylocaine in a fight, like what I have stated in an earlier post, Floyd should be allowed it's use because it is not banned. But there has been this talk about him wanting a level playing field that's why he demanded a blood drug test. He can do this by not using the xylocaine. However, is there even a way we would know whether he uses it or not?

I agree that Floyd should not be singled out for using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blegit

Strength and stamina are direct factors in boxing ability. The only purpose of taking PEDs is to enhance ability, which it does in many ways, otherwise they would be rendered useless to athletes. And Mayweather beat Jesus Chavez with a broken hand. Roy Jones beat Hopkins with a broken hand. Margarito also hurt his hand during the Clottey fight. It wasn't Clottey's hand problem it was his no heart problem.:p

---

While I agree that PEDS only purpose would be to enhance performance, I think xylocaine is the same. My brother just got surgery after cutting his arm with a saw and they gave him xylocaine. He was able to have a conversation while they are giving him stitches and not feel the pain. How can anyone argue that not feeling any pain in your hands wouldn't enhance your ability to punch someone with full force and not holding back if you have an injury?

My argument is xylocaine has a direct impact on the ability of a fighter to not feel pain. People quit in fights because of pain. If you eliminate pain, it enhances your performance.

The argument that it will hurt him in the long run is irrelevant because PEDS will hurt you in the long run also. Your liver will be damaged and you may die sooner. Both substances will allow a person to perform better than they would without them.

Also the argument that it's ok cause the other boxer could do it also is irrelevant. If a boxer is taking a PED that is not detectable by urine test, and only urine tests are required, both boxers could use the PED and then it would be a level playing field??

Bottom line to my argument. Xylocaine is a drug and it shouldn't be legal before a fight because it would give a fighter an advantage over the other.

---

My thoughts exactly, you were just ahead of me. This answers killersheep's comment to my previous post.

Although I am against the use of xylocaine in a fight, like what I have stated in an earlier post, Floyd should be allowed it's use because it is not banned. But there has been this talk about him wanting a level playing field that's why he demanded a blood drug test. He can do this by not using the xylocaine. However, is there even a way we would know whether he uses it or not?

I agree that Floyd should not be singled out for using it.

---

No his post doesn't answer my question, however your comment basically restates what I said. If Xylocaine was a concern for Pac's camp they could have stated something for it not to be used in their private contract. And you're right how would they test for it? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

True, xylocaine does not enhance a boxer's abilities. But the opponent, who did not use xylocaine, is capable of injuring his hands during the fight thus rendering them ineffective. Now, does that look like a level playing field?

---

The opponent has the option of using it though, he is not doing something his opponent is not allowed to do.

Like I said before, I would be fine with the NSAC banning Xylocaine, but I don't think Floyd should be singled out as not being allowed to use it.

---

I wasn't refering to luvfightgame's entire post but to a statement he made:
Also the argument that it's ok cause the other boxer could do it also is irrelevant. If a boxer is taking a PED that is not detectable in urine test, and only urine tests are required, both boxers could use the PED and then it would be a level playing field??
I find this to be a good response to your comment above.

I don't think anybody here even mentioned that xylocaine was a concern for the Pac's camp. My comments are in response to the general question in the title of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

True, xylocaine does not enhance a boxer's abilities. But the opponent, who did not use xylocaine, is capable of injuring his hands during the fight thus rendering them ineffective. Now, does that look like a level playing field?

---

The opponent has the option of using it though, he is not doing something his opponent is not allowed to do.

Like I said before, I would be fine with the NSAC banning Xylocaine, but I don't think Floyd should be singled out as not being allowed to use it.

---

I wasn't refering to luvfightgame's entire post but to a statement he made:
Also the argument that it's ok cause the other boxer could do it also is irrelevant. If a boxer is taking a PED that is not detectable in urine test, and only urine tests are required, both boxers could use the PED and then it would be a level playing field??
I find this to be a good response to your comment above.

I don't think anybody here even mentioned that xylocaine was a concern for the Pac's camp. My comments are in response to the general question in the title of this thread.

---

The point of this thread we agree on. That the NSAC should ban Xylocaine, but Floyd is not doing anything wrong, until that happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

The opponent has the option of using it though, he is not doing something his opponent is not allowed to do.

Like I said before, I would be fine with the NSAC banning Xylocaine, but I don't think Floyd should be singled out as not being allowed to use it.

---

I wasn't refering to luvfightgame's entire post but to a statement he made:
Also the argument that it's ok cause the other boxer could do it also is irrelevant. If a boxer is taking a PED that is not detectable in urine test, and only urine tests are required, both boxers could use the PED and then it would be a level playing field??
I find this to be a good response to your comment above.

I don't think anybody here even mentioned that xylocaine was a concern for the Pac's camp. My comments are in response to the general question in the title of this thread.

---

The point of this thread we agree on. That the NSAC should ban Xylocaine, but Floyd is not doing anything wrong, until that happens.

---

Good to know that we can agree on something (I think this is just the 2nd time after disagreeing with each other for more times than I can count with my fingers and toes, and I have extra fingers and toes ..... just kidding with you, mate.).