Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
The more I think about this, the more I think people are making steroids to be the lesser of two evils when it fact it might not be. Steroids increase your speed, power, and reflexes. That means you can fight harder, faster, and longer. Most injuries in boxing happen as a fight progresses as somebody is being gradually broken down(with the exception of devastating 1 punch knock outs). Some steroids increase the oxygen intake into the blood which means a one fighter would be way fresher late in a fight than the other guy simply because of the steroids. IMO that is just as dangerous as loaded wraps. You are hitting that much harder for that much longer, and you have the reflexes(in some cases) to hit the person in far more oppertune times, which means even more damage is inflicted. I think loading your gloves is terrible, but so is steroids in a sport like this and both should be treated similarly.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
I agree with you to some extent.
However, people need to realise exactly what it was that Shane Mosely took instead of just buying into media bullshit.
Shane Mosely took EPO. This is something that cyclists usually take so that they can have more oxygen in their blood. This leads to them lasting longer and not fatiguing aerobically as fast as they normally would.
EPO does NOT make you hit harder (which I think you realise anyway) but I see your point about being fresher later in the fight.
However, what Shane took was not your ''testosterone boosting, temper tantrum, incredible hulk type power'' steroids, which is a misconception everyone seems to have about them.
What was found in Roy Jones system was that type of steroid but who can no for sure if any fighter is telling the truth? Jones said he bought an over the counter supplement and it was contained in that.
Fact is, at the elite level, steroids are so prevalent in sport that I'd be shocked if many fighters aren't on them.
The cyclist who got caught in the olympics said it best. I think it was an Italian guy who got caught with EPO - ''That's strange. I've been taking this the whole time and passed many tests while taking it''
It's part of everyday routine to these athletes. The difference between getting paid and not.
Also in the U.S, steroids are in the same band as cocaine and heroin which doesn't exactly help the way they're percieved. Steroids are medically used to preserve life and improve the quality of life but few people look at them that way. Blame the media for that.
Anyway, going off topic. Should Shane be seen as bad as Margarito for what he did? IMO no he shouldn't. Shane's EPO use could be seen as dedication to improve himself and be able to train even harder leading up to a fight. (I'm ready to accept that some may call that analagy BS)
Margarito was not trying to improve himself, improve his fitness or his skills. He was trying to cheat and take the biggest shortcut a boxer can take. Load his gloves so that he damages his opponent more and the fight doesn't last as long and/or he wouldn't need to improve his punch power/fitness/technique etc
I just hate seeing people crucified for steroids when most of the sporting world is doing it and then everyone gets on their high horse. Sure, you can make an example of someone but if you're that keen to kick steroids out of sports then you need to have weekly or even daily tests on ALL athletes...and this will obviously never happen.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Part of it,is you can get a false positive for Roids,you have a hunk of concrete in your wraps or you dont,not alot of room for debate.
Also its pretty easy to just take a supplement that will test positive
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Sounds as though that steroids has been watered down and hard to pin point with the large amount of supplements and enhancers available today.Sadly its become a part of sports culture with a new headline weekly it seems.I think if its ruled out by the commissions and deemed banned,thats what you adhere too.equally the talk of bricks and concrete ?What ever it was,a 'training pad' (?),and as of yet to release contents for clarity,it was a violation.An exercise in symantics....and agendas at times.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Sounds as though that steroids has been watered down and hard to pin point with the large amount of supplements and enhancers available today.Sadly its become a part of sports culture with a new headline weekly it seems.I think if its ruled out by the commissions and deemed banned,thats what you adhere too.equally the talk of bricks and concrete ?What ever it was,a 'training pad' (?),and as of yet to release contents for clarity,it was a violation.An exercise in symantics....and agendas at times.
I agree, there is no need to justify the use of something banned...
1. 2 demerit points for self abuse. 8 demerit points for damage to a fighter.
2. 10 demerit points for damage to another fighter.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
I agree with you to some extent.
However, people need to realise exactly what it was that Shane Mosely took instead of just buying into media bullshit.
Shane Mosely took EPO. This is something that cyclists usually take so that they can have more oxygen in their blood. This leads to them lasting longer and not fatiguing aerobically as fast as they normally would.
EPO does NOT make you hit harder (which I think you realise anyway) but I see your point about being fresher later in the fight.
However, what Shane took was not your ''testosterone boosting, temper tantrum, incredible hulk type power'' steroids, which is a misconception everyone seems to have about them.
What was found in Roy Jones system was that type of steroid but who can no for sure if any fighter is telling the truth? Jones said he bought an over the counter supplement and it was contained in that.
Fact is, at the elite level, steroids are so prevalent in sport that I'd be shocked if many fighters aren't on them.
The cyclist who got caught in the olympics said it best. I think it was an Italian guy who got caught with EPO - ''That's strange. I've been taking this the whole time and passed many tests while taking it''
It's part of everyday routine to these athletes. The difference between getting paid and not.
Also in the U.S, steroids are in the same band as cocaine and heroin which doesn't exactly help the way they're percieved. Steroids are medically used to preserve life and improve the quality of life but few people look at them that way. Blame the media for that.
Anyway, going off topic. Should Shane be seen as bad as Margarito for what he did? IMO no he shouldn't. Shane's EPO use could be seen as dedication to improve himself and be able to train even harder leading up to a fight. (I'm ready to accept that some may call that analagy BS)
Margarito was not trying to improve himself, improve his fitness or his skills. He was trying to cheat and take the biggest shortcut a boxer can take. Load his gloves so that he damages his opponent more and the fight doesn't last as long and/or he wouldn't need to improve his punch power/fitness/technique etc
I just hate seeing people crucified for steroids when most of the sporting world is doing it and then everyone gets on their high horse. Sure, you can make an example of someone but if you're that keen to kick steroids out of sports then you need to have weekly or even daily tests on ALL athletes...and this will obviously never happen.
Heck of a breakdown. I agree totally with this. I know many athletes who are on some kind of steroid and these are just amateurs. With a steroid you still have to train harder than your opponent or at least your average athlete to be a success. If you load your gloves you have a high chance of brutally damaging your opponent's health...even ending his life. Would you rather fight someone with no weapons who is a super athlete or a good athlete with brass knuckles? Actually, I have fought a guy on steroids(HGH) and I beat him. I didn't know this before the fight but I still would've fought him either way. No way would I have fought a guy with loaded gloves. No way! One shot is all he needs to end your career and he knows that. Loaded wraps takes a light hitting welterweight to a very serious one punch threat. What Margarito had in his wraps are deadly weapons! No getting around that. If this would've been about what Trinidad did with the extra tape then maybe we have a debate but this one is not even arguable. Sorry Taeth, I like you friend but loaded wraps are just plain scary. I'm retired but this stills scares and disgust me. Steroids should be taken serious but in no way are they as bad as loading your gloves with concrete.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
So was Mosley, so was Roy Jones Jr.(my favourite fighter), being able to fight faster or fight with better stamina for longer leads to more damage to your opponent. Because when they are getting gased you can still go harder than you would be able to normally and that causes more damage to the other guy. In baseball its different, but not in Boxing. You being a better athlete because of help leads to hurting the opponent more.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Sounds as though that steroids has been watered down and hard to pin point with the large amount of supplements and enhancers available today.Sadly its become a part of sports culture with a new headline weekly it seems.I think if its ruled out by the commissions and deemed banned,thats what you adhere too.equally the talk of bricks and concrete ?What ever it was,a 'training pad' (?),and as of yet to release contents for clarity,it was a violation.An exercise in symantics....and agendas at times.
Even 20 years ago the list of Olympic banned substances read like War And Peace,there's alot more since then.
You could EASILY take something without knowing it
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
I cannnot believe we're using one to justify and or soften the other.Are both HGH and added training pads banned??Where do you draw the line?Steroids in their truest form are wrong,as are loaded wraps.And contrary to the colorful hyperbole,It was not concrete.No excuses all around.Both are 'enhancers' rather done in a lab,gym or someones garage.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Sounds as though that steroids has been watered down and hard to pin point with the large amount of supplements and enhancers available today.Sadly its become a part of sports culture with a new headline weekly it seems.I think if its ruled out by the commissions and deemed banned,thats what you adhere too.equally the talk of bricks and concrete ?What ever it was,a 'training pad' (?),and as of yet to release contents for clarity,it was a violation.An exercise in symantics....and agendas at times.
Even 20 years ago the list of Olympic banned substances read like War And Peace,there's alot more since then.
You could EASILY take something without knowing it
Thats the slippery slope.Sounds like the commission has its work cut out for itself.Many detractors would say that they missed Violations in previous Tony Fights based on this last incedent with the wrap...does the same hold true for Mosley as many substances are undetectable (?).A judgment of convenience or preference as to what ones willing to except it would seem.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
So was Mosley, so was Roy Jones Jr.(my favourite fighter), being able to fight faster or fight with better stamina for longer leads to more damage to your opponent. Because when they are getting gased you can still go harder than you would be able to normally and that causes more damage to the other guy. In baseball its different, but not in Boxing. You being a better athlete because of help leads to hurting the opponent more.
This could possibly be true but there is no real way of telling what effect the EPO/Steroids can have in a fight.
What's to say that the other boxer just had a great gameplan anyway? Or would he have been fitter than the guy who wasn't on steroids anyway? Was his punch power/combinations/technique much better anyway?
It's a grey area with no way of telling BUT steroids are not a magic potion that will turn you into a match winner if you aren't one. Most people seem to think that they turn you into the terminator - Nothing of the sort.
Loaded gloves are no grey area as trainer monkey has said. You know 100% the damage that can be done to your opponent if you take that route.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Sounds as though that steroids has been watered down and hard to pin point with the large amount of supplements and enhancers available today.Sadly its become a part of sports culture with a new headline weekly it seems.I think if its ruled out by the commissions and deemed banned,thats what you adhere too.equally the talk of bricks and concrete ?What ever it was,a 'training pad' (?),and as of yet to release contents for clarity,it was a violation.An exercise in symantics....and agendas at times.
Even 20 years ago the list of Olympic banned substances read like War And Peace,there's alot more since then.
You could EASILY take something without knowing it
Thats the slippery slope.Sounds like the commission has its work cut out for itself.Many detractors would say that they missed Violations in previous Tony Fights based on this last incedent with the wrap...does the same hold true for Mosley as many substances are undetectable (?).A judgment of convenience or preference as to what ones willing to except it would seem.
I take a one oops rule.maybe you took something that came up as a false positive,but after that you should be calling the commission when you want to take cough syrup ,just in case.
As many times as Tony has been tagged,not only is he using it,he's too sloppy to even use a masking agent.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Without turning all TM on this.. would you rather fight someone coked off their nut or fight someone with a baseball bat?
It's a no brainer.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Both are just as bad in different ways....Steroids make you stronger, faster etc....
Wraps can make you a fist of Iron.....
Half dozen of one 6 of the other
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trainer Monkey
Even 20 years ago the list of Olympic banned substances read like War And Peace,there's alot more since then.
You could EASILY take something without knowing it
Thats the slippery slope.Sounds like the commission has its work cut out for itself.Many detractors would say that they missed Violations in previous Tony Fights based on this last incedent with the wrap...does the same hold true for Mosley as many substances are undetectable (?).A judgment of convenience or preference as to what ones willing to except it would seem.
I take a one oops rule.maybe you took something that came up as a false positive,but after that you should be calling the commission when you want to take cough syrup ,just in case.
As many times as Tony has been tagged,not only is he using it,he's too sloppy to even use a masking agent.
Stumped :cwm13: .Do you mean Shane or ....?
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
I agree with you to some extent.
However, people need to realise exactly what it was that Shane Mosely took instead of just buying into media bullshit.
Shane Mosely took EPO. This is something that cyclists usually take so that they can have more oxygen in their blood. This leads to them lasting longer and not fatiguing aerobically as fast as they normally would.
EPO does NOT make you hit harder (which I think you realise anyway) but I see your point about being fresher later in the fight.
However, what Shane took was not your ''testosterone boosting, temper tantrum, incredible hulk type power'' steroids, which is a misconception everyone seems to have about them.
What was found in Roy Jones system was that type of steroid but who can no for sure if any fighter is telling the truth? Jones said he bought an over the counter supplement and it was contained in that.
Fact is, at the elite level, steroids are so prevalent in sport that I'd be shocked if many fighters aren't on them.
The cyclist who got caught in the olympics said it best. I think it was an Italian guy who got caught with EPO - ''That's strange. I've been taking this the whole time and passed many tests while taking it''
It's part of everyday routine to these athletes. The difference between getting paid and not.
Also in the U.S, steroids are in the same band as cocaine and heroin which doesn't exactly help the way they're percieved. Steroids are medically used to preserve life and improve the quality of life but few people look at them that way. Blame the media for that.
Anyway, going off topic. Should Shane be seen as bad as Margarito for what he did? IMO no he shouldn't. Shane's EPO use could be seen as dedication to improve himself and be able to train even harder leading up to a fight. (I'm ready to accept that some may call that analagy BS)
Margarito was not trying to improve himself, improve his fitness or his skills. He was trying to cheat and take the biggest shortcut a boxer can take. Load his gloves so that he damages his opponent more and the fight doesn't last as long and/or he wouldn't need to improve his punch power/fitness/technique etc
I just hate seeing people crucified for steroids when most of the sporting world is doing it and then everyone gets on their high horse. Sure, you can make an example of someone but if you're that keen to kick steroids out of sports then you need to have weekly or even daily tests on ALL athletes...and this will obviously never happen.
Thank you. I been reading that bullshiit for to damn long. I recently had to break the difference to some poor misguided soul.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Who would you rather get hit in the face by, a guy on steroids or a guy with brass knuckles?
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Both are cheating, and neither should be looked upon favorably (although I'm not niave, I know most fighters and athletes use them).
I think the distinction lies in the fact that while steroids can be used to enhance a fighter physically, "loaded" gloves are bringing a foreign weapon into the ring with you. Even without steroids, the playing field will never be even because there are SO MANY supplements out there now that can mimmick the affects of steroids anyway.
I see a huge difference in using performance enhancers and loading your gloves. One is cheating, the other is criminal.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Without turning all TM on this.. would you rather fight someone coked off their nut or fight someone with a baseball bat?
It's a no brainer.
Maybe you should try fihgting somebody coked off their nut. I am doing security as a part time job, and we work the police and a guy who used to be on the riot unit was telling me one time this guy who was 160 pounds, fought evenly with 4 cops all over 200 pounds all using their knightsticks, pepper spray, tazors, and like I said he was holding his own. There isn't a single person who would stand a chance with a baseball bat against that.
Now steroids aren't the same being coked up, and I am aware of that.
Also how can people deny the difference steroids make in performance? Like at Michael Johnson, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark Macguire. Especially the guys in baseball where hand-eye coordination, power, and speed play a factor. Hitting a baseball is suppose to be the toughest thing to do in sports, and look how dramatically. If it can change good hitters into the best hitters in the history of the game, and doubling their stats, it must do amazing things for boxers. Obviously, it would never make Arturo Gatti into Floyd Mayweather, but give it to a good fighter, and it would give them that edge that makes all the difference.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
Well i say loaded wraps because steriods can have different effects on people as for the people saying Tony had bricks in his hands well if he did Dont you think Williams and Clotty would of been busted up i mean starting to question if were going to say he was using warps then why were there faces not torn buy it and also i wish the just tell us what is was because if its not plaster and somthing elese like to have some proof on how much more damage it does then say the human hand like to know.
Re: Why should steroids be considered not as bad as load wraps?
I am not leaning into any side but steroids is supposed to be performance enhancement while loaded wraps' purpose is for damage enhancement. As a fight fan I would rather see fighters giving their best performance than inflicting possible fatal damage to somebody. It is indeed unfair to have any significant unjust advantage whatever way it is. But take it this way, what if both fighters have the right to take these performance enhancements? who will benefit? US. FANS. we won't see fighters gassed, unconditioned for a full fight. Unlike loaded wraps, no matter how well-conditioned a fighter is if he's getting hit by foreign objects that conditioning is definetely neutralized. and it is again, us fans who suffer. So, to me as long as these 'steroids' purposes is to 'sustain better cardio strength and not punching power', I'm cool with it.
Afterall Boxing ain't Tour de France.
