The Definitive PED article

Alright the issue of PEDs is being raised again & I thought of posting this a few weeks ago, but decided against it because the forum was over-run with crap.

Let's just first say that we should try to not make this thread about the whole Mayweather/Pacquiao debacle & more a take on the state of PED use in boxing & the clearly inadequate testing.

Secondly, just to point out how some of the people mentioned are for those who don't know.

Victor Conte - Former head of BALCO, supplier of PEDs to dozens of elite athletes & at least one professional boxer, Shane Mosley, although there may well be more.

Travis Tygart - The head of the USADA, one of the most respected anti-doping organizations in the world.

Dr Margaret Goodman - Considered the most knowledgeable opinion in boxing with regards to safety precautions, injuries & other medical issues surrounding the sport.

Keith Kizer - In charge of the Nevada State Athletic Commission.

The writer, Mark Zeigler, is not a boxing writer. He is a sports writer, who has won awards for his work regarding drug abuse across sports.

I mention this to try & point out that this does not need to become another debate about whose fault it is the fight didn't happen & that it should be about the subject of PED use in boxing.

Anyway here is the link

Is Pacquiao-Mayweather debacle beginning of change in boxing's drug culture?

I'll copy it in my next post, for those of you that have trouble with clicking links :p

Is Pacquiao-Mayweather debacle beginning of change in boxing's drug culture?

By Mark Zeigler

Usually, when athletes came to Victor Conte and his BALCO empire for help taking performance-enhancing drugs and evading detection, Conte would carefully research their sport’s anti-doping program first -- scrutinize its banned substance list, examine when and where and how often urine or blood samples would be collected, determine which laboratories would test them using what type of equipment -- and devise a detailed plan to beat it.

When boxer Shane Mosley and his handlers approached him in the summer of 2003, Conte didn’t waste his time.

They told him Mosley might be tested the day before the September fight in Las Vegas and immediately after it. That’s all Conte needed to know, all he needed to hear. No reason to sift through pages and pages of drug protocols, or sleuth out the calibration levels of a lab’s high resolution mass spectrometer, or calculate clearance times of detectable substances in case of an unannounced test during pre-fight training.

“That’s announced testing,” the doping guru says. “That’s IQ testing. If that’s all they do, why do I need to find out what’s on the banned list? And I never did bother.

“Boxing’s testing program is beyond a joke. It’s worthless.”

Conte had that thought in the summer of 2003, when he loaded up the 32-year-old Mosley with endurance-boosting erythropoietin (EPO) and a cocktail of other verboten substances for what would be a landmark 12-round decision over Oscar De La Hoya. The difference now is that more and more people are questioning boxing’s commitment to anti-doping as well.

For that, thank the demise of the March 13 superfight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. presumably because the former refused to meet the latter’s demands about pre-fight drug testing. Mayweather wanted regular urine and blood testing in the months, weeks, even days leading up the fight, similar to the anti-doping protocols most Olympic athletes face; Pacquiao agreed to some provisions and refused others. No fight.

So the public doesn’t get the epic clash it has been clamoring for. The sport doesn’t get a much-needed infusion of mainstream attention. The two boxers and their promoters don’t get preposterously rich, and Las Vegas doesn’t get a respite from the recession. But doping and boxing suddenly find themselves in the same sentence and that alone, Conte and others say, may be the greatest legacy of Pacquiao-Mayweather, regardless if they ever meet inside the ropes.

“Whether he meant to or not, Floyd has shown that the process is tainted and it’s going to be hard to overlook now,” says Margaret Goodman, the former chief ringside physician for Nevada and an outspoken critic of the sport’s anti-doping policies. “You just can’t ignore it any longer. There just is no rationale.”

Adds Conte: “I see this potentially as an opportunity to improve the effectiveness of drug testing. And here’s why I think this is so important for boxing and MMA: When you increase speed and power, you’re also increasing potential damage to the opponent. Crushing a baseball is one thing. Crushing a guy’s brain is another.”

* * *

Keith Kizer is the executive director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, which oversees professional boxing, Mixed Martial Arts and other forms of “unarmed combat” in the state. He is talking about the commission’s drug testing program.

“You have to be vigilant,” Kizer says. “And I think we are.”

Are they?

It depends on your perspective, depends where in the realm of relativity you sit. Pro boxing has no national or international governing body that mandates drug testing, leaving it to individual states in this country. And compared to most states, Nevada indeed is vigilant.

Texas , for instance. Instead of Mayweather in Las Vegas , Pacquiao will fight March 13 against Joshua Clottey at the new Dallas Cowboys stadium outside Dallas . The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation will oversee it.

Its anti-doping program?

Essentially there isn’t one. The state has the authority to demand urine testing for certain performance-enhancing substances “with probable cause,” according to TDLR spokesperson Susan Stanford. Without probable cause to suspect Pacquiao or Clottey are juiced up (neither has failed a past drug test), no drug testing is required to license the fight.

Nevada has upgraded its drug testing program several times over the past decade, ramping up its stimulant testing, then adopting the World Anti-Doping Agency banned substance list, then adding in 2008 the ability to demand random, out-of-competition urine tests at the commission’s discretion for any boxers licensed by the state.

Sounds good, until you consider:

• Under Nevada ’s program, you get 48 hours’ notice to report to the closest accredited lab for a random test, plenty of time for many banned substances to clear your urine. “That’s random testing?” Goodman asks. “That’s random announced testing. They might as well shoot up a flare to tell them a test is coming.”

• In many labs, no one is following you into the bathroom and making sure the urine sample is indeed yours (as doping control officers do in Olympic-style testing), or closely checking identification so someone who looks like you isn’t showing up, or running DNA tests on the urine to rule out imposters.

• Even if the sample is yours, Nevada doesn’t routinely test for erythropoietin (EPO) and several other potent substances that can be detected in urine using more sophisticated, more expensive, more time consuming methods.

• While the Nevada commissioners can demand blood testing, which can find human growth hormone or identify endurance-boosting blood doping not detectable in urine, Kizer concedes they never have.

• While Nevada has the authority to target-test prior offenders or suspicious athletes based on “cause,” it rarely does. Otherwise, Mosley would be subjected to numerous unannounced, out-of-competition tests based on his admission under oath to using EPO and other illicit substances before the De La Hoya fight. “And if you’re not going to do it on him,” Goodman says, “then who are you doing it on?”

• Nevada doesn’t keep a log of previous urine and blood test results to track the longitudinal chemical profiles of athletes, in case certain markers indicative of performance-enhancing drug use appear.

How easy is it to beat a testing program like Nevada’s?

“As simple as walking across the street,” says Travis Tygart. “It’s good for PR, to give the appearance that you’re testing, but nothing more.”

Who is Tygart ?

He is the CEO of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which handles drug testing for Olympic athletes in this country using regulations created by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). He’s also the person whom members of the Mayweather camp contacted during negotiations for the Pacquiao fight to learn about the so-called “gold standard” of performance-enhancing drug vigilance.

“It’s a fundamentally different approach,” Tygart says when asked to compare his agency’s program to others in U.S. professional sports. “The WADA approach is to use best practices and policies and procedures to truly protect the rights of clean athletes. Other programs are simply there for PR purposes. … Anybody with a heartbeat can find ways around them.”

Pacquiao initially agreed to three blood tests in the run-up to a March 13 fight -- once at the introductory news conference in January, again 30 days out and in the locker room immediately after the fight. The Mayweather camp shook its head. The next proposal was 24 days out. Another no.

USADA would never agree to such provisions because it amounts to announced testing and because of the wide variety of banned substances an athlete could take in the period between tests. If it is administering the drug program, it chooses when and where to test, and how often. There is no fudge factor. No compromise. No preferential treatment for boxers who stand to make $40 million each from a single fight.

Under USADA rules, athletes must file quarterly calendars of where they’ll be and when, making themselves available for urine and blood testing between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., seven days a week, 365 days a year, anywhere on the planet. Suspicious athletes or past offenders regularly are target tested, sometimes two, three, four days in a row. The urine and blood results are recorded over the years to create a biological profile, so even the slightest change will hoist a red flag.

A comprehensive program, yes. Impervious? Hardly.

Athletes can miss two tests every 12 months without repercussion. Sprinter Marion Jones passed an estimated 160 drug tests in her career before admitting she took steroids. Conte’s stable of BALCO athletes were caught only after USADA obtained a used syringe containing “the clear’’ -- an previously undetectable designer steroid -- and reverse-engineered a test for it.

There are other problems. The blood test for human growth hormone has been around since 2004, and an athlete has yet to be caught with it, perhaps because it can detect HGH going back only two days, if that. There still is no known test for autologous blood doping, where an athlete removes his own blood, stores it and re-infuses it to boost endurance by increasing his levels of oxygen-carrying red blood cells. Even the urine test for EPO, Conte insists, goes back only 19 hours if the drug is administered intravenously. And who knows what new-fangled designer steroids are out there.

“You could test every athlete every day, and even then you might miss something,” Kizer says. “You do what you can.”

The big question is: Can they do more? Should they?

The true extent of doping in boxing is unknown, certainly. No one is checking off a box on a survey saying they regularly ‘roid up before fights. But the anecdotal evidence is growing, and doping experts say substances like anabolic steroids, human growth hormone and EPO have a bigger impact on boxing than most sports because of their recuperative benefits during heavy training and because of their strength and endurance boost during the actual fight.

There’s also the argument that if doping is so prevalent in pro sports such as baseball and football, why wouldn’t elite boxers be using them as well with so much at stake?

"I looked around and, from what I saw, everybody was doing the same (stuff),” heavyweight Tommy Morrison, an admitted steroid user, said in 2005. “It wasn’t something that was talked about openly. But when you looked around, you could tell.”

Kizer isn’t convinced his program needs radical overhaul to catch the drug cheats.

“I’ve still never had a drug testing expert come to this commission and say, ‘You’re behind the curve, you need to be blood testing, you need to be EPO testing,’” he says. “Mr. Mayweather has every right to demand it. But that’s a private negotiation and not something we’re involved in.”

It is that very demand which is so encouraging to people like USADA’s Tygart , less for its subject than its origin.

“What’s most important here is you have athletes who say we want this,” Tygart says. “We’ve long encouraged athletes to take ownership of their sport. It’s too easy for those who are running a sport and profiting from it to just want to have the best athletes on the field or in the ring, even if they’re all doped up. That shows real progress from the athlete standpoint, that they’re aware of these issues. Hopefully that momentum continues.

“That’s what ultimately happened in the Olympic movement. The athletes brought change. The athletes have to want clean sport. They have to say, ‘We’re not going to fight big fights if there isn’t drug testing in them.’ You don’t want to hijack big fights, but it might take a couple big fights that don’t happen.”

It’s not that easy, of course. If Nevada suddenly instituted USADA-style testing, promoters might take lucrative fights to places with less stringent anti-doping regimens. Nevada also runs into jurisdictional issues by sending someone across state borders in search of a boxer to urinate in a cup. And who’s paying for it? Currently, the Nevada commission foots the bill, which might explain why it isn’t routinely subjecting urine samples to the $400 EPO test.

“Nobody wants this,” Goodman says. “Can you imagine if both fighters agree to testing before the fight, which is what you should do if you want to do it right, and someone came up positive and you’d have to cancel the fight? Can you imagine? Everyone is worried about the money aspect and not the safety aspect.”

Conte is hopeful, just not overly optimistic. Call him cynical, but understand he once had a window into the dark side of doping. He knows how effective these drugs are, how rampant they are, how easy they are to use without fear of detection.

“Here’s the real question: Do they want to know?” Conte says. “Do they really want to know what people are using -- how much and how often and by whom? That’s the question for boxing.”

His answer?

“I’m not sure they do.”

You can't convince someone that desperately, desperately, wants to believe.

I didn't read it, PEDs bore me, but I don't have to be convinced, its obvious that the type of tests Manny wants are those that allow you to get away with using.

Now that is definitive. Anybody who is a fan of boxing should appreciate this article. Boxing doesn't want clean itself up. And I'm talking about the people outside the ring who make money off of the people who are risking their health/life inside the ring. The last parts of that article is very interesting. Boxing is more concerned about the money than the safety of the sport. As dangerous as this sport is without cheating this is the state of where we are. And that last question of the article must be answered honestly and approached so. Does boxing really want to know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

You can't convince someone that desperately, desperately, wants to believe.

I didn't read it, PEDs bore me, but I don't have to be convinced, its obvious that the type of tests Manny wants are those that allow you to get away with using.

---

Like I said, I'm not really bothered about Manny particularly, it was more the Adamek thread that got me thinking about how widespread it may be in the sport and what unbelievably shoddy testing procedures we have.

Regardless of the initial motivations behind it, it would be fantastic if the Mayweather-Mosley fight became a catalyst for boxing cleaning itself in this regard. There will always be bad scorecards and poor refereeing decisions, but it would be great if we could at least be confident that the sport's top fighters are clean.

Great article and great points Jaz. I'll give a more insightful response when I'm back on my computer. The main crux of the difficulty of cleaning up the sport is those that directly profit and stand to lose their livelihood from stricter testing.

Good read. Away from the blame game, there can be no doubt that testing for PED's in boxing needs to be stepped up. Unlike other sports, boxing is a serious one where fists become weapons. It's dangerous, and for that reason alone we should not be allowing drugs cheats to slip through the net.

The thing is: the rules about anti-doping probably date from an era where urine was way enough to detect most stuff of the era. Things changed well since then and bio-technology are upgrading lightspeed. TO keep with such improvement of techniques and produces, it would be just normal that the commission updates itself once in a while otherwise it ends up like now: obsolete rules for brand new techniques.

Like the article & some of you guys have said, it really doesn't seem that boxing wants to clean itself up. Using Shane Mosley as an example we can see the problem. He was one of the biggest stars in the sport at the start of the 2000's, would those in Nevada or Califiornia really want to lose the income that his fights in their states brought in?

It also makes you look at boxers and wonder who is actually clean. It would be great if more of the top fighters started voluntarily bringing in the USADA style testing. The fact Mayweather is doing it, leaves me very confident that he at least isn't and hasn't been on anything. I still think that the majority probably aren't, but with the situation now, it's hard to be fully confident in saying someone definitely isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Like the article & some of you guys have said, it really doesn't seem that boxing wants to clean itself up. Using Shane Mosley as an example we can see the problem. He was one of the biggest stars in the sport at the start of the 2000's, would those in Nevada or Califiornia really want to lose the income that his fights in their states brought in?

It also makes you look at boxers and wonder who is actually clean. It would be great if more of the top fighters started voluntarily bringing in the USADA style testing. The fact Mayweather is doing it, leaves me very confident that he at least isn't and hasn't been on anything. I still think that the majority probably aren't, but with the situation now, it's hard to be fully confident in saying someone definitely isn't.

---

That's the main point in any discussion, likely due to opportunity and desire to do better that your talking about the majority. No reason to expect athletes who put on the gloves to be any more 'moral' than any other sport, and even with test intensive sport like athletics and cycling many are still being caught, and the sad fact is that the drug providers will always be a step ahead of the testers. The only 'fool proof' answer where no one is ever a suspect is to legalise it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

You can't convince someone that desperately, desperately, wants to believe.

I didn't read it, PEDs bore me, but I don't have to be convinced, its obvious that the type of tests Manny wants are those that allow you to get away with using.

---

Like I said, I'm not really bothered about Manny particularly, it was more the Adamek thread that got me thinking about how widespread it may be in the sport and what unbelievably shoddy testing procedures we have.

Regardless of the initial motivations behind it, it would be fantastic if the Mayweather-Mosley fight became a catalyst for boxing cleaning itself in this regard. There will always be bad scorecards and poor refereeing decisions, but it would be great if we could at least be confident that the sport's top fighters are clean.

---

The first response to your article responded exactly with what we we NOT trying to talk about here which is the Mayweather-Pacquiao breakdown. But, I guess this topic would have never come up without that instance. Thanks for the great read, Jaz. Good to know what is happening in sports these days.

I guess the other thing is, most fighters aren't banned, or forgotten after having something like this happen. Is there any question that Mosley will not get in the HOF? Baseball is completely writing off these guys. Canseco, McGuir, ARod, will NEVER get in their HOF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonnyFolds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

You can't convince someone that desperately, desperately, wants to believe.

I didn't read it, PEDs bore me, but I don't have to be convinced, its obvious that the type of tests Manny wants are those that allow you to get away with using.

---

Like I said, I'm not really bothered about Manny particularly, it was more the Adamek thread that got me thinking about how widespread it may be in the sport and what unbelievably shoddy testing procedures we have.

Regardless of the initial motivations behind it, it would be fantastic if the Mayweather-Mosley fight became a catalyst for boxing cleaning itself in this regard. There will always be bad scorecards and poor refereeing decisions, but it would be great if we could at least be confident that the sport's top fighters are clean.

---

The first response to your article responded exactly with what we we NOT trying to talk about here which is the Mayweather-Pacquiao breakdown. But, I guess this topic would have never come up without that instance. Thanks for the great read, Jaz. Good to know what is happening in sports these days.

I guess the other thing is, most fighters aren't banned, or forgotten after having something like this happen. Is there any question that Mosley will not get in the HOF? Baseball is completely writing off these guys. Canseco, McGuir, ARod, will NEVER get in their HOF.

---

Yeah there needs to be major reform to get all this together. Baseball has two organization that form a completely different equation than boxing.

1. Major League Baseball, they set uniform rules that cover all players (even though there are slightly different rules for the AL and NL)

2. Players Union, they represent the players demands.

These two organizations negotiate everything as two larger entities.

In boxing everything is individual, so there is not a set protocol for the rules, even what is and isn't illegal. I think a more standardizing organization is necessary for any meaningful reform to take place.

If an organization has rules it should be prepared to enforce them, this is just not the case as it stands now.

While that is a great and comprehensive article, it is not only the sport of boxing that seemingly doesn't want to know what their athletes are on, but also the fans of certain fighters - They'd rather turn a blind eye to it and be in ignorant bliss.

Thanks for the effort Jaz, I just fear it is in vain for the blind who do not want to open their eyes to how rampant PED's are in the sport.

How many athletes have tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in the Olympics? - Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org

"Of the 21,579 drug tests conducted at the Summer Olympics from 1968-2008, there were 59 cases (0.27%) of doping violations. There have been 13 positive results (0.25%) from 5,264 tests conducted at the Winter Olympics between 1968 and 2006."

WADA and USADA use the blood tests that look for HGH have never caught a single athlete, while there also exist a urine test in production to trap the HGH. Both organizations have supported and put funds into the development of the test but have yet to use it.

Human Growth Hormone - World Anti-Doping Agency

If drug use is so widespread in sports as those that say anti-doping policies needs to be revised, do you really think the Olympic style testing from WADA and USADA is an appropriate model for any professional sports organization to follow when they have such a failed history? While there may be widespread use, why should boxing take advise from a drug expert with no background in sports or sport medicine? The appropriate experts are the nutritionist, trainers and conditioning coaches.

Rules are made for people that follow the rules. Those that don't, don't care what rules you use because they are not bound by them. If Anti-doping policies are going to make a difference in sports culture, then there has to be fundamental changes in the ethics of all sports, armature through professional. That is impossible.

Even if the rules are changed for more stringent testing procedures to catch users, it won't change the culture, It will only affect it's appearance.

The commission could be more positive in it's stance by promoting boxings biggest stars and taking the lead to show both fighters are 100% clean. By removing any doubts and speculation. The work ethic of both Mayweather and Pacquiao are perfect examples to young athletes of what can be achieved through hard work and determination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

How many athletes have tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in the Olympics? - Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org

"Of the 21,579 drug tests conducted at the Summer Olympics from 1968-2008, there were 59 cases (0.27%) of doping violations. There have been 13 positive results (0.25%) from 5,264 tests conducted at the Winter Olympics between 1968 and 2006."

WADA and USADA use the blood tests that look for HGH have never caught a single athlete, while there also exist a urine test in production to trap the HGH. Both organizations have supported and put funds into the development of the test but have yet to use it.

Human Growth Hormone - World Anti-Doping Agency

If drug use is so widespread in sports as those that say anti-doping policies needs to be revised, do you really think the Olympic style testing from WADA and USADA is an appropriate model for any professional sports organization to follow when they have such a failed history? While there may be widespread use, why should boxing take advise from a drug expert with no background in sports or sport medicine? The appropriate experts are the nutritionist, trainers and conditioning coaches.

Rules are made for people that follow the rules. Those that don't, don't care what rules you use because they are not bound by them. If Anti-doping policies are going to make a difference in sports culture, then there has to be fundamental changes in the ethics of all sports, armature through professional. That is impossible.

Even if the rules are changed for more stringent testing procedures to catch users, it won't change the culture, It will only affect it's appearance.

The commission could be more positive in it's stance by promoting boxings biggest stars and taking the lead to show both fighters are 100% clean. By removing any doubts and speculation. The work ethic of both Mayweather and Pacquiao are perfect examples to young athletes of what can be achieved through hard work and determination.

---

Surely you can't be saying this is worse than the current system. No system is perfect, but why don't you provide the same statistics for boxing so we can see where it stands? One point of reference can't show direction or comparison which is what you are making here. You are either saying

A. The current system is more likely to catch athletes (i.e. be more useful to enforcing the rules)

or

B. The culture of the athletes will change by itself by maintaining the status quo.

Either way unless you can prove that the current system in boxing would do either A or B, then what you are saying makes a good case for further testing.

Would Olympic style testing be 100%? No, but don't you think enforcing random tests would change the culture you talked about? Also, what good are rules if you don't enforce them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

How many athletes have tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in the Olympics? - Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org

"Of the 21,579 drug tests conducted at the Summer Olympics from 1968-2008, there were 59 cases (0.27%) of doping violations. There have been 13 positive results (0.25%) from 5,264 tests conducted at the Winter Olympics between 1968 and 2006."

WADA and USADA use the blood tests that look for HGH have never caught a single athlete, while there also exist a urine test in production to trap the HGH. Both organizations have supported and put funds into the development of the test but have yet to use it.

Human Growth Hormone - World Anti-Doping Agency

If drug use is so widespread in sports as those that say anti-doping policies needs to be revised, do you really think the Olympic style testing from WADA and USADA is an appropriate model for any professional sports organization to follow when they have such a failed history? While there may be widespread use, why should boxing take advise from a drug expert with no background in sports or sport medicine? The appropriate experts are the nutritionist, trainers and conditioning coaches.

Rules are made for people that follow the rules. Those that don't, don't care what rules you use because they are not bound by them. If Anti-doping policies are going to make a difference in sports culture, then there has to be fundamental changes in the ethics of all sports, armature through professional. That is impossible.

Even if the rules are changed for more stringent testing procedures to catch users, it won't change the culture, It will only affect it's appearance.

The commission could be more positive in it's stance by promoting boxings biggest stars and taking the lead to show both fighters are 100% clean. By removing any doubts and speculation. The work ethic of both Mayweather and Pacquiao are perfect examples to young athletes of what can be achieved through hard work and determination.

---

Surely you can't be saying this is worse than the current system. No system is perfect, but why don't you provide the same statistics for boxing so we can see where it stands? One point of reference can't show direction or comparison which is what you are making here. You are either saying

A. The current system is more likely to catch athletes (i.e. be more useful to enforcing the rules)

or

B. The culture of the athletes will change by itself by maintaining the status quo.

Either way unless you can prove that the current system in boxing would do either A or B, then what you are saying makes a good case for further testing.

Would Olympic style testing be 100%? No, but don't you think enforcing random tests would change the culture you talked about? Also, what good are rules if you don't enforce them?

---

Exactly. Like I said, let's forget about Mayweather & Pacquiao, because some people seem to only have an interest in finding whatever they can to either defend or defame one fighter. This is bigger than either of those two.

It's clear that at least one major boxing star, Shane Mosley, has gotten away with cheating in this decade & yet his admission has not provoked the boxing authorities into harsher guidelines. Why?

The USADA system is not perfect, but it is better & boxing should always be striving to be better. This is not about if someone will or won't take blood testing. If the anti-doping authorities have not implemented urine tests for HGH, that probably means there is something wrong with it at the moment. Also having not 'caught' anyone might be seen as a good thing.

As for the emboldened part, no they are not the people to take advice from. Recent history has usually shown that it is they as much as the boxers under them who resort to these methods. Victor Conte, the man who spent years fooling authorities, has said that the WADA procedure is the best available method to catch drug cheats. The man responsible for tricking all modern anti-doping organizations is the guy who has the most valid opinion.

This shit needs to change in boxing & people can't look the other way regardless of who it may implicate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

How many athletes have tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in the Olympics? - Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org

"Of the 21,579 drug tests conducted at the Summer Olympics from 1968-2008, there were 59 cases (0.27%) of doping violations. There have been 13 positive results (0.25%) from 5,264 tests conducted at the Winter Olympics between 1968 and 2006."

WADA and USADA use the blood tests that look for HGH have never caught a single athlete, while there also exist a urine test in production to trap the HGH. Both organizations have supported and put funds into the development of the test but have yet to use it.

Human Growth Hormone - World Anti-Doping Agency

If drug use is so widespread in sports as those that say anti-doping policies needs to be revised, do you really think the Olympic style testing from WADA and USADA is an appropriate model for any professional sports organization to follow when they have such a failed history? While there may be widespread use, why should boxing take advise from a drug expert with no background in sports or sport medicine? The appropriate experts are the nutritionist, trainers and conditioning coaches.

Rules are made for people that follow the rules. Those that don't, don't care what rules you use because they are not bound by them. If Anti-doping policies are going to make a difference in sports culture, then there has to be fundamental changes in the ethics of all sports, armature through professional. That is impossible.

Even if the rules are changed for more stringent testing procedures to catch users, it won't change the culture, It will only affect it's appearance.

The commission could be more positive in it's stance by promoting boxings biggest stars and taking the lead to show both fighters are 100% clean. By removing any doubts and speculation. The work ethic of both Mayweather and Pacquiao are perfect examples to young athletes of what can be achieved through hard work and determination.

---

Surely you can't be saying this is worse than the current system. No system is perfect, but why don't you provide the same statistics for boxing so we can see where it stands? One point of reference can't show direction or comparison which is what you are making here. You are either saying

A. The current system is more likely to catch athletes (i.e. be more useful to enforcing the rules)

or

B. The culture of the athletes will change by itself by maintaining the status quo.

Either way unless you can prove that the current system in boxing would do either A or B, then what you are saying makes a good case for further testing.

Would Olympic style testing be 100%? No, but don't you think enforcing random tests would change the culture you talked about? Also, what good are rules if you don't enforce them?

---

Excellent questions.

"Boxing" doesn't keep records on anti-dope testing and the results. Even if someone/group did a study there would be no way to verify the numbers. I would expect that they'd be similar to that of the WADA and USADA, since the procedures are similar.

Actually, I am saying the Olympic system is not appropriate for boxing. The high profile nature of Pacquiao/Mayweather has brought recon ignition to a problem that doesn't need more bureaucracy. Who do you think is going to pay for those tests the majority of fighters don't need? Many boxers come from underprivileged beginnings. Boxing could end up with a process based on a knee jerk reactions induced by public clamoring that could deprive us from future hall of famers.

15 years ago or so a major syndicated news organization brought to the public light that there was a major problem with in the sex trade business selling underage children through inter-country adoptions. As a result, people had a knee jerk reaction prompting governments to implement new rules. Today inter-country adoption has dropped from the 1000's to the 100's and less because of the bureaucracy involved. Costs to adopt have increased x3 to x20 for families wanting/needing to adopt between countries. All of these safeguards haven't stopped the sale of underage children to the sex trade business and it prevents those 1000's of children from having a homes with a families they would have had.

Will adding breathalyzers to starters in cars stop drunk drivers from driving drunk? Will adding check points near bars catch more drunk drivers? Sure it will catch some, but not the majority and it won't change our culture.

Olympic style testing is specifically designed for screening 1000’s of athletes in multiple sports. Boxing is a specific sport.

People talk about random testing as being the magic technique for catching cheaters. Well I hate to dim the lights here but it’s more like a shot in the dark or like looking for a needle in a haystack. Random has its applications, which is mostly employed as a deterrent to introduce the unknown to the user. If you are looking for a needle in a haystack wouldn’t you use rather a system that runs the hay over a magnet rather than grabbing a handful of hay each time you search?

If PED’s are used, they have a specific target and are applied in a specific manner to achieve desired results. Samples of blood and urine are gathered for specific tests that check for banned substances. Science and the application of technologies are exacting. Testing should be precise in its application.

Yes, Anti-doping policies could do with a modernization boost, but it needs an appropriate implementation, not one which is based on public opinion that pressures rule makers to pacify their demand. The consequences of such brash actions can take many years to correct and waste many more boxing careers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

How many athletes have tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in the Olympics? - Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org

"Of the 21,579 drug tests conducted at the Summer Olympics from 1968-2008, there were 59 cases (0.27%) of doping violations. There have been 13 positive results (0.25%) from 5,264 tests conducted at the Winter Olympics between 1968 and 2006."

WADA and USADA use the blood tests that look for HGH have never caught a single athlete, while there also exist a urine test in production to trap the HGH. Both organizations have supported and put funds into the development of the test but have yet to use it.

Human Growth Hormone - World Anti-Doping Agency

If drug use is so widespread in sports as those that say anti-doping policies needs to be revised, do you really think the Olympic style testing from WADA and USADA is an appropriate model for any professional sports organization to follow when they have such a failed history? While there may be widespread use, why should boxing take advise from a drug expert with no background in sports or sport medicine? The appropriate experts are the nutritionist, trainers and conditioning coaches.

Rules are made for people that follow the rules. Those that don't, don't care what rules you use because they are not bound by them. If Anti-doping policies are going to make a difference in sports culture, then there has to be fundamental changes in the ethics of all sports, armature through professional. That is impossible.

Even if the rules are changed for more stringent testing procedures to catch users, it won't change the culture, It will only affect it's appearance.

The commission could be more positive in it's stance by promoting boxings biggest stars and taking the lead to show both fighters are 100% clean. By removing any doubts and speculation. The work ethic of both Mayweather and Pacquiao are perfect examples to young athletes of what can be achieved through hard work and determination.

---

Surely you can't be saying this is worse than the current system. No system is perfect, but why don't you provide the same statistics for boxing so we can see where it stands? One point of reference can't show direction or comparison which is what you are making here. You are either saying

A. The current system is more likely to catch athletes (i.e. be more useful to enforcing the rules)

or

B. The culture of the athletes will change by itself by maintaining the status quo.

Either way unless you can prove that the current system in boxing would do either A or B, then what you are saying makes a good case for further testing.

Would Olympic style testing be 100%? No, but don't you think enforcing random tests would change the culture you talked about? Also, what good are rules if you don't enforce them?

---

Excellent questions.

"Boxing" doesn't keep records on anti-dope testing and the results. Even if someone/group did a study there would be no way to verify the numbers. I would expect that they'd be similar to that of the WADA and USADA, since the procedures are similar.

Actually, I am saying the Olympic system is not appropriate for boxing. The high profile nature of Pacquiao/Mayweather has brought recon ignition to a problem that doesn't need more bureaucracy. Who do you think is going to pay for those tests the majority of fighters don't need? Many boxers come from underprivileged beginnings. Boxing could end up with a process based on a knee jerk reactions induced by public clamoring that could deprive us from future hall of famers.

15 years ago or so a major syndicated news organization brought to the public light that there was a major problem with in the sex trade business selling underage children through inter-country adoptions. As a result, people had a knee jerk reaction prompting governments to implement new rules. Today inter-country adoption has dropped from the 1000's to the 100's and less because of the bureaucracy involved. Costs to adopt have increased x3 to x20 for families wanting/needing to adopt between countries. All of these safeguards haven't stopped the sale of underage children to the sex trade business and it prevents those 1000's of children from having a homes with a families they would have had.

Will adding breathalyzers to starters in cars stop drunk drivers from driving drunk? Will adding check points near bars catch more drunk drivers? Sure it will catch some, but not the majority and it won't change our culture.

Olympic style testing is specifically designed for screening 1000’s of athletes in multiple sports. Boxing is a specific sport.

People talk about random testing as being the magic technique for catching cheaters. Well I hate to dim the lights here but it’s more like a shot in the dark or like looking for a needle in a haystack. Random has its applications, which is mostly employed as a deterrent to introduce the unknown to the user. If you are looking for a needle in a haystack wouldn’t you use rather a system that runs the hay over a magnet rather than grabbing a handful of hay each time you search?

If PED’s are used, they have a specific target and are applied in a specific manner to achieve desired results. Samples of blood and urine are gathered for specific tests that check for banned substances. Science and the application of technologies are exacting. Testing should be precise in its application.

Yes, Anti-doping policies could do with a modernization boost, but it needs an appropriate implementation, not one which is based on public opinion that pressures rule makers to pacify their demand. The consequences of such brash actions can take many years to correct and waste many more boxing careers.

---

Ok, first of all I can't believe you actually compared it to child-sex trafficking. They are two vastly different situations. The fact is this reform is not going to put any boxers 'in danger' & unable to find fights, unless they are actually cheating. It's a completely illogical analogy.

You say boxing is a specific sport, but then don't specify how it should be tested differently. You also mention that many boxers come from underpriviledged beginnings, that is true, but it should be the job of the lead promoter to take care of it & you certainly can't suggest that guys at the pinnacle of the sport aren't able to afford it. The fact is if you have this testing at Championship level, then if that's where these future hall of famers want to get to, they'll do it without cheating.

Finally, you actually argue against random testing. Do you think someone is more likely to cheat if they know exactly when they're going to be tested or if they have no idea when the testers are going to come? If random testing is like finding a needle in a haystack, then announced testing is like trying to find a single needle among a 100,000 haystacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Surely you can't be saying this is worse than the current system. No system is perfect, but why don't you provide the same statistics for boxing so we can see where it stands? One point of reference can't show direction or comparison which is what you are making here. You are either saying

A. The current system is more likely to catch athletes (i.e. be more useful to enforcing the rules)

or

B. The culture of the athletes will change by itself by maintaining the status quo.

Either way unless you can prove that the current system in boxing would do either A or B, then what you are saying makes a good case for further testing.

Would Olympic style testing be 100%? No, but don't you think enforcing random tests would change the culture you talked about? Also, what good are rules if you don't enforce them?

---

Excellent questions.

"Boxing" doesn't keep records on anti-dope testing and the results. Even if someone/group did a study there would be no way to verify the numbers. I would expect that they'd be similar to that of the WADA and USADA, since the procedures are similar.

Actually, I am saying the Olympic system is not appropriate for boxing. The high profile nature of Pacquiao/Mayweather has brought recon ignition to a problem that doesn't need more bureaucracy. Who do you think is going to pay for those tests the majority of fighters don't need? Many boxers come from underprivileged beginnings. Boxing could end up with a process based on a knee jerk reactions induced by public clamoring that could deprive us from future hall of famers.

15 years ago or so a major syndicated news organization brought to the public light that there was a major problem with in the sex trade business selling underage children through inter-country adoptions. As a result, people had a knee jerk reaction prompting governments to implement new rules. Today inter-country adoption has dropped from the 1000's to the 100's and less because of the bureaucracy involved. Costs to adopt have increased x3 to x20 for families wanting/needing to adopt between countries. All of these safeguards haven't stopped the sale of underage children to the sex trade business and it prevents those 1000's of children from having a homes with a families they would have had.

Will adding breathalyzers to starters in cars stop drunk drivers from driving drunk? Will adding check points near bars catch more drunk drivers? Sure it will catch some, but not the majority and it won't change our culture.

Olympic style testing is specifically designed for screening 1000’s of athletes in multiple sports. Boxing is a specific sport.

People talk about random testing as being the magic technique for catching cheaters. Well I hate to dim the lights here but it’s more like a shot in the dark or like looking for a needle in a haystack. Random has its applications, which is mostly employed as a deterrent to introduce the unknown to the user. If you are looking for a needle in a haystack wouldn’t you use rather a system that runs the hay over a magnet rather than grabbing a handful of hay each time you search?

If PED’s are used, they have a specific target and are applied in a specific manner to achieve desired results. Samples of blood and urine are gathered for specific tests that check for banned substances. Science and the application of technologies are exacting. Testing should be precise in its application.

Yes, Anti-doping policies could do with a modernization boost, but it needs an appropriate implementation, not one which is based on public opinion that pressures rule makers to pacify their demand. The consequences of such brash actions can take many years to correct and waste many more boxing careers.

---

Ok, first of all I can't believe you actually compared it to child-sex trafficking. They are two vastly different situations. The fact is this reform is not going to put any boxers 'in danger' & unable to find fights, unless they are actually cheating. It's a completely illogical analogy.

You say boxing is a specific sport, but then don't specify how it should be tested differently. You also mention that many boxers come from underpriviledged beginnings, that is true, but it should be the job of the lead promoter to take care of it & you certainly can't suggest that guys at the pinnacle of the sport aren't able to afford it. The fact is if you have this testing at Championship level, then if that's where these future hall of famers want to get to, they'll do it without cheating.

Finally, you actually argue against random testing. Do you think someone is more likely to cheat if they know exactly when they're going to be tested or if they have no idea when the testers are going to come? If random testing is like finding a needle in a haystack, then announced testing is like trying to find a single needle among a 100,000 haystacks.

---

Word.

Yeah I decided not to respond after he went to the sex-trafficking, it's kinda like someone invoking something related to Hitler in most arguments, sure it shows a negative connotation, but more times than not the comparison is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

The work ethic of both Mayweather and Pacquiao are perfect examples to young athletes of what can be achieved through hard work and determination.

---

Yes, they're both in the gym 365 days a year. Apart from when they're both making films, making records, or campaigning for political office. Oh wait!

Just read this, it's an interview with David Howman, the head of WADA, who is very critical of boxing's drug-testing procedures.

INTERVIEW - Lack of drug testing a concern, says WADA | Sports | Reuters

Key quotes from Howman

"There are countless numbers of bodies that profess to be running boxing and holding boxing fights, none of them fall under any umbrella body that has made any attempt to be a part of WADA"

"It is obvious they (organising bodies) are not making any attempt to clean up their sport and that leaves us with, not only a lot of concern, but a pretty nasty taste in the mouth"

"There have been sufficient incidents in the world of professional boxing to show there has been doping in the past and you would have to be pretty stupid to think it wouldn't be continuing so why are they not doing anything about it?"

"I would anticipate at some stage common sense will prevail. Generally speaking it will be the clean athlete that wants to show he is fighting clean and if the others are not, then why not?"

Anyway, I didn't think it was worth creating a new thread about, but I thought I'd raise it as another example of an external anti-doping authority criticizing boxing's testing procedures. Hopefully all this pressure will force some kind of change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Just read this, it's an interview with David Howman, the head of WADA, who is very critical of boxing's drug-testing procedures.

INTERVIEW - Lack of drug testing a concern, says WADA | Sports | Reuters

Key quotes from Howman

"There are countless numbers of bodies that profess to be running boxing and holding boxing fights, none of them fall under any umbrella body that has made any attempt to be a part of WADA"

"It is obvious they (organising bodies) are not making any attempt to clean up their sport and that leaves us with, not only a lot of concern, but a pretty nasty taste in the mouth"

"There have been sufficient incidents in the world of professional boxing to show there has been doping in the past and you would have to be pretty stupid to think it wouldn't be continuing so why are they not doing anything about it?"

"I would anticipate at some stage common sense will prevail. Generally speaking it will be the clean athlete that wants to show he is fighting clean and if the others are not, then why not?"

Anyway, I didn't think it was worth creating a new thread about, but I thought I'd raise it as another example of an external anti-doping authority criticizing boxing's testing procedures. Hopefully all this pressure will force some kind of change.

---

How dare the WADA try to undermine the rules of the NSAC?
:mad: ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Just read this, it's an interview with David Howman, the head of WADA, who is very critical of boxing's drug-testing procedures.

INTERVIEW - Lack of drug testing a concern, says WADA | Sports | Reuters

Key quotes from Howman

"There are countless numbers of bodies that profess to be running boxing and holding boxing fights, none of them fall under any umbrella body that has made any attempt to be a part of WADA"

"It is obvious they (organising bodies) are not making any attempt to clean up their sport and that leaves us with, not only a lot of concern, but a pretty nasty taste in the mouth"

"There have been sufficient incidents in the world of professional boxing to show there has been doping in the past and you would have to be pretty stupid to think it wouldn't be continuing so why are they not doing anything about it?"

"I would anticipate at some stage common sense will prevail. Generally speaking it will be the clean athlete that wants to show he is fighting clean and if the others are not, then why not?"

Anyway, I didn't think it was worth creating a new thread about, but I thought I'd raise it as another example of an external anti-doping authority criticizing boxing's testing procedures. Hopefully all this pressure will force some kind of change.

---

How dare the WADA try to undermine the rules of the NSAC?
:mad: ;D

---

They're in Oscar and Floyd's pocket.

Floyd Sr shot the sheriff, Roger shot the deputy.

Jesus was part of the NSAC before he died for our sin.

Golden Boy Promotions are responsible for 9/11.

I agree that there should be more stringent testing in boxing, but if WADA and USADA is so great at catching cheaters and punishing them, then how come certain nation's athletes bypasses the tests and there is some hint at favoritism and cover ups? So what's the difference between Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson? 1 is American the other isn't. Seems like 100 American Olympians were caught but were still allowed to compete.

Carl Lewis's positive test covered up - smh.com.au

BTW, I still feel that Pacquiao should do the tests and possibly muscle biopsy of both participants in the future of the bout between Floyd and Manny. It's just to me that people are trumpeting these American doping agencies as morally sound and are trying to ensure an level playing field, when that's not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

I agree that there should be more stringent testing in boxing, but if WADA and USADA is so great at catching cheaters and punishing them, then how come certain nation's athletes bypasses the tests and there is some hint at favoritism and cover ups? So what's the difference between Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson? 1 is American the other isn't. Seems like 100 American Olympians were caught but were still allowed to compete.

Carl Lewis's positive test covered up - smh.com.au

BTW, I still feel that Pacquiao should do the tests and possibly muscle biopsy of both participants in the future of the bout between Floyd and Manny. It's just to me that people are trumpeting these American doping agencies as morally sound and are trying to ensure an level playing field, when that's not the case.

---

Of course there have been cover-ups, but the people running WADA are not the same people. It's not perfect, but it is far better than the current system. Plus, there are many athletes of different nations caught, America certainly seems to lead, probably due to many of the best 'dopers' being US based, but that's no reason to punish those who haven't cheated. No country should be subject to the failures of its athletes to be clean.

Oh and muscle biopsy will never happen. If Manny doesn't like giving blood, how will he feel about giving a piece of flesh :-X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

I agree that there should be more stringent testing in boxing, but if WADA and USADA is so great at catching cheaters and punishing them, then how come certain nation's athletes bypasses the tests and there is some hint at favoritism and cover ups? So what's the difference between Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson? 1 is American the other isn't. Seems like 100 American Olympians were caught but were still allowed to compete.

Carl Lewis's positive test covered up - smh.com.au

BTW, I still feel that Pacquiao should do the tests and possibly muscle biopsy of both participants in the future of the bout between Floyd and Manny. It's just to me that people are trumpeting these American doping agencies as morally sound and are trying to ensure an level playing field, when that's not the case.

---

Of course there have been cover-ups, but the people running WADA are not the same people. It's not perfect, but it is far better than the current system. Plus, there are many athletes of different nations caught, America certainly seems to lead, probably due to many of the best 'dopers' being US based, but that's no reason to punish those who haven't cheated. No country should be subject to the failures of its athletes to be clean.

Oh and muscle biopsy will never happen. If Manny doesn't like giving blood, how will he feel about giving a piece of flesh :-X

---

Just wishful thinking on my part about the muscle biopsy, but anyways Manny needs to do some sort of stringent testing I feel to clear his name if he's not on anything.

And of course other athletes from other nations are caught, but when 100 of them are from a certain nation and is covered up, it makes one become cynical about the whole process and wary of it. For the 2010 Winter games it has been announced that many athletes were caught from other nations, but then you have some official come out grins broadly and say no American athlete is caught, then it just makes me chuckled. BTW I was on the ESPN message boards, and the feeling is that America is a good clean nation of athletes, not dirty like those foreigners.:-\

More than 30 athletes barred from Vancouver Olympics after failed tests - ESPN

It is not very complicated:

New forms of steroids are developed every now and then: always improved versions, harder to detect and requiring new techniques and more imagination to be discovered. Wouldn't it be from an unknown source who did give some crucial informations, we couldn't detect the famous "clear" created a few years ago at Balco and many athletes such as Marion Jones would never have been caught. Urine nowaday aren't enough to detect some type of specific steroids, that's part of the evolution, measure/counter measure waltzing together in an eternal circle.
THe laws and techniques by many modern agencies (including the Nevada State Commissions) are old and now obsolete to the new challenges posed by modern chemistry and technologies and to keep its composure and credibility, these agencies must evolve with the problem and react in consequence.
To make an analogy with the second world war: -
You develop huge big ships to send stuff to England? We'll develop submarines to sink them.
- Really? Here comes some marine charges on your head, fellow.
- Ok, here comes the snorkel, now we can go deeper where your mines can't affect us.
- No problem, here comes the new dept charges.

That's how it goes, the game of the cat and the mouse except that if you stick to a system and refuse to adapt, it's to admit that the mouse will win. Pac-Mayweather just underlined that problem, improved tests shouldn't be only good for them but for all boxers and I will never be impressed by the argument that a few drops of blood are too much for top notch athletes.