fightnews reports that he's still ibf champ after investigation.
IBF: Peterson is still champion; must face Judah
Printable View
fightnews reports that he's still ibf champ after investigation.
IBF: Peterson is still champion; must face Judah
Good to see the IBF are taking drug testing and its results seriously.
The appointed doctors concluded that his T-levels were not abnormally high and thus did not give him an unfair advantage. That was what he said all along -- that he had abnormally low levels and had the procedure just to bring him up to normal. I don't see how how that means the IBF isn't taking drug testing seriously. (They would have been justified in smacking him a little for simply failing to disclose, however, despite the fact that in the end really the only resulting harm was the rematch getting scrapped -- but that's a different issue.)Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
What a load of tosh. If you had to prove that every athlete had gained an unfair advantage from taking a banned substance, rather than just establish the substance had been used, most cheats would get off Scot free. What kind of pseudo scientific method makes rules about disclosure and using banned items simply disappear because they didn't work, or excuse the user, despite needing it for medical reasons, needing to inform anyone about it?
There are normal ranges of testosterone in human males. They can take a blood test to determine whether he was within those levels. They determined he was. Hardly seems complicated or "pseudo science." As I mentioned, I do agree that they could have smacked him on the non-disclosure point (which is conceptually separate).Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
Time for a reality check. Steroids of a plethora of colours have been a part of the sports medicine world in regards to fast healing for decades. In this Ped paranoid world, it just so happens that this claim by the Peterson camp is probably legit. Problem is in this wired world a positive test means guilt. Who cares what the explanation is. Lets not forget where this kid and his brother came from.
Maybe I'm going way too Simple Simon but, it is a banned substance? And he did take it? Is there an asterisk allowed because a guys testosterone level is naturally lower and that allows a pass on a banned substance? Who takes these blood tests and which are allowed and which are not. Hopefully its not the same commissions, appointed Dr. etc that "forget" to conduct routine post fight tests ???
would not give an advantage?"? I will take the word of Victor Conte. He knows about drug cheating.
A normal level is 1:1.
Peterson's was 3.77 to 1. Per Conte that is definitely a performance enhancing level.
If his testosterone was abnormally low he was supposed to let the commission know he was doing thisr Do you know why he didn't do so? He was cheating.
could be worse. WBO once elevated a dead man in the rankings!!!
Time to stop giving creedence to the belts. They mean nothing.
So being on peds is not an offense anymore? Cool. Way to go out the drain, boxing reputation
I'm pretty sure the upfront rule actually is more nuanced than "you can't take the following substances under any circumstances," and actually does give a pass under circumstances like these (although, again, he was supposed to inform them of the fact he was getting this treatment before it happened to get picked up on a test).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Where are you getting those numbers from and what do the ratios refer to? They're clearly not total T to free T ratios so I'm not sure what you could possibly be talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by captainanddew
The whole point is that they were not performance "enhancing," they were performance "normalizing."Quote:
Originally Posted by Nameless
Say a fighter breaks his hand. Is it unfair "performance enhancing" for him to have a doctor reset the bones before putting a cast on it?
That is a dumb analogy. Everyone has their bones reset after a break, but if a boxer lacked the natural ability to heal a fracture and had to used a banned substance to trigger that healing he would still be cheating. If he did this for two fights and was then caught, rather than seeking special dispensation he should be seen as cheating. If there are clear rules and you not only ignore them but do so repeatedly and then only come clean after being caught, then motive or mitigating health conditions do not come into it. It seems that his backstory coupled with a misguided sympathy for a condition that strikes at what people perceive as defining manhood, has clouded peoples judgment. Sure one can empathise with his situation but that does not mean you have to condone his solution, actions or attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by shzaThe whole point is that they were not performance "enhancing," they were performance "normalizing."Quote:
Originally Posted by Nameless
Say a fighter breaks his hand. Is it unfair "performance enhancing" for him to have a doctor reset the bones before putting a cast on it?
My physical abilities are below average so cheating to improve them is fair? What?!?!
Next it will be ok to take the answers in to an exam because you're not as smart as everybody else? ???
Adam if it improves performance, maybe I shall get myself a bucket full,;D now do you no anything that
will make me attractive to women.:musle:
He used a subcutaneous synthetic testosterone pellet whilst training for a world title fight. This should set alarm bells ringing. The story that his testosterone levels were lower than the reference range is highly dubious given it came out after he was caught. If true why not disclose it in the first instance? Additionally, if his levels were abnormally low (which I doubt given his appearance in the build up) then this needs investigating. Simply administering exogenous testosterone would be a quick fix and not address the underlying cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by shzaThere are normal ranges of testosterone in human males. They can take a blood test to determine whether he was within those levels. They determined he was. Hardly seems complicated or "pseudo science." As I mentioned, I do agree that they could have smacked him on the non-disclosure point (which is conceptually separate).Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
His story has more holes than Swiss cheese.
He went and got testosterone. Didn't tell anyone.
He signed up for testing, where he is required to disclose anything he has taken. He doesn't disclose it.
He is told he tested positive. Does he immediately tell them? I have taken something under a doctor's supervision. Does he tell them that???
NO. He sat on his ass. He told them to test the B sample. He was hoping it came back lower. When it didn't then all of a sudden he has an excuse.
3 times he could have disclosed it.
He was cheating. And if he wasn't he had so many chances to disclose the treatment.
Either way his ass should have a long suspension.
Just a question: Why hasn't any specifics been provided by his team that could be verified. Such as when I was tested originally, how low his testosterone levels were??????
If you had a positive test and had a legitimate medical condition, wouldn't you disclose the information with great detail to clear your name????? Not make vague statements.
So basically what I was saying all along ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by shzaThe appointed doctors concluded that his T-levels were not abnormally high and thus did not give him an unfair advantage. That was what he said all along -- that he had abnormally low levels and had the procedure just to bring him up to normal. I don't see how how that means the IBF isn't taking drug testing seriously. (They would have been justified in smacking him a little for simply failing to disclose, however, despite the fact that in the end really the only resulting harm was the rematch getting scrapped -- but that's a different issue.)Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Look back in my posts and I told everyone that after a proper investigation, he would be found to be ok. (while everyone was cunting me off)
Whoever made the point about Peterson being 3.77:1 has no point..because in boxing you are allowed to be 4:1 (or maybe even 6:1 - I forget) so according to the commisions, this is not performance enhancing.
Hate to say I told you so..Who am I kidding. Course I don't. Let's try looking at things objectively fellas. Well done to the IBF for taking into account the facts. The only thing he was guilty of was not informing the testers that he was normalising his testosterone with exogenous testosterone.
Can we stop this butthurt..facts are facts. It could all be bullshit but Peterson and his team made their case perfectly. You can't make someone guilty on assumptions. Like "assuming" Enzo took his shit "by accident".
Again, more misinformation. He wasn't ever high to begin with? He was within the legal, normal acceptable range.Quote:
Originally Posted by captainanddew
I get that this is a forum and everyone has a free opinion but if you don't know the facts, why bother? He was found to have exogenously increased his testosterone to normal levels. He had a feasible explanation for it - he was found not guilty. The end.
His medical records obviously would have proven his low testosterone levels and the date that the testosterone was prescribed....next...Quote:
Originally Posted by archery1The story that his testosterone levels were lower than the reference range is highly dubious given it came out after he was caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by shzaThere are normal ranges of testosterone in human males. They can take a blood test to determine whether he was within those levels. They determined he was. Hardly seems complicated or "pseudo science." As I mentioned, I do agree that they could have smacked him on the non-disclosure point (which is conceptually separate).Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
So, Adam the PED's formulated the gameplan to beat Amir Khan and adapt Peterson's strategy as the fight went on to seal a victory? ??? Damn...PED's have advanced..you don't even need a trainer anymore..fuck it, any "average ability" Joe can be a world champion eh? Just take PEDsQuote:
Originally Posted by AdamGB
The Syrian 400 meter runner just got caught with PEDs in her system and came in dead last. She must really suck. DONT LET THIS SHIT HAPPEN AGAIN LAMONT. U got ya 1 gift. I like u but if u get caught doing this dum shit again then u on your own.
I'm curious as to how you get all of that from what I said? There's reading between the lines and then theres making stuff up to suit a cookie cutter response (PEDs didn't make so and so practice hitting home runs bla bla bla... heard it all before).
You're right, boxing requires several attributes. Ring smarts, reflexes, focus, endurance, strength, power, agility and of course dedication and skill. Must have missed that during the time I 've competed, I thought it was just the protein shakes doing the work.
You can have all of the skills in the world but if you lack the required physical attributes then good luck applying any of it.
And if you fall short physically naturally then tough shit... You might have everything else but why should it be ok to blatantly infringe rules to make up for it?
People aren't opposed to PEDs because they want a level playing field - they don't, you'd have fight after fight of draws.
If he had low T levels then he's had however long he's know to inform the boxing controls of any legitimate treatment he's been having... He fucked up and didn't, is it any surprise that doing it after the fact stinks to many? Did his Dr. not know he was treating a pro athlete? He should have told him to disclose the fact he was taking testosterone. If I recall, you wanted Enzo punished for a lot less and didn't like that the bbbc TOOK the facts in to account when handing out a token slap on the wrist to enzo instead of giving him the big one given to big larry?
Please do not quote one line from my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlthugzHis medical records obviously would have proven his low testosterone levels and the date that the testosterone was prescribed....next...Quote:
Originally Posted by archery1The story that his testosterone levels were lower than the reference range is highly dubious given it came out after he was caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by shzaThere are normal ranges of testosterone in human males. They can take a blood test to determine whether he was within those levels. They determined he was. Hardly seems complicated or "pseudo science." As I mentioned, I do agree that they could have smacked him on the non-disclosure point (which is conceptually separate).Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
I think it is naive to consider that medical records and lab test results cannot be manufactured especially given the vast sums of money at stake. That's not to say they were but it is a possibility.
The testosterone he was administered may or may not have turned out to be performance enhancing, as mentioned I'm sceptical that it was for legitimate medical reasons but that's a moot point. The Peterson camp had a duty to disclose all of this prior to or even in the immediate aftermath of his test, the fact is they didn't. He tested positive for a banned substance and should be punished accordingly.
I'd be interested to find out what the cause of his low level of testosterone was and whether its a recurring condition. Does he use them when out of competition/training and will the commission allow him to in the future, I doubt it. You can turn the discussion full circle and ask whether he should have been passed medically fit to fight with these 'low levels'.
The whole saga stinks and is symptomatic of all that is wrong with boxing. Had Khan been seriously injured in the bout (Peterson admitted to taking the testosterone prior to their original fight), then the Peterson camp would need to ask themselves some serious questions. If anything boxing should be enforcing the strictest drug testing regimes and sanctions given the greater potential health risks to fighters and the combative nature of the sport.
The Enzo case was anything but looking at the facts. They allowed Enzo to give them puppy dog eyes and claim "I didn't know...honest!" - They believed him and gave him some time off between fights. Hardly punishment. Lamont got caught but presented cold, hard evidence afterwards about why he was taking the stuff..no grey area. No taking his word for it like UKAD did with Enzo.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGB
Ok, I did misread your initial post slightly. You said "average physical" and not average boxing skills. Yes, that is different. My error.
As far as I know Enzo was caught with a small trace of something he was allowed in training but not on fight night?
I never buy the whole 'low hormone' thing, I've heard it from too many boxers. It's all too easy in america to visit a chiropractor or some other psuedo doctor with no health problems or symptoms at all and get diagnosed via some take home test for a 'hormone deficiency' with no accepted low levels and get prescribed hgh, test etc for 'anti aging'.
Innocent unti proven guilty I guess, but to me it stinks.
I need to point out that knowing petersons upbringing, I was happy for him when he beat Khan and very dissapointed when I heard he'd failed a test. I want him to be clean, I just don't buy it.
For the record, neither do I..but his team is doing a good job of making sure all bases are covered. Of course, I'm one of those who feel it is rampant by all athletes at those very high levels of sport. Saw a great article on Usain Bolt lately too..just food for thought :Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGB
http://www.muscleweek.com/is-usain-bolt-on-steroids
If Lamont is to be blamed for something it could be that he never bothered to stay on top of something that he should have stayed on top of. Maybe he’s a few cards short of a deck but I imagine he assumed that those on his team were looking after his best interests since that’s what they are paid for. After all he’s a boxer and not a biological chemist with barely a grade school education who grew up in a cardboard box with his brother on the mean street. One could argue that he agreed to the additional testing because again he assumed everything was in order.
I’m giving the kid the benefit of the doubt. I just can’t believe that he would knowingly risk it all when he finally reached the top of the mountain after all he has been through.
The physical evidence outweighs any perceived intent.
I hope Judah wins :)
Even if we get beyond the fact that there is no doubt Peterson is shady by taking testosterone on the sly, I'm undecided on how I feel about permitting normalizing testosterone levels in order to equal the playing field. Isn't it a slippery slope? Won't every boxer attempt to take enough testosterone to test immediately under the legal limit. For example, what was Amir Khan's testosterone level for the Peterson fight? Let's say it was 1.2:1. If Peterson came in at 3.7:1, which is under the 4:1 legal limit, wasn't he at a decided advantage over Khan?
I guess if IBF decided not to strip is because of a legitimate medical reason however I still don't like the fact that he never disclosed the issue. That being said I wonder if Peterson not being stripped had anything to do with Khan losing, perhaps its due to all the corruption I saw yet again in the Olympics (I'm Persian and what happened in the heavyweight division disgusted me) has renewed my sense of conspiracy and dread in boxing.
All that said and done it begs the following question; why Judah?
I think his BS "win" over Matthyse looks very good for him right now. It's a wrinkle when trying to rank 140-pounders if you believe, like I do, that Matthyse is the best of the bunch.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavilaJones
Of course, Judah also got assed-out by Khan. So go figure. Might have to chalk it up to Judah simply getting far more chances than anyone else I can think of.