-
Addressing the PED problem
There's many articles out there on the web regarding the widespread use of PEDs in boxing and other sports.
Most of these articles seem to support a few basic premises:
1. The use of PEDs is widespread and increasing, not only in boxing, but in most every other sport.
2. Testing for PEDs is a complex undertaking, as there are many ways the athletes use to either mask or circumvent established limits.
3. In boxing, the use of PEDs has more serious connotations than in any other sport. In cycling, you get better times... in baseball, you hit more home runs... but in boxing, the consequences can be a lot more serious.
4. To effectively address the problem, testing entities and sport organizations need to understand the problem and agree on the solutions.
I've heard the argument that everyone (in boxing) does it. I wouldn't go that far. I think there's a handful of clean, elite fighters out there. But as time passes, and nothing (or little) is being done to solve the problem, these clean boxers might feel the pressure and find no other recourse than to do PEDs themselves.
I know it doesn't solve the whole problem, but I think testing should be mandatory before EVERY fight, no exceptions. I think this is a no-brainer. If you're clean, giving a little blood (or urine, or both) shouldn't bother you at all. The complicating factor, I think, is what type of testing to perform with the blood and/or urine samples, as from what I read there are many ways to "cheat the system". I'm by no means an expert on physiology, so that would have to be left to the people that know.
Bottom line, though, is that something needs to be done.
And if the solution has "bugs" in it, then tweak it until you get it right.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
I hate to say it, but I don't know what can be done. More stringent testing costs a lot of $$$. Who's going to fit the bill? The promoters won't. Neither will the fighters. And even if you do shell out the extra $$$, the more stringent testing can still be cheated.
I feel like it's a losing battle. It's like alcohol prohibition early last century. Athletes want to use PEDs, and they'll continue to use them and avail of all the latest tricks to circumvent the testing. There's no "magic bullet" solution. People will get caught, sure, and examples will be made of those caught, but in reality that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I don't believe for a second that PED usage is some kind of epidemic that just popped up over the last few years. It's recieving a lot more attention, sure, but PEDs have been around for many years, and I'm sure there are plenty of our favorite fighters, legends even, who used but didn't get caught do to lax testing back in the day.
And that's not even getting into the issue of hormone replacement therapy. You can go to a doctor, tell him you feel tired all the time, and boom you have a legal perscription to inject testosterone, which is fine with any Athletic Commision as long as you show them your perscription and get an exemption.
I just don't see how you can stamp it out.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
For example, both Marquez and Pacquaio passed their drug tests for the fight. But what does that show? It shows they didn't have anything in their system at the time of the fight.
But what does that prove? It's just a simple matter of cycling off at the right time. You can use PEDs in training, gain a lot of muscle and strength, then cycle off. So by the time of the fight, there's nothing in your system.
But what about the 15lbs of muscle you gained from PED usage, as well as the other physical benefits? That's still there. It doesn't disappear overnight.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
For example, both Marquez and Pacquaio passed their drug tests for the fight. But what does that show? It shows they didn't have anything in their system at the time of the fight.
But what does that prove? It's just a simple matter of cycling off at the right time. You can use PEDs in training, gain a lot of muscle and strength, then cycle off. So by the time of the fight, there's nothing in your system.
But what about the 15lbs of muscle you gained from PED usage, as well as the other physical benefits? That's still there. It doesn't disappear overnight.
You make some good points on both posts. But the cost issue is to me one of the easiest to take care of. Cost should be no object when it comes to looking out for the safety of the guys in the ring. With the existence of multi-million dollar purses nowadays, it shouldn't be too much of a reach to set aside some money for whatever testing is necessary.
Testing should be mandatory. It's the way fighters circumvent the rules, as we both stated, that complicates matters a whole lot. It's like everything else in life. As soon as a rule or law comes out..... it seems like a matter of days or hours that you have a way to beat it, or go around it. It's like viruses and anti-viruses on computers. It's kind of discouraging in a way.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
For example, both Marquez and Pacquaio passed their drug tests for the fight. But what does that show? It shows they didn't have anything in their system at the time of the fight.
But what does that prove? It's just a simple matter of cycling off at the right time. You can use PEDs in training, gain a lot of muscle and strength, then cycle off. So by the time of the fight, there's nothing in your system.
But what about the 15lbs of muscle you gained from PED usage, as well as the other physical benefits? That's still there. It doesn't disappear overnight.
Clean it up or ignore it?
All of us know that most trainers, promoters and commissioners are, if not facilitating, turning a blind-eye to the use of PEDS. How can these people be punished, convinced, coerced or educated into changing their attitudes.
I have to say that I don't trust any one in boxing to clean up the PEDs problem.
In the US, it's going to take a government body to oversee PEDs use in all pro sports. Make pro sports pay for it, they're allowing it. Ultimately the fans will wind up paying, we always do.
Do we want them to do away with PEDs or not? That's a serious question, I know there are some of us--fans--who don't care one way or the other.
Clean it up or ignore it?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
For example, both Marquez and Pacquaio passed their drug tests for the fight. But what does that show? It shows they didn't have anything in their system at the time of the fight.
But what does that prove? It's just a simple matter of cycling off at the right time. You can use PEDs in training, gain a lot of muscle and strength, then cycle off. So by the time of the fight, there's nothing in your system.
But what about the 15lbs of muscle you gained from PED usage, as well as the other physical benefits? That's still there. It doesn't disappear overnight.
You make some good points on both posts. But the cost issue is to me one of the easiest to take care of. Cost should be no object when it comes to looking out for the safety of the guys in the ring. With the existence of multi-million dollar purses nowadays, it shouldn't be too much of a reach to set aside some money for whatever testing is necessary.
Testing should be mandatory. It's the way fighters circumvent the rules, as we both stated, that complicates matters a whole lot. It's like everything else in life. As soon as a rule or law comes out..... it seems like a matter of days or hours that you have a way to beat it, or go around it. It's like viruses and anti-viruses on computers. It's kind of discouraging in a way.
Look, when we say testing, lets all get on the same page.
If you want testing to make sure your favorite fighter doesn't get cheated in a big fight, that's one thing.
I'm talking about cleaning out PEDs from the four rounders thru the mega fights, that's zero tolerance which means a lot of testing and a lot of money, forever.
There is a difference!
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
We need tougher deterrents. For example, the punishment for failing drug tests needs to be more severe. Instead of six months or no punishment (Peterson), there needs to be, for example, a 1.5 year minimum suspension for the first offense and 3 years for next offense. If the fighter is caught prior to a fight, and the promoter elects to go through with the fight, a large percentage of the fighter's purse needs to be forfeited, say 65% or something.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Let's be honest, passing a piss test these days, doesn't mean Pacquiao and Marquez were clean for that fight. It would be delusional to think so.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
For example, both Marquez and Pacquaio passed their drug tests for the fight. But what does that show? It shows they didn't have anything in their system at the time of the fight.
But what does that prove? It's just a simple matter of cycling off at the right time. You can use PEDs in training, gain a lot of muscle and strength, then cycle off. So by the time of the fight, there's nothing in your system.
But what about the 15lbs of muscle you gained from PED usage, as well as the other physical benefits? That's still there. It doesn't disappear overnight.
You make some good points on both posts. But the cost issue is to me one of the easiest to take care of. Cost should be no object when it comes to looking out for the safety of the guys in the ring. With the existence of multi-million dollar purses nowadays, it shouldn't be too much of a reach to set aside some money for whatever testing is necessary.
Testing should be mandatory. It's the way fighters circumvent the rules, as we both stated, that complicates matters a whole lot. It's like everything else in life. As soon as a rule or law comes out..... it seems like a matter of days or hours that you have a way to beat it, or go around it. It's like viruses and anti-viruses on computers. It's kind of discouraging in a way.
Look, when we say testing, lets all get on the same page.
If you want testing to make sure your favorite fighter doesn't get cheated in a big fight, that's one thing.
I'm talking about cleaning out PEDs from the four rounders thru the mega fights, that's zero tolerance which means a lot of testing and a lot of money, forever.
There is a difference!
Whatever the level of testing is, it should be administered equally across the board. Obviously, more is better. Testing with ulterior motives means nothing.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
We need tougher deterrents. For example, the punishment for failing drug tests needs to be more severe. Instead of six months or no punishment (Peterson), there needs to be, for example, a 1.5 year minimum suspension for the first offense and 3 years for next offense. If the fighter is caught prior to a fight, and the promoter elects to go through with the fight, a large percentage of the fighter's purse needs to be forfeited, say 65% or something.
I don't think its fair to throw the fighter under the bus when imo many of the promoters know full well whats going on and no doubt also the governing leeches. In addition these conditioning coaches that have fighters take the B12 shot in the ass for certain periods of time. It may sound naive but based on the intelligent quotient of some of these fighters, I'd be willing to bet many do not even know whats being injected.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
The money has to come from somewhere, though. It's very expensive to do testing, and if you want to stamp it out from the sport all together (including the 4 rounders), we're talking about an astronomical amount of funds.
If we say the government should step in and do it, what makes you think the tax payers will want to foot that bill?
I think, for the most part, there isn't enough demand. PEDs allow for bigger, faster, and stronger athletes which (usually) means more excitement. They also allow our favorite fighters to prolong their careers and provide us with many more fights.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
The entire Ped issue where boxing is concerned resembles a straw man argument when “cost” becomes the cop out go to line. As if somehow cost refutes the need. I mean that’s direct testimony that the powers at be don’t want more stringent testing.
Tests presently are window dressing. We know this to be true because random testing rarely catches anyone. So how would scheduled? Only idiots who screw up their cycles get caught like Salido. And that’s only because they do not employ the top rate chemists err nutritionists/conditioning coaches.
The WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO and the rest of the parasitical underling fringe Orgs should be the ones flipping the bill and it should be at the heart of the sanctioning process instead of designing more belts to collect more fees on. Promoters should also share some of the costs. It should not be incumbent on any fighter to have to fork out the cash. Start with all title fights using random testing and then it will I believe over time it would cause a trickle down effect. It would also force more labs to be built which is another built in excuse as to why random testing is not feasible. Its as if a system is in place that is designed to be exploited.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Sadly I think it will take a fatality in the ring before congress gets serious about it and they'll be forced to do a clean up of sorts.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
It was recently estimated by VADA that roughly 375 UFC fighters could be random blood and urine tested twice each year, with annual costs of somewhere between $1 to 1.5 million dollars.
Max Boxing - News - Azad Championship Report - Floyd Mayweather and the new wave of drug testing in boxing
Test the top-rated thousand boxers a dozen times a year and it's less than twenty million a year. Pay for it by billing each individual promotion on a sliding scale depending on how much the promotion makes in revenue (obviously Pac Marquez 4 pays a huge slice compared to some non-TV event that features some of the top thousand boxers) and it would work out as a really small promotional expense.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
The entire Ped issue where boxing is concerned resembles a straw man argument when “cost” becomes the cop out go to line. As if somehow cost refutes the need. I mean that’s direct testimony that the powers at be don’t want more stringent testing.
It's a real issue though. We're talking about a HUGE amount of money that has to come from somewhere.
It won't come from the promoters, the fighters, or the government (they'll ban boxing before they shell out millions to provide more drug testing).
Where does it come from? I have no idea.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
It was recently estimated by VADA that roughly 375 UFC fighters could be random blood and urine tested twice each year, with annual costs of somewhere between $1 to 1.5 million dollars.
Max Boxing - News - Azad Championship Report - Floyd Mayweather and the new wave of drug testing in boxing
Test the top-rated thousand boxers a dozen times a year and it's less than twenty million a year. Pay for it by billing each individual promotion on a sliding scale depending on how much the promotion makes in revenue (obviously Pac Marquez 4 pays a huge slice compared to some non-TV event that features some of the top thousand boxers) and it would work out as a really small promotional expense.
Who's going to agree to cough up millions like that?
Also, what's to stop a fighter from simply refusing to take random drug tests?
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
As long as the drugs being used are undetectable, nothing more can be done
Testing is always a step behind ... its an arms race and testing is losing badly and it seems that nothing will change
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
It was recently estimated by VADA that roughly 375 UFC fighters could be random blood and urine tested twice each year, with annual costs of somewhere between $1 to 1.5 million dollars.
Max Boxing - News - Azad Championship Report - Floyd Mayweather and the new wave of drug testing in boxing
Test the top-rated thousand boxers a dozen times a year and it's less than twenty million a year. Pay for it by billing each individual promotion on a sliding scale depending on how much the promotion makes in revenue (obviously Pac Marquez 4 pays a huge slice compared to some non-TV event that features some of the top thousand boxers) and it would work out as a really small promotional expense.
Who's going to agree to cough up millions like that?
Also, what's to stop a fighter from simply refusing to take random drug tests?
The promotion last weekend grossed well over a hundred million dollars. The US boxing industry grosses billions of dollars a year, never mind the global take. Let's say that the US boxing industry only grosses two billion dollars a year and decides to fund testing for the top thousand boxers. Firstly, testing on that scale would probably significantly reduce the twenty million cost but let's stay at twenty. That's one percent of the gross, and in reality would be much less than one percent.
If a fighter refuses testing treat him the same way any other athlete who refuses testing is treated.
-
Can we just continue watching boxing and agree peds in boxing is a myth?
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Let's start with the premise that most people believe PEDs in boxing are a serious problem.
Having established that it is a serious problem, the next step is to identify viable solutions.
Cost, when weighed against the potential health and life risks that PEDs represent in the ring, should not be an obstacle toward providing a solution. More than adequate explanations have been provided as to how the financials would easily be worked out.
What would be the next excuse to delay doing something?
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Can we just continue watching boxing and agree peds in boxing is a myth?
http://bloggingblue.com/wp-content/u...ad-in-sand.gif
Everything from baseball to cycling is rife with it, but you think it's anything but rife in an already corrupt sport were under performing means getting punched in the face 100s of times, concussed, brain damaged or killed?
:vd:
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Can we just continue watching boxing and agree peds in boxing is a myth?
http://bloggingblue.com/wp-content/u...ad-in-sand.gif
Everything from baseball to cycling is rife with it, but you think it's anything but rife in an already corrupt sport were under performing means getting punched in the face 100s of times, concussed, brain damaged or killed?
:vd:
I understand your point but we can't keep going around accusing fighters every time they have a great performance or look different physically. I'm all for better state commission drug testing but until then I rather give fighrers the benefit of the doubt.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
The promotion last weekend grossed well over a hundred million dollars. The US boxing industry grosses billions of dollars a year, never mind the global take. Let's say that the US boxing industry only grosses two billion dollars a year and decides to fund testing for the top thousand boxers. Firstly, testing on that scale would probably significantly reduce the twenty million cost but let's stay at twenty. That's one percent of the gross, and in reality would be much less than one percent.
If a fighter refuses testing treat him the same way any other athlete who refuses testing is treated.
Well first off we're talking GROSS revenue, which, after expenses such as taxes, boxer purses, promotional costs, production costs, lawyer costs, insurance costs, employee payroll costs, ect ect, we're looking at well under that 2 billion estimate left for other expenses.
Secondly, it's going to cost a hell of a lot more than 20 mil to impliment random drug testing on 1000 boxers. You're talking the cost of the test, cost of analyzing the test, paying for scientists and other qualified personal to administer the tests, lab costs, material costs, ect ect. With random drug tests, you'd have to test a boxer at least 6 times a year for it to mean anything, so you're looking at 6000 tests per year. Keep in mind not every boxer lives in a major city like Las Vegas or New York, so you're also paying for travel expenses to fly these drug testers around the world to visit these boxers 6 times a year to administer these tests. We're talking about a hell of a lot of travel $$$. Obviously I don't have the numbers, but to me 20 million is a completely unrealistic number to tackle this kind of task.
So lets say after all the expenses, you have 300 million left. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'll be generous and say that the drug testing you're talking about is going to swallow up at least half of that. So how do we get these guys to agree to give up that extra 50% of their profit margin? Essentially, you're asking them to give up that much money to ensure their fighters don't perform as well and have shorter careers/less fights.
And then you have the issue that the promoter is paying the drug testers directly, so it opens the doors for accusations of corruption and bribes, and the public doesn't fully trust the drug testing after all that. And then you have to also deal with the fact that these extensive drug tests can be cheated, so after all this messing around and spending, you still don't have a gaurentee of a clean sport. And then you have guys who just get a medical exemption to inject testosterone, so your expensive testing doesn't even apply to them.
It just seems unrealistic to me.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
It was recently estimated by VADA that roughly 375 UFC fighters could be random blood and urine tested twice each year, with annual costs of somewhere between $1 to 1.5 million dollars.
Max Boxing - News - Azad Championship Report - Floyd Mayweather and the new wave of drug testing in boxing
Test the top-rated thousand boxers a dozen times a year and it's less than twenty million a year. Pay for it by billing each individual promotion on a sliding scale depending on how much the promotion makes in revenue (obviously Pac Marquez 4 pays a huge slice compared to some non-TV event that features some of the top thousand boxers) and it would work out as a really small promotional expense.
Who's going to agree to cough up millions like that?
Also, what's to stop a fighter from simply refusing to take random drug tests?
Who pays for all the amateur testing that goes on all year long?
You make it a rule. Start at the championship level.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
We need tougher deterrents. For example, the punishment for failing drug tests needs to be more severe. Instead of six months or no punishment (Peterson), there needs to be, for example, a 1.5 year minimum suspension for the first offense and 3 years for next offense. If the fighter is caught prior to a fight, and the promoter elects to go through with the fight, a large percentage of the fighter's purse needs to be forfeited, say 65% or something.
I don't think its fair to throw the fighter under the bus when imo many of the promoters know full well whats going on and no doubt also the governing leeches. In addition these conditioning coaches that have fighters take the B12 shot in the ass for certain periods of time. It may sound naive but based on the intelligent quotient of some of these fighters, I'd be willing to bet many do not even know whats being injected.
Promoters lose $ too if the fighter is on the sidelines.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Can we just continue watching boxing and agree peds in boxing is a myth?
http://bloggingblue.com/wp-content/u...ad-in-sand.gif
Everything from baseball to cycling is rife with it, but you think it's anything but rife in an already corrupt sport were under performing means getting punched in the face 100s of times, concussed, brain damaged or killed?
:vd:
I understand your point
but we can't keep going around accusing fighters every time they have a great performance or look different physically. I'm all for better state commission drug testing but until then I rather give fighrers the benefit of the doubt.
Yes that gets me a bit also. Manny had not even woke up yet and allegations started. Never mind the fact that Marquez only weighed 143 or 1 pound more the the last go, was heavy into weight training and landed a punch that would have ko'd half the planet.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
We need tougher deterrents. For example, the punishment for failing drug tests needs to be more severe. Instead of six months or no punishment (Peterson), there needs to be, for example, a 1.5 year minimum suspension for the first offense and 3 years for next offense. If the fighter is caught prior to a fight, and the promoter elects to go through with the fight, a large percentage of the fighter's purse needs to be forfeited, say 65% or something.
I don't think its fair to throw the fighter under the bus when imo many of the promoters know full well whats going on and no doubt also the governing leeches. In addition these conditioning coaches that have fighters take the B12 shot in the ass for certain periods of time. It may sound naive but based on the intelligent quotient of some of these fighters, I'd be willing to bet many do not even know whats being injected.
Promoters lose $ too if the fighter is on the sidelines.
Yeah but they weigh the odds of getting caught and know dam well that the chances are slim with scheduled testing.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Who pays for all the amateur testing that goes on all year long?
You make it a rule. Start at the championship level.
What kind of extra testing are we talking about?
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Who pays for all the amateur testing that goes on all year long?
You make it a rule. Start at the championship level.
What kind of extra testing are we talking about?
Random for all title fights. The knock on the door at 2 a.m. on a Sunday kind of testing. If boxing really wants to address the issue then some people are going to have to be inconvenienced. These pre/post fight tests are not going to catch anyone unless they have an IQ of 30 and it takes 31 to bark.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Who pays for all the amateur testing that goes on all year long?
You make it a rule. Start at the championship level.
What kind of extra testing are we talking about?
Random for all title fights. The knock on the door at 2 a.m. on a Sunday kind of testing. If boxing really wants to address the issue then some people are going to have to be inconvenienced. These pre/post fight tests are not going to catch anyone unless they have an IQ of 30 and it takes 31 to bark.
The trouble is, athletes have been cheating random drug testing for decades.
What happens is they get an athlete to sign a declaration that states where they can be found during a certain period of time, like "during July, through the hours of 10am-4pm, I can be found at my home at 123 Fake Street in Brooklyn". Shit happens in life though, and an instance might occur where you won't be at the place you said you'd be. Maybe you have to make an unexpected trip to go see a sick relative. So they stipulated that you can miss a random drug test, you just have to go before the commission and present the reason why you weren't where you said you'd be, which is easy enough to do. Then they get you to sign another declaration for a time period several months later.
So an athlete can give an address where he knows he won't be, use PEDs, miss the test, go before a commision and say "sorry that day I had to go visit my uncle in Philly who was sick", sign a declaration for 2 months later, cycle off, and piss clean.
They can't just do it at any time. Then you have guys saying "hey WTF, they woke me up at 2am on a Sunday morning, disturbing my essential rest time, and they tested my opponent at 7pm without disturbing him."
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Who pays for all the amateur testing that goes on all year long?
You make it a rule. Start at the championship level.
What kind of extra testing are we talking about?
Random for all title fights. The knock on the door at 2 a.m. on a Sunday kind of testing. If boxing really wants to address the issue then some people are going to have to be inconvenienced. These pre/post fight tests are not going to catch anyone unless they have an IQ of 30 and it takes 31 to bark.
The trouble is, athletes have been cheating random drug testing for decades.
What happens is they get an athlete to sign a declaration that states where they can be found during a certain period of time, like "during July, through the hours of 10am-4pm, I can be found at my home at 123 Fake Street in Brooklyn". Shit happens in life though, and an instance might occur where you won't be at the place you said you'd be. Maybe you have to make an unexpected trip to go see a sick relative. So they stipulated that you can miss a random drug test, you just have to go before the commission and present the reason why you weren't where you said you'd be, which is easy enough to do. Then they get you to sign another declaration for a time period several months later.
So an athlete can give an address where he knows he won't be, use PEDs, miss the test, go before a commision and say "sorry that day I had to go visit my uncle in Philly who was sick", sign a declaration for 2 months later, cycle off, and piss clean.
They can't just do it at any time. Then you have guys saying "hey WTF, they woke me up at 2am on a Sunday morning, disturbing my essential rest time, and they tested my opponent at 7pm without disturbing him."
Quote:
The trouble is, athletes have been cheating random drug testing for decades.
And they will continue to beat random testing but random testing will catch more people then scheduled will if the idea is to take a step. There is also the stigma of being exposed years later like Marion and Lance when science catches up and they retest the blood bank taken by them at different times w/o notice.
Quote:
What happens is they get an athlete to sign a declaration that states where they can be found during a certain period of time, like "during July, through the hours of 10am-4pm, I can be found at my home at 123 Fake Street in Brooklyn". Shit happens in life though, and an instance might occur where you won't be at the place you said you'd be. Maybe you have to make an unexpected trip to go see a sick relative. So they stipulated that you can miss a random drug test, you just have to go before the commission and present the reason why you weren't where you said you'd be, which is easy enough to do. Then they get you to sign another declaration for a time period several months later.
Its still better then the alternative though which is to let some roid rage freak kill someone because he extremed out and beat the pre and post fight tests. Oh I'm sure that every excuse in the book would be used as to why certain people could not be tested but what does that tell the public?
And I have never seen a random testing contract. Seems a bit of an oxymoron.
Quote:
So an athlete can give an address where he knows he won't be, use PEDs, miss the test, go before a commision and say "sorry that day I had to go visit my uncle in Philly who was sick", sign a declaration for 2 months later, cycle off, and piss clean.
That is not random testing. And again the statusquo is better how?
Quote:
They can't just do it at any time. Then you have guys saying "hey WTF, they woke me up at 2am on a Sunday morning, disturbing my essential rest time, and they tested my opponent at 7pm without disturbing him."
Yes they can. They even woke Floyd up.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
The promotion last weekend grossed well over a hundred million dollars. The US boxing industry grosses billions of dollars a year, never mind the global take. Let's say that the US boxing industry only grosses two billion dollars a year and decides to fund testing for the top thousand boxers. Firstly, testing on that scale would probably significantly reduce the twenty million cost but let's stay at twenty. That's one percent of the gross, and in reality would be much less than one percent.
If a fighter refuses testing treat him the same way any other athlete who refuses testing is treated.
Well first off we're talking GROSS revenue, which, after expenses such as taxes, boxer purses, promotional costs, production costs, lawyer costs, insurance costs, employee payroll costs, ect ect, we're looking at well under that 2 billion estimate left for other expenses.
Secondly, it's going to cost a hell of a lot more than 20 mil to impliment random drug testing on 1000 boxers. You're talking the cost of the test, cost of analyzing the test, paying for scientists and other qualified personal to administer the tests, lab costs, material costs, ect ect. With random drug tests, you'd have to test a boxer at least 6 times a year for it to mean anything, so you're looking at 6000 tests per year. Keep in mind not every boxer lives in a major city like Las Vegas or New York, so you're also paying for travel expenses to fly these drug testers around the world to visit these boxers 6 times a year to administer these tests. We're talking about a hell of a lot of travel $$$. Obviously I don't have the numbers, but to me 20 million is a completely unrealistic number to tackle this kind of task.
So lets say after all the expenses, you have 300 million left. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'll be generous and say that the drug testing you're talking about is going to swallow up at least half of that. So how do we get these guys to agree to give up that extra 50% of their profit margin? Essentially, you're asking them to give up that much money to ensure their fighters don't perform as well and have shorter careers/less fights.
And then you have the issue that the promoter is paying the drug testers directly, so it opens the doors for accusations of corruption and bribes, and the public doesn't fully trust the drug testing after all that. And then you have to also deal with the fact that these extensive drug tests can be cheated, so after all this messing around and spending, you still don't have a gaurentee of a clean sport. And then you have guys who just get a medical exemption to inject testosterone, so your expensive testing doesn't even apply to them.
It just seems unrealistic to me.
I'm going off the figures that VADA came up with. I'm guessing they know what they're talking about. And if you were testing on that scale you could open your own lab, the larger scale testing you do the cheaper it would be. And you'd be testing the top thousand guys once a month which is a serious testing regime.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Geeez... enough with the money excuse already. There's plenty of money in boxing. Set aside an appropriate amount for testing. If not, then let's watch the sport continue to suffer from increased PED use until a high profile fighter gets killed or brain damaged. Then... the calls to ban boxing or clean it up will be ringing off the rafters and something will have to be done. Better now than to wait until that happens.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Geeez... enough with the money excuse already. There's plenty of money in boxing. Set aside an appropriate amount for testing. If not, then let's watch the sport continue to suffer from increased PED use until a high profile fighter gets killed or brain damaged. Then... the calls to ban boxing or clean it up will be ringing off the rafters and something will have to be done. Better now than to wait until that happens.
If the promoters and sanctioning bodies cannot come up with the coin after leeching fighters for billions of dollars over the years then provide a suitable pension/retirement plan based on shelf life.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Geeez... enough with the money excuse already. There's plenty of money in boxing. Set aside an appropriate amount for testing. If not, then let's watch the sport continue to suffer from increased PED use until a high profile fighter gets killed or brain damaged. Then... the calls to ban boxing or clean it up will be ringing off the rafters and something will have to be done. Better now than to wait until that happens.
If the promoters and sanctioning bodies cannot come up with the coin after leeching fighters for billions of dollars over the years then provide a suitable pension/retirement plan based on shelf life.
I think this is a very doable, sensible action, although it doesn't directly take care of the PED problem. Indirectly, however it would make it less "necessary" for over-the-hill fighters to continue hanging on for that last paycheck, particularly when the only motive is paying off debts. Thus, reducing the probability of a washed up fighter getting seriously hurt. Old fighters might also be less prone to try and extend their careers through their own use of PEDs.
But a big portion of those billions should also go toward testing for PEDs. We seem to find a million excuses as to why it can't be done.... but what we need is someone with the gumption to say "Let's just do it and see what happens. We'll tweak the system if needed as we go."
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Geeez... enough with the money excuse already. There's plenty of money in boxing. Set aside an appropriate amount for testing. If not, then let's watch the sport continue to suffer from increased PED use until a high profile fighter gets killed or brain damaged. Then... the calls to ban boxing or clean it up will be ringing off the rafters and something will have to be done. Better now than to wait until that happens.
If the promoters and sanctioning bodies cannot come up with the coin after leeching fighters for billions of dollars over the years then provide a suitable pension/retirement plan based on shelf life.
I think this is a very doable, sensible action, although it doesn't directly take care of the PED problem. Indirectly, however it
would make it less "necessary" for over-the-hill fighters to continue hanging on for that last paycheck, particularly when the only motive is paying off debts. Thus, reducing the probability of a washed up fighter getting seriously hurt. Old fighters might also be less prone to try and extend their careers through their own use of PEDs.
But a big portion of those billions should also go toward testing for PEDs. We seem to find a million excuses as to why it can't be done.... but what we need is someone with the gumption to say
"Let's just do it and see what happens. We'll tweak the system if needed as we go."
Agreed. I guess my point is that if you are going to throw the health of fighters under the bus by ignoring the issue because of probable lost revenue then to me they are at the very least morally obligated (if they have morals) to set up a variety of plans including assured health benefits after the fighters are done. Peds or not. But imo by ignoring the Ped issue these obligations become stronger and philosophically necessary.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Geeez... enough with the money excuse already. There's plenty of money in boxing. Set aside an appropriate amount for testing. If not, then let's watch the sport continue to suffer from increased PED use until a high profile fighter gets killed or brain damaged. Then... the calls to ban boxing or clean it up will be ringing off the rafters and something will have to be done. Better now than to wait until that happens.
If the promoters and sanctioning bodies cannot come up with the coin after leeching fighters for billions of dollars over the years then provide a suitable pension/retirement plan based on shelf life.
I think this is a very doable, sensible action, although it doesn't directly take care of the PED problem. Indirectly, however it
would make it less "necessary" for over-the-hill fighters to continue hanging on for that last paycheck, particularly when the only motive is paying off debts. Thus, reducing the probability of a washed up fighter getting seriously hurt. Old fighters might also be less prone to try and extend their careers through their own use of PEDs.
But a big portion of those billions should also go toward testing for PEDs. We seem to find a million excuses as to why it can't be done.... but what we need is someone with the gumption to say
"Let's just do it and see what happens. We'll tweak the system if needed as we go."
Agreed. I guess my point is that if you are going to throw the health of fighters under the bus by ignoring the issue because of probable lost revenue then to me they are at the very least morally obligated (if they have morals) to set up a variety of plans including assured health benefits after the fighters are done. Peds or not. But imo by ignoring the Ped issue these obligations become stronger and philosophically necessary.
Yep. I just find it inexcusable to be putting up "dollars and cents" barriers and excuses, when PEDs in boxing could easily lead to tragedies in the ring. Suffice it to say the sport has its inherent dangers already. We don't need to add more. And when you see the vast amounts of money flowing in big fights, excuses make even less sense. Just last night I caught part of "The Fight Game", with Jim Lampley... and he closed with a statement regarding the increasing use of PEDs. It's a real issue, and as humorously posted with a picture a few posts back.... it won't go away even if we bury our heads in the sand.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Geeez... enough with the money excuse already. There's plenty of money in boxing. Set aside an appropriate amount for testing. If not, then let's watch the sport continue to suffer from increased PED use until a high profile fighter gets killed or brain damaged. Then... the calls to ban boxing or clean it up will be ringing off the rafters and something will have to be done. Better now than to wait until that happens.
If the promoters and sanctioning bodies cannot come up with the coin after leeching fighters for billions of dollars over the years then provide a suitable pension/retirement plan based on shelf life.
I think this is a very doable, sensible action, although it doesn't directly take care of the PED problem. Indirectly, however it
would make it less "necessary" for over-the-hill fighters to continue hanging on for that last paycheck, particularly when the only motive is paying off debts. Thus, reducing the probability of a washed up fighter getting seriously hurt. Old fighters might also be less prone to try and extend their careers through their own use of PEDs.
But a big portion of those billions should also go toward testing for PEDs. We seem to find a million excuses as to why it can't be done.... but what we need is someone with the gumption to say
"Let's just do it and see what happens. We'll tweak the system if needed as we go."
Agreed. I guess my point is that if you are going to throw the health of fighters under the bus by ignoring the issue because of probable lost revenue then to me they are at the very least morally obligated (if they have morals) to set up a variety of plans including assured health benefits after the fighters are done. Peds or not. But imo by ignoring the Ped issue these obligations become stronger and philosophically necessary.
Yep. I just find it inexcusable to be putting up "dollars and cents" barriers and excuses, when PEDs in boxing could easily lead to tragedies in the ring. Suffice it to say the sport has its inherent dangers already. We don't need to add more. And when you see the vast amounts of money flowing in big fights, excuses make even less sense. Just last night I caught part of "The Fight Game", with Jim Lampley... and he closed with a statement regarding the increasing use of PEDs. It's a real issue, and as humorously posted with a picture a few posts back.... it won't go away even if we bury our heads in the sand.
Either that or simply stop testing all together because the present testing would seem to sustain there use. Yet they frequently catch people with THC residue and make a big deal about it. Pretty hilarious.
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
-
Re: Addressing the PED problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Geeez... enough with the money excuse already. There's plenty of money in boxing. Set aside an appropriate amount for testing. If not, then let's watch the sport continue to suffer from increased PED use until a high profile fighter gets killed or brain damaged. Then... the calls to ban boxing or clean it up will be ringing off the rafters and something will have to be done. Better now than to wait until that happens.
It's not an excuse, it's a serious question that needs a serious, logical answer. There's a lot of moving parts to this machine.
Saying "MAKE THE PROMOTERS PAY THEY'RE RICH WHO CARES" is not a logical plan. Yeah there's a lot of money in boxing, but who's pocket is it coming out of?
And the brain damage thing... fighters have been getting brain damaged and killed since boxing has been around! You don't need steroids to kill/brain damage a guy in the ring, that's been proven time and time again over the last 100 years. Again, that's something you can't quantify.
The theory has always been that punchers are born, not made. For instance, Stefan Bonner was juiced to the gills in his UFC fight against Anderson Silva, and at one point Anderson dropped his hands and let Stefan hit him with flush punches to the face with no effect. Steroids aren't turning Sven Ottke into Julian Jackson, that's just rediculous.
