this is why pacquaio wants specifc test dates

[KKisser]

Control for what? Everything else has already been agreed to. I had a lot of respect for Pacquiao, he was my fighter of the year vote no question. He has accomplished some amazing things. I don't understand the argument that Pacquiao is taking control by being ignorant to why testing procedures need to be random or being afraid of needles. Maybe he is just getting a jumpstart on his political career?

Also running around in a delirium of panic is hardly what I would call control, it's the exact opposite.

these are just big egos colliding. there's no question it would be fair if both fighters take the random test, but it's that mayweather dictating the terms of how it should be done that's unacceptable to team pac. everything is just posturing and it'll get done in the end.

further proving that Pacquiao is the one holding up the fight with his diva attitude, he's acting like a spoiled brat and a whiney bitch

you could also say floyd asking for this kind of test which has never been done before in any championship fight is holding up the fight, and the same description can be said of money mayweather.

[Manju]

you could also say floyd asking for this kind of test which has never been done before in any championship fight is holding up the fight, and the same description can be said of money mayweather.

You could, but both Pac and PBF are playing for their historical legacy now, and this narrative simply puts Pac on the wrong side: ie, on the side of sports authorities who've long enabled cheating by requiring testing standards that are easy to manipulate.

Since its unlikely a cheater would require strict testing, PBF has managed to transform himself into a good guy whose historical accomplishments now seem above rebuke, like Ken Griffey jr.

If PBF had required some obscure and unprecedented test never before used, I'd agree he's simply deploying a pretense to avoid fighting...but Olympic testing is considered fair and square, as is PBFs reputation now.

[fan johnny]

Here’s what I don’t get about the article. You have this expert providing information on how specifically EPO is measured for by using the blood cells and then says random testing is essential.

If blood is taken immediately following the fight and it can be measured for increased capacity and then there is the fact that synthetic EPO molecule can be checked for in urine. http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/epo.html Random checking of urine is a direct method. Even if an undetectable masking agent is used, it wipes out all the EPO, not just the synthetic stuff so they will know it was washed. So why make the statement random blood testing is essential? I’m having a hard time believing the veracity of this article. It’s either that or this expert is lying.

[AdamGB]

They're not just looking for an EPO though.

if you're tested post fight then you can have trained with PEDs, had your body respond in a more anabolic (therefore beneficial) way to the stimulus placed on it in training camp yet show up clean because you've cycled off them before the fight.

PEDs etc are not just a case of popping them before the fight and having them charge you up like a super shot of latte or something.

Trace amounts of stuff show up in urine, but not inter cellular stuff and the amounts you get in urine... it's pretty easy to argue that they're naturally there and just slightly above average... it's also far to easy to mask things in urine and the testing being random is a bit of a no brainer...

Like 100s of people keep saying - it's all to easy to cycle or mask things if you know exactly what and when the tests will be.

[fan johnny]

They're not just looking for an EPO though.

if you're tested post fight then you can have trained with PEDs, had your body respond in a more anabolic (therefore beneficial) way to the stimulus placed on it in training camp yet show up clean because you've cycled off them before the fight.

PEDs etc are not just a case of popping them before the fight and having them charge you up like a super shot of latte or something.

Trace amounts of stuff show up in urine, but not inter cellular stuff and the amounts you get in urine... it's pretty easy to argue that they're naturally there and just slightly above average... it's also far to easy to mask things in urine and the testing being random is a bit of a no brainer...

Like 100s of people keep saying - it's all to easy to cycle or mask things if you know exactly what and when the tests will be.

That doesn't really address the question. I was pointing out that the expert in the article specifically identified EPO and why it was important for blood testing and that it be random. As an expert he knows what the effects are, what to look for, and how masking is done. So it's either the author how is intentionally changing context of the statements given by the expert or the expert is lying. Why?

I'm not try to argue that one method is better than the other and random testing has it's applications. I don't get the expert testimony having a bad conclusion with such an excellent supporting statements. Drug Tests Used in Sports - Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org

[jerome01]

They're not just looking for an EPO though.

if you're tested post fight then you can have trained with PEDs, had your body respond in a more anabolic (therefore beneficial) way to the stimulus placed on it in training camp yet show up clean because you've cycled off them before the fight.

PEDs etc are not just a case of popping them before the fight and having them charge you up like a super shot of latte or something.

Trace amounts of stuff show up in urine, but not inter cellular stuff and the amounts you get in urine... it's pretty easy to argue that they're naturally there and just slightly above average... it's also far to easy to mask things in urine and the testing being random is a bit of a no brainer...

Like 100s of people keep saying - it's all to easy to cycle or mask things if you know exactly what and when the tests will be.

That doesn't really address the question. I was pointing out that the expert in the article specifically identified EPO and why it was important for blood testing and that it be random. As an expert he knows what the effects are, what to look for, and how masking is done. So it's either the author how is intentionally changing context of the statements given by the expert or the expert is lying. Why?

I'm not try to argue that one method is better than the other and random testing has it's applications. I don't get the expert testimony having a bad conclusion with such an excellent supporting statements. Drug Tests Used in Sports - Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org

From the link you have provided the blood is only an added measure for testing and in other article a screening of athlete to determine who they deem necessary for a urine test. But the urine is sufficient for detecting EPO.

[erik_corrales]

From the link you have provided the blood is only an added measure for testing and in other article a screening of athlete to determine who they deem necessary for a urine test. But the urine is sufficient for detecting EPO.

which brings me to this video that i remember seeing earlier this month.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGd8r...layer_embedded

based on this video, dated dec 11,team pac originally agreed with the olympic style testing. it's only when the mayweather's demanded excessive random blood sampling, which could possibly be done right before the fight, that team pac didn't want to be pulled a fast one on.

i still stand by my hair sampling compromise. it's less intrusive and more indicative if pac has ever used roids.