Quote Originally Posted by fan johnny View Post
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?