The Definitive PED article

[killersheep]

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?

[JazMerkin]

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.

[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.

[JazMerkin]

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.

[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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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!

[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.

[killersheep]

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?

[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?

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.

[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.

[JazMerkin]

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

[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

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

[Nameless]

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.