That's when my suspicions were first aroused. It just doesn't ring true.Coconut wrote:Look as far back as 1988, when he moved up. The guy put on 20 pounds of lean mass in 8 months while retaining fitness levels to box at world level.
Toney fails drug test
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
I've heard similar elsewhere. That is why I said what constitutes 'cheating' these days is very much blurred. It's more about finding an edge, and using something which either isn't on the banned list, or finding a way of masking it. I have no doubt that it wasn't any special advantage that enabled Christie, or Ben Johnson for that matter to clock that time. Even Johnson said that everyone was at it even then, and I remember another Athlete, I think it was Christie saying, 'I don't care what Johnson has been taking, no drug can make a guy run that fast.'Deserter wrote:I had the pleasure of meeting an individual who is heavily involved in the British athletics scene last week. He was in Dubai as he is the life-long friend of one of my close friends here. Needless to say I took the opportunity to ask a few questions about the level of drug use, as I share similar sentiments to those on here who suspect it goes on a lot.
He was reasonably discreet and professional, but made it clear in no uncertain terms that drug taking in athletics at national/world level is bordering on institutionalised it's so widespread now. It's so rampant that he genuinely believes the only viable solution these days is to legalise usage.
There is a certain body of evidence which suggests that the major advantages that many of these drugs confer, is psychosomatic. After all, many of them enable you to train harder, but there's a limit to how much extra training can do for you, and a limit to how much a body can respond to training even with substances.
They were saying the same back in 1988....Carl Lewis said as much.
If that is the case, then those that train the hardest will still win, those who want it most. Why not just give everyone access to the same drugs..?
Tour De France is the most blatant though, it's just so obvious that what they do is so far beyond what the regular human being can do as to be virtually superhuman.
and I do not like all this Roid Jones line (talking about Roy and not Marion) the denigrates Roy's achievements - he passed sample B.Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Stu, once again I find myself clashing with your good self.
The drugs test he failed latterly, re nandrolone - he was running in a pseudo exhibition event in some fornicating backwater and perhaps didn't expect to be tested.
Another version is at that time, nandrolone was ubiquitous in large amounts in loads of supplements - the type that Christie used to use quite often.
You imply that early in his career he would have taken drugs and simply done a better job of covering it up. The bloke was the most tested athlete EVER in British athletics when he was at his peak - the testers wouldn't leave him alone and he didn't test positive for all that time.
I hate all this bullshit denigrating his achievements. Leave it out.
Linford did test positive in 1988, how did he get to keep him medal (and return home to a hero's welcome) and the likes of Alain Baxter, Diane Modhal all "fail" drugs tests and get shamed.
Another mate-of-a-mate thing - my mum used to work with a bodybuilder whose training partner was on the fitness staff of the Wigan rugby league team in the mid-90s. Apparently of the entire squad there was only one guy who allegedly wasn't juicing. He wouldn't say who the guy was.
As far as most sprinters go, I think that the vast majority are doing something or have done. I think many, many sports have huge drug issues (rugby being a prime example) but with the sports entertainment marketplace being so competitive no sport can afford to have its star names tainted by drugs. WWE has the market for freaks cornered, so I firmly believe that hiding positives and / or non-stringent testing practices are de rigeur in many sports.
Look at US athletics. Chambers and Johnson are small fry when you campre them to some of the names there. Marion Jones? Again, the circumstantial evidence is huge and the BALCO case has exposed something there, but she's still running. I reckon guys like CJ Hunter are just sacrificial lambs exposed to preserve an image of rigour. Can you imagine the impact on, say, rugby union in this country if Johnny Wilkinson and Martin Johnson tested positive? Not saying these guys do but I know at a lower level in the sport steroids are rife. I also know amateur boxers who've stripped weight with sida cordifolia, which is basically ephedrine. The fact is that you can't test everyone all the time and they probably don't want to anyway.
As far as most sprinters go, I think that the vast majority are doing something or have done. I think many, many sports have huge drug issues (rugby being a prime example) but with the sports entertainment marketplace being so competitive no sport can afford to have its star names tainted by drugs. WWE has the market for freaks cornered, so I firmly believe that hiding positives and / or non-stringent testing practices are de rigeur in many sports.
Look at US athletics. Chambers and Johnson are small fry when you campre them to some of the names there. Marion Jones? Again, the circumstantial evidence is huge and the BALCO case has exposed something there, but she's still running. I reckon guys like CJ Hunter are just sacrificial lambs exposed to preserve an image of rigour. Can you imagine the impact on, say, rugby union in this country if Johnny Wilkinson and Martin Johnson tested positive? Not saying these guys do but I know at a lower level in the sport steroids are rife. I also know amateur boxers who've stripped weight with sida cordifolia, which is basically ephedrine. The fact is that you can't test everyone all the time and they probably don't want to anyway.
James, I am hopeful that I will have a study published next year which shows the psychological impact of drug use on anaerobic events.
Whilst the findings show there is a psychological impact (as we never used steriods just placebo's and labelled them as performance enhancers) - the research I had to do indicates that there is a huge performance effect in steriods - which is ontop of the psychological effects. This has been noted in numerous empirical studies and also you can see it anecdotally.
Look at Ben Johnson's time post his suspension and pre his second suspension (1992 Olympics). He was about 0.5 of a second slower.
Whilst the findings show there is a psychological impact (as we never used steriods just placebo's and labelled them as performance enhancers) - the research I had to do indicates that there is a huge performance effect in steriods - which is ontop of the psychological effects. This has been noted in numerous empirical studies and also you can see it anecdotally.
Look at Ben Johnson's time post his suspension and pre his second suspension (1992 Olympics). He was about 0.5 of a second slower.
stujones wrote:the research I had to do indicates that there is a huge performance effect in steriods - which is ontop of the psychological effects.
You get a pass from me.
Apologies, don't mean to be flippant.
Does your research give any % gains, time-wise or strength-wise? I'd be very interested to see those.
-
dandantheweatherman
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 337
- Joined: 23 Apr 2004, 20:10
I feel almost obliged to apologise for coming back to the Toney-Ruiz fight here....
....I can't remember what the score was with Roy Jones when he tested postive, but the IBF didn't actually penalise Jones did they? Obviously the WBA have different rules so may treat the thing differently. I'm trying to think what happened with other fighters in the past....Tony Tubbs (or was it Tony Tucker?) beat Orlin Norris on points for the NABF belt in 1990-ish and then failed the drug test so it was declared a no contest.
Anyway, I had money on Ruiz on points and Ruiz to win. If they declare Ruiz the champion presumably Bet365 will revisit their records and pay out? Would a no contest be paid out as a draw (I had the draw as well) or would the bet become void and I get my stakes back?
I said Ruiz would be WBA champ again didn't I!!!!!!!!!!!!
....I can't remember what the score was with Roy Jones when he tested postive, but the IBF didn't actually penalise Jones did they? Obviously the WBA have different rules so may treat the thing differently. I'm trying to think what happened with other fighters in the past....Tony Tubbs (or was it Tony Tucker?) beat Orlin Norris on points for the NABF belt in 1990-ish and then failed the drug test so it was declared a no contest.
Anyway, I had money on Ruiz on points and Ruiz to win. If they declare Ruiz the champion presumably Bet365 will revisit their records and pay out? Would a no contest be paid out as a draw (I had the draw as well) or would the bet become void and I get my stakes back?
I said Ruiz would be WBA champ again didn't I!!!!!!!!!!!!
See point 18.23.3 for the description of WBA rules: http://www.wbaonline.com/legal/LegalSta ... nships.pdf
Tell you what Stu, when I get time (and it won't be for a while) I will do the research on both of your points because I don't like putting my neck on the block when I'm not entirely sure.stujones wrote:and I do not like all this Roid Jones line (talking about Roy and not Marion) the denigrates Roy's achievements - he passed sample B.Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Stu, once again I find myself clashing with your good self.
The drugs test he failed latterly, re nandrolone - he was running in a pseudo exhibition event in some fornicating backwater and perhaps didn't expect to be tested.
Another version is at that time, nandrolone was ubiquitous in large amounts in loads of supplements - the type that Christie used to use quite often.
You imply that early in his career he would have taken drugs and simply done a better job of covering it up. The bloke was the most tested athlete EVER in British athletics when he was at his peak - the testers wouldn't leave him alone and he didn't test positive for all that time.
I hate all this bullshit denigrating his achievements. Leave it out.
Linford did test positive in 1988, how did he get to keep him medal (and return home to a hero's welcome) and the likes of Alain Baxter, Diane Modhal all "fail" drugs tests and get shamed.
Roy is a good boy and Linford is a cheat then? I'll get back to you.
Ian,
What are my TWO points, just for clarification.
Is it
1). That Roy passed sample B.
2). That Linford failed in 1988.
Just for clarification purposes. Yes, I would appreciate clarification on point A myself - my information isn't the greatest but I am basing it on the Anti Roy Jones guys over at ESB, who even despite openly admitting the Roy passed sample B (and they have shown documents in such post, although not sure how legit) they still call him a cheat.
Whilst, they are not the most reliable of sources if it wasn't announced somewhere legit that Roy and Hall both passed sample B then they would certainly never mention it.
As for what I think you mean by point 2, then you can have an absolute 100% guarentee that Linford failed in 1988, this is where Linford cited Ginseng he took for a cold. I don't and have never disputed that this was the case. If you don't ever find it on the net, you'll have to trust me - I'm not a just a Welsh statto on Boxing - I might even have it on tape, I know I have the final on tape.
Linford passed the test for the 100 metres, however as he finished fourth in the 200 metres he had to perform another test - at the time (and probably still) all the top 4 athletes took the test regardless of how many times you finish in the top 4. It was following this one, where he tested positive.
As for the last statement (Roy being a good boy and Linford being a cheat) - I never said that or implied it. I merely said, like you don't like me (and others) questioning the achievements of Christie, I don't like people questioning the achievements of Roy. Like with Christie failing in the exhibition I have to ask why did Roy need the steriods for Richard Hall and not for his more meaningful fights. The fact that Hall failed them too makes it more suspicious of some kind of tampering.
What are my TWO points, just for clarification.
Is it
1). That Roy passed sample B.
2). That Linford failed in 1988.
Just for clarification purposes. Yes, I would appreciate clarification on point A myself - my information isn't the greatest but I am basing it on the Anti Roy Jones guys over at ESB, who even despite openly admitting the Roy passed sample B (and they have shown documents in such post, although not sure how legit) they still call him a cheat.
Whilst, they are not the most reliable of sources if it wasn't announced somewhere legit that Roy and Hall both passed sample B then they would certainly never mention it.
As for what I think you mean by point 2, then you can have an absolute 100% guarentee that Linford failed in 1988, this is where Linford cited Ginseng he took for a cold. I don't and have never disputed that this was the case. If you don't ever find it on the net, you'll have to trust me - I'm not a just a Welsh statto on Boxing - I might even have it on tape, I know I have the final on tape.
Linford passed the test for the 100 metres, however as he finished fourth in the 200 metres he had to perform another test - at the time (and probably still) all the top 4 athletes took the test regardless of how many times you finish in the top 4. It was following this one, where he tested positive.
As for the last statement (Roy being a good boy and Linford being a cheat) - I never said that or implied it. I merely said, like you don't like me (and others) questioning the achievements of Christie, I don't like people questioning the achievements of Roy. Like with Christie failing in the exhibition I have to ask why did Roy need the steriods for Richard Hall and not for his more meaningful fights. The fact that Hall failed them too makes it more suspicious of some kind of tampering.
Coconut.
Sorry, I think I was wrote that wrong, my study didn't involve steriods at all although I had to read around existing studies that have looked at performance with steriods.
My study which was done only over a 5 week period reported I think (I haven't got the figures at hand) 20% increase in Anaerobic power (using the Wingate) after taking the "enhancers" for only a week. It did sort of remain the same level throughout the test - but this was still a 20% increase from a baseline (so eliminated practice effects). The
We were all dressed up an white coats and looked like scientist (there were a few in the team who were) and the subjects used not elite athletes or anything. The subjects were told not to change their diet/exercise regime during the course of the study as we were only checking if the tablets boosted performance and not ones training capacity.
Amazingly, the funniest (and actually the thing that will get it published) thing about the study were some of the comments prior to the tests. Some were saying stuff like "yeah, I've been working on the farm and I felt stronger" and "I ran to uni one day this week cause I was late and I wasn't tired" - umm, it was a calcium tablet. Other subjects actually said "I don't think this tablet has done anything, I think this experiment could be a sham!" - however, these people also recorded a better performance! - and it was these who were most surprised when I told them at the end.
Studies that have been published since my one was done has shown the whilst there is a placebo effect with steriods, the ACTUAL benefit to performance is greater - so if my study with my subjects reported a 20% increase with calcium, what would the increase be on these particular subjects with steriods?
Sorry, I think I was wrote that wrong, my study didn't involve steriods at all although I had to read around existing studies that have looked at performance with steriods.
My study which was done only over a 5 week period reported I think (I haven't got the figures at hand) 20% increase in Anaerobic power (using the Wingate) after taking the "enhancers" for only a week. It did sort of remain the same level throughout the test - but this was still a 20% increase from a baseline (so eliminated practice effects). The
We were all dressed up an white coats and looked like scientist (there were a few in the team who were) and the subjects used not elite athletes or anything. The subjects were told not to change their diet/exercise regime during the course of the study as we were only checking if the tablets boosted performance and not ones training capacity.
Amazingly, the funniest (and actually the thing that will get it published) thing about the study were some of the comments prior to the tests. Some were saying stuff like "yeah, I've been working on the farm and I felt stronger" and "I ran to uni one day this week cause I was late and I wasn't tired" - umm, it was a calcium tablet. Other subjects actually said "I don't think this tablet has done anything, I think this experiment could be a sham!" - however, these people also recorded a better performance! - and it was these who were most surprised when I told them at the end.
Studies that have been published since my one was done has shown the whilst there is a placebo effect with steriods, the ACTUAL benefit to performance is greater - so if my study with my subjects reported a 20% increase with calcium, what would the increase be on these particular subjects with steriods?
From Fightnews
TONEY SUSPENDED; FINED!
By Lisa Scott and Andre Courtemanche
According to the Fight Fax web site’s suspension list, James “Lights Out” Toney has been suspended for 90 days and fined $10,000 for testing positive for a banned substance. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, his April 30 WBA title-winning victory over John Ruiz has been changed to a No Decision. While the implications of this decision are not known, the most likely scenario will see the title returned to Ruiz outright. Toney will apparently be re-tested after his 90-day suspension is served. (MORE TO COME)
What a mess this has turned out to be, if I see that WBA title around Ruiz's waist again, I reckon I'll be sick
TONEY SUSPENDED; FINED!
By Lisa Scott and Andre Courtemanche
According to the Fight Fax web site’s suspension list, James “Lights Out” Toney has been suspended for 90 days and fined $10,000 for testing positive for a banned substance. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, his April 30 WBA title-winning victory over John Ruiz has been changed to a No Decision. While the implications of this decision are not known, the most likely scenario will see the title returned to Ruiz outright. Toney will apparently be re-tested after his 90-day suspension is served. (MORE TO COME)
What a mess this has turned out to be, if I see that WBA title around Ruiz's waist again, I reckon I'll be sick
Freiheit wrote:Im probably one of the few who dont dislike Ruiz. His style might not be the most exciting but he is the proof that if you train hard, do what you are best at you can reach your ultimate goal. Welcome Back John
as unfashionable as it may be but I agree, Ruiz gets no favours and what would the situation be if the roles were reversed, I`m sure Toney would have been handed the belt back as soon as possible.A cheat is a cheat, even if he is the bigger ticket seller.
[quote="Syntax Error"]Roy Jones got away with allegedly taking drugs, so why not Toney? 
[/quote]
Good Point. But weve wondered for ages how Toney can carry 230 with agut. No doubt hes better skilled, but is he cheating?
(This is my first post back fellas. I used to post as Knockout artist 1721posts. But have been in Cyprus for 4 months, lost my computer, phone line, and house.. oh yeah, and my missus.)
Where are all the old fellas, Bennie, Goz, Mighty Warrior, James McDonnell and Kilburn.. Any of you blokes still on this forum?
BTW Sorry obout the misspelling of my user name ... I was a bit pissed.. my first day back in London.
[/quote]Good Point. But weve wondered for ages how Toney can carry 230 with agut. No doubt hes better skilled, but is he cheating?
(This is my first post back fellas. I used to post as Knockout artist 1721posts. But have been in Cyprus for 4 months, lost my computer, phone line, and house.. oh yeah, and my missus.)
Where are all the old fellas, Bennie, Goz, Mighty Warrior, James McDonnell and Kilburn.. Any of you blokes still on this forum?
BTW Sorry obout the misspelling of my user name ... I was a bit pissed.. my first day back in London.
Fightnews
Team Ruiz expects the WBA to enforce rule 18:23 (3), reinstating John Ruiz as WBA heavyweight champion following the NTSAC's decision to make the Ruiz-Toney a no-contest after Toney failed a post-fight drug test. "We are waiting for the WBA to immediately implemented its rule," Ruiz' attorney Anthony Cardinale explained. "It's as clear as it can be. We're glad the truth has come out and Johnny hasn't lost his championship."
As usual, Ruiz' manager/head trainer Norman Stoney was not at a loss for words. "All I've ever heard was how bad Johnny Ruiz was for boxing," " Stone said. "Who's bad for boxing now? Toney's always talking about being a man. Well, he should be a man and admit what he did instead of making excuses. He can't talk trash about us anymore. Toney said he only fears God; he should fear the New York State Athletic Commission, too.....Toney shot his mouth off, talking a lot of BS and degrading Johnny. But who's going to have the last laugh? I believe everybody in his corner should be responsible, including Dan Goossen. They can make up all of the 'the dog ate my homework' excuses they want, but Toney flunked his test and they should own up to it."
Team Ruiz expects the WBA to enforce rule 18:23 (3), reinstating John Ruiz as WBA heavyweight champion following the NTSAC's decision to make the Ruiz-Toney a no-contest after Toney failed a post-fight drug test. "We are waiting for the WBA to immediately implemented its rule," Ruiz' attorney Anthony Cardinale explained. "It's as clear as it can be. We're glad the truth has come out and Johnny hasn't lost his championship."
As usual, Ruiz' manager/head trainer Norman Stoney was not at a loss for words. "All I've ever heard was how bad Johnny Ruiz was for boxing," " Stone said. "Who's bad for boxing now? Toney's always talking about being a man. Well, he should be a man and admit what he did instead of making excuses. He can't talk trash about us anymore. Toney said he only fears God; he should fear the New York State Athletic Commission, too.....Toney shot his mouth off, talking a lot of BS and degrading Johnny. But who's going to have the last laugh? I believe everybody in his corner should be responsible, including Dan Goossen. They can make up all of the 'the dog ate my homework' excuses they want, but Toney flunked his test and they should own up to it."
-
dandantheweatherman
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 337
- Joined: 23 Apr 2004, 20:10
What betting implications does this have?
For example, if one bet on Toney and won how would a bookie claim the money back due to a result change?
Similarly, if one bet on Ruiz (that'll be me then) does one win, or at least get the stakes back if the result is voided.
It raises interesting implications if a big bet was won and the winner blew the lot and couldn't repay it. What would Bet365 or William Hills do?
For example, if one bet on Toney and won how would a bookie claim the money back due to a result change?
Similarly, if one bet on Ruiz (that'll be me then) does one win, or at least get the stakes back if the result is voided.
It raises interesting implications if a big bet was won and the winner blew the lot and couldn't repay it. What would Bet365 or William Hills do?
-
Manos de Oro
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 12:10
This came as something of a surprise, albeit brief, when I visited box-central there. If whatever he took affected his stamina then he should be punished, obviously. If it was for some cosmetic reason, they should find out whatever lab produced that shit and send Trading Standards round.
Anyway, wonder if the Byrd fight will happen - decent card that...
Anyway, wonder if the Byrd fight will happen - decent card that...
Sorry Dan,
the betting stays. If you won or lost money and there was no change of decision within 24 hours the results dont matter anymore. IT only matters at the moment of the fight announcement (of results). That is all the betting house is responsible for. Ive been in your position a few times and you are out of luck. (unless they chnaged the rules)
Better luck next time.
As for Toney: shame man. The biggest fight of his career and he risks drugs in that? It is not like he didnt know any better. He is a veteran fighter and knows the rules better than any of us. He didnt train in time then pulled some drugs to make up for it. But the testing caught him and now he got egg on his face.
Hes been suspended for only 90 days but really he should be banned from boxing. He pissed on his legacy. IT was a bad idea to begin with to fight at heavy. He is just too small and too old for a stint at this class.
He should have stuck at cruiser, especially after they raised it to 200lb. He would have fought Jirov2, Mormeck and a few other guys making decent money. He may even have gotten a rematch with Roy and erased the first defeat. But he chose heavy instead and just couldnt make it without illegal substances.
Really sad. :( :( :( :( :(
the betting stays. If you won or lost money and there was no change of decision within 24 hours the results dont matter anymore. IT only matters at the moment of the fight announcement (of results). That is all the betting house is responsible for. Ive been in your position a few times and you are out of luck. (unless they chnaged the rules)
Better luck next time.
As for Toney: shame man. The biggest fight of his career and he risks drugs in that? It is not like he didnt know any better. He is a veteran fighter and knows the rules better than any of us. He didnt train in time then pulled some drugs to make up for it. But the testing caught him and now he got egg on his face.
Hes been suspended for only 90 days but really he should be banned from boxing. He pissed on his legacy. IT was a bad idea to begin with to fight at heavy. He is just too small and too old for a stint at this class.
He should have stuck at cruiser, especially after they raised it to 200lb. He would have fought Jirov2, Mormeck and a few other guys making decent money. He may even have gotten a rematch with Roy and erased the first defeat. But he chose heavy instead and just couldnt make it without illegal substances.
Really sad. :( :( :( :( :(
[quote="KO Atrist"
Where are all the old fellas, Bennie, Goz, Mighty Warrior, James McDonnell and Kilburn.. Any of you blokes still on this forum?
BTW Sorry obout the misspelling of my user name ... I was a bit pissed.. my first day back in London.[/quote]
Bennie hasn't been here for a while but the rest still post regularly.
Nice to have you back, although sorry about the news.
Where are all the old fellas, Bennie, Goz, Mighty Warrior, James McDonnell and Kilburn.. Any of you blokes still on this forum?
BTW Sorry obout the misspelling of my user name ... I was a bit pissed.. my first day back in London.[/quote]
Bennie hasn't been here for a while but the rest still post regularly.
Nice to have you back, although sorry about the news.
-
dandantheweatherman
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 337
- Joined: 23 Apr 2004, 20:10
Jab,
Thanks for your answer. I wondered how betting sites would handle this sort of thing, because it could happen in other fights, as well as in other sports where drug test results take a few days to become known. I'd have been irate if they'd asked for winnings back had I backed Toney!!
Mind you, is there not an issue here whereby a fighter could dose up on illegal substances, bet on him/herself and win lots of money. Obviously their career would be buggered, but there strikes me as being a loophole for some betting shenaningans here.
Thanks for your answer. I wondered how betting sites would handle this sort of thing, because it could happen in other fights, as well as in other sports where drug test results take a few days to become known. I'd have been irate if they'd asked for winnings back had I backed Toney!!
Mind you, is there not an issue here whereby a fighter could dose up on illegal substances, bet on him/herself and win lots of money. Obviously their career would be buggered, but there strikes me as being a loophole for some betting shenaningans here.