The problem is people see it as black and white they assume a trace amount of clen = a cheat. In reality I think most elite athletes take some sort of banned substance. Personally I dont think a boxer that easily makes weight, taking clen 2 months before weigh in will have any affect on the fight, but people are too ignorant to look in to it.Grilling Machine wrote: ↑07 Mar 2018, 00:00 If you boost your free testosterone too much at the lighter weights you risk gaining size at a faster rate than strength, so it's recommended to use a smaller weekly dose that doesn't push you as far over your natural level. This also helps prevent your muscles from outgrowing the rest of your body and leading to injuries from tendon tears and so on. Lots of top powerlifters gain weight slowly with relatively conservative usage.
It's generally easier to catch sprinters for example, since their power gains are sometimes worth the price in additional weight (no weight divisions and lower stamina requirements). The likes of Christie and Chambers were much bigger towards the end of their careers. And even then, those who are caught could've usually evaded with luckier timing.
If the money and desire were there we could implement some form of DNA-profiling for athletes, but you'd never fully succeed in eradicating PEDs. How many times has Serena ‘retired’ now? Most tennis pros feign injury to cycle every year or so. Were profiling a thing in boxing, you'd see lots more prospects doing white-collar to learn their trade while cycling, turning pro later than they otherwise would've. It would curb pros racing through the weights, I suppose.
I think it's high time to talk about the legalisation of monitored usage. The effects of something like Nandrolone diminish at higher doses, and it's relatively safe at lower levels (for those without family histories of heart problems and such, although I wouldn't chance it). Because if you were getting a good chunk of its benefits at the legal dosage, the temptation to risk a ban for further marginal gains would be lessened.
Ultimately, I think it's still an image thing, where sponsors are highly aware of how damaging the reality would be if most people were informed. There are still millions who believe that Bolt was clean because of his stride, and even Cram — one of his biggest cheerleaders — avoided calling him clean towards the end of his career, reaching for ‘pure’ instead.
Some people put my view down to jealously, but I'm a terrible sprinter so that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's not like I'm a clean 10-second rival, and he'd still be miles ahead of me if he took to Fury's home-cooking for a few years. Ben Johnson's twenty years older and he could still run me close! I find it interesting to consider who the last clean sprinter was, and I think it was probably one of those from the 10.1 and 10.2 groups. 9.9s were the best from 1968 to 1987, soon after which 9.8s become the elite standard.
Apols, I've waffled on a bit.
If Boxer A has 20% higher testosterone than Boxer B without taking steroids does that mean hes cheating? Should boxer B be allowed to inject a small amount of testosterone to match him? The obvious answer would be no. But how do we know Boxer A hasnt injected that extra bit of tesosterone? Especially with steroids that have extremely short half lives for example winstrol, test acetate etc. That wont show up in a drugs test a few days after injecting. Without profiling their hormones all year round it would be impossible to tell. Same for HGH.
A poster said in another thread clen can be used as a masking agent an has a half life of 48 hours. Why would any boxer use a banned substance to mask another banned substance? Especially if a lot of banned substances that are beneficial to boxers have a shorter half life than clen
I agree.
Just thought it was interesting.