Adam booth on drug cheats IFL

[Nightmare Roy]

Just watched this, really interesting and I agree with everything he says.

Thoughts?

[keirw]

100% bang on

[smiling assassin]

Thanks for posting that I enjoyed watching it

[Controversial]

Can't disagree with anything he says, why they don't circulate a list of banned substances is a mystery.

[Shirow]

Good points. I'm shocked that it never occurred to me that if a winner fails a subsequent PED test the result should be changed to a DQ loss not just a NC.

I don't think a list of banned substances could be distributed as once you have a comprehensive list you can look for the loopholes, just in the same way that producers of legal highs and tax avoidance schemes get away with it.
The chemists will just synthesize something very slightly different that hasn't existed before and won't appear on the banned list.

I don't know why boxers can't sue for loss of future earnings, at the least, if they lose to a boxer who is found guilty of PED use. Shouldn't that be written into contracts as standard?

I very rarely watch these IFL videos but the interviewer doesn't seem that well informed. Is IFL boxing specific or just sport in general?

[handsofstone]

I've gotta say rhats probably one of the best interviews I've seen regarding drug cheats and testing procedures, Adam's a clever bloke, certain people would do well to listen to him

[Boxerbeetle]

Good points. I'm shocked that it never occurred to me that if a winner fails a subsequent PED test the result should be changed to a DQ loss not just a NC.

I don't think a list of banned substances could be distributed as once you have a comprehensive list you can look for the loopholes, just in the same way that producers of legal highs and tax avoidance schemes get away with it.
The chemists will just synthesize something very slightly different that hasn't existed before and won't appear on the banned list.

I don't know why boxers can't sue for loss of future earnings, at the least, if they lose to a boxer who is found guilty of PED use. Shouldn't that be written into contracts as standard?

I very rarely watch these IFL videos but the interviewer doesn't seem that well informed. Is IFL boxing specific or just sport in general?

The IFL guys are generally not particularly well informed or knowledgeable, despite it being a boxing specific channel.

Booth was bang on here.

[mickey1975]

Good points. I'm shocked that it never occurred to me that if a winner fails a subsequent PED test the result should be changed to a DQ loss not just a NC.

I don't think a list of banned substances could be distributed as once you have a comprehensive list you can look for the loopholes, just in the same way that producers of legal highs and tax avoidance schemes get away with it.
The chemists will just synthesize something very slightly different that hasn't existed before and won't appear on the banned list.

I don't know why boxers can't sue for loss of future earnings, at the least, if they lose to a boxer who is found guilty of PED use. Shouldn't that be written into contracts as standard?

I very rarely watch these IFL videos but the interviewer doesn't seem that well informed. Is IFL boxing specific or just sport in general?

The IFL guys are generally not particularly well informed or knowledgeable, despite it being a boxing specific channel.

Booth was bang on here.

They are informed, they just let the interviewee say it for them.

[Nightmare Roy]

Good points. I'm shocked that it never occurred to me that if a winner fails a subsequent PED test the result should be changed to a DQ loss not just a NC.

I don't think a list of banned substances could be distributed as once you have a comprehensive list you can look for the loopholes, just in the same way that producers of legal highs and tax avoidance schemes get away with it.
The chemists will just synthesize something very slightly different that hasn't existed before and won't appear on the banned list.

I don't know why boxers can't sue for loss of future earnings, at the least, if they lose to a boxer who is found guilty of PED use. Shouldn't that be written into contracts as standard?

I very rarely watch these IFL videos but the interviewer doesn't seem that well informed. Is IFL boxing specific or just sport in general?

The IFL guys are generally not particularly well informed or knowledgeable, despite it being a boxing specific channel.

Booth was bang on here.

They are informed, they just let the interviewee say it for them.

I agree, think they are very good at getting people relaxed and saying what they think.

[TheLeprechaun]

Helder interviews are cringe "What would it mean for you to win?"

Cue the same answer by every fighter.

[Tommy Gunn13]

Spot on from the Dark Lord

[Oiky]

Make him right

[2smoothdalt]

He is totally right. Also any one that fails should go on a polygraph test and asked curtain questions to find the truth and weather there is any other guilty parties that knew about it involved in the sport.

[the_doctor]

Booth spot on.

Someone needs to take this PED thing by the scruff of the neck before boxing goes the way of cycling and loses all credibility.