Page 4 of 11

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 13:39
by JDC
Fair play for the response Larry, although I'm not condoning it. Times are changing in the PED regard and you're one of many who will take the fall. It's for the good of the sport that this has happened. I hope you see this also.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 13:45
by palooka
mugabi wrote:To be honest I think the main page headline describing Larry as "disgraced" is pretty pathetic. Just how much of a "drug cheat" he is is open to interpretation , but again to call him "disgraced" as if he was some kind of expenses cheating MP or some kind of teacher caught dating a student, is just over the top sanctimonious crap.

This is the HW boxing division we are talking about!!!!
I can understand that you feel very strongly about this as Larry is a friend of yours and someone you admire. He has; though, participated in a dangerous physical sport with a drug inducedadvantage over the opposition. There was a massive outcry when Margarito tried to gain an unfair advantage; I'm sure that to his friends and family, Antonio is a fantastic fellow. I'm sure Larry is too but he got caught (too late) cheating.

Many of the MPs caught cheating expenses did so feeling it was 'right' because most of their peers were doing the same.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 15:12
by dondada
mugabi wrote:To be honest I think the main page headline describing Larry as "disgraced" is pretty pathetic. Just how much of a "drug cheat" he is is open to interpretation , but again to call him "disgraced" as if he was some kind of expenses cheating MP or some kind of teacher caught dating a student, is just over the top sanctimonious crap.

This is the HW boxing division we are talking about!!!!
He's a drug cheat (fact) who is now disgraced (opinion). Your opinion is different - that's fine.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 15:19
by lefty
mugabi wrote:To be honest I think the main page headline describing Larry as "disgraced" is pretty pathetic. Just how much of a "drug cheat" he is is open to interpretation , but again to call him "disgraced" as if he was some kind of expenses cheating MP or some kind of teacher caught dating a student, is just over the top sanctimonious crap.

This is the HW boxing division we are talking about!!!!
Your judgement on this is compromised though by the fact he is a friend of yours.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 15:39
by Final round
daveferguson wrote:
I tried to compete man et man the way it should be.

That is the be all and end all of boxing for me, mano-a-mano both on an even keel trying to overcome the other using skills, fitness and strength honed in the gym, on the road and in the ring

I'm sick to my stomach, not just with Larry but the high probability that the sport is riddled with Drugs cheats

So much for the Noble Art :evil:

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 16:13
by taffytoon
mugabi wrote:To be honest I think the main page headline describing Larry as "disgraced" is pretty pathetic. Just how much of a "drug cheat" he is is open to interpretation , but again to call him "disgraced" as if he was some kind of expenses cheating MP or some kind of teacher caught dating a student, is just over the top sanctimonious crap.

This is the HW boxing division we are talking about!!!!
The headline is bang on, you have a heavy handed heavyweight taking illegal substances making him even heavier handed going into the ring punching another fighter in the head and you think the headline is pathetic :o this speaks volumes of you as a person as well as LO as a cheat. I have no time for cheats of any sports but in boxing it is just bloody dangerous especially in the HW division, how you can compare the expenses cheating to someone trying to do another sportsman serious harm is a bloody joke. :shame: If Larry does not feel disgrace by taking these substances and beating other boxers for the last 6 years then he has learnt nothing and does not deserve to ever step in a ring again, in my opinion he should have a life time ban regardless. As for your comments, you should just drop the abi from your user name as you are clearly a Mug.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 16:17
by taffytoon
Final round wrote:
daveferguson wrote:
I tried to compete man et man the way it should be.

That is the be all and end all of boxing for me, mano-a-mano both on an even keel trying to overcome the other using skills, fitness and strength honed in the gym, on the road and in the ring

I'm sick to my stomach, not just with Larry but the high probability that the sport is riddled with Drugs cheats

So much for the Noble Art :evil:
I have been around the sport for many many years and have met some true warriors and gentlemen, the statement made that the majority are cheats is absolute bollocks in my honest opinion, it seems to me like LO is trying to justify taking illegal substances over a 6 year period cheating other fighters out of decisions and the truth is there is no justification.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 17:08
by forcefraser
Larry`s point about double standards is very valid.

Why was Mosely not banned for 4 years?

What is far worse to me is what margarito did with the hand wraps, yet he is boxing for World titles again within a year and making millions.

Fair enough, what Larry did was wrong, but let`s not make the guy out to be some kind of evil murderer who has disgraced boxing. This sort of thig goes on, no doubt much more than we like to think. The lack of testing just adds to this possibility.

People laying into him saying that he has "let them down"? What sort of crap is that? The only person he has let down is himself and I`m sure he feels pretty shitty about the whole thing. Last thing the guy needs is some keyboard warriors who have never laced up a glove telling him he is a despicable arsehole who has "let them down".

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 17:18
by allahsnackbar
forcefraser wrote:Larry`s point about double standards is very valid.

Why was Mosely not banned for 4 years?

What is far worse to me is what margarito did with the hand wraps, yet he is boxing for World titles again within a year and making millions.

Fair enough, what Larry did was wrong, but let`s not make the guy out to be some kind of evil murderer who has disgraced boxing. This sort of thig goes on, no doubt much more than we like to think. The lack of testing just adds to this possibility.

People laying into him saying that he has "let them down"? What sort of crap is that? The only person he has let down is himself and I`m sure he feels pretty shitty about the whole thing. Last thing the guy needs is some keyboard warriors who have never laced up a glove telling him he is a despicable arsehole who has "let them down".
he let himself and the sport down.

he would still be injecting into his arse and fighting if he never got caught.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 17:22
by BoxingAnalyst
Larry your a glass jawed cheating bum, you should be banned permanently.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 18:23
by tonyevs
Since when was pro boxing ever fair?
Some guys always had unfair advantages over others.

I'm not saying that to use drugs is ok.
Its not.
But repect to Big Larry for being man enough not to hide away from this.

Lets hope this whole incident gives boxing a kick up the arse it needs to get itself in order.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 19:02
by allahsnackbar
tonyevs wrote: But repect to Big Larry for being man enough not to hide away from this.
Why are people saying this?

Do you think Larry would not have continued using if he didn't get caught? Of course he would have. It would have been a different story if he had come clean without being caught but he didn't. His rationalising that we shouldnt be too hard on him because others do it is a very very poor argument and signals a lack of remorse for what he did.

LARRY WOULD STILL BE JUICING AND FIGHTING IF HE DIDN'T GET CAUGHT AND STILL LYING TO US ON HERE AND TELLING US HE ISN'T JUICING

Someone said Larry could be a good example for kids to show that they shouldn't use. How? He would still be using if he never got caught.

He deserves no sympathy or respect at all from anyone on here.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 19:13
by IRLangmaid25
allahsnackbar wrote:
tonyevs wrote: But repect to Big Larry for being man enough not to hide away from this.
Why are people saying this?

Do you think Larry would not have continued using if he didn't get caught? Of course he would have. It would have been a different story if he had come clean without being caught but he didn't. His rationalising that we shouldnt be too hard on him because others do it is a very very poor argument and signals a lack of remorse for what he did.

LARRY WOULD STILL BE JUICING AND FIGHTING IF HE DIDN'T GET CAUGHT AND STILL LYING TO US ON HERE AND TELLING US HE ISN'T JUICING

Someone said Larry could be a good example for kids to show that they shouldn't use. How? He would still be using if he never got caught.

He deserves no sympathy or respect at all from anyone on here.
We all agree that he did was utterly inexcusable from a professional sportsman especially in someone where the possibility you can serious injure or even kill your opponent such conduct totally callous and shows a total disregard for your fellow professionals. As for showing an example to the kids, it was me who suggested and that he should be made to go into schools and the gyms and talk about what he has done and what has happened to him when he got when he rightly caught., and yes I do agree he has lied. He has lied to his family, the fans of the sport, his fellow professionals and licence holders and to himself he knew what he was doing and he knew the risks of getting caught and he still did it.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 19:26
by allahsnackbar
IRLangmaid25 wrote:
allahsnackbar wrote:
tonyevs wrote: But repect to Big Larry for being man enough not to hide away from this.
Why are people saying this?

Do you think Larry would not have continued using if he didn't get caught? Of course he would have. It would have been a different story if he had come clean without being caught but he didn't. His rationalising that we shouldnt be too hard on him because others do it is a very very poor argument and signals a lack of remorse for what he did.

LARRY WOULD STILL BE JUICING AND FIGHTING IF HE DIDN'T GET CAUGHT AND STILL LYING TO US ON HERE AND TELLING US HE ISN'T JUICING

Someone said Larry could be a good example for kids to show that they shouldn't use. How? He would still be using if he never got caught.

He deserves no sympathy or respect at all from anyone on here.
We all agree that he did was utterly inexcusable from a professional sportsman especially in someone where the possibility you can serious injure or even kill your opponent such conduct totally callous and shows a total disregard for your fellow professionals. As for showing an example to the kids, it was me who suggested and that he should be made to go into schools and the gyms and talk about what he has done and what has happened to him when he got when he rightly caught., and yes I do agree he has lied. He has lied to his family, the fans of the sport, his fellow professionals and licence holders and to himself he knew what he was doing and he knew the risks of getting caught and he still did it.
Agreed mate.

I just don't understand how Larry can feel good about getting an unfair advantage over opponents. I suppose, in a sport as serious as boxing, were your life is on the line when you step into the ring, it's hard to feel remorse for trying to give yourself every chance of winning. Especially when you are as limited as Larry was. He probably felt that the gear gave him an added edge... extreme power.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 19:32
by reggaereggae
warmachine wrote:I wasn't suggesting I havn't done wrong I was just letting you guys know what my mindframe was at the time. accept I have done wrong but also want everyone to see the reality of all sports. I accept two wrongs don't make a right and if it felt Like my two posts were made to justify my actions then I apologise for that. I accept I have done wrong and will accept my punishment accordingly.
I wanted u guys to realise that its one rule for one and another rule for another with the roy jones, shane moseley and james toney situations. For instance James Toney has tested positive twice for steroids and if that was me I would have been banned for life now but somehow he is or was still boxing. So until this sort of thing is addressed, it will go on. Shane moseley has been known to use and doesn't get a ban. Same thing. Again I apologise to u guys for letting u down and thank you ofr the support.
You know, I was really against Larry when I heard but he makes some good points. And Kudos for posting and being honest. I think Larry may be right - drug/PED usage is out of control in boxing. The physiques, the weight changes, the hge weight gain after the weigh in, the poor testing all point to a big problem. I didnt realise that it was a problem inthe UK; I thought it was mainly USA based.

I think we have to accept that PED abuse is rife in boxing / MMA. I mean if regularly tested athletes can pass many tests then fail one..... in boxing where testing is a joke; fighters can't hep but take the piss

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 20:24
by jameswilson
warmachine wrote:If i name names, i could get sued
You can get sued if it proves not to be true. Otherwise how the hell would they have grounds to sue you succesfully.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 20:30
by exittored
curtis wood wrote:The problem is this, I've had 21 fights and been a pro for 6 years and I've never been tested for anything,people will always cheat if they think they have a chance of getting away with it, and if your a pro boxer you have a very good chance getting away with it, I have the right as a fighter to know if the man I'm fighting is clean or not,the board need to get with it and start taking my and other clean fighters safety more serious because I feel like I'm being let down by people who are in charge
Agreed.

I find the BBBofC a bunch of fools the way they claimed Larry being caught as some kind of victory when they had nothing to do with it.

Unfortunately with around 20,000 Pro boxers(if you include women) all around the world the likelyhood of every one of them getting randomly tested 365 days a year seems impossible so my idea that the top 50 boxers in every weight class getting tested seems more feasible plus 2% of their salary would be deducted towards paying for the costs which should make it financially a possibility.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 20:36
by exittored
jameswilson wrote:
warmachine wrote:If i name names, i could get sued
You can get sued if it proves not to be true. Otherwise how the hell would they have grounds to sue you succesfully.
Agreed

or at least report them to the BBBofC who could enforce immediate testing on them.

Did Larry say 3 of his former opponents took PEDS? surely he's already told us who they are without naming them as from a financial perspective only 2 of his past opponents would be in a position to afford them or at least it be worth their time taking them and i could guess the 3rd too.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 21:50
by Counterpunch
Let's look at Larry Olubamiwo's predicament here, from an unbiased perspective.

1.) He took 13 banned substances and still couldn't last 2 minutes in the same ring as John McDermott.
2.) He is almost 34 years old, and has just recieved a 4 year ban. He will be close to 38 years old when he can box again.
3.) His record has been completely wiped. Not necessarily a bad thing, considering his limits had been exposed for all to see.
4.) He has to live with the regret of splitting with promoter Frank Maloney. If he hadn't, he probably wouldn't have been caught.
5.) He is now going to have to look for a new career with the reputation of a drug cheat, and a failed ex-boxer holding him back.
6.) He took anabolic steroids throughout his amateur and pro career, which means it is likely he will develop female breast tissue.
7.) He will be blacklisted by the whole boxing community. Why would anyone want to tarnish their reputation?

So, I think we should all cut him a bit of slack. He has been caught red handed. He is probably depressed enough as it is without us calling him out on it. Give him a couple of days to accept his fate. Maybe then he will man up and admit his wrong doing. Now. In all seriousness. I can't help but wondering, how much you reckon it would take to get Dominic Negus out of retirement for an unlicensed showdown with Larry?

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 22:10
by dondada
jameswilson wrote:
warmachine wrote:If i name names, i could get sued
You can get sued if it proves not to be true. Otherwise how the hell would they have grounds to sue you succesfully.
You can get sued even if someone knows you're right. It might cost them a lot of money. More to the point it will cost YOU a lot of money. If you don't have it, the temptation to shut up is overwhelming. It's appalling, rich man's law.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 22:53
by allahsnackbar
its unfair to ask larry to grass on others, not his job

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 23:19
by BAD INTENTIONS
I never post on the British forums but when I saw the thread in the Current Scene, I had to pay you guys a visit. I am personally against all PEDs, but I am a realist. So don't read this as a pro-steroid pamphlet.

I agree with everything Larry O(I'm not going to pretend I know who he is) said. There is this illusion amongst boxing fans that PED use is not rampant. That illusion will one day be shattered like the one that existed in baseball during the 90's. In fact, when Jose Canseco was upset at what he deemed a blackballing (when the owners collude to keep a player from being signed) he wrote a book exposing the rampant steroid use in baseball. Baseball writers and fans labeled him a nutcase who was just upset. It turns out the guy was almost 100% right.

The problem is a basic one, if there is no solid punishment or law enforcement most people will be criminals. Currently, the testing standards in boxing is a joke. I whole-heartedly believe that over 50% (possible higher) of professional fighters use some form of illegal PED. If that's the case, I do feel bad for the pureness of the sport and the few who aren't taking drugs, but in general, it's one enhanced fighter against another.

Just like baseball, there's a few of you here who will be too blind to accept that your favorite fighter could be on an illegal PED. You will even claim my estimate is outrageous. However, most real estimates from the steroid era in baseball range from 60-80%. That's possibly four out of every five.

My man Larry, I feel bad that you'll lose four years of your profession for something that the officials and insiders know is rampant. They suspend you, when in your own backyard they know that ____, _____, and _____ are users. It's all BS. Luckily with your physique and background there are many lucrative positions I'm sure you would qualify for. Come over to the States, we have many "gangster" rappers from middle to upper class neighborhoods who would love to have a guy your size be tough for them.

All the best.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 20 Jun 2012, 23:23
by BAD INTENTIONS
dondada wrote:
jameswilson wrote:
warmachine wrote:If i name names, i could get sued
You can get sued if it proves not to be true. Otherwise how the hell would they have grounds to sue you succesfully.
You can get sued even if someone knows you're right. It might cost them a lot of money. More to the point it will cost YOU a lot of money. If you don't have it, the temptation to shut up is overwhelming. It's appalling, rich man's law.
So true. Many big companies file phony lawsuits against smaller companies and effectively run them out of business. They have full-time lawyers who get paid anyway so they destroy promising start-ups who go broke with lawyer fees.

Translate that to a more personal level and you'll understand why the man with less money gets screwed in these scenarios even if he is honest.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 21 Jun 2012, 03:11
by tonyevs
Yes - to take illegal PED's was wrong. No doubt.
But boxing allows other unfair and in my eyes more dangerous wrongs to go on at almost every show you attend.
Just look at how they build the latest prospects record..
The prospect is fed guys he is a 99% dead cert to beat ... 90% chance to KO.
Unfair natural weight advantages, huge difference in experience ...these are no less dangerous than one guy taking PED's.

Re: a quick response

Posted: 21 Jun 2012, 05:45
by curtis wood
After reading what most people in the know seem to be saying I think maybe its time for me to admit to myself that the majority of fighters are using peds, but if I admit that then that puts a different slant on why I got into this sport in the first place, I started boxing because I looked up to fighters and was in awe of some of them and use to watch the tmv and say I want to be just like him, so if I'm to accept that some of my favourite fighters are juiced up that makes me think well what's the point, I feel like a kid who just found out farther christmas isn't real, sad day for me if I'm to believe what I'm being told