Page 1 of 1
Should a PED-Conviction DQ You From HOF Consideration?
Posted: 27 Jul 2011, 02:54
by Goodnight, Irene
Should a fighter be hit with exclusion from a chance to qualify for HOF status?
This is a tricky question (as I see it, anyway), so I thought I'd open it up to you all. I have a really hard-line stance on drugs in sport personally, & a part of my burns to say, "Yes --- fvck 'em," but even I can see a hell of a can of worms being opened. Not saying I'm going the other way either, though. I am mindful of greatness clouding my judgement in fairness.
Re: Should a PED-Conviction DQ You From HOF Consideration?
Posted: 27 Jul 2011, 03:20
by SaadOffTheDeck
Like I said in the other thread, no. Though the guys who are so lazy and stupid to get caught make you shake your head. I doubt they catch 1% of the users.
Re: Should a PED-Conviction DQ You From HOF Consideration?
Posted: 27 Jul 2011, 04:33
by Ezzard
It’s not good. Considering you can kill a man in the ring I do feel it’s a murky and nasty exercise. But I’m a realist. I don’t think boxers could compete in today’s sport without taking them. Every track athlete at the Olympics is on something. Getting caught is the only crime.
Ali was injected with steroids in the 1970s. Nobody would want him banned.
But as Nevada’s head of doping said about Roy Jones’ testosterone levels for many of his bouts “it’s like taking a gun into a knife fight.”
Re: Should a PED-Conviction DQ You From HOF Consideration?
Posted: 27 Jul 2011, 05:00
by Petaling Pete
This is something that bemuses me about boxing.
Considering it is a physical sport, the authorities are so blaise about drug use.
The Pacquiao saga has raged on for ever and has become quite boring but the pro Mayweather people are so damning about a boxer that by failing to submit to unlimted tests is a PED user.
However the same people let Margerito, Toney, Mosley, Botha, Vitali, RJJ climb into the ring time and time again without comment. These are proven cheats/drug users but seem to get off very lightly
If PED abuse is to be frowned on do it with style, life ban, disqualification from HOF etc.
It is als significant that all the boxing boards and commissions have taken absolutely no interest in the Mayweather discussions. If he is right, then the testing methods should be revisited and improved.
When Jones and Richard Hall both tested positive the action at the time was to send a warning letter. This action was subsequently increased in severity but it still seems totally inconsistant with the damage that PED'S appear capable of causing to an innocent opponent.
Boxing does need to make its mind up
Re: Should a PED-Conviction DQ You From HOF Consideration?
Posted: 27 Jul 2011, 05:40
by Diamond WEAPON
I think people like to give others another chance, even if they have been caught cheating, because in a sport like boxing, if you're not good already, no amount of PEDs in the world is gonna make you better. Gatti could've used PEDs 24/7 365 and he still would've been annihilated by De La Hoya, Mayweather, and Baldomir, because two could avoid his punches altogether and smack him around, and one couldnt be KO'd with a bat so you had to have some skills to beat him aside from clubbing people down.
Re: Should a PED-Conviction DQ You From HOF Consideration?
Posted: 27 Jul 2011, 07:01
by Ezzard
If a fighter is popular and makes a lot of money then there isn’t a body on earth who will ban him.
When you make the kind of money Ali, Leonard, Tyson could then you could stitch and extra pair of arms on these guys and nobody would say anything.
The easiest solution would be to say let them all just take whatever they like.
Re: Should a PED-Conviction DQ You From HOF Consideration?
Posted: 27 Jul 2011, 07:04
by Goodnight, Irene
Ezzard wrote:If a fighter is popular and makes a lot of money then there isn’t a body on earth who will ban him.
When you make the kind of money Ali, Leonard, Tyson could then you could stitch and extra pair of arms on these guys and nobody would say anything.
The easiest solution would be to say let them all just take whatever they like.
Then youre effectively forcing clean fighters to partake. That cant be acceptable.
Re: Should a PED-Conviction DQ You From HOF Consideration?
Posted: 27 Jul 2011, 08:45
by Ezzard
Goodnight, Irene wrote:Ezzard wrote:If a fighter is popular and makes a lot of money then there isn’t a body on earth who will ban him.
When you make the kind of money Ali, Leonard, Tyson could then you could stitch and extra pair of arms on these guys and nobody would say anything.
The easiest solution would be to say let them all just take whatever they like.
Then youre effectively forcing clean fighters to partake. That cant be acceptable.
But the other option is effectively sending clean fighteras to the gallows. Far less acceptable.
Far better that everyone knows what they're dealing with.
Re: Should a PED-Conviction DQ You From HOF Consideration?
Posted: 27 Jul 2011, 11:01
by SaadOffTheDeck
Diamond WEAPON wrote:I think people like to give others another chance, even if they have been caught cheating, because in a sport like boxing, if you're not good already, no amount of PEDs in the world is gonna make you better. Gatti could've used PEDs 24/7 365 and he still would've been annihilated by De La Hoya, Mayweather, and Baldomir, because two could avoid his punches altogether and smack him around, and one couldnt be KO'd with a bat so you had to have some skills to beat him aside from clubbing people down.
You talk like Gatti wasn't on anything. I'm not saying he was for certain, but I'd wager he was.
Re: Should a PED-Conviction DQ You From HOF Consideration?
Posted: 27 Jul 2011, 14:49
by raylawpc
Goodnight, Irene wrote:Should a fighter be hit with exclusion from a chance to qualify for HOF status?
Yes, it's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Infamy.
Re: Should a PED-Conviction DQ You From HOF Consideration?
Posted: 28 Jul 2011, 14:42
by dempseyfire
Ezzard wrote:It’s not good. Considering you can kill a man in the ring I do feel it’s a murky and nasty exercise. But I’m a realist. I don’t think boxers could compete in today’s sport without taking them. Every track athlete at the Olympics is on something. Getting caught is the only crime.
Ali was injected with steroids in the 1970s. Nobody would want him banned.
But as Nevada’s head of doping said about Roy Jones’ testosterone levels for many of his bouts “it’s like taking a gun into a knife fight.”
I'm pretty sure the guy never injected anything to enhance performance. Athletes have been using steroids for muscle repair for decades, but that doesn't mean they are 'juicing.' Hell, with Ali's rather "non-chalant" training regimes in the 1970s, steroids wouldn't have made an iota of difference.
Re: Should a PED-Conviction DQ You From HOF Consideration?
Posted: 29 Jul 2011, 03:19
by Ezzard
dempseyfire wrote:Ezzard wrote:It’s not good. Considering you can kill a man in the ring I do feel it’s a murky and nasty exercise. But I’m a realist. I don’t think boxers could compete in today’s sport without taking them. Every track athlete at the Olympics is on something. Getting caught is the only crime.
Ali was injected with steroids in the 1970s. Nobody would want him banned.
But as Nevada’s head of doping said about Roy Jones’ testosterone levels for many of his bouts “it’s like taking a gun into a knife fight.”
I'm pretty sure the guy never injected anything to enhance performance. Athletes have been using steroids for muscle repair for decades, but that doesn't mean they are 'juicing.' Hell, with Ali's rather "non-chalant" training regimes in the 1970s, steroids wouldn't have made an iota of difference.
That's not a defence. Can you imagine that being used as an argument?
I get what you're trying to say but read it back to yourself...