BoxRec

Will former juicer Tarver be subject to random testing for the Cunningham fight? I think once they are caught it should be demanded, and at their expense. He got a $2500 fine and made $1 million when he was caught. One yr ban.

Not any way near harsh enough penalty, as taking a year off is what some do anyway.

Nah. Costs too much money. If every fight had random blood testing there wouldnt even be a sport.

Drug testing should be negotiated by fighters. If they both agree, test, if they don't then no test.

Hair testing shows everything, if a boxer shaves completely down then penalize him

Badhusker wrote:Will former juicer Tarver be subject to random testing for the Cunningham fight? I think once they are caught it should be demanded, and at their expense. He got a $2500 fine and made $1 million when he was caught. One yr ban.

Not any way near harsh enough penalty, as taking a year off is what some do anyway.

Agree but I think it's very costly and the fight isn't big enough or more accurately generate enough money to do it. But he got caught against Kayode by a urine test which is apparently less costly so maybe that's the way to go.

punchoutsb wrote:Drug testing should be negotiated by fighters.

No. It absolutely, 100% shouldn't. It's farcical.

..ideally speaking, anyone - anytime...considering costs: HBO/Showtime boxers, etc..high profile fights, top fighters can afford it...

The fact that Tarver got caught by a standard urinalysis is a testament to just how far he is taking the doping in his advanced fighting age. I mean the dude is 46, so it's no surprise. It's a certainty he will be taking PEDs for the USS fight as well. Hopefully, for his sake, he cycles on and off more responsibly this time.

Drug testing costs bugger all considering how much money is taken during big fights.

They can afford to do it in athletics on a regular basis, and there is WAY less money in their sport.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Drug testing costs bugger all considering how much money is taken during big fights.

They can afford to do it in athletics on a regular basis, and there is WAY less money in their sport.

indeed.

The only fighter who seems to be legit clean is Nonito Donaire, who is the only fighter i'm aware of that signed himself up to 24/7 365 day-a-year doping.

Even the top guys like Floyd who subscribe to it, only do so for the duration of a fight camp.

Take Amir Khan for example, never tested dirty, but, he went from this:




to this:



after taking 13 months out.

Was he being drug tested in that 13 month spell where he was adding lean muscle mass to move up into a fully fledged welterweight? Ofcourse not. So we'll never know just how much "assistance" he had in the weight room.

punchoutsb wrote:Drug testing should be negotiated by fighters. If they both agree, test, if they don't then no test.

Totally disagree, should not be down to the fighters at all. Should be standard practice.

Trouble is, it's not going to be easy to regulate, as there's so many local commissions in boxing.

I think we can hope for, is Random testing during the build up to world title fights and post fight testing.

Random urine testing should be a year round norm, with random blood 6 weeks out from a fight.

I'm saying the commission's should make the former cheaters foot the blood testing bill. $2500 fine when you make $1,000,000 for a fight? Joke. Take the entire purse, put it in a fund for drug testing. Also, call it a loss, not a no contest. Up the time out ban too.

Ricky_ wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Drug testing should be negotiated by fighters.

No. It absolutely, 100% shouldn't. It's farcical.

So we both have opinions. Cool.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Drug testing should be negotiated by fighters. If they both agree, test, if they don't then no test.

Totally disagree, should not be down to the fighters at all. Should be standard practice.

Trouble is, it's not going to be easy to regulate, as there's so many local commissions in boxing.

I think we can hope for, is Random testing during the build up to world title fights and post fight testing.

I don't think performance enhancing drugs should be illegal in sports. That's why I think if fighters want to negotiate it fine, if not then that's fine too.

punchoutsb wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Drug testing should be negotiated by fighters.

No. It absolutely, 100% shouldn't. It's farcical.

So we both have opinions. Cool.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Drug testing should be negotiated by fighters. If they both agree, test, if they don't then no test.

Totally disagree, should not be down to the fighters at all. Should be standard practice.

Trouble is, it's not going to be easy to regulate, as there's so many local commissions in boxing.

I think we can hope for, is Random testing during the build up to world title fights and post fight testing.

I don't think performance enhancing drugs should be illegal in sports. That's why I think if fighters want to negotiate it fine, if not then that's fine too.

Do you not see that there are two major problems there.

1) Health implications for participants to long term health.

2)The most developed nations will always have access to the best supplementation.

3) do you not then have to have two forms of every sport, a 'clean' version, and a 'dirty' version? What if people participating in the clean version cheat?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Do you not see that there are two major problems there.

1) Health implications for participants to long term health.

2)The most developed nations will always have access to the best supplementation.

3) do you not then have to have two forms of every sport, a 'clean' version, and a 'dirty' version? What if people participating in the clean version cheat?

1) Health implications from PED usage is vastly overstated. The serious side effects come from abuse and overuse of some seriously gnarly drugs. PED's can help aid in recovery and slow the breakdown of tissue, and that is the only real health implications we should be concerned about. Most people are so ill informed on the issue of PED's that they think if they are made legal we'll have a Mr. Olympia looking Heavyweight champion who kills people with one punch. Not even close.

2) This isn't true either. PED's can be found everywhere. In fact, in a lot of cases people have to go to "less developed" nations to get their drugs. I know a lot of Aussies who get there stuff from Thailand or the Philippines, and lots of Americans get there's from Mexico.

3) Nope. It's not "dirty" if it's legal. We ask a lot of our athletes. Why not let them have access to everything they need to allow them to perform at the highest level? If someone is really hung up on it, they can negotiate testing themselves.

The thing is, people talk about having fair playing fields and they just don't exist. You even mention developed nations having better supplementation; that's already the case. They also have better facilities, better food, better water, etc. If you or I have a son who decides to turn pro and Floyd's son decides to turn pro, will they both start at a level playing field? Fairness and level fields don't exist.

punchoutsb wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Do you not see that there are two major problems there.

1) Health implications for participants to long term health.

2)The most developed nations will always have access to the best supplementation.

3) do you not then have to have two forms of every sport, a 'clean' version, and a 'dirty' version? What if people participating in the clean version cheat?

1) Health implications from PED usage is vastly overstated. The serious side effects come from abuse and overuse of some seriously gnarly drugs. PED's can help aid in recovery and slow the breakdown of tissue, and that is the only real health implications we should be concerned about. Most people are so ill informed on the issue of PED's that they think if they are made legal we'll have a Mr. Olympia looking Heavyweight champion who kills people with one punch. Not even close.

2) This isn't true either. PED's can be found everywhere. In fact, in a lot of cases people have to go to "less developed" nations to get their drugs. I know a lot of Aussies who get there stuff from Thailand or the Philippines, and lots of Americans get there's from Mexico.

3) Nope. It's not "dirty" if it's legal. We ask a lot of our athletes. Why not let them have access to everything they need to allow them to perform at the highest level? If someone is really hung up on it, they can negotiate testing themselves.

The thing is, people talk about having fair playing fields and they just don't exist. You even mention developed nations having better supplementation; that's already the case. They also have better facilities, better food, better water, etc. If you or I have a son who decides to turn pro and Floyd's son decides to turn pro, will they both start at a level playing field? Fairness and level fields don't exist.

You appear to be arguing with yourself here - you say PEDs are everywhere, and also that the Western nations have access to the best. Therefore that means that whilst they might exist everywhere, not everyone can afford them.

I agree with some of your points, but I'm not sure you've thought it through.

Athletes and their coaches are concerned mainly about the short term, in success, and translating that into money - they will likely take risks with their health if they believe it leads to short term success, and therefore abuse of drugs to their own detriment - they already do - and that's with the risk of getting caught, if there is no risk, and their income depends on it, how much will the pressure force them to take bigger and bigger gambles?

jamesmcdonnell wrote: You appear to be arguing with yourself here - you say PEDs are everywhere, and also that the Western nations have access to the best. Therefore that means that whilst they might exist everywhere, not everyone can afford them.

I agree with some of your points, but I'm not sure you've thought it through.

Athletes and their coaches are concerned mainly about the short term, in success, and translating that into money - they will likely take risks with their health if they believe it leads to short term success, and therefore abuse of drugs to their own detriment - they already do - and that's with the risk of getting caught, if there is no risk, and their income depends on it, how much will the pressure force them to take bigger and bigger gambles?

I said more developed nations already have access to better everything. One of the few things that could somewhat even the playing field would be drugs.

Athletes are concerned with short term success because it is often the only way they can make money. Is there a way to "healthily" be a combat athlete? Serious brain damage can occur from just ONE punch. If the money isn't good, these athletes fight longer and longer with slower, more broken down bodies causing more damage. Technological advancement (in this case in the form of nutrition) has been welcomed in virtually every field. Why not sports?

punchoutsb wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: You appear to be arguing with yourself here - you say PEDs are everywhere, and also that the Western nations have access to the best. Therefore that means that whilst they might exist everywhere, not everyone can afford them.

I agree with some of your points, but I'm not sure you've thought it through.

Athletes and their coaches are concerned mainly about the short term, in success, and translating that into money - they will likely take risks with their health if they believe it leads to short term success, and therefore abuse of drugs to their own detriment - they already do - and that's with the risk of getting caught, if there is no risk, and their income depends on it, how much will the pressure force them to take bigger and bigger gambles?

I said more developed nations already have access to better everything. One of the few things that could somewhat even the playing field would be drugs.

Athletes are concerned with short term success because it is often the only way they can make money. Is there a way to "healthily" be a combat athlete? Serious brain damage can occur from just ONE punch. If the money isn't good, these athletes fight longer and longer with slower, more broken down bodies causing more damage. Technological advancement (in this case in the form of nutrition) has been welcomed in virtually every field. Why not sports?

You said sports in general - not boxing specifically - you're changing the terms of the debate here.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: You appear to be arguing with yourself here - you say PEDs are everywhere, and also that the Western nations have access to the best. Therefore that means that whilst they might exist everywhere, not everyone can afford them.

I agree with some of your points, but I'm not sure you've thought it through.

Athletes and their coaches are concerned mainly about the short term, in success, and translating that into money - they will likely take risks with their health if they believe it leads to short term success, and therefore abuse of drugs to their own detriment - they already do - and that's with the risk of getting caught, if there is no risk, and their income depends on it, how much will the pressure force them to take bigger and bigger gambles?

I said more developed nations already have access to better everything. One of the few things that could somewhat even the playing field would be drugs.

Athletes are concerned with short term success because it is often the only way they can make money. Is there a way to "healthily" be a combat athlete? Serious brain damage can occur from just ONE punch. If the money isn't good, these athletes fight longer and longer with slower, more broken down bodies causing more damage. Technological advancement (in this case in the form of nutrition) has been welcomed in virtually every field. Why not sports?

You said sports in general - not boxing specifically - you're changing the terms of the debate here.

There is not enough evidence to support your theory, that using performance enhancing drugs, overall benefits the athlete. Sure, it may in the short term, but there's still not enough long term evidence to say what the long term effects of such drugs are - there simply are not enough studies done. Especially when there are new compounds being developed all the time.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You said sports in general - not boxing specifically - you're changing the terms of the debate here.

There is not enough evidence to support your theory, that using performance enhancing drugs, overall benefits the athlete. Sure, it may in the short term, but there's still not enough long term evidence to say what the long term effects of such drugs are - there simply are not enough studies done. Especially when there are new compounds being developed all the time.[/quote]

Any sport. Why handicap our athletes when advancement is met with acceptance in everything else?

Are we REALLY concerned about long term health? Then why are cigarettes legal?

I will agree with you that newer compounds don't have enough studies behind them...but do you know why? Because there is no reason to study them since they are illegal.

Again, too many people think of bodybuilding when they think PED's. That's a sport of aesthetic, not performance. The drugs they use are so far above and beyond what an athlete would use it's ridiculous. Make them legal, let athletes get educated on them (rather than buying them from some skeezy gangster in Phuket, Thailand), and then let them make their own decisions.

punchoutsb wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You said sports in general - not boxing specifically - you're changing the terms of the debate here.

There is not enough evidence to support your theory, that using performance enhancing drugs, overall benefits the athlete. Sure, it may in the short term, but there's still not enough long term evidence to say what the long term effects of such drugs are - there simply are not enough studies done. Especially when there are new compounds being developed all the time.

Any sport. Why handicap our athletes when advancement is met with acceptance in everything else?

Are we REALLY concerned about long term health? Then why are cigarettes legal?

I will agree with you that newer compounds don't have enough studies behind them...but do you know why? Because there is no reason to study them since they are illegal.

Again, too many people think of bodybuilding when they think PED's. That's a sport of aesthetic, not performance. The drugs they use are so far above and beyond what an athlete would use it's ridiculous. Make them legal, let athletes get educated on them (rather than buying them from some skeezy gangster in Phuket, Thailand), and then let them make their own decisions.[/quote]

I am well aware of the differences in nuance between different sports.

However, Tour de france riders regularly took part in practices which were very dangerous indeed, including blood doping, such was the pressure on them to succeed.

Depends on who WE is. If you want to use the fact people are stupid enough to smoke (myself included), and hold that up as some sort of model for athletes, then I guess you can, but it makes little sense.

Cigarettes are illegal, because for ordinary people, you simply cannot prohibit them, as prohibition doesn't work. You cannot arrest people for smoking, the system wouldn't be able to cope, and it would be almost impossible to stop people from doing it somehow if they want to.

In sport you can prevent people competing if they break the rules and given that it is their livelihood, if testing is vigorous enough, it can work.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I am well aware of the differences in nuance between different sports.

However, Tour de france riders regularly took part in practices which were very dangerous indeed, including blood doping, such was the pressure on them to succeed.

Depends on who WE is. If you want to use the fact people are stupid enough to smoke (myself included), and hold that up as some sort of model for athletes, then I guess you can, but it makes little sense.

Cigarettes are illegal, because for ordinary people, you simply cannot prohibit them, as prohibition doesn't work. You cannot arrest people for smoking, the system wouldn't be able to cope, and it would be almost impossible to stop people from doing it somehow if they want to.

In sport you can prevent people competing if they break the rules and given that it is their livelihood, if testing is vigorous enough, it can work.

First of all, I'm sorry if I offended you with any of my comments on nuances of sports. I wasn't meaning to sound like you were ill informed, I was simply stating that many people are.

As to the main crux of your post, the question again is; why? Why is the fact that substances exist that can aid athletic performance so dreaded? Right now the dangers of PED's are FAR more pronounced because people are uneducated and doing this in back alleys so to speak. Give them information, and let them make the decision.

Playing sports (almost any sport) at the highest level is not a safe venture in and of itself. There are PED's that allow for faster recovery, and that can extend athletes careers (aka the only real way they can earn money) as well as boosting performance. I personally don't see why that's a bad thing.

punchoutsb wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I am well aware of the differences in nuance between different sports.

However, Tour de france riders regularly took part in practices which were very dangerous indeed, including blood doping, such was the pressure on them to succeed.

Depends on who WE is. If you want to use the fact people are stupid enough to smoke (myself included), and hold that up as some sort of model for athletes, then I guess you can, but it makes little sense.

Cigarettes are illegal, because for ordinary people, you simply cannot prohibit them, as prohibition doesn't work. You cannot arrest people for smoking, the system wouldn't be able to cope, and it would be almost impossible to stop people from doing it somehow if they want to.

In sport you can prevent people competing if they break the rules and given that it is their livelihood, if testing is vigorous enough, it can work.

First of all, I'm sorry if I offended you with any of my comments on nuances of sports. I wasn't meaning to sound like you were ill informed, I was simply stating that many people are.

As to the main crux of your post, the question again is; why? Why is the fact that substances exist that can aid athletic performance so dreaded? Right now the dangers of PED's are FAR more pronounced because people are uneducated and doing this in back alleys so to speak. Give them information, and let them make the decision.

Playing sports (almost any sport) at the highest level is not a safe venture in and of itself. There are PED's that allow for faster recovery, and that can extend athletes careers (aka the only real way they can earn money) as well as boosting performance. I personally don't see why that's a bad thing.

No not offended whatsoever.

It's an interesting debate. It's a sticky area, and it's been debated for years that perhaps all of these drugs are legalised.

punchoutsb wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Drug testing should be negotiated by fighters.

No. It absolutely, 100% shouldn't. It's farcical.

So we both have opinions. Cool.

Yours isn't cool, it really sucks.


"Hello and welcome to the 2016 Olympics, where nearly half the athletes have agreed to do some voluntary testing".

Ricky_ wrote: Yours isn't cool, it really sucks.

"Hello and welcome to the 2016 Olympics, where nearly half the athletes have agreed to do some voluntary testing".

Olympics are amateur sports. I wasn't clear but I specifically mean professional sports (hence my comments on earning wages hint hint).