BoxRec

read this article and thought it was interesting


1500+ tests for a total number of boxers in the hundreds, but only ever 1 reported fail case (morales for clen...and that fight still happened). do usada have sloppy, loophole filled protocol? is there something strange going on with there boxing testing system? some very questionable relationships? do they only test saints in boxing? just some questions raised in the article

also suggested as to why so few catches for pro boxing:

Let’s start with the fact that USADA is often hired by, and contracts with, representatives of the very boxers it’s supposed to be testing.

http://tss.ib.tv/featured-articles/5251 ... and-boxing

personally i dont have a strong opinion on it yet, other then it does seem to me like only having 1 boxer using out of that many tests and boxers does seem questionable., one might say lax and loose

btw an article on the morales failure that is highly critical of usada and others:

morales didnt face 'sanctions' until months after the fight he tested for

and thats usadas only 'failed' pro boxer and he still fought the fight


https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/boxing-e ... --box.html

jamamb wrote: ↑10 Oct 2018, 17:05 btw an article on the morales failure that is highly critical of usada and others:

morales didnt face 'sanctions' until months after the fight he tested for

and thats usadas only 'failed' pro boxer and he still fought the fight


https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/boxing-e ... --box.html

In the Morales case the NYSAC made it very clear that USADA has no authority over boxing in NY. The commission chose to ignore USADA.
It really seemed like the NYSAC had issues with USADA and welcomed the opportunity to put them in their place.

For as long as you have individual countries and individual states with different drug testing rules there will always be a credibility problem.

Standardised rules is a must. Otherwise its just a game.

Michael Hunter failed for canaboids and two other guys, Jerren Cochran and Damon Allen, failed for PEDs. But that is still next to nothing.

In comparison, it's worth having a look at the list of sanctions for the mma world where the tests are seen as nearly unbeatable and you can only beat the sanctions by big name power or in court. It's widely accepted that just about everyone in the sport has been using something at some point and since the UFC enforced USADA testing, there have been over 50 failures since the end of 2015. That's about 8% of the total USADA failures since it's inception.

https://www.usada.org/testing/results/sanctions/

were those guys pros at the time?

jamamb wrote: ↑11 Oct 2018, 04:21 were those guys pros at the time?

I stand corrected. Just checked, and no. Cochran turned pro a month later though.

Isn't USADA mainly used in athletics and the UFC? There are plenty of MMA fighters failing USADA tests. Also, whilst USADA may have carried out 1,501 tests, only 128 boxers were tested over a nine-year period.

There was a WADA report published this year that detailed the number of tests, coupled with the resulting anti-doping rule violations (ADRV’s) for 2016.

It stated that there were only 33 ADRV’s from the 4,769 test samples taken from its affiliates that operate globally.

If you review the WBC’s various midyear clean boxing program reports, which they operate in conjunction with VADA, you’ll surely realise that very few fighters are actually tested (because Mauricio Sulaiman’s organisation only pays $10K per month to VADA), with only a small fraction of them resulting in adverse findings.

The vast majority of the tests being performed are only using a very small sample of fighters, which inevitably results in small fraction of anti-doping rule violations.

I feel that people are actively seeking to find “corruption” and “scandal”, where there is none, like some form a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑11 Oct 2018, 05:11 Isn't USADA mainly used in athletics and the UFC? There are plenty of MMA fighters failing USADA tests. Also, whilst USADA may have carried out 1,501 tests, only 128 boxers were tested over a nine-year period.

There was a WADA report published this year that detailed the number of tests, coupled with the resulting anti-doping rule violations (ADRV’s) for 2016.

It stated that there were only 33 ADRV’s from the 4,769 test samples taken from its affiliates that operate globally.

If you review the WBC’s various midyear clean boxing program reports, which they operate in conjunction with VADA, you’ll surely realise that very few fighters are actually tested (because Mauricio Sulaiman’s organisation only pays $10K per month to VADA), with only a small fraction of them resulting in adverse findings.

The vast majority of the tests being performed are only using a very small sample of fighters, which inevitably results in small fraction of anti-doping rule violations.

I feel that people are actively seeking to find “corruption” and “scandal”, where there is none, like some form a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Very good post. I agree

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/sports.v ... -on-doping

Great article on the state of play on the anti-doping world from 2016. Rather lengthy but well worth a read.

Here's an extract,

One witness interviewed for a Cycling Independent Reform Commission report released last year claimed that 90 percent of cyclists use drugs, despite some of the toughest testing in sports.

"Low rates of positive tests look good," says Lisa Milot, a former high-level junior cyclist and University of Georgia law school professor who studies sports and the human body. "But when you look behind the numbers, it's highly unsuccessful."

Milot ticks off a list of high-profile doping scandals: BALCO; the Biogenesis case involving Rodriguez; the Tour de France in the late 1990s; Armstrong's fall; credible allegations that American distance running coach Alberto Salazar is doping his athletes; the current Russian affair. What do they have in common? Each was exposed by a whistleblower, law enforcement, investigative reporting, or some combination of the three.

"None of those are testing results," Milot says. "They are things that show our testing regime has failed."

A former professional cyclist who spoke to VICE Sports on the condition of anonymity is more blunt. "If you look at [USADA's] overall success rate, they are astoundingly ineffective," the cyclist says. "They spend more than $10 million a year, millions of that coming from the [federal] government, and they are fornicating useless."


Bureaucrats will be bureaucrats.

tiny_acres wrote: ↑11 Oct 2018, 05:23

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑11 Oct 2018, 05:11 Isn't USADA mainly used in athletics and the UFC? There are plenty of MMA fighters failing USADA tests. Also, whilst USADA may have carried out 1,501 tests, only 128 boxers were tested over a nine-year period.

There was a WADA report published this year that detailed the number of tests, coupled with the resulting anti-doping rule violations (ADRV’s) for 2016.

It stated that there were only 33 ADRV’s from the 4,769 test samples taken from its affiliates that operate globally.

If you review the WBC’s various midyear clean boxing program reports, which they operate in conjunction with VADA, you’ll surely realise that very few fighters are actually tested (because Mauricio Sulaiman’s organisation only pays $10K per month to VADA), with only a small fraction of them resulting in adverse findings.

The vast majority of the tests being performed are only using a very small sample of fighters, which inevitably results in small fraction of anti-doping rule violations.

I feel that people are actively seeking to find “corruption” and “scandal”, where there is none, like some form a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Very good post. I agree

reading the article i posted i dont really agree at all. there is lots of evidence there and well reasoned argument about why it seems a bit strange that only 1 pro boxer has ever tested positive under usada, and that boxer fought anyway. the article also addresses points about usadasa use in other sports, why it differs in pro boxing, how it 'failure' rates compare to other testers and in other sports, and so on. i have a feeling you didnt actually read the article

just makes me wonder, how potent usada actually is as a way to find and punish cheats in pro boxing, and whether some people should really be criticizing other testing orgs because they do thing differently then usada. im no conspiracy theoritst, etc and its just sloppy to play that card. i think its a legit question.

literally no pro boxer has ever been found positive by usada and prevented from fighting. maybe the sport is really that clean, but maybe also its a system that for one reason or another allows pro boxers to slip through the holes

Thomastearns wrote: ↑11 Oct 2018, 14:34 https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/sports.v ... -on-doping

Great article on the state of play on the anti-doping world from 2016. Rather lengthy but well worth a read.

Here's an extract,

One witness interviewed for a Cycling Independent Reform Commission report released last year claimed that 90 percent of cyclists use drugs, despite some of the toughest testing in sports.

"Low rates of positive tests look good," says Lisa Milot, a former high-level junior cyclist and University of Georgia law school professor who studies sports and the human body. "But when you look behind the numbers, it's highly unsuccessful."

Milot ticks off a list of high-profile doping scandals: BALCO; the Biogenesis case involving Rodriguez; the Tour de France in the late 1990s; Armstrong's fall; credible allegations that American distance running coach Alberto Salazar is doping his athletes; the current Russian affair. What do they have in common? Each was exposed by a whistleblower, law enforcement, investigative reporting, or some combination of the three.

"None of those are testing results," Milot says. "They are things that show our testing regime has failed."

A former professional cyclist who spoke to VICE Sports on the condition of anonymity is more blunt. "If you look at [USADA's] overall success rate, they are astoundingly ineffective," the cyclist says. "They spend more than $10 million a year, millions of that coming from the [federal] government, and they are effing useless."


Bureaucrats will be bureaucrats.

interesting article

about the last paragraph about usada being ineffective, reading other stuff out there it does make me wonder, at least for pro boxing

there is defo a legit question here, and not merely some 'looking for conspiracy/scandal' stuff that others have said

No expert is suggesting that the war on doping can ever be won but we can and must increase the powers of the testers and the punishment on those who get caught. Some form of targeting might work better. EG as soon as anyone enters the top 20 they become eligible for random testing no ifs or buts.

As for trying to avoid resting by 'retiring', testing should continue for at least 24 months after to prevent juicing out of the limelight. All 'medical exemption' certificates handed out for asthma etc must be made public and subjected to maximum scrutiny.

Otherwise you might as well admit defeat and allow everyone to use whatever they want. If they can't win the war on doping in athletics, cycling or tennis etc, they can forget boxing where rigorous testing is a joke - practically nonexistent.