jimmystone wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 11:36
Eubanks should get his purse IMO, Will he get it? If not, why not?
The income to pay him would have come from tickets and PPV. Of course Kalle, Eddie and DAZN have deep enough pockets but that’s a big precedent if they do pay (which they won’t).
Just like the women fighters on the Marshall/Shields bill wouldn’t have been paid.
I'm shit at science and am curious now about why the tests are urine and not hair (or both). a little googling found this (FROM 1998...):
"The standard in drug testing for doping control is gas chromatography/mass spectrometry conducted on a urine sample. For the past 20 years, hair analysis has been proposed for identifying drug abusers in forensic science. Specimens can be collected under close supervision without embarrassment and are not subject to evasive maneuvers. In contrast with urine, hair analysis has a wide window of detection, ranging from weeks to months, depending on the length of the hair shaft, and provides information concerning the pattern of an individual's drug abuse. Hair analysis is not yet recognized by the International Olympic Committee, although this technology is accepted in most courts of Justice. In light of potential applications, hair should be included as a suitable specimen to document positive urine cases in doping control."
Most people believe it was the right decision to call off the Chris Eubank Jr vs Conor Benn fight, but there are a few who disagree.
It was revealed earlier this week that Benn had tested positive for the banned substance, clomifene, and his fight with Eubank Jr was subsequently called off.
Immediately after the news came out that Benn had failed a drugs test the BBBoC (British Boxing Board of Control) ruled that the fight was ‘prohibited’.
The events promoters attempted to battle the ruling, but they were unsuccessful.
With that being said, in Matchroom Boxing and Wasserman Boxing’s joint statement they said that the BBBoC had acted ‘without due process’ which remained a ‘legal issue’.
talkSPORT’s Simon Jordan, however, thinks that the BBBoC did the right thing, as he said, “They’ve done their job, they could have wilted, they could have backed down they could have looked at the economics of who has the biggest pockets and how this legal thing is going to play out, but they stood their ground.
“Now, I’m not suggesting they are perfect, but they stood their ground.”
Meanwhile, Dean Whyte is one of the few who thinks the event should have gone ahead despite the failed drugs test.
“It’s a shame that it’s come undone,” Whyte told Boxing Social.
“I think the guy should be innocent until proven guilty and they should be given the benefit of the doubt and the fight should have gone ahead.
“Some people talk about the interests of the sport, listen, these guys are fighting guys who are probably on drugs and they didn’t know, so hey listen, I don’t know.
“It is tricky because you want clean athletes, I get it, but at the same time, we don’t want to do this to guys without being proven guilty, the evidence needs to be there.
“Right now he’s being proven guilty before they’ve even heard the case, so it’s one of them.”
what a [email protected] idiot, they found drugs in his system already
I know it's two totally separate issues and situations but Eddie's legal action against Jake Paul over the comments about paying off a judge, was based upon taking the "we're whiter than white" moral high ground and it could be problematic for Eddie to push for a public apology for the bent judge comment when he's imploded his reputation this week. You have to wonder what else will come out about who knew what, when did they know, and what did they do. It's transcended boxing and become a wider talking point. Eddie went full pelt on promoting Benn Vs eubank after knowing a drug test had been failed. The sporting world is in unison that this was fundamentally wrong. Obviously it has no link to the bribery of judges comment but Eddie's hypocrisy is blown wide open over vada tests and it's a colossal own goal.
golden_balls wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 12:21
I'm shit at science and am curious now about why the tests are urine and not hair (or both). a little googling found this (FROM 1998...):
"The standard in drug testing for doping control is gas chromatography/mass spectrometry conducted on a urine sample. For the past 20 years, hair analysis has been proposed for identifying drug abusers in forensic science. Specimens can be collected under close supervision without embarrassment and are not subject to evasive maneuvers. In contrast with urine, hair analysis has a wide window of detection, ranging from weeks to months, depending on the length of the hair shaft, and provides information concerning the pattern of an individual's drug abuse. Hair analysis is not yet recognized by the International Olympic Committee, although this technology is accepted in most courts of Justice. In light of potential applications, hair should be included as a suitable specimen to document positive urine cases in doping control."
Ever noticed how many boxers have a shaved head...
I remember Whyte saying that he had not cut his hair for the Rivas fight because of the positive test, which I assume proved something which may have helped his case.
golden_balls wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 12:21
I'm shit at science and am curious now about why the tests are urine and not hair (or both). a little googling found this (FROM 1998...):
"The standard in drug testing for doping control is gas chromatography/mass spectrometry conducted on a urine sample. For the past 20 years, hair analysis has been proposed for identifying drug abusers in forensic science. Specimens can be collected under close supervision without embarrassment and are not subject to evasive maneuvers. In contrast with urine, hair analysis has a wide window of detection, ranging from weeks to months, depending on the length of the hair shaft, and provides information concerning the pattern of an individual's drug abuse. Hair analysis is not yet recognized by the International Olympic Committee, although this technology is accepted in most courts of Justice. In light of potential applications, hair should be included as a suitable specimen to document positive urine cases in doping control."
Ever noticed how many boxers have a shaved head...
I remember Whyte saying that he had not cut his hair for the Rivas fight because of the positive test, which I assume proved something which may have helped his case.
Yeah. It’s why I’m not as critical as others re: Canelo. He appeared to pass the hair follicle test and his level of clenbuterol was in-line of that seen by people with contaminated meat in Mexico.
In may have just been luck and that they caught him at the end of the cycle so the level was super low but the hair follicle test goes against that.
A way to minimise doping would be to pay a reward to doctors or suppliers for evidence of boxers trying to obtain banned stuff from them. Providing the reward is significantly more than they would receive from the boxer, it would work. because, as we have seen time and again, people are driven by greed. The following would price fighters out of trying to cheat.
10k reward at area level or below
100k reward at British level
190k reward at euro level
500k reward at world title level
Who pays? The fighter. They should sign a contact that legally obligates them to pay such fines on grant of their boxing licence. If they can't pay, they go bankrupt and crowdfunding picks up the slack.
jimmystone wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 12:40
A way to minimise doping would be to pay a reward to doctors or suppliers for evidence of boxers trying to obtain banned stuff from them. Providing the reward is significantly more than they would receive from the boxer, it would work. because, as we have seen time and again, people are driven by greed. The following would price fighters out of trying to cheat.
10k reward at area level or below
100k reward at British level
190k reward at euro level
500k reward at world title level
Who pays? The fighter. They should sign a contact that legally obligates them to pay such fines on grant of their boxing licence. If they can't pay, they go bankrupt and crowdfunding picks up the slack.
It wouldn’t be practical as fighters who are using would just transfer their assets to other people so if they are caught then they go bankrupt.
golden_balls wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 12:21
I'm shit at science and am curious now about why the tests are urine and not hair (or both). a little googling found this (FROM 1998...):
"The standard in drug testing for doping control is gas chromatography/mass spectrometry conducted on a urine sample. For the past 20 years, hair analysis has been proposed for identifying drug abusers in forensic science. Specimens can be collected under close supervision without embarrassment and are not subject to evasive maneuvers. In contrast with urine, hair analysis has a wide window of detection, ranging from weeks to months, depending on the length of the hair shaft, and provides information concerning the pattern of an individual's drug abuse. Hair analysis is not yet recognized by the International Olympic Committee, although this technology is accepted in most courts of Justice. In light of potential applications, hair should be included as a suitable specimen to document positive urine cases in doping control."
Ever noticed how many boxers have a shaved head...
I remember Whyte saying that he had not cut his hair for the Rivas fight because of the positive test, which I assume proved something which may have helped his case.
Those Smith lot are another lot I believe to be clean. I was in a gym years back and those lot walked in as kids and they were just game as you like looking to spar anybody. Genuine tough lads who have done it right. Anthony Farnell, Michael Jennings, Michael Gomez, Matt Macklin are another few examples of lads I believe were clean and got turned over by people (I believe) weren't, It is annoying to say the least, not least because those who do dope try and convince themselves and everybody else that all fighters are at it. I know they aren't. Fact. When you've been around gyms (boxing/bodybuilding/powerlifting) since the 80s you have a very good idea who is at it and who isn't and not just from the way they look. More than anything it is what they talk about and what they don't.
golden_balls wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 12:21
I'm shit at science and am curious now about why the tests are urine and not hair (or both). a little googling found this (FROM 1998...):
"The standard in drug testing for doping control is gas chromatography/mass spectrometry conducted on a urine sample. For the past 20 years, hair analysis has been proposed for identifying drug abusers in forensic science. Specimens can be collected under close supervision without embarrassment and are not subject to evasive maneuvers. In contrast with urine, hair analysis has a wide window of detection, ranging from weeks to months, depending on the length of the hair shaft, and provides information concerning the pattern of an individual's drug abuse. Hair analysis is not yet recognized by the International Olympic Committee, although this technology is accepted in most courts of Justice. In light of potential applications, hair should be included as a suitable specimen to document positive urine cases in doping control."
Ever noticed how many boxers have a shaved head...
I remember Whyte saying that he had not cut his hair for the Rivas fight because of the positive test, which I assume proved something which may have helped his case.
I wonder if they shave their pubes as well?
If they are all over hairless then I think that deserves a 2 year ban for obvious attempts at evasion. Not sure who's going to be willing to do the checking though.
golden_balls wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 12:21
I'm shit at science and am curious now about why the tests are urine and not hair (or both). a little googling found this (FROM 1998...):
"The standard in drug testing for doping control is gas chromatography/mass spectrometry conducted on a urine sample. For the past 20 years, hair analysis has been proposed for identifying drug abusers in forensic science. Specimens can be collected under close supervision without embarrassment and are not subject to evasive maneuvers. In contrast with urine, hair analysis has a wide window of detection, ranging from weeks to months, depending on the length of the hair shaft, and provides information concerning the pattern of an individual's drug abuse. Hair analysis is not yet recognized by the International Olympic Committee, although this technology is accepted in most courts of Justice. In light of potential applications, hair should be included as a suitable specimen to document positive urine cases in doping control."
Ever noticed how many boxers have a shaved head...
I remember Whyte saying that he had not cut his hair for the Rivas fight because of the positive test, which I assume proved something which may have helped his case.
Apparently the lighter your hair colour the harder it can be to detect when performing hair follicle tests but as Benn has black hair he is perfect and it would go a long way in clearing his name
18 years ago on this forum we were discussing this stuff. Nothing has really changed. I remember vividly myself and Deserter (where are you, mate?) who was working for a cycling mag at the time, or had been in recent times, we were explaining to others and chatting between ourselves about why it was pretty much a cast iron certainty that Lance Armstrong was using PEDS. We got slaughtered at the time from some because it was when he was still a global superstar and hero, it was a decade before his Oprah interview. People believe what they want to believe and objectivity goes out of the window.
