Is Roy Jones the P4P GOAT?

You have posted a document from 2014. The rules were somewhat different 14 years ago. Mulvaney wasn't connected to the officials or the lab. Neither Jacob Hall, as quoted above, nor Marian Muhammad, who was the IBF secretary back then, mentioned Andro in their interviews.

 

True, my point is that he tested positive for something you could buy at the store. This wasn't balco or biogenesis as most of the jones critics try to compare it to.

 

andro has been considered an anabolic steroid since 1997 by the ioc. here's an article from '98 showing that.
http://articles.philly.com/1998-09-...formance-enhancing-supplement-androstenedione

you're basically calling mulvaney a liar in his article. he posted what other fighters tested positive for in the story as well and i'm pretty sure he wasn't connected to those officials or labs either. you'd have to not believe any of it according to what you wrote.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/news/story?id=2782402

 

The problem with the first article is that Andro is not promoting muscle growth, at least no research has shown that to be the case, that I know of. Thus the old definition of anabolic steroids was in place in United States - "Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990", which didn't contain Andro.

Prohormones, of which Andro is one of, were added to amended act in 2004, effecting from January 20, 2005.

I'm not calling him a liar, he may simply have misinterpreted the matter, making supposition (that it was Ripped Fuel that caused a failed test) a conclusion/fact. Ie, since Ripped Fuel contained Andro, then that must be what Jones and Hall were tested positive for. Like I said, neither the officials (who were pretty clueless as to what anabolic steroid was, based on the way they talked about things in those interviews), nor the letter they sent to Jones clarified what exactly he was tested positive for. To think that he contacted the lab almost 7 years after the tests were done, that it still existed and contained the information about what they were tested positive for, is a bit too much, in my opinion, freelance writers don't work that way.

 

the way andro works is up for debate but i was just pointing out it was classified as an anabolic steroid as far back as '97. the point you're arguing is when the US banned the over-the-counter sale of andro in 2004 which is correct.

if you look at the mulvaney article, he lists that botha just tested positive for "steroids." why wouldn't he say the same for jones if there was a question on what the substance was? also, mulvaney claims hall tested positive for andro too. hall never said anything about taking ripped fuel or his positive test. there have been a few other articles reporting that it was andro. here's another:

http://www.boxing-monthly.co.uk/content/1007/two.htm

of course, roy's pic is at the top of the story but then it goes on to talk about shane mosley and balco among others. comparing jones to mosley is like comparing a person who stole candy from a store to someone who tried to rob a bank and then referring to them both as criminals.

 

Professional boxing wasn't regulated by IOC in the United States in 2000. According to the United States laws in 2000 Andro wasn't listed as an anabolic steroid.

I don't really care about Mulvaney's article anyway, he just compiled the info that was available. We still don't know what it really was, no primary source gave away what test was failed, we are only guessing.

 

i understand the ioc doesn't regulate pro boxing but they consider andro to be an anabolic steroid. the US laws you're talking about had to do with the legal sale of andro.

like i said before, andro has been reported in a number of stories. that's your deal if you choose not to believe. i've already made my point of why i think it's good.

 

Professional boxing in the US is supposed to be regulated by local laws. Especially in the US, actually, but we aren't going into politics here What US law listed Andro as anabolic steroid in 2000? Andro test being the one that Jones failed has been listed only by tertiary sources, which are very untrustworthy, one man, not related to officials or the lab, says it was Andro, the others repeating after him, and then it becomes a "fact". Say, while Packey McFarland was fighting, everyone repeated that he never lost a fight, even though there were articles to the contrary, and he and his manager knew that wasn't true.

 

drug tests are given by the state. indiana doesn't even have a drug testing law for boxing. the wba supposedly gave the test. they were based in venezuela at the time. i know how it works when people just repeat things and then they become "facts." the republican party are masters of that here in the US.

 

Suppose that everything you posted is true, you still ignore that Jones' weight cut was still less than what Tarver and Toney had to do against him so now it is time for you to stop ignoring this question and stop using your double standrads and explain Tarver & Toney to me,

 

That wasn't an argument introduced by me, but ok. Which of the two had to cut a dozen pounds of solid muscle? How do you know how much did James Toney have to cut? You were there, saw him on the scales or in the Turkish bath sweating for hours? In case of Jones we have his weigh-in figures for Ruiz and Tarver I, and the words of Mackie Shilstone about what he did for Jones in preparation for his hw bout, ie not a post-fight excuse. We also have training footage and a short interview with Jones prior to Tarver I, where he looked awful and his speech was even more slurred than it is usually. We have him looking tired and having no legs from the first round of the 1st fight and staying on the ropes even when Tarver wasn't pressing him.

 

I had enjoyed our earlier debate, until your hatred and complete nonsense spoiled it.

There's just no point in me replying to your previous post.


Look at what you've wrote above?

Toney was out of shape and burnt body fat to make weight for Roy.

Roy went from 190 plus, down to 175, while lean, with a body fat percentage of around 6%.

So how is that the same?

Burning fat at 26, is completely different to burning muscle at almost 35.


Are you telling me that in your opinion, Roy didn't burn a single pound of muscle for Tarver, and he just dehydrated himself etc?

How could he have dehydrated around 20 pounds, with a body fat percentage of around 6%?

How could he have dehydrated himself, and still been in shape to fight?


How can anyone have a serious debate with you?

Telling us that Tarver was the fresher guy, after turning pro at 28, having had 22 fights, even though Roy had turned pro at 20, and had fought 50 times going into the fight.

Telling us that half of Roy's pro fights shouldn't count, while pointing out that Tarver had a lengthy amateur career.

Telling us that the Ruiz win could have gone the other way, and Toney was sick as cancer, and Griffin was scammed etc.


It's a joke.

 

So in this reply of yours you ignored my last post to which you only replied in order to make it seem as if you replied.
Explain it however you want, but Tarver rehydrated against Jones in each time they fought more than Jones rehydrated against him.
So you lie about Jones being drained vs Tarver and apply double standards.
If it is impossible to lose so much water for Jones why is it possible for Tarver to lose so much more?

 

So you ignored the hiding I gave you and came back with the same **** I already replied to.

 

Where did I use word "drained" in my reply? Who's lieing here?
Are you saying that Tarver rehydrated 12 pounds and Jones 10 and 6 pounds respectively for the first two fights? Gained weight between the weigh-in and the time they are to enter the ring by water alone, nothing else?