Canelo popped for Clenbuterol

The other side of the coin to that is that it doesn't prove anything for a fighter living in Mexico to test positive for clenbuterol when there is a known clenbuterol issue in the country.

Testing positive for trace amounts of clenbuterol is not reliable evidence as far as whether or not an athlete is doping. WADA has made that clear in their 2017 press release. So what you call reliable evidence (testing positive for Clenbuterol) is not reliable evidence to indicate what you believe about Canelo. (that he's a "doper" or a "cheat") Of course I can see why it would seem to beneficial for someone to take clenbuterol pharmacologically to help in losing weight while retaining muscle, however there's zero reliable evidence to suggest that he was in fact using clenbuterol intentionally.

 

Honestly dude, your agenda is so clear I'm not sure why people even entertain arguing with you...including myself.

Fact is, Canelo tested positive twice. He is suspended for his actions. If it makes you feel better by saying "we don't know his intentions" then fine. Whatever floats your boat.

Another fact is Canelo has stamina issues and drops a ton of weight. Clenbuterol aids in both of those things, wow, what a coincidence. There is a reason plenty of fighters are laughing and calling him a cheater.

 

The second positive test doesn't prove anything more than the first test does. You wanna talk about agendas, what about all the know-it-alls who came on here talking about half lifes and how the 2nd test proved Canelo was doping because it supposedly didn't leave his body within the range of the supposed half life of clenbuterol. Having an agenda is making up your mind about something and seeing everything through the prism of that belief as proof of that belief. I'm the opposite of that, I'm being as objective as possible and not jumping to conclusions because of some irrational hate or envy of Canelo.

The fighters and fans who laugh at Canelo or call Canelo a cheater have issues and insecurities, and many have agendas. Those are the reasons. And to prove this, look at how the first Canelo Golovkin fight was viewed. The vast majority supposedly had Golovkin winning and plenty of fans thought Golovkin won clearly. Well what does that prove? I had Canelo winning by several rounds and recognize how close the fight was. Many fans disagree with me. What does it prove that so many fans thought Golovkin won clearly? Nothing. Many of the same fans who argued that Golovkin won the first fight clearly believe Canelo was cheating with clenbuterol. Coincidence? No, it's called having an agenda. I on the other hand don't have an agenda which is why I don't go out on a limb and allow my bias to determine my beliefs.

 

Which is why I said fighters as well.

Go take a look at what the active fighters are saying about Canelo. Not only did they trash the bogus Draw against Golovkin, they are calling him a cheater.

I always find it hilarious how the vast majority of guys never have any type of controversy with regards to doping, yet the ones who do test positive find the most ridiculous excuses. And neophytes like you believe them.

"I also had Bradley beating Pacquiao 120-108 in their first fight. I am the only person on Earth who thought that, but I don't have an agenda or bias." You see how ridiculous that sounds? You are the only one I have seen defending that decision to the grave. I know plenty of people who thought the fight was close, I have yet to meet one person who genuinely believes Canelo won that fight.

Also I really suggest you read what you just said. "believe Canelo was cheating". Yeah....he failed a flippin test dude. What more evidence do you need? Do you believe Frank Mir tested positive for kangaroo meat? How about Jon Jones Cialis excuse? You can't be this naive man.

 

That's precisely my point, that the same people who were trashing the draw (thinking Golovkin won) are calling him a cheater. Coincidence?

Just because some athletes have used meat contamination as an excuse and were lying about it, doesn't mean others didn't actually test positive due to meat contamination. The difference between Canelo and your examples is that clenbuterol is a known issue where Canelo lives, where he was tested. The issue in Mexico and other countries with a known clenbuterol issue has been recognized by WADA as unsatisfactory.

Your ignorance on this issue is very apparent. He failed a flippin test, which is not evidence of doping due to the possibility of meat contamination specifically in regard to clenbuterol and those living in Mexico. Calling me a neophyte on the issue is laughable since WADA and the anti-doping community fully recognize the clenbuterol meat contamination issue and the difficulty in determining whether athletes who test positive for it are doping.

Trying to equate what I am saying to a ridiculous example of having Bradley beating Pacqiuao 120-108 is quite a stretch. If you recognize that a fight was close, then I don't see how it is unreasonable to argue either fighter won. You could easily have Canelo winning by giving him rounds 1,2,3,10,11,12 which most people thought he won or were close enough to be scored either way. Golovkin was not dominating any of the rounds, the closest thing to a Golovkin dominant round was round 7, but even that round Canelo won the first minute and Golovkin essentially gave away the round in the final 30 seconds by getting walking into Canelo's traps that saw Sanchez scold him for in the corner.

Several posters on here gave Canelo round 6, nothing wrong with giving Golovkin most of the middle rounds by outvoluming Canelo but you could certainly find a round or 2 to give to Canelo. You're acting like it's unreasonable to score the fight in favor of Canelo yet you consider the fight close? That really doesn't make any sense. If you recognize it was close then why is it so crazy to score it in favor of either fighter?

 

For starters, this is where you and I just see things differently. You labeling active boxers bashing Canelo as a "coincidence" where as I label them as relevant and correct. They know a hell of a lot more about boxing, doping, and bogus decisions than we do. I'm not talking about the Paulie Malignaggi types who just talk out their ass, but active Middleweights who don't like either guy. They are telling it like it is. BJS has bashed Golovkin a million times. Jacobs thinks he beat Golovkin. Plenty of guys aren't on Golovkin's side but they know Canelo cheated.

The first underlined part makes no sense, that would be a draw. Not to mention, Round 7 was scored to Canelo by one of the judges. You actually defended that too. Ridiculous.

The second underlined part is exactly why I hate debating fights with fans. This exact logic is why people end up scoring fights incorrectly. A close fight does not = either fighter could have won. A prime example is Mayweather-Maidana. That fight was close, no sane person would disagree. However, there really is no way you could score it for Maidana. There is a way you could score it a draw, but I don't see any avenue to give Maidana 7 rounds. Doesn't change the fact that the fight was close.

Finally, you realize Canelo was suspended right? If he did nothing wrong, there would have been no suspension. And you call me ignorant. Had Golovkin tested positive for eating a god damn taco, you would be calling him a cheater. And we all know that.

 

We've discussed this fight before, so no need to reopen that. I scored it for Golovkin 7-5 but I agree that it was close and I consequently never use terminology like "robbery", "gift", etc. Hence, what you've posted above is fine, but why don't you follow your own advice:

If you (correctly) recognize that the fight was close, why do you state that a draw is a gift and also exaggerate a little about Golovkin being lit up? Both guys took and gave some big blows, it was far from a one-sided beating in Canelo's favour - as you do realize.

By claiming the draw is a gift you imply a Golovkin decision would be unreasonable. You scored it close for Canelo. Others scored it close for Golovkin. If you, on the basis of your scorecard, think the opposite decision is unreasonable I can't see how you complain about @shanahan14 doing exactly the reverse.

 

Great post.

You and I both know the answer though. I can pull up things he's said from different threads that are contradictory.

Example: "Round 7 was close to dominant for Golovkin." In another thread he said it could be scored for Canelo. He refuses to acknowledge the reason it was a Draw was because the 114-114 judge scored it for Canelo. Even Byrd scored it for Golovkin.

 

Precisely.

 

Paid

 

Agree about Malignaggi. Lost pretty much all respect for the guy in the last year, first with all the McGregor sparring shenanigans, then the whole anti-Canelo agenda acting like it's so obvious that he's cheating and that he knew all along. What a clown, Paulie has become a complete embarrassment to the sport.

The idea that active boxers know a hell of a lot more about boxing, doping and bogus decisions than we do is a rather large generalization and an even bigger fallacy as it relates to judges decisions. Here's why : Boxers are more inclined to be biased in how they react to situations becuase they are actually in the sport. For example, Lara to no surprise thought Golovkin won since his experience with Canelo was that he believed that Canelo got too much credit on the cards when they fought, so he saw everything that happened in Canelo Golovkin 1 through that prism. Jacobs had Golovkin winning because he has too much pride to admit that Canelo did better than he did vs Golovkin. That's not to say that all boxers are biased, but getting hit in the face for a living doesn't exactly enhance one's ability to judge boxing fights. There's all sorts of inherent gamesmanship when it comes to how active fighters react to judges scoring of other fights.

And to your point about boxers knowing a hell of a lot more about doping than we do, to that point I agree. But them being in the sport and tested regularly also makes them less likely to take an unpopular stance on an opposing fighter who tested positive, to not arise suspicion about their own proclivities or to avoid coming across as somebody who doesn't believe those who test positive should be punished. It's no big mystery why active fighters who are tested regularly have a very real incentive to not support or defend another fighter to tests positive. It's simply not a good look in today's environment. Despite active fighters knowing a hell of a lot more about doping and specifically being tested than we do, that doesn't equate to non-Mexican fighters knowing a hell of a lot about the clenbuterol meat contamination situation in Mexico. There's a good chance that if you live and train in the US, you would have no idea that meat contamination is an issue south of the border. So why would anyone who doesn't live or eat meat in Mexico (surely the examples of fighters who you are describing) have any reason to believe Canelo. They do not live in a country where clenbuterol is an issue, and would naturally have no reason to believe you could test positive due to meat contamination.

It makes perfect sense if you read the next paragraph about how several fans on here gave Canelo the 6th and how you can surely find one or two of those middle rounds to give to Canelo. I personally gave Canelo round 4.

That's true Trella did give the 7th to Canelo. I personally scored that round for Golovkin but I observed how well Canelo did in the first minute of the round and in the final 30 second. That was supposedly Golovkin's most dominant round LMAO. Sanchez was chewing Golovkin out in the corner after how poorly Golovkin finished the round walking into punches which speaks volumes.

Fair point, there are fights that are close but are hard to give to a fighter. The same way you feel about Mayweather Maidana is how I feel about Canelo vs Mayweather. (that you could score it a draw, but I don't see any avenue to give Canelo 7 rounds) And before you have a cow at that statement, let me be clear : I didn't see Canelo Mayweather a draw, I had Mayweather winning I just recognize how close many of the rounds were. (something that the vast majority fans don't)

The difference between fights like Mayweather Maidana 1 (which I'm guessing is what you're talking about as opposed to the rematch) and Canelo Mayweather and Canelo Golovkin is that in Canelo Golovkin Canelo clearly landed the hardest punches of the fight on Golovkin.

I find it much more arguable to have a fighter winning a close fight when one fighter is the one who landed the harder cleaner shots (as Canelo did vs Golovkin). Canelo landed several more bigger, more impactful clean shots on Golovkin throughout the fight than Canelo was able to land on Mayweather or Maidana was able to land on Mayweather. Not only that, but Canelo controlled more of the fight (rounds 1-4 specifically) vs Golovkin in how he was able to outbox Golovkin and show superior ring generalship than Canelo or Maidana were able to do vs Floyd.

It's really no contest that Canelo has a much better argument in beating Golovkin than Maidana or Canelo had to beating Floyd. However all 3 fights can all be considered close for different reasons.

Canelo being suspended had nothing to do with whether or not the NSAC thought he did anything wrong. The letter of the law in Necada is to issue a 1 year suspension (reduced to 6 month with cooperation) to anyone who testes positive for a banned substance. In Nevada, there is no consideration for the clenbuterol meat contamination issue that WADA and other commissions recognize as unsatisfactory. That is why Canelo was suspended, not because he was found to have taken clenbuterol pharmacologically or determined to have engaged in wrongdoing.

 

In other words, most people?

So Canelo knew about Mexican clen steak and ate it anyway? Sounds like he was trying to load up on clenbuterol through his diet, then.

You ignore the fact that Clenelo very likely ate the clen steak on purpose, to gain an unfair advantage using the meat loophole.

I could have Golovkin winning 9-3, actually.

DKSAB7, La Chica and IsaL ... yeah we all know how unbiased they are If GGG knocked Clenelo out, they'd have Canelita winning by DQ...

 

tl,dr.

But Clenelo will cry salty tears for his by-the-word sponsorship of this drivel

 

You do raise some good points but it's hard for me to take you seriously when you think:

A) Canelo beat Golovkin
B) You acknowledge Canelo-Floyd could have been a Draw

Those are 2 of the more controversial decisions in recent memory. They both involve the same fighter. That same fighter tested positive for a PED and is now suspended. This fighter has a lot of controversy around him considering there are some other dodgy decisions like Trout, Lara, Cotto. I'm not saying he lost all of those, but there were some utterly ridiculous scorecards in favor of Canelo that not even the biggest Canelo fan could defend. Not that it matters, but 2 of my closest friends are Mexican and I always watch the Canelo, Chavez, and DLH fights at their house. All of us laughed when we heard the 11-1 card against Cotto, Trout and the 9-3 card against Lara. That is blatant corruption.

I'm sorry but to me, you have an agenda. I think it's clear. Just my opinion.

 

“you can surely find one or two of those middle rounds to give to Canelo”

All those sheets of text can always be reduced to a simple line like this one.
You’re right, shadow, if you score a fight looking for rounds to give to your prefered fighter, you will surely find them.
Thats what you did in Canelo vs Mayweather, thats what you’re doing here.
The only question i have, whats the reason for such dedication and bias?