Do PED's make a boxer any better?

this thread is still going on

if they had no effect why would anyone take them

it's obvious they are beneficial

 

If they werent beneficial,why would anyone take them who thought they werent good enough.
The problem with boxing is,get caught,so what,its hardly frowned upon.they have a massive influence.
It has always been a huge deterant in the uk because even if you carry on in your career after being busted thats all your known for.in the u.s
Notable fighters who have been busted or banged to rights are mosley,holyfield,floyd,pryor and so on.its just brushed off as if its nothing afterwards.ive got no doubt tons of boxers from the past have,lance armstrong,marion jones,flo jo and tons more again in different fields.
Not only america,its gone on globally but in certain cases,mainly main stream america it gets a bye,yet the likes of lucas browne,povetkin,the whole of the russian olympic team get frowned upon.
They are rife,hundreds of athletes have gone unpunished,but should they be looked at as insignificant ?
How can they be ?

 

It's almost as if they're Performance Enhancing.

 

Because they're not good enough, they're thinking about how they can make up the gap. The stats show 'PED' use is greatest in amateur/high school athletes.

 

Sorry im misquoting you,i thought you said they werent benificial

 

They're not, especially in that population (late teens, endogenous testosterone is through the roof already.). It's very easy to understand, athletes that aren't good enough think they can get to the elite level by using banned substances. Insecurity, a lack of education about what they're taking and it's readily available in every gym.
They aren't beneficial, there's the belief that they are and that placebo effect is the only thing that is giving any performance boost.

A track sprinter trying to shave 0.02 off their time, certain things are beneficial because it's purely an anaerobic sport. Same with weightlifting/powerlifting, discuss etc.

An endurance rider who has a VO2 of 80-85, they can benefit from certain things as their sport is basically purely aerobic.

A boxer, football player, basketball player etc. has hybrid energy system demands, inches are measured in skill rather than physiological capability. Rendering unproven 'PEDs' as nothing more than a crutch for the athlete who is either not talented enough or is too lazy.

That's what is, people are always going to swear up and down that everyone takes them and they provide a massive advantage. That's certainly not been my experience in elite/professional sport. Elite guys are elite before they even touch a protein shake.

 

They help a lot sure but RJJ's speed and reflexes and Manny's successful jumping in weight several times and many other things that have been discredited peds can't do, they helped im sure but you can give top boxers all the peds in the world they wont be able to reach the same levels or accomplish the same feats.

 

That'd be a nice theory if virtually all the athletes that are at the elite level weren't using them. They are beneficial based on scientific knowledge, results, testimony of a slew of the top athletes in the world ...I hope your just trolling.

 

I work with Olympic level athletes currently and with professional athletes in the past. I know for sure that these guys and girls weren't using anything. How did they still make it to the world level?
There is no scientific evidence on athletic populations for the vast majority of banned substances. The scant evidence they do have is from clinical populations who are deficient in something, so it's completely different than a 20 year old with testosterone flowing through their veins. Substances are placed on the banned list if they theoretically have any physiological effect.
EPO works for cyclists, Anabolics work for weightlifters. Refer to my previous post for why that is. If I'm a boxer I don't give a **** what my opponent is taking.

 

Lets say they provide zero advantage but they are banned because they are percieved to.
A. Why take them
B.if theyre banned and you take them anyway should it be ok ?

 

I've explained this. What don't you understand? As I said if I'm a boxer my opponent can take whatever they want, it's not going to help them and I'd look at it as a mental weakness more than anything.

 

What i dont get is that your telling me that performance enhancing drugs dont enhance performance,and even if they didnt in the slightest which they do,but for arguments sake they dont,it is strictly forbidden in the sport.
If it is illegal benneficial or not,why take them.and if it is against the laws of the sport why would it be excused

 

Some fighters think like that, other's think im a boxer 1 loss and my career is likely over im gonna go in the ring with every possible advantage most all major cash cow's are known for this Mayweather before him ODLH before him Leonard gain every advantage they can in the contract. I read your earlier posts now I think peds help more than a minuscule amount at least in training and recovery which has been said, but yeah they probably don't help skill wise which I think is what your trying to say?

 

it depends on the drug--when you consider all PEDs, there's enormous variance in how they work (their biochemical mechanism) and in exactly how they benefit the user.

but in general, "performance enhancing" is a misnomer; while "performance" is indeed the bottom line, nearly all of the PEDS in widespread use do not directly affect performance on fight day, but instead their benefit is related to recovery--ie, shortening the period of time required for the body to return to the way it was before the workout. So everything from healing soft-tissue injury from sparring to repair of muscle tissue "damaged" during resistance training, etc.

of course if you recover faster or recover more completely for a fixed interval of time, then you can train harder hence ultimately perform better.

the degree to which at least some of the major banned substances reduce recover is nothing short of astonishing.

for instance, in 2002, the venerable US-based magazine Outside published an excellent Article about one of its writers--a amateur endurance cyclist in his early forties--who began regular, prescribed dosing of several PEDs under a doctor's supervision (all legal, but generally banned in professional sports) and reported the effect on his performance over several endurance cycling events. A couple of provisos: the substances he took and the doses at which he took them were modest if not trivial--no exotic cocktails or designer drugs (what he took were just substances already produced naturally in humans) and maybe 1/10th of the dose that a "professional" would likely take.

Here's a quote from the Outside article ("EPO", by the way is "erythropoietin", a naturally occurring hormone that promotes red-blood cell production.):

After the EPO kicked in, I rode a 200-miler and I felt strong, fresh, ready to hammer.
The next day I easily could have ridden another 200.
​

think about this for a moment--this (high-level) amateur endurance cyclist just completed a 200 mile race at a competitive pace, and the next morning, he felt strong enough do it again.

 

PEDs, growth hormones, huge weight gain appears to not do enough for the cruiserweight Jacobs....................