Why are you against Olympic style blood testing?

i run and join 5ks to half-marathons and suddenly got interested on EPO and its supposed benefit and then found this:

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

"HOYVIN-GLAYVINSTEROIDS!"

This content is protected

 

Hah.

Seriously, though.. Nice read.

I'm learning some new stuff here.

op

 

why is it bad sir? that is the only question. not required is one thing but bad is another. you can attempt to tear down the effectiveness of blood testing but you have not said one word on why it is bad

 

you are still not taking my example into account, which is highly relevant.

a couple of blood test showing a significant difference in values would, to me, not constitute evidence. BUT with 30 previous test within the same region and with a massive leap in values, then im all for naming it as proof.

by the way, this is also one of the tools, that are being debated in, yes i´ll say it again, the strictest sport when it comes to testing, cycling.

i hear what you are saying, but when it comes to doping the testers will always be a step or 2 behind, but if they measure an athletes values, then the testers might be a step ahead.

Hell yes thats strict, but when it comes to a sport, where your aim to to put a beating on another human being, strictness is a valuable asset..

 

no I am not I think pac is clean but he made a dumb mistake by not agreeing to blood testing. I am a an of Pacs and want him to take the test to clear all doubt about what he has achieved

 

indeed there is, my memory is actually ******ed, when it comes to remembering names.

But the next generation of an epo like product is already being used, if and its a bif if, i recall corrrectly, its named cera or something like that

 

You don't have to be Einstein to know what a high hematocrit level can allude to, but it is not proof in a court of law. It is really just circumstantial because BLOOD CANNNOT SHOW THAT THE HIGH HEMATOCRIT WAS FROM EPO. That's the crux of your problem. It doesn't matter what was shown in the blood because again it cannot see the rhEPO. It can only be used to support a claim with a positive urine AB result.

Does my repeating this fact take away the point that blood works good as a screening tool instead of running a dozen or more urine tests? I don't think so.

 

I agree 100%, Urine maybe superior and blood may be totally useless (which I think it is an effective tool). It does not answer the question; Why is medically bad to take a blood test a week to 3 days before a fight? It may not be required but why is it bad?

 

Micera was detectable in urine long ago. Ask Ricco, aka June 08.

 

What is the true intentions of this thread? Is it really to give awareness that boxing needs to improve current methods of drug testing? Or is it to bring back arguments on who ruined the fight between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao?

If you say the first option, then you are just wasting time and energy posting on this forum. If you say the second option, you are also just wasting time and energy posting on this forum.

Do something more constructive than arguing back and forth on this topic. I've provided the contacts below. You have a need for change, here's your first step in THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Yer right lol. I've repeated myself enough on this topic. atsch

 

that is where you can balance the cost, work required, hassles of adding a blood test in relation to effectivity. it was noted here that urine test alone is quite a very effective means to detect almost every PEDs in the book if it is random. that is why also professional team sports are all following a random urine test program. if they feel that the additional blood test is really worth it, they would consider it.

you must take into account if the commissions can actually implement this type of testing on a whole basis. if you would implement it on a select few, then you don't have an efective and fair program. there's no denying that urine + blood is the best but it doesn't exactly mean that a random urine test alone is far far inferior or a joke.

 

well if the urine tests doesnt show anything, but the blood tests reveals a huge leap, then what..?

a biological pass is simply the way forward. AND THAT INCLUDES BLOOD TESTS ASWELL

 

that i know, he wasnt the only one.