Drug testing policies in boxing

What are people's thoughts on penalties for the failure of various drug tests relating to everything besides "Performance Enhancing Drugs"?

Let me be more clear: there are penalties in boxing, in some cases blanket policies, for a failed drug test, and they don't really distinguish between tinkling hot for a "PED" (that is, exactly what the wording of the acronym sounds like, a directly performance-enhancing drug...) and other no-nos like recreational narcotics, or diuretics used to cut weight, etc.

Do you think it perhaps muddies the issue that a term like "banned substances" casts such a wide net?

It leads to all sorts of confusion, which in many cases manifests as slanderous or libelous misrepresentation of fighters as "steroid cheats" who in fact never tested positive for a steroid or any other "performance enhancing drug".

Case in point: James Toney. He was busted for using stanozolol, the anabolic steroid, and his world title victory over John Ruiz was thus overturned and rendered a No Contest. Very cut and dry case, and Ruiz was reinstated as champion.

There was no doubt about the presence of stanozolol in Toney's system, no ambiguity surrounding its detection. He even admitted its use but excused himself by saying it was administered by a doctor in treatment of an injury. Either way, it was banned, and he was busted using. Very cut and dry case.

On the other hand, Chad Dawson shut out Aundalen Sloan and subsequently failed a drug test for...marijuana. The consequences were the same; the result was overturned retroactively from a UD to a NC. Had there been a title at stake (there wasn't, it was a 6-rounder prospect showcase, but for the sake of argument let's say that Sloan had entered with some kind of belt) it would've been treated exactly the same as the Ruiz vs. Toney situation.

To me, that is ridiculous. Marijuana isn't a performance enhancing drug (maybe for a musician, but CERTAINLY not athletes of any stripe). Anybody thinking otherwise has never smoked it. :yep


So, ought there be a different set of rules in place for things like cocaine, marijuana, and various diuretics used in weight-cutting - things which have no direct impact on the "levelness of the playing field", which do not inhibit competition or leverage an unfair advantage in terms of performance enhancement the way actual steroids do? :think


My thought:

Reserve the overturned decisions for only cases where a strictly defined P.E.D. (steroids or similarly classed substances known to directly enhance performance or lend an upper-hand physically) - and preferably bans from the ring as well. Fines up the wazoo for getting busted smoking weed, snorting coke, or taking diuretics to help boil yourself down to make a weight limit (which, let's forget, is VERY UNHEALTHY for you and can be every bit as much a disadvantage; drained-out fighters don't perform well...) - these are stupid things for someone to get caught doing, in the case of narcotics illegal and in the case of diuretics embarrassing, but none of them should be painted with the same brush as performance enhancing drugs. In terms of the ethics of competition, they just aren't in that same tier of compromising the integrity of the game. The punishments shouldn't be equivocal.

Now, there are grey areas in this, many slopes that are very slippery even to knowledgeable sports-scientists in a position to comment. You have situations like Roy Jones testing positive for a substance in an over-the-counter energy drink, which is actually considered harmless and not a true P.E.D. and not actually banned in most areas, but happened to be on the list of banned substances in the commission that actually tested & flunked him (unbeknownst to him, though it was his or rather his team's responsibility to bone up; "when in Rome") - and the specter of "steroid cheat" accusations has followed him ever since, with that instance cited as empirical proof when it was anything but.

You also have cases like Antonio Tarver, where his A-side was positive for drostanolone - but his B-side samples were either never tested or the results never publicly released even though he demanded they be to exonerate himself. False positives on A-side samples, especially with urine (less reliable than blood) are not the least bit uncommon - especially for something like dihydrotestosterone which is produced by the body and can spike above what commissions define as "normal" limits due to hard (clean) training.

It has become Liberty Valance style legend now to lump Tarver in with proven steroid cheats, even though he never ceased to profess his innocence, even after serving his ban (from both the ring and commentary duties) and in light of the fact that no B-side sample results ever came out to verify the positive A-side.


I don't want this devolving into a partisan Mayweather & Pacquiao fan pie-fight with the usual VADA & USADA hullabaloo. :nono So leave all that junk in the All Things (formerly known as "Whine") Express. :deal

Again, this has naught to do with any of the Mayweather vs. Pacquiao drama, so if you bring it up, your post will be deleted and you will be permanently banned. Fair warning. Zero tolerance. Pacquiao trolls & Mayweather trolls: don't fuck with my thread.

 

Probably because he didn't conclusively "get busted".

"On November 4, 2006, he defeated Robert Guerrero for the IBF world title, by a unanimous decision. The Official scorers saw it 115-113, 118-110, 117-111. Salido's win over Guerrero was marred by controversy, as Salido reportedly tested positive for steroids after the fight.

As a result of his positive test for Nandrolone (an anabolic steroid that may be present naturally in the human body in minute quantities), Salido was stripped of his title and faced disciplinary action in Nevada, which included a suspension. Salido maintained his innocence and immediately had a follow up test at LabCorp, a nationally recognized blood lab. The findings were negative of any steroids."


...yet the myth persists that he did, just because the initial test was positive. :conf

 

So my problems with the status quo are twofold:

1. Non-P.E.D. failures shouldn't be treated identically to P.E.D. failures, as they are not as much a concern in terms of compromising the competitive aspect of the sport. I don't care that Chavez Jr. for instance smokes weed during training camp. It bespeaks poor discipline and disrespect for the sport, but it doesn't actually mean anything, nor should it carry such harsh penalties. Getting high a week beforehand doesn't give him an unfair advantage over his opponent. I don't even care if he takes a diuretic to make weight and then rehydrate overnight to beat up on smaller men (as that could just as easily take its toll on his body and backfire on him, like playing with a loaded pistol). If he takes actual steroids or something that will give him a clear edge and endanger his opponent, something that is undeniably cheating the same way loaded hand-wraps are, then he should have the book thrown at him.
2. While the punishment for testing positive for a P.E.D. (and only actual P.E.D.'s, as outlined above) should be EXTREME and severe enough to serve as deterrent, great care should be taken not to sully the names and defame the reputations of the innocent. FALSE POSITIVES HAPPEN IN A-SIDES EVERY DAY. URINE IS LESS RELIABLE THAN BLOOD. MANY STEROIDS ARE MANUFACTURED BY THE HUMAN BODY AND CAN SPIKE TO UNUSUAL LEVELS WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL INFLUENCE. People forget these important facts. Stringent regulations should be put into place by all commissions around the world, in tandem, ensuring that results are 100% accurate beyond the shadow of doubt, before penalties are levied.

 

That may be for diving, but as someone that smoked a great deal of weed in my youth and have fought off and on in the ring for most of my life, I will never be convinced that it has any beneficial application in the context of boxing.

I've heard all sorts of cockamamie theories about it dulling pain or whatever, but trust me, even if that were a substantial benefit to anyone it would be DRASTICALLY offset by the detriment it would cause to one's awareness, hydration, reaction speed, etc. (things FAR MORE IMPORTANT than whatever slim margin being high affects one's personal threshold for pain over a sustained period)

 

Are you saying in general, or did you actually bother to read my initial post? :yep

 

In the words of David Cross, when asked if he and Bob Odenkirk & co. were baked during all the Mr. Show writing sessions...

"Um, no, obviously. Has anyone actually been able to accomplish anything important while high?"

 

I have a problem with the 1-list thing, however - does that list include both P.E.D.s and non-P.E.D.s that happen to be naughty substances even though performance isn't directly affected by them? If so then I don't like that idea.

The notion that every commission ought to be consistent on what steroids are or aren't banned to avoid those awkward "Jones' Ripped Fuel" moments is a good idea, though. :thumbsup

 

There IS that, excellent point.

However, is there actual scientific evidence of that, or is that just an urban legend that gets dredged up whenever someone a fan is biased against tests positive for a diuretic so they can hurl unprovable allegations? :think

I'd love to read up on that masking property, if there is legitimate peer-reviewed science behind it.