Evander Holyfield - How Strong?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ma...02.xml&sSheet=/sport/2004/11/02/ixothspt.html

 

Assuming Klitchscko is being truthful in the Telegraph article (linked to above) there is an air of innocence about his one-off steroid use, prescribed by a doctor, during rehabilitation for a serious injury.

To me, that bears little resemblance to Holyfields prolonged association with the underhand BALCO laboratories, whose role in life was to develop untraceable performance enhancing drugs, and to whom he provided a false name...

 

Bull**** story. ALWAYS when some juicer gets caught it's either "i didn't know about it! My doctor sneaked it into my sallad with notifying me!" or "It was to heal my injury". Bull****, bull**** bull****. And that's coming from a Klitschko fan.

Yeah, but despite not having gained size, weight, shape over the last 10 years, i guess he used them for the first time in 2007.

 

How can there be an air of innocence about Vitali's drug use but Holyfield's a devious villain ??

I've never heard of anything so proposterous. Vitali used steroids and admits it. I guess, you could give him points for being honest.

Didn't Holyfield make a vague statement that was quite similar at one point - "Oh yeah, that hormonal drug I was prescribed when I was suffering from acute fatigue" - before he went back to flat-out denial ?

"One-off" steroid use prescribed by a doctor is NO EXCUSE.
Klitschko was using the drugs to assist his performance, by his own admission. In that case, you should check to see if the drug is allowed, and everyone knows that ALMOST ALL DRUGS THAT HELP YOU ARE BANNED !!!

(Hasn't Vitali Klitschko got a doctorate in a sport science related subject ? He's an intelligent guy, probably knows a damn sight more about it than the average medical doctor.)

The only reason athletes make such lame excuses is because there are plenty of lame-headed fans willing to believe them.

I'm not as anti-drugs as most sports fans, I still give the athletes tons of credit for winning, with or without drugs. And I know there's a fine line between hero and villain, and the heroes are often just the guys that didn't get caught "cheating".

I'm against the hypocrisy, the witch-hunts, the demonization of drug users, or the excuse-mongering of "innocent mistake" for others.

Some of our greatest athletes use drugs, that's the world we live in. And most of them NEVER get caught, and never get openly accused. I still admire athletes, and I love to watch sports. When the action is happening, no one really cares about drugs. If some guy is gonna run 100 metres in 9.7 seconds, we WILL be watching it on TV, marvelling at his quickness. That's the world we live in.

Holyfield and Klitschko made a career decision.

Yes, technically Holyfield and Klitschko are "drug cheats". But they're still excellent fighters, and I believe many of the "clean" guys they beat used drugs too.

Drugs were in sports before the anti-doping hysteria turned into a movement/industry in its own right. Muhammad Ali used drugs for his hands that would be "cheating" now.

 

My favorite excuse for a positive drug test lies with the German distance runner Dieter Baumann.

After a few sleepless nights following his positive test, he concluded with a brilliant piece of detective work that someone must have sabotaged his toothpaste. Lo and behold when he handed it over to authorities there was a telltale needle ***** where the devious saboteur had been injecting EPO into his Colgate.

Brilliant. Innocent all along. NOT.

As for the comparison between Klitschko and Holyfield, my point is valid assuming the Klitschko story about medical prescription is truthful.

Steroids are commonly prescribed for medical conditions. There is a world of difference between a one-off inadvertent treatment during rehabilitation from an injury, formally prescribed by a medical practitioner (as opposed to a performance enhancing drug developer) and Holyfields extended liaison with the BALCO labs and TGH, and his willful premeditated submission of a false name to avoid the authorities.

Of course, Klitchkos version of the story could well be a pack of lies, and probably is.

But I wasn't commenting on whether I thought it was the truth, just the plain facts as they were presented in the two instances.

Of course we have suspicions of rife drugs use in most of the pure performance sports. But there is still a difference between Innocent until proven guilty (many HW's), probably guilty/borderline (Klitschko) and definitely guilty (Holyfield)

 

Sorry Nick, I just dont see it like that.
Klitschko tested positive, so he's no less guilty than Holyfield (who, incidentally, never failed a test).

"Doctor's prescription for medical reasons" just doesn't cut it. Overcoming injuries, speeding up recovery etc. is the exact same thing as "enhancing performance". There's no difference.
The only difference lies in the politician-like rhetoric, it's pure sugar-coating.

(And it's not the doctor's job to know what an athlete is allowed to take to compete, the doctor just gives out drugs to fix a patient's problem. Unless he's professionally involved in sports and an expert on anti-doping, his say-so is not better than anyone else's).

 

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the steroids used to treat medical conditions - asthma, pain, inflammation, e.t.c - are not of the anabolic type of steroid. Big difference. I have been prescribed steroids in the past for asthmatic reasons, and they were steroids such as prednisone, they were not anabolic steroids.

 

Anabolic steroids are used for "medical reasons" too.

Obviously, there are other types of steroids which are prescibed too.

Anyway, if someone tested positive then he took SOMETHING ON THE BANNED LIST. Where he got it from and what category of drug it is is irrelevant.
Banned substances are banned because they are considered performances enhancers. It's that simple.

 

Manufactured strength.....that's the sad thing about sports across the board......they are all Robotrons.

 

I think drug use in sports is something that a sports fan just has to be realistic about. If these drugs can improve performance, then they will be used.
There is so much politics in sport, politics that I believe sometimes covers up the real ugliness of steroid use in sports. If the IOC or IAAF were deadly serious about catching all the cheats (which is in reality most if not all athletes) they could, or at least a fair few more than they do.

Things is, the orginsations would be left with a PR and administrative calamity. How could they admit to the fact that their athletes have been using drugs, and doing so for years and years? How many heroes of the past and present would face total embarrasment? How many world records would be forced to be struck off the charts?

My personal belief is that the situation has simply gotten out of hand. Had these orginisations been more alert to the drugs culture during the 60's and 70's, things may have been different. They could have maybe, just maybe, nipped things in the bud.
Now the drugs culture in sports is just such an overwhelming problem, the ruling bodies simply choose to turn a blind eye to it all for the most part.
Tackling the problem head on is simply too huge and impossible a task. Now and then, an example is made of an athlete here and there, but only when there is irrefutable evidence against the athlete, so basically unless this sort of situation basically lands in their lap, the ruling bodies continue to do nothing about it.
The can of worms they'll open just isn't worth it.

So, in order to appease the public and maintain some semblance of credibility, the ruling bodies continue to drug test the athletes, knowing full well it's an exercise in futility, as new methods of beating (read: cheating) the tests become available all the time.