If you heard a story that would hurt boxing legend, should you tell it?

Why the hell not?

There's lots of stories and rumors going around.

 

There's already rumors about Jack Dempsey loading his gloves.

Rumors about Muhammad Ali's wins over Sonny Liston being fixed.

Joe Louis, well, not too sure of any stories about shady dealings in his wins.

Can't be much of a bigger icon than Ali, right?

 

If true, absolutley.

 

I'll tell you what you shouldn't do: *****-foot around and try to get people to press you for it.

Seriously though, surely it's well known that Ali used steroids during the 1970s and probably before? Dr. Pachecho would certainly be within the mold of the medical profession of the time if he prescribed Ali steroids: many substances that are now illegal were, in the 1970s, perfectly legal.

Anyone who has seen "Pumping Iron", which has footage of bodybuilders swallowing their steroids (which was totally acceptable in US law during the time) would know that this was hardly a taboo. It was, of course, rare for boxers to take steroids because of a perception that they would make one "stiff" and "blocky", thus supposedly limiting flexibility, cardiovascular stamina and muscular endurance.

Now, whether this rumour is true or not is not within my knowledge. HOWEVER, I do think that (a) the rumour is perfectly plausible given the availability, legality and popularity of steroids in the athletic community during the time and (b) given such legality, it's hardly reprehensible.

The "OOOOOOOH, SCANDAL!" factor comes from our modern preconceptions about steroids: I would hardly consider it a slur on Abraham Lincoln, for instance, if he liked a wee puff of the ganja; maybe that explains the fact that he allowed right-wing Americans (Democrats) in his cabinet during wartime, surely a dangerous move in hindsight considering the record of (relative to the time) right-wing Americans at winning wars!

Anyway, I'll try and get back to the right century, at least: the illegality of steroids, if my memory serves me correct, stems to the Ronald Reagan period of US history and the (naturally) failed "War on Drugs". While it might seem shocking to some that athletes such as Ali (and perhaps including Ali) took performance-enhancing drugs, it hardly makes sense to judge these things with modern standards, any more than it makes sense to retroactively DQ Jack Dempsey for disobeying the neutral corner rule in his fight with Jesse Willard.

This is all coming from someone who has on numerous occasions been accused of being an "Ali hater" and also someone who is frequentely frustrated in his attempts to succeed in a sport plagued by steroid-use and the measures to avoid this use. Still, if there was concrete evidence to prove that Ali used steroids, it would be interesting. We already have Dr. Ferdie Pachecho's admission, for instance, that Ali used intravenous painkillers during the 1970s to deal with chronic hand problems, mainly calcium deposits.

There's certainly room for someone to make a film that would do for boxing what "North Dallas Forty" did for American football of the late 1970s. There is a lot of pain, suffering and sacrifices (both physical and moral) made by boxers in order for them to make a living, which all too often is disregarded and uncredited in favour of the "prestige" of the sport.

 

If you want to, and the fact that you started this thread makes it seem as though you do. If you feel your source is valid, and you don't feel you are spreading lies that discredit someone; I see no problems with your desire to share.

 

A rather solid response to the thread, and one that I think addresses the issue head on. Well done.

I concur that the speculation of Muhammad Ali employing the use of performance enhancers, should not be viewed as damaging to his legacy nor reputation, for the following reasons. 1. We do not know for sure that he used them. 2. As you have already stated, they were not illegal at the time. 3. There were no doubt other fighters employing their use at or around the same period. 3. There have been and still are athletes who use or have used steroids long after their banning from sports.

 

So presumably you don't compare boxers with longer reaches to boxers with shorter reaches? Or boxers who came during the modern epoch of nutritional science and boxers who came during earlier epochs? Boxers can also can significant edges through physical training; do you not compare boxers who trained particularly hard with boxers who did not?

In fact, given every boxer is born with different natural edges over his opponents, does that mean that you never make any comparisons at all?

 

Well, yes and no. You said this was rumored to be in the 1970's. Ali had accomplished a bit before then. The 60's Ali is the one everyone likes to refer to as the "Prime Ali." If he did gain an edge in the 70's, you could argue he may not have achieved as much without it. You could discredit arguably his career defining fight, Foreman; and claim he would not have become a legend. He still would have been that unbeaten fighter from the 60's.

 

With all due respect, was it not you who once told me that Vitali and Wladimir Klitschko would have cleaned house on the Walcott's, Maciano's, Baer's and Braddock's of this world. I agree that its at least a possibility, but why make the comparison when you can be fairly certain that the Klit bros. have done their fair share of juicing?

 

Well, I suppose we all heard the news of the 1970's Steelers?? Right? I would not be too shock if this is true also.