Tell me about the history of PEDs in boxing

I see Wilder weighed 10 kilo (24lbs) less in his last fight against Helenius since fighting Fury a year before. Wilder absolutely never ever took 'roids in his life. Wink, wink. Say no more. I tap my nose, you tap your nose and we say nothing to the wifey. It'll be our dirty little secret.

 

"Once upon a time in a sport called boxing..."

 

Very good argument!
I was away visting a High School friend in The Sunshine State for ~ 2 weeks so did not go on this website.
Let me ask some questions & raise some cautions or objections before I answer fully.

First home runs are one meaure of production, better for overall offensive prowess in something like OPS +.
But when I said that a small difference in numbers can mean a huge difference in outcome, I was referring to purely physical traits-obviously something like running fast or lifting is only a very small % increase-which brings up why say 1-8 sprinters are guilty, when their is no evidence against Bolt?

WHy do you believe Bonds would not be in the league at 34?
I do not know about Kerr's case, IF PEDs made him functional OK-although PEDs also cause specific breakdowns over time.
But Bonds was not sick, he still would have been very good-& the low of 34 has been reasonably assigned to him getting used to his effectively "new body".
So the figures you used much overstate his gains, since they seem to have lowered his production the first year.

Also you should be aware that hitting a homer is a binary, all or nothing, so just a fairly small improvement in distance can give very disproportionatre results, i.e. over the fence!
This is an example of a very disproportionate effect beyond the physical gain...

The Canseco example in no way shows 85% was likely.
It involves a small % of total players that the "Godfather" of steroids was injecting, not 700 across MLB.
Individual examples like Albert Belle in no way show how common it was-like if I named citizens who cheated on their taxes or people over 6'3" to prove most did/are-there are tons, but may be a small %.
Ruth used a corked bat-how often? Which actually provides little advantage, but I do not recall that, & read much a bout him.
But 'roids were more common in baseball then-after the stricter testing & whole regiment was implemented guys got somewhat SMALLER-but I am not saying I know how close his estimate is.
But he also could have believed it as a psychological convenience to minimize his sins...

What is the evidence that Chris Paul asked for HGH to be legalized DUE to it being so common?
I did not know about his request though.

Sprinters & cyclists are having raw physicality measured, & that makes cheating have more of an impact in general.
Also how much the sport effectively tests & deters...
I certainly admit that your asthma stats are quite suggestive!
If accurate, I do not know of a good answer to how that is likely *nlt* widespread cheating.

I would like an example or three re: athletes saying everyone in the UFC is on PEDs.
I do not know so much about cheating there; & since pure strength & explosiveness is so important, it sure might be very common.
However some athletes might be overly cynical & exafferated to make their team look pristine.
Just like say George Foreman became a good guy, but is notoriously unrepliable due to often graciousness-correlated comments!
So can be too effusive & modest...

I'll hit some of your others comments to other later.
But good show!

 

A few things...First Babe Ruth is a bad example, since what one individual does is not dispostive of how most are likely to think.
Also since there was nothing considered wrong or illegal about sheep balls then, it is a good example for how folks are likely to seek advantages when not deterred by possible punishment, stigma, ill effects-but I'll bet Ruth, certainly reckless in many ways-did not consider this when there we were not even near steroids being invented yet.

The pre-1967 argument is pretty good, except there was also less known about steroids then, about the efficacy, no punishments or stigmas...Heck even weightlifting was frowned upon in many sports like bocing-wrongly-so some would not take PEDs when legal for reasons including skepticism & being less widespread.
A counter to the real incentives you cited...

About weight & EPO & endurance...
Sure using EPO will help compared to not, but I do not see the evidence that this means that you can carry any amount of muscle & have more endurance than someone natural & much lighter!
AJ is commonly accused of PEDs, but why does he & others come in lighter to increase endurance?
You will say yeah but all versions of him were on PEDs, THAT is the bigest factor by far.
But if so, these guys at any size should have more endurance than clean men.

You think anyone Ronnie Coleman's size could possibly have the endurance of even say a Frazier or Ali, or pick any other historical athlete?
IF the oxygenation was so great, you would have huge men NOT gassing easier than those we knew were natural.
Or folks like Jay Cutler winning or placing high in Marathons.

You used thed top end 20%, granted that is a large difference.
But know that things like strength, MUCH more directly impacted by PEDs, CAN vary more...
Even all natural guys can increase their strength much more than natural sprinters-some things like speed & height just vary less.
Than strength & endurance, which is much more trainable.

The destinction between logic & scientific is not at all cut & dry.
Your still using logic to decide what is scientific: not that you are not making a good case!
Especially the difference between the best malle & female 100M: assuming PED use helped all those other sprinters increase speed sigfnificantly, that is were effective...
Ironically IF they all are using them, how do we know that everyone is not getting much less benefit that they think?
Times before PEDs were common were NOT dramaticallys slower: especially when you consider the inferior TRACKS, sneakers, starting blocks & lesser or not used video technology for analyses then!

But sure Jamaicans cheated at a sudden time...
But Boly also is physically different than other top sprinters-by degree/size, so combined with the speeds of the fastest men even *you* would accept as natural-AND that some maybe most of the improvement later was the aforementions conditions/equipment...

It becomes much more ambiguous how much they get from PEDs.
Although something like putting on muscle = more strength-& that nothing compares to waaaaay more some form of male hormone circulating to accomplish this...is much more straightforward & dramatic an improvement.

Oh yes top athletes are willing to take risks.
But that does not prove that everyone makes or self-funnels into the same category of decisions, since some have strong values conuntervaling this, some may not agree about how much advantage they will get, there is Pride & concern for reputation...

I agree endurance cycling is both overall dirty AND they get a larger benefit than say sprinters.
The Onlon had a piece about the first natural finisher, coming in a couple weeks later & needing hospitalization after the Tour de France...

So I am not taking the opposite tack that few if any folks cheat,
It is just less determinstic & more unknown re: how many & who do!