The earliest known case of PEDs in boxing ?

I don't think steroids were as prominent as early in boxing as in other sports -- steroids as originally used (and available) added mass, and below heavyweight there was concern (just as there was for weightlifting) that a boxer would bulk up beyond his best weight class and it would turn out to be a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

Which isn't to say no one used them, but it wouldn't have been as widespread in the 1960s and 70s as it got to be in football at that time.

(Of course, one of the most notorious steroid users, football player Lyle Alzado, boxed an exhibition against Ali in the 1970s after Ali won the title back from Spinks - not sure if it's before or after he retired - and was most assuredly on steroids in that period by his own account, but he wouldn't have been tested for the exhibition - not sure if anyone was tested in boxing that far back, probably not - and he never had an actual professional boxing match.)

I want to say the first boxer I remember being linked with PEDs was Shane Mosely, first in 1997 when he blamed over-use of creatine after a weigh-in for his performance (against Phillip Holiday?) and then a few years later he was, if IIRC, associated in the BALCO report.

Which is not to say no one used PEDs before that, but that's the first time I recall it becoming public knowledge.

 

I saw the youtube broadcast of Saad Muhammad/Johnson II and one poster claimed Saad couldn't have absorbed that much punishment and come back to win without PEDs. I don't think he was on them but he was super cut and could take inhuman punishment. I don't think PED's would help his chin, though. Anyway, the '70s and '80s are when PEDs were in the NFL so it is reasonable that boxing, which let's face it, has more then it's share of shady characters, had it going on. There was no testing.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the first positive test for steroids for boxing wasn't until the 1990's. And that testing was more of an IQ test than a steroids one- you had to be an idiot to test positive.

As far as how long they've been in boxing: since the beginning. Steroids and other chemicals we associate with PEDs today were around since the 60's in boxing.

Given the connection between amateur boxing as a pipeline for the pros, I don't think there would've been much of an overlap between when steroids were used by the US track team (60's) and when they'd have filtered over to boxing. They'd been in weightlifting for a few years prior to then, but I don't think the crossover would've occurred then.

Whats worth remembering is that they technically weren't illegal for either the Olympics or boxing. I think people would be kinda bummed if they saw how many of their favorite 60's, 70's, and 80's fighters were on something. It's too shortsighted to say the 90's and 2000's were when they became a problem. That's when things got comically overdone, particularly for 90's heavyweights.

 

Well, as late as 1992 Jose Sulaiman said words to the effect that the WBC don't test for steroids and they aren't explicitly prohibited by the organization though a champion might be reprimanded and possibly fined.

Most commissions seemed to be testing only for stimulants and recreational drugs, perhaps as an extension of a 'war on drugs' and concerns about underworld influence in boxing, a kind of token towards 'family values' and police concerns.

There was enough crossover in the '60s and '70s between US football players, track and field and amateur/pro boxing to make it highly likely that several professionals were taking the steroids at that time. Also boxing has always attracted hangers on of 'fight doctors' who were keen to supply an edge to aspiring contenders. Guys who'd give painkiller shots, cortisone etc. would be quite aware of anabolic steroids by 1970 at the latest. It would have been on the agenda.
Also, we have to remember amateur scene and the 'Eastern Bloc' attention to scientific use of steroids. It wouldn't take long for the wisdom to cross over to professional boxing in the western world.

 

Good post.
I think since the mid-late 1980s boxing allowed itself to adopt a less 'traditional' outlook regard the 'old school training methods' and incorporate more varied approaches, and people perhaps confuse that for the time when steroids would have been introduced.
When in reality drugs are/were completely compatible with 'traditional old school' training and ANY type of training, since they are PERFORMANCE ENHANCERS across the board.
In fact, to begin with these medical drugs would not even have had anywhere near the level of stigma that has been attached to them, nor been anywhere near as revered as 'magic bullets'.

 

Regarding positive tests, I remember Botha tested positive in 1995.

 

Ludicrous to pretend steroids were widely used in boxing prior to the 80s at the earliest and probably later. There would be an obvious supply issue. Just because they existed doesnt mean you could easily get them. Furthermore for generations boxers avoided anything they thought would make them "muscle bound" like the plague. Some of the HWs I could see using steroids but even someone like Foreman who was probably the one of the better examples of a guy who might be suspect doesnt really fit the bill. I think it probably started filtering into the sport in the late 80s and early 90s with the odd occurence here and there before. Vikki LaMotta's claim about Jake taking something that resembled a steroid sounded a bit bogus by her description and even she admitted it was more detrimental than helpful to him. I wouldnt totally rule it out though. According to his ex wife (and take that for whats it worth) Jack Dempsey used to use cocaine immediately before a fight which accounted for his early burst. Greb once injected cocaine into his hand to numb it due to an injury, basically novacaine, and ended up hitting a vein and spent the first few rounds high. This was by his own admission. Several fighters have used alcohol concoctions to dull the pain or fear going back probably hundreds of years.

 

I think that fighters were within their rights to use cocaine in the 1800s!

 

Good stuff, Unforgiven. I concur.

 

Of course they could easily get them. Everyone else could. For a start, they were legal drugs. Boxers are documented as taking far stronger drugs for inujury such as painkillers, and cortisone (a steroid, though not an anabolic one) so anyone with access to those would have access to anabolic steroids.
Anabolic steroids are a legit medicine.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about on this subject yet throw out statements like "ludicrous to pretend" and make up stuff about an "obvious supply issue"..

Up until 1990 anabolic steroids were legal even in America, where a crazed hysteria made them highly illegal (against the advice of all the relevant medical professional bodies).

Some boxers mostly certainly would have been given steroids prior to 1990 and prior to 1980 and prior to 1970 etc. etc.
Unless boxers existed in some sort of alternative reality where anabolic steroids were some rare magical elixir or holy grail.

Yes, but a lot of steroids don't increase muscle mass significantly, certainly not at moderate doses.
And the exact benefits and uses of steroids in sport were varied and disputed for years.
Besides, plenty of boxers always DID want to put on weight. It was the WRONG training that was thought to make one "muscle bound", not the mere fact of added weight/muscle.
Lots of boxers wanted to get bigger from day one, hence all the extra steak and drinking blood.

I'd say 20 years earlier at least.

 

Quick question, say fighter A is a natural 175lb and fighter B is a natural 205lb fighter, both at the same body fat. Fighter A packs on 30lb of lean muscle mass and now weighs 205lb, who would you say would be the stronger fighter?

 

That depends entirely on the individuals in question.
The variations in individuals are just too much to even make a generalization. For example, fighter A at 175lb might have freakish strength to begin with, stronger than the 205lb fighter B already.
The only thing we can be sure of is that fighter A gets a lot stronger than he was by adding those 30 pounds of muscle mass.

 

Yes I was meaning all things being equal but I guess that is impossible.

 

You couldn't say, I don't think. I suppose that you might say more muscle on a smaller frame at the same weight equates to more muscle overall. You could make that argument.

But the obvious counterpoint is that then smaller fighter A's basic equipment like vascular system and lungs are underdeveloped for such a muscular body and that he's going to be more susceptible to gassing than Fighter B.

That's actually quite an interesting question.

Anybody else have an opinion?

 

i think one thing that could counter that is the exponential effect of training with ped's, you get more out of the session and then recover better, so day by day the difference to a clean guy is getting bigger. whether that is enough to offset the point you made would have to be looked at case by case depending on the physiology and training of the individual in question.

on steroids being avoided by boxers because of gaining weight - today that view is just wrong, 'roids or not if you are doing training for stamina rather than weight lifting and your diet is calorie neutral then you won't gain weight, but 40 + years ago the drugs and the body where less understood so it's quite possible for that view to have existed. swimming and stuff might be aerobic sports but there is no weight limits which is a pretty big difference to boxing.