Tyson Fury has failed 3 drug tests which is more than Povetkin and Ortiz but gets no abuse.

not to mention Showtime screening his fights on that big chunk of land over the pond

 

The sport is dangerous enough, legalising PEDs would require a whole restructure, bigger gloves, shorter rounds etc.

If not you leave the door open for serious injury or worse, I remember watching Povetkin's KO of Duhapps when everyone watching knew he was doping, it was chilling.

There will never be a level playing field, people will always search for more adventurous ways of gaining an advantage. What the sports authorities need to look at doing is having a universal approach to testing boxers and have a standardised discipline policy if they break the rules. None of this nonsense as seen with BJS.

I also don't buy into the arguement that everyone takes drugs in ordinary jobs so boxers should too. They are professional athletes and should be held to the highest standards of integrity and professionalism.

 

Absolutely......

To expect somebody to push their body through the extremes that top athletes do 'clean' as in free from any kind of enhancements is just pie in the sky....

Does Usain Bolt run that fast by eating fruit and veg?...Make no mistake if everyone was 'clean' he would still win which people need to understand....If everyone is doing it how can you expect anyone to be clean

 

The point is everyone at top level sports is at it....just because someone LOOKS as if they are a bodybuilder and someone looks a bit flabby does not mean 1 is juicing and the other isnt....

I certainly believe up to a domestic level in sports people COULD be clean....Top level no way

 

You assume that people who oppose the use of peds in sport are in some way naive about human nature. The reverse is true, it's that knowledge of human nature that informs the desire to try and protect both the sport and the individuals that practice it. Without that impulse there's every chance that fighters would be having heart attacks in their late 30s and that would very quickly end the sport as we know it.

 

WTF are you saying ???

It is always the same ,people with no experience of roids are always the experts and most offended....

 

I'd argue the majority are at it- but not everyone.

My point is, you could legalise the use of PED's in boxing but be still left with the same inherent problem of people trying to find ways around the system but then have fighters with an increased capability of seriously injuring an opponent.

Boxing as a sport is a grey area where ethics and entertainment become dangerously intertwined. A line needs to be drawn somewhere.

 

Who said he gets a pass?

 

Its impossible

 

Because deep down every body knows that all he took was extra strong lockets to help with his breathing!!

 

I thought my post was clear, if there's a particular point which you need explaining let me know and I'll do my best to do so.

On your second point, you don't know me or my experience and you've also assumed that I'm offended, rather than simply offering a point of view.

 

Says the guy who is not from London......

 

Some peoples bodies react to peds better than others bud. Different bodies will show different results

 

Adverse effects from PED misuse don't neccesarily translate to heart attacks in gyms, I'd agree that's an extreme, although not unknown, it could be something that takes 10 or 15 years of someone's life expectancy, or means they spend later years on medication. So some of those guys from the 90's and 00's may not yet be reaping the full effects of what they took.

What we can say is that by allowing these guys to train harder and for longer, not only did they get a positive short term benefit but the guys they fought in the ring got a negative one. They may have taken more damaging shots for longer into bouts than they would otherwise. Maybe shots which will take their own effect long after their career is over.

Point being, it's not just about the damage the PED users do to themselves, if it were that simplistic it would be easier to deal with. It's not that easy however as this article argues. I remain unconvinced that the 'remove all restrictions' crowd have properly thought through all the implications from that approach.