Interesting read Several officials participated in Wednesday's Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) hearing which addressed the organization's protocol for drug testing in regard to steroids and illegal drugs, including United States Anti-Doping Agency executive director, Travis Tygart. Since then, however, it has become apparent that Tygart, whose USADA program implemented random testing of blood and urine on both Floyd Mayweather and Shane Mosley during the lead up to their May 1 clash won by Mayweather, is among those who were not pleased with some of the testimony. Tygart assailed the NSAC's assertion that random blood testing -- it already tests urine -- is cost prohibitive, saying, "You can craft an effective program based on how much money you have," and, "Look for new revenues." "When you have athletes like Floyd Mayweather coming to us and asking us to provide for a better system," said Tygart," then you're obviously not doing enough." Another detractor to the proceedings is former BALCO founder, Victor Conte, a man who made a four-year, career out of "helping athletes to circumvent" Olympic style drug testing policies such as those executed by USADA "until BALCO was raided" in 2003. Conte was not involved in the hearing, yet he called, "Worthless," the NSAC's drug testing policy for boxing and blasted comments made by Dr. Robert Voy, who was once in charge of the United States Olympic Committee's drug testing policy, and Dr. David Watson, a former longtime chief ringside physician in Nevada. "I found some of the testimony by Dr. Robert Voy at the recent NSAC hearing to be outrageous and I do not believe that what he had to say is in the best interest of boxing. Voy said, 'I'm of the opinion that EPO is not a performance enhancer in boxing or that it gives you more endurance although that is the perception,'" said Conte. "I don't understand how he can expect anybody to believe this is true," said Conte. "It's my opinion that Dr. Voy is either ignorant regarding the benefits of EPO as a PED for boxers or he has an agenda that I fail to completely understand." Conte said Watson "supported Voy's views by saying, 'I believe that urine is the best substance to test,' and that 'blood testing is not necessary.'" "This makes no sense," said Conte. "Only a blood test, not a urine test, can determine the thickness of a boxer's blood, which could help to avoid serious health consequences." Below is Victor Conte's entire rebuttal to segments of testimony from Dr. Robert Voy and Dr. David Watson: "I found some of the testimony by Dr. Robert Voy at the recent NSAC hearing to be outrageous and I do not believe that what he had to say is in the best interest of boxing. Voy said, 'I'm of the opinion that EPO is not a performance enhancer in boxing or that it gives you more endurance although that is the perception.' I don't understand how he can expect anybody to believe this is true. It's my opinion that Dr. Voy is either ignorant regarding the benefits of EPO as a PED for boxers or he has an agenda that I fail to completely understand. If I were to select the single most powerful PED available to a boxer today, it would be EPO because it can have enormously beneficial effects upon performance. Even though only a tiny amount of blood is drawn for testing, Voy discouraged it by claiming, 'it can be dangerous.' This statement is merely propaganda as far as I'm concerned. On the contrary, not testing for an excessive level of red blood cells that could lead to a stroke or even death from the abuse of EPO is what is dangerous. Dr. David Watson supported Voy's views by saying, 'I believe that urine is the best substance to test,' and that 'blood testing is not necessary.' This makes no sense. Only a blood test, not a urine test, can determine the thickness of a boxer's blood, which could help to avoid serious health consequences. Dr. Voy has also suggested that there should be random urine testing only, and the 'closer to the event, the better.' This makes no sense to me either. Boxers using PEDs know precisely how long it takes for the various drugs to clear their systems and become undetectable. I believe that it's time for the world of boxing to embrace a more effective drug testing program that includes random testing of both blood and urine. The testing for PEDs will never be perfect, but fairness and safety are of the utmost importance and the NSAC drug testing program currently in place is practically worthless."
Victor Conte made more sense than what I heard from NSAC meeting on Wed. I'm sure the *******s will come out and say that Conte is on the GBP and Mayweather payroll....lol
basically freddy...what i got out of it is....conte telling us nsac/us olympic commitee testing is pointless/worthless....some guy who was the head of the committe trying to act like he was doing a good job
When Conte talks, he seems to make sense a lot of the time. It's his own fault his voice won't get heard by the majority, cos he has zero credibility.
Victor Conte essentially said, a 5 year old could outfox the NSAC drug testing policy and that the two doctors who testified were on someone's payroll.
NSAC cannot enforce a year round in and out of competition drug testing policy on a fighter either way. This is not really their jurisdiction. The ABC's should mandate year round random drug testing on any fighter who is either a title holder (including minor titles) or a mandatory challenger. They make enough money on sanctioning fees and this would at least justify some of it. As for the issue on the blood affecting the fighter in the days leading up to the fight, just do like Pac proposed and have a cutoff date for the blood testing 2-3 weeks before the fight and have a blood test right after. The urine testing is still good enough to detect most PEDs and anyways a fighter who wanted to start juicing so close to the fight wouldn't gain much out of it and would risk getting caught either by urine or after the fight.
Conte is one of the worlds experts on Ped's especially EPO and its derivatives You may not like what he stands for and his past history but if anyone knows if current tests are actually effective then it is him USADA test is **** and NSAC test is shittier. That is an accurate summary of what he said
Theres a bunch of repetition in that article... to the point however, conte says its ****, but he doesn't make a point to disprove the assertion that **** testing holds greater accuracy. Granted, he says USADA testing is more thorough; not necessarily relevant though. Some testing agency can take **** and semen as well and that would be even more thorough but its not relevant either.