What do you consider to be performance enhancing?

So steroids in boxing shouldn't matter because there aren't that many fighters?

What is a legal alcohol limit, and why make it different for the UK and Scotland?

 

Okay, perhaps we can demarcate it in a different way.

Legal and illegal is clearly a binary distinction, interpretation aside.

Then we have good and poor displays of sportsmanship... What's fair and what's not.

Then the third dimension - whether you get caught, or whether there are consequences.


So...
You can have something that's illegal, unsportsmanlike but doesn't get caught and goes unpunished - from excessive holding, rabbit punching or lowblowing up to cycling PEDs cleverly enough to avoid detection.

Then you can have things which are legal, unsportsmanlike and the only real consequences are reputational - cutting huge amounts of weight, cherrypicking opponents and/or ducking challenges, imposing unreasonable contract clauses, etc.

 

Anything that would allow me to perform
3 times in a row after a 10-15min rest like I did in my 20’s I’d consider performance enhancing.

 

Again, this is easily researched if you are interested in finding the answer.

Yes, but only because you don't understand the question.

That's not an answer.

Then why not outlaw drinking and driving completely? Aren't alcohol limits at least somewhat arbitrary?

But isn't this precisely why we have regulatory agencies to help protect these special individuals?

 

No I'm approaching the subject from the perspective that is not an expert on the subject matter. Neither are you, but you seem to think you know better than those whose job it is to delineate what should be legal and illegal and have taken a stance that because you don't know and don't trust those who decide the rules it's better to ignore the rules.

Should we question authority, of course, especially when it's shown to be dishonest and corrupt. The whole drug testing issue within sports is a messy subject and one based on a lie that everyone prefers to ignore. That lie is that anti-doping controls have really any influence on if people cheat or not. Reality is the anti-doping measures are always playing catch up to the cheats and always will be.

But anyone dumb enough to get caught in an era when it's likely not difficult to avoid getting caught then they deserve to be banned for their sheer stupidity. You play the game, pretend you're clean, do your due diligence to not get caught, but if you just refuse to play the game and not even try that hard to hide your cheating then you deserve to be banned.

 

We both think the system is flawed, that I think we agree on. But you think because it's flawed it should be burned to the ground while I think it needs to be reformed, made more transparent and be more accountable for their decisions.

Your type of thinking is why cities in America are turning in to crime ridden cess pools if the media is to believed. Don't trust the police so lets get rid of the police and let crime, disorder and chaos flourish.

Same thing would happen if there were no drug testing, you have people abusing the system already with preventative measures, poor ones true, but still able to keep athletes doping to a level where people are not ruining themselves, like the East Germans did back in the 80's. Where children were forced to take PED's whether they wanted to or not, which saw athletes die from cancers well before their time, children born with birth defects, female athletes having miscarriage after miscarriage because of what was done to them, other athletes who ended up having their careers ended before it even started because the cocktail of drugs being given to them resulted in complications that ended their careers.

It would also have a detrimental effect on children participating in sports. No parent would encourage them down a path where they are forced to use dangerous PED's with harmful side effects to be able to compete with others who will cheat and do so legally. You'd see some sports simply die off completely because it would be impossible to compete unless your on a dangerous cocktail of PED's.

You seem to be asking for pure chaos simply because you distrusts those in authority. From my perspective that's irresponsible.

 

Even if we did remove all restrictions on doping it wouldn't create an even playing field. The idea that's even possible is very naive.

So everyone can use PED's right? What if one country can afford better PED's, the more cutting edge PED's and have taken out patents to prevent other countries from copying them. It's then not an even playing field, the richer nations will be the ones that perform better. Kenyans start losing to Americans and the Chinese in the 5K distances and above. America once against starts dominating heavyweight boxing again because US heavyweights have the best drugs, every US heavyweight goes from looking like Andy Ruiz and Jarrell Miller to making Joshua look skinny and weak in comparison.

 

...What were you performing as?

 

Yes, too big of a weight cut will make performance worse and small weight cuts won’t really help you much, problem is that everyone is doing it so cutting weight could be the difference being average/bigger in one weight class to being small in the weight class over.

For myself it was just that, being average big in one to being undersized in the one weight class over. Too me it wasn’t to have an advantage, to me it was to be competitive. I think most fighters have that mentality, I haven’t heard anyone but fans say “big weight cuts is an advantage”. For fighters it’s more like “cool, good for you that you can make that weight”.

It’s an MMA show in Asian that’s called ONE that have rules against weight cuts, it’s safer for the fighters but you will still have fighters “look” bigger but at least they will be the same weight fight night.

 

Ryan Garcia may have a VALID excuse for the PED failed tests.. Unless he's LYING once again. The truth is about to come out.

This content is protected