Why are you against Olympic style blood testing?

you see everyone is all for it. but i don't know about the commissions. Olympic style testing is not just for professionals. it may sound like arum but he is right here. instead, they can set up a centralized rule of different boxing commissions to set a guideline on this and implement a MLB type of testing. this way, we test all boxers/fighters at least in america and soon the rest of the world will follow.

 

are the rules released by GBP or the USADA? they would probably still draft it to accomodate the setting and time-frame of pro-boxing. if GBP and floyd are really serious about changing boxing, they would took the time to educate people about this and why is it needed. as of now, all it is is just a publicity stunt. if GBP is really serious in it, why not implement it on all their cards to set an example?

 

For added info on Olympic style blood testing:

http://www.steroidreport.com/2008/1...-urine-testing-at-2008-growth-hormone-summit/

The current state of HGH testing involves blood testing. Anti-doping expert Don Catlin supervised growth hormone testing at the 2008 Beijing Olympics which involved approximately

This content is protected

; no athlete tested positive for HGH. In fact, no athlete has ever tested positive for human growth hormone using this test which has led many experts to question the effectiveness of the test.

.........................

 

There are two issues, random testing and blood testing. They are two separate issues.

Is anyone really against random testing in general? I don't think so. We all know it is THE best way to deter cheaters since they don't know when they are being tested it keeps people from cheating. Again, is this good for the sport. Yes.

On blood testing, is it needed because it is better than urine? No, flat out no. Blood is used as a SCREENING TOOL when used in conjunction with urine testing. This allows testers to take a blood sample and urine at the same time. They run a wide screen with the blood, and whatever is picked on the "radar" points them to the "precise" test with urine.

People like to say that urine is worthless and all that nonsense when it's completely false. Urine is the "legal" test for EPO convictions, not blood. Why? It is because urine can actually detect fake EPO and BLOOD CANNOT. This is why it is the only means to convict someone of EPO doping.

Back to blood, the only thing it can detect that can't be found with urine is homologous blood transfusions, ie. transfusing someone else's blood into your body. That's a stake in the heart against urine testing right? Wrong. That's because instead of farming someone else's blood, you can farm your own via autologous transfusions, which is UNDETECTABLE, UNDETECTABLE. Why would any hardcore cheater choose homologous over autologous then?

That aside, the choice to do transfusions anyways is really crazy when the possibility of death is very high. Drawing blood then having to concentrated and stored creates many possibilities of the blood getting tainted, going bad which means when it is transfused back into your body can lead to very dangerous result such as blood disease and death. When EPO was developed, this practically antiquated transfusions overnight.

HGH has never been found in any blood test in the wild and they've done it thousands of times in 3 Olympics. All have come back negative. Thus demanding blood testing for HGH is rather pointless. You should just cut the bull**** and demand it as a screening tool and not pump the HGH aspect, especially when there is a new urine protein kit that shows much greater capability. Disregarding the urine kit for a moment, there isn't even enough blood protein harvested to actually be meaningful to test HGH with even if it was agreed to.

My last point is that they don't test athletes to the degree that was proposed except in a couple rare cases. The first being longitudinal testing as part of a "blood passport" program and in UCI Cycling. Cycling is the wild wild west of doping where there is big money and even bigger demands from athletes. All the pro teams run their own in-house ant-doping laboratories to self test. Cycling's sanctioning body also demands blood and hair follicle testing. It is required thus, Pro cyclists either oblige or they don't go Pro. Hey if Boxing required it, we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

In professional US sports there are no leagues that use blood testing. There are however many that have adopted WADA's banned list and testing regiments.

For me, I think random in and out of competition urine testing is good, NSAC at least has provisions in place to start it, and it is non-invasive. I think it would be a good start for boxing and then we can go from there. We can't seriously expect boxing to overnight go from basic testing to full blown and way over the top blood letting?

 

you must try to stay ahead of steroid users because they become more advanced at hiding there usage. So all the points you are making actually reinforce the need for random blood and urine test. There is no solid reason not to agree to having them done.

 

You fail to understand that its limitation is a scientific one and not because of the bad bad nasty CHEATERS are doing some nefarious stuff to cheat the test.

 

if it bothers them and gets them weak they have no business boxing then.it will be a excuse from cheats to use that line......

 

Why not? these drugs and techniques are becoming more and more advanced (as you have pointed out) what is wrong with going from zero to sixty in 5 seconds flat? in fact you would catch a lot of users off guard and really weed them out. there is no solid medical reason why not to take a random blood (and urine) test(s) even a week before the fight.

For every article you produce that suggest that blood testing is useless i can produce one that says it is better then just urine testing . . . why not error on the side of caution?

 

The article states test have been "developed" to detect HGH. It clearly does not suggest these NEW testing procedures are proven or have been tested previously on subjects in real world applications. Try again please.

When new drugs/test are discovered, often times it must undergo months if not years of trials before streamline production can be evaluated for proof of conformity, which the article clearly does not alleged these new urine test have been tested on athletes. :nono

 

Nah, let's wait for all the commissions to do their job. Their test are complete jokes. So what? They are dah boss! Welcome back Margacheato.

 

thank you and i was enlightened here.

just a question, can urine detect every type of steroids now? is it possible that there is a new type of designers that cannot be detected by the current testing standards which can be detected by an olympic style testing?

 

The best post I've read on this topic yet. :good

 

google is your friend..

 

actually you are wrong. I am sure I have read were athletes have injected the urine of others into their bladder to hide their doping practices.

Also, a great deterrent for usage is for cheats not to be aware if a new break through has occurred that can detect these drugs and techniques. The key is if you are cheating and you know that there is a greater chance of you getting caught then you are less likely to take that risk. Therefore, you may never catch someone with blood testing but it has help to clean up the sport.