Would it have been ethical for Ken Norton to use PEDs?

Well that's enough evidence for some people apparently. I haven't seen any actual evidence beyond speculation.

It should be noted that Norton was doing lots of jogging and starving himself to lose weight to get down to the 205-212 range like some of the other 70's guys. This would have made it extremely difficult to bulk up at the same time if he was on steroids and lifting.

 

Coffee doesn't shrink your testicles.

 

Boxing is just full of constructs.

It's apparently ethical for Valuev to fight Owen Beck.

It's apparently ethical for Joe Smith to fight a 50 plus Berndard Hopkins.

It's perceived as ethical for Gatti, Salido or whoever to pack on 15% of their bodyweight after the weigh in.

These are constructs that are accepted.

Boxers can only be expected to be amoral and that's why rules need to be in place.

 

I am sorr

I am sorry about the effect of PEDs your Father & family. I am glad he learned & reformed.

It was not seriously unethical-although illegal, he mostly only hurt himself. And ethics largely turns on intent, so if like regular drug use it hurt others that was accidental, & he changed.
I did understand just what you said about how bad it is to use PEDs in competition-we just differ in how bad its usage is depending upon the context.
I would not add much more due to the danger of harming others in boxing. Why?
Because boxing is already dangerous, likely the sport we love not justifiable in its present form.
I do not know if using PEDs adds a great deal to the danger, & recall intent is crucial-guys who take it are just trying to be better, & sometimes that involves KOs-they are not considering the relative dangers of maybe hurting others more.
Certainly in the 70's when even less was known about them...

Bring banned does not prove what reason or combinations of reasons caused this.
I do not even know if they were banned in some part due to the greater danger (although that is another fair rationale)....
Just like it may not be much prohibited because they are worse for the health of those taking it.
They became an illegal, controlled substance at the start of the 1990's. THEN many sports banned them. To be in accords with & not run afoul of The Law. And providing a potentially large unfair competitive advantage must have contributed.

But while being very anti-PEDs, it is never as simple as just whomever is on PEDs-or more or more effective-wins.
But it increases your odds. Actually if you add significant muscle & move up in weight (although some PEDs maximize power & limit bulk, that is more the exception), you may not be more of a danger, because although you carry more muscle weight, you have moved into a division with naturally, structurally larger men-so may be at most AS effective at that size.

For HW that would not apply.
I agree on the danger, but since it is not obviously much more of a hazard, & no boxer is likely considering that it causes more risk to their opponents-in a sport where the easiest way to win tends o be a legal KO....

I cannot get down on them much more than I do for them already cheating to steal victories, Glory, & money from others.

I agree with others that the comparison to coffee, is absurd- something that give sa very limited performance boost, instead of a potentially huge, body transforming, sometimes ravaging, genetics defying one.

 

Unless you drop them into a mug of freshly boiled hot water, like a coffee bag, as someone once told me was a good idea. Hey, it’s the old “Fool me once…..” - my nuts are now the size of chick peas. I don’t have to be fooled twice - the shame is already in place.

 

Norton was a bodybuilder, and most likely was on a bit of trenbolone/clenbuterol. Other than that his low body fat percentage was a result of boxing.

 

One post said that he owned a chain of gyms and I thought he was into lifting

 

In fact, I'd say that coffee increases both testicle size and wanger dimensions! Ask me how I know!

 

So the ex-Marine likely lifted weights.
There is absolutely no cause to assume he was even "probably" om anything, let alone specific substances.
There would be no reason to believe that TODAY & it woul be unfair to him.
In those daaaze PEDs were much less common.

Again, there is absolutely nothing about his physique that shows he was likely juicing.
Sure he could have been-but some who have little muscle mass or what they have is shrouded in fat use PEDs.

But his physique is well within what a man of his proportions & bone structure & a decent testosterone level can achive naturally.

 

In the frame of the hypothetical, I do believe it would be unethical even if not officially banned. There are a number of unfortunate events and processes required before a lot of things become deemed ”officially”’ dangerous and therefore prohibited - the facts of which had already been known “informally” for many years prior.

Officialdom from other areas of sport had already identified the negs and were already closing in on PED use. At least in the UK, as early as 1953? the administration of any drugs to a fighter during the course of a bout, including smelling salts, was forbidden. If PEDs were considered okay during Norton’s era, did we necessarily hear of any boxers volunteering their using same as an acceptable accessory, let alone athletes in any other sports freely divulging same? Was it not basically covert, under wraps? As to the position that boxing is a dangerous sport anyway, that doesn’t cut - otherwise we wouldn’t have seen other actions that have been taken to mitigate or eliminate various other risks that need not be accepted as unavoidably inherent in the sport.

To the reality of Norton. His appearance didn’t suggest usage. Naturally well proportioned, muscled and well cut to due to natural conditioning efforts, his muscle mass was not exceptional or beyond natural.

It’s not proof, but Norton also struck me as an athlete who wouldn’t look to artificial means or any methods foul in competition. A great athelete, respectful, honest and totally clean conduct in the ring. It has been said that Norton didn’t indulge in weights - I doubt that’s a literal answer and it might vary from one person to another as to what constitutes acknowledgement of substantive “weight training”.

I’m erratic in my own use of weights - but I couldn’t say that I literally never lifted. Perhaps it was so with Norton. I remember reading/hearing Norton say (post career) that he “regretted” not lifting weights when he boxed. Either that or he said he wished he had lifted more - he definitely said one or the other. At the time, Norton’s arms did appear bigger than during his boxing days. I also wonder if his son’s, NFL player Ken Jr, training/conditioning regime - which would’ve recommended weight training - gave Ken Snr cause to take greater interest and active participation in same.

 

Do you believe Anthony Joshua is using PEDs?

 

What do ethics have to do with boxing? Ethics don’t help you win titles and maybe that’s why Norton never won one.

 

Whaaa? As Cross-Trainer politely implied, if there are no ethics than you can justify anything.
Organized crime & fixing fights. Illegal discrimination like drawing the color line. Anyone murdering or crippling competition so they cannot get the title.

Ethics are behind the rules of any sport, & explicitly are the reason for many laws.
Might as well ask what do ethics have o do with life?

There is not the slightest reason to believe that Norton & his attitude towards ethics prevented him from winning the title.
NOR that those who beat him in title fights cheated at all-Ali & Holmes neither were heavily muscled, & the only drug Ali was ever known to take was a pronounced DE-enhancer, a thyroid drug he popped like energy pills & made him a zombie vs. Holmes.

Norton held a championship belt, although never won the title. Do you know the history?
Do you believe that anyone should be allowed to do anything to get ahead or win a championship, whether illegal or immoral?