Shocking PED revelations by T. Hauser. GBP, Mayweather, Quillin, Morales.

[Bullrider]

"Big events are the economic engine that drives boxing. Canceling a mega-fight, particularly at the last minute, will result in tens of millions of dollars in lost income.

For that reason, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that, in certain instances, if a fighter tests positive for PEDs before a fight: (1) his opponent should have the choice of proceeding with the fight or not; (2) if the fight takes place, the fighter who has tested positive should forfeit 50 percent of his purse; and (3) the fighter who has tested positive should be suspended for a minimum of one year after the fight with the suspension being recognized by every jurisdiction in the United States."

http://maxboxing.com/news/other-boxi...-mess-part-two

[letsgobrady]

what does this article say?that some boxers may be cheaters?that some people can be bribed?oh wow.there are no facts in this article that proves anything about anyone, so what was the point?

[josenoway]

Without making any mention of Top Rank or Bob Arum.

Of course Hauser goes out of his way to name GBP, GBP's fighters, Dibella, USADA, Schaefer, FMJ, etc.

But when discussing a fighter who's tested positive twice for banned substances, Hauser conveniently leaves out the fact that Chavez is a TR/Arum fighter. In fact, if you were the average Joe with little boxing knowledge who happened to read the article, you could easily think Chavez Jr. was a GBP fighter.

Hauser = bull**** 'journalism'.

He brought up Chavez Jr taking drugs as well

[josenoway]

That's idiotic. If you have WADA saying one thing and USADA saying another, there'd be no standard. And yes, USADA ultimately cleared Morales. Why do you continue to whine about this? Clenbuterol is a banned substance, exemptions are considered (stringently) when claims of tainted meat products from Mexico are involved. End of story. You're digging a hole to nowhere.

http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id...ay-sources-say

USADA held a teleconference with all involved parties, including NYSAC. If NYSAC felt it necessary to not sanction the fight at that time, they could have done so. Again, the end result would have been the same, USADA didn't feel there was conclusive evidence to flag Morales as a true positive. I didn't just read Hauser's article for the whole story. Maybe you should do the same.

I don't see an issue with conflicting judgements, esp since WADA said it will judge them on a case by case basis. Otherwise might as well strike it from the list of banned substances.

But according to the article, the B sample was available well in advance, however the commission was not notified of this. Are you sure you read it?

[prinzemanspopa]

look at the tags for this thread at the bottom, one of them says Larryx is shook

I hope Hauser doesn't have a twitter account,because Larry will be ready to pounce on him if he does.Larry will support his boy to the death.

[Superflo777]

Without making any mention of Top Rank or Bob Arum.

Of course Hauser goes out of his way to name GBP, GBP's fighters, Dibella, USADA, Schaefer, FMJ, etc.

But when discussing a fighter who's tested positive twice for banned substances, Hauser conveniently leaves out the fact that Chavez is a TR/Arum fighter. In fact, if you were the average Joe with little boxing knowledge who happened to read the article, you could easily think Chavez Jr. was a GBP fighter.

Hauser = bull**** 'journalism'.

The rumors about Floyd's failed tests are not coming from Hauser, they're coming from the doping community. Is that true?

[HeroBando]

That's idiotic. If you have WADA saying one thing and USADA saying another, there'd be no standard. And yes, USADA ultimately cleared Morales. Why do you continue to whine about this? Clenbuterol is a banned substance, exemptions are considered (stringently) when claims of tainted meat products from Mexico are involved. End of story. You're digging a hole to nowhere.

http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id...ay-sources-say

USADA held a teleconference with all involved parties, including NYSAC. If NYSAC felt it necessary to not sanction the fight at that time, they could have done so. Again, the end result would have been the same, USADA didn't feel there was conclusive evidence to flag Morales as a true positive. I didn't just read Hauser's article for the whole story. Maybe you should do the same.

Damn are you being stubborn. This is from your own link:

"As far as I know, the fight is going on," one of the sources told ESPN.com. "There is nothing that can be done to stop it" because the "B" sample test result has not yet been disclosed.
...
USADA discussed the test results with the fighter camps, Golden Boy and the New York State Athletic Commission during a teleconference on Thursday.

"(USADA) said it could be a false positive," one of the sources with knowledge of the disclosure said. "But from what I understand, they won't know until the test on the 'B' sample comes back, but that probably won't be until after the fight."

Hauser (via Keith Idec) claims that the positive B sample was available, they simply held it back.

[ALG United]

Without making any mention of Top Rank or Bob Arum.

Of course Hauser goes out of his way to name GBP, GBP's fighters, Dibella, USADA, Schaefer, FMJ, etc.

But when discussing a fighter who's tested positive twice for banned substances, Hauser conveniently leaves out the fact that Chavez is a TR/Arum fighter. In fact, if you were the average Joe with little boxing knowledge who happened to read the article, you could easily think Chavez Jr. was a GBP fighter.

Hauser = bull**** 'journalism'.

Chavez was mentioned, it's just that he was only found to have traces of marijuana in his system, it is an illegal substance but marijuana is not a performance enhancing drug... GBP were mentioned because they are actually involve in trying to conceal the early Morales positive results, and it just so happened that Peterson, Berto and Morales are all GBP fighters...

[josenoway]

Because USADA wasn't treating the Morales case as an open-and-shut case. They were looking for a stronger story from the B samples before rendering judgement. And what they got was conflicting results from the second test, and negative results from the third test. They WERE NOT rendering judgement strictly from one B sample because precedence had been set by WADA earlier in 2011. USADA was NOT ready to label Morales a positive and that's how they treated the discourse with NYSAC. If you want to have a tantrum about the whole thing, cry to NYSAC. If NYSAC at any point felt it was appropriate to remove sanctioning, they could have. Ultimately, they waited for a FINAL judgement from USADA. How do you continue to be confused by this? USADA was NOT ready to label Morales as a true positive from one B sample because of the 2011 incident. And NYSAC wasn't ready to remove sanctioning without a final judgement from USADA. Which USADA did not render until they got results from further testing - they were NOT using just one B sample to reach a conclusion. Read that over and over again until you get it.

Damn are you being stubborn. This is from your own link:



Hauser (via Keith Idec) claims that the positive B sample was available, they simply held it back.

[radioraheem]

Because USADA wasn't treating the Morales case as an open-and-shut case. They were looking for a stronger story from the B samples before rendering judgement. And what they got was conflicting results from the second test, and negative results from the third test. They WERE NOT rendering judgement strictly from one B sample because precedence had been set by WADA earlier in 2011. USADA was NOT ready to label Morales a positive and that's how they treated the discourse with NYSAC. If you want to have a tantrum about the whole thing, cry to NYSAC. If NYSAC at any point felt it was appropriate to remove sanctioning, they could have. Ultimately, they waited for a FINAL judgement from USADA. How do you continue to be confused by this? USADA was NOT ready to label Morales as a true positive from one B sample because of the 2011 incident. And NYSAC wasn't ready to remove sanctioning without a final judgement from USADA. Which USADA did not render until they got results from further testing - they were NOT using just one B sample to reach a conclusion. Read that over and over again until you get it.

LOL. Bravo. Preaaaaaach!