Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Victor Conte and a few EXPERTS on the May-Pac testing controversy

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Victor Conte and a few EXPERTS on the May-Pac testing controversy

    The flap over whether Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. will ever agree to some form of Olympic-style drug testing has gotten more than old by this stage.

    Mayweather wants the testing, he says, to ensure a level-playing field. Pacquiao has an aversion to giving blood close to an event, because he believes it weakens him, but is willing to submit unlimited urine samples and several blood samples as part of an agreed upon schedule.

    But if the goal is to prevent the use of performance-enhancing substances, the testing likely won’t matter, said a leading expert on the subject.

    Victor Conte, the founder and president of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) said athletes perform better off steroids rather than on them and would simply taper in order to be clean by the time of the testing proposed in the Mayweather-Pacquiao talks.

    “I still don’t think it’s effective testing,” Conte said. “When they show up a couple of weeks before to test them, they’ve been using, those who choose to do so, anabolic steroids or testosterone, for several months. Then they very consciously do taper off, because they know that they perform better off of the drugs than on the drugs.”

    Rhadi Ferguson, a PhD and a strength and conditioning coach who has trained Ultimate Fighting Championship light heavyweight Brandon Vera, represented the U.S. in the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece. He said he was subjected to random testing administered by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency many times, though he was not tested in the Games.

    He said it is very difficult to prove usage of Erythropoietin, or EPO, which is one of the drugs that boxer Shane Mosley admitted to using prior to his 2003 fight with Oscar De La Hoya.

    Ferguson scoffed at Pacquiao’s argument that giving blood close to the event would in any way weaken him and said he felt Mayweather gained a great tactical advantage even if he ultimately concedes on the testing issue.

    “The amount of blood they would take from him would be replenished by the body within one hour,” said Ferguson, a distant relative of MMA star Kevin “Kimbo Slice” Ferguson. “It’s a fallacious argument. It’s also genius by the Mayweather camp to bring up the USADA testing even if Pacquiao refuses to do the testing or Mayweather concedes not to do it. Mayweather still has won, because even if Pacquiao does win the fight, there is still a shadow cast on Pacquiao’s cleanliness, if you will.”


    Though many “final” deadlines have come and gone, this could still play out for a little more than another week. The actual deadline won’t be until all the marketing plans need to be submitted and the ads for the cable and satellite guides are due. That will be sometime in the first week to 10 days of January.

    With that, let’s hope right to the mailbag to get your thoughts on the issue.

    http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/box/news;...yhoo&type=lgns

  • #2
    Mayweather is just a better fighter than Pacquiao which is why he will win

    Comment


    • #3
      Every fighter is different. Some fighters think every little thing matters when preparing for fights..and while the draining of blood may not physically affect Pacquiao it could mentally psyche him out....by the way, I want random drug tests for this fight..to get it over with so Mayweather and Pacquiao can fight.
      Last edited by rao007; 12-29-2009, 08:44 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rao007 View Post
        Every fighter is different. Some fighters think every little thing matters when preparing for fights..and while the draining of blood may not physically affect Pacquiao it could mentally psyche him out....by the way, I want random drug tests for this fight..to get it over with so Mayweather and Pacquiao can fight.
        at this level of the sport, every fighter should be randomly tested....

        Comment


        • #5
          Conte very good map to have , always best policeman is criminal before change .

          Comment


          • #6
            Great find on the article. Just further adds to what has been specualted on these forums all along.

            Comment


            • #7
              Page 5.

              Blood is rarely collected in the major United States sports drug testing programs. At the Olympics, blood
              is collected, but not as often as urine. For example, at the 2004 Athens Olympics, the laboratory receive
              2926 urine samples and 691 blood samples [5]. Some federations, such as Union Cycliste Internationale
              collect blood before races for health tests (not doping-control tests), and athletes with atypical values
              deemed medically unsafe (eg, high hematocrit) are not allowed to compete [6].

              Testing urine is better than testing blood for most prohibited substances (small molecules, molecular
              weight less than ~800 atomic mass units). Urine collection is noninvasive and yields a large volume of
              sample, with higher drug concentrations than in blood and with far fewer cells and proteins to complicate
              extraction.


              http://www.antidopingresearch.org/Be...gHeadlines.pdf

              And here is Q&A with Dr. Don catlin who heads anti doping research. This is another blood-urine debate that relates to EPO

              http://www.letsrun.com/2003/epoqa.php

              Dr. Catlin does doping test for a living...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jrosales13 View Post
                Page 5.

                Blood is rarely collected in the major United States sports drug testing programs. At the Olympics, blood
                is collected, but not as often as urine. For example, at the 2004 Athens Olympics, the laboratory receive
                2926 urine samples and 691 blood samples [5]. Some federations, such as Union Cycliste Internationale
                collect blood before races for health tests (not doping-control tests), and athletes with atypical values
                deemed medically unsafe (eg, high hematocrit) are not allowed to compete [6].

                Testing urine is better than testing blood for most prohibited substances (small molecules, molecular
                weight less than ~800 atomic mass units). Urine collection is noninvasive and yields a large volume of
                sample, with higher drug concentrations than in blood and with far fewer cells and proteins to complicate
                extraction.


                http://www.antidopingresearch.org/Be...gHeadlines.pdf

                And here is Q&A with Dr. Don catlin who heads anti doping research. This is another blood-urine debate that relates to EPO

                http://www.letsrun.com/2003/epoqa.php

                Dr. Catlin does doping test for a living...

                good stuff

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shogunn View Post
                  good stuff
                  Stickem up shogunn joke ha

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jrosales13 View Post
                    Page 5.

                    Blood is rarely collected in the major United States sports drug testing programs. At the Olympics, blood
                    is collected, but not as often as urine.
                    For example, at the 2004 Athens Olympics, the laboratory receive
                    2926 urine samples and 691 blood samples [5]. Some federations, such as Union Cycliste Internationale
                    collect blood before races for health tests (not doping-control tests), and athletes with atypical values
                    deemed medically unsafe (eg, high hematocrit) are not allowed to compete [6].

                    Testing urine is better than testing blood for most prohibited substances (small molecules, molecular
                    weight less than ~800 atomic mass units). Urine collection is noninvasive and yields a large volume of
                    sample, with higher drug concentrations than in blood and with far fewer cells and proteins to complicate
                    extraction.


                    http://www.antidopingresearch.org/Be...gHeadlines.pdf

                    And here is Q&A with Dr. Don catlin who heads anti doping research. This is another blood-urine debate that relates to EPO

                    http://www.letsrun.com/2003/epoqa.php

                    Dr. Catlin does doping test for a living...
                    In the Olympics, blood is collected but not as much as urine, but at least they collect it. We are talking about Boxing here. In Boxing, only urine tests are conducted and they are not even random. You have to be an idiot to fail a scheduled urine test....

                    Urine test is good for MOST prohibited substance, NOT ALL
                    ... Key word "MOST", not "ALL"... show me a urine test for HGH and I will show you a Unicorn. Scientists are currently working on a urine test for HGH and it will take them a couple of years to develop it. By the way, HGH is not the only Perfomance Enhancing Drug out there. There are tons of others, some that can be detected through only urine, only blood, both, bone marrow sample or none of them...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP