[MUST READ] New Interview:Chief Executive of USADA, Explains Roids and Testing

[flexxx145]

sigh....

Lets allow these boxing commissions to do thier research and studies to find out if random blood testing is really necessary and applicable in pro boxing. If they don't switch to OST then it means that their current testing method is sufficient.

No it just means that they are morons that want to see the UFC over take them. PEDs almost killed MLB if it is allowed to run rampant then boxing will meet that fate.

[HighUnderground]

I am not taking it out of context. Here is the question preceding that answer:

"Q: One other thing I wanted to touch base with you on -- when the Mayweather-Pacquiao discussions finally fell apart at the beginning of the month, it came down to a 10-day differential; Mayweather bent to 'I'll agree to 14 days prior to the event when there will be no blood testing,' and Pacquiao wouldn't go later than 24 days. Even if Mayweather had yielded to 24 days, what can an athlete do in 24 days? I mean, if you're clean 24 days before the fight, what can you do in the next 24 days that would have any impact on the fight whatsoever?"

His answer is based off that. He implies that the issue is mainly if the testing prior to that period are up to standard, which he claims NSAC and CSAC are not.

"The 14-day period, I'm a lot less concerned about that than what you're doing in the two months before that 14-day period."

That quote clarifies any confusion between how we understand his words. Very clear and concise.

I'm not sure where they were in mediation regarding the testing prior to cutoff, but this casts doubt on the 24 or 14 day cutoff being the real issue.

You are taking it out of context and ignoring what he says right before that.

"The human growth hormone for sure, levels of testosterone, and other designer steroids. Sounds like you've got some information -- I'm not agreeing factually that was the difference, and I'm not disagreeing. But if that's the case, the other piece is that, prior to that 14-day or 24-day blackout period, what system was in place? Were you just using the Nevada, or the state of California, system? If that's the case, I'm not worried about the 14-day or the 24-day blackout period, I'm worried about the rest of it. If someone's telling you that's where it fell apart, I think you've got to add the follow-up, 'Well, what kind of testing was going to happen before the 14-day or the 24-day blackout period?' The 14-day period, I'm a lot less concerned about that than what you're doing in the two months before that 14-day period."

What he is saying is, if they are using the NSAC or CSAC standards then it's not cutoff dates that bother him, it's the whole testing procedure. You are either completely misinterpreting his words, or you are just spinning it, either way you are wrong.

[flexxx145]

good

Lets allow these boxing commissions to do thier research and studies to find out if random blood testing is really necessary and applicable in pro boxing. If they don't switch to OST then it means that their current testing method is sufficient.

I disagree.

Clearly some people in this thread are attempting to spin this to make it look like the cutoff date was not a big deal and that Manny was justified in declining the tests and walking away from the fight. Which is bulls**t.

Yeah, there are haters who are gonna say Manny is on roids, just like there are Floyd haters who talk trash all day long. However, Pacquiao could easily quell all that nonsense and shut everybody up by just taking the test. On the other hand, Floyd could beat every top welterweight in the world, save Darfur, cure AIDS, and swim across the ocean and there would still be 100 threads on NSB saying F**K Floyd. It's almost as if people enjoy hating Mayweather more than they enjoy liking Pacquiao.

Personally, I like both guys and just wanna see the fight, I just think Manny was wrong on this one. I don't think he is a cheater, at least I hope not, I just think he has acted terrible about this whole thing and that's why this has been blown up to this point. **** all that bulls**t about his pride and not being "bullied" by Floyd. This is about boxing, and doing the right thing for the sport and it's fans. He should have taken the test, fought Floyd, and cashed his 40 million dollar check. You can be mad at Floyd for asking for the tests if you want to, but the bottom line is that he has the right to do that and it is a rather simple request.

Wow that was an excellent post. My feeling exactly!

[rao007]

No doubt. Floyd's character has definitely fueled people love and hate for him.

However, there was a lot of give and take in the negotiations. Floyd made a lot of concessions for Manny, and his request for extra testing should not have been a big deal. It had nothing to do with money, ring size, glove size, weight limit, or any of that stuff. It was a simple request, and Manny (and his hardcore fans) blew it way out of proportion.

Honestly, I'm not sure Arum wanted the fight to happen. He seemed to be hovering over this whole thing like a black cloud just waiting to pull the plug and constantly saying the fight is dead. That's just my opinion.

It was from both sides--a lot of writers jumped on this story when they heard Manny refused. Again, I agree, it is a simple request but for Manny it is not..I make no excuses for the guy...it seems his bad experience long ago is what's keeping this fight from happening. I wasn't in Manny's shoes so I really dont' know how he felt during the time of Morales 1, so I cannot judge him harshly. We'll just see what happens in the spring/summer if Pacquiao gets by Clottey.

[sNiTcH]

That is USADA its business time the same company that doing a blood test on Marion Jones that tested negative

[Tsukiyomi]

You are taking it out of context and ignoring what he says right before that.



What he is saying is, if they are using the NSAC or CSAC standards then it's not cutoff dates that bother him, it's the whole testing procedure. You are either completely misinterpreting his words, or you are just spinning it, either way you are wrong.

That is how you are summing it up, and you are right to some extent. However, based on the interview he never speaks of the cutoff as being an affront to testing, and in fact he downplays it as not the real issue.

The real issue according to the interview is having a competent overall drug testing program, but the cutoff date seemed more of an issue to the interviewer. WADA claims, for example, that "out of competition testing is considered the most effective means of detection and deterrence of doping".

You are summing it up without fully reading what the man is saying.

[HighUnderground]

That is how you are summing it up, and you are right to some extent. However, based on the interview he never speaks of the cutoff as being an affront to testing, and in fact he downplays it as not the real issue.

The real issue according to the interview is having a competent overall drug testing program, but the cutoff date seemed more of an issue to the interviewer. WADA claims, for example, that "out of competition testing is considered the most effective means of detection and deterrence of doping".

You are summing it up without fully reading what the man is saying.

No, I am summing up what he is actually saying in that paragraph.

Tygart downplays it as not the real issue, because to him it's not. He feels that the testing being done by the state athletic commissions is not enough in the first place, so adding any cut-off dates is irrelevant. That is what he is saying, plain and simple. I bet if you had heard him actually say it, as opposed to having read it, you would probably understand that. He is definitely NOT saying that it's okay to impose a cut-off date that the athletes know about.

The WADA guidelines are very clear, and I actually took the time to read them when this whole fiasco started. They don't believe the athletes should have ANY say in when or how they are tested. That is what protects the integrity of their system and how it is applied to each sport and it's athletes. They do not have "cut-off dates" that the athletes know about (at least they shouldn't be if they are actually following the WADA guidelines and not their own version of it) , regardless of what people in the media or on message boards THINK they know about testing. They also don't play their entire hand when talking to the media because they don't want to let the world of dopers in on EVERYTHING they know.

What is clear from this interview, and this whole debacle, is that testing needs to be stricter in Boxing, and in all sports.