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

[HeroBando]

Originally Posted by The Gambler1981

Limited disclosure is not close to the same thing. Is j-walking the same as setting someone on fire~ both are crimes. Drug testers only jobs are to test for drugs and disclose the results anything that compromises that is a big deal. How they decide to test matters and some ways are better than others but doing it a different way in boxing is not logical currently.

Mexico did deal with WADA and they let their Senior Mens soccer team off completely free, for the same stuff Morales got popped for and used the same excuse. So the Morales thing is not black and white there is some precedence for that.

The Holyfield stuff was pre baseball steroid scandal, people care more now, sure PED had been a problem for decades before but that was when people started to really care. You are right that boxing is a dirty corrupt game and no one would be surprised with anyone doing anything wrong. USADA isn't boxing though~

And as you can see in the Morales case, these compromises were made. USADA took it upon themselves to give Morales a waiver for a substance that's banned by the commission.

You're right that USADA goes beyond boxing, but everybody including you understands they're working in a constrained environment here, and that compromises are necessary. There's enough plausible deniability there. I mean, per that espn link, the commission didn't even know of USADA's involvement in Morales Garcia until the positive A test was disclosed! How can you expect USADA to act responsible to the commission in light of that?

[The Gambler1981]

Originally Posted by HeroBando

And as you can see in the Morales case, these compromises were made. USADA took it upon themselves to give Morales a waiver for a substance that's banned by the commission.

You're right that USADA goes beyond boxing, but everybody including you understands they're working in a constrained environment here, and that compromises are necessary. There's enough plausible deniability there. I mean, per that espn link, the commission didn't even know of USADA's involvement in Morales Garcia until the positive A test was disclosed! How can you expect USADA to act responsible to the commission in light of that?

I don't agree that those compromises were made, everyone in that story wanted to cover their own ass so what was getting said by the players at the time is not that meaningful. I want to see what comes out of that though before I really judge. Clenbutorol was exactly what the senior mens soccer team got popped for before a major competition and it wasn't 1 dude it was 6 or 8 which probably strengthens the contamination case and makes it a bit different. Still that excuse worked so there is precedence for that getting overlooked for the very excuse Morales gave and apparently there is an issue with Mexican ranchers using clenbutorol on their stock which is not legal but hard to catch. USADA likes to go back after the fact and do stuff, so there could be more to come.

Because USADA is suppose to be untouchable, period that is their reputation. Which is why it is laughable when people really dog them, still they aren't perfect and are new to boxing so that there are issues when positive tests come up I don't find that surprising with the Morales one really being the first high profile one. They need to get that sorted out, but that is about as far as it goes currently but it could go further especially if the Floyd stuff is true because on their site it shows the summery and that Floyd was clean by their standard so that would be total corruption and then it would all make a trend.

[HeroBando]

Originally Posted by The Gambler1981

I don't agree that those compromises were made, everyone in that story wanted to cover their own ass so what was getting said by the players at the time is not that meaningful. I want to see what comes out of that though before I really judge. Clenbutorol was exactly what the senior mens soccer team got popped for before a major competition and it wasn't 1 dude it was 6 or 8 which probably strengthens the contamination case and makes it a bit different. Still that excuse worked so there is precedence for that getting overlooked for the very excuse Morales gave and apparently there is an issue with Mexican ranchers using clenbutorol on their stock which is not legal but hard to catch. USADA likes to go back after the fact and do stuff, so there could be more to come.

Because USADA is suppose to be untouchable, period that is their reputation. Which is why it is laughable when people really dog them, still they aren't perfect and are new to boxing so that there are issues when positive tests come up I don't find that surprising with the Morales one really being the first high profile one. They need to get that sorted out, but that is about as far as it goes currently but it could go further especially if the Floyd stuff is true because on their site it shows the summery and that Floyd was clean by their standard so that would be total corruption and then it would all make a trend.

Per the espn article, the commission was told the B sample would not be available till after the fight. Per Keith Idec, the B sample was available and dirty. Additional dirty tests were available. You'd have to be crazy to ask questions, right?

Of course this goes beyond a compromise. A no compromise position is: notify the commission the B sample is dirty, have them decide if bad meat is to blame. A compromise is: notify the commission, but recommend they grant a waiver. But they didn't even do that, they told them it wasn't gonna be available till after the fight, because they thought bad meat might be to blame and they wanted to "tread lightly".

Nevermind the lying, don't you see the conflict of interest in them getting to make the decision? With Mex football team, the party that granted the waiver, WADA, was not contracted out by the Mexican football association to do the testing.

[josenoway]

No, I'm not saying that at all. You're the one saying it.

If you actually bothered to read the article with an objective stance, you'd realize they were bothered by the fact that his samples from MEXICO were tainted, so they tested his sample while he was in the US and it came back clean.

WADA didn't just clear the Mexican football players in 2011, they also cleared a Dutch cyclist, Philip Nielsen, who tested positive for Clen at the end of a race in MEXICO.

It's really not that hard to understand. If Morales's 3rd sample, taken while he was in the US, came back positive, USADA in all likelihood would have labeled him a true positive.

Originally Posted by BattlingNelson

Basically you are saying, that they should keep testing untill the results are negative.

[The Gambler1981]

Originally Posted by HeroBando

Per the espn article, the commission was told the B sample would not be available till after the fight. Per Keith Idec, the B sample was available and dirty. Additional dirty tests were available. You'd have to be crazy to ask questions, right?

Of course this goes beyond a compromise. A no compromise position is: notify the commission the B sample is dirty, have them decide if bad meat is to blame. A compromise is: notify the commission, but recommend they grant a waiver. But they didn't even do that, they told them it wasn't gonna be available till after the fight, because they thought bad meat might be to blame and they wanted to "tread lightly".

Nevermind the lying, don't you see the conflict of interest in them getting to make the decision? With Mex football team, the party that granted the waiver, WADA, was not contracted out by the Mexican football association to do the testing.

I know the conflict of interests and have wrote about them before, but USADA is the least of those. USADA is full of doctor and scientists they should be able to tell with two different failed tests what amounts were in the system and the rate of decay were inline with the contamination excuse because the levels in a person system that is cheating should be vastly different.

Everyone NYSAC, GBP and Garcia all wanted the fight to go on, all were invested so even though the testing was done no one wanted to really honor it. That is the real conflict of interest if left to those parties the commission wants the fight to go down for revenue both future and present, GBP wants the fight to go down because they invested and want the show to go on, the opposing fighter wants to get his pay check. Whoever pays USADA doesn't matter if there is no one to enforce it.

As for the Mexican soccer team, the Mexican federation is part of CONCACAF who was running that tournament and do you think they wanted a watered down Mexican team at their premier event which is the best team (hurts to say that) and brings them by far the most money, so that conflict always exists. Not just in boxing, FIFA and and regional soccer bodies don't like WADA either because they don't want to give up the control. USADA and WADA are all part of the same structure so if one is bad the other is rotten also.

[brick wall]

compormise was pretty obvious with USADA.
when golden boy fighters (peterson and berto) were tested by VADA, and VADA informed the commission about the result, golden boy had no choice but to cancel the fights. gbp lost money promoting those fights and that's something they don't want to happen again so when morales got caught, they didn't inform the commission right away and it looks like they were just forced to reveal it when the positive result got leaked. if the testing was done by VADA, that fight was probably got cancelled again.

[HeroBando]

Originally Posted by The Gambler1981

I know the conflict of interests and have wrote about them before, but USADA is the least of those. USADA is full of doctor and scientists they should be able to tell with two different failed tests what amounts were in the system and the rate of decay were inline with the contamination excuse because the levels in a person system that is cheating should be vastly different.

Everyone NYSAC, GBP and Garcia all wanted the fight to go on, all were invested so even though the testing was done no one wanted to really honor it. That is the real conflict of interest if left to those parties the commission wants the fight to go down for revenue both future and present, GBP wants the fight to go down because they invested and want the show to go on, the opposing fighter wants to get his pay check. Whoever pays USADA doesn't matter if there is no one to enforce it.

As for the Mexican soccer team, the Mexican federation is part of CONCACAF who was running that tournament and do you think they wanted a watered down Mexican team at their premier event which is the best team (hurts to say that) and brings them by far the most money, so that conflict always exists. Not just in boxing, FIFA and and regional soccer bodies don't like WADA either because they don't want to give up the control. USADA and WADA are all part of the same structure so if one is bad the other is rotten also.

WADA doesn't give a sh1t about the CONCACAF tournament, and they're sufficiently empowered. The controls are way tighter in soccer, in boxing there are none. Even the commission has an interest in letting things slide, but not to the same degree as the promoters that are paying for the testing. And in this case, the commission was not even aware of USADA's involvement till the samples tested dirty.

[The Gambler1981]

Originally Posted by HeroBando

WADA doesn't give a sh1t about the CONCACAF tournament, and they're sufficiently empowered. The controls are way tighter in soccer, in boxing there are none. Even the commission has an interest in letting things slide, but not to the same degree as the promoters that are paying for the testing. And in this case, the commission was not even aware of USADA's involvement till the samples tested dirty.

Then why did WADA let a bunch of guys slide for something there is 0 tolerance for, have they explained that? My guess is soccer brings in more to the WADA cause than boxing does to USADA. USADA might have thought it was contamination the whole time, so if they believed that why come out with anything. It would be a false positive.

The commissions would have to want to know, willful ignorance~

[KRAFTSMAN]

Don't even know what these people are defending. I thought everyone is for cleanliness in boxing. (Hmmm... I know who they are defending.)

[HeroBando]

Originally Posted by The Gambler1981

Then why did WADA let a bunch of guys slide for something there is 0 tolerance for, have they explained that? My guess is soccer brings in more to the WADA cause than boxing does to USADA. USADA might have thought it was contamination the whole time, so if they believed that why come out with anything. It would be a false positive.

The commissions would have to want to know, willful ignorance~

It wouldn't be a false positive, it'd still be a positive with some extenuating circumstances. I don't know why WADA allowed it then, they said it was gonna be a case by case decision. The commission perhaps would have taken this into consideration, if they'd been not been misinformed about the existence of the B sample.

You said: "Drug testers only jobs are to test for drugs and disclose the results anything that compromises that is a big deal". USADA already compromised on this by failing to disclose the results in a timely manner, and also by taking it upon themselves to excuse the dirty test. Them giving this waiver = conflict of interest.