The issue of PEDs in boxing remains prevalent and, it's appeared in recent years, completely unmanageable. Dr Margaret Goodman, of VADA, continues to fight the good fight, however. Though not responsible for regulation or punishment, she continues to strive for a clean sport with her tireless work for the premier drug-testing agency in the sport. Here, in the first of a three-part interview with BoxingScene's Tris Dixon, Goodman outlines her thoughts on 2025, her frustrations with WADA and the confusion surrounding 'trace amounts'.
Margaret, I think I might know the answer to this already, but how's the year been for you and VADA?
Insane. Very, very busy. There’s good, there’s bad. It’s been quite busy. So I guess that’s a good thing. You know, every situation is different. We still have issues when fighters test positive from the sense that every case is handled differently by them and their representatives and the commissions.
Obviously, that’s not our role to adjudicate anything, but we try to facilitate things as easily as possible for everyone.
Do you get, and I know I’m saying this off the back of three or four quite high-profile instances where there’ve been positive tests, do you get the feel that use of PEDs in boxing is increasing, or do you think you’re just catching more people, or is there a part of you that thinks actually it's not as bad as people will say it seems to say it is?
I think that in some respects it’s worse, because I think that some athletes, and it’s not just boxers and MMA fighters, have learned how to game the system. So we’re trying to keep up on that and ahead of that, and it’s very difficult.
It’s difficult also from the standpoint that WADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency, which we try to follow as far as prohibited substances, is not up to date as far as I’m concerned. And so I think that even though some of those substances that are not on the list that are being abused and used as performance enhancing agents are not on the list, but I think WADA is behind the times, and so that makes us behind the times.
If it’s an arms race, who’s winning, the goodies or the baddies?
Oh, I think the baddies always win, and you know there’s only so much you can do. We try to do the best job we can, but there’s always individuals out there that will want to cheat, or the individuals that will help others cheat. So all we can do is do what we can do.
Is it men’s and women’s boxing that you have the same feeling for, or do you feel like the women aren’t doing it anything like as much as the men?
I think it’s probably 60-40 men-women. I do think the women, as well, are abusing substances that are prohibited. I’m not sure that they’re as aggressive about it, and maybe because the cost effectiveness enters into it; hiring people to help individuals cheat. The women fighters sadly, for good or for bad, aren’t making as much money, and money does become an issue when you’re trying to work with someone to help you cheat. It just does.
And then I suppose the other question is about levels. I know that you test a lot of the high end, but do you get the feeling it is at all levels of the sport?
You know, one thing that I’ve noticed, I would say that because we’ve been doing a great deal more testing for individuals starting their career, especially the male fighters that we’ve been testing through Riyadh Season, a lot of them are newer fighters.
They don’t have the lengthy [testing] records that the others have, and I would say so far most of them have tested clean. Now a lot of that testing is fight night, so you can say, ‘Well, individuals could have stopped something,’ but I tend to think that a lot of the younger fighters coming up perhaps are not using as much as the guys and girls that have been around for a lengthy period of time. That’s an optimistic way of looking at things, I know. I just think as far as statistically of the individuals that have had adverse results, it tends to be those with more of an established career. I would hope that it’s the case that the newer fighters coming on the scene are not as bad as far as some of the others, but I don’t know that for sure.
I suppose this does feed into my next question, which is how are fighters getting PEDs? And I know there’s not a one-size-fits-all thing, but do you hear things? Do you get tip-offs, or do you think some people are literally just getting stuff off the internet? And I know particularly in America, you have anti-aging clinics and stuff, do you think that people are just going to those places? Is it a mixture of everything, or do you think that they’re largely coming through sophisticated means with strength and conditioning coaches who really know their stuff?
I think it’s a combination. I think that fighters have become more savvy in how to use the internet if they wish to cheat.
And so I think that’s not taken over, but I think that’s a larger percentage. But like we were talking about earlier, I tend to think that people are either talking to one another in the gyms, other fighters are telling them, giving them advice on how to obtain PEDs, but not just how to obtain them because they’re so easy to obtain online. It’s more how to use them and taper off or micro-dose. A lot of that, I’m sure, comes with strength and conditioning people that are trying to do the wrong thing and help their athlete, but I think it’s probably more of a combination.
You’ve just put an idea into my head, actually, and I’m loathe to say this in a public forum, but it makes me think, like do you think if I went on ChatGPT and it asked me like how to cheat, it’s going to give me a thing about how to do it?
You know, it's funny. ChatGPT seems to have a bit of a conscience and I actually asked ChatGPT at some point, I forget what it was, it wasn’t too long ago, about doing something like that and I think their response was, that’s against WADA and that’s not allowed kind of thing, but I’m sure there's ways around that, and I think the other thing that we were talking about earlier is I think there’s substances that are being abused and that are performance enhancing that are not yet on the WADA list and I think the WADA monitoring list and all of this is just way too slow if they really wanted to keep up.
Are you told about what certain people might be taking and are there certain substances you can’t test for? That alludes to the fact that maybe you do know what’s out there, but you can’t test it or you’re finding it and it’s not on the banned list.
Yes to all of that and there are some substances I can test for that are not on the list, but here’s the issue with that and trust me, we, our board and our attorney, we’ve discussed that [and asked] do we want to go in that direction? The problem with that is twofold. One, will commissions recognize an adverse test on something that’s not on the WADA list and also is that fair? Is that fair at this point since we’re not adjudicating anything, I think that it’s not the right thing to do, although – trust me – there are things out there that aren’t that big of a deal that we certainly could test for that I think are being abused and are performance-enhancing and even if you talk to the WADA accredited labs like Dr. Eichner, he will tell you that he agrees that that’s the case. But some of it is hard to test for, some of it can be tested for, but they understand that there’s substances out there that are being abused that are not on the WADA list.
So tell me about this trace amount thing. Does this mean that if you test someone on Wednesday and then you detect a trace, it’s almost out of their system, but if you tested them on Tuesday, they might have had a lot more in their system. Is that what it is? How does that work?
I don’t think anyone can truthfully answer that. We can assume that because there’s a small amount that it’s accidental, that it’s from a supplement that didn’t declare it, we can take that positive attitude, but I don’t think that anyone knows for certain. Labs or other individuals can make that assumption that it wasn’t meant to be there and it’s by accident and the athlete maybe shouldn’t be responsible, but I don’t think anyone knows the answer to that and I do think that micro-dosing is quite prevalent for anyone that is trying to cheat and so that becomes an issue. The other issue that’s super important is I don’t think anyone can truthfully answer to me and we’ve researched this, I’ve even researched it with the WBC who is trying to find out the answer to this question – are these small amounts beneficial? – and no one knows the answer to that. We’ve looked for months and months and to assume that these micro-doses of things are not beneficial in someone’s system, you can assume that’s the case because it’s such a small amount and that’s certainly the arguable point that athletes and their representatives and attorneys, et cetera, all put forth, but I don’t think that’s known for certain and that’s pretty frustrating to me as a physician.
Victor Conte used to say that regardless of the amount, he was very strong on the fact that there was always a residual benefit from it, right? If you’ve used it in the past, then it’s going to have an effect on you for some time in the future.
Well, I don’t know the answer to that, but I can tell you there has been research, for example, with testosterone and I believe that testosterone and similar entities are still the most prevalent in use for doping. There was a study that looked at the time span of when stopping something like testosterone had benefits and it actually had benefits months after. So, someone that maybe was misusing or let’s say had gone to an anti-aging clinic or had been just obtaining it through their doctor, saying they needed testosterone for a number of reasons, and women use testosterone quite readily as well, but irrespective of that, they may say they had to stop it. Let’s say they were on it and the commission says, ‘Oh no, we’re not going to permit usage of testosterone replacement therapy, no matter what your doctor said’ and, VADA and WADA, and other entities, USADA, all have experts that review that, but irrespective of that, the benefits of it can be months after stopping. So that bothers me a little bit if a commission says, ‘Okay, you just can’t be on it now, you’ve got a fight coming up in a few months. You have to stop that now.’ And the athlete stops it and it’s no longer detectable as an adverse result in their anti-doping tests, but did it have an effect and did it have still an effect that lasted months, months even after their event? And I think the answer to that is yes. It may be dependent upon how long they were on it before, but yeah, it can still have an effect as far as performance enhancement.
Part II will be published tomorrow (December 30) with the third and final instalment coming on December 31
