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

DE10016y ago

The following is a complete transcript of the interview Tygart granted to Mayo: Q: Have you ever spoken with anyone from the Mayweather side about this topic? A: "Through the Mayweather-Pacquiao discussion, we talked with both camps on a number of occasions about the basics of an effective anti-doping program." Q: How did the feedback you got from them differ, because, obviously, they had different perspectives on it? A: "Out of respect for that process I don't want to go into a ton of detail. But it's safe to say that the Mayweather camp wanted the carte blanche, gold-standard program that we run, and the other side didn't want to do that." Q: For so many years, it was perceived that, except for heavyweights, performance-enhancing drugs didn't make a lot of sense for most boxers, in a sport where you're trying to cut weight and make a minimal weight to perform, relative to punching power, at the highest level. Was that misguided? A: "Absolutely. It amazes me. I'm not even sure how to respond to such a misperception. Where has the sport been for the past 10 years, seriously? Candidly, it's impossible for me to believe that that perception exists about the sport. I think it's easier to stick your head in the sand and just say 'We're not going to do anything about it.' "When you've got 14-year-old in-line roller skaters doping, and you've got drugs like insulin, and human growth hormone, and designer steroids, and EPO, and transfusions, that would be extremely potent and effective for a boxer -- even one attempting to cut weight -- then you throw in the whole diuretics and masking agents, the things that you would use along with those drugs to assist you in cutting weight, it's a ripe area for a doper. Unchecked and unregulated, it's going to be no different than any other sport, and arguably even worse, given the combat nature of it, and the prizes that are at stake at the elite professional level." Q: In fact, some performance-enhancers lean you out, don't they? A: "The HGH, the ability to put on lean muscle mass, whether you're increasing your weight or decreasing your weight, these categories of drugs that are prohibited in sport in the Olympic world, on a relatively simple program, are extremely potent in order to do that -- to become the strongest, fittest, pound-for-pound best boxer, with the most punch, with very little expense or knowledge behind it." Q: Shane Mosley obviously slipped through some cracks on urine testing alone in Nevada. ... A: "Let me correct that premise for you. The current state of drug testing done by these state commissions is a joke. They don't test for EPO. They don't test for designer steroids. They test for a basic, simple menu that anybody with a heartbeat will escape. I just hate to hear that Shane Mosley did something really sophisticated to get around their testing. No, he didn't. He would've been caught dead to rights in our program. But it doesn't take a whole lot to sidestep the simple kind of drug testing that these state commissions are doing. "Again, I hope it's familiarity, I hope it's knowledge, because part of the growth is for entities, but also athletes, to become knowledgable about these issues. If you're a clean athlete, or you're a sport organizer, promoter, state commission, whatever, if you want to protect clean athletes' rights, you're going to put in a clean program." Q: And that includes both blood and urine testing? A: "Blood and urine but it's got to be an effective urine program. Again, just a couple tests here and there that everyone knows about, or 72-hour notice that you're going to be tested, or 48-hour notice -- it has to be true, no-notice testing. And it has to be a broad menu of tests. And they don't test for EPO. What was reported on Mosley is that he was using EPO. And he could use it without regard for being caught because they weren't testing it -- and there is a urine-based test for most EPO. So you've got to start with an effective urine program and an effective blood program. And the reason, to answer your specific question, that you need to do blood is because there are certain, and several, potent performance-enhancers that are not detected in the urine. Of those, human growth hormone being one; HBOC, which is synthetic hemoglobin; certain forms of EPO, like Micera; and then, the transfusions." Q: If you blood test, is urine testing necessary at all? A: "Yes, because there are certain things that you're not going to find in the blood, that you can only find in urine, like most forms of EPO, steroids, designer steroids, insulin. You have to have a combination of the two. Look, I'd love to have one strand of hair. From a cost and logistical standpoint, the simpler whatever we collect, the better. Not that collecting blood and urine are difficult, but you have to have the proper procedures in place, and account for the shipping, and the state that you need the samples, once collected, to remain in a preserved state where they can be accurately analyzed. You can build those programs. It doesn't take much. We obviously would prefer the simplest mechanism possible. But just pulling a strand of hair is not effective to protect a clean athlete's rights because there is so much that can't be detected in hair, or saliva, or other things." Q: What is the difference in cost -- because obviously, with most state commissions, you're dealing with tax-based, governmental agencies -- what's the difference in cost between a urine test and a blood test? A: "There's not much. Incremental cost. It's certainly not cost-prohibitive and if you want to protect clean athletes, you'll put it in place. Take half of one percent of what these two boxers were going to generate, or make for themselves, and you've paid for a couple years of your program. I always hear that is a defense to not wanting it to be done, but it's really not. It's frankly a weak excuse not to protect clean athletes' rights." Q: I'm sure you've become aware that Mayweather and Mosley are now targeting each other and now the Mayweather camp is saying that regardless who he fights in the future, they will be subject to blood testing as part of the contractual agreement. If Mosley had been tested in 2002, 2003, when he was using EPO, "the clear," "the cream," would an effective system have been in place, would the technology have been in place, to detect it back then? A: "Yes. Assuming what's out there is accurate, he would've fit right in the same lines. While BALCO was on the cutting edge, the EPO was not. The minor steroids were, but those were eventually detected, and all those athletes -- what, 20-plus now, coaches and athletes in the Olympic movement -- have been brought to justice for their cheating through BALCO. And a number of the other professional athletes, baseball players, football players, while their sports didn't sanction them, they've been exposed. So the sport has to have rules to sanction for those cutting-edge-type of products. But when they do, like we demonstrated in the Olympic movement, they would have been held accountable." Q: Obviously, this is a bit of an unusual situation where the athlete steps up and demands, on behalf of himself, that the sport -- maybe it's not unusual in your experience; maybe you can recall other instances of -- but certainly the first time some of Mayweather's stature, in his sport, demands enhanced testing; are you hopeful that this has some sort of a chain-reaction effect throughout boxing? A: "Absolutely. The core of anti-doping is clean athletes' rights -- their right to participate in their sport, by the rules. We think there is no bigger injustice than when a clean athlete is robbed of all their hard work, and their dedication, and is cheated by an athlete using drugs against the rules. What's been behind not only our creation, in late 2000, but also our success, is that clean athletes say 'We want blood testing, we want you to spend money on research, we want you to save our samples, we want the inconveniences that come along with us being tested out of competition, without notice, because that is the only thing that will protect our right to compete on a level playing field." 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? A: "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." Q: If I had 72 hours, could I mask EPO? A: "Yeah."

Comments (20)

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.

16y ago

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.

16y ago

sNiTcH

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

16y ago

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.

16y ago

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.

16y ago

HighUnderground

That's always been the case with Floyd. Honestly, if it wasn't for his talk--he wouldn't be where he's at. I agree, you make some good points but you also have to consider Pacquiao's reasons---while albeit weak from a nuetral point of view-- is important to him, so there should be some give and take from both sides of the negotiations. 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.

16y ago

Tsukiyomi

That's because you're taking Tygert's quote out of context. He was asking which testing protocol would have been implemented before the 14 day or 24 day cut-off period -- the NSAC's or CSAC's? He stated if that was the case (either agency's protocol being used), then he's not so much concerned about those cut-off periods as he is about the two months prior to that. That's what I read into it, unless you need him to further clarify what he said. 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.

16y ago

rao007

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. That's always been the case with Floyd. Honestly, if it wasn't for his talk--he wouldn't be where he's at. I agree, you make some good points but you also have to consider Pacquiao's reasons---while albeit weak from a nuetral point of view-- is important to him, so there should be some give and take from both sides of the negotiations.

16y ago

Modobo3

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. Great Post!!! No hate towards Pac...Just another fair observation from a boxing fan who just wanted to see the fight.

16y ago

HighUnderground

No-one is spinning this article into something positive for Pacquiao---I just find it interesting that haters want to use it to prove a point about Pacquiao roiding---which is hilarious if you a look at the interview. and it's great testing is improving. 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.

16y ago

djsygo

Reading that interview tells me that Pacquiao is telling the truth, he really just thinks taking blood weakens him. Because in truth, 14 days is plenty of time if he was doping. He would have time to mask it, so if he was really doping he would have no problem with taking the 14 day test, so he isnt doping, he just didnt want Floyd telling him what to do and he didnt want blood taken that close to fight night. it tells me right the other way around ...just think he would have less time to train on the drugs...only 14 days of window instead of 26, in wich maybe he knows he can peak or be near THAT condition. And then again what would be different if he had nothing to hide?

16y ago

IMDAZED

yes. there are no details that provide specific instances of an athlete being able to naturally rid their bodies of PEDs naturally. all i see is can they mask this, can they mask that. you said it yourself "flushed out." masking agents are tested for. you cant just expect to piss out weeks, maybe months worth of PED cocktails by just drinking extra water or sweating em out. how are doctor's just gonna show up unannounced when a fighter's on vacation at an undisclosed location? how do they know when theyre home? you want fighters to give up their right to privacy to they can be tested "unannounced?" again, marion jones and tim montgomery beat random, "unannounced" testing. no testing is fool proof, but at some point you have to factor fighters' rights to privacy and the overall intrusiveness of testing. how much is enough? I was tempted to go through all of this and respond paragraph by paragraph but it's Friday and I'm off to drink. However, let me ask you: How do you feel about boxing's current testing system and what changes (if any?) would you make?

16y ago

Blue_Heffner

16y ago

Championart

Excellent article, i don't see how people can deny that boxing is in dire need of this testing program asap.

16y ago

Siggy

First of all, all tests done by the NSAC for boxing are scheduled--unless you think being told that you will be tested in two days is "random.". Secondly, boxing does not have "unanounced tests." Finally, there are many PEDs that can be flushed out with even hours notice. Did you even read the article I sent you? How about the interview the TS was so nice as to provide? Apparently not or you wouldn't go on with your misguided theories. yes. there are no details that provide specific instances of an athlete being able to naturally rid their bodies of PEDs naturally. all i see is can they mask this, can they mask that. you said it yourself "flushed out." masking agents are tested for. you cant just expect to piss out weeks, maybe months worth of PED cocktails by just drinking extra water or sweating em out. how are doctor's just gonna show up unannounced when a fighter's on vacation at an undisclosed location? how do they know when theyre home? you want fighters to give up their right to privacy to they can be tested "unannounced?" again, marion jones and tim montgomery beat random, "unannounced" testing. no testing is fool proof, but at some point you have to factor fighters' rights to privacy and the overall intrusiveness of testing. how much is enough?

16y ago

QB_Bomber

Precisely. I've asked before: If not now, then when would be the best time to start? If not Floyd, then whom should make everyone aware of it? But, now what if Manny was the one to bring up the random testing and Floyd refused? OMFG!!! All the threads on page 1 of BoxingScene would be about Floyd refusing the random tests that Manny requested. No doubt about it, their hate for Mayweather is what's allowing Pacquiao to duck a steroid test...

16y ago

rao007

16y ago

HighUnderground

Plenty of petitions have been made in the past. Thomas Hearns has, Riddick Bowe has. Just shut up and go away. You are wasting your time bro, there are too many inept individuals on this forum. I don't know how anybody thinks they can reasonably spin this article into something positive for Manny. Too many delusional nuthuggers around here.

16y ago

MindBat

Where are you even going with this angle? Everyone on this planet, not just fighters, is responsible for their own well-being. Its not Mayweathers job to be the guardian angel of boxing and clean up the sport for all the dumb boxers out there, people need to take responsibility for themselves. If Migel Cotto wants to blindly enter the ring against roided up monsters and guys with bricks on their hands, thats his problem. Mayweather is not relying on an incompetent commission for his health and safety. He is going to have Olympic style testing for every fight from here on out just like Arthur Abraham. I applaud them both. Precisely. I've asked before: If not now, then when would be the best time to start? If not Floyd, then whom should make everyone aware of it? But, now what if Manny was the one to bring up the random testing and Floyd refused? OMFG!!! All the threads on page 1 of BoxingScene would be about Floyd refusing the random tests that Manny requested.

16y ago

rao007

It's funny that most of the things USADA seems to be after is EPO and not steroids.

16y ago