I don't know sh*t on PEDs, so I'm curious as to what extent the benefits of using PEDs when fighting inside the ring.
Let's take a look at some fantasy/real fights and please let me know who will win. The answer will at least give a little answer of "how effective it is?"
*with PEDs = assuming the fighter is taking the best available PEDs in the planet, following correctly the dosage and/or time (maybe taking a month, a year, 5 years, etc.)
1. Marquez (with PEDs) vs Mayweather Jr @ 147 =
2. David Diaz (with PEDs) vs Pacquiao @ 140 =
3. Jennings (with PEDs) vs Cotto @ 147 =
4. A. Gomez (with PEDs) vs Cotto @ 147 =
5. De La Hoya (with PEDs) vs Pacquiao @ 147 =
6. Malignaggi (with PEDs) vs Mayweather @ 147 =
7. Luevano (with PEDs) vs Maidana @ 140 =
Let's see if PEDs can make a super boxer.
How effective are PEDs in boxing?
Ask yourself this, how severe is the penalty, not just financially, but also to your repuation, now ask yourself how beneficial it is to take them.
Maybe not so effective, the reason is for example:
Mosley
Vargas
James Toney
When they fought, they didnt really give a good show.
James Toney looked bad against John Ruiz? Really?
Maybe not so effective, the reason is for example:
Mosley
Vargas
James Toney
When they fought, they didnt really give a good show.
Well Mosley in his first fight (and the second too really) he was able to put it on ODLH with a late surge (moreso the first fight). EPO would def have assisted with that. There are drawbacks aswell depending on the timing (i.e. when the cycle is stopped). You can hear Shane complaining about a tight back in his corner in the ODLH fight (not sure if it was no 1 or 2)......this is symptomatic of steroid use (likely the THG) ----> it can make your muscles tight.
Certainly there are drawbacks associated with long-term PED use or incorrect usage.
Thanks for the informative answer.
Regarding the PEDs allegation on Pac, I think he don't need that EPO because he was known for his great stamina even before he landed a fight in US.
And as what I've read, the urine EPO test is the only existing test to directly evaluate and prove the EPO abuse of athletes ?
Ok, I forgot to mentioned the purpose of this thread. First, I want to weigh the allegations on Pac being on peds and second, for personal education.
Urine is effective in testing for EPO. However it seems the NSAC does not test for EPO.........
lol, easy there cowboy.
Its no biggie.
Untie the knot in your chonies.
Relax I didn't mean it like that I have nothing against you just misread what you meant.
**** do you mean how many times do you have to say it I don't follow your posts and I wrote that about the same time as the other poster so I didn't see what you said back until I posted.
lol, easy there cowboy.
Its no biggie.
Untie the knot in your chonies.
EPO increases the synthesis of red blood cells and increases the amount of oxygen carried to the muscles. This is essentially why athletes train at high altitude------> they are looking to replicate the effect synthetic EPO has on the body. Ofcourse they won't achieve the same result naturally.
It's not rocket science that the effects of EPO will be benificaial to a boxer. It increases stamina....allowing you to train harder than you could naturally on your own (the same as other steroids).
There is a reason atheltes across sporst (and boxing) use it.
Victor conte even said as far as boxing goes EPO is likely to be the most effective PED.
Thanks for the informative answer.
Regarding the PEDs allegation on Pac, I think he don't need that EPO because he was known for his great stamina even before he landed a fight in US.
And as what I've read, the urine EPO test is the only existing test to directly evaluate and prove the EPO abuse of athletes ?
Ok, I forgot to mentioned the purpose of this thread. First, I want to weigh the allegations on Pac being on peds and second, for personal education.
Again, I don't mind better testing, as long as its for every fighter. How many times do I have to say it?
Its when select fighters start being singled out for dominating performances that it becomes a problem.
**** do you mean how many times do you have to say it I don't follow your posts and I wrote that about the same time as the other poster so I didn't see what you said back until I posted.
I'm pretty sure you can infer it.....but i will humour you.
USADA testing, being random, more frequent and testing for a wider range of substances (just better overall) is more likely to catch a cheater before the fight, than an announced and inferior form of testing.
And when it becomes standard across the board for all fighters,
I'll welcome it with open arms.
You got a problem with that?
Before.
Whats your point?
I'm not against better drug testing if thats what you're trying to get at.
I'm against it being for a select fighter.
Make it standard across the board and I'm sure you'll see everyone happy.
I'm pretty sure you can infer it.....but i will humour you.
USADA testing, being random, more frequent and testing for a wider range of substances (just better overall) is more likely to catch a cheater before the fight, than an announced and inferior form of testing.
Yea but there are methods that can be used to catch them before stuff like that happens. It's not like you can test a person and check there blood work to see if there going to commit a murder or steal something.
Again, I don't mind better testing, as long as its for every fighter. How many times do I have to say it?
Its when select fighters start being singled out for dominating performances that it becomes a problem.
Not at all.
But he did get caught regardless.
Just as many criminals are caught well after the fact that a crime was committed.
Before.
Whats your point?
I'm not against better drug testing if thats what you're trying to get at.
I'm against it being for a select fighter.
Make it standard across the board and I'm sure you'll see everyone happy.
I want it done on all fighters I could care less that they are targeting Manny.
Not at all.
But he did get caught regardless.
Just as many criminals are caught well after the fact that a crime was committed.
Yea but there are methods that can be used to catch them before stuff like that happens. It's not like you can test a person and check there blood work to see if there going to commit a murder or steal something.