Should opponents be notified about atypical PED findings below threshold?

It's tricky because some fighters do legitimately get contaminated products/food that isn't their fault. It seems crappy that they get punished despite them being innocent. But I put myself in the shoes of the opponent and realized that I'd want full disclosure in what I'm getting myself into. Boxing is a dangerous enough sport, and I'd be pissed if I found out my opponent had any trace of a banned substance in his system after the fact. The opponent can still agree to go on with the fight, but it should their decision to do so. The decision shouldn't be made for them.

If its below a threshold then no action should be taken. Whats the point of a threshold if you still get vilified even when your under the threshold.

When a guy tests positive the fight should be cancelled and the cheat should pay the other fighters training expences.

what is the point of having a threshold if you are going to treat below threshold as a positive result?

Such low levels give no advantage at all. So the safety argument is BS. No reason to damage an innocent persons reputation from microsamples absorbed from food. Which is why WADA upped the threshold. Absorbed from food? Lol. You sound like Victor Conte from BALCO. PED's are a huge advantage. The levels are irrelevant. It all depends on when the individual was tested. If an athlete cycles on steroids and then is tested after the cycle then the levels will be low. That sure does not mean that there is no advantage.

Just gonna bump this one again cos I'm genuinely interested in what people think on this one. try and get some more opinions in.

Such low levels give no advantage at all. So the safety argument is BS. No reason to damage an innocent persons reputation from microsamples absorbed from food. Which is why WADA upped the threshold. The problem is you can't tell whether it's from food or PED abuse. What WADA did was to set the threshold at a level above which food contamination was not even a realistic possibility, but findings below that level do not indicate that Clenbuterol wasn't used as a PED. ie above threshold = cheating but below threshold does not equal not cheating. They've made the call that protecting athletes from being falsely accused of cheating is more important than ensuring a level playing field and in the vast majority of sports I'd have to agree with 'em. Problem is with Clen that unlike many other drugs there's no method of telling when it entered the body so you can't tell how much has already been eliminated by the time of the test... in short you can't know with present methods whether they cheated or not, all you can do is establish whether food contamination is a reasonable possibility also. That said, this isn't particularly about Clenbuterol, but any drug where there's a reasonable degree of uncertainty over whether there may have been an advantage gained.

I don’t recall what Whyte had in his system. But just a couple days away from the fight.. I mean cmon... that’s that old school James Toney or RJJ pre fight testing years... ;). Old habits die hard. But regarding Clen in particular...I remember seeing a video where Angel Garcia said they didn’t care and Danny wanted the fight. I mean did the Garcia’s know or were consulted to not worry about Clen? If the Garcia’s acknowledged that it was specifically used so that Morales could make weight and ensure the fight, then I don’t see why Loeffler and Abel made a big deal about Canelo 78 days away for even having lower traces than Morales or Vargas. But we all know why! Diss the Mexican green strap while being a Mexican boxing star, and see what happens to you, especially when you’re not paying fees or insisting in rankings! All we're talking about is giving guys the information to make an informed choice. I imagine in most cases they would want the fight to proceed, but they should have the choice I think. Honestly with Clenbuterol - as with many drugs on the banned list - it's really difficult to tell how much advantage they really give in a sport with as many dependant factors as boxing, maybe it's very little - or maybe an opponent will think that it's very little - but either way I think the principle stands that they should be able to make an informed choice. Where it becomes problematic is if opponents then seek to leverage the information to renegotiate terms and so on... some thought should probably go in to how such situations shoulds be dealt with.

No. It will damage a fighters reputation, stupid people that have no idea what they're talking about will say they were taking PEDs even when most likely they are completely innocent. We have seen this with the Canelo situation. It will damge a fighter's reputation if low levels of PED's are found in his system and disclosed to his opponent? Is safety not paramount especially with the recent deaths attributed to the sport?

If levels are allowable and not illegal then I see no reason why an opponent needs to be informed. The important thing is to make sure that the threshold is set at an appropriate value. So that safety and integrity are maintained in the sport.

They should definitely be informed. The Whyte/Rivas situation should not be repeated. Whether or not a fighter is allowed or cleared to fight is irrelevant. The opponent should be advised of the situation and then can make a determination on how to proceed. This is very much my feeling too, and of course this thread was prompted by exactly the concern that we might see a repeat of the Whyte / Rivas situation - or more worryingly, of course, that we wouldn't see it at all...

Good thread. Just so you know, even if you’re below the threshold, your results still have to be verified for consistency with meat contamination. Here’s a list of athletes from USADA whom had amounts of Clenbuterol at high levels along with other banned substances that were SUSPENDED, banned. https://i.ibb.co/LJnbRpF/F050-C8-A0-4-E9-A-464-B-897-A-7832-A29-BB91-E.jpg But to answer your question, all parties are always technically notified. The WBC CBP would want to make sure all are notified, and I wouldn’t compare this to a Morales fight week incident or even closer to something like Dillian Whyte. I think Whyte has made concessions considering how his situation in ranking has been pushed back. Let’s not get carried away in comparing a Miller type of offense or boxers having a trace just a couple days away... Yes, I'm aware both WADA and the WBC included the fact that investigation was required in every case to verify that meat contamination was a reasonable possibility. of course in the case of WADA there was no requirement that opponents be notified, because the broad range of the sports covered would make such a statement nonsensical in most cases. However I haven't seen any statement from the WBC indicating that opponents will be informed in the event of an atypical finding below threshold. You seem to be confident in your belief that all parties will be notified even if under the new rules no offense will technically have taken place. I would be very appreciative if you could point me in the direction of any statements or official documentation you've seen to support this belief? And yeah, of course the Whyte / Rivas case is exactly what prompted this... it was completely unacceptable that Rivas was not informed regardless of whether the BBBoC felt that there was insufficient reason to postpone the fight or take piunitive measures against Whyte. The opponent is putting his health on the line and should always be informed - in my opinion at least.

In the light of the recent WBC ruling (based on interim WADA protocols) that codifies a threshold for Clebuterol concentration in urine tests for fighters who could potentially have been exposed to contaminated meat, should their opponents or potential opponents be notified of any non-negative findings even if they are below threshold? Any non negative finding - even below threshold - represents a chance that the fighter has used Clenbuterol as a PED even if the probability of meat contamination makes punitive measures unnacceptable per the WBC and WADA. Do you think opponents should be allowed the right to chose whether or not they face an opponent who might - at whatever probability - have been using a PED to gain advantage. Simple question. Should opponents be informed or not? They should definitely be informed. The Whyte/Rivas situation should not be repeated. Whether or not a fighter is allowed or cleared to fight is irrelevant. The opponent should be advised of the situation and then can make a determination on how to proceed.