Tweet
WADA's Gary Wadler on random blood testing
Originally posted by WADA's Gary Wadler
Link: < http://boxing.fanhouse.com/2010/01/2...ing-in-sports/ >
-
30 days? 24 days? 14 days? Doesn't matter. Blood tests are based on red blood cell count which has a lifespan of 120 days (4 months). Not to mention there will unlimited urine testing.
Link: < http://boxing.fanhouse.com/2010/01/2...ing-in-sports/ > -
do they also test for agi-meth? -
More reasoning to conclude that Manny missed the opportunity to have been part of history by helping to make the playing field fair for everyone in boxing...
"Never before has random blood-testing been used in boxing, which uses only urinalysis to detect the use of steroids and other illegal drugs.
Wadler also address other sports, however, making it clear during this Q&A that his position is that all sports -- professional and amateur -- should employ random blood-testing along with urinalysis."
Interview with Travis Tygart
Interview with Dr. Margaret Goodman
Should boxing implement random blood-testing
FanHouse: How could boxing be helped by blood-testing?
Gary Wadler: I don't think there is any sport that is inherently immune from doping. The issue is not so much the sport of boxing as the doping. People in agencies who are not particularly enamored of aggressive anti-doping efforts are throwing in roadblocks, and one of the roadblocks that has been thrown in over the past has been the issue of taking blood.
That's not a new complaint. Some 20 years ago, there were people who felt that giving blood was a dangerous thing in terms of getting an infectious diseases. But of course, they had it backward. You have to get blood not take blood to get an infectious disease.
There have always been groups out there who have resisted blood-testing. But I must say that in the last number of years, that has sort of faded into the background. But this Pacquiao-Mayweather thing is the first resurfacing of it that I'm aware of in a while.
I'm not in the testing end of the business, I'm in the list end of the business, but it [Mayweather-Pacquiao] sort of awakened the argument about blood-testing.
Having said that, when I was testifying before congress, the point I made about Major League Baseball and The National Football League is that they ought to do blood-testing to enable the testing for things like human growth hormones, and, of course, they have resisted.
And to this day, they have resisted for a variety of reasons that are unclear. The argument, apparently, in the Pacquiao case is that it has resulted in the diminished performance if he's deprived of having all of his blood.
My comment is that the amount of blood that needs to be taken is so insignificant as to have no meaning in terms of performance at all. Virtually zero if not absolutely zero I thought that that was something that needed to be said -- that you can't use the argument that if you're taking a tube or two tubes of blood, now you've weakened me so that I can't any longer perform at an optimum level.
I felt that was fallacious reasoning and a disingenuous argument. I think that argument still goes on.
FH: Should boxing and MMA be policed similarly?
Wadler: I think that there should be a standardized list that applies across all sports, and that's how I think that you should view that. One of the problems in boxing of course is that there are all of these different governing bodies, which I can't even begin to name.
And they all come with a different menu. And if if blood-testing is going to work, you can't have all those different menus.
You have to have a standard menu across all sports, and I think that has to be consistent, and everybody has to know what the rules are and what the prohibited substances are, and what the testing requirements are.
The key is standardization so that everybody knows the rules and they all have the same rulebook. You can't have one set of substances banned in this sport, and another in another sport, and another in another sport. There are too many variables that it makes it difficult for the athletes to even know the rules that they're operating under.
FH: Do you see any problems with a fighter or fighters dictating a timetable for being randomly blood-tested before or after a fight?
Wadler: There's not only a question of the drugs, but the mechanisms used to subvert the test itself. You can manipulate any drugs. There are lists of methods and techniques to evade detection, because that's really what you're asking.
You have to understand the issue is not that the EPO itself does not enhance performance by having it in your body. EPO has to result in increased red [blood] cells, and that takes time.
EPO is just a marker of the manipulation. It's 'I'm trying to increase my red [blood] cells using a substance called EPO, or one of the related substances.'
The real issue is 'What's the red [blood] cell count at the time, and what's the time sequence.' If you give somebody EPO, the life of a red cell is 120 days, so we're talking about a long period of time. The bottom line is 'What is the red cell count.'
You want to look at a series of numbers and not just the EPO. So if the red count is going up -- say your red count was normally 45 percent, 45 percent, 43 percent, 44 percent, 46 percent, over a period of weeks and months for years. And then, suddenly, it's 52? That would run a red flag in that circumstance.
So it's not a single test or a single substance -- and red cells are really important in that regard. It's the so-called biological passport. And that's the method into which we're moving more and more.
FH: If a boxing commission or commissioner came to you and asked you what methods to use in order to improve their drug-testing process, what would you tell them?
Wadler: I would tell them to sterilize the system using exactly the testing protocol called for under the World Anti-Doping Code, which is what USADA uses for example.
I would tell them that, within the united states, contract out to USADA, or establish some sort of relationship with USADA using the prohibited list of the USADA, which is the WADA list.
Using the testing protocol, the where-about protocols, and the protocols that are part of USADA and which are enunciated in the world anti-doping code.
I think that they should externalize and contract [the random blood-testing] out to an independent, transparent and accountable entity which has no vested interest in the results, and that's the way that it should be done.
I don't think that it should be a political debate. Anybody who is participating in competitive athletics wants to be
assured of a level playing field.
And to me, part of having a level playing field is to have a first-class, anti-doping program.Comment
-
See...this is exactly why i have never seen the difference between 14 and 24day cutoff. You would still have urine testing every single day in between the cutoff date and fight night plus another blood test immediately after the fight.
I know some smartass is going to reply to me saying that Pacquiao could be on some **** that's only detectable in blood.
Oh yeah??? well if that's the case then why include urine testing in the clause at all if it's obviously useless anyway???Comment
-
let me ask my doctor whos a member of mayweather mafiaComment
-
He didn't miss the opportunity to help. He was obviously being bullied by the Mayweather camp and he only stood his ground. Like he said before, if the commision would like to do random blood testing even on the day of the fight, then so be it. He'll play by the commision's rules, not Floyd's.Originally posted by Mindbat
But let's not forget the issue at hand, blood testing within 30 or 24 or 14 days or on the fight night does not matter. Red blood cells are the key element to testing like what Gary said. Which stays on your system for 4 months.Comment
Comment