Why olympic drug testing wasn't embraced by the boxing commission

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • dyu
    Interim Champion
    Gold Champion - 500-1,000 posts
    • Oct 2008
    • 627
    • 9
    • 0
    • 7,201

    #1

    Why olympic drug testing wasn't embraced by the boxing commission

    Originally posted by 2501
    Well, with that in mind, how many fights other than Mayweather/Mosley have used OST?
    Originally posted by No Ceilings
    Arthur Abraham.........

    Originally posted by 2501
    thats it? I mean, you're making it seem as if the boxing world is behind OST, yet, only Arthur Abraham has done OST? And wasn't that a requirement of his promotion company?

    How many Al Haymon fighters have done OST since Mayweather's crusade?

    Originally posted by No Ceilings
    How much does it cost an what boxers can afford that?
    There you have it ...
    Last edited by dyu; 08-17-2010, 03:00 PM. Reason: missing "drug" testing
  • MindBat
    floyd gobbler
    Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
    • Jun 2006
    • 16853
    • 571
    • 841
    • 25,210

    #2
    Nobody has been able to explain this yet:

    Ariza: "I'm responsible for what Manny takes. He has no Idea what he takes."

    Now that's sig worthy.

    Comment

    • Clegg
      Banned
      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
      • Mar 2008
      • 24673
      • 3,726
      • 2,307
      • 233,274

      #3
      If you mean why don't the commissions favour better testing for all top fights, then I'd say it's probably because the top people in the sport don't want it. Why risk having a big name fail a test, make the sport look bad and cost his promoter, manager, trainer, HBO/Showtime and the casinos money by getting a ban?

      Another factor is cost. A lot of fighters don't make a great deal even before everyone starts taking a cut, then the sanctioning body wants a cut, then the taxman comes along...giving up even more money to pay for drug testing is something that a lot of boxers could do without. But for people at the top of the sport this is no excuse as they do make a good deal of money even considering how greedy promoters are.

      In the UK they brought in an annual brain scan for all professional boxers about 10-15 years ago, so as to check if there were any changes or abnormalities. For the first year of this, Frank Warren donated the money to pay for it. Maybe if someone offered to do something like that it would help a great deal to get the ball rolling.

      But I suspect you weren't looking for a serious answer...

      Comment

      • IMDAZED
        Fair but Firm
        Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
        • May 2006
        • 42644
        • 1,134
        • 1,770
        • 67,152

        #4
        Originally posted by Clegg
        If you mean why don't the commissions favour better testing for all top fights, then I'd say it's probably because the top people in the sport don't want it. Why risk having a big name fail a test, make the sport look bad and cost his promoter, manager, trainer, HBO/Showtime and the casinos money by getting a ban?

        Another factor is cost. A lot of fighters don't make a great deal even before everyone starts taking a cut, then the sanctioning body wants a cut, then the taxman comes along...giving up even more money to pay for drug testing is something that a lot of boxers could do without. But for people at the top of the sport this is no excuse as they do make a good deal of money even considering how greedy promoters are.

        In the UK they brought in an annual brain scan for all professional boxers about 10-15 years ago, so as to check if there were any changes or abnormalities. For the first year of this, Frank Warren donated the money to pay for it. Maybe if someone offered to do something like that it would help a great deal to get the ball rolling.

        But I suspect you weren't looking for a serious answer..
        .
        Classic

        Comment

        Working...
        TOP