Shocking PED revelations by T. Hauser. GBP, Mayweather, Quillin, Morales.

[BattlingNelson]

but he isn't a journalist here he is an online writer so for anyone to say that the ethics of journalism that newspaper reporters have applies here isn't true. There is a reason this article as written would NEVER be in a newspaper.

Did you not notice how much research there was put into the article? Several keypersons was interviewed. More was approached for an interview. The article is made in a timeframe of many months!

It's investigative sports journalism.

[pesticid]

Absolutely. If there's no truth to this GBP and USADA will ensure that Hauser will only do kindergarten cartoons in the future.

But surely a man of Hauser's caliber knows that and is prepared.

Bat,

Answer me this please! Why is Hauser not mentioning that both Peterson and Berto got suspended and didn't go through with their respective fights, just cause they got found out? Morales failed the test, but the Commission and Team Garcia didn't care so the fight went through Morales was taking dietetics and got destroyed. How is it again only a GBP issue.

How about him reporting that GBP and Mayweather had to bring all the doping tests from Mayweather's last 3 fights. From what I remember they had to provide all legal documents and not just the USADA documens. Why would GBP and Mayweather want to expose their finances and numbers to Arum?

Is it possible that Mayweahter is taking pain killers for his arthirtis in his hands and hence he meets the exception by USADA? And if it's not the case, why is GBP being blamed and not USADA?

Why is Victor Conte being used as a credible source against USADA when USADA brought him down?

Why is Victor Conte not mentioned when the writer talks about Berto's failed test. Victor has been working with Berto and has been his supplier for at least a year and a half? Conflict of interest, you bet!

Why is he writing for Maxboxing, who is owned by Steve Kim, who is owned by Top Rank?

Why does he have to mention his relationship with Goodman, to show us that he is objective yet she used to work for GBP and now is no longer working with them?

There are so many red marks and inconsistencies to say the least. Thomas Hauser is a great writer and has very knowledgeable source. My favourite boxing writer to read, but this piece of his is full of holes and propaganda.

Now if he would've written the same article without the inconsistencies it would've had an entirely different effect on the readers. Instead he painted as GBP is an evil company that hasn't lost any money due to fighter being caught doping, hasn't had any success introducing USADA and more importantly, the rumor that USADA is hiding Floyd's results.

Now Conte is Montoya's primary source when it comes to doping so is it possible that Conte is the anonymous source here who has an axe to grind against USADA for obvious reasons?

[Alibata]

Agree but again it doesn't matter where he went to school or what he used to do, this is online content that, to my knowl;edge, has not been submitted to a newspaper. If he is not writing for a newspaper to say the journalistic ethic applies to the writing simply isn't true.

Hauser may be 100% correct. But to say he has to follow the same standard as when he was submitting articles for a newspaper is simply incorrect. The editor and the legal team wouldn't let something like this be printed without corroborating the whole story.

gat dang bro. Honestly nobody really reads the newspaper anymore but old timers that dont know how to work a computer. If they do read a newspaper they read it online.

[The Big Dunn]

don't matter what medium he uses. In the boxing world he is highly respected.

alibata of course it does. Its the same as espn. stories that make espn don't hit the newspapers first because there is a different standard for news and entertainment. My only point is Hauser may have been a journalist in the past. yes he is respected.

But this piece, as written, has only appeared online and as such, NO ONE can equate it to having passed the same ethical standards that a newspaper article would have.

[Bullrider]

What is really shocking to me is learning about this testing agency destroying samples. These are not samples taken in prehistoric times. These are samples taken recently. That's evidence of a cover up right in front of your face. People are really not that dumb to know something strange has been going on.

[Alibata]

Did you not notice how much research there was put into the article? Several keypersons was interviewed. More was approached for an interview. The article is made in a timeframe of many months!

It's investigative sports journalism.

but it is not written on papyrus though. wtf??

[IMDAZED]

Stories like these make me feel like i cant trust anyone. Though the story is just a rumor for now it would be a real shocker if it where all true or even some of it. Makes you wonder if the were past greats who never got caught. Just imagine if SRL had been dopping and no one will ever find out about it? I have a feeling all of this is going to get swept under the rug coz if and i say if any of this is true theres too much to loose for everyone involved.

He likely was and we'll never know.

[Kagami Taiga]

The Lewinsky scandal started on 'The Drudge Report' based on rumors reported by 'Newsweek' editors, which were originally dug up by Michael Isikoff.

Look it up.

'The National Enquirer first broke the news of the Edwards scandal on October 10th, 2007, without naming a source.

Look it up.

There are other examples, but I'm not going to bother wasting my time tracking down every specific anonymous source and the dates in which they went public.

The bottom line here is something New England already said earlier : That rumor is the true lifesblood of honest journalism.

Ask any journalist.

sigh...ur not getting it still. it is not acceptable journalism to write an article premised off a rumour. even if a source is not named, u write an article premised off a source. what u are naming are articles premised off anon sources. that has nothing to do with rumours. rumours are important to journalism most certainly. they are what get the wheels spinning. but with that said, if u are writing an article and that article's foundation is rumour or innuendo, that article is not great journalism. its just not. its irresponsible. hauser did not cite one source not even an anon one. he basically says hes heard rumors and hes gonna run with it. how is that acceptable? thats barely above the crap u get on media take out.

[New England]

anonymous sources are not equal to rumors. its not the same thing at all. a source is a source. a rumor, by its definition is not in fact a source. it does no hold up to journalistic integrity. and dont tell me anything about hausers reputation, im aware of who he is. im still waiting for this whole proof that he supposedly had on dlh juicing as well. never came out either. if u are gonna go after ppl, at least go after them with legit sources and docs.

sure they are. or at least they can be. it's a matter of from whom the information is coming. is it some guy in a gym?
i doubt it.

it's a source in the know that hauser is basing this off of, if he's really on the up and up and doign this because he believes he's uncovered a big story. if it's not, you're right. all he's doing is basically slandering goldenboy.


what will hold up under "journalistic integrity," is the truth. if these "rumors" are founded, then he got them from a legit source. if not, it's just a "rumor" and that's not journalism, agree. we'll see what happens. hauser's rep is on the line.

i like the guy, but i hope that he's wrong.

[The Big Dunn]

Did you not notice how much research there was put into the article? Several keypersons was interviewed. More was approached for an interview. The article is made in a timeframe of many months!

It's investigative sports journalism.

Nelson:

I respect your point but to say this article has passed the ethical standards of news papers is just not correct. Yes Hauser has done alot of work. But becuase the article is online content it is subject to a different set of standards.

There is no way a newspaper could print as news a story that the author himself bases on "rumors".

I am not questioning Hauser's record, intelligence, honesty or anything like that. I'm simply saying no one can argue this article meets the ethical standard of a newspaper article when it isn't in one.