Comments Thread For: Jessie Vargas 'No Coward,' Joins The Fight Against PEDs

[tangalog2200]

also to be considered is who pays these tests specially during off times - meaning when there's no fights yet on the horizon...since the tests are 24/7/365....

and we have usada wada vada etc etc...who determines what agency to do the test?

and what about fighters not usa based? on pr, uk, phil japan mexico etc etc...

appears to me no one seems to have the answers for the above questions...too difficult or are these questions really irrelevant?...

and then, as one poster pointed out, there appears only a slap on the wrist type of penalty for those caught using peds...

the ped issue is not really just a waste bin to be simply collected....in a day....

got to do it year round and without exceptions...lest the garbage and stink remains

lest the noble act of getting rid of it becomes nothing but a circus and burlesque dance...a very expensive one...

[peplz]

I agree that the general stance "against" PED use in boxing is a dog and pony show. A very, very small few in the industry fully commit to the movement of a cleaner sport. Far too often, it is misused as a negotiating tool, which is NOT what drug testing should be about.

Where I disagree is on the "money-making smoke screen" part. VADA didn't profit at all in its first year, in fact had to rely on a loan to offset its excess expenses. I can't speak for USADA in that regard, but VADA definitely is not in it for the money. If that were the case, they'd have folded up shop the moment they went in the red.

This is the sentiment that your article seemed to express. The fact that you gave Mayweather no credit for bringing randomized drug testing to the sport in an article about drug testing is border line bizarre. The fact that you don't criticise Pacquiao at all for refusing to do random testing is very telling of where your bias truly lies. Sometimes I feel like Bob Arum is paying you guys to write these kinds of articles. He somehow developed a huge problem with USADA also. You're okay with WADA yet you're not okay with USADA yet they're the same organization. You say that using testing as a tool in negotiations isn't what testing should be about. But that statement doesn't even make sense if you really think about it. What. kind of negotiations advantage can even be gained by requesting testing other than knowing that your opponent isn't cheating. I get it. You're a Pacquiao supporter and you don't like Floyd Mayweather. But this whole argument about testing should supersede favoritism and biases. It was a good thing that ost was introduced into the sport. Floyd Mayweather was the man who brought it to the sport. Manny Pacquiao refused to do the testing. He fell on the wrong side of the debate and no matter how many articles are written to protect his image history will not be so kind. In fact, to some, the reluctance that is shown by many boxing writers like Dan Rafael specifically to be critical of him makes Pacquiao look more su****ious. You saying that testing is just a dog and pony show mostly kind of reveals your true intentions for writing the article in the first place. Making the testing debate be about what organization is better obviously serves a completely separate agenda. VADA didn't even exist when this debate started. So what was the crux of the issue back then? VADA vs USADA is definitely not what testing should be about. IT'S pretty journalistically dishonest and irresponsible for you to shade the issue with this VADA vs USADA nonsense just because you don't want to side with Mayweather over Pacquiao. I believe that if people in the media would have been brave enough to criticize Pacquiao when he so obviously deserved it for refusing to under go random drug testing instead of siding with him no matter how poorly he behaved we would have already seen a Mayweather Pacquiao fight. Maybe even twice.

[tangalog2200]

This is the sentiment that your article seemed to express. The fact that you gave Mayweather no credit for bringing randomized drug testing to the sport in an article about drug testing is border line bizarre. The fact that you don't criticise Pacquiao at all for refusing to do random testing is very telling of where your bias truly lies. Sometimes I feel like Bob Arum is paying you guys to write these kinds of articles. He somehow developed a huge problem with USADA also. You're okay with WADA yet you're not okay with USADA yet they're the same organization. You say that using testing as a tool in negotiations isn't what testing should be about. But that statement doesn't even make sense if you really think about it. What. kind of negotiations advantage can even be gained by requesting testing other than knowing that your opponent isn't cheating. I get it. You're a Pacquiao supporter and you don't like Floyd Mayweather. But this whole argument about testing should supersede favoritism and biases. It was a good thing that ost was introduced into the sport. Floyd Mayweather was the man who brought it to the sport. Manny Pacquiao refused to do the testing. He fell on the wrong side of the debate and no matter how many articles are written to protect his image history will not be so kind. In fact, to some, the reluctance that is shown by many boxing writers like Dan Rafael specifically to be critical of him makes Pacquiao look more su****ious. You saying that testing is just a dog and pony show mostly kind of reveals your true intentions for writing the article in the first place. Making the testing debate be about what organization is better obviously serves a completely separate agenda. VADA didn't even exist when this debate started. So what was the crux of the issue back then? VADA vs USADA is definitely not what testing should be about. IT'S pretty journalistically dishonest and irresponsible for you to shade the issue with this VADA vs USADA nonsense just because you don't want to side with Mayweather over Pacquiao. I believe that if people in the media would have been brave enough to criticize Pacquiao when he so obviously deserved it for refusing to under go random drug testing instead of siding with him no matter how poorly he behaved we would have already seen a Mayweather Pacquiao fight. Maybe even twice.

very well written and with very good points...

floyd and manny should not be dragged into this discussion - as well as vada against usada..in the manner they were made in the posts...

please refer to post#41 on my 2 cents worth on this subject..

and if i may add, who among the fighters have really subjected themselves on 24/7/365 testing regimen?......

[radioraheem]

I did elaborate. I specified that, unlike USADA, VADA uses CIR testing to detect synthetic testosterone.

Here are some more:

Their standards are no worse than equal to USADA (from my view on the outside looking in, they appear to be the superior company in that regard, but admittedly not a fully-informed opinion), yet are significantly cheaper.

Since their inception, they also seem to be the more effective in catching drug cheats - at least three boxers were popped within the program's first two full years of existence. USADA has caught one boxer to date, and allowed him to keep peeing in a cup until he finally produced a clean sample, and thus allowing him to fight.

So there are three reasons why I believe VADA to be superior to USADA. I'm more than willing to hear reasons why the opposite is true. Hopefully insults won't continue to be a part of the conversation.

This is one of the problem with writers like you -- you don't do your homework enough. USADA does in fact incorporate CIR. But you seem to be reading your lyrics from the old Victor Conte manual.

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/box...nte-assertions

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency took issue with assertions made by Victor Conte in a May 9 NYFightBlog post ("Peterson-Khan II off; Victor Conte told us so")...

"If USADA were doing the testing, he said, the CIR test would only have been done if a red flag was raised from their testosterone-to-epitestosterone test, or T/E ratio, test," the original post read. "Under USADA rules, if the T/E level breaches a 4-1 ratio, a CIR is then administered."**

USADA reached out to NYFightBlog to dispute the Conte claims about when it uses the CIR test. I should have reached out to USADA earlier. **USADA furnished a statement to this writer dis*****g much of what Conte said in the blog post.

"CIR is a regular part of the USADA testing program for all athletes under USADA's jurisdiction, as well as a routine part of the anti-doping programs conducted by USADA in the sport of professional boxing," USADA said. "It is completely inaccurate to say that CIR testing would only be done if a T/E ratio is 4-1."

USADA countered that CIR has, in fact, been embraced in the testing community:

"CIR has been used by anti-doping organizations internationally since the early 2000s and there have been many athletes sanctioned by USADA and other national anti-doping organizations around the world as the result of CIR testing. CIR is an important tool in our toolbox and we use it strategically and effectively."

"USADA also collects longitudinal data that allows us to monitor any fluctuations in an athlete's own biological parameters and closely examine any changes or indicators," USADA said. "(USADA) can also confirm that for the (May 5) Mayweather vs. Cotto fight, all of the samples collected from both fighters underwent CIR testing."

[radioraheem]

This is the sentiment that your article seemed to express. The fact that you gave Mayweather no credit for bringing randomized drug testing to the sport in an article about drug testing is border line bizarre. The fact that you don't criticise Pacquiao at all for refusing to do random testing is very telling of where your bias truly lies. Sometimes I feel like Bob Arum is paying you guys to write these kinds of articles. He somehow developed a huge problem with USADA also. You're okay with WADA yet you're not okay with USADA yet they're the same organization. You say that using testing as a tool in negotiations isn't what testing should be about. But that statement doesn't even make sense if you really think about it. What. kind of negotiations advantage can even be gained by requesting testing other than knowing that your opponent isn't cheating. I get it. You're a Pacquiao supporter and you don't like Floyd Mayweather. But this whole argument about testing should supersede favoritism and biases. It was a good thing that ost was introduced into the sport. Floyd Mayweather was the man who brought it to the sport. Manny Pacquiao refused to do the testing. He fell on the wrong side of the debate and no matter how many articles are written to protect his image history will not be so kind. In fact, to some, the reluctance that is shown by many boxing writers like Dan Rafael specifically to be critical of him makes Pacquiao look more su****ious. You saying that testing is just a dog and pony show mostly kind of reveals your true intentions for writing the article in the first place. Making the testing debate be about what organization is better obviously serves a completely separate agenda. VADA didn't even exist when this debate started. So what was the crux of the issue back then? VADA vs USADA is definitely not what testing should be about. IT'S pretty journalistically dishonest and irresponsible for you to shade the issue with this VADA vs USADA nonsense just because you don't want to side with Mayweather over Pacquiao. I believe that if people in the media would have been brave enough to criticize Pacquiao when he so obviously deserved it for refusing to under go random drug testing instead of siding with him no matter how poorly he behaved we would have already seen a Mayweather Pacquiao fight. Maybe even twice.

You make a lot of valid points that I agree with. You should throw them in paragraphs though! Hard to read what you said the way you got it.

But yeah, a lot of guys don't realize it's silly to compare those organizations. They don't even realize that VADA and USADA don't really test their samples. All they do is just send them over to the same UCLA laboratory in Los Angeles, where it gets tested and results get reported back to them. VADA and USADA just grabs the samples from the athlete.

And finally, the funny thing is, when Mayweather was making a big deal about the random drug testing, VADA didn't even exist. VADA was only created after Mayweather made such a big deal out of it and began using USADA. And USADA at the time was charging a high price to do it that wasn't affordable for other boxers. And that's where VADA came in -- being a much cheaper alternative. Today, they both charge close to the same prices though.

[peplz]

You make a lot of valid points that I agree with. You should throw them in paragraphs though! Hard to read what you said the way you got it.

But yeah, a lot of guys don't realize it's silly to compare those organizations. They don't even realize that VADA and USADA don't really test their samples. All they do is just send them over to the same UCLA laboratory in Los Angeles, where it gets tested and results get reported back to them. VADA and USADA just grabs the samples from the athlete.

And finally, the funny thing is, when Mayweather was making a big deal about the random drug testing, VADA didn't even exist. VADA was only created after Mayweather made such a big deal out of it and began using USADA. And USADA at the time was charging a high price to do it that wasn't affordable for other boxers. And that's where VADA came in -- being a much cheaper alternative. Today, they both charge close to the same prices though.

Duly noted...

[JakeNDaBox]

This is one of the problem with writers like you -- you don't do your homework enough. USADA does in fact incorporate CIR. But you seem to be reading your lyrics from the old Victor Conte manual.

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/box...nte-assertions

USADA doesn't regularly use CIR testing. They use it when specifically targeting athletes (mainly outside of boxing) they suspect are doping. I saw that they said they used it for Mayweather-Cotto back then. No name is ever given for "USADA" who went on record with those quotes. The organziation as a whole apparently made those statements.

If USADA used CIR testing all the time, they'd have caught more than one fighter in the four years they've been involved with testing boxers in US fights. And the one fighter they caught was an aged veteran on his way out - akin to a police force firing a bad cop two weeks away from retirement to suggest that sweeping changes are being made.

Had they stuck it out with the June 2 card that year, they - and not just the California State Athletic Commisison - would have caught Antonio Tarver. On that same card, Peter Quillin and Winky Wright were supposed to undergo testing, yet it was abruptly canceled without explanation. Later in the year, both Adrien Broner and Antonio DeMarco agreed to randon testing. Neither fighter was tested or notified that testing procedures were canceled.

I'm not just winging it when I write this stuff. When Floyd first announced he was testing with USADA prior to the Mosley fight, I was all the way behind him (http://www.boxingscene.com/mayweathe...h-other--26141). When Pacquiao fought Cotto and Margarito, I questioned his history-making feats, in fact accused Pacquaio of cheating history (http://www.si.com/boxing/2010/07/26/margarito-pacquiao). I know fans feel the need to pick sides with Mayweather and Pacquiao, and that their names MUST be linked every time random drug testing is mentioned.

But the fact is, this story was not about Mayweather, Pacquiao, or how drug testing became popularized in the United States. It's about fighters willing to undergo year-round, unconditional testing. Jessie Vargas is. His next opponent, Anton Novikov - who failed a drug test less than two years ago - is not. That, and nothing else, was the motivation for this story.

[JakeNDaBox]

This is the sentiment that your article seemed to express. The fact that you gave Mayweather no credit for bringing randomized drug testing to the sport in an article about drug testing is border line bizarre. The fact that you don't criticise Pacquiao at all for refusing to do random testing is very telling of where your bias truly lies. Sometimes I feel like Bob Arum is paying you guys to write these kinds of articles. He somehow developed a huge problem with USADA also. You're okay with WADA yet you're not okay with USADA yet they're the same organization. You say that using testing as a tool in negotiations isn't what testing should be about. But that statement doesn't even make sense if you really think about it. What. kind of negotiations advantage can even be gained by requesting testing other than knowing that your opponent isn't cheating. I get it. You're a Pacquiao supporter and you don't like Floyd Mayweather. But this whole argument about testing should supersede favoritism and biases. It was a good thing that ost was introduced into the sport. Floyd Mayweather was the man who brought it to the sport. Manny Pacquiao refused to do the testing. He fell on the wrong side of the debate and no matter how many articles are written to protect his image history will not be so kind. In fact, to some, the reluctance that is shown by many boxing writers like Dan Rafael specifically to be critical of him makes Pacquiao look more su****ious. You saying that testing is just a dog and pony show mostly kind of reveals your true intentions for writing the article in the first place. Making the testing debate be about what organization is better obviously serves a completely separate agenda. VADA didn't even exist when this debate started. So what was the crux of the issue back then? VADA vs USADA is definitely not what testing should be about. IT'S pretty journalistically dishonest and irresponsible for you to shade the issue with this VADA vs USADA nonsense just because you don't want to side with Mayweather over Pacquiao. I believe that if people in the media would have been brave enough to criticize Pacquiao when he so obviously deserved it for refusing to under go random drug testing instead of siding with him no matter how poorly he behaved we would have already seen a Mayweather Pacquiao fight. Maybe even twice.

I respect this post, it's very well thought out and that's all I ask for in any argument/debate/discussion. My full props to you.

Mayweather popularized how drug testing is viewed in the United States. Sauerland Event fighters who fight on ARD network in Germany have long been required to undergo year-round random drug testing. I mentioned them in my article because they never get the credit they deserve.

WADA and USADA are not one and the same. USADA is the US branch of the WADA program, but Travis Tygart doesn't oversee WADA - he oversees USADA.

To follow what I mentioned in the earlier post, I'm not a Pacquiao supporter or a Mayweather hate. Anytime I mention Mayweather in an article, I refer to him as boxing's pound for pound king. If the story has anything to do with revenue generated, then I also add his title of box-office king. But I don't feel the need to mention Mayweather in every article about random drug testing. He became an advocate of it, because the alternate was admitting he (and his family) openly accuses Pacquaio of being on steroids.

It was a big deal when he fought Mosley. However, it wasn't as big a deal in subsequent fights since he only fought once per year until last year. Now it's just accepted by Mayweather opponents that a fight with him means undergoing USADA testing. Yet neither he nor anyone else from Mayweather Promotions wishes to embrace the concept of holding their stable to similar standards, not even after two of its fighters tested positive (Mickey Bey's situation is forgivable; J'Leon Love not so much).

Pacquiao undergoing VADA testing for one fight was a joke. Had Ariza not been in Rios' corner for that fight, I'm not entirely convinced the demand for random drug testing would have come up. If he was really on board, he'd have joined Tim Bradley in such testing for their rematch.

So for that, Tim Bradley gets a mention in my article for willingness to undergo year-round testing, even through all of the bull**** he endures and the minimal support he gets from his own promoter on the subject.

VADA is still young, maybe too young to develop too many bad habits. But what I know is they've tested far fewer fighters than has USADA, and have only fully been involved in boxing for half the time, yet have already caught 3x the number of fighters (at least according to public knowledge). I just struggle to wrap my mind around the fact that USADA can catch other athletes, yet boxers are the one breed that remain largely undetectable. Either that or they just manage to land all of the clean boxers (except for Erik Morales) and VADA amazingly lands the ones dumb enough to not properly mask their cheating methods.

So again, to recap to all, this article was not about the history of random drug testing in boxing. It was about Jessie Vargas being the latest fighter to enroll in the VADA program, for a fight in which his opponent - who has failed a drug test in the past - has declined to submit to similar testing.

Not every single article has to center around Mayweather and Pacquiao. I'm not that desperate for webhits. Nor do I pick a side between the two. Until they fight each other, they're both cheating the sport, so I have no reason to favor one over the other.

[Divine Hammer]

Right on! Say no to drugs!

[peplz]

I respect this post, it's very well thought out and that's all I ask for in any argument/debate/discussion. My full props to you.

Mayweather popularized how drug testing is viewed in the United States. Sauerland Event fighters who fight on ARD network in Germany have long been required to undergo year-round random drug testing. I mentioned them in my article because they never get the credit they deserve.

WADA and USADA are not one and the same. USADA is the US branch of the WADA program, but Travis Tygart doesn't oversee WADA - he oversees USADA.

To follow what I mentioned in the earlier post, I'm not a Pacquiao supporter or a Mayweather hate. Anytime I mention Mayweather in an article, I refer to him as boxing's pound for pound king. If the story has anything to do with revenue generated, then I also add his title of box-office king. But I don't feel the need to mention Mayweather in every article about random drug testing. He became an advocate of it, because the alternate was admitting he (and his family) openly accuses Pacquaio of being on steroids.

It was a big deal when he fought Mosley. However, it wasn't as big a deal in subsequent fights since he only fought once per year until last year. Now it's just accepted by Mayweather opponents that a fight with him means undergoing USADA testing. Yet neither he nor anyone else from Mayweather Promotions wishes to embrace the concept of holding their stable to similar standards, not even after two of its fighters tested positive (Mickey Bey's situation is forgivable; J'Leon Love not so much).

Pacquiao undergoing VADA testing for one fight was a joke. Had Ariza not been in Rios' corner for that fight, I'm not entirely convinced the demand for random drug testing would have come up. If he was really on board, he'd have joined Tim Bradley in such testing for their rematch.

So for that, Tim Bradley gets a mention in my article for willingness to undergo year-round testing, even through all of the bull**** he endures and the minimal support he gets from his own promoter on the subject.

VADA is still young, maybe too young to develop too many bad habits. But what I know is they've tested far fewer fighters than has USADA, and have only fully been involved in boxing for half the time, yet have already caught 3x the number of fighters (at least according to public knowledge). I just struggle to wrap my mind around the fact that USADA can catch other athletes, yet boxers are the one breed that remain largely undetectable. Either that or they just manage to land all of the clean boxers (except for Erik Morales) and VADA amazingly lands the ones dumb enough to not properly mask their cheating methods.

So again, to recap to all, this article was not about the history of random drug testing in boxing. It was about Jessie Vargas being the latest fighter to enroll in the VADA program, for a fight in which his opponent - who has failed a drug test in the past - has declined to submit to similar testing.

Not every single article has to center around Mayweather and Pacquiao. I'm not that desperate for webhits. Nor do I pick a side between the two. Until they fight each other, they're both cheating the sport, so I have no reason to favor one over the other.

Touche'. Thanks for the response. Its dope that you actually comment on your own articles.