Should opponents be notified about atypical PED findings below threshold?

[Citizen Koba]

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?

[Claude Palle]

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.

[Thuglife Nelo]

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.



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...

[Citizen Koba]

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.



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.

[Citizen Koba]

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...

[Thuglife Nelo]

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.

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!

[Robbie Barrett]

No. It will damage a fighters reputation, ****** 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.

[ShoulderRoll]

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.

[Thuglife Nelo]

No. It will damage a fighters reputation, ****** 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.

Cmon Robbie, but Whyte had a finding 2 days away, correct? Tbh I don’t remember much of this story but it being fight week.

If Whyte took a supplement that had cross contamination, (which is also very possible) since WADA doesn’t acknowledge supplement use because of situations like so, then at the very least Matchroom should’ve disclosed or surrendered all evidence taken...

Whyte said on record, “1 in a million chance..” for a supplement they’ve probably used before that never caused a problem with UKAD, but their vile had an unlucky run to be cross contaminated. It could be as simple as how UKAD doesn’t discriminate with Oxilofrine when “out of competition” like a day before or a couple days before...

[Claude Palle]

No. It will damage a fighters reputation, ****** 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?