Tweet
At least for boxing.
The drug testing associations are supported by test fees that are usually paid by the fighters. While that's all well and good, the reality is that the test methodology is fundamentally broken.
In random testing, a fighter need only test positive for a certain amount or greater of known substances that have been determined to somehow provide an unfair advantage. This alone is a contradiction.
If substance A can only provide an unfair advantage when more than 100mg is taken, and substance A has a half life of 2 weeks, that means that the fighter would have to keep taking it for at least a month before there's any appreciable effect.
The testing associations only target the presence, not the duration or the half life. There's also the "three strikes" which gets abused; you basically "conveniently" miss the testing window and get rescheduled (aka notified) for the retest, which allows you to cycle off and/or flush the substance from your system. This is a terribly easy process, and Victor Conte called it out multiple times as still a gap in the programs.
But the other issue: suppose a fighter does get popped for 1mg of a substance - an amount that could in no way have any performance benefit. They're normally assuming that the presence of that 1mg is an indicator of a possible cycle off, thus the notification. Fine.
The problem is, the current rules say that if you're getting popped for a banned substance, you should be punished. Even if that pop is for a non-beneficial amount. PEDvetkin got popped for an amount of meldonium that in no way was beneficial, and he tested clean multiple times. Yet he got punished where Clenelo did not.
I'm fine with drug testing and I think it's a good thing if we're afraid to legalize and regulate PEDs. But I have a problem when there's inconsistent application of the rules. If Fighter A pops for a benign banned substance and Fighter B gets popped for a different benign banned substance, they should receive equal punishment.
Or, change the rules to where the pop is based on something significant and actually confirmed performance enhancing - like with Jon Jones.
The drug testing associations are supported by test fees that are usually paid by the fighters. While that's all well and good, the reality is that the test methodology is fundamentally broken.
In random testing, a fighter need only test positive for a certain amount or greater of known substances that have been determined to somehow provide an unfair advantage. This alone is a contradiction.
If substance A can only provide an unfair advantage when more than 100mg is taken, and substance A has a half life of 2 weeks, that means that the fighter would have to keep taking it for at least a month before there's any appreciable effect.
The testing associations only target the presence, not the duration or the half life. There's also the "three strikes" which gets abused; you basically "conveniently" miss the testing window and get rescheduled (aka notified) for the retest, which allows you to cycle off and/or flush the substance from your system. This is a terribly easy process, and Victor Conte called it out multiple times as still a gap in the programs.
But the other issue: suppose a fighter does get popped for 1mg of a substance - an amount that could in no way have any performance benefit. They're normally assuming that the presence of that 1mg is an indicator of a possible cycle off, thus the notification. Fine.
The problem is, the current rules say that if you're getting popped for a banned substance, you should be punished. Even if that pop is for a non-beneficial amount. PEDvetkin got popped for an amount of meldonium that in no way was beneficial, and he tested clean multiple times. Yet he got punished where Clenelo did not.
I'm fine with drug testing and I think it's a good thing if we're afraid to legalize and regulate PEDs. But I have a problem when there's inconsistent application of the rules. If Fighter A pops for a benign banned substance and Fighter B gets popped for a different benign banned substance, they should receive equal punishment.
Or, change the rules to where the pop is based on something significant and actually confirmed performance enhancing - like with Jon Jones.
Comment