Replies

[mgrover]

I understand that both can be used in-conjunction with each other but has blood testing detected more than urine has? Since when the blood tested positive for Berto, Tarver, Peterson and Morales all there piss came back positive too. Blood been proven to be more effective?

[daprofessor]

i've had these conversations way more than i would like to admit...

basically...urine doesn't catch everything. the blood test detects way more. there is also the matter of the cell blood count to consider. more stringent testing is necessary because it is possible to benefit from p.e.d's outside of the 8 week window of a training camp..so year round testing is actually the best thing. cost should be considered because the state athletic commission doesn't have the funding necessary to keep it going year round. the promoters are too stingy to test at all...much less year round. i'm not sold on the benefits of usage to be honest. with all that is wrong with boxing....based on the times that i know boxers have tested positive...i don't really see amazing benefits. there are much more serious matters such as dehydration that have lead to death and serious injuries in boxing. correct me if i'm wrong...but i've not seen one single instance where a boxer knowingly tested positive and put someone in the hospital.

[bnoles4life]

i've had these conversations way more than i would like to admit...

basically...urine doesn't catch everything. the blood test detects way more. there is also the matter of the cell blood count to consider. more stringent testing is necessary because it is possible to benefit from p.e.d's outside of the 8 week window of a training camp..so year round testing is actually the best thing. cost should be considered because the state athletic commission doesn't have the funding necessary to keep it going year round. the promoters are too stingy to test at all...much less year round. i'm not sold on the benefits of usage to be honest. with all that is wrong with boxing....based on the times that i know boxers have tested positive...i don't really see amazing benefits. there are much more serious matters such as dehydration that have lead to death and serious injuries in boxing. correct me if i'm wrong...but i've not seen one single instance where a boxer knowingly tested positive and put someone in the hospital.

There in lies the "rub", profess. B/c testing in boxing is so archaic, we don't know who was doing what, when fighters were seriously injured or killed. Moreover, it's not just those causing injuries for which stringent testing is essential. Imagine if those who are injured in the ring were more vulnerable due to certain PEDs?

[daprofessor]

There in lies the "rub", profess. B/c testing in boxing is so archaic, we don't know who was doing what, when fighters were seriously injured or killed. Moreover, it's not just those causing injuries for which stringent testing is essential. Imagine if those who are injured in the ring were more vulnerable due to certain PEDs?

glad u made this point. let's take a look at another guy suspected of p.e.d's....pacquiao. his most astonishing wins imo were against hatton and cotto. i don't believe he was on anything for either fight...but what i do believe is that the weight drain game was in full effect. dehydration...or lack of hydration is what led to that devastating ko that hatton experienced. that was something that could have been avoided, no testing necessary. there are those who will say...well hatton agreed to the terms and signed the contract. to that i say...sometimes fighters need to be protected from themselves. when greedy managers and promoters let something like that slide..they are all to blame imo. but something as simple as that should be caught by the commission and not allowed. boxing is plagued with several problems. i'm not convinced that p.e.d's is the biggest problem.