FightHype.com

MAYWEATHER MAIL: ARUM SAID UNLIMITED RANDOM TESTING; KONCZ SAID A CUT-OFF DATE...WHAT GIVES?

By Ben Thompson | July 09, 2011
MAYWEATHER MAIL: ARUM SAID UNLIMITED RANDOM TESTING; KONCZ SAID A CUT-OFF DATE...WHAT GIVES?

FightHype's recent interview with Manny Pacquiao's adviser, Michael Koncz, sparked a ton of reaction, but it was Bob Arum's latest announcement that has fans wondering exactly where they stand on Floyd Mayweather's request for Olympic-style drug testing. The emails have not stopped pouring in since both men made their statements. Although I don't have all the answers, I do have an opinion, so check out what I had to say to inquiring minds who want to know why the Pacquiao Camp has a problem with USADA despite having supposedly "agreed to all terms" once before.



what's up, so i just read this article where team pacquaio claims that they will do the blood testing if it's done by a neutral  olympic testing agency which will also be monitored by the state commission where the fight will take place. The article never states if the test will be random to my knowledge and Arum claims that USADA will be bias since Floyd is an American and Pacquiao is Filipino so the test should be conducted by a neutral Olympic testing agency. Just reading the article is irritating because they are going through hell and brimstone to not have USADA conduct the test i just don't get it, I'm not even hype for the fight because i feel arum is just waiting to exhaust his money maker until he can't anymore just like he did mosley. If i'm not mistaken mosely got released from top rank a few months ago. Basically I feel they're just talking to make them look like the good guy, but in reality I feel they won't fight not until both fighters are old or when manny loses again, which ever comes first. The good news is looks like a part 3 to the timeline is shaping up well lol. How do you feel about this article?


BT: Patrick, I've received a ton of email discussing the exact same points you've brought up, so I'll just tell you and everyone else the same thing. You'll have to bare with me on this one because it's going to require a lengthy response. First and foremost, in my opinion, this latest revelation is nothing more than another example of Bob Arum moving the goalposts. Just to get everyone caught up to speed, the comments that we're referring to come from an interview conducted on Tuesday at the Fortune Gym in Hollywood, California. Speaking to Granville Ampong, a Filipino writer for the Yahoo! Contributor Network, Arum states, "We have agreed in the Pacquiao camp to unlimited random testing done by a responsible, neutral organization. We don't believe USADA is a neutral organization." Huh? Wait a minute! Let me get this straight! According to Bob Arum, Manny Pacquiao is now willing to do unlimited random testing (I assume that means both blood and urine testing) just as long as they are not being done by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) because they don't believe the organization is neutral. Okay, well if that's true, then when exactly did these concerns about USADA being neutral first arise? I could have sworn that Bob Arum told us around this time last year that they had agreed to all of Floyd Mayweather's terms regarding drug testing during the infamous "second round of negotiations". I don't remember Bob Arum mentioning these concerns back then. Do you? One would think that if there were concerns about USADA being neutral, Bob Arum would have never announced that all terms were agreed to. If you ask me, something just doesn't sound right about this, so let's take a closer look at exactly what Bob Arum had to say:

"why should it be done by the United States Anti-doping Agency (USADA) when you have a Philippine fighter and an American fighter?"

"Wouldn't it be better if it would be done by the Olympic drug-testing organization?"

"Wouldn't that be fair because it would be neutral? And, shouldn't it be done under the auspices of a boxing commission?"

Okay, now I didn't go to Harvard Law School like Bob Arum did, but if we were in court, I would be screaming, "Objection, your Honor. Counsel is leading the witness." To me, almost every one of those statements sounds as if Bob Arum is "leading the witness", or in this case, "leading the reporter" to come to the conclusoin that because Manny Pacquiao is a Philippine fighter, there's no way that a United States organization like USADA can be considered neutral when they're also testing Floyd Mayweather, an American fighter. Apparently, Bob Arum wants everyone to ignore the fact that Manny Pacquiao doesn't have any problems fighting in the United States under the rules of a United States boxing commission, who usually selects American judges and an American referee for their bouts. When it comes to Manny Pacquiao being a Philippine fighter, they've never been concerned about the neutrality of judges scoring their bouts, but all of a sudden, they're now concerned about the neutrality of an organization that's responsible for testing every United States athletes that competes in the Olympics. That just doesn't make any sense to me. And again, I have to ask, when exactly did this become a concern if they supposedly agreed to all of Mayweather's terms during the "second round of negotiations"?

Next, Bob Arum takes it a step further by coming off confused as to how USADA will work in conjunction with the Nevada State Athletic Commission if a fighter does test dirty:

"USADA tests these two fighters and the Nevada State Athletic Commission is responsible for the fight. So, if one of the fighters is tested dirty, what can happen?"

"I mean, nobody can sort this thing out. This is absolutely absurd! There's nothing wrong with Olympic drug-testing. But it has to be done in a sensible, fair manner."

Really? Nobody can sort this thing out? Come on! Cut it out! What can happen? It's simple...the exact same thing that would happen any other time a fighter would test dirty...the fight gets called off, period! If one of the fighters tests dirty, the fight is off, they appear before the commission and get fined and suspended. It's as simple as that. Surely we're not supposed to believe that the two sides, along with the commission, can't agree to that. And again, why wasn't this an issue during the "second round of negotiations"? And what exactly does Bob Arum mean by "a sensible, fair manner"? What's not sensible? What's not fair? What exactly is he implying about USADA? Perhaps USADA should look closely at some of these statements being made by Bob Arum and start thinking about filing their own defamation lawsuit. Seriously, I'm almost a little insulted that Bob Arum, an American who makes millions of dollars with his American-based promotional company, would act as if the United States Anti-Doping Agency is now the problem.

Ah, but wait! Bob Arum clarifes his concerns of neutrality:

"I don't think anybody's test is as vigorous as the test administered by the Olympic Organization. And we can arrange for the Olympic Organization to handle the test under the supervision of the Athletic commission respective of the state where the fight is going to be held."

"We're not going to make this into a cowboy situation. We have an organization that has no authority (USADA) and even does it (blood-testing) without reporting to an organization that is responsible for the conduct of the fight."

Olympic Organization? What Olympic Organization is Bob Arum talking about? Is he referring to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who actually organizes the Olympic Games? If that's the case, then I believe they use the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the independent organization based out of Switzerland (and I suppose it doesn't get any more neutral than SWitzerland). The most important thing to know about WADA is that they created and implemented the World Anti-Doping Code, which is basically the rules and regulations for anti-doping for all sports in all countries. Hundreds of sports organizations follow those exact same rules for drug testing, including the IOC, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), UK Anti-Doping (UKAD), and yes, you guessed it, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). USADA implements the same World Anti-Doping Code that the IOC uses. The U.S. Congress regonizes USADA as "the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States." In other words, in order for athletes in the United States to compete in the Olympics Games, which, again, are organized by the IOC, they must pass the drug tests administered by USADA. So again, let me get this straight. Is Bob Arum implying that USADA, recognized by the U.S. Congress, isn't to be trusted by a foreign athlete because it's a non-neutral organization with no authority? Wow! If they don't trust USADA, do they trust the U.S. Congress? And if they don't trust the U.S. Congress, do they trust President Obama? I know, that may be a bit of a stretch, but in my opinion, so are his claims that USADA isn't neutral. I just find it hard to believe that Bob Arum is now saying that Team Pacquiao doesn't trust the neutrality of an organization that our own U.S. Congress trusts...the same U.S. Congress that Nevada Senator Harry Reid belongs to, who Manny Pacquiao ironically helped get re-elected last year. Perhaps Bob Arum should have expressed his concerns about USADA to President Obama back in February when Congressman Pacquiao made his visit to the White House. And once again, although I hate to repeat myself, I have to ask, where was this concern during the "second round of negotiations" when Bob Arum told us that all terms were agreed to?

I think if you look at the bigger picture, it's pretty easy to see what's going on here. Bob Arum is simply planting the seed for his next excuse as to why they were unable to make the fight. I mean, just think about it for a minute. The interview with Bob Arum was conducted on Tuesday, and yet, I just spoke to Michael Koncz, Pacquiao's adviser, on Wednesday. I asked point blank, "Is testing still an issue," and he said, "Yeah, well we agreed to, in the past, random testing as long as when we get tested, he gets tested, up to 14 days. We're not going to test on the day of the fight. I'm not going to sit here and tell you yes, we'll agree to do tests that day or not." Now, if Pacquiao's camp had agreed to unlimited random testing, as Bob Arum stated, then why didn't Michael Koncz, the man that's supposed to be closest to Pacquiao, tell me that instead of saying, "Will we give blood 5 days, 7 days before the fight? You know, that's something I have to talk to Manny about". To me, that sounds like Michael Koncz had no knowledge of Bob Arum's revelation that they had agreed to unlimited random testing, and there was never any mention of USADA. My conversation with Michael Koncz was after Bob Arum's interview on Tuesday, so why didn't he mention these concerns about USADA's neutrality to me? Did he just miss the memo? Was that a decision that Bob Arum and Manny Pacquiao came to without seeking the advice of the adviser? Those are some of the "hard-hitting" questions I would love for any one of my "peers" to ask Bob Arum. Myself, I won't even bother because I've seen, on several occasions, how quick Bob Arum can shut someone up and keep it moving when he doesn't want to get into any details. He's pretty good at that; just ask ESPN's Dan Rafael (that's happened a couple of times during conference calls and it's always hilarious to hear). At the end of the day, Bob Arum is going to say whatever he wants to say to give the impression that, yes, they do indeed want to make the fight, but unfortunately, there are far too many obstacles that still stand in the way to make it "fair and sensible" to both sides (obstacles that were allegedly overcome and agreed to last year when they issued the July deadline). To me, it's pretty clear as to which side keeps coming up with excuses, whether they're legitimate or not, as to why this drug testing will be an issue.

Dear Ben, Regarding your interviews, kindly paste some video links on the interviews you have done. A proof of the scheduled interviews will be a relief to the boxing fans. Point is, a lot of write ups were written in the internet and the world doesn't know which one is true or not. Who are the writers making up stories or not. The only way people will believe is by watching an interview live on camera. Caught on cam and word for word in the sense. Write ups can be self-edited by the writer itself. I'm not saying you're a fraud, BUT the message is clear, we want to see the interviewed in actual cam. Credibility of write ups is questionable. I can do it myself if I want to and post it anywhere in the net as I want to. Thanks and more power. - Jeff

BT: LOL. Jeff, no offense, but that almost sounded like a backhanded compliment. The majority of my interviews are conducted over the phone, not in person, so I don't think I can provide you with any videos. That being said, I do record my interviews with a digital voice recorder, so will an audio clip suffice as proof? Here's a small sample from my interview with Michael Koncz, conducted on Wednesday, July 6, 2011...just a little something to wet your appetite:

Michael Koncz Audio Sample From Interview - 06/06/11

Please let me know if that clears up any question of credibility regarding my interviews.



[ Follow Ben Thompson on Twitter @fighthype ]

MARCH 18, 2024
MARCH 17, 2024
MARCH 14, 2024
MARCH 12, 2024
MARCH 11, 2024
MARCH 07, 2024
MARCH 04, 2024
FEBRUARY 29, 2024
FEBRUARY 27, 2024
FEBRUARY 22, 2024
FEBRUARY 19, 2024
FEBRUARY 15, 2024
FEBRUARY 12, 2024
FEBRUARY 08, 2024
FEBRUARY 05, 2024
FEBRUARY 01, 2024
JANUARY 31, 2024
JANUARY 30, 2024
JANUARY 29, 2024
JANUARY 25, 2024
JANUARY 22, 2024
JANUARY 18, 2024
JANUARY 15, 2024
JANUARY 12, 2024
JANUARY 11, 2024
JANUARY 08, 2024
JANUARY 04, 2024
JANUARY 01, 2024