As chief executive of the United States Anti-Doping Association, Travis Tygart oversees operations for drug testing for all U.S.-based Olympic athletes. His organization's advocacy and practice of comprehensive, random blood and urine testing also came into play when Floyd Mayweather unsuccessfully sought such testing as a contractual tenet in the failed negotiation for a fight against Manny Pacquiao.
Grand Rapids Press columnist David Mayo interviewed Tygart this week, after breaking news that a Mayweather-Shane Mosley fight tentatively is ticketed for May 1 in Las Vegas. Mosley, in a leaked 2007 grand-jury testimony related to the federal BALCO investigation, acknowledged he had used EPO, "the cream," and "the clear," purchased from the infamous California laboratory.
The following is a complete transcript of the interview Tygart granted to Mayo:
Q: Have you ever spoken with anyone from the Mayweather side about this topic?
A: "Through the Mayweather-Pacquiao discussion, we talked with both camps on a number of occasions about the basics of an effective anti-doping program."
Q: How did the feedback you got from them differ, because, obviously, they had different perspectives on it?
A: "Out of respect for that process I don't want to go into a ton of detail. But it's safe to say that the Mayweather camp wanted the carte blanche, gold-standard program that we run, and the other side didn't want to do that."
Q: For so many years, it was perceived that, except for heavyweights, performance-enhancing drugs didn't make a lot of sense for most boxers, in a sport where you're trying to cut weight and make a minimal weight to perform, relative to punching power, at the highest level. Was that misguided?
A: "Absolutely. It amazes me. I'm not even sure how to respond to such a misperception. Where has the sport been for the past 10 years, seriously? Candidly, it's impossible for me to believe that that perception exists about the sport. I think it's easier to stick your head in the sand and just say 'We're not going to do anything about it.'
"When you've got 14-year-old in-line roller skaters doping, and you've got drugs like insulin, and human growth hormone, and designer steroids, and EPO, and transfusions, that would be extremely potent and effective for a boxer -- even one attempting to cut weight -- then you throw in the whole diuretics and masking agents, the things that you would use along with those drugs to assist you in cutting weight, it's a ripe area for a doper. Unchecked and unregulated, it's going to be no different than any other sport, and arguably even worse, given the combat nature of it, and the prizes that are at stake at the elite professional level."
Q: In fact, some performance-enhancers lean you out, don't they?
A: "The HGH, the ability to put on lean muscle mass, whether you're increasing your weight or decreasing your weight, these categories of drugs that are prohibited in sport in the Olympic world, on a relatively simple program, are extremely potent in order to do that -- to become the strongest, fittest, pound-for-pound best boxer, with the most punch, with very little expense or knowledge behind it."
Q: Shane Mosley obviously slipped through some cracks on urine testing alone in Nevada. ...
A: "Let me correct that premise for you. The current state of drug testing done by these state commissions is a joke. They don't test for EPO. They don't test for designer steroids. They test for a basic, simple menu that anybody with a heartbeat will escape. I just hate to hear that Shane Mosley did something really sophisticated to get around their testing. No, he didn't. He would've been caught dead to rights in our program. But it doesn't take a whole lot to sidestep the simple kind of drug testing that these state commissions are doing.
"Again, I hope it's familiarity, I hope it's knowledge, because part of the growth is for entities, but also athletes, to become knowledgable about these issues. If you're a clean athlete, or you're a sport organizer, promoter, state commission, whatever, if you want to protect clean athletes' rights, you're going to put in a clean program."
Q: And that includes both blood and urine testing?
A: "Blood and urine but it's got to be an effective urine program. Again, just a couple tests here and there that everyone knows about, or 72-hour notice that you're going to be tested, or 48-hour notice -- it has to be true, no-notice testing. And it has to be a broad menu of tests. And they don't test for EPO. What was reported on Mosley is that he was using EPO. And he could use it without regard for being caught because they weren't testing it -- and there is a urine-based test for most EPO. So you've got to start with an effective urine program and an effective blood program. And the reason, to answer your specific question, that you need to do blood is because there are certain, and several, potent performance-enhancers that are not detected in the urine. Of those, human growth hormone being one; HBOC, which is synthetic hemoglobin; certain forms of EPO, like Micera; and then, the transfusions."
Q: If you blood test, is urine testing necessary at all?
A: "Yes, because there are certain things that you're not going to find in the blood, that you can only find in urine, like most forms of EPO, steroids, designer steroids, insulin. You have to have a combination of the two. Look, I'd love to have one strand of hair. From a cost and logistical standpoint, the simpler whatever we collect, the better. Not that collecting blood and urine are difficult, but you have to have the proper procedures in place, and account for the shipping, and the state that you need the samples, once collected, to remain in a preserved state where they can be accurately analyzed. You can build those programs. It doesn't take much. We obviously would prefer the simplest mechanism possible. But just pulling a strand of hair is not effective to protect a clean athlete's rights because there is so much that can't be detected in hair, or saliva, or other things."
Q: What is the difference in cost -- because obviously, with most state commissions, you're dealing with tax-based, governmental agencies -- what's the difference in cost between a urine test and a blood test?
A: "There's not much. Incremental cost. It's certainly not cost-prohibitive and if you want to protect clean athletes, you'll put it in place. Take half of one percent of what these two boxers were going to generate, or make for themselves, and you've paid for a couple years of your program. I always hear that is a defense to not wanting it to be done, but it's really not. It's frankly a weak excuse not to protect clean athletes' rights."
Q: I'm sure you've become aware that Mayweather and Mosley are now targeting each other and now the Mayweather camp is saying that regardless who he fights in the future, they will be subject to blood testing as part of the contractual agreement. If Mosley had been tested in 2002, 2003, when he was using EPO, "the clear," "the cream," would an effective system have been in place, would the technology have been in place, to detect it back then?
A: "Yes. Assuming what's out there is accurate, he would've fit right in the same lines. While BALCO was on the cutting edge, the EPO was not. The minor steroids were, but those were eventually detected, and all those athletes -- what, 20-plus now, coaches and athletes in the Olympic movement -- have been brought to justice for their cheating through BALCO. And a number of the other professional athletes, baseball players, football players, while their sports didn't sanction them, they've been exposed. So the sport has to have rules to sanction for those cutting-edge-type of products. But when they do, like we demonstrated in the Olympic movement, they would have been held accountable."
Q: Obviously, this is a bit of an unusual situation where the athlete steps up and demands, on behalf of himself, that the sport -- maybe it's not unusual in your experience; maybe you can recall other instances of -- but certainly the first time some of Mayweather's stature, in his sport, demands enhanced testing; are you hopeful that this has some sort of a chain-reaction effect throughout boxing?
A: "Absolutely. The core of anti-doping is clean athletes' rights -- their right to participate in their sport, by the rules. We think there is no bigger injustice than when a clean athlete is robbed of all their hard work, and their dedication, and is cheated by an athlete using drugs against the rules. What's been behind not only our creation, in late 2000, but also our success, is that clean athletes say 'We want blood testing, we want you to spend money on research, we want you to save our samples, we want the inconveniences that come along with us being tested out of competition, without notice, because that is the only thing that will protect our right to compete on a level playing field."
Q: One other thing I wanted to touch base with you on -- when the Mayweather-Pacquiao discussions finally fell apart at the beginning of the month, it came down to a 10-day differential; Mayweather bent to 'I'll agree to 14 days prior to the event when there will be no blood testing,' and Pacquiao wouldn't go later than 24 days. Even if Mayweather had yielded to 24 days, what can an athlete do in 24 days? I mean, if you're clean 24 days before the fight, what can you do in the next 24 days that would have any impact on the fight whatsoever?
A: "The human growth hormone for sure, levels of testosterone, and other designer steroids. Sounds like you've got some information -- I'm not agreeing factually that was the difference, and I'm not disagreeing. But if that's the case, the other piece is that, prior to that 14-day or 24-day blackout period, what system was in place? Were you just using the Nevada, or the state of California, system? If that's the case, I'm not worried about the 14-day or the 24-day blackout period, I'm worried about the rest of it. If someone's telling you that's where it fell apart, I think you've got to add the follow-up, 'Well, what kind of testing was going to happen before the 14-day or the 24-day blackout period?' The 14-day period, I'm a lot less concerned about that than what you're doing in the two months before that 14-day period."
Q: If I had 72 hours, could I mask EPO?
A: "Yeah."
Q: If I knew it was coming, I could mask it?
A: "Yeah. Same with steroids."
Q: How quickly could I mask it? What's the shortest time frame, if I knew it was coming, that I could mask it?
A: "I mean, we do no notice. We literally show up, and knock on a door, and we find them."
Q: My question is, if I knew 20 hours before the test, would I have time to mask it? Six hours? One hour? What would it be?
A: "Yep, all that."
Q: If I knew 10 minutes before test, could I mask it?
A: "Yep. If you had some urine and a Whizzinator, 10 minutes before, you could mask it. If you had a catheter, which is not that tough to do, you could do it."
Q: What about blood testing? Could I mask it then?
A: "For transfusions, the 14 days is not going to give you much concern. The evidence of the transfusion will stay in your system longer than the 14 days. But the human growth hormone, for sure not."
Q: What do you read into the fact that Mayweather has decided to do this not just with Pacquiao, but with all future opponents?
A: "At the end of the day, our interest is the interests of clean athletes. So anyone, Mayweather or otherwise, who stands up and says 'I want the best program to protect my right to compete,' we're going to support him. Hopefully, it's a familiarity issue. It did come over the holidays, and relatively fast, but the commissions need to learn more about it. Hopefully, that will happen, and they'll be willing to keep an open mind, and hear from the experts, and do it day in and day out, as to what's going to be best to protect clean athletes. I hope a good legacy for boxing comes out of this because it shouldn't be as easy as it is, currently, to cheat and get away with it in the sport of boxing in the United States.
"For everyone, whether you wager, whether you're a fan, you ought to be disappointed if you're not getting what you pay for. So, hopefully, clean athletes, and those who value playing by the rules, will stand behind a Mayweather, and others, who hopefully will come forward and demand it."
Source: mlive.com
***
This interview is 'a joke'. Tygart sounds like a desperate salesman, if not an insatiable leech.
ReplyDelete