By Vivek Wallace, Examiner.com
It was reported today by the Associated Press that the Olympic styled drug-testing protocol discussed between American welterweights Floyd Mayweather jr. and Shane Mosley are now official, as the two parties completed the arrangement via conference call with Travis Tygart of the U.S Anti-Doping Agency.
In an era of sports where athletes have gone to all lengths to gain an unfair edge, many have wondered why the implementation of better substance testing has taken so long to find the sport of boxing.
Not only is the current testing protocol in boxing the worst of all, but it remains the only sport where certain states (i.e. Texas) are allowed to do go without the testing process all together, not even requiring combatants to give urine samples in the bottle.
Back in 2007, ESPN's Kevin Mulvaney had a panel of highly valued personnel discuss this very topic, pointing out several things that an average fight fan simply couldn't relate to, which helps explain the confusion relative to the outcome of the Mayweather/Pacquiao blowout.
On this panel was Dr. Margaret Goodman (Chairman of the medical advisory board for Nevada State Athletic Commission), Richard Pound (Chairman of World Athletic Doping Agency), Mark Fainaru-Wada (San Francisco Chronicle), and Flip Homansky (former ringside physician and former Nevada State Athletic Commissioner).
Each of the members of the panel made statements at various points in the discussion that seemed to hold quite a bit of weight, as it relates to understanding not only the problem between Mayweather and Pacquiao, but also the subsequent blowout between the two camps. .
Dr. Flip Homansky gave what could be viewed as more of a preventive method, stating that "if boxing wants to get serious, when people apply for a license in a state, or when people sign for a fight, the state where the fight is going to be could insist on part of the language in the contract stating that they can be tested at any time."
Mark Fainaru-Wada gave a notable contribution in speaking on the need for randomized testing, stating that "Knowledge is half the deal. If you know when you're going to be tested, that kind of defeats the purpose", while Richard Pound of WADA agreed in unison.
As compelling as both those statements were, in hindsight, the most intriguing comments of them all were made by Dr. Margaret Goodman, who revealed that "It's not the big heavyweights that are testing positive, it's the smaller weights. And there's always been this perception that they're used to put on bulk, whereas in reality they're used by athletes so they can train more. They reduce the time they have to take off if they have a small injury".
Once upon a time, these banned substances were only linked to bigger men, but through greater awareness, we now learn the beneficial properties contained for smaller linked fighters like Shane Mosley, as well. This truth also shines light on the thought process going into allegations directed towards Filipino Manny Pacquiao.
Now....this knowledge in no way, shape, or form, serves as no indictment on the Filipino. That being said, when you consider the three men at the center of this topic, it becomes much easier to narrow the scope of what's really going on here - as it relates to their individual decision to test or not to test.
In the case of Mosley, having been linked to banned substances in the past, it would be catastrophic of him to refuse the option. In the case of Mayweather, you have a fighter who placed a demand on one opponent, yet no others, so to prevent the tag of hypocrisy, he would need to follow it with the same demand on all future opponents whether his intent be real or ill. In the case of Pacquiao, things are a bit harder to dissect. The norm is innocent until proven guilty, but a refusal to take part in testing creates arguable flaws leading to probable cause - (in the minds of those who now think guilty until proven innocent).
Until the state athletic commissions get serious about implementing these test, Mayweather/Mosley will be about substance abuse, while the Mayweather/Pacquiao issue will remain allegation 'abuse', containing little substance.
Not quite sure I understand why anyone would not agree to an effort that would help clean up the sport, but until it becomes a norm.....why should he?
I can think of a million reasons why, but before we tear down Pacquiao any more than we have, answer this other critical question first......why haven't the powers-that-be made this a standard for all fighters to begin with?
Hopefully this money driven sport can provide a million dollar answer to this billion dollar question.
Stay tuned.
(Vivek Wallace can be reached at vivexemail@yahoo.com, YouTube (VIVEK1251), Twitter (VIVEK747), Facebook, and Myspace).
Source: examiner.com
No comments:
Post a Comment