The Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao negotiation debacle is currently the biggest story in boxing. And the biggest snag in the most historically significant fight in years is the issue of drug testing. Mayweather wants the most comprehensive drug testing available. Pacquiao wants a compromised version of that. Staying true to the backward logic that you often find in boxing, most scribes seem to be taking the side of the fighter who is resisting the more comprehensive drug testing.
Are these the same people who bemoan the lost sanctity of sport on my television, while music from “Field of Dreams” delicately plays in the background? All of sudden, the same writers who savaged Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds are against the best drug testing available? What happened?
What appears to be causing this inconsistency is the personalities involved; not necessarily the subject at hand. Boxing is theater. In this play, Pacquiao is the good guy while Mayweather obviously is the bad guy. We like it that way. The press likes it that way.
But it’s more complicated than that because, in this case, the "bad guy," is probably on the right side. After all, it’s Mayweather who wants the best drug testing available. Isn’t that what we claim to want too? Who could possibly be against that? Well, it turns out, a lot of people do.
I asked a friend of mine, a man on Pacquiao’s side in all of this, "Why?" His response, "Who does Mayweather think he is? He’s not the commission. Just get in there and fight!" It seems to him, and most others, an unreasonable demand on Mayweather’s part.
But compared to other demands, is it really so unreasonable? Catchweights, glove size, and ring size are common issues in boxing negotiations. These three things have very tangible effects on the outcome of a boxing match. A smaller glove for a puncher, a bigger ring for a boxer, and a few extra pounds taken off a bigger fighter can alter competition in the ring in dramatic ways.
Random drug testing, if both fighters are clean, alters nothing. Olympic runners don’t lose races because they were tested four days before a race. They lose races, because they weren’t as fast as the competition.
So what’s the problem?
Superstition
. Manny Pacquiao doesn’t like to give blood too close to a fight. His reason: it "weakens" him. You can tell him scientific facts, like it only takes a single night’s sleep to regenerate two test tubes worth of blood. But superstition is the opposite of science, so that doesn’t matter to him.This, of course, begs the question, “Does superstition trump progress? Is a man’s superstition a valid excuse?”
Well, let’s change the man and the scenario. What if it’s 2002 and Barry Bonds said he wouldn’t take a random drug test because of superstition? Can you imagine the outrage from the press, had that happened?
Whether Pacquiao is more or less suspicious than Bonds is insignificant. Mayweather’s true motives, whether they’re gamesmanship or a righteous endeavor, are just as insignificant. WADA testing is far superior to that currently employed by any boxing commission. Is there any logical reason why Olympic ice curlers have stricter drug testing than athletes who punch each other in the head? Implementing the strictest drug testing possible would be progress for boxing. We should be fighting for it.
Most aren’t, though. Two weeks ago, I watched Larry Merchant demand, during the Mayweather-Mosley post-fight interview that Mayweather "compromise." That struck me as counterproductive. Instead of asking Mayweather to do less by compromising, Larry should have demanded that Floyd do more. Hold Floyd to the same standards he would hold Manny to. "Will these tests look for xylocaine?" he should ask. And follow up if Mayweather gives an evasive answer.
We can’t criticize the lack of sanctity in sport if we don’t push for things that will help preserve it when an opportunity comes along.
When the negotiations reboot and Team Mayweather reiterates its demand for WADA random testing, the only response from Team Pacquiao should be, "Will WADA test Mayweather for xylocaine? They will? Okay, then we’re in." That’s it.
Not only should it be that simple, but that’s what we should be demanding as fans. More, not less. No more xylocaine ambiguity from Mayweather. No more Pacquiao weirdness, wanting 24 days off a leash to possibly do whatever. Just two guys, shutting up the doubters on the other side and being as clean as possible, by 2010 standards.
Then theater will be back in full effect. Pacquiao will be playing the modest man of faith: the good guy. Mayweather will be playing the always-cocky version of himself: the bad guy. We can sit back, enjoy the simplicity of it all again, take sides, and relish the fact that the two best in our favorite sport are at the top of their game, PED free, and about to show us, definitively, who is the best.
Then boxing can look at every other sport, and ask, “Can you say the same?”
Source: secondsout.com
No comments:
Post a Comment