Today in a room in a Santa Monica, California, boxing will be going under for its own form of major surgery.
The kind of surgery isn’t for a bum knee or a damaged elbow. It could be an operation to fix and resurrect any number of things inside the body of boxing.
Due to Doctor/Patient confidentiality we will call the patient “FMMP”.
FMMP is a potential larger than life event that could bring an influx of new fans to the sport. FMMP was set to debut on the Las Vegas strip on March 13th until some infections got in the way, hence the reason for this surgery.
Enter the honorable former judge Daniel Weinstein who will act as the lead surgeon. Helping him out in the board, I mean operating room will be represent eves from promotional giants, Top Rank and Golden Boy Promotions as well as well as the inner circles of FM & MP.
What is the potential prognosis if this procedure succeeds or fails?
If Weinstein is successful, the sport of boxing will get what it’s been longing for a fight that its been yearning for since at least De La Hoya – Trinidad or Chavez – Whitaker and that fight was almost twenty years ago.
This is a fight that has been brewing for the better part of two years and this is all that boxing and even the non-boxing fans want to see.
After the news has been all over boxing and sports news services that a deal was reached in principle that the fight was closer to fruition then not, the infection, arose that the camp of FM wanted a more stringent drug testing procedure on MP started to fester in the body, of this patient.
Now if Weinstein can get this infection straightened out, the sport has a chance to be healthier than it’s been in a decade as a fight will be made that EVERYONE wants to witness.
Sure we know that this is a big money event that everyone involved from the fighters, promoters, casinos and right on the down the line will line their pockets with a bushel of cash but to have boxing back on center stage will be worth whatever we have had to endure over the last few weeks as we read about proposals and counter proposals about drug testing and drawing blood.
The potential of an unsuccessful surgery I don’t want to say will be catastrophic for the business but it would certainly be another bruise on the body that is boxing.
Many hardcore and even the very casual fan wants to see the bout between Mayweather and Pacquiao and lets home that the former Judge Weinstein can perform a magical procedure to help save this fight.
Photo Chris Farina/Top Rank
The only way to save the fight is for manny pedquaio to submit to blood tests! Because pedquaio is using human growth hormones to enhance his performance! He should stop using HGH if not, he should be banned from pro boxing, his name removed from official boxing records and all the money won returned!
And you have proof to this allegations? So STFU!
Here is one good reason why Pacquiao doesn’t have to undergo Olympic drug test.
Dr. Don Catlin from UCLA, where he is Professor Emeritus, is often referred to as “the Father of Sports Drug Testing.”
Question:
2) I’ve heard a lot about using both a blood and urine test to detect EPO use. Doesn’t an athlete have to test positive for EPO on both the blood and urine test to be considered a doper?
No.
Blood testing has received a lot of attention because it is a new concept in the drug testing world. There is a blood test for EPO use, but it is only an indirect test that can be used as a screening measure to save money by determining whether the urine EPO test needs to be conducted. All the blood test does is tell the testers that the athlete has an unusual blood profile that warrants further investigation. The abnormal profile could be caused by the use of EPO, some other blood boosting drug, or just be explained by the athlete being a genetic freak or living at altitude. The testers then perform the urine EPO test to determine whether artificial EPO is the cause of the abnormality.
Expert, Dr. Don Catlin of UCLA (USA Today Photo)
The blood test does not have to be done in order for the athlete to test positive for EPO.
Question:
4) Are you positively sure about the blood EPO test being unnecessary? Didn’t Olga Yegerova get her positive EPO test in 2001 thrown out because a blood test wasn’t done?
Yes we’re sure the blood test isn’t necessary and yes she did get the test thrown out because a blood test wasn’t done. But let us explain. When the EPO testing was done in Sydney the protocol was to do the blood testing to first screen the samples and then use the urine test to actually test for EPO. It took a while for the scientific community and the sports federations to finally agree that the urine test in itself was the only test necessary for a positive EPO test. In 2001, Yegerova’s urine tested positive and the French accepted this as conclusive proof of a positive test, but the IAAF still insisted that a blood test was needed (her blood had not been taken so a blood test could not be done) as well even though in reality the blood test is only used as a screening device and not necessary for a positive test. Ironically, when Yegerova’s blood was screened at the World Championships a few weeks later, her blood sample came back as suspicious, but the urine test did not show EPO usage (remember the urine EPO test can often only detect EPO usage in the previous 48 hours).
Question:
6) How effective is the urine EPO test? Won’t the drug cheats always be figuring out ways to beat the test?
The bad news is that the urine EPO test currently doesn’t detect EPO usage very far back in time. Dr. Catlin noted that how effective the test is in detecting past EPO use is highly variable and depends on the dose of EPO the person is taking, their metabolism and other factors. It is common for the urine test to only detect EPO use in the last 48 hours but for some individuals the test can detect EPO use up to 6 or 7 days in the past. Around 100 athletes at the Salt Lake Olympics who had abnormal values from the blood EPO test (indicating that they were possibly doping), passed the urine EPO test. Presumably some or many of these 100 athletes were dopers, but passed the urine EPO test only because currently the urine EPO test can only detect very recent EPO use. As Dr. Catlin said in the March 20, 2002, Washington Post about these 100 suspicious people, “My guess is that we were looking at people who had used, but their urine [sample] turned up negative because EPO goes away very fast.”
The good news is researches are slowly making the urine EPO test more effective (so it will go back farther in time looking for EPO usage) and less expensive. The bad news is it costs a lot of money to do the scientific research to make the tests more effective and the anti-doping researchers are vastly underfunded according to Dr. Catlin. Oftentimes in the press the anti-drug crusade is presented as a futile exercise where the cheats will always be ahead of the testers. But according to Dr. Catlin, the main reason the testers are always behind the drug cheats is because a lack of funding.
Reference:
http://ww.examiner.com/x-5699-NY-Boxing-Examiner~y2009m12d30-UCLA-Doctor-Blood-tests-not-needed-to-catch-EPO-cheaters
Milagros Solidarios,
I have been reading your comments in the articles lately. I am not sure why your reasoning is clouded with your intense hatred of Pacman. The law states that a person is innocent until proven guilty. How will you feel if your neighbor accused your father of taking drugs? Will you be upset? Is your father guilty already or innocent until proven guilty? What will you do to that person for defaming your father’s name, will you sue him? How about the people who are spreading the rumors, will you be upset? What I am saying is you need to be just and explain your side reasonably. If not, you will be guilty of Hasty Generalization which is common-logos related fallacies. Most people could pick it up. Peace!