Another what if scenario....Tyson vs Buster

First topic message reminder :

This is not a discussion about whether t was a long count or not - that has been done to death already.

What I want to know is, what if the referee had made a quicker, recognised count and counted Buster out of the contest? What do you think would have happened to Tysons and Douglas' careers post fight?

Would Mike have continued with that air of invincibility and got through his problems to continue to dominate?

Let's hear your thoughts....

When did Lewis ever get hit with a big shot in the latter rounds and when did Tyson ever land a Berbick like shot in the latter rounds against a class operator?

I see the tired old debate has been revisited once again, i'm very pro Marciano but have never called a single win of his great nor have I seen anyone else on here do it.

Tyson has had a few later round KOs. Ribalta and Pinklon Thomas for example.

One of the things that annoys me with people who are big boxing fans is how it is so fashionable to slate anyone who thinks Tyson was a good or great fighter. Just because a great many people who are uneducated or casual boxing fans would say Tyson is the ATG boxer, and who probably have never heard of Ray Robinson, Greb, Leonard, Duran or even Louis doesn't make the point any less valid than an expert who says Marciano would beat Ali. It is all subjective, the closest you can get is being objective.

That doesn't automatically mean Tyson wasn't a very good (and in my opinion for a short time, great boxer). For my money, people tend to forget how demanding Tyson's style is to perfect, and just how good at it he was in the first half of his career.

As others have said, a lot of experts and commentators thought Spinks would win that fight, and considering how well Spinks fought Holmes, who while not a massive puncher tended to get people's attention when he hit them. Spinks never looked significantly wobbled whenever Holmes caught him, yet was completely anihiltated by Tyson.

It is also worth remembering that in the two Holyfield fights, Tyson hardly ever went to the body and only caught Holyfield with single shots. When you look at his best wins, it was the speed and combinations which won him most of Tyson's fights, usually going to the body first. It has also been well proven that despite his chiselled apprearance, Holyfield can be hurt to the body.

Therefore, you would imagine that had Tyson fought Holyfield pre-prison, he would have fought more in this manner, and I don't care if Holyfield and Chuvalo's chin on top of his own, with a few of those combinations, allied to the fact that Holyfield was never hard to hit, he is at least getting knocked down, probably early in the fight, and in my opinion would lose via a UD or TKO ala Bowe 3.

Of course, Holyfield's durability and recouperation powers (i.e. Quai, Bowe 1 Rd 10 etc) are a big factor, but then how much of that is "Evan Fields".
Not to digress, but did anyone ever find out what was in the drink/cream EH used in the Quai fight?

To answer your question...

Re: Drink/Cream - most of this has been "revealed" by Qawi - years after his loss. Comes across as nothing but a whine.

I'm a tad busy - but I'm going to borrow someone else's answer to your question:


I'm simply not willing to play Judge, Jury and Excecutioner until I see something a bit more than Vander's name on customer list.

Evander's built like a brick house. So too were Norton and Weaver. Do we have any evidence that they were on roids other than their physiques?

Evander against Qawi came back when it appeared he had nothing left. It's a good thing that Qawi never faced Matthew Saad Muhammad at HIS very best or else we'd be hearing the same claims about Saad.

I'm not naive to think that there never has been cheating in the sport of boxing. But I'm not going to call someone a cheat based purely on what I THINK.

Before I condemn Evander, I'd like a little something more to go on than what we have before us now. Which really isn't anything to date. Maybe that changes as this plays out.

But my mentality has always been to never jump the gun. I won't call a fighter great based on potential. He needs to PROVE he's great in order to be called great. And I won't label Holyfield ANYTHING other than a great fighter (based on what he proved in the ring) until something with substance surfaces that will show us that he didn't acheive what he did, on the level.

There are bound to be those who have cheated in our sport. The one deterrant that I think sets our sport apart from others is the consitant drug testing that has been used for years in boxing. Nothing random here. You fight, you need to pee.

Evander's bulking up I don't think was as dramatic as say Micheal Spinks's was. He finished his amateur career as a Light Heavy. He turned pro as a Cruiserweight, but was really only a few pound over the Light Heavy limit. With his frame, growing to Cruiser was only natural.

His last Cruiserweight fight, he weighed in at 190 pound. 13 pounds heavier than what he turned pro at 4 years earlier. In his next fight 3 months later, he was 202 pounds. A gain of 12 pounds.

Spinks in roughly the same time frame went from 175 pounds to 199 and 3/4th's pounds. More than twice the amount that Evander put on. Granted he was not ripped like Holyfield when he went to Heavyweight to face Holmes. But he wasn't ripped when he faced Diamond Jim McDonald either.

Evander's second bout at Heavy he was eight pounds heavier. Over the next 5 years he fluctuated between 205 and 212 pound. Agianst Bowe in the rematch, he came in heavier on purpose to be bigger agianst the much larger Bowe. Agianst Moorer in 1994 he weighed in at 214 pounds. While not fat, he looked flat and he lost (personally I had Evander by a point). After a year long retirement, he came back at 209 for Mercer. He was 213 for Bowe and 211 for Czyz. In the two Tyson fights he came in at 215 and 218. Evander was also 35 years old and had been fighting at Heavyweight for 8 years.

I think Evander put the weight on relatively slowly over time. For years he was considered a small heavyweight. He beats Tyson and is only 13 pound heavier than when he first fought at Heavy agianst Tillis and all of a sudden, the size issue goes away.

Now it's: Look how big he got. His top weight was agianst Ruiz at 221 pounds. He has been as heavy as 220 only 2 other times. Even today, he's much better at around 215 pounds. For a 40 + man, that isn't awful.

Evander's physique is always going to raise eyebrows. THe health issues does the same for me as well. Having his name appear on this customer list does indeed not look very good. But until this goes to the next step, of either an indictment or a formal charge or at the VERY least, an investigation, I think we need to hold off on our condemnation.

Suspicions? Can't fault anyone for having those. Doubts? I have doubts too.

But to DECLARE him being guilty without anything even REMOTELY close to what they have on a Barry Bonds or McGwire or other targeted ball players, I think is a leap at this point.

And I can listen to Qawi whine until the cows come home. It will not change my opinion of Evander and his accomplishments until SOMETHING, ANYTHING, is put before us. Qawi is citing a "miracle" cream that he allegendly saw. I'm no drug expert, but what could this rejuvinating cream be that he is referring to and does one exist, that could have Evander do what he did, in staging a comeback, mid bout? Agian, something Matthew Saad Muhammad did multiple times in HIS career.

Without any "creams".

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?8326-Dwight-Muhammad-Qawi

Few more points on this.

Whilst the aforementioned fellow professes not to be an expert on pharmacology - I do know a bit on the subject.

1. Steroid creams don't cause your eyes to hurt.
2. Taking a steroid halfway through a fight won't give you an extra kick or burst of energy.

Final point...

The evidence seems to be - that Holy walked into a steroid selling pharmacy, and using the extremely subtle name Evan Fields, bought some illegal drugs and left his mobile phone number, just in case.

Real subtle. Especially remembering his squeaky clean image.

As I said to Manos on another thread - this would require a degree of stupidity I simply can't fathom.

As I've said before, I have my doubts about Holy especially after the Bowe fight where he was stopped and the Moorer fight where he developed a heart condition and made a miraculous recovery. Its nothing to do with his weight gain but his body definition. Friends of mine who are gym rats all bar none claim he is juicing just by looking at him. Admittedly that is not a scientific prediction, but they also said the same thing about Ben Johnson and many other guys who have been found out.

Final point. Marion Jones didn't look like a Russian shot putter. Its not about weight but muscle mass, density and to give stamina where it was once lacking. Also helps in training and recovery between training sessions.

As for Qawi's comments about giving some "juice" to pep up Holy between rounds. Pure nonsense. It would take at least 45 minutes to have any effect.

I could be wrong here so if I am correct me, but with "Evan Fields", I thought the evidence against him stemmed from the Evan Fields name along with Holyfields date of birth, home address and phone number being obtained from files located in a pharmacy that was shut down for supplying illegal performance enhancing steriods. Then his actual real name also appeared in a seperate pharmacies files that was also being investgated for illegal steriods.

The records kept would have been those of the pharmacies. So it would not have been a case of Holyfield walking in and leaving his details. But more he had his own file within the company that was confiscated when the pharmacy was investigated. The implication being the pharmacy obviously knew who he was and was supplying him under the radar, as opposed to Holyfield duping them into believing he was someone else.

You can also add medical evidence taken from him of injuries/conditions that are known to be aggravated by steriod use such as his heart problem.

The heart problem is the worst evidence against him - but remember, juvenile heart conditions can be familal as well - and without his full FHx, we can't rely on that alone as evidence. Furthermore - the heart complaint occurred during immense physical stress, rather than at rest.

As for the records, remember "the man whose arms exploded". You can buy a regular and decent supply of steroids in every gym, purely anonymously - you don't need to use a pharmacy. To use a pharmacy under his given name would be idiotic - I'd hope he had more common sense than that.

As for his physique - Haye was more 'shredded' than Evander - are we questioning him? If we are - where are we going to stop? Norton was at least as/if not more svelte than Evander - do we question him as well?

Finally - the "just by looking at him" claim is bogus. The commonly cited fact is that the masseter enlarges in steroid abuse - which can be true - but Evander's masseter hasn't significantly enlarged over the course of his career. Doesn't mean he's clean, doesn't mean he's juicing either.

Benn was pretty ripped before he fought G-man. The idiot in the sailor hat has now accused Benn of "juicing like a mother****". Do we believe him? We should believe Qawi no more.

RJJ tested positive. Evander never did - but "Evan Fields" is continuously and scurrilously used against him. He hasn't been dragged before a grand jury. He hasn't been tried in a court of law. He is therefore innocent.

As I have frequently said on this issue - if the Leveson enquiry and the details of how newspapers work has taught us anything at all - its that there can be smoke without fire.

As I said it not how shredded he looks. Its the type of muscles and its definition. People who are juicing know by look others who are also juicing. I'll add that I heard these rumours long before I knew of Evan Field. Right when he fought Mike Dokes the rumours started. No smoke without fire.

Marion Jones never tested positive. Neither did Flo Jo.

And Holyfield turned pro as a LHW. Moved up after 4 fights (genuine natural growth as he was killing himself making the LHW limit).

Well the cases of Jones and Holyfield are quite different. The test Jones failed was down to a readily available over the counter supplement designed to keep weight down. It was, at the time, only banned by the IBF but perfectly legal with the other sanctioning bodies. Its effects were also pretty limited to just aiding weight loss more efficiently rather than actual steriod usage.

The allegations against Holyfield are alot more serious as he was accused of serious doping involving HGH on a carefully managed program. I dont put much stock in the "he looks bigger" argument as hard work in the gym will do that easily enough. But hes linked to at least two pharmacies that were essentially rogue ones with history of supplying athletes with illegal steriods. "Evan Fields" containing his personal details was found on file in one of them, and his name also came up another one. These rogue pharmacis operate steroid and HGH programs with full knowledge of the participating athletes and supply them covertly. He also had medical conditions that were consistent with use of steroids.

Obviously it could be a coincidence or innocent but theres definately enough substance there to raise suspicions. Unless he actual fails a test, admits it or gets caught theres no way to know for sure but from the reading I did on it I certaibly became more suspicious as there is too much coincidences there for it to be easily dismissed as just rumours or a slur campaign.

1.) I have had this out w/ ref to RJJ many times before. It makes not a jot of difference whether you buy your PED over the counter or from a drug dealer out the back of Sainsburys - as an athlete you have to stay clean.

Androstenedione is a steroid. To be precise, its a testosterone precursor. Makes no difference - its banned. The fact that the other sanctioning bodies didn't outlaw it makes no difference given that the IBF did. You have to stay clean according to all parties.

There were rumours about RJJ "juicing" for years - he failed a drugs test - yet he isn't subject to the same scrutiny as Evander.

Re: Evan Fields - do you not find it slightly odd that we've only heard about this through newspapers and online sites? There's been nothing in the way of charges brought. Drug dealing is illegal - and if he were a party to it - I would expect some proceedings to occur.

Finally.

Az. Until someone gains a Cushingoid appearance - a moon face, buffalo hump, purple stretch marks, truncal obesity and weakness and wasting of the major muscles of the legs and arms - ie the opposite of Holyfield - you cannot look at someone and say "they've been on 'roids".

oxring wrote:1.) I have had this out w/ ref to RJJ many times before. It makes not a jot of difference whether you buy your PED over the counter or from a drug dealer out the back of Sainsburys - as an athlete you have to stay clean.

Androstenedione is a steroid. To be precise, its a testosterone precursor. Makes no difference - its banned. The fact that the other sanctioning bodies didn't outlaw it makes no difference given that the IBF did. You have to stay clean according to all parties.

There were rumours about RJJ "juicing" for years - he failed a drugs test - yet he isn't subject to the same scrutiny as Evander.

Re: Evan Fields - do you not find it slightly odd that we've only heard about this through newspapers and online sites? There's been nothing in the way of charges brought. Drug dealing is illegal - and if he were a party to it - I would expect some proceedings to occur.

Finally.

Az. Until someone gains a Cushingoid appearance - a moon face, buffalo hump, purple stretch marks, truncal obesity and weakness and wasting of the major muscles of the legs and arms - ie the opposite of Holyfield - you cannot look at someone and say "they've been on 'roids".

For the record, I always felt RJJ was juiced...rumours again...and friends. As for Holy and what he looked like. I'll show you Marion Jones. She looked like a normal woman and not some east euro shot putter. Never tested positive either. But we all know she was juiced up to the eyeballs.

azania wrote:. I'll show you Marion Jones. She looked like a normal woman .

You know some odd looking women Az

Spoiler:

To bulk up for Ruiz i'd imagine - but I don't think he was using steds otherwise his decline wouldn't have been so dramatic.

oxring wrote:1.) I have had this out w/ ref to RJJ many times before. It makes not a jot of difference whether you buy your PED over the counter or from a drug dealer out the back of Sainsburys - as an athlete you have to stay clean.

Androstenedione is a steroid. To be precise, its a testosterone precursor. Makes no difference - its banned. The fact that the other sanctioning bodies didn't outlaw it makes no difference given that the IBF did. You have to stay clean according to all parties.

There were rumours about RJJ "juicing" for years - he failed a drugs test - yet he isn't subject to the same scrutiny as Evander.

Re: Evan Fields - do you not find it slightly odd that we've only heard about this through newspapers and online sites? There's been nothing in the way of charges brought. Drug dealing is illegal - and if he were a party to it - I would expect some proceedings to occur.

Finally.

Az. Until someone gains a Cushingoid appearance - a moon face, buffalo hump, purple stretch marks, truncal obesity and weakness and wasting of the major muscles of the legs and arms - ie the opposite of Holyfield - you cannot look at someone and say "they've been on 'roids".

I dont agree with this at all. I think the circumstances of the case has to be considered. The allegations against Holyfield, which are of course unproven, represent a far more serious offence that the one committed by Jones. Which appears more a case of ignorance rather than a case of systematic HGH and steroid abuse.

Where would you expect to hear the allegations against Holyfield from if not through media sources? Its a fact that his birthdate, address and personal phone number were found in files of pharmacies operating outlawed steroid programs. But thats not enough to prove he took anything illegal and he has never failed a drugs test so unless that happens or he owns up its unlikely to change.

alma wrote:Holyfield does look in suspiciously good shape for someone of 50 or whatever he is.

An acquaintance of mine's father (aged well >50) came 3rd in Mr Wales 3/4 years back. I was highly impressed, although I won't deny it was a bit odd

oxring wrote:

An acquaintance of mine's father (aged well >50) came 3rd in Mr Wales 3/4 years back. I was highly impressed,

You've clearly never been to Wales (sorry Steffan)

Agree Oxy, never understood why people are so quick to defend Jones and admonish Holyfield, one failed a drugs test while the other hasn't.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Agree Oxy, never understood why people are so quick to defend Jones and admonish Holyfield, one failed a drugs test while the other hasn't.

Probably because the circamstances are vastly different.

Jones jr made a daft mistake - overlooking a banned subtance that wasn't covered by most of the boxing world. - whereas Holyfield allegedly used a sustained drugs program knowingly and willingly.

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Agree Oxy, never understood why people are so quick to defend Jones and admonish Holyfield, one failed a drugs test while the other hasn't.

Probably because the circamstances are vastly different.

As in one is a proven drugs cheat while the other isn't?

ShahenshahG wrote:Jones jr made a daft mistake - overlooking a banned subtance that wasn't covered by most of the boxing world. - whereas Holyfield allegedly used a sustained drugs program knowingly and willingly.

Jones had been using stuff for a couple of years. It had just never been against the rules to do so. The IBF updated their policy. Jones most likely wasnt aware this made the supplement illegal under their knew rules, and continued taking it. His opponent ironically failed the same drug test for similar reasons.

Anyway Manos...

To answer your point - you must remember here that RJJ has failed a test, whilst Holyfield hasn't.

Yes - if Evander turns out to have failed a test - then his actions in a systematic programme of doping would be worse than RJJ's. However - we KNOW RJJ at one point, was taking a steroid supplement. We let him off as it was "over the counter" and "only banned by the IBF (which shows how rubbish drug testing in boxing is).

We slate Evander - and we only have media rumours.

Where else would I like to hear the allegations against Evander? In a court of law.

The DA of the county said this in 2006/7:

"We have investigated, and are prosecuting, one of the largest narcotics and steroid distributors in the nation," P. David Soares, district attorney of Albany County, N.Y., said in a statement Wednesday.

No prosecutions in 5 years.

Next - the "telephone" sting - that was done by si.com - that's right - sports illustrated. What the hell are sports illustrated doing involved in a federal sting I hear you ask? Beats me - they should have nothing to do with it and they certainly shouldn't have access to the files. So that sounds like BS.

Jose Cansesco - an admitted steroid user, was reported to have been one of the clients of the Orlando sting, along with Evander.

Cansesco's attorney had this to say (to the AP) on the subject:

"I would find it highly unlikely," he said. "All the steroids that he got were prescribed to him or were from people in the gym. There's never been anything he's gotten online."

This was supposed to be the "east coast Balco" and lead to up to 20 jail terms. Yet we've had a deafening silence thus far. Its simply not good enough.

The heart disease, however - is consistent with HGH abuse, at least according to the Nevada Medical Commission chairman, Dr. Margaret Goodman. Unfortunately, its also consistent with elite level training, family history - a whole range of factors - which don't prove he's juicing.

As I keep saying - there can be smoke without fire.

That stuff is readily available to the public ?

manos de piedra wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Jones jr made a daft mistake - overlooking a banned subtance that wasn't covered by most of the boxing world. - whereas Holyfield allegedly used a sustained drugs program knowingly and willingly.

Jones had been using stuff for a couple of years. It had just never been against the rules to do so. The IBF updated their policy. Jones most likely wasnt aware this made the supplement illegal under their knew rules, and continued taking it. His opponent ironically failed the same drug test for similar reasons.

Manos, I've addressed this a thousand time before. If you are the athlete - it is your responsibility to ensure you are clean.

http://www.ukad.org.uk/athletes/100percentme
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/The-Code/

It is the responsibilty of the athlete to ensure that they are clean.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Agree Oxy, never understood why people are so quick to defend Jones and admonish Holyfield, one failed a drugs test while the other hasn't.

Probably because the circamstances are vastly different.

As in one is a proven drugs cheat while the other isn't?

Im dont want to repeat myself as to why the the allegations against Holyfield represent a more serious offence as the one that Jones, most likely down to mistake/ignorance did. If you know the story behind both cases then Im sure you will see why they are vastly different. If not, then its worth reading up on.

ShahenshahG wrote:That stuff is readily available to the public ?

Go to Holland and Barrett, and have a look around the protein section. There's a whole range of "naughties".

Alternatively, if you want something to take the lead out of your pencil:

http://www.dolphinfitness.co.uk/en/usn-19-anabol-testo-90/20922

This site is legitimate. Its not bogus, its not illegal - in fact its one of the major suppliers of supplements in the UK.

Very, very, very, very easy to get your hands on naughtiness.

Now I am a member of the 100% me group - had to sign up to it back during my junior Judo days - and occasionally, I still do the odd comp here and there. I can be tested, at any comp - and if I'm not clean - I lose my license to compete and train.

I really fail to see why its any different just because its an accident. Gatlin's first steroid ban was also an "accident" - at least so he'd have us believe.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Jones jr made a daft mistake - overlooking a banned subtance that wasn't covered by most of the boxing world. - whereas Holyfield allegedly used a sustained drugs program knowingly and willingly.

Jones had been using stuff for a couple of years. It had just never been against the rules to do so. The IBF updated their policy. Jones most likely wasnt aware this made the supplement illegal under their knew rules, and continued taking it. His opponent ironically failed the same drug test for similar reasons.

Manos, I've addressed this a thousand time before. If you are the athlete - it is your responsibility to ensure you are clean.

http://www.ukad.org.uk/athletes/100percentme
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/The-Code/

It is the responsibilty of the athlete to ensure that they are clean.

I havent argued against that. What Ive said is that the allegations against Holyfield represent a far more serious offence than the relatively forgiveable one commited by Jones which under the circumstances is not too difficult was down to genuine mistake and unawareness. Yes, he should have found out the supplement he was using had essentially been banned recently by the IBF but its a far cry from signing up willingly to an illegal doping program run by trained physicians in covert.

The drug testing rules in boxing are so neanderthal that when a boxer is actually caught its usually a case of mistake regarding a readily available supplement or some kind of cough/flu medecine as opposed to sustained illegal doping.

Given how advanced many of these doping programs compared to the bog standard testing in boxing it wouldnt be hard to get away with doping if you were willing to pay top dollar for it.

Manos it's very simple as far as I see it

Has Jones failed a drugs test? Yes, one he was fully responsible for failing, no excuses he's a drugs cheat.

Has Holyfield failed a drugs test? No, barely any evidence other than circumstantial to suggest otherwise.

I use creatine with monster mass - excellent but a bit too fattening. Good stuff is Cell mass and True mass by BSN but too effin expensive.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Manos it's very simple as far as I see it

Has Jones failed a drugs test? Yes, one he was fully responsible for failing, no excuses he's a drugs cheat.

Has Holyfield failed a drugs test? No, barely any evidence other than circumstantial to suggest otherwise.

There is evidence. Quite substantial evidence. Medical complexities consistent with steroid use. His personal details appearing in the files of a couple of pharmacies that were investigated for illegal doping programs. Thats evidence. Its not proof, but its strong enough to raise suspicions and not easily dismissed.

Yes Manos - if Holyfield is proved to be juicing his crime is more serious than Jones'.

As yet, Jones has failed a test, whilst Evander hasn't. The allegations against Evander haven't made a court of law and seem to have been abandoned by SI some time ago. Ergo - Jones' crime is currently greater - no matter which one of the 2 boxers we prefer.

We're not saying they're equivocal - but the evidence against Holyfield barely scrapes above the circumstantial - and none of it has amounted to anything - YET. If it does - Holyfield will be a bigger sinner. IF.
--------------------------------------------------
Shah...

http://www.ukad.org.uk/athletes/high-performance/supplements/



There's a link somewhere on there to actually go through the ingredients of each product - which is also fun. Again - I was pretty surprised to see how many OTC supplements contain naughtiness.
----------------------------------------------------

Until Holyfield is proven to be a drugs cheat he will be in my eyes a clean fighter, I cannot say the same for Jones, as a former cyclist I have zero time for drugs cheats and the moment you fail one simple test that's your reputation gone.

oxring wrote:Yes Manos - if Holyfield is proved to be juicing his crime is more serious than Jones'.

As yet, Jones has failed a test, whilst Evander hasn't. The allegations against Evander haven't made a court of law and seem to have been abandoned by SI some time ago. Ergo - Jones' crime is currently greater - no matter which one of the 2 boxers we prefer.

We're not saying they're equivocal - but the evidence against Holyfield barely scrapes above the circumstantial - and none of it has amounted to anything - YET. If it does - Holyfield will be a bigger sinner. IF.
--------------------------------------------------
Shah...

http://www.ukad.org.uk/athletes/high-performance/supplements/



There's a link somewhere on there to actually go through the ingredients of each product - which is also fun. Again - I was pretty surprised to see how many OTC supplements contain naughtiness.----------------------------------------------------

It doesn't matter - I need something to keep muscles around my knee strong as the it deteriorates quite quickly when I stop training for Ramadhan.

oxring wrote:Yes Manos - if Holyfield is proved to be juicing his crime is more serious than Jones'.

As yet, Jones has failed a test, whilst Evander hasn't. The allegations against Evander haven't made a court of law and seem to have been abandoned by SI some time ago. Ergo - Jones' crime is currently greater - no matter which one of the 2 boxers we prefer.

We're not saying they're equivocal - but the evidence against Holyfield barely scrapes above the circumstantial - and none of it has amounted to anything - YET. If it does - Holyfield will be a bigger sinner. IF.
--------------------------------------------------
Shah...

http://www.ukad.org.uk/athletes/high-performance/supplements/



There's a link somewhere on there to actually go through the ingredients of each product - which is also fun. Again - I was pretty surprised to see how many OTC supplements contain naughtiness.
----------------------------------------------------

Not really, there appears to be a steadfast refusal to acknowledge the facts and circumstances of the case. Nobodys saying that Jones was not guilty of the offence. But that the offence was relatively minor and relatively easy to make. A supplement only recently and indirectly banned by one of 4 governing bodies. Sorry, but I find it easy to believe Jones just continued using a supplement in ignorance that it was no longer allowed by the IBF.

But those have a dislike for him like to try present it as a case that he was a hard core drugs cheat when really what happened looks like an innocent mistake that wasnt difficult to make.

We can use that excuse for any sportsmen who has failed a drugs test but doesn't change it being complete BS, it was Jones' responsibility to be clean and he wasn't.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:We can use that excuse for any sportsmen who has failed a drugs test but doesn't change it being complete BS, it was Jones' responsibility to be clean and he wasn't.

It depends on the facts on the case.

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:We can use that excuse for any sportsmen who has failed a drugs test but doesn't change it being complete BS, it was Jones' responsibility to be clean and he wasn't.

It depends on the facts on the case.

No it doesn't.

Holyfield is innocent until proven guilty. Do you accept or reject this concept?

RJJ has been proven guilty with mitigating circumstances.

The "mitigating circumstances" in question would not necessarily lead to any shortening of ban length. Please read the literature - I'm still involved in the periphery of the sports scene - and its made clear to me, on a regular basis - that it is my responsibility to ensure I stay clean.

Apparently, if I could get as "big" as RJJ - that rule would no longer apply.

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:We can use that excuse for any sportsmen who has failed a drugs test but doesn't change it being complete BS, it was Jones' responsibility to be clean and he wasn't.

It depends on the facts on the case.

He failed a drugs test plain and simple, no excuses.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:We can use that excuse for any sportsmen who has failed a drugs test but doesn't change it being complete BS, it was Jones' responsibility to be clean and he wasn't.

It depends on the facts on the case.

No it doesn't.

Holyfield is innocent until proven guilty. Do you accept or reject this concept?

RJJ has been proven guilty with mitigating circumstances.

The "mitigating circumstances" in question would not necessarily lead to any shortening of ban length. Please read the literature - I'm still involved in the periphery of the sports scene - and its made clear to me, on a regular basis - that it is my responsibility to ensure I stay clean.

Apparently, if I could get as "big" as RJJ - that rule would no longer apply.

Im sorry but in my opinion the severity of the crime depends on the facts of the case. Whether the punishmnet carries the same sentance is not important in this regard. Rio Ferdinand was banned for 8/9 months for missing a scheduled drug test that he forgot about. He took the test a few days later and passed but was still banned. No Im afraid, for my sins, that I do not consider this offence to be on a par with someone who was found guilty of being a willing participant in steroid abuse.

I have said along that Holyfield is entitled to be innocent until proven guilty. I have merely said there is enough evidence - beyond circumstantial in my opinion, to raise suspicions as to whether he was part of one of these outlawed doping programs.

Dempsey drew the colour line. No excuses.

That is a completely different scenario all together.

Roy Jones was and is a professional sportsmen so must ensure he is clean at all times, he didn't do this.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:That is a completely different scenario all together.

Roy Jones was and is a professional sportsmen so must ensure he is clean at all times, he didn't do this.

No its just a failure to acknowledge the circumstances.

Jones failed in his responsibility to ensure the product he was taking was legal. Given it was legal with three of four governing bodies, and the other governing body in question had only recently indirectly made it illegal I think represets the offence commited by Jones as relatively minor and one of mistake. I dont argue he was guilty of failing this responsibilty. I just think it was understandable to a point, a far cry from professional doping and not done with the intention of being a cheat or trying to cheat the system. Hence I think the crime is a vastly less serious one than the alleged ofences committed by Holyfield.

You seem to want to view them as one and the same when I believe there is a big difference.

Yes there is a big difference.

Roy Jones has FAILED a drugs test, you can make up all the excuses in the world you want for him but it is a bonafide fact.

Holyfield has yet to fail a drugs and only has circumstantial evidence to suggest anything contrary to that.

Being a proven drugs cheat is far worse than being suspected of being one.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Yes there is a big difference.

Roy Jones has FAILED a drugs test, you can make up all the excuses in the world you want for him but it is a bonafide fact.

Holyfield has yet to fail a drugs and only has circumstantial evidence to suggest anything contrary to that.

Being a proven drugs cheat is far worse than being suspected of being one.

And Dempsey drew the colour line and didnt face Wills. You can make up all the excuses you want for that aswell.

I never said Holyfield failed a drug test. I said the offence he is alleged to have committed is a far more serious one than what Jones did.

One situation you can prove the other you can't.

If it was proven to be true which considering it's now 2012 seems highly unlikely therefore Jones should get the flack and not Holyfield.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:One situation you can prove the other you can't.

If it was proven to be true which considering it's now 2012 seems highly unlikely therefore Jones should get the flack and not Holyfield.

Again I never said it was true. From my reading up on the case though there is alot to be suspicious about. I dont know if its true or not. But Im suspicious. And I believe my suspicions are justified given what is known. I would never go as far as saying he was guilty though.

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Yes there is a big difference.

Roy Jones has FAILED a drugs test, you can make up all the excuses in the world you want for him but it is a bonafide fact.

Holyfield has yet to fail a drugs and only has circumstantial evidence to suggest anything contrary to that.

Being a proven drugs cheat is far worse than being suspected of being one.

And Dempsey drew the colour line and didnt face Wills. You can make up all the excuses you want for that aswell.

I never said Holyfield failed a drug test. I said the offence he is alleged to have committed is a far more serious one than what Jones did.

I've never understood why Jack Johnson gets critisism for not facing Langford and co when champions before and after him did the same. We would all have liked to have seen them but it wasn't a unique situation.

"I never said it was true".....

No...He'll just tarnish a great fighter's reputation the cowardly way!!!

Pathetic..

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:One situation you can prove the other you can't.

If it was proven to be true which considering it's now 2012 seems highly unlikely therefore Jones should get the flack and not Holyfield.

Again I never said it was true. From my reading up on the case though there is alot to be suspicious about. I dont know if its true or not. But Im suspicious. And I believe my suspicions are justified given what is known. I would never go as far as saying he was guilty though.

In such situations I tend to only deal in factual evidence rather than merely circumstantial.