Enzo Maccarinelli tests positive for "banned substance"? + Update: Recent write-up from Steve Bunce

Just a few days after Enzo relinquishes his title due to a "shoulder injury" there's rumours of him testing positive to a banned substance: http://www.boxingasylum.com/main/?p=6187

Unfortunately, there's no real "substance" (see what I did there?) to the story and I can't find anything on it.

My only guess is that the dietary suppliments he was taking when boiling down to Light Heavy may have had some form of dieretic such as the ones Chavez Jr shoves down his throat? I've no other news to support the story though but Enzo doesn't strike me as a guy to take dieretics, especially as he has no chin...

UPDATE: Here's the write up on PED's in boxing by Steve Bunce: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/steve-bunce-on-boxing-drug-cheats-have-to-face-the-music-at-last-7906796.html

Apparently, Victor Conte already knows what's going on??

Here's a recent tweet:

Victor Conte ‏@VictorConte

Answers come when substance is known RT @ali_e3: @Gabriel_Montoya Supposedly Macarenelli took a legal product sold in health stores.

I'm not entirely sure who tested Enzo, but is it possible (going back to my Berto theory) that what ever is being sold over the counter can create the higher results?

Enzo's career is becoming more of a joke with every new development. It's painful to see any fighter decline like this.

enzo will be fine.. they'll have a hard job convincing anyone he's taken performance enhancers

milkyboy wrote:enzo will be fine.. they'll have a hard job convincing anyone he's taken performance enhancers

Just think how bad he'd have been without them

owen10ozzy wrote:If this is true then bad times again....

I was quick to point the fingers of blame at the fighters after the Peterson and Berto cases...however it would seem that if this problem is as widespread as it seems then their must be a case of these boxers simply not being educated well enough.

Of course that doesnt remove blame from them...at all! They are just as guilty...as people say at the end of the day they should be checking what it within the stuff they are taking...

However since many of the fighters have nutrionists/conditioning coaches etc I think that commissions/governing bodies/promoters/managers etc need to be taking a close look as to who these people are hiring and whether they know enough about the substances which people should be looking out for...

It's just all becoming a little bit sad and a kick in the face these continous findings....

If im right in thinking thats 4 in the past 2 months...and that excludes the whole Winky Wright & his last opponent.

Im thinking of starting a new Predicition league...who will fail their drug test next...!!

I didn't know about the Winky Wright fiasco but just read your comment and thought I'd have a look. It is absolutely crazy. Why take tests and then just destroy the samples? With that kind of testing even Chavez Jr might agree to it, although they might get suspicious when his blood sample comes out green.

another one bites the dust.

over the counter products sometimes have substances in them that are banned. athletes fall foul to it all the time.

What I'm struggling to understand is that Enzo pulled out of his rematch due to a shoulder injury and the drug testing in this country isn't exactly VADA standard... so what ever he was taking must have been rich in chems.

VADA is a LOT stricter than USADA and from what I understand UKAD isn't as stringent as VADA.

UKAD haven't confirmed or denied the allegation as the need to await a hearing of an appeal (which are rightly held behind closed doors).

Tony Dodson was banned for 4 months after giving additional samples along side samples of a product called "Hemo-Rage" by Nutrex, which intrestingly enough, I can buy right now to help build muscle mass over the counter.

Maybe the doping agencies need to review the products on the market?

School Project wrote:What I'm struggling to understand is that Enzo pulled out of his rematch due to a shoulder injury and the drug testing in this country isn't exactly VADA standard... so what ever he was taking must have been rich in chems.

VADA is a LOT stricter than USADA and from what I understand UKAD isn't as stringent as VADA.

UKAD haven't confirmed or denied the allegation as the need to await a hearing of an appeal (which are rightly held behind closed doors).

Tony Dodson was banned for 4 months after giving additional samples along side samples of a product called "Hemo-Rage" by Nutrex, which intrestingly enough, I can buy right now to help build muscle mass over the counter.

Maybe the doping agencies need to review the products on the market?

Even people dumber than a bag of lump hammers should be suspicious of a product called "Hemo-rage"

Think this is proof that PEDs don't help you take a punch! Enzo was nearly taken out by a jab against McPhilbin!

AlexHuckerby wrote:Think this is proof that PEDs don't help you take a punch! Enzo was nearly taken out by a jab against McPhilbin!

I feel sorry for Enzo. I bet the poor guy is scared to leave his home as a strong gust of wind would probably knock him out for ten count.

Was the ‘banned substance’ Ketamine by any chance? Enzo certainly looked as if he’d taken some right about the rounds he lost the Haye, Afolabi, Lebedev, and Frenkel fights…

School Project wrote:

Tony Dodson was banned for 4 months after giving additional samples along side samples of a product called "Hemo-Rage" by Nutrex, which intrestingly enough, I can buy right now to help build muscle mass over the counter.

Maybe the doping agencies need to review the products on the market?

It's not up to the doping agencies to review products on the market. The strict liability falls with the athlete.

There are loads of supplements and OTC medicines that'll cause you to fail a drug test. It's up to you not to take them.

djlovesyou wrote:

School Project wrote:

Tony Dodson was banned for 4 months after giving additional samples along side samples of a product called "Hemo-Rage" by Nutrex, which intrestingly enough, I can buy right now to help build muscle mass over the counter.

Maybe the doping agencies need to review the products on the market?

It's not up to the doping agencies to review products on the market. The strict liability falls with the athlete.

There are loads of supplements and OTC medicines that'll cause you to fail a drug test. It's up to you not to take them.

Strict liability wouldn't apply to the athlete as they would have been "mis-sold a product", if you read the box of ingredients and it stated that the product was an enhancing drug the chances are you wouldn't take it. Any form of anabolic steroid, unless administered by a GP is illegal... so if it's showing up in someones system and the product that they have used produces the same effects as an anabolic, then surely it would need to be reviewed?

If you went into a bank and they lost your money but turned around and said "ah well, it was a risk of happening, you should have checked the fine print" - Are you likely to accept that decision? Of course not, there would be an enquiry by an independent source to understand key aspects into the sale and the practices of bankers.

If I walked into any shop and checked a product to build muscle mass, I would expect it to state the benefits of using it... I wouldn't for one minute be led to believe it is an anabolic or dieretic. I've done a fair amount of research into this and spoken to Gabe Montoya and Victor Conte to see how easily this stuff is administered... it's wide spread, they also believe the fact that so many sports personalities are being caught out isn't that they're all cheaters, but there's simply not enough knowledge from Dr's and not enough clarity from the companies distributing them.

Blaming the athlete is a complete cop-out, the market is a mine-field and expecting the likes of Enzo Maccarenelli or the sort to suddenly understand the biological and chemical aspects of a milkshake is rediculous. The products and the companies are liable... not the athlete.

Last post should really highlight the impact on up-coming boxers and the guys who can't get the research done.

Let's not forget, the likes of Dodson, Enzo etc aren't big earners in the sport. They are likely to purchase the goods from a magazine or over the counter. Who really get's the blame?

Luckily UKAD are reviewing the products, which was my guess and of course the right move to make.

I've said in the past on these boards that PED's are rife in the sport, all you have to do is speak to some pro's in a local gym to find that out (growth enhancers and dieretics are used like sweets in a playground) so it comes as no shock to me at all.

But there is a massive possibility that a number of guys out there aren't even aware of the legal products and the natural anabolics they produce.

In terms of liability, there's no stopping the consumer to looking into the "Sales of Goods act" in which an item must be as advertised and "fit for purpose". That's the contractual agreement between seller and consumer... if these good produce results that are likened to steroids then the product is not fit for purpose within sports, therfore the consumer is not to blame surely?

School Project wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:

School Project wrote:

Tony Dodson was banned for 4 months after giving additional samples along side samples of a product called "Hemo-Rage" by Nutrex, which intrestingly enough, I can buy right now to help build muscle mass over the counter.

Maybe the doping agencies need to review the products on the market?

It's not up to the doping agencies to review products on the market. The strict liability falls with the athlete.

There are loads of supplements and OTC medicines that'll cause you to fail a drug test. It's up to you not to take them.

Strict liability wouldn't apply to the athlete as they would have been "mis-sold a product", if you read the box of ingredients and it stated that the product was an enhancing drug the chances are you wouldn't take it. Any form of anabolic steroid, unless administered by a GP is illegal... so if it's showing up in someones system and the product that they have used produces the same effects as an anabolic, then surely it would need to be reviewed?

If you went into a bank and they lost your money but turned around and said "ah well, it was a risk of happening, you should have checked the fine print" - Are you likely to accept that decision? Of course not, there would be an enquiry by an independent source to understand key aspects into the sale and the practices of bankers.

If I walked into any shop and checked a product to build muscle mass, I would expect it to state the benefits of using it... I wouldn't for one minute be led to believe it is an anabolic or dieretic. I've done a fair amount of research into this and spoken to Gabe Montoya and Victor Conte to see how easily this stuff is administered... it's wide spread, they also believe the fact that so many sports personalities are being caught out isn't that they're all cheaters, but there's simply not enough knowledge from Dr's and not enough clarity from the companies distributing them.

Blaming the athlete is a complete cop-out, the market is a mine-field and expecting the likes of Enzo Maccarenelli or the sort to suddenly understand the biological and chemical aspects of a milkshake is rediculous. The products and the companies are liable... not the athlete.

How can it be the companies that produce the products fault? Unless the are false advertising or not disclosing the ingredients in the productthen why should they be to blame?

I dont think the bank example is comparitive because in that instance the bank are clearly at fault. I dont see the producers of a muscle building supplement doing anything wrong as long as the ingredients are stated and there is no falsehoods.

There are innevitabley going to be genuine cases of mistake with margins so fine in the world of pro athletes, and I would agree that there probably needs to be clearer and more easily understood borderlines between a legal suplement and one which strays into illegality. But the flip side is that any boxers that fails a test can rely on the old "I didnt know" excuse and the buck has to stop somewhere. Pro athletes may not neccessarily have to understand the complexities of what they are taking but the honus should be on them to ensure if they are taking supplements that they are not infringeing on illegality. They are pro athletes, they should know the risks and they should go to lengths to ensure any products they take are 100% legal. If you absolve them of any responsibilty on the grounds that they wont understand the chemical or biology involve well then thats basically a licence to take whatever they want and claim ignorance. They dont need to understand the complexities, but they do need to ensure that the product is legal.

Perhaps what is needed is clearer guidelins and directives in terms of making athletes know whats exactly is illegal and reminding them to check out all supplements and products for clearance before use. It surely cant be that hard to contact a doping agency, governing body, commission etc and enquire if a certain product is safe to use. That way you are covered. I would agree overall that things need to be clearer for athletes with all the various products around nowadays but I also think they have to ultimately be responsible in ensuring what they take is allowed. Clearance in writing should be sought before taking any of these supplements.

So you're saying that boxing should be held to different standards to other sports because boxers are stupid?

Say what you want, but when it comes to anti-doping, full liability lies with the athletes.

It has nothing to do with 'sales of goods act' or the law. The athlete is fully responsible for what goes into their body. If they get conned by a seller into taking illegal substances, that's their own fault. They can try to claim compensation from the person that sold it to them, or the company, but in terms of anti-doping law, they're guilty.

If you don't have a strict liability rule, nobody would ever get caught.

djlovesyou wrote:So you're saying that boxing should be held to different standards to other sports because boxers are stupid?

Say what you want, but when it comes to anti-doping, full liability lies with the athletes.

It has nothing to do with 'sales of goods act' or the law. The athlete is fully responsible for what goes into their body. If they get conned by a seller into taking illegal substances, that's their own fault. They can try to claim compensation from the person that sold it to them, or the company, but in terms of anti-doping law, they're guilty.

If you don't have a strict liability rule, nobody would ever get caught.

I said "athlete" in the hope to imply it isn't just boxing. Tennis, Cycling, Rugby... I could go on. It isn't a case of boxers are stupid, there's just no education in the subject so those are quick to jump on the bandwagon of "drugs cheat". Lets not forget that Berto tested positive by the smallest possible marging, I'm certainly not quick to jump on the bandwagon and call him a "dumb boxer" or "stupid cheat".

As for the legality, the last time I checked distribution of steroids isn't legal. Therefore, if the product has traces of anabolics surely it's illegal? I think it has a strong link to lawful investigation. I highlight the fact that UKAD are actually investigating the products, hopefully it'll shed some light on the issue.

Also, by investigating and looking into the products themselves rather than just casting the athletes into the realms of "drugs cheat", there'll be a lot to learn from these cases and will surely make it more difficult for the "dumb boxer" to get away with the excuse of not knowing. Yeah, there's going to be people who feign ignorance when they're caught but the more people are happy to point the finger on the boxer, the less they are looking at the root-cause, which of course is the seller of the item.

Yeah, that's the thing really. You can be caught and banned for a doping offence and not actually be a 'drug cheat' per se. I wasn't really calling those who are caught in terms of strict liability are cheats, just that in terms of anti-doping rules, it's actually impossible to differentiate between the two. (of course, much harsher penalties can be put in place for obviously cynically cheating.)

But the thing is, it's very unlikely that Enzo has taken any sort of anabolic steroid. It'll be something like methylhexamine, which has been catching out a number of athletes across a lot sports. These things in these supplements are often perfectly legal in terms of the law, but banned by WADA. Stuff like pseudo-ephidrine and other stimulants.

It's slap on the wrist stuff in most sports, so it'll probably barely be that in boxing.