Pacquaio v Marquez - This is a DIRTY fight (Steroid use and lack of testing)

First topic message reminder :

Food for thought chaps…

I am writing this as a massive Marquez fan, but also a boxing fan and something concerns me greatly…

There’s so much speculation surrounding Marquez and his changed physique, his use of a proven steroid distributor in Hernandez, so many rumours of drug use surrounding Pacquaio of past and Manny’s apparent approval of random drug testing…

(The simple question remains) Why aren’t they doing the tests?

I was disappointed to find out that the NSAC were signed to test both fighters, after all the scoring controversy following the two previous Manny Pacquaio fights (Marquez and Bradley)… why would a fighter or promoter put trust in the NSAC? Only recently NSAC were put on notice for a legal dispute with Nick Diaz (following inconstant findings in a test) and only this year agreed to start testing haemoglobin (they still solely rely on urine tests). Another controversial issue is what they believe to be a high level of testosterone; A number of other commissions believe anything higher than a 3:1 ratio for testosterone to be suspicious and will require further testing. NSAC rate 6:1 as their allowance (anything higher would mean further investigations).

To put things in consideration – Lamont Peterson had a 3.77:1 ratio of testosterone in his system after using a synthetic “medicinal”… NSAC allow for 6:1.

That’s an easy shout for fights to be commissioned in Las Vegas – the glitz and the glamour is the facard… their “drug tests” aren’t as stringent as the likes of USADA (who GBP have a “contract” with), WADA or the newly formed VADA (who Nonito Donaire is currently being tested by).

NSAC imply they give random blood tests to fighters – let’s be fair, we know there’s inconsistencies in the way they work (granted they’re not as bad as Texas)… but how can two guys, with a number of allegations of usage get away with a simple urine test?

I don’t mean to repeat what we seem to discuss an awful lot on here, but I’m starting to doubt if Marquez has got to the shape he’s in by drinking his own pee and throwing rocks around on a mountain. As long as NSAC are governing the drug tests in this fight, I question the cleanliness of the fight.

/Rant over.

Rotherham Joe Gans wrote:You come from the greatest country on earth Steffan, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. (I'm not even winding you up, I love Wales.)

Well thankyou good Sir. Next time your in Wales you should let me know and we can have a beer or 10

Steffan wrote:

Rotherham Joe Gans wrote:You come from the greatest country on earth Steffan, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. (I'm not even winding you up, I love Wales.)

Well thankyou good Sir. Next time your in Wales you should let me know and we can have a beer or 10

That'd be risky for Jeff - they say you should never meet your heroes, you'll only be disappointed.

88Chris05 wrote:

Steffan wrote:

Rotherham Joe Gans wrote:You come from the greatest country on earth Steffan, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. (I'm not even winding you up, I love Wales.)

Well thankyou good Sir. Next time your in Wales you should let me know and we can have a beer or 10

That'd be risky for Jeff - they say you should never meet your heroes, you'll only be disappointed.

Surely thats the biggest reason he should go - in a things can only get better once i've met steffan sort of thing?

I hear you Rotherham...

I think this is still a highly credible fight. On paper perhaps a 39 year old career FW-LW fighter at welter doesn't sound great, but Marquez has always relied on his technical skills and ring intellect, not things like speed or size that diminish with age or weight jumping. Because of this it's perfectly acceptable that he can gain a bit if bulk but still operate effectively - Duran continued to operate effectively at MW in the latter stages of his career for example. What's more, Marquez has shown us on 3 occasions that he is a stylistic nightmare for manny.

If you look at mannys last 2 fights vs JMM & Bradley it was JMM that gave him the more torrid night, and despite what the record books say anyone who saw both fights knows that this is the tougher return for manny. Also Bradley is younger and there is more time to rematch him in the future. Of the other fighters mentioned as possible alternatives: Mayweather? Not happening for reasons to well worn to go into. Cotto: Already destroyed him. Ortiz: Lost twice in the last year, mediocre fighter. Khan: Coming off two defeats, never fought at welter. The one I'd like to see is Guerrero, but he's obviously just fought and that was his first welter bout.

This is the logical step, and I'm willing to bet it'll be an exciting fight, I for one am quite looking forward to it.

5,000 words written and around 35 books, journals and websites referenced later I can relax now Novembers assignments are over

Sorry folks just had to get that in

The good news is you will be seeing a lot more of me now for the next month or two which im sure your all happy about

Manny will win again by the way

Regards

I still can't understand the people who think Bradley actually beat Pacquiao, ring side observers stated that Pacquiaos punch impact was on a different level to Bradley. The reason Bradley injured both his feet is he rolled his ankle when his legs went to jelly from a Pacquiao straight left. I have said many times that the only justification the judges could give for not giving Pacquiao the decision was.... 'Pacquiao didn't finish him off like the Pacquiao of 2-3 years ago would have'. What justification is that???

The only rounds I actually gave Bradley was when Bradley outworked Pacquiao (ie Pacquiao not doing anything). There wasn't anything at all impressive about what Bradley was doing, Bradley had very little power and Pacquiao wasn't exactly weary of taking his shots. Bradley certainly didn't win any clear rounds except the 10th. Marquez won rounds more decisively against Pacquiao and is a far riskier fight.

I honestly believe that if they fought again Pacquiao would be far more aggressive and probably stop Bradley. I am also pretty concerned that Marquez might be in trouble this time round, since Pacquiao is going to be more aggressive after getting jobbed. A lot of the time Pacquiao seems to have the mind set to let an opponent off the hook (Cotto & Margarito).

The dirtiest thing about this fight is that its on Primetime... *Shudder*

AlexHuckerby wrote:The dirtiest thing about this fight is that its on Primetime... *Shudder*

You filthy bitch

AlexHuckerby wrote:The dirtiest thing about this fight is that its on Primetime... *Shudder*

I'm going to ask for this be shown for free as a replacement for the Hatton fight.

I honestly believe the Hatton card breached the Sale & Supply of Goods Act...

I can't wait to see Primetimes hype building thread on here in the next couple of days. Given the trailer I saw on the station last week stating "THIS IS WHY WE LOVE BOXING" (some loud American dubbed over the result of the last fight) - it made me cringe as the entire affair was the reason we hate boxing.

Anyways, back on subject... JUICING.

BoxingFan88 wrote:I still can't understand the people who think Bradley actually beat Pacquiao, ring side observers stated that Pacquiaos punch impact was on a different level to Bradley. The reason Bradley injured both his feet is he rolled his ankle when his legs went to jelly from a Pacquiao straight left. I have said many times that the only justification the judges could give for not giving Pacquiao the decision was.... 'Pacquiao didn't finish him off like the Pacquiao of 2-3 years ago would have'. What justification is that???

The only rounds I actually gave Bradley was when Bradley outworked Pacquiao (ie Pacquiao not doing anything). There wasn't anything at all impressive about what Bradley was doing, Bradley had very little power and Pacquiao wasn't exactly weary of taking his shots. Bradley certainly didn't win any clear rounds except the 10th. Marquez won rounds more decisively against Pacquiao and is a far riskier fight.

I honestly believe that if they fought again Pacquiao would be far more aggressive and probably stop Bradley. I am also pretty concerned that Marquez might be in trouble this time round, since Pacquiao is going to be more aggressive after getting jobbed. A lot of the time Pacquiao seems to have the mind set to let an opponent off the hook (Cotto & Margarito).

Bradley never appeared hurt against Pacquiao at all, and he outworked him for the last 6 rounds. Having a great chin does not make you great. Pacquiao couldnt be bothered.

mobilemaster8 wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:I still can't understand the people who think Bradley actually beat Pacquiao, ring side observers stated that Pacquiaos punch impact was on a different level to Bradley. The reason Bradley injured both his feet is he rolled his ankle when his legs went to jelly from a Pacquiao straight left. I have said many times that the only justification the judges could give for not giving Pacquiao the decision was.... 'Pacquiao didn't finish him off like the Pacquiao of 2-3 years ago would have'. What justification is that???

The only rounds I actually gave Bradley was when Bradley outworked Pacquiao (ie Pacquiao not doing anything). There wasn't anything at all impressive about what Bradley was doing, Bradley had very little power and Pacquiao wasn't exactly weary of taking his shots. Bradley certainly didn't win any clear rounds except the 10th. Marquez won rounds more decisively against Pacquiao and is a far riskier fight.

I honestly believe that if they fought again Pacquiao would be far more aggressive and probably stop Bradley. I am also pretty concerned that Marquez might be in trouble this time round, since Pacquiao is going to be more aggressive after getting jobbed. A lot of the time Pacquiao seems to have the mind set to let an opponent off the hook (Cotto & Margarito).

Bradley never appeared hurt against Pacquiao at all, and he outworked him for the last 6 rounds. Having a great chin does not make you great. Pacquiao couldnt be bothered.

Bradley was hurt, his legs went to jelly in the 5th and that's why he rolled his ankle and injured his foot.

BoxingFan88 wrote:

mobilemaster8 wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:I still can't understand the people who think Bradley actually beat Pacquiao, ring side observers stated that Pacquiaos punch impact was on a different level to Bradley. The reason Bradley injured both his feet is he rolled his ankle when his legs went to jelly from a Pacquiao straight left. I have said many times that the only justification the judges could give for not giving Pacquiao the decision was.... 'Pacquiao didn't finish him off like the Pacquiao of 2-3 years ago would have'. What justification is that???

The only rounds I actually gave Bradley was when Bradley outworked Pacquiao (ie Pacquiao not doing anything). There wasn't anything at all impressive about what Bradley was doing, Bradley had very little power and Pacquiao wasn't exactly weary of taking his shots. Bradley certainly didn't win any clear rounds except the 10th. Marquez won rounds more decisively against Pacquiao and is a far riskier fight.

I honestly believe that if they fought again Pacquiao would be far more aggressive and probably stop Bradley. I am also pretty concerned that Marquez might be in trouble this time round, since Pacquiao is going to be more aggressive after getting jobbed. A lot of the time Pacquiao seems to have the mind set to let an opponent off the hook (Cotto & Margarito).

Bradley never appeared hurt against Pacquiao at all, and he outworked him for the last 6 rounds. Having a great chin does not make you great. Pacquiao couldnt be bothered.

Bradley was hurt, his legs went to jelly in the 5th and that's why he rolled his ankle and injured his foot.

Id have to disagree. Bradley, IMO, never looked hurt. I just think Pacquiao thought it was too easy so he took his foot right off the gas for the last 4-6 rounds hence why Bradley was able to overcome the early pressure.

If Bradley was hurt in any way shape or form against someone as brutal as Pacquiao, then surely the Pacman would have gone for the stoppage; something i never actually witnessed on fight night.

Just think Bradley went back off balance and went over on his ankle, didn't look hurt at any time.

Can't remember which round but am certain I saw Pac seriously wobble Brad once. Not when he rolled his ankle, thought that was just a slip/stumble from memory.

Couldn't find more than 4 rounds to give Bradley, even with commentary off and desperately trying to be biaised in his favour. But then again I don't count punches that land on gloves and fore-arms.

Blame Manny for losing as he took his foot off the gas when he shouldn't have, but then again by my scoring he was miles ahead at that point anyway.

Re the OP, sort of, just makes Donaire even more easy to like and respect. He actually tweets pictures live of when VADA rock up to draw blood - they pulled him mid-sparring session the other day.

The simple and obvious soltion is to make sure all boxers are properly tested. What is the logic in not doing this? Do they think boxers will not cheat? Or maybe its opposite? Maybe they think most boxers are cheating and that introducing testing will expose the sport as a sham. Thats what happened in cycling. The sport has lost all credibility. Not having proper testing is like telling students there will be no envigilators before an exam and hoping nobody cheats. even if most dont, the actions of those that do will cast suspicion on ALL of them.

Gordy wrote:The simple and obvious soltion is to make sure all boxers are properly tested. What is the logic in not doing this? Do they think boxers will not cheat? Or maybe its opposite? Maybe they think most boxers are cheating and that introducing testing will expose the sport as a sham. Thats what happened in cycling. The sport has lost all credibility. Not having proper testing is like telling students there will be no envigilators before an exam and hoping nobody cheats. even if most dont, the actions of those that do will cast suspicion on ALL of them.

Think its to do with cost. Not sure exactly how much it was but i know the testing Mayweather and Mosley had before their fight was incredibly expensive.

Every penny that goes on testing, comes out of the pocket of the promoter/manager/fighter/commission...basically, its cost effective to have substandard or no testing at all.

It shouldnt be up to the promoters if they want to pay for it, it should be a rule! The country should not allow boxing matches to be held unless it is proper testing. It should not be the choice of promoters. Boxing is a dangerous sport and maybe when someone is killed or brain damaged the rules will change but it needs to get things in order. Cycling has become a joke sport because of cheats but at least nobody can die becuse of it.

Gordy wrote:It shouldnt be up to the promoters if they want to pay for it, it should be a rule! The country should not allow boxing matches to be held unless it is proper testing. It should not be the choice of promoters. Boxing is a dangerous sport and maybe when someone is killed or brain damaged the rules will change but it needs to get things in order. Cycling has become a joke sport because of cheats but at least nobody can die becuse of it.

Yeah, but say1, for the sake of argument, they wanted random Olympic style drug testing before ALL fights and this cost £20,000. Then, say you were putting on a small event with five fights where you were paying the fighters £5,000 each...how could you justify paying that much for the testing?!

Bear in mind that you want the testing to be uniform for ALL bouts.

Bartley Gorman wrote:

Gordy wrote:It shouldnt be up to the promoters if they want to pay for it, it should be a rule! The country should not allow boxing matches to be held unless it is proper testing. It should not be the choice of promoters. Boxing is a dangerous sport and maybe when someone is killed or brain damaged the rules will change but it needs to get things in order. Cycling has become a joke sport because of cheats but at least nobody can die becuse of it.

Yeah, but say1, for the sake of argument, they wanted random Olympic style drug testing before ALL fights and this cost £20,000. Then, say you were putting on a small event with five fights where you were paying the fighters £5,000 each...how could you justify paying that much for the testing?!

Bear in mind that you want the testing to be uniform for ALL bouts.

It should not just be in the build up to fights you should be subjected to all year round random spot testing like in Athletics if you want to hold a licence, will never happen but it would be the best way I can think of to try and stamp it out or at least make a dent in it.

BoxingFan88 wrote:I still can't understand the people who think Bradley actually beat Pacquiao, ring side observers stated that Pacquiaos punch impact was on a different level to Bradley. The reason Bradley injured both his feet is he rolled his ankle when his legs went to jelly from a Pacquiao straight left. I have said many times that the only justification the judges could give for not giving Pacquiao the decision was.... 'Pacquiao didn't finish him off like the Pacquiao of 2-3 years ago would have'. What justification is that???

The only rounds I actually gave Bradley was when Bradley outworked Pacquiao (ie Pacquiao not doing anything). There wasn't anything at all impressive about what Bradley was doing, Bradley had very little power and Pacquiao wasn't exactly weary of taking his shots. Bradley certainly didn't win any clear rounds except the 10th. Marquez won rounds more decisively against Pacquiao and is a far riskier fight.

I honestly believe that if they fought again Pacquiao would be far more aggressive and probably stop Bradley. I am also pretty concerned that Marquez might be in trouble this time round, since Pacquiao is going to be more aggressive after getting jobbed. A lot of the time Pacquiao seems to have the mind set to let an opponent off the hook (Cotto & Margarito).

i'd watch the reply, manny never touched him when he went over on his ankle, infact he was never wobbled once in the fight, hit yes hurt no.

i dont think you can give rounds for punching harder, unless your marking the guy up or wobbling his legs, neither of which bradley was. how do you know bradley doesnt punch hard? on results neither man hurt the other so scoring punching power in the fight is impossible, punch quality in the fight went to bradley for me and thats why i gave him the decision, he was more accurate and missed less, manny was wild, missing often and had lots of shots blocked and slipped. bradley was pushed hard and close by an obviously faded manny, i underdstand why people say he won, he probably is the harder puncher and won his rounds more decisivley, but the close rounds he let slip by low workrate, just because he has knocked out top guys and wouldnt have been beat 1-2 years ago, on the night his casual approach to most of the rounds and the change in style and persistance of bradley was against him just winning 7 rounds and badly losing 5 rounds still means you win the fight, you can only win 1 point per round and dont get a bonus for anything else.

eddyfightfan wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:I still can't understand the people who think Bradley actually beat Pacquiao, ring side observers stated that Pacquiaos punch impact was on a different level to Bradley. The reason Bradley injured both his feet is he rolled his ankle when his legs went to jelly from a Pacquiao straight left. I have said many times that the only justification the judges could give for not giving Pacquiao the decision was.... 'Pacquiao didn't finish him off like the Pacquiao of 2-3 years ago would have'. What justification is that???

The only rounds I actually gave Bradley was when Bradley outworked Pacquiao (ie Pacquiao not doing anything). There wasn't anything at all impressive about what Bradley was doing, Bradley had very little power and Pacquiao wasn't exactly weary of taking his shots. Bradley certainly didn't win any clear rounds except the 10th. Marquez won rounds more decisively against Pacquiao and is a far riskier fight.

I honestly believe that if they fought again Pacquiao would be far more aggressive and probably stop Bradley. I am also pretty concerned that Marquez might be in trouble this time round, since Pacquiao is going to be more aggressive after getting jobbed. A lot of the time Pacquiao seems to have the mind set to let an opponent off the hook (Cotto & Margarito).

i'd watch the reply, manny never touched him when he went over on his ankle, infact he was never wobbled once in the fight, hit yes hurt no.

i dont think you can give rounds for punching harder, unless your marking the guy up or wobbling his legs, neither of which bradley was. how do you know bradley doesnt punch hard? on results neither man hurt the other so scoring punching power in the fight is impossible, punch quality in the fight went to bradley for me and thats why i gave him the decision, he was more accurate and missed less, manny was wild, missing often and had lots of shots blocked and slipped. bradley was pushed hard and close by an obviously faded manny, i underdstand why people say he won, he probably is the harder puncher and won his rounds more decisivley, but the close rounds he let slip by low workrate, just because he has knocked out top guys and wouldnt have been beat 1-2 years ago, on the night his casual approach to most of the rounds and the change in style and persistance of bradley was against him just winning 7 rounds and badly losing 5 rounds still means you win the fight, you can only win 1 point per round and dont get a bonus for anything else.

Are you sure? Pretty sure the Compubox stats (and my own eyes/memory) had Manny scorring more jabs and power punches and great accuracy in most rounds??

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/view.php?pg=pacquiao-bradley-compubox

Pac threw less punches but landed more - generating an accuracy of almost double Bradleys, 34% vs 19%. Bradley basically just threw hundreds of jabs (at a paltry 11% success rate) and nothing else. The 9th round was the only one where Bradley was more accurate than Pac. Pac's main weapon is his power punches, here he achieved accuracy of 39% - that's almost Floyd like levels!

I'm no Pactard but I do wonder what fight some people were watching that night.

Bartley Gorman wrote:

Gordy wrote:It shouldnt be up to the promoters if they want to pay for it, it should be a rule! The country should not allow boxing matches to be held unless it is proper testing. It should not be the choice of promoters. Boxing is a dangerous sport and maybe when someone is killed or brain damaged the rules will change but it needs to get things in order. Cycling has become a joke sport because of cheats but at least nobody can die becuse of it.

Yeah, but say1, for the sake of argument, they wanted random Olympic style drug testing before ALL fights and this cost £20,000. Then, say you were putting on a small event with five fights where you were paying the fighters £5,000 each...how could you justify paying that much for the testing?!

Bear in mind that you want the testing to be uniform for ALL bouts.

It should at least be at the highest level. Those guys earn millions of dollars. They should be forced to undergo proper testing.

Someone has to pay for this proper drug testing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alright everybody saying they should have this or that done but someone has to take and process this stuff...

and If i'm a promoter I don't want to pay the State commission for the priviledge...

TopHat24/7 wrote:http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/view.php?pg=pacquiao-bradley-compubox

Pac threw less punches but landed more - generating an accuracy of almost double Bradleys, 34% vs 19%. Bradley basically just threw hundreds of jabs (at a paltry 11% success rate) and nothing else. The 9th round was the only one where Bradley was more accurate than Pac. Pac's main weapon is his power punches, here he achieved accuracy of 39% - that's almost Floyd like levels!

I'm no Pactard but I do wonder what fight some people were watching that night.

i am a manny fan, and thought khan would have beat bradley before hand, but compubox isnt the be all and end all, a slight clip on the glove, arm chest and missed punches can all count, even pawing a hand out could technically count. judging is subjective i accept that but bradley performed out of his skin and manny was lackluster on the night, the hbo commentary says it all about the way those close to the sport view it. you cannot win a round of the assumption that one guy is hurting the other more than he is been hurt without any evidence, like cuts, damage, knockdownss etc. on the night bradley showed none signs of been hurt, and managed to knick 1 more round than manny did, its that simple.

and i wouldnt trust those stats, ive glanced through them and spotted 2 incorrect percentages in there already

TopHat24/7 wrote:Can't remember which round but am certain I saw Pac seriously wobble Brad once. Not when he rolled his ankle, thought that was just a slip/stumble from memory.

Couldn't find more than 4 rounds to give Bradley, even with commentary off and desperately trying to be biaised in his favour. But then again I don't count punches that land on gloves and fore-arms.

Blame Manny for losing as he took his foot off the gas when he shouldn't have, but then again by my scoring he was miles ahead at that point anyway.

Re the OP, sort of, just makes Donaire even more easy to like and respect. He actually tweets pictures live of when VADA rock up to draw blood - they pulled him mid-sparring session the other day.

Same as me, although 4 rounds is the absolute maximum I can give him, more realistic scores are 9-3 and 10-2 in Pacquiao's favour.

Gordy wrote:

Bartley Gorman wrote:

Gordy wrote:It shouldnt be up to the promoters if they want to pay for it, it should be a rule! The country should not allow boxing matches to be held unless it is proper testing. It should not be the choice of promoters. Boxing is a dangerous sport and maybe when someone is killed or brain damaged the rules will change but it needs to get things in order. Cycling has become a joke sport because of cheats but at least nobody can die becuse of it.

Yeah, but say1, for the sake of argument, they wanted random Olympic style drug testing before ALL fights and this cost £20,000. Then, say you were putting on a small event with five fights where you were paying the fighters £5,000 each...how could you justify paying that much for the testing?!

Bear in mind that you want the testing to be uniform for ALL bouts.

It should at least be at the highest level. Those guys earn millions of dollars. They should be forced to undergo proper testing.

So you want a multi-tier drug testing system?! Isn't that pretty much what we already have?! As a result, you aren't proposing any change?! Therefore, your argument is redundant.

In terms of cost, the moment USADA is signed to a fight they are contracted to do the tests. They generally test the main events (2 fights or so depending on the contract).

After the Peter Quillin v Winky Wright fight, it became apparent that USADA HADN'T completed their contract as the tests were cancelled at short notice following their Sample A results...

What does this mean? They took 1 sample from both fighters 3 days before the bout, then decided they weren't going to do the 2 other tests.

How does this relate to cost? USADA have a contract with GBP and they are paid to do a job. They are essentially being paid for not completing their contractual obligations... Only last week after Broner v Demarco - Demarco admitted that he hadn't been contacted by USADA to do a single test - even though USADA would have been contracted to.

New Jersey State Athletic Commission asked GBP if they required their services (as the fight was taking place in their territory), GBP declined the offer - Either way, someone would have been paid for the blood testing, so why is it USADA never completed this contract either??

Here's a story on it:

http://www.maxboxing.com/news/max-boxing-news/broner-vs-demarco-and-the-contracted-usada-testing-that-didnt-happen

School Project wrote:In terms of cost, the moment USADA is signed to a fight they are contracted to do the tests. They generally test the main events (2 fights or so depending on the contract).

After the Peter Quillin v Winky Wright fight, it became apparent that USADA HADN'T completed their contract as the tests were cancelled at short notice following their Sample A results...

What does this mean? They took 1 sample from both fighters 3 days before the bout, then decided they weren't going to do the 2 other tests.

How does this relate to cost? USADA have a contract with GBP and they are paid to do a job. They are essentially being paid for not completing their contractual obligations... Only last week after Broner v Demarco - Demarco admitted that he hadn't been contacted by USADA to do a single test - even though USADA would have been contracted to.

New Jersey State Athletic Commission asked GBP if they required their services (as the fight was taking place in their territory), GBP declined the offer - Either way, someone would have been paid for the blood testing, so why is it USADA never completed this contract either??

Here's a story on it:

http://www.maxboxing.com/news/max-boxing-news/broner-vs-demarco-and-the-contracted-usada-testing-that-didnt-happen

Potentially....a promotional company hire USADA, then 'encourage' them not to fulfil their obligation....then pay them anyway...the fight looks clean...the fight aint clean...the public are unaware..

Roach told usatoday.com “If [Marquez's body] is natural, I will kiss his a**. [Marquez] has gotten bigger and gained weight. It throws up a red flag"

Just seen this comment from Roach, bit of the kettle and the pot there I think.

hampo171 wrote:

Roach told usatoday.com “If [Marquez's body] is natural, I will kiss his a**. [Marquez] has gotten bigger and gained weight. It throws up a red flag"

Just seen this comment from Roach, bit of the kettle and the pot there I think.

As the bloke who trained James Toney am not sure this is a glass house Roach should be throwing any stones in.

eddyfightfan wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/view.php?pg=pacquiao-bradley-compubox

Pac threw less punches but landed more - generating an accuracy of almost double Bradleys, 34% vs 19%. Bradley basically just threw hundreds of jabs (at a paltry 11% success rate) and nothing else. The 9th round was the only one where Bradley was more accurate than Pac. Pac's main weapon is his power punches, here he achieved accuracy of 39% - that's almost Floyd like levels!

I'm no Pactard but I do wonder what fight some people were watching that night.

i am a manny fan, and thought khan would have beat bradley before hand, but compubox isnt the be all and end all, a slight clip on the glove, arm chest and missed punches can all count, even pawing a hand out could technically count. judging is subjective i accept that but bradley performed out of his skin and manny was lackluster on the night, the hbo commentary says it all about the way those close to the sport view it. you cannot win a round of the assumption that one guy is hurting the other more than he is been hurt without any evidence, like cuts, damage, knockdownss etc. on the night bradley showed none signs of been hurt, and managed to knick 1 more round than manny did, its that simple.

Understand no stats are perfect or full proof but it seems more than chance that the stats backed up exactly what I and almost all other commentators saw, including guys whose opinion and knowledge of boxing and scoring I respect much more than my own such as ukwingchungstudent who only gave 2 rounds to Bradley.

Rotherham Joe Gans wrote:

hampo171 wrote:

Roach told usatoday.com “If [Marquez's body] is natural, I will kiss his a**. [Marquez] has gotten bigger and gained weight. It throws up a red flag"

Just seen this comment from Roach, bit of the kettle and the pot there I think.

As the bloke who trained James Toney am not sure this is a glass house Roach should be throwing any stones in.

It highlights my original point perfectly:

Roach thinks Marquez is juiced, everyone has accused Pacquaio of being juiced, this is a major fight with reg flags everywhere... So what do you do?

Give the drug testing to the most incompetant Athletic Commission in America: NSAC. At least USADA find positive tests (when they can be bothered to complete them).

Bartley Gorman wrote:

School Project wrote:In terms of cost, the moment USADA is signed to a fight they are contracted to do the tests. They generally test the main events (2 fights or so depending on the contract).

After the Peter Quillin v Winky Wright fight, it became apparent that USADA HADN'T completed their contract as the tests were cancelled at short notice following their Sample A results...

What does this mean? They took 1 sample from both fighters 3 days before the bout, then decided they weren't going to do the 2 other tests.

How does this relate to cost? USADA have a contract with GBP and they are paid to do a job. They are essentially being paid for not completing their contractual obligations... Only last week after Broner v Demarco - Demarco admitted that he hadn't been contacted by USADA to do a single test - even though USADA would have been contracted to.

New Jersey State Athletic Commission asked GBP if they required their services (as the fight was taking place in their territory), GBP declined the offer - Either way, someone would have been paid for the blood testing, so why is it USADA never completed this contract either??

Here's a story on it:

http://www.maxboxing.com/news/max-boxing-news/broner-vs-demarco-and-the-contracted-usada-testing-that-didnt-happen

Potentially....a promotional company hire USADA, then 'encourage' them not to fulfil their obligation....then pay them anyway...the fight looks clean...the fight aint clean...the public are unaware..

BINGO!

Gabe Montoya told me that he was speaking to a Rep from GBP a couple of days ago. He asked: "Why don't you use VADA?" - The response? "VADA have stopped 3 fights in the past year".

GBP's contract with USADA is dodgy enough, only 2 hours ago a source told me Morales has been banned for 2 years following a positive clenbuterol results... that's great news seeing as they cleared him for a fight despite failing a test and the fact that he's now retired from the sport?

As long as someones been asked to show up doesn't make the sport clean. It makes me question if Mayweather (who is promoted by GBP no matter how you look at it) is REALLY that clean?

School Project wrote:

Bartley Gorman wrote:

School Project wrote:In terms of cost, the moment USADA is signed to a fight they are contracted to do the tests. They generally test the main events (2 fights or so depending on the contract).

After the Peter Quillin v Winky Wright fight, it became apparent that USADA HADN'T completed their contract as the tests were cancelled at short notice following their Sample A results...

What does this mean? They took 1 sample from both fighters 3 days before the bout, then decided they weren't going to do the 2 other tests.

How does this relate to cost? USADA have a contract with GBP and they are paid to do a job. They are essentially being paid for not completing their contractual obligations... Only last week after Broner v Demarco - Demarco admitted that he hadn't been contacted by USADA to do a single test - even though USADA would have been contracted to.

New Jersey State Athletic Commission asked GBP if they required their services (as the fight was taking place in their territory), GBP declined the offer - Either way, someone would have been paid for the blood testing, so why is it USADA never completed this contract either??

Here's a story on it:

http://www.maxboxing.com/news/max-boxing-news/broner-vs-demarco-and-the-contracted-usada-testing-that-didnt-happen

Potentially....a promotional company hire USADA, then 'encourage' them not to fulfil their obligation....then pay them anyway...the fight looks clean...the fight aint clean...the public are unaware..

BINGO!

Gabe Montoya told me that he was speaking to a Rep from GBP a couple of days ago. He asked: "Why don't you use VADA?" - The response? "VADA have stopped 3 fights in the past year".

GBP's contract with USADA is dodgy enough, only 2 hours ago a source told me Morales has been banned for 2 years following a positive clenbuterol results... that's great news seeing as they cleared him for a fight despite failing a test and the fact that he's now retired from the sport?

As long as someones been asked to show up doesn't make the sport clean. It makes me question if Mayweather (who is promoted by GBP no matter how you look at it) is REALLY that clean?

Fast losing faith in this whole game. Begin to wonder if it's always been like this and only now being discussed.

How many 'greats' over the years have just been the best at hiding their dishonesty?!

Bartley Gorman wrote:

School Project wrote:

Bartley Gorman wrote:

School Project wrote:In terms of cost, the moment USADA is signed to a fight they are contracted to do the tests. They generally test the main events (2 fights or so depending on the contract).

After the Peter Quillin v Winky Wright fight, it became apparent that USADA HADN'T completed their contract as the tests were cancelled at short notice following their Sample A results...

What does this mean? They took 1 sample from both fighters 3 days before the bout, then decided they weren't going to do the 2 other tests.

How does this relate to cost? USADA have a contract with GBP and they are paid to do a job. They are essentially being paid for not completing their contractual obligations... Only last week after Broner v Demarco - Demarco admitted that he hadn't been contacted by USADA to do a single test - even though USADA would have been contracted to.

New Jersey State Athletic Commission asked GBP if they required their services (as the fight was taking place in their territory), GBP declined the offer - Either way, someone would have been paid for the blood testing, so why is it USADA never completed this contract either??

Here's a story on it:

http://www.maxboxing.com/news/max-boxing-news/broner-vs-demarco-and-the-contracted-usada-testing-that-didnt-happen

Potentially....a promotional company hire USADA, then 'encourage' them not to fulfil their obligation....then pay them anyway...the fight looks clean...the fight aint clean...the public are unaware..

BINGO!

Gabe Montoya told me that he was speaking to a Rep from GBP a couple of days ago. He asked: "Why don't you use VADA?" - The response? "VADA have stopped 3 fights in the past year".

GBP's contract with USADA is dodgy enough, only 2 hours ago a source told me Morales has been banned for 2 years following a positive clenbuterol results... that's great news seeing as they cleared him for a fight despite failing a test and the fact that he's now retired from the sport?

As long as someones been asked to show up doesn't make the sport clean. It makes me question if Mayweather (who is promoted by GBP no matter how you look at it) is REALLY that clean?

Fast losing faith in this whole game. Begin to wonder if it's always been like this and only now being discussed.

How many 'greats' over the years have just been the best at hiding their dishonesty?!

It's that fine line between a great fight being made or not due to a drug test failure and the welfare and safety of a boxer...

Lamont Peterson v Amir Khan was a cracking fight, but if Peterson had more power and was capable of really damaging Khan last year, would the outcome of the positive result have been any different? I think back at Resto vs. Collins - Resto with no padding in his gloves beat Collins half-way to hell... One guy had the clear advantage over the other, was clearly cheating and was banned.

The principle is the same, you take the drugs, you have a clear advantage... you should be banned.

What's there to say that anyone has the advantage anymore? Using Pacquaio/Marquez 4 as an example... Marquez decides to juice and gets in the shape of his life (he already looks rediculously big compared to his last outing), he knows that Paquaio's camp won't agree to full blood tests and knows his conditioning coach is able to provide him with a better cycle of anabolics, he's got the advantage over another potential drug cheat...

It could be the case of not "who has the better training", but "who has the better drugs".

Too much money involved. That's all there is to it. Hence we have JCC Jr not submitting urine, not being punished, Broner, Rios not making weight and being punished minimally, and so on and so forth. As I think School Project said; it's all about who can hide their banned substance usage the best.

Fast falling out of love with this sport. How many legends or HOF-ers can we genuinely look at and be 100% confident were clean throughout their careers, without having to go back fifty years? Mayweather? Pacquiao? JMM? Martinez? Donaire? Can we be sure those guys have never benefited unfairly?

Melkor wrote:Too much money involved. That's all there is to it. Hence we have JCC Jr not submitting urine, not being punished, Broner, Rios not making weight and being punished minimally, and so on and so forth. As I think School Project said; it's all about who can hide their banned substance usage the best.

Fast falling out of love with this sport. How many legends or HOF-ers can we genuinely look at and be 100% confident were clean throughout their careers, without having to go back fifty years? Mayweather? Pacquiao? JMM? Martinez? Donaire? Can we be sure those guys have never benefited unfairly?

Agree with you as always mate,

Oddly enough Donaire has recently agreed to VADA controlled testing - This is quite unusual given the guy done this from his own accord but should be given a pat on the back for doing so. Interestingly enough, no large cost has landed at Donaires lap at all.

The guy informs VADA of dates of a fight and from the moment it is signed/announced they have 24/7 access to him... if they need a sample at 3am, they can give him 10 minute notice and show up. Blood, urine and hair samples.

Not only would they root out any issues, but they essentially prevent usage as the delegate wouldn't have a clue when they show up. I read that Donaire was in the middle of training and they showed up, unexpectedly to take a blood and urine sample.

School Project wrote:

Melkor wrote:Too much money involved. That's all there is to it. Hence we have JCC Jr not submitting urine, not being punished, Broner, Rios not making weight and being punished minimally, and so on and so forth. As I think School Project said; it's all about who can hide their banned substance usage the best.

Fast falling out of love with this sport. How many legends or HOF-ers can we genuinely look at and be 100% confident were clean throughout their careers, without having to go back fifty years? Mayweather? Pacquiao? JMM? Martinez? Donaire? Can we be sure those guys have never benefited unfairly?

Agree with you as always mate,

Oddly enough Donaire has recently agreed to VADA controlled testing - This is quite unusual given the guy done this from his own accord but should be given a pat on the back for doing so. Interestingly enough, no large cost has landed at Donaires lap at all.

The guy informs VADA of dates of a fight and from the moment it is signed/announced they have 24/7 access to him... if they need a sample at 3am, they can give him 10 minute notice and show up. Blood, urine and hair samples.

Not only would they root out any issues, but they essentially prevent usage as the delegate wouldn't have a clue when they show up. I read that Donaire was in the middle of training and they showed up, unexpectedly to take a blood and urine sample.

I have Donaire on Facebook and he usually posts every time he gets tested.

BoxingFan88 wrote:

School Project wrote:

Melkor wrote:Too much money involved. That's all there is to it. Hence we have JCC Jr not submitting urine, not being punished, Broner, Rios not making weight and being punished minimally, and so on and so forth. As I think School Project said; it's all about who can hide their banned substance usage the best.

Fast falling out of love with this sport. How many legends or HOF-ers can we genuinely look at and be 100% confident were clean throughout their careers, without having to go back fifty years? Mayweather? Pacquiao? JMM? Martinez? Donaire? Can we be sure those guys have never benefited unfairly?

Agree with you as always mate,

Oddly enough Donaire has recently agreed to VADA controlled testing - This is quite unusual given the guy done this from his own accord but should be given a pat on the back for doing so. Interestingly enough, no large cost has landed at Donaires lap at all.

The guy informs VADA of dates of a fight and from the moment it is signed/announced they have 24/7 access to him... if they need a sample at 3am, they can give him 10 minute notice and show up. Blood, urine and hair samples.

Not only would they root out any issues, but they essentially prevent usage as the delegate wouldn't have a clue when they show up. I read that Donaire was in the middle of training and they showed up, unexpectedly to take a blood and urine sample.

I have Donaire on Facebook and he usually posts every time he gets tested.

How often does he post?

Are the comments from Roach re Marquez meant to be tongue in cheek?

School Project wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:

School Project wrote:

Melkor wrote:Too much money involved. That's all there is to it. Hence we have JCC Jr not submitting urine, not being punished, Broner, Rios not making weight and being punished minimally, and so on and so forth. As I think School Project said; it's all about who can hide their banned substance usage the best.

Fast falling out of love with this sport. How many legends or HOF-ers can we genuinely look at and be 100% confident were clean throughout their careers, without having to go back fifty years? Mayweather? Pacquiao? JMM? Martinez? Donaire? Can we be sure those guys have never benefited unfairly?

Agree with you as always mate,

Oddly enough Donaire has recently agreed to VADA controlled testing - This is quite unusual given the guy done this from his own accord but should be given a pat on the back for doing so. Interestingly enough, no large cost has landed at Donaires lap at all.

The guy informs VADA of dates of a fight and from the moment it is signed/announced they have 24/7 access to him... if they need a sample at 3am, they can give him 10 minute notice and show up. Blood, urine and hair samples.

Not only would they root out any issues, but they essentially prevent usage as the delegate wouldn't have a clue when they show up. I read that Donaire was in the middle of training and they showed up, unexpectedly to take a blood and urine sample.

I have Donaire on Facebook and he usually posts every time he gets tested.

How often does he post?

Pretty regular. He was on the other day with a photo of them drawing blood having pulled him right out of sparring. Was a bit gross tbh.

manos de piedra wrote:Are the comments from Roach re Marquez meant to be tongue in cheek?

Maybe, but given what Roger Mayweather said about Manny - "He's on that grade A crack they gave those lil' Filipino soljas and it took 12 straight shots to bring those guys down" and a legal dispute ensued; I don't think Roach is in any position to accuse anyone of juicing.

Especially as Manny isn't in the position to complete full screening as he is weakened by blood tests and they are against his Catholic faith.

I was surprised-although not as much as I'd like to have been-that Roach was accusing someone else's charge of using banned substances, especially given Pacquiao's legal action against Floyd. Still, this current cult of the celebrity trainer seems to be eclipsing whatever happens in the ring, between the actual boxers. How disheartening.

Oh, and I only mentioned Donaire because I know he's a P4P list regular, no other reason.