Should PED users be allowed in the HoF

First topic message reminder :

I was watching an interesting discussion on ESPN on this topic and with Lance Armstrong's impending confession, its certainly a topic worth debating; in light of cheating, how should sporting "greats" be viewed?

The ESPN debate was quite simple: should known PED users be inducted into the HoF. The argument for was quite interesting. One commentator stated that certain PED users were too good to be excluded. The examples he gave were Jones Jr & Mosley.

I'm conflicted in my opinion so I'm interested to hear the thoughts of others.

On the one hand its cheating and it brings boxing into disrepute.

On the other hand, plenty of other previous inductees led less than clean lifestyles and some brought the sport into disrepute both inside and outside the ring.

bellchees wrote:Am I correct in thinking that Armstrong never tested positive for anything despite being the most tested athlete in the history of sport? Think I read that somewhere but not sure how true it is. It does make me question every top level boxer when the punishment is near non existent, the testing is pathetic and the rewards are immense (Floyd being the highest paid sports star in the world) and losing can set your career back a year or so like Khan. No one seems to care that Marquez hires a convicted steroid dealer the knocks a guy with a cast iron chin out cold after not really hurting him for 36 rounds of boxing.

If you know when the tests are and the officials are complicit in your drug testing program then you can avoid anything. The problem with doing such a thing in boxing is that nearly all the officials involved are see you next tuesday and would sell each other out for a chocolate button fearing that if they dont get the immunity - someone else will get in first.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I've never seen the big deal..The guy lost a piece of ear"

It's Boxing........we don't bite ears off regardless of how strict your diet has been!!

I admire British fairplay......You just forget to turn up for three tests in a row over here....

and then get applauded for winning a 400m gold...

Nobody really likes her though.

The vast majority of top level athletes take drugs.

Even in a sport like football, I suspect many of the biggest players are given substances like EPO, Ephedrine and GH (in low doses) by team doctors to help boost fitness and aid recovery.

Lets not even get started on boxing.

Absolutely right!!

azania wrote:I think some British cycling bint said it perfectly. He denied people their rightful place on the podium.

Bint is arabic for a teenage girl and used as this in slang. By definition, you can't have a "he" as a "bint".

Yes, best the mods scrub this article, we live in cloud cuckoo land and pretend it doesn't happen.

Not all of us........

Bint is arabic for "daughter of" eg Laila bint Muhammad (Ali) and Bin is for males its Osama bin Laden

ShahenshahG wrote:Bint is arabic for "daughter of" eg Laila bint Muhammad (Ali) and Bin is for males its Osama bin Laden

Although im Sure Ibna was preferred as bint has been used in a variety of contexts. Ibna and Ibn

I was always a big Marvin Hagler fan back in the 80's and if it came to light that he was using PED's during his career, I would have no problem with him being kicked out of the Hall Of Fame. Obviously, I'm just using him as an example as he's never been accused of anything but I think no-one should be allowed in the Hall if they have been found guilty of using PED's.

Getting into the Hall is an honour not a right. Too many people are getting in there as it is, but that's another arguement.

Thanks above for kind words - probably a temporary return - am posting from work atm. Junior doctoring/dogsbodying hasn't afforded me much posting time of late.

To twist this further...

Margarito gets nowhere near the hall on boxing grounds or cheating grounds. HOWEVER - if Margarito had a better resume - if he'd beaten Mosely/Pac/FMJ in a shock win and did the double over Cotto - before SUBSEQUENTLY being found to have been using handwraps - I don't think I would be far from reality to suggest that the majority of the board would want him removed from the HoF.

So why are PEDs different...

I don't think anybody really wants convicted PED users from any sport put up on a pedestal & including them in the HOF makes a mockery of the sport & those clean fighters. Yes sports, & probably boxing is no different, are rife with them and as has been pointed out you still have to work hard to get successful results from them, but this is no justification for their use. With regards to RJJ getting away lightly I blame boxing for this. Only one of the governing bodies had it on their banned list & I think his opponent also tested positive for something. Also RJJ claims it was in the Ripped Fuel that he was using at the time.

I don't see how anyone can make a reasoned argument to suggest willing PED users should be in the Hall of Fame.

In cases such as Roy Jones, or to use another sport, Kolo Toure for example, I think an exception can be made provided there are concrete facts to back it up, which seems to be the case for RJJ.

On the other hand, Mosley, as much as I like him, and consider him one of the best fighters of his generation, I don't think he should be allowed into the HOF for the reasons discussed previously.

To be knowingly taking PED's is a step too far in that apart from the obvious health implications placed not only on yourself, but more importantly your innocent opponent is going too far in sport. In addition to that, you must know that by taking PED's and possibly winning (which in Mosley's case possibly made the difference between beating ODLH or not (who's to say)), then naturally that elevates you in the sport.

Consequently if and when you get caught, the fall for yourself but also the sport, as we've seen in cycling etc. I'd imagine none of them ever think they will get caught, but it is still an interesting thought-how many potential boxers, cyclists, etc have been put off by PED use and the bad press that goes with it? How many fans have stopped following these sports?

if peterson can keep a world title after been caught, im not suprised people expect to get in the HoF even after been caught using PEDs.

if you dont get penalised for cheating people will cheat, simple as that- 6 months bans are the norm and effectively arent a punishment at all for some fighters, and a 2-3 month holiday for others.

People are quick to point the blame at Peterson but let Jones get away with it, neither should have fought again, excuses or not.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:People are quick to point the blame at Peterson but let Jones get away with it, neither should have fought again, excuses or not.

As I said in my post with regards to jones I blame boxing itself. We all know that it was only the IBF that had it on the banned list not the rest of the governing bodies, so in theory only the IBF could have stripped him, made the fight a no contest for their records & banned him for life from fighting for their title again, whilst he continued fighting & defending the belts from the others. Do you know if the substance in question is now banned by the other bodies?

Andros has long been banned by WADA and is also illegal to buy under reforms in anabolic steroid law. Whether it was just the IBF or not he's still a drugs cheat who gets away with it because people like him.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Andros has long been banned by WADA and is also illegal to buy under reforms in anabolic steroid law. Whether it was just the IBF or not he's still a drugs cheat who gets away with it because people like him.

No because boxing is a mess & the other governing bodies didn't adhere to WADA's guidelines so hadn't actually cheated in the eyes of the others. A ridiculous situation really & although I like Jones I do find the the 'reason' behind why he & others failed a test due to over the counter products a little 'convenient'. If your going to cheat why not find out what over the counter products contain something banned & when you get caught there's your get out clause. I do find it a little strange that people constantly go on about Holyfields body at heavyweight but not Jones at light heavy, he was in incredible shape, totally ripped!

Sohotnot it doesnt qite work that way. Its like that warning - may contain nuts - the machine that packs the cereal might leave traces of nuts in a product thats usually doesnt contain them because its previously been used to ack nuts. Sadly the same machines that are used to pack protein or energy supplements are also used to pack peds and thats where the positive test comes in. You could have the same supplement all your life and one time the machine isnt cleaned properly from previous use and you get a positive test. Happened to berto recently - he had nandrolone in his sytem about a trilllionth worth - barely enough to even be noticed even by that thorouggh test.

I see where your coming from Shah not sure if I agree with you 100%. Jones took Ripped Fuel which at the time contained a substance that was apparently on the WADA banned list & banned by the IBF and has since been produced without it. I'm not that sure that places that manufacture & pack protein powders etc are the same places that are producing peds although I wouldn't rule it out 100% nor would I rule out less than scrupulous companies using a banned product in a supplement and not listing it. I was just pointing out a potential get out clause like with TRT & the elevated levels that the NSAC allow compared with other state commissions allow.

The problem is some of us know how rampant pEDs are in sport and some of us don't...

Imagine a quarter of the HOF have dabbled........

No one is saying steroids are good...just that it's folly to assume it's a small few who are using..Obviously repeat offenders should be kicked out!!

But you know....Ben Johnson is three metres behind today's sprinters...

Amazing what eating your greens can do...

bellchees wrote:Am I correct in thinking that Armstrong never tested positive for anything despite being the most tested athlete in the history of sport? Think I read that somewhere but not sure how true it is. It does make me question every top level boxer when the punishment is near non existent, the testing is pathetic and the rewards are immense (Floyd being the highest paid sports star in the world) and losing can set your career back a year or so like Khan. No one seems to care that Marquez hires a convicted steroid dealer the knocks a guy with a cast iron chin out cold after not really hurting him for 36 rounds of boxing.

Nope he has failed a test and has also had past tests retested using new techniques which also came back positive

Failed Test

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf
Pages 50/51



The retested one which came back positive for EPO was on the documentary I watched not long ago

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I've never seen the big deal..The guy lost a piece of ear"

It's Boxing........we don't bite ears off regardless of how strict your diet has been!!

I admire British fairplay......You just forget to turn up for three tests in a row over here....

and then get applauded for winning a 400m gold...

Not sure you have much of an argument anymore regarding the extremes Lance went to conceal his cheating. Think the yanks have a far worst reputation in the aspect of DRUG CHEATTING!

More Americans take part in sport at the top level!! so no doubt we have..

Smart aren't you!!

We should however deliberately miss three tests in a row as is the custom over here..

she was on SKY sports moments of the year with Stelling!!

All forgotten in her case isn't it!!

At least Lance took the tests.........Linford Christie tested positive..Jason Livingstone....

Hardly angelic this beautiful island....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:she was on SKY sports moments of the year with Stelling!!

Was she!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well that settles it then! Sorry for crossing you TRUSS. I should have know better

I should have known better......

Thanks for admitting it TRUSS

And thanks for falling for the bait you done what you usually do when loosing an arguement!

You said nobody likes her...........

I said she was on moments of the year with Jeff Stelling..with other achievers of 2012!!

and I lose the argument..

OK.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You said nobody likes her...........

I said she was on moments of the year with Jeff Stelling..with other achievers of 2012!!

Aye Sam Torrence, Annabelle Croft and Jamie Redknapp have acheived so much in their respective sports this year.

Fact is she was invited on in respected company.......hard to fathom given nobody likes her..

You forgot Cavendish and the gold medallist at London...

Probably by accident I expect..

run a long..

Didn't forget about them at all was just pointing out that the people on the show were by no means all acheivers in 2012, was something of a mixed bag. I actually agree with you that she should not be allowed to compete but any inference she is a national treasure or much loved athlete over here is a massive exaggeration at best and just plain nonsense at worst.

Lee Pearson..paralympic gold medallist....Mark Cavendish had great success at the 2012 Tour de france..

Both achievers in 2012....and.. two.. is plural as is ...over..

Hope you're not going to kick me off here again for putting you in your place!!

"Over".. .............."Other" ..

You win Rowley I give up....serves me right for being a smart a$$

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You said nobody likes her...........

I said she was on moments of the year with Jeff Stelling..with other achievers of 2012!!

and I lose the argument..

OK.....

When did I say nobody likes her

I see TRUSS is clutching a lot of straws at the moment

"Who gives one about her"............about 5 posts up!!

Obviously the people on the show who invited her!!

I'll keep clutching..

Who gives one about means that nobody cares. I didn't say I didn't like her.

There seems to be a tighter grip on your straws now

pedantic dribble...

Well you do know what that is

It's a good name for a band to be fair.

let's not get down and dirty.........I'll probably get kicked off..

I'll concede your point..this time!