PEDs are a plague upon combat sports, no question. USADA testing has done a great job at cleaning up the vast majority of the sport.
And I'd say they're a relevant issue in all discussion about the P4P GOATs, though I don't take the discussions too seriously. They're just fun.
But I'm curious what the general consensus of Anderson Silva's positive PED test after the Nick Diaz fight.
[Go ahead and vote in the poll above, if your opinion is already solidified]
Lets look back exactly what he tested positive for -
https://www.mmafighting.com/2015/2/...-tested-positive-for-two-types-of-performance
"Anderson Silva not only tested positive for Drostanolone metabolites in a Jan. 9 out-of-competition drug test, but traces of the banned substance Androstane were also found within the legendary champion's system, according to Nevada Athletic Commission (NAC) executive director Bob Bennett.
Drostanolone is a common form of anabolic steroid. Androstane is a form of endogenous steroid hormone. Both substances are banned according to World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code."
That's pretty cut and dry, right? If you're of the opinion that any PEDs positive test throws into question if the fighter was always on PEDs and this was just the first time they got caught. And Silva was not using an obscure PED that no one knew about, but
a steroid & steroid hormone. Two PEDs.
But there's a sympathetic argument towards this not harming his legacy. Before the Diaz fight, this happened to him 14 months before -
Given the fact he went through THAT - possibly the most painful injury in combat sports - & an entire year of recovery that went into his fight camp for Diaz... its kinda understandable he'd take anything to aid in the healing [though if steroids aid in healing what injuries is another topic].
And he's never tested positive for anything before, or since.
So what's your opinion?