- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,928
- Reaction score
- 5,378
I agree with you. The topic is about Paulie and how he would deal with drug cheats. Even though he is on Floyd's dick and yet doesn't bring up anything to do with Floyd and his PED usage.
Paulies way of handling cheating:
- Thread starter Strange King
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,928
- Reaction score
- 5,378
WORLD EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE BY THOMAS HAUSER
On September 9, 2015, an article I wrote entitled “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” was posted online, click here to read.
Among other things, the article reported that, eighteen days after the May 2 fight between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (which had contracted to oversee drug testing for the bout) granted Mayweather a retroactive therapeutic use exemption for a procedure that's on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) "Prohibited Substances and Methods List".
More specifically, on May 19, Mayweather applied for (and, on May 20, was granted) a therapeutic use exemption for what he says was an IV infusion of saline and vitamins that was administered on May 1.
The IV administration of legal substances of up to 50 milliliters per 6-hour period is permitted under WADA and USADA regulations. The administration of more than 50 milliliters per 6-hour period is prohibited because an IV infusion can dilute or mask the presence of another substance that is already in the recipient’s system or might be added to it in the near future.
Mayweather acknowledges having received an IV infusion of 750 milliliters (25.361 ounces), an amount equal to roughly 16 percent of the blood normally present in an average adult male.
A September 10, 2015, statement from USADA in response to “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” reads in part, “Because Mr. Mayweather was voluntarily taking part in a USADA program, and therefore subject to the rules of the WADA Code, he took the additional step of applying for a TUE after the IV infusion was administered in order remain in compliance with the USADA program.”
In other words, USADA concedes that, without the retroactive therapeutic use exemption, Mayweather would have been in violation of the WADA code.
“Can Boxing Trust USADA?” raised other issues as well. Most notable among these were questions regarding the results of two testosterone-to-epitestosterone-ratio tests administered to Mayweather and USADA’s handling of tests that found Clenbuterol (a prohibited drug) in Erik Morales’s system. However, public reaction to the article focused on the IV that was administered to Mayweather.
In the first 24 hours after “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” was posted online, links to the article were tweeted more than two thousand times. At one point on September 10, the issue of Mayweather and USADA was the number one trending story on Facebook.
That same day, an interviewer for ESPN SportsCenter was bypassed during a series of satellite interviews designed to promote the September 12 pay-per-view fight between Mayweather and Andre Berto because ESPN refused to commit to not asking about the issue of Mayweather’s IV.
The widely-reported justification for Mayweather’s IV is that it was administered to remedy dehydration. On September 11, Mayweather told an interviewer for FightHype.com that he’d been “just rehydrating.” That’s also what USADA suggested to the Nevada State Athletic Commission when it advised the NSAC on May 21 (nineteen days after Mayweather-Pacquiao) that “the infusion was administered to address concerns related to dehydration.”
But that statement was made by USADA at a time when it was likely that Mayweather’s IV would pass without public notice. Since then, USADA has declined to state what the medical justification for the otherwise-prohibited IV procedure was.
On September 17, USADA released what it called a “Detailed Correction” of “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” The “correction” (which will be discussed at length later in this article) is 9,992 words long. It references Victor Conte (who was imprisoned for conduct related to the BALCO scandal) by name 21 times. It describes this writer with words like “reckless” and “totally irresponsible.”
One word that USADA’s “Detailed Correction” does not mention is “dehydrated.” Nor does it use “dehydration” or any derivative thereof.
Most likely, that’s because the available evidence strongly suggests that Floyd Mayweather was not dehydrated.
Too often, people enter into a discussion with their minds already made up. I urge everyone on both sides of the Mayweather-USADA issue to read this article and the article that preceded it in their entirety. Carefully. The issues that the articles raise are important to everyone who cares about boxing and clean sport.
Then let’s have an intelligent dialogue.
USADA’s explanation of the events surrounding the IV that was administered to Floyd Mayweather raises more questions than it answers. This is the time line that USADA offered in its September 17 statement.
A doping control officer arrived at Mayweather’s home at approximately 1:45 PM on the day of the weigh-in for Mayweather-Pacquiao to collect a urine sample. As previously noted, USADA’s “Detailed Correction” does not say that Mayweather was dehydrated. It references an unspecified “physical condition” and says that he “provided partial urine samples to USADA both prior to and following the infusion [which was after the weigh-in].” USADA did not state with greater specificity when the first partial urine sample was provided.
Mayweather went to the MGM Grand Garden Arena for the weigh-in, conducted interviews after the weigh-in, and returned to his home at an unspecified hour. Presumably, if he was dehydrated, he had the opportunity to drink water, Gatorade, or another beverage of his choosing after the weigh-in.
Be that as it may; at an unspecified time, the USADA collection officer “observed Mr. Mayweather’s condition that precipitated the need for an IV.”
We are not told specifically what this condition was, but might speculate that Mayweather told the collection officer that he couldn’t urinate since there was only a “partial” urine collection before the IV. USADA also tells us that “Mr. Mayweather declared the infusion in advance to the USADA DCO, who was made aware of the need for the IV due to Mr. Mayweather’s physical condition.”
What exactly was Mayweather’s “physical condition”? What was the medical justification that led to the decision that an onsite IV was the appropriate treatment? Who made the determination that the IV was medically necessary? A doping control officer can’t make that determination.
USADA further tells us, “The DCO was also in the home when the paramedic was called and remained in the home while the paramedic provided the IV.”
Who called the paramedic? Which medical service did the paramedic come from? Where is the full paramedic report of the incident?
In addition, USADA states, “The USADA DCO continued to monitor Mr. Mayweather throughout the administration of the IV by the paramedic and thereafter until a full sample was collected from Mr. Mayweather.”
In other words, according to USADA, its on-site doping control officer was informed in advance that Mayweather intended to undergo a procedure that was in violation of WADA protocols and then watched while the procedure was in progress. Thereafter, USADA withheld notification from the Nevada State Athletic Commission for twenty days.
And USADA knew the procedure was in violation of WADA protocols because it had to grant Mayweather a therapeutic use exemption in order to justify it. In fact, USADA’s ”Detailed Correction” acknowledges, ”The use of IVs in this manner is prohibited without a TUE.”
This, in turn, leads to more questions.
Did USADA independently analyze the solution that was administered to Mayweather by IV? Or did it take the word of Mayweather’s camp that it was saline and vitamins?
Who “approved” the IV procedure on site?
What was the medical justification and supporting data that led to USADA granting a retroactive therapeutic use exemption for an otherwise prohibited IV procedure?
Who at USADA made the decision to grant Mayweather a retroactive therapeutic use exemption eighteen days after the fight?
If the procedure was “approved on site,” why did Mayweather need to apply for and receive a therapeutic use exemption almost three weeks later?
USADA reported to the Nevada State Athletic Commission that the last blood sample it took from Mayweather prior to the fight was on April 21. Shouldn’t USADA have taken samples on May 1, immediately prior to and after administration of the IV?
On how many previous occasions has Mayweather received an IV infusion after the weigh-in for one of his fights? If such infusions did in fact occur, was he given a therapeutic use exemption in each instance?
And at the risk of sounding simplistic: If Mayweather was dehydrated, why didn't he simply drink several glasses of water after the weigh-in to remedy the problem?
The answer to the last question is that, as earlier noted, the available evidence strongly suggests that Mayweather was not dehydrated. And certainly not dehydrated enough to need an IV infusion equal to roughly 16 percent of his total blood volume.
Let’s review what we know at the present time.
The contract weight for Mayweather-Pacquiao was 147 pounds.
Thirty days before the fight, Mayweather weighed in for the World Boxing Council and tipped the scales at 150-1/2 pounds.
Much has been made of the pre-fight medical questionnaire that Manny Pacquiao filled out on May 1, 2015 (the day of the Mayweather-Pacquiao weigh-in). The questionnaire specifically asked, “Have you had any injury to your shoulders, elbows, or hands that needed evaluation or examination?” Hiding the fact of his partial rotator-cuff tear, Pacquiao (or his representative) falsely answered “no.”
But Mayweather’s pre-fight medical questionnaire is also instructive. In response to the question, “What was your weight 2 weeks ago,” Mayweather answered “149 pounds.” In response to the question, “What was your weight 1 week ago,” Mayweather answered “148-1/2 pounds.”
And Mayweather weighed in for the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight at 146 pounds (one pound under the contract weight), which is a further indication that he didn’t need to dangerously dehydrate to make weight.
Also, Mayweather was given a pre-fight physical examination by the Nevada State Athletic Commission on the day of the weigh-in. Did he disclose to commission doctors at that time that he was so badly dehydrated that he needed an IV infusion? No, he did not. Nor, according to NSAC records, did the examining physician find evidence of dehydration.
If a fighter is dehydrated, his blood pressure is likely to be low and his pulse rate high. That wasn’t the case with Mayweather as evidenced by the Nevada State Athletic Commission medical data sheet.
Mayweather’s blood pressure was 118/84. In other words, his systolic blood pressure (pressure when the heart is contracting and pumping blood out) was 118. And his diastolic blood pressure (pressure when the heart is resting between beats) was 84. That’s normal for a professional athlete.
Mayweather’s pulse rate – 60 sitting and 66 standing – was also normal.
When a ring doctor tells a fighter to open his mouth wide at a pre-fight physical examination, the doctor isn’t looking for cavities. He’s checking for loose teeth and cuts inside the mouth. The doctor is also checking the mucous membrane lining inside the fighter’s mouth for signs of dehydration. Furthermore, if a fighter is dehydrated, there are additional signs of that condition in his skin turgor (the time it takes for skin to return to its original position after being pinched). Neither of these conditions was noted by the examining doctor.
To repeat: Mayweather showed no significant signs of dehydration at his pre-fight physical examination.
Moreover, if USADA did determine that Mayweather was so badly dehydrated as to warrant the emergency treatment of adding 25.361 ounces of fluid to his blood, it’s unconscionable that USADA didn’t transmit this information to the Nevada State Athletic Commission and the ring doctors who would be overseeing the fight the following night.
So . . . If the purpose of the IV that was administered to Mayweather wasn’t to combat dehydration, what was it for?
Let’s start with some thoughts from Jeff Novitzky, the former federal agent who played a key role in the investigation of Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, and Victor Conte.
In August of this year, Novitzky appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience #685, and the following exchange occurred:
Joe Rogan: What’s the reason why they can’t use an IV? Is it to mask possible performance enhancing drugs?
Jeff Novitzky: That’s the primary reason. I saw it up front and center in cycling. They were using IVs of saline solution to manipulate their blood level readings, which were being used to determine if they were blood doping. It could also be used to flush a system. It dilutes blood and urine so that natural steroid profiles are very hard to read after you’ve taken an IV bag. That’s the primary reason. WADA also prohibits them for some health reasons. When an IV is administered, especially close to a competition, there’s a possibility of blowing out a vein or having clotting after the IV is taken out. There could be some issues with edema and swelling. If the idea is to rehydrate, it’s much safer to do it orally. Studies show that orally rehydrating is better for you if you’re mildly dehydrated. There’s two things that they show consistently. Number one, it’s obviously safer to put something through your mouth than put it in a needle in your vein. Number two, your perceived rate of exertion, how hard you feel you’re working after rehydrating orally, is less than if you rehydrate via IV. If you rehydrate orally properly, the next day you’re going to feel a whole lot better when you’re exerting yourself.”
“Now that’s mild dehydration,” Novitzky added. Where extreme dehydration is concerned, Novitzky suggested, “You probably should go to a hospital. [And] I think you need to notify the commission where you’re fighting.”
Sports fans now know that an IV infusion can dilute or mask the presence of another substance that is already in an athlete’s system or might be added to the athlete’s system in the near future. Let’s put some meat on that statement, taking erythropoietin (EPO) as an example.
A person’s red and white blood cells are suspended in plasma (a fluid that, by itself, is yellow in color).
Red blood cells deliver oxygen to muscle tissue.
Erythropoietin is a hormone that stimulates the production of red blood cells. Synthetic EPO can be administered by injection and, by creating more red blood cells, increases the flow of oxygen to an athlete’s muscle tissue. It also hastens the removal of metabolic waste. As such, EPO increases an athlete’s aerobic capacity and endurance.
Once the desired level of EPO is reached in an athlete’s system, the level of red blood cells can be maintained by a weekly injection.
There are two ways to determine the presence of synthetic EPO in an athlete’s system. The first is a urine test that directly determines its presence. When EPO is administered by subcutaneous injection, it clears an athlete’s system in roughly 43 hours. If EPO is administered by IV, it clears an athlete’s system on average in 19 hours.
The second way to test for synthetic EPO is a hematocrit blood test. This test doesn’t directly measure the presence of EPO. Rather, it tests for the result of EPO administration.
A person’s hematocrit level is the percentage of red blood cells to that person’s total whole blood volume. The hematocrit level for an average adult male is roughly 45%. Anything below 37% or above 51% indicates an irregularity.
If an athlete is using synthetic EPO, his or her hematocrit level rises. Adding saline solution to the athlete’s blood intravenously increases the plasma component of the blood, thus bringing down the ratio of red blood cells to total whole blood volume. As such, the saline solution reduces the athlete’s hematocrit level to an acceptable level.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that a hematocrit blood test would show that the percentage of red blood cells to an athlete’s total whole blood volume is 55%. If the athlete adds 750 milliliters (25.361 ounces) of saline solution and vitamins via IV, it won’t diminished the number of red blood cells in that athlete. His red blood cells will still be at an elevated level. But the percentage of red blood cells to that athlete’s total whole blood volume will drop to 47% because he will be increasing his total whole blood volume.
That’s an example of what is meant by “diluting and masking” through the use of an intravenous infusion.
I don’t know whether or not Floyd Mayweather used prohibited performance enhancing drugs.
To repeat: I don’t know whether or not Floyd Mayweather used prohibited performance enhancing drugs.
I do know that the facts surrounding Mayweather’s May 1 IV have not been fully explored. And I have a problem with the concept of a doping control officer going to Mayweather’s home, and Mayweather telling the DCO that he’ll provide a full urine sample AFTER he takes an IV infusion of 25.361 ounces of fluid.
To date, the Nevada State Athletic Commission has been supportive of Mayweather. At the start of Showtime’s pay-per-view telecast of the September 12 fight between Mayweather and Andre Berto, NSAC executive director Bob Bennett told Jim Gray, “Mr. Mayweather has done nothing wrong. The Nevada State Athletic Commission has no interest in any type of investigation regarding his IV.”
But the issues regarding Mayweather and USADA go far beyond the May 1 IV.
In response to a request for documents, the Nevada State Athletic Commission produced two lab reports earlier this year that listed the testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio on tests that it (not USADA) had overseen on Mayweather. In one instance, blood and urine samples were taken from Mayweather on August 18, 2011 (prior to his September 17 fight against Victor Ortiz). In the other instance, blood and urine samples were taken from Mayweather on April 3, 2013 (prior to his May 4 fight against Robert Guerrero). In each instance, Mayweather’s testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio was unusually low, which is sometimes a sign that synthetic epitestosterone has been administered to cover up the use of synthetic testosterone.
Also, USADA previously posted on its website the dates on which it took blood and urine samples from Mayweather dating back to his 2010 fight against Shane Mosley. These posts have now been removed.
Other sources have provided the testing dates for Mayweather’s fights against Mosley, Miguel Cotto, and Manny Pacquiao. In the case of Mayweather-Mosley, the final pre-fight blood sample was taken from Mayweather eighteen days before the fight. In the case of Mayweather-Cotto, the final pre-fight blood sample was taken from Mayweather sixteen days before the fight. For Mayweather-Pacquiao, there was an eleven-day gap.
That’s a lot of time.
Meanwhile, the Nevada State Athletic Commission is unhappy with USADA.
After “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” was posted, NSAC chairman Francisco Aguilar told the Las Vegas Review Journal, "USADA does not have the jurisdiction to approve and administer a TUE. That and the fact we were not notified until well after the fact of Mr. Mayweather's being administered the TUE are very troubling and concerning to us. USADA is supposed to be a drug-testing agency and not a TUE administrating organization. We were not made aware of this until several weeks after the fight, which is not acceptable procedure for the commission."
Similarly, Bob Bennett told the Los Angeles Times, “USADA has historically been recognized as the world’s leading anti-doping authority. However, my experiences to date with them have been less than acceptable and less than professional. He [Mayweather] cannot have it done at his house and USADA can’t authorize it. I have specifically articulated and memorialized to USADA that [the NSAC] is the sole authority that can authorize a therapeutic use exemption for a fighter in the state of Nevada. USADA never told us prior to the IV that they had their own TUE, and they never kept us informed about it being administered. If they think they can do what they want, where and whenever they want in the State of Nevada, they are grossly mistaken.”
Also, let’s keep in mind that the original draft of the USADA-Mayweather-Pacquiao drug-testing contract would have allowed USADA to grant a retroactive therapeutic use exemption to either fighter without notifying the Nevada State Athletic Commission or the opposing fighter’s camp. Indeed, even USADA’s “Detailed Correction” concedes, “USADA agreed to the request from Mr. Pacquiao’s representatives that USADA provide mutual notification to both fighters upon the approval of a TUE.”
In other words, if Pacquiao’s representatives hadn’t insisted upon notification, Mayweather’s retroactive therapeutic use exemption would most likely have remained a secret between Mayweather and USADA.
That brings us back to USADA’s 25-page “Detailed Correction.”
“Can Boxing Trust USADA?” was posted on September 9. Eight days later, USADA issued its response. Its “Detailed Correction” purports to give readers “accurate facts” - a redundancy that underscores USADA’s lack of understanding of what constitutes truth.
The dictionary defines “fact” as “something that actually exists, reality, truth.” A fact is a fact. If it isn’t accurate, it’s not a fact.
USADA’s “Detailed Correction” reads like talking points that have been prepared for a political candidate who wants to distort the facts.
There’s one significant correction in it that I accept. Prior to USADA’s September 17 statement, it was widely believed that its doping control officer went to Mayweather’s Las Vegas home to conduct an unannounced drug test and found evidence of an IV being administered to Mayweather. USADA maintains – and I will accept - that “Mr. Mayweather declared the infusion in advance to the USADA DCO.” However, that leads to the questions about the IV posed earlier in this article.
Beyond that, USADA’s “Detailed Correction” consists for the most part of misstatements, distortions, and platitudes about “clean sport.” It purports to present “a side by side comparison of the claims of Mr. Hauser’s article to the truth.” But USADA’s “truth” is often misleading or a reaffirmation of what I wrote.
For example, the USADA “Detailed Correction” states, “Mr. Hauser fails to specifically identify any provisions in the Testing Agreement that conflict with USADA’s statement that our professional boxing testing programs are in accordance with the WADA International Standards.”
That’s simply wrong.
A copy of the drug-testing agreement entered into between USADA, Floyd Mayweather, and Manny Pacquiao was attached as an exhibit to “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” Paragraph 30 of the contract states, “If any rule or regulation whatsoever incorporated or referenced herein conflicts in any respect with the terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall in all such respects control. Such rules and regulations include, but are not limited to: the Code [the World Anti-Doping Code]; the USADA Protocol; the WADA Prohibited List; the ISTUE [WADA International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions]; and the ISTI [WADA International Standard for Testing and Investigations].”
USADA also objects to a quote from Victor Conte in “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” in which Conte states, “USADA’s boxing testing program . . . has one set of rules for some fighters and a different set of rules for others. That’s not the way real drug testing works.”
In response, USADA’s “Detailed Correction” claims, “USADA applies the same set of rules to all fighters who voluntarily agree to participate in a USADA professional boxing testing program.”
But in the same “Detailed Correction,” USADA acknowledges that paragraph 30 of the USADA-Mayweather-Pacquiao drug testing agreement (referenced above) varied from its standard professional boxing testing agreement.
There’s more.
“Can Boxing Trust USADA?” notes that, after hearing reports that three Floyd Mayweather “A” samples had tested positive, Manny Pacquiao’s attorneys served document demands and subpoenas on various entities including USADA, demanding the production of all documents relating to PED testing of Mayweather in conjunction with three fights.
“The documents,” I wrote, “were not produced.”
In response, the “Detailed Correction” states, “This is inaccurate. USADA produced a total of 2,695 pages of documents in response to the subpoena from Mr. Pacquiao’s legal counsel.”
Now let’s look at the truth.
USADA produced a mountain of paper in response to the subpoena, including rules and regulations that were already a matter of public record and some test results. But it withheld other documents and, on June 22, 2012, filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing, "First, the requested documents include medical records and documentation relating to Mr. Mayweather Jr which may constitute confidential medical records requiring his consent and release. Second, the requested documents include documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or the investigative privilege. Third, the subpoena purports to require production in Los Angeles, California, more than 100 miles from USADA's offices and the location of the requested documents."
USADA’s motion to quash was never ruled upon by the court because the case was settled by the payment of an undisclosed sum of money by Mayweather to Pacquiao. It would be interesting to review the documents that USADA did not produce.
The list of distortions in USADA’s “Detailed Correction” goes on.
In “Can Boxing Trust USADA?”, I wrote, “Drug testing, if it is to inspire confidence, should be largely transparent. Much of USADA’s operation insofar as boxing is concerned is shrouded in secrecy . . . The organization has resisted filing its boxer drug-testing contracts with governing state athletic commissions. On several occasions, New York and Nevada have forced the issue. Compliance has often been slow in coming. When asked to identify the boxing matches for which a USADA drug-testing contract was filed with either the New York or Nevada State Athletic Commissions, [USADA CEO] Travis Tygart declined through a spokesperson (USADA senior communications manager Annie Skinner) to answer the question.”
In response, USADA’s “Detailed Correction” claims, “This is inaccurate. Mr. Hauser fails to attribute this information to a source or specifically indicate the ‘several occasions’ on which the referenced commissions allegedly forced USADA to disclose its testing agreements. USADA has never been forced to disclose a testing agreement. When requested, for valid reasons given, we have provided copies of those contracts to the appropriate commission. That includes both the Nevada and New York commissions [italics added].”
All right. To cite an example, USADA declined to give its drug testing contract for the April 11, 2015, fight between Andy Lee and Peter Quillin to the New York State Athletic Commission. Ultimately, the commission obtained a copy from DiBella Entertainment (Lee’s promoter). And that copy wasn’t even signed by Quillin.
More to the point; what right does USADA have to decide whether a request by a state athletic commission for a drug-testing contract is “valid”? The state athletic commission is the government entity with jurisdiction over the fight. USADA shouldn’t be deciding what the commission is and isn’t entitled to.
Similarly, “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” notes that USADA does not give full test results to the state athletic commission that governs a fight. It gives the commission summaries that state whether a fighter has tested positive or negative.
USADA responded in its “Detailed Correction”, “USADA has no objection in principle to providing State Athletic Commissions access to test results if used appropriately under the WADA ISPPPI and only for legitimate anti-doping purposes.”
Again; what right does USADA have to determine what is legitimate and appropriate?
There are times when USADA’s “Detailed Correction” reads like a bad joke.
“Can Boxing Trust USADA?” states, “Thereafter, [Travis] Tygart moved aggressively to expand USADA’s footprint in boxing and forged a working relationship with Richard Schaefer, who until 2014 served as CEO of Golden Boy Promotions, one of boxing’s most influential promoters.”
The “Detailed Correction” indignantly responds, “This is misleading. It’s unclear what Mr. Hauser is trying to insinuate. There is no personal relationship between Mr. Tygart and Mr. Schaefer and the two have never met in person.”
I didn’t write that there was a “personal” relationship between Travis Tygart and Richard Schaefer. I wrote that they “forged a working relationship.” Yet this passage is specifically cited as an example of how “USADA has been viciously and unjustifiably maligned by Mr. Hauser.” Strange reaction on the part of USADA. I didn’t comment on or ask about Travis Tygart’s personal relationships.
Moreover, USADA’s “Detailed Correction” fails to satisfactorily explain the agency’s behavior with regard to the Erik Morales fiasco.
USADA now claims that it notified the New York State Athletic Commission by telephone on October 17, 2012, that Morales had tested positive for Clenbuterol. But as noted in “Can Boxing Trust USADA?”, on August 10, 2015, Laz Benitez (a spokesperson for the New York State Department of State, which oversees the NYSAC) advised in writing, “There is no indication in the Commission’s files that it was notified of this matter prior to October 18, 2012.”
Since then, a September 18, 2015, response by Helen Wilbard (an assistant records access officer for the New York State Department of State) to a Freedom of Information Law request has confirmed that the NYSAC has no record of any communication from USADA regarding Erik Morales testing positive for Clenbuterol prior to that information becoming public knowledge on October 18.
Would USADA really notify a state athletic commission about a serious drug violation by telephone only? Where is the back-up documentation?
There isn’t any. USADA concedes in its “Detailed Correction” that It “did not send any written follow-up” to the NYSAC regarding the supposed October 17 telephone conversation.
Then there’s the crowning jewel in USADA’s “Detailed Correction” regarding Erik Morales. USADA proclaims that, eventually, it “commenced an anti-doping rule violation proceeding against Mr. Morales that resulted in the athlete being sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility.”
The problem with that is, USADA had no authority to suspend Morales. Indeed, USADA’s own “Detailed Correction” later acknowledges, “USADA does not have the authority to prevent a fight from occurring.”
I could go on. But the facts (or, as USADA would say, the “accurate facts”) speak for themselves.
It’s hard to imagine how many corporate executives, lawyers, and public relations experts worked on USADA’s “Detailed Correction” statement. If this is the best that they could come up with after eight days of trying, then USADA has a problem.
USADA can recite The Lord’s Prayer backwards in its PR handouts, but that won’t change what it has done.
And let’s not forget; USADA is hired by and contracts with the fighters it’s supposed to be testing. Indeed, there are times when it seems as though USADA collects drug-testing payments the way boxing’s world sanctioning organizations collect sanctioning fees.
The cost of USADA’s testing that we know of has ranged from $36,000 for Andy Lee vs. Peter Quillin to $150,000 for Floyd Mayweather vs. Manny Pacquiao.
Does anyone see a problem here? A Major League Baseball player can’t choose the drug-testing agency that tests him and negotiate a fee with that agency. It would be laughable to suggest that New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez (who was suspended for the entire 2014 season after being found in violation of Major League Baseball’s drug policy) could designate which agency tests him and then pay that agency out of his own pocket.
A National Football League player can’t say, “I don’t want this testing agency. They caught me using a banned substance last year.” But that’s precisely what happens in boxing. VADA (the Voluntary Anti-Doping Agency) tested Andre Berto and Lamont Peterson, both of whom tested positive for the presence of prohibited performance enhancing drugs in their system. What happened next? Both fighters refused to test again with VADA and opted for USADA.
USADA allows Floyd Mayweather and some of the other boxers it tests to dictate when drug testing begins. If Olympic athletes could dictate the date on which drug testing began, world records for races from 100 meters to the marathon would be considerably lower than they are today.
How many U.S. Olympic athletes in the condition that Floyd Mayweather was in on May 1 have received IVs of 750 milliliters or more while a USADA doping control officer was present? How many U.S. Olympic athletes have been given a retroactive therapeutic use exemption for a similar IV eighteen days after competing in their Olympic event?
And one more question. In responding to “Can Boxing Trust USADA?”, the United States Anti-Doping Agency issued a September 10 statement that read, “There are certainly those in the sport of professional boxing who appear committed to preventing an independent and comprehensive anti-doping program from being implemented in the sport, and who wish to advance an agenda that fails to put the interests of clean athletes before their own.”
I can think of several physical conditioners and fighters who might be against an independent and comprehensive anti-doping program. Who did USADA have in mind when it made that statement? If USADA is suggesting by innuendo that I’m on that list, I categorically reject that notion.
By and large, the people who are asking questions about the implementation of USADA’s drug testing program for boxing are the people who care about boxing the most.
Hours before Manny Pacquiao entered the ring to fight Floyd Mayweather, his request to be injected with Toradol (a legal substance) to ease the pain caused by a torn rotator cuff was denied by the Nevada State Athletic Commission because the request was not made in a timely manner. In explaining the NSAC’s decision, commission chairman Francisco Aguilar told the media, “There is a process. And when you try to screw with the process, it's not going to work for you.”
USADA and Mayweather appear to have screwed with the process. Let’s see if it works for them in the end.
As Winston Churchill once proclaimed, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. Ignorance may deride it. But in the end, there it is.”
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2012
- Messages
- 31,931
- Reaction score
- 15,924
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2014
- Messages
- 25,943
- Reaction score
- 6,957
WORLD EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE BY THOMAS HAUSER
On September 9, 2015, an article I wrote entitled “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” was posted online, click here to read.
Among other things, the article reported that, eighteen days after the May 2 fight between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (which had contracted to oversee drug testing for the bout) granted Mayweather a retroactive therapeutic use exemption for a procedure that's on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) "Prohibited Substances and Methods List".
More specifically, on May 19, Mayweather applied for (and, on May 20, was granted) a therapeutic use exemption for what he says was an IV infusion of saline and vitamins that was administered on May 1.
The IV administration of legal substances of up to 50 milliliters per 6-hour period is permitted under WADA and USADA regulations. The administration of more than 50 milliliters per 6-hour period is prohibited because an IV infusion can dilute or mask the presence of another substance that is already in the recipient’s system or might be added to it in the near future.
Mayweather acknowledges having received an IV infusion of 750 milliliters (25.361 ounces), an amount equal to roughly 16 percent of the blood normally present in an average adult male.
A September 10, 2015, statement from USADA in response to “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” reads in part, “Because Mr. Mayweather was voluntarily taking part in a USADA program, and therefore subject to the rules of the WADA Code, he took the additional step of applying for a TUE after the IV infusion was administered in order remain in compliance with the USADA program.”
In other words, USADA concedes that, without the retroactive therapeutic use exemption, Mayweather would have been in violation of the WADA code.
“Can Boxing Trust USADA?” raised other issues as well. Most notable among these were questions regarding the results of two testosterone-to-epitestosterone-ratio tests administered to Mayweather and USADA’s handling of tests that found Clenbuterol (a prohibited drug) in Erik Morales’s system. However, public reaction to the article focused on the IV that was administered to Mayweather.
In the first 24 hours after “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” was posted online, links to the article were tweeted more than two thousand times. At one point on September 10, the issue of Mayweather and USADA was the number one trending story on Facebook.
That same day, an interviewer for ESPN SportsCenter was bypassed during a series of satellite interviews designed to promote the September 12 pay-per-view fight between Mayweather and Andre Berto because ESPN refused to commit to not asking about the issue of Mayweather’s IV.
The widely-reported justification for Mayweather’s IV is that it was administered to remedy dehydration. On September 11, Mayweather told an interviewer for FightHype.com that he’d been “just rehydrating.” That’s also what USADA suggested to the Nevada State Athletic Commission when it advised the NSAC on May 21 (nineteen days after Mayweather-Pacquiao) that “the infusion was administered to address concerns related to dehydration.”
But that statement was made by USADA at a time when it was likely that Mayweather’s IV would pass without public notice. Since then, USADA has declined to state what the medical justification for the otherwise-prohibited IV procedure was.
On September 17, USADA released what it called a “Detailed Correction” of “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” The “correction” (which will be discussed at length later in this article) is 9,992 words long. It references Victor Conte (who was imprisoned for conduct related to the BALCO scandal) by name 21 times. It describes this writer with words like “reckless” and “totally irresponsible.”
One word that USADA’s “Detailed Correction” does not mention is “dehydrated.” Nor does it use “dehydration” or any derivative thereof.
Most likely, that’s because the available evidence strongly suggests that Floyd Mayweather was not dehydrated.
Too often, people enter into a discussion with their minds already made up. I urge everyone on both sides of the Mayweather-USADA issue to read this article and the article that preceded it in their entirety. Carefully. The issues that the articles raise are important to everyone who cares about boxing and clean sport.
Then let’s have an intelligent dialogue.
USADA’s explanation of the events surrounding the IV that was administered to Floyd Mayweather raises more questions than it answers. This is the time line that USADA offered in its September 17 statement.
A doping control officer arrived at Mayweather’s home at approximately 1:45 PM on the day of the weigh-in for Mayweather-Pacquiao to collect a urine sample. As previously noted, USADA’s “Detailed Correction” does not say that Mayweather was dehydrated. It references an unspecified “physical condition” and says that he “provided partial urine samples to USADA both prior to and following the infusion [which was after the weigh-in].” USADA did not state with greater specificity when the first partial urine sample was provided.
Mayweather went to the MGM Grand Garden Arena for the weigh-in, conducted interviews after the weigh-in, and returned to his home at an unspecified hour. Presumably, if he was dehydrated, he had the opportunity to drink water, Gatorade, or another beverage of his choosing after the weigh-in.
Be that as it may; at an unspecified time, the USADA collection officer “observed Mr. Mayweather’s condition that precipitated the need for an IV.”
We are not told specifically what this condition was, but might speculate that Mayweather told the collection officer that he couldn’t urinate since there was only a “partial” urine collection before the IV. USADA also tells us that “Mr. Mayweather declared the infusion in advance to the USADA DCO, who was made aware of the need for the IV due to Mr. Mayweather’s physical condition.”
What exactly was Mayweather’s “physical condition”? What was the medical justification that led to the decision that an onsite IV was the appropriate treatment? Who made the determination that the IV was medically necessary? A doping control officer can’t make that determination.
USADA further tells us, “The DCO was also in the home when the paramedic was called and remained in the home while the paramedic provided the IV.”
Who called the paramedic? Which medical service did the paramedic come from? Where is the full paramedic report of the incident?
In addition, USADA states, “The USADA DCO continued to monitor Mr. Mayweather throughout the administration of the IV by the paramedic and thereafter until a full sample was collected from Mr. Mayweather.”
In other words, according to USADA, its on-site doping control officer was informed in advance that Mayweather intended to undergo a procedure that was in violation of WADA protocols and then watched while the procedure was in progress. Thereafter, USADA withheld notification from the Nevada State Athletic Commission for twenty days.
And USADA knew the procedure was in violation of WADA protocols because it had to grant Mayweather a therapeutic use exemption in order to justify it. In fact, USADA’s ”Detailed Correction” acknowledges, ”The use of IVs in this manner is prohibited without a TUE.”
This, in turn, leads to more questions.
Did USADA independently analyze the solution that was administered to Mayweather by IV? Or did it take the word of Mayweather’s camp that it was saline and vitamins?
Who “approved” the IV procedure on site?
What was the medical justification and supporting data that led to USADA granting a retroactive therapeutic use exemption for an otherwise prohibited IV procedure?
Who at USADA made the decision to grant Mayweather a retroactive therapeutic use exemption eighteen days after the fight?
If the procedure was “approved on site,” why did Mayweather need to apply for and receive a therapeutic use exemption almost three weeks later?
USADA reported to the Nevada State Athletic Commission that the last blood sample it took from Mayweather prior to the fight was on April 21. Shouldn’t USADA have taken samples on May 1, immediately prior to and after administration of the IV?
On how many previous occasions has Mayweather received an IV infusion after the weigh-in for one of his fights? If such infusions did in fact occur, was he given a therapeutic use exemption in each instance?
And at the risk of sounding simplistic: If Mayweather was dehydrated, why didn't he simply drink several glasses of water after the weigh-in to remedy the problem?
The answer to the last question is that, as earlier noted, the available evidence strongly suggests that Mayweather was not dehydrated. And certainly not dehydrated enough to need an IV infusion equal to roughly 16 percent of his total blood volume.
Let’s review what we know at the present time.
The contract weight for Mayweather-Pacquiao was 147 pounds.
Thirty days before the fight, Mayweather weighed in for the World Boxing Council and tipped the scales at 150-1/2 pounds.
Much has been made of the pre-fight medical questionnaire that Manny Pacquiao filled out on May 1, 2015 (the day of the Mayweather-Pacquiao weigh-in). The questionnaire specifically asked, “Have you had any injury to your shoulders, elbows, or hands that needed evaluation or examination?” Hiding the fact of his partial rotator-cuff tear, Pacquiao (or his representative) falsely answered “no.”
But Mayweather’s pre-fight medical questionnaire is also instructive. In response to the question, “What was your weight 2 weeks ago,” Mayweather answered “149 pounds.” In response to the question, “What was your weight 1 week ago,” Mayweather answered “148-1/2 pounds.”
And Mayweather weighed in for the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight at 146 pounds (one pound under the contract weight), which is a further indication that he didn’t need to dangerously dehydrate to make weight.
Also, Mayweather was given a pre-fight physical examination by the Nevada State Athletic Commission on the day of the weigh-in. Did he disclose to commission doctors at that time that he was so badly dehydrated that he needed an IV infusion? No, he did not. Nor, according to NSAC records, did the examining physician find evidence of dehydration.
If a fighter is dehydrated, his blood pressure is likely to be low and his pulse rate high. That wasn’t the case with Mayweather as evidenced by the Nevada State Athletic Commission medical data sheet.
Mayweather’s blood pressure was 118/84. In other words, his systolic blood pressure (pressure when the heart is contracting and pumping blood out) was 118. And his diastolic blood pressure (pressure when the heart is resting between beats) was 84. That’s normal for a professional athlete.
Mayweather’s pulse rate – 60 sitting and 66 standing – was also normal.
When a ring doctor tells a fighter to open his mouth wide at a pre-fight physical examination, the doctor isn’t looking for cavities. He’s checking for loose teeth and cuts inside the mouth. The doctor is also checking the mucous membrane lining inside the fighter’s mouth for signs of dehydration. Furthermore, if a fighter is dehydrated, there are additional signs of that condition in his skin turgor (the time it takes for skin to return to its original position after being pinched). Neither of these conditions was noted by the examining doctor.
To repeat: Mayweather showed no significant signs of dehydration at his pre-fight physical examination.
Moreover, if USADA did determine that Mayweather was so badly dehydrated as to warrant the emergency treatment of adding 25.361 ounces of fluid to his blood, it’s unconscionable that USADA didn’t transmit this information to the Nevada State Athletic Commission and the ring doctors who would be overseeing the fight the following night.
So . . . If the purpose of the IV that was administered to Mayweather wasn’t to combat dehydration, what was it for?
Let’s start with some thoughts from Jeff Novitzky, the former federal agent who played a key role in the investigation of Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, and Victor Conte.
In August of this year, Novitzky appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience #685, and the following exchange occurred:
Joe Rogan: What’s the reason why they can’t use an IV? Is it to mask possible performance enhancing drugs?
Jeff Novitzky: That’s the primary reason. I saw it up front and center in cycling. They were using IVs of saline solution to manipulate their blood level readings, which were being used to determine if they were blood doping. It could also be used to flush a system. It dilutes blood and urine so that natural steroid profiles are very hard to read after you’ve taken an IV bag. That’s the primary reason. WADA also prohibits them for some health reasons. When an IV is administered, especially close to a competition, there’s a possibility of blowing out a vein or having clotting after the IV is taken out. There could be some issues with edema and swelling. If the idea is to rehydrate, it’s much safer to do it orally. Studies show that orally rehydrating is better for you if you’re mildly dehydrated. There’s two things that they show consistently. Number one, it’s obviously safer to put something through your mouth than put it in a needle in your vein. Number two, your perceived rate of exertion, how hard you feel you’re working after rehydrating orally, is less than if you rehydrate via IV. If you rehydrate orally properly, the next day you’re going to feel a whole lot better when you’re exerting yourself.”
“Now that’s mild dehydration,” Novitzky added. Where extreme dehydration is concerned, Novitzky suggested, “You probably should go to a hospital. [And] I think you need to notify the commission where you’re fighting.”
Sports fans now know that an IV infusion can dilute or mask the presence of another substance that is already in an athlete’s system or might be added to the athlete’s system in the near future. Let’s put some meat on that statement, taking erythropoietin (EPO) as an example.
A person’s red and white blood cells are suspended in plasma (a fluid that, by itself, is yellow in color).
Red blood cells deliver oxygen to muscle tissue.
Erythropoietin is a hormone that stimulates the production of red blood cells. Synthetic EPO can be administered by injection and, by creating more red blood cells, increases the flow of oxygen to an athlete’s muscle tissue. It also hastens the removal of metabolic waste. As such, EPO increases an athlete’s aerobic capacity and endurance.
Once the desired level of EPO is reached in an athlete’s system, the level of red blood cells can be maintained by a weekly injection.
There are two ways to determine the presence of synthetic EPO in an athlete’s system. The first is a urine test that directly determines its presence. When EPO is administered by subcutaneous injection, it clears an athlete’s system in roughly 43 hours. If EPO is administered by IV, it clears an athlete’s system on average in 19 hours.
The second way to test for synthetic EPO is a hematocrit blood test. This test doesn’t directly measure the presence of EPO. Rather, it tests for the result of EPO administration.
A person’s hematocrit level is the percentage of red blood cells to that person’s total whole blood volume. The hematocrit level for an average adult male is roughly 45%. Anything below 37% or above 51% indicates an irregularity.
If an athlete is using synthetic EPO, his or her hematocrit level rises. Adding saline solution to the athlete’s blood intravenously increases the plasma component of the blood, thus bringing down the ratio of red blood cells to total whole blood volume. As such, the saline solution reduces the athlete’s hematocrit level to an acceptable level.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that a hematocrit blood test would show that the percentage of red blood cells to an athlete’s total whole blood volume is 55%. If the athlete adds 750 milliliters (25.361 ounces) of saline solution and vitamins via IV, it won’t diminished the number of red blood cells in that athlete. His red blood cells will still be at an elevated level. But the percentage of red blood cells to that athlete’s total whole blood volume will drop to 47% because he will be increasing his total whole blood volume.
That’s an example of what is meant by “diluting and masking” through the use of an intravenous infusion.
I don’t know whether or not Floyd Mayweather used prohibited performance enhancing drugs.
To repeat: I don’t know whether or not Floyd Mayweather used prohibited performance enhancing drugs.
I do know that the facts surrounding Mayweather’s May 1 IV have not been fully explored. And I have a problem with the concept of a doping control officer going to Mayweather’s home, and Mayweather telling the DCO that he’ll provide a full urine sample AFTER he takes an IV infusion of 25.361 ounces of fluid.
To date, the Nevada State Athletic Commission has been supportive of Mayweather. At the start of Showtime’s pay-per-view telecast of the September 12 fight between Mayweather and Andre Berto, NSAC executive director Bob Bennett told Jim Gray, “Mr. Mayweather has done nothing wrong. The Nevada State Athletic Commission has no interest in any type of investigation regarding his IV.”
But the issues regarding Mayweather and USADA go far beyond the May 1 IV.
In response to a request for documents, the Nevada State Athletic Commission produced two lab reports earlier this year that listed the testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio on tests that it (not USADA) had overseen on Mayweather. In one instance, blood and urine samples were taken from Mayweather on August 18, 2011 (prior to his September 17 fight against Victor Ortiz). In the other instance, blood and urine samples were taken from Mayweather on April 3, 2013 (prior to his May 4 fight against Robert Guerrero). In each instance, Mayweather’s testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio was unusually low, which is sometimes a sign that synthetic epitestosterone has been administered to cover up the use of synthetic testosterone.
Also, USADA previously posted on its website the dates on which it took blood and urine samples from Mayweather dating back to his 2010 fight against Shane Mosley. These posts have now been removed.
Other sources have provided the testing dates for Mayweather’s fights against Mosley, Miguel Cotto, and Manny Pacquiao. In the case of Mayweather-Mosley, the final pre-fight blood sample was taken from Mayweather eighteen days before the fight. In the case of Mayweather-Cotto, the final pre-fight blood sample was taken from Mayweather sixteen days before the fight. For Mayweather-Pacquiao, there was an eleven-day gap.
That’s a lot of time.
Meanwhile, the Nevada State Athletic Commission is unhappy with USADA.
After “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” was posted, NSAC chairman Francisco Aguilar told the Las Vegas Review Journal, "USADA does not have the jurisdiction to approve and administer a TUE. That and the fact we were not notified until well after the fact of Mr. Mayweather's being administered the TUE are very troubling and concerning to us. USADA is supposed to be a drug-testing agency and not a TUE administrating organization. We were not made aware of this until several weeks after the fight, which is not acceptable procedure for the commission."
Similarly, Bob Bennett told the Los Angeles Times, “USADA has historically been recognized as the world’s leading anti-doping authority. However, my experiences to date with them have been less than acceptable and less than professional. He [Mayweather] cannot have it done at his house and USADA can’t authorize it. I have specifically articulated and memorialized to USADA that [the NSAC] is the sole authority that can authorize a therapeutic use exemption for a fighter in the state of Nevada. USADA never told us prior to the IV that they had their own TUE, and they never kept us informed about it being administered. If they think they can do what they want, where and whenever they want in the State of Nevada, they are grossly mistaken.”
Also, let’s keep in mind that the original draft of the USADA-Mayweather-Pacquiao drug-testing contract would have allowed USADA to grant a retroactive therapeutic use exemption to either fighter without notifying the Nevada State Athletic Commission or the opposing fighter’s camp. Indeed, even USADA’s “Detailed Correction” concedes, “USADA agreed to the request from Mr. Pacquiao’s representatives that USADA provide mutual notification to both fighters upon the approval of a TUE.”
In other words, if Pacquiao’s representatives hadn’t insisted upon notification, Mayweather’s retroactive therapeutic use exemption would most likely have remained a secret between Mayweather and USADA.
That brings us back to USADA’s 25-page “Detailed Correction.”
“Can Boxing Trust USADA?” was posted on September 9. Eight days later, USADA issued its response. Its “Detailed Correction” purports to give readers “accurate facts” - a redundancy that underscores USADA’s lack of understanding of what constitutes truth.
The dictionary defines “fact” as “something that actually exists, reality, truth.” A fact is a fact. If it isn’t accurate, it’s not a fact.
USADA’s “Detailed Correction” reads like talking points that have been prepared for a political candidate who wants to distort the facts.
There’s one significant correction in it that I accept. Prior to USADA’s September 17 statement, it was widely believed that its doping control officer went to Mayweather’s Las Vegas home to conduct an unannounced drug test and found evidence of an IV being administered to Mayweather. USADA maintains – and I will accept - that “Mr. Mayweather declared the infusion in advance to the USADA DCO.” However, that leads to the questions about the IV posed earlier in this article.
Beyond that, USADA’s “Detailed Correction” consists for the most part of misstatements, distortions, and platitudes about “clean sport.” It purports to present “a side by side comparison of the claims of Mr. Hauser’s article to the truth.” But USADA’s “truth” is often misleading or a reaffirmation of what I wrote.
For example, the USADA “Detailed Correction” states, “Mr. Hauser fails to specifically identify any provisions in the Testing Agreement that conflict with USADA’s statement that our professional boxing testing programs are in accordance with the WADA International Standards.”
That’s simply wrong.
A copy of the drug-testing agreement entered into between USADA, Floyd Mayweather, and Manny Pacquiao was attached as an exhibit to “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” Paragraph 30 of the contract states, “If any rule or regulation whatsoever incorporated or referenced herein conflicts in any respect with the terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall in all such respects control. Such rules and regulations include, but are not limited to: the Code [the World Anti-Doping Code]; the USADA Protocol; the WADA Prohibited List; the ISTUE [WADA International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions]; and the ISTI [WADA International Standard for Testing and Investigations].”
USADA also objects to a quote from Victor Conte in “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” in which Conte states, “USADA’s boxing testing program . . . has one set of rules for some fighters and a different set of rules for others. That’s not the way real drug testing works.”
In response, USADA’s “Detailed Correction” claims, “USADA applies the same set of rules to all fighters who voluntarily agree to participate in a USADA professional boxing testing program.”
But in the same “Detailed Correction,” USADA acknowledges that paragraph 30 of the USADA-Mayweather-Pacquiao drug testing agreement (referenced above) varied from its standard professional boxing testing agreement.
There’s more.
“Can Boxing Trust USADA?” notes that, after hearing reports that three Floyd Mayweather “A” samples had tested positive, Manny Pacquiao’s attorneys served document demands and subpoenas on various entities including USADA, demanding the production of all documents relating to PED testing of Mayweather in conjunction with three fights.
“The documents,” I wrote, “were not produced.”
In response, the “Detailed Correction” states, “This is inaccurate. USADA produced a total of 2,695 pages of documents in response to the subpoena from Mr. Pacquiao’s legal counsel.”
Now let’s look at the truth.
USADA produced a mountain of paper in response to the subpoena, including rules and regulations that were already a matter of public record and some test results. But it withheld other documents and, on June 22, 2012, filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing, "First, the requested documents include medical records and documentation relating to Mr. Mayweather Jr which may constitute confidential medical records requiring his consent and release. Second, the requested documents include documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or the investigative privilege. Third, the subpoena purports to require production in Los Angeles, California, more than 100 miles from USADA's offices and the location of the requested documents."
USADA’s motion to quash was never ruled upon by the court because the case was settled by the payment of an undisclosed sum of money by Mayweather to Pacquiao. It would be interesting to review the documents that USADA did not produce.
The list of distortions in USADA’s “Detailed Correction” goes on.
In “Can Boxing Trust USADA?”, I wrote, “Drug testing, if it is to inspire confidence, should be largely transparent. Much of USADA’s operation insofar as boxing is concerned is shrouded in secrecy . . . The organization has resisted filing its boxer drug-testing contracts with governing state athletic commissions. On several occasions, New York and Nevada have forced the issue. Compliance has often been slow in coming. When asked to identify the boxing matches for which a USADA drug-testing contract was filed with either the New York or Nevada State Athletic Commissions, [USADA CEO] Travis Tygart declined through a spokesperson (USADA senior communications manager Annie Skinner) to answer the question.”
In response, USADA’s “Detailed Correction” claims, “This is inaccurate. Mr. Hauser fails to attribute this information to a source or specifically indicate the ‘several occasions’ on which the referenced commissions allegedly forced USADA to disclose its testing agreements. USADA has never been forced to disclose a testing agreement. When requested, for valid reasons given, we have provided copies of those contracts to the appropriate commission. That includes both the Nevada and New York commissions [italics added].”
All right. To cite an example, USADA declined to give its drug testing contract for the April 11, 2015, fight between Andy Lee and Peter Quillin to the New York State Athletic Commission. Ultimately, the commission obtained a copy from DiBella Entertainment (Lee’s promoter). And that copy wasn’t even signed by Quillin.
More to the point; what right does USADA have to decide whether a request by a state athletic commission for a drug-testing contract is “valid”? The state athletic commission is the government entity with jurisdiction over the fight. USADA shouldn’t be deciding what the commission is and isn’t entitled to.
Similarly, “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” notes that USADA does not give full test results to the state athletic commission that governs a fight. It gives the commission summaries that state whether a fighter has tested positive or negative.
USADA responded in its “Detailed Correction”, “USADA has no objection in principle to providing State Athletic Commissions access to test results if used appropriately under the WADA ISPPPI and only for legitimate anti-doping purposes.”
Again; what right does USADA have to determine what is legitimate and appropriate?
There are times when USADA’s “Detailed Correction” reads like a bad joke.
“Can Boxing Trust USADA?” states, “Thereafter, [Travis] Tygart moved aggressively to expand USADA’s footprint in boxing and forged a working relationship with Richard Schaefer, who until 2014 served as CEO of Golden Boy Promotions, one of boxing’s most influential promoters.”
The “Detailed Correction” indignantly responds, “This is misleading. It’s unclear what Mr. Hauser is trying to insinuate. There is no personal relationship between Mr. Tygart and Mr. Schaefer and the two have never met in person.”
I didn’t write that there was a “personal” relationship between Travis Tygart and Richard Schaefer. I wrote that they “forged a working relationship.” Yet this passage is specifically cited as an example of how “USADA has been viciously and unjustifiably maligned by Mr. Hauser.” Strange reaction on the part of USADA. I didn’t comment on or ask about Travis Tygart’s personal relationships.
Moreover, USADA’s “Detailed Correction” fails to satisfactorily explain the agency’s behavior with regard to the Erik Morales fiasco.
USADA now claims that it notified the New York State Athletic Commission by telephone on October 17, 2012, that Morales had tested positive for Clenbuterol. But as noted in “Can Boxing Trust USADA?”, on August 10, 2015, Laz Benitez (a spokesperson for the New York State Department of State, which oversees the NYSAC) advised in writing, “There is no indication in the Commission’s files that it was notified of this matter prior to October 18, 2012.”
Since then, a September 18, 2015, response by Helen Wilbard (an assistant records access officer for the New York State Department of State) to a Freedom of Information Law request has confirmed that the NYSAC has no record of any communication from USADA regarding Erik Morales testing positive for Clenbuterol prior to that information becoming public knowledge on October 18.
Would USADA really notify a state athletic commission about a serious drug violation by telephone only? Where is the back-up documentation?
There isn’t any. USADA concedes in its “Detailed Correction” that It “did not send any written follow-up” to the NYSAC regarding the supposed October 17 telephone conversation.
Then there’s the crowning jewel in USADA’s “Detailed Correction” regarding Erik Morales. USADA proclaims that, eventually, it “commenced an anti-doping rule violation proceeding against Mr. Morales that resulted in the athlete being sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility.”
The problem with that is, USADA had no authority to suspend Morales. Indeed, USADA’s own “Detailed Correction” later acknowledges, “USADA does not have the authority to prevent a fight from occurring.”
I could go on. But the facts (or, as USADA would say, the “accurate facts”) speak for themselves.
It’s hard to imagine how many corporate executives, lawyers, and public relations experts worked on USADA’s “Detailed Correction” statement. If this is the best that they could come up with after eight days of trying, then USADA has a problem.
USADA can recite The Lord’s Prayer backwards in its PR handouts, but that won’t change what it has done.
And let’s not forget; USADA is hired by and contracts with the fighters it’s supposed to be testing. Indeed, there are times when it seems as though USADA collects drug-testing payments the way boxing’s world sanctioning organizations collect sanctioning fees.
The cost of USADA’s testing that we know of has ranged from $36,000 for Andy Lee vs. Peter Quillin to $150,000 for Floyd Mayweather vs. Manny Pacquiao.
Does anyone see a problem here? A Major League Baseball player can’t choose the drug-testing agency that tests him and negotiate a fee with that agency. It would be laughable to suggest that New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez (who was suspended for the entire 2014 season after being found in violation of Major League Baseball’s drug policy) could designate which agency tests him and then pay that agency out of his own pocket.
A National Football League player can’t say, “I don’t want this testing agency. They caught me using a banned substance last year.” But that’s precisely what happens in boxing. VADA (the Voluntary Anti-Doping Agency) tested Andre Berto and Lamont Peterson, both of whom tested positive for the presence of prohibited performance enhancing drugs in their system. What happened next? Both fighters refused to test again with VADA and opted for USADA.
USADA allows Floyd Mayweather and some of the other boxers it tests to dictate when drug testing begins. If Olympic athletes could dictate the date on which drug testing began, world records for races from 100 meters to the marathon would be considerably lower than they are today.
How many U.S. Olympic athletes in the condition that Floyd Mayweather was in on May 1 have received IVs of 750 milliliters or more while a USADA doping control officer was present? How many U.S. Olympic athletes have been given a retroactive therapeutic use exemption for a similar IV eighteen days after competing in their Olympic event?
And one more question. In responding to “Can Boxing Trust USADA?”, the United States Anti-Doping Agency issued a September 10 statement that read, “There are certainly those in the sport of professional boxing who appear committed to preventing an independent and comprehensive anti-doping program from being implemented in the sport, and who wish to advance an agenda that fails to put the interests of clean athletes before their own.”
I can think of several physical conditioners and fighters who might be against an independent and comprehensive anti-doping program. Who did USADA have in mind when it made that statement? If USADA is suggesting by innuendo that I’m on that list, I categorically reject that notion.
By and large, the people who are asking questions about the implementation of USADA’s drug testing program for boxing are the people who care about boxing the most.
Hours before Manny Pacquiao entered the ring to fight Floyd Mayweather, his request to be injected with Toradol (a legal substance) to ease the pain caused by a torn rotator cuff was denied by the Nevada State Athletic Commission because the request was not made in a timely manner. In explaining the NSAC’s decision, commission chairman Francisco Aguilar told the media, “There is a process. And when you try to screw with the process, it's not going to work for you.”
USADA and Mayweather appear to have screwed with the process. Let’s see if it works for them in the end.
As Winston Churchill once proclaimed, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. Ignorance may deride it. But in the end, there it is.”
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 19,232
- Reaction score
- 2,351
Who is more believable Usada, a respected anit doping agency that tests the likes of the USA Olympic team/athletes busted the American hero, cancer survivor and bike rider guy legend Lance Armstrong, busted many other stars including Jon Jones and many other name athletes that have cost big companies/sponsors tens of million of dollars?
Or do you trust Hauser, who is using sketchy journalism which he and everyone else knows is way below his standards, and a couple weak unnamed sources that could be very well full of shit? That was a weak article by a guy who was sniffing his own farts and took to task a story that anybody else with legit journalistic integrity would stay far away from b/c there's something called a severe lack of truth.
Conspiracies. Usada is the bad guy while Hauser sources scumbags like Victor Conte, who helped a bunch of athletes get away with roiding for years, is somehow some great guy now. Once a scumbag always a scumbag no matter what side he plays. And he was wrong about usada not using cir testing, the article is full of shit. He is full of shit, its a rumor that would be laughed out of any courtroom or serious newspaper office right away.
But let's run with it b/c ppl run with everything now if it sounds nice.
Or do you trust Hauser, who is using sketchy journalism which he and everyone else knows is way below his standards, and a couple weak unnamed sources that could be very well full of shit? That was a weak article by a guy who was sniffing his own farts and took to task a story that anybody else with legit journalistic integrity would stay far away from b/c there's something called a severe lack of truth.
Conspiracies. Usada is the bad guy while Hauser sources scumbags like Victor Conte, who helped a bunch of athletes get away with roiding for years, is somehow some great guy now. Once a scumbag always a scumbag no matter what side he plays. And he was wrong about usada not using cir testing, the article is full of shit. He is full of shit, its a rumor that would be laughed out of any courtroom or serious newspaper office right away.
But let's run with it b/c ppl run with everything now if it sounds nice.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 21,025
- Reaction score
- 7,436
Maybe, but the article does bring up some salient points regarding Mayweather and his dealings with the USADA. One being the use of an IV in contravention of the doping rules and then allowing a retrospective exemption to be applied 18 days after the fight. That's seems dodgy as hell. And the dehydration excuse doesn't make sense either. And they didn't check the solution that he was IV'ing. Or carry out blood tests before and after the IV. A lot of question marks.
Two the testosterone to epitestosterone ratio test results that the NSAC produced which showed a unusually low ratio which is likely when synthetic Epitestoserone is administered to pass a PED test. Not proven guilt but certainly a smoking gun that raises questions.
And thirdly what about the subpoena that Pacquiaos team served on the USADA requesting access to records to the PED tests for three fights and then Mayweather paying off Pacquiao to drop the matter? Is this made up or is it true? Why would Mayweather want to settle out of court if he had nothing to hide?
Are you saying that some of the above has been made up by the writer?
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 19,232
- Reaction score
- 2,351
I never said anything was made up by Hauser, but there's strong indications that he lowered his morals [desperate for a big story?] as a journalist to get an edgy story out with very little sourcing to back up his claims.The author doesn't need to makes anything up when he has bullshitters to "source" as his legit evidence.
here's me giving an example
Me: "I have secret sources who claim to have knowledge of the situation, They say the Earth is Flat"
objective reporter: who are these secret sources?
Me: Kyrie Irving and Eddie Bravo.
reporter: Those are bullshit sources, they shouldn't count as real.
Me: well it's still what I heard so I'm gonna act like it's fact b/c it's a sexy headline.
Stupid. Usada already debunked Hauser's conspiracy and they have a great record within the anti doping community. Except for Floyd. Apparently Floyd has some magic power over them that literally nobody else has. Yeah that makes sense.
Where are the other boxing journalists to promote this theory? Almost nobody, Ask yourself why. B/c there's almost nothing to go on except rumors/hearsay. i.e. Nothing.
Many clean athletes have different lower t/e levels than normal despite them being clean/dirty [esp aerobic work]. It's due to several different scenarios all of which are not necessarily indicative of ped usage.
Also Floyd was appointed a wada official to watch and oversee the treatment he had for the iv which was given by a paramedic or somebody that seemed to just be doing their job. Unless they paid off the paramedic too?
Hauser's full of shit and it's evident by nothing coming of this. Bigger question is why Pac wouldn't take his random testing in '09 when the fight was all but agreed to. Or Roach himself saying he was suspect of all the shakes that Ariza was giving too Pac for years, thinking there may have been some suspicious substances in said drinks, aka ped's.
But Hauser is right and usada is wrong and corrupt. Hauser isn't wrong, it's a conspiracy.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 19,232
- Reaction score
- 2,351
Mayweather, hate him or love him, has helped clean up a sport rampant with ped usage and gets accused of using himself, due to some old guy trying to stay relevant in the boxing journalism world.
Say what you want about Floyd but the guy has helped to clean this sport up from ped usage and some guys would rather take a couple unsubstantiated rumors and state them as fact.
The reason fighters and athletes in other sports are getting tested more stringently is in large part due to Floyd and whether you think he's a pos or not, you can't take that away from him.
And esp not accuse the guy of being a cheat himself, let alone conspiring with an anti doping agency to cover up his misdeeds but apparently no others in usada's history. It's fucking ridiculous.
Show me some real proof one day but until then it's just disingenuous and legit disrespectful to accuse a guy of ped usage when he was the first to advocate implementing stricter testing in the first place.
Say what you want about Floyd but the guy has helped to clean this sport up from ped usage and some guys would rather take a couple unsubstantiated rumors and state them as fact.
The reason fighters and athletes in other sports are getting tested more stringently is in large part due to Floyd and whether you think he's a pos or not, you can't take that away from him.
And esp not accuse the guy of being a cheat himself, let alone conspiring with an anti doping agency to cover up his misdeeds but apparently no others in usada's history. It's fucking ridiculous.
Show me some real proof one day but until then it's just disingenuous and legit disrespectful to accuse a guy of ped usage when he was the first to advocate implementing stricter testing in the first place.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 21,025
- Reaction score
- 7,436
You make light of Mayweather having some hold over the USADA but correct me if I'm wrong in no other sport do the competitors get to choose who carries out their PED testing like boxing. To me that is clear conflict of interests. The fighters shouldn't be able to choose the testing body, that should be decided by parties other than the boxers.
And you don't provide any counter argument to the unusual and dodgy way that Floyd was granted an exemption 18 days after the fight for the IV. And why did he need an IV? He says for dehydration but the doctor who examined reported no signs of excessive dehydration. And oral hydration is more effective for dealing with dehydration, so why the IV? The IV went against the USADA rules but to cover this they retrospectively granted an exemption so that it wouldn't be a PED fail. That seems to be very lenient on Floyd who should have been punished for his IV which flouted the rules.
You say a WADA official was there to watch over the IV transfusion but it was USADA who were administering the testing. Even so USADA are not supposed to be the ones overseeing an IV and granting exemptions. That is the job of the NSAC and they weren't informed of the IV treatment as they should have been. Even if nothing dodgy was going on with the IV this is a major deviation away from standard practice. Why have rules if they are just going to circumvent them for Floyd?
I see your point that T/E levels can be low for other reasons but can you provide some source research to show this as I just had a quick search and couldn't find anything. And if Floyd was found to have low E/T levels then they should have carried out further testing to see if the Epitestosterone in his body was exogenous or endogenous. I don't see anything stating that USADA carried out any further testing to establish this.
As for Pacquiao I quite agree with you. It didn't look good at all that he wouldn't agree to random testing to make the fight. That still doesn't change why Floyd seems to have been given a free pass to if not cheat then at least flout the rules.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 19,232
- Reaction score
- 2,351
https://prostate.net/articles/low-testosterone-endurance-athletes
IV use:
https://www.usada.org/usada-respons...ding-information-professional-boxing-article/
Nobody did anything wrong. I don't like the tue stuff either [I don't think it's a huge deal like some of you make it out to be but it's obv not ideal] but I highly doubt usada and Floyd are taking part in some mass conspiracy.
Sometimes it is what it is and what it is, is a nothing story that Hauser and Montoya [who already had issues with Floyd over a prior encounter] and nobody else has seriously reported on or even looked into this b/c there's not much to it other than the tue exemption which has been alluded to by usada and the nsac.
Hauser is a great writer but his long investigative piece was better used to investigate something that actually had substance to it. Kind of shitty of Hauser to accuse the guy that is credited for cleaning up the sport of cheating himself on some crazy conspiracy based on a couple unknown and possibly full of shit sources that might not actually be sources at all.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,928
- Reaction score
- 5,378
CAN BOXING TRUST USADA?
QUESTIONS SURROUND DRUG TESTING FOR MAYWEATHER-PACQUIAO AND OTHER BOUTS
By Thomas Hauser
Cover image: Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Shortly after 3 p.m. on Friday, May 1, Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao weighed in for their historic encounter that would be contested the following night at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas. Later on Friday afternoon, collection agents for the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which had been contracted to oversee drug testing for the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, went to Mayweather’s Las Vegas home to conduct a random unannounced drug test.
The collection agents found evidence of an IV being administered to Mayweather. Bob Bennett, the executive director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, which had jurisdiction over the fight, says that USADA did not tell the commission whether the IV was actually being administered when the agents arrived. USADA did later advise the NSAC that Mayweather’s medical team told its agents that the IV was administered to address concerns related to dehydration.
Mayweather’s medical team also told the collection agents that the IV consisted of two separate mixes. The first was a mixture of 250 milliliters of saline and multi-vitamins. The second was a 500-milliliter mixture of saline and Vitamin C. Seven hundred and fifty milliliters equals 25.361 ounces, an amount equal to roughly 16 percent of the blood normally present in an average adult male.
The mixes themselves are not prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which sets the standards that USADA purports to follow. However, their intravenous administration is prohibited by WADA.
More specifically, the 2015 WADA “Prohibited Substances and Methods List” states, “Intravenous infusions and/or injections of more than 50 ml per 6 hour period are prohibited except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions, surgical procedures, or clinical investigations.”
This prohibition is in effect at all times that the athlete is subject to testing. It exists because, in addition to being administered for the purpose of adding specific substances to a person’s body, an IV infusion can dilute or mask the presence of another substance that is already in the recipient’s system or might be added to it in the near future.
What happened next with regard to Mayweather is extremely troubling.
Indeed, for many fighters, the prevailing ethic seems to be, “If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying.” In a clean world, fighters don’t get older, heavier, and faster at the same time. But that’s what’s happening in boxing. Fighters are reconfiguring their bodies and, in some instances, look like totally different physical beings. Improved performances at an advanced age are becoming common. Fighters at age 35 are outperforming what they could do when they were thirty. In some instances, fighters are starting to perform at an elite level at an age when they would normally be expected to be on a downward slide.
Victor Conte was the founder and president of BALCO and at the vortex of several well-publicized PED scandals. He spent four months in prison after pleading guilty to illegal steroid distribution and tax fraud in 2005. Since then, Conte has undergone a remarkable transformation and is now a forceful advocate for clean sport. What makes him a particularly valuable asset is his knowledge of how the performance enhancing drugs game was - and is - played. Indeed, former federal prosecutor Jeff Novitzky, who was instrumental in putting Conte behind bars, acknowledged in a recent interview on “The Joe Rogan Experience” that Conte now has “an anti-doping platform” and has come “over to the good side.”
“The use of performance enhancing drugs is rampant in boxing, particularly at the elite level,” Conte recently told this writer. “If there was serious testing and the fighters believed that the testing was effective, they’d be less inclined to use prohibited drugs. But almost across the board, state athletic commissions have minimal expertise, limited funding, and little or no will to address the problem. So knowing that the testing programs are inept, many fighters feel that they’re forced to use these drugs to compete on a level playing field.”
In recent years, the United States Anti-Doping Agency has stepped into the enforcement void.
USADA’s website states, “The organization continues to aspire to be a leader in the global anti-doping community in order to protect the rights of clean athletes and the integrity of competition around the world. We hold ourselves to the same high standards exhibited by athletes who fully embrace true sport. We commit to the following core values to guide our decisions and behaviors.” The core values listed are integrity, respect, teamwork, responsibility, and courage.
Travis Tygart, the chief executive officer of USADA, has spearheaded the organization’s expansion into professional boxing. That opportunity initially arose in late 2009, when drug testing became an issue in the first round of negotiations for a proposed fight between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao. When those negotiations fell through, Mayweather opted instead for a May 1, 2010, bout against Shane Mosley.
During a March 18, 2010, conference call to promote Mayweather-Mosley, Tygart advised the media, “Both athletes have agreed to USADA’s testing protocols, including blood and urine testing, which is unannounced, which is anywhere and anytime. There is no limit to the number of tests that we can complete on these boxers.”
Drug testing, if it is to inspire confidence, should be largely transparent. Much of USADA’s operation insofar as boxing is concerned is shrouded in secrecy. Sometimes there’s an announcement when USADA oversees drug testing for a fight. Other times, there is not. The organization has resisted filing its boxer drug-testing contracts with governing state athletic commissions. On several occasions, New York and Nevada have forced the issue. Compliance has often been slow in coming.
When asked to identify the boxing matches for which a USADA drug-testing contract was filed with either the New York or Nevada State Athletic Commissions, Travis Tygart declined through a spokesperson (USADA senior communications manager Annie Skinner) to answer the question.
USADA’s fee structure (which USADA has endeavored to shield from public view) has also raised eyebrows. The primary alternative to USADA insofar as PED testing for boxers is concerned is the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association (VADA). Like USADA, VADA’s testing laboratories are accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency and it uses internationally recognized collection agencies. Unlike USADA, VADA utilizes carbon isotope ratio (CIR) testing on every urine sample it collects from a boxer. USADA often declines to administer CIR testing on grounds that it’s unnecessary and too expensive. Of course, the less expensive that tests are to administer, the better it is for USADA’s bottom line.
VADA charged a total of $16,000 to administer drug testing for the April 18, 2015, junior-welterweight fight between Ruslan Provodnikov and Lucas Matthysse. By contrast, USADA charged $36,000 to administer drug testing for the April 11, 2015, middleweight encounter between Andy Lee and Peter Quillin.
The Lee-Quillin bout was part of Al Haymon’s Premier Boxing Champions series. USADA is often paid quite generously for services rendered in conjunction with fights in which Haymon plays a role.
A notable example is the fee paid to USADA for administering drug testing in conjunction with the May 2, 2015, Mayweather-Pacquiao fight. Haymon advises Mayweather, and Team Mayweather controlled the promotion. USADA’s contract called for it to receive an up-front payment of $150,000 to test Mayweather and Pacquiao.
More troubling than USADA’s fee structure are the accommodations that it seems to have made for clients who either pay more for its services or use USADA on a regular basis. The case of Erik Morales, who has held world titles in three weight divisions, is an example.
Under standard sports drug testing protocols, when blood or urine is taken from an athlete, it is divided into an “A” and “B” sample. The “A” sample is tested first. If it tests negative, end of story; the athlete has tested “clean.” If, however, the “A” sample tests positive, the athlete has the right to demand that the “B” sample be tested. If the “B” sample tests negative, the athlete is presumed to be clean. But if the “B” sample also tests positive, the first positive finding is confirmed and the athlete then has a problem.
In 2012, Erik Morales was promoted by Golden Boy, which, as earlier noted, was under the leadership of Richard Schaefer. Golden Boy was the lead promoter for an Oct. 20 fight card at Barclays Center in Brooklyn that was to be headlined by Morales vs Danny Garcia.
On Thursday, Oct. 18, 2012, the website Halestorm Sports reported that Morales had tested positive for a banned substance. Thereafter, Golden Boy and USADA engaged in damage control.
Dan Rafael of ESPN.com spoke with two sources and wrote, “The reason the fight has not been called off, according to one of the sources, is because Morales’ ‘A’ sample tested positive but the results of the ‘B’ sample test likely won’t be available until after the fight. ‘[USADA] said it could be a false positive,’ one of the sources with knowledge of the disclosure said.”
Richard Schaefer told Chris Mannix of SI.com, “USADA has now started the process. The process will play out. There is not going to be a rush to judgment. Morales is a legendary fighter. And really, nobody deserves a rush to judgment. You are innocent until proven guilty.”
Then, on Friday, one day before the scheduled fight, Keith Idec revealed on Boxing Scene that samples had been taken from Morales on at least three occasions. Final test results from the samples taken on Oct. 17 were not in yet. But both the “A” and “B” samples taken from Morales on Oct. 3 and Oct. 10 had tested positive for clenbuterol. In other words, Morales had tested positive for clenbuterol four times.
Clenbuterol, a therapeutic drug first developed for people with breathing disorders such as asthma, is widely used by bodybuilders and athletes. It helps the body increase its metabolism and process the conversion of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats into useful energy. It also boosts muscle growth and eliminates excess fats caused by the use of certain steroids. Its therapeutic use is banned in the United States, as is its use in animals raised for human consumption. It is also banned by WADA.
Under the WADA prohibited list, no amount of clenbuterol is allowed in a competitor’s body. The measure is qualitative, not quantitative. Either clenbuterol is there or it is not.
According to a report in the New York Daily News, after Morales was confronted with the positive test results, he claimed a USADA official suggested that he might have inadvertently ingested clenbuterol by eating contaminated meat. Meanwhile, the New York State Athletic Commission issued a statement referencing a representation by Morales that he “unintentionally ingested contaminated food.” However, no evidence was offered in support of the contention that Morales had ingested contaminated meat.
Nor was any explanation forthcoming as to why USADA kept taking samples from Morales after four tests (two “A” samples and two “B” samples from separate collections) came back positive. Giving Morales these additional tests was akin to giving someone who has been arrested for driving while intoxicated a second and third blood test a week after the arrest.
The moment that the “B” sample from Morales’ first test came back positive, standard testing protocol dictated that this information be forwarded to the New York State Athletic Commission. But neither USADA nor Richard Schaefer did so in a timely manner. Rather, it appears as though the commission and the public may have been deliberately misled in regard to the testing and how many tests Morales had failed.
New York State Athletic Commission sources say that the first notice the NYSAC received regarding Morales’ test results came in a three-way telephone conversation with representatives of Golden Boy and USADA after the story broke on Halestorm Sports. In that conversation, the commission was told that there were “some questionable test results” for Morales but that testing of Morales’ “B” sample would not be available until after the fight.
Travis Tygart has since said, “The licensing body was aware of the positive test prior to the fight. What they did with it was their call.”
That’s terribly misleading.
This writer submitted a request for information to the New York State Athletic Commission asking whether it was advised that Erik Morales had tested positive for Clenbuterol prior to the Oct. 18, 2012, revelation on Halestorm Sports.
On Aug. 10, 2015, Laz Benitez (a spokesperson for the New York State Department of State, which oversees the NYSAC) advised in writing, “There is no indication in the Commission’s files that it was notified of this matter prior to October 18, 2012.”
The Garcia-Morales fight was allowed to proceed on Oct. 20, in part because the NYSAC did not know of Morales’ test history until it was too late for the commission to fully consider the evidence and make a decision to stop the fight. Since then, people in the PED-testing community have begun to openly question the role played in boxing by USADA. What good are tests if the results are not properly reported? “The Erik Morales case was a travesty.”—Victor Conte
Don Catlin founded the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory in 1982 and is one of the founders of modern drug testing in sports. Three years ago, Catlin told this writer, “USADA should not enter into a contract that doesn’t call for it to report positive test results to the appropriate governing body. If it’s true that USADA reported the results [in the Morales case] to Golden Boy and not to the governing state athletic commission, that’s a recipe for deception.”
When asked about the possibility of withholding notification because of inadvertent use (such as eating contaminated meat), Catlin declared, “No! The International Olympic Committee allowed for those waivers 25 years ago, and it didn’t work. An athlete takes a steroid, tests positive, and then claims it was inadvertent. No one says, ‘I was cheating. You caught me.’”
Victor Conte is in accord and says, “The Erik Morales case was a travesty. If you’re doing honest testing, you don’t have a positive “A” and “B” sample and then another positive “A” and “B” sample and keep going until you get a negative result.”
In the absence of a credible explanation for what happened or an acknowledgement by USADA that there was wrongdoing that will not be repeated, the Erik Morales matter casts a pall over USADA.
The way things stand now, how can any of USADA’s testing in any sport be trusted by the sports establishment or the public? Would USADA handle the testing of an Olympic athlete the way it handled the testing of Erik Morales?
That brings us to Floyd Mayweather and USADA. Mayweather has gone to great lengths to propagate the notion that he is in the forefront of PED testing to “clean up” boxing. Beginning with his 2010 fight against Shane Mosley, he has mandated that he and his opponent be subjected to what he calls “Olympic-style testing” by USADA.
Here, the thoughts of Victor Conte are instructive.
“Mayweather is not doing ‘Olympic-style testing,’” Conte states. “Olympic testing means that you can be tested twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year. If USADA was serious about boxing becoming a clean sport, it would say, ‘We don’t do one-offs. If you sign up for USADA testing, we reserve the right to test you at any time 365-24-7.’ But that’s not what USADA does with Mayweather or any other fighter that I know of.”
“The benefits that an athlete retains from using anabolic steroids and certain other PEDs carry over for months,” Conte continues. “Anybody who knows anything about the way these drugs work knows that you don’t perform at your best when you’re actually on the drugs. You get maximum benefit after the use stops. I can’t tell you what Floyd Mayweather is and isn’t doing. What he could be doing is this. The fight is over. First, he uses these drugs for tissue repair. Then he can stay on them until he announces his next fight, at which time he’s the one who decides when the next round of testing starts. And by the time testing starts, the drugs have cleared his system.
“Do I know that’s what’s happening? No, I don’t. I do know that the testing period for Mayweather’s fights is getting shorter and shorter. What is it for this one? Five weeks? The whole concept of one man dictating the testing schedule is wrong. But USADA lets Mayweather do it. USADA is not doing effective comprehensive testing on Floyd Mayweather. Testing for four or five weeks before a fight is nonsense.”
As noted earlier, USADA CEO Travis Tygart declined to be interviewed for this article. Instead, senior communications manager Annie Skinner emailed a statement to this writer that outlines USADA’s mission and reads in part, “Just like for our Olympic athletes, any pro-boxing program follows WADA’s international standards, including: the Prohibited List, the International Standard for Testing & Investigations (ISTI), the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUEs) and the International Standards for Protection of Privacy and Personal Information (ISPPPI).”
Skinner’s statement is incorrect. This writer has obtained a copy of the contract entered into between USADA, Floyd Mayweather, and Manny Pacquiao for drug testing in conjunction with Mayweather-Pacquiao. A copy of the entire contract can be found here.
Paragraph 30 of the contract states, “If any rule or regulation whatsoever incorporated or referenced herein conflicts in any respect with the terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall in all such respects control. Such rules and regulations include, but are not limited to: the Code [the World Anti-Doping Code]; the USADA Protocol; the WADA Prohibited List; the ISTUE [WADA International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions]; and the ISTI [WADA International Standard for Testing and Investigations].”
In other words, USADA was not bound by the drug testing protocols that one might have expected it to follow in conjunction with Mayweather-Pacquiao. And this divergence was significant vis-a-vis its rulings with regard to the IV that was administered to Mayweather on May 1.
In evaluating USADA’s conduct with regard to Mayweather’s IV, the evolution of the USADA-Mayweather-Pacquiao contract is important.
It was announced publicly that the bout contract Mayweather and Pacquiao signed in February 2015 to fight each other provided that drug testing would be conducted by USADA. But the actual contract with USADA remained to be negotiated. In early March, USADA presented the Pacquiao camp with a contract that allowed the testing agency to grant a retroactive therapeutic use exemption (TUE) to either fighter in the event that the fighter tested positive for a prohibited drug. That retroactive exemption could have been granted without notifying the Nevada State Athletic Commission or the opposing fighter’s camp.
Team Pacquiao thought that was outrageous and an opportunity for Mayweather to game the system. Pacquiao refused to sign the contract.
“USADA is a drug-testing agency. USADA should not be granting waivers and exemptions.”— Bob Bennett
Thereafter, Mayweather and USADA agreed to mutual notification and the limitation of retroactive therapeutic use exemptions to narrowly delineated circumstances. With regard to notice, a copy of the final USADA-Mayweather-Pacquiao contract provides: “Mayweather and Pacquiao agree that USADA shall notify both athletes within 24 hours of any of the following occurrences: (1) the approval by USADA of a TUE application submitted by either athlete; and/or (2) the existence of and/or any modification to an existing approved TUE. Notification pursuant to this paragraph shall consist of and be limited to: (a) the date of the application; (b) the prohibited substance(s) or method(s) for which the TUE is sought; and (c) the manner of use for the prohibited substance(s) or method(s) for which the TUE is sought.”
How was Mayweather’s IV handled by USADA?
As previously noted, the weigh-in and IV administration occurred on May 1. The fight was on May 2. For 20 days after the IV was administered, USADA chose not to notify the Nevada State Athletic Commission about the procedure.
Finally, on May 21, USADA sent a letter to Francisco Aguilar and Bob Bennett (respectively, the chairman and executive director of the NSAC) with a copy to Top Rank (Pacquiao’s promoter) informing them that a retroactive therapeutic use exemption had been granted to Mayweather. The letter did not say when the request for the retroactive TUE was made by Mayweather or when it was granted by USADA.
Subsequent correspondence in response to requests by the NSAC and Top Rank for further information revealed that the TUE was not applied for until May 19 and was granted on May 20. In other words, 18 days after the fight, USADA gave Mayweather a retroactive therapeutic use exemption for a procedure that is on the WADA “Prohibited Substances and Methods List.” And because of a loophole in its drug-testing contract, USADA wasn’t obligated to notify the Nevada State Athletic Commission or Pacquiao camp regarding Mayweather’s IV until after the retroactive TUE was granted.
Meanwhile, on May 2 (fight night), Pacquiao’s request to be injected with Toradol (a legal substance) to ease the pain caused by a torn rotator cuff was denied by the Nevada State Athletic Commission because the request was not made in a timely manner.
A conclusion that one might draw from these events is that it helps to have friends at USADA.
“It’s bizarre,” Don Catlin says with regard to the retroactive therapeutic use exemption that USADA granted to Mayweather. “It’s very troubling to me. USADA has yet to explain to my satisfaction why Mayweather needed an IV infusion. There might be a valid explanation, but I don’t know what it is.”
Victor Conte is equally perturbed.
“I don’t get it,” Conte says. “There are strict criteria for the granting of a TUE. You don’t hand them out like Halloween candy. And this sort of IV use is clearly against the rules. Also, from a medical point of view, if they’re administering what they said they did, it doesn’t make sense to me. There are more effective ways to rehydrate. If you drank ice-cold Celtic seawater, you’d have far greater benefits. It’s very suspicious to me. I can tell you that IV drugs clear an athlete’s system more quickly than drugs that are administered by subcutaneous injection. So why did USADA make this decision? Why did they grant something that’s prohibited? In my view, that’s something federal law enforcement officials should be asking Travis Tygart.”
Bob Bennett (who worked for the FBI before assuming his present position as executive director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission) has this to say: “The TUE for Mayweather’s IV - and the IV was administered at Floyd’s house, not in a medical facility, and wasn’t brought to our attention at the time - was totally unacceptable. I’ve made it clear to Travis Tygart that this should not happen again. We have the sole authority to grant any and all TUEs in the state of Nevada. USADA is a drug-testing agency. USADA should not be granting waivers and exemptions. Not in this state. We are less than pleased that USADA acted the way it did.”
If Bennett looks at what transpired before he became executive director of the NSAC, he might have further reason to question USADA’s performance.
The use of carbon isotope ratio (CIR) testing as a means of identifying the presence of exogenous (synthetic) testosterone in an athlete’s body was developed in part under the direction of Don Catlin. It has been used in conjunction with Olympic testing since the 1998 Winter Games in Nagano.
As noted earlier, USADA often declines to administer CIR testing to boxers on grounds that it is unnecessary and too expensive. The cost is roughly $400 per test, although VADA CEO Dr. Margaret Goodman notes, “If you do a lot of them, you can negotiate price.”
If VADA (which charges far less than USADA for drug testing) can afford CIR testing on every urine sample that it collects from a boxer, then USADA can afford it too.
“If you’re serious about drug testing,” says Victor Conte, “you do CIR testing.”
But CIR testing has been not been fully utilized for Floyd Mayweather’s fights. Instead, USADA has chosen to rely primarily on a testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio test to determine if exogenous testosterone is in an athlete’s system.
Testosterone and epitestosterone are naturally occurring hormones. Testosterone is performance enhancing. Epitestosterone is not.
A normal testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio is slightly more than 1-to-1. Conte says that one recent study of the general population “placed the average T-E ratio for whites at 1.2-to-1 and for blacks at 1.3-to-1.”
Under WADA standards, a testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio of up to 4-to-1 is acceptable. That allows for any reasonable variation in an athlete’s natural testosterone level (which, for an elite athlete, might be particularly high). If the ratio is above 4-to-1, an athlete is presumed to be doping.
Some athletes who use exogenous testosterone game the system by administering exogenous epitestosterone to drive their testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio down beneath the permitted ceiling. This can be done by injection or by the application of epitestosterone as a cream. In the absence of a CIR test, this masks the use of synthetic testosterone.
But there’s a catch. If an athlete tries to manipulate his or her testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio, it is difficult to balance the outcome. If an athlete uses too much epitestosterone - and the precise amount is difficult to calibrate - the result can be an abnormally low T-E ratio.
“In and of itself,” Conte explains, “an abnormally low T-E ratio is not proof of doping. The ratio can vary for the same athlete from test to test. But an abnormally low T-E ratio is a red flag. And if you’re serious about the testing, the next thing you do [after a low T-E ratio test result] is administer a CIR test on the same sample.”
Earlier this year, in response to a request for documents, the Nevada State Athletic Commission produced two lab reports listing the testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio on tests that it (not USADA) had overseen on Floyd Mayweather. In one instance, blood and urine samples were taken from Mayweather on Aug. 18, 2011 (prior to his Sept. 17 fight against Victor Ortiz). In the other instance, blood and urine samples were taken from Mayweather on April 3, 2013 (prior to his May 4 fight against Robert Guerrero).
Mayweather’s testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio for the April 3, 2013, sample was 0.80. His testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio for the Aug. 18, 2011, sample was 0.69.
“That’s a warning flag,” says Don Catlin. “If you’re serious about the testing, it tells you to do the CIR test.”
The Nevada State Athletic Commission wasn’t as knowledgeable with regard to PED testing several years ago as it is now. Commission personnel might not have understood the possible implications of the 0.69 and 0.80 numbers. But USADA officials were knowledgeable.
Did USADA perform CIR testing on Mayweather’s urine samples during that time period? What were the results? And if there was no CIR testing, what testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio did USADA’s tests show? At present, the answers to these questions are not publicly known.
Note to investigators: CIR tests can be performed retroactively on frozen samples.
All of this leads to another issue. As noted by NSAC executive director Bob Bennett, “As of now, USADA does not give us the full test results. They give us the contracts for drug testing and summaries that tell us whether a fighter has tested positive or negative. It is incumbent on them to notify us if a fighter tests positive. But no, they don’t give us the full test results.”
Laz Benitez reports a similar lack of transparency in New York. On Aug. 10, Benitez advised this writer that the New York State Athletic Commission had received information from USADA regarding test results for four fights where the drug testing was conducted by USADA. But Benitez added, “The results received were summaries.”
Why is that significant? Because full test results can raise a red flag that’s not apparent on the face of a summary. Once again, a look at the relationship between USADA and Floyd Mayweather is instructive.
On Dec. 30, 2009, Manny Pacquiao sued Mayweather for defamation. Pacquiao’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for Nevada, alleged that Mayweather and several other defendants had falsely accused him of using, and continuing to use, illegal performance enhancing drugs. The court case moved slowly, as litigation often does. Then things changed dramatically.
As reported by this writer on MaxBoxing in Dec. 2012, information filtered through the drug-testing community on May 20, 2012 to the effect that Mayweather had tested positive on three occasions for an illegal performance-enhancing drug. More specifically, it was rumored that Mayweather’s “A” sample had tested positive three times and, after each positive test, USADA had given Floyd an inadvertent use waiver. These waivers, if they were in fact given, would have negated the need to test Floyd’s “B” samples. And because the “B” samples were never tested, a loophole in Mayweather’s USADA contract would have allowed testing to continue without the positive “A” sample results being reported to Mayweather’s opponent or the Nevada State Athletic Commission.
Pacquiao’s attorneys became aware of the rumor in late-May. On June 4, 2012, they served document demands and subpoenas on Mayweather, Mayweather Promotions, Golden Boy (Mayweather’s co-promoter), and USADA demanding the production of all documents relating to PED testing of Mayweather in conjunction with his fights against Shane Mosley, Victor Ortiz, and Miguel Cotto. These were the three fights that Mayweather had been tested for by USADA up until that time.
“USADA’s boxing testing program is propaganda; that’s all”—Victor Conte
The documents were not produced. After pleading guilty to charges of domestic violence and harassment, Mayweather spent nine weeks in the Clark County Detention Center. He was released from jail on Aug. 2. Then settlement talks heated up.
A stipulation of settlement ending the defamation case was filed with the court on Sept. 25, 2012. The parties agreed to a confidentiality clause that kept the terms of settlement secret. However, prior to the agreement being signed, two sources with detailed knowledge of the proceedings told this writer that Mayweather’s initial monetary settlement offer was “substantially more” than Pacquiao’s attorneys had expected it would be. An agreement in principle was reached soon afterward. The settlement meant that the demand for documents relating to USADA’s testing of Mayweather became moot.
If Mayweather’s “A” sample tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug on one or more occasions and he was given a waiver by USADA that concealed this fact from the Nevada State Athletic Commission, his opponent, and the public, it could contribute to a scandal that undermines the already-shaky public confidence in boxing. At present, the relevant information is not a matter of public record.
USADA CEO Travis Tygart (through senior communications manager Annie Skinner) declined to state how many times the “A” sample of a professional boxer tested by USADA has come back positive for a prohibited substance. What is clear though, is that USADA is not catching the PED users in boxing. Tygart says that’s because his organization’s educational programs and the knowledge that USADA will catch cheaters deters wrongdoing. But the changing physiques and performance levels of some of the elite fighters tested by USADA suggest otherwise.
A simple comparison will suffice. As of Aug. 1, 2015, VADA had conducted drug testing for 18 professional fights. Three of the fighters tested by VADA (Andre Berto, former IBF-WBA 140-pound champion Lamont Peterson, and former 135-pound WBA titleholder Brandon Rios) tested positive for a banned substance.
Contrast that with USADA. Annie Skinner says that Mayweather-Berto will be the 46th fight for which USADA has conducted drug testing. In an Aug. 14, email she acknowledges, “At this time, the only professional boxer under USADA’s program who has been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation is Erik Morales.”
One can speculate that, had Halestorm Sports not broken the Morales story, USADA might not have “found” that Morales committed an anti-doping violation either.
“USADA’s boxing testing program is propaganda; that’s all,” says Victor Conte. “It has one set of rules for some fighters and a different set of rules for others. That’s not the way real drug testing works. Travis Tygart wants people to think that anyone who questions USADA is against clean sport. But that’s nonsense.”
After Lance Armstrong’s defoliation for illegal PED use, Tygart was interviewed by Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes. Armstrong, Tygart declared, was “cowardly” and had “defrauded millions of people.”
Pelley then asked, “If Lance Armstrong had prevailed in this case and you had failed, what would the effect on sport have been?”
“It would have been huge,” Tygart answered, “because athletes would have known that some are too big to fail.”
“And the message that sends is what?” Pelley pressed.
“Cheat your way to the top. And if you get too big and too popular and too powerful, if you do it that well, you’ll never be held accountable.”
USADA is the dominant force in American sports insofar as drug testing is concerned. But it is not too big and powerful to be held accountable.
The essence of boxing is such that all participants are at risk. The increasing use of performance enhancing drugs makes these risks unacceptable.
Fighters are entitled to an initial presumption of innocence when questions arise regarding the use of performance enhancing drugs. Based on their performance, Muhammad Ali (blessed with preternatural speed and stamina) and Rocky Marciano (who absorbed incredible punishment and seemed to grow stronger as a fight wore on) might have been suspected of illegal drug use had PEDs been available to them.
But fighters who are clean are also entitled to know that they’re not facing an opponent who has augmented his firepower through the use of performance enhancing drugs. And any state athletic commission that fails to limit the use of PEDs within its jurisdiction is unfit to regulate boxing.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 21,025
- Reaction score
- 7,436
Floyd doesn't strike me as looking like someone who has low testosterone levels, quite the opposite in fact. But granted it's not 'proof' of him cheating. But that's why they should have tested to see if the Testosterone in this body was endogenous or exogenous
The IV use though is a problem. You aren't allowed to use it unless you have an exemption. But they let him use it first and then retrospectively granted the exemption. That's just not right, sorry. And again it doesn't explain WHY he need IV and didn't just drink fluid.
And are you saying that Manny's team didn't subpoena the USADA for the three fight test results? If they did then why did Floyd pay them off rather than just produce the test results? If they were all negative then what have you got to hide? Seems strange to me.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 19,232
- Reaction score
- 2,351
I don't really want to keep going back and forth on things. I honestly don't know why the test results were settled or the full details surrounding the settlement. I feel like it's pretty straightforward that Floyd had trouble making the weight due to his age and probably was really dehydrated and there was nothing more to it.
You seem to be on the conspiracy side of things which is fine, once in awhile they're not nonsense and have some truth to them. I think this story is a bunch of bullshit as I've said several times. I've provided sources for why Floyd's t/e levels could and probably are naturally on the low side, sources about the iv ordeal, and I've been on iv's before to get hydrated I've never heard that 1000 bags were less effective for hydration than drinking fluids. Iv's are much more effective, I was in the er last year b/c I was so dehydrated that I couldn't get it done orally, that was told to me by the md's in the hospital so I don't know where this "oral hydration is more effective" story comes from.
I don't believe this conspiracy shit, Floyd's one of my favorite fighters but whereas many fans would defend their fighters for being pieces of shit, I am the opposite, I get disappointed when my fighters fuck up, whether they don't show up for a fight or they get caught cheating.
I would be the first person to call Floyd out if I thought he was a cheat, I just don't believe it and I honestly think this "story" from Hauser is not only proven to be written with very little foundation, but it's weak journalism and honestly downright disrespectful to a guy in Floyd who has been proven to have done nothing but make the sport of boxing MORE stringent with their testing, and has promoted the idea that ped cheats are largely scumbags and deserve punishment for using ped's in a sport where it's already very dangerous and not at all rare for ppl to die in.
I know the part about Floyd being a main player in cleaning up the sport is true, I find this other shit to be just that, utter shit. If you want to believe it then I can't change your mind. You won't change my mind.
Even if we think our respective views are a bit ridiculous, I think we're at a point where we just have to agree to disagree so I'm gonna stop here. It's a convo that's been largely respectful and I will yield the last word to you since I don't have much more to say b/c I think whatever needs to be said has been many times over already, and we're pretty much just running around in circles at this point.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2016
- Messages
- 2,224
- Reaction score
- 926
Yeah, that Seano retard.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 133,667
- Reaction score
- 32,559
Yeah, Hauser has never been a friend to boxing.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 133,667
- Reaction score
- 32,559
I don't know what Canelo is. He got tested for a banned substance but one with a history. Do your homework.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 21,025
- Reaction score
- 7,436
Fair enough. I just object that Floyd gets a free pass as far as the rules being violated. That in itself is wrong. He may well have been just dehydrated but he shouldn't get to make up the rules as he goes a long. He should have been punished for doing it.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 17,211
- Reaction score
- 6,843
I agree with you , but nithingnwould surprise me with the amount of money involved , especially in that fight.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,928
- Reaction score
- 5,378
Friend or not facts are facts.
