Summary & views on USADA’s Lance Armstrong decision

October 22, 2012 in Sport

I don’t know much about cycling or doping but I have been utterly intrigued by the Lance Armstrong doping case instigated by the USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency), which published a Reasoned Decision on October 10 explaining why it was stripping Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and issuing a lifetime ban after the retired cyclist refused to contest the charges. The decision was ratified by the International Cycling Union (UCI), cycling’s global governing body, on Monday.

More specifically, I was curious how someone as celebrated and worshipped as Armstrong, who has practically been a cycling god for more than a decade, could have engineered the greatest doping scheme in the history of sport and not “failed” a single drug test, as he claims. I was interested in how someone could continue to vehemently deny cheating in the face of what appears to be insurmountable evidence. And I was fascinated by how there could still be so many people that continue to believe him when he claims that he walked away from contesting charges that effectively destroy his legacy because “enough was enough” and that the toll of the fight on the “unconstitutional witch hunt” of the USADA was not worth it.

A lawyer friend claimed that the decision was a “good read”, and I supposed as decisions go, it wasn’t too bad. For some reason I have just trawled through the 164 pages of the main report and the 33 pages of addendum (on the credibility of the witnesses), plus just a few of the hundreds of appendices.

My thoughts? Incredible.  Just as there is no doubt that Armstrong, a cancer survivor, has done a lot of good with his cancer charity Livestrong, raising almost US$500 million (though this is contested), there shouldn’t be any doubt that Armstrong doped and is a colossal prick — if, of course, the USADA report is to be believed. And really, even taking into account problems with the report, the quality and credibility of the evidence and the potential of ulterior motives and so forth, I can’t find any reason not to believe the report’s central argument — that Armstrong is a drug cheat.

The Reasoned Decision

To be honest, I found the Reasoned Decision a strange document to read at times. The USADA is not a government body nor a court of law, so the document was not written like an objective case report but more like a one-sided submission.

I also found the tone and wording to be uneven as it was at times quite opinionated and made statements that made me feel like I was reading an editorial.

That said, the substance of the report was all there, and it’s clear that a lot of work was put into establishing an iron clad case against Armstrong, including explaining the credibility of all the witnesses that stepped forward to provide evidence against him. I had problems with some of the things I read, but when taken as a whole, the Reasoned Decision is a very strong document.

The charges

The charges against Armstrong included that he:

– possessed, used and attempted to use doping drug EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents;

– trafficked in these illegal substances and offered and administered them to teammates; and

– actively and systematically covered up the evidence of the doping.

What was shocking was that the USADA claimed that Armstrongwas not merely a participant in the doping, but that he was one of the ringleaders of the whole thing and had encouraged and assisted others in cheating to give himself a better chance of winning (as competitive cycling is, as I discovered, very much a team sport designed to benefit its “star”).

The evidence

The USADA’s accusations are largely based upon the sworn testimonies of 26 people, including 15 cyclists of which 11 were Armstrong’s former teammates on his US Postal Service Team. The testimonies are backed up and corroborated to some extent by documentary evidence including financial payments and emails. And yes, there is some scientific data and laboratory test results as well. A lot of it does rest on the reliability of the witnesses, the testing procedures, circumstantial evidence and inferences, which some may find unsatisfactory, but as I explain below, I think it all adds up.

The report also describes in detail how Armstrong refused to contest the USADA’s charges against him and that the evidence would have been even stronger had the case been brought to trial, including witnesses that would not have come forward unless subpoenaed  and the ability to cross-examine opposing evidence.

The USADA’s standard of proof is “comfortable satisfaction” bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations. However, the agency specifically and repeatedly said in the report that the evidence was “overwhelming” and that it was “beyond a reasonable doubt” — the standard for criminal cases — that Armstrong was guilty of doping. The report even made the bold statement that the evidence was as strong as or stronger than any case brought by the USADA in its 12 years of existence.

Witness evidence

The strongest witness statements and affidavits came from Armstrong’s former teammates such as Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis and Frankie Andreu, as they were in his UPS team and remained close with him until they admitted to cheating and implicated him, upon which Armstrong turned on them with a vengeance. Five of the eight riders from Armstrong’s 1999 team produced witness evidence against him and admitted to their own guilt.

From what I read, the statements are so detailed and comprehensive (and supposedly non-contradictory with each other as well as proven facts) that it makes it highly unlikely that they could have simply been concocted out of thin air. They claim that doping was openly discussed inside the team and that each rider was on a special doping regimen. They also recount various specific incidents where it can be strongly inferred that Armstrong was doping. And they say Armstrong was the undoubted leader of the doping movement in their team.

Armstrong and his team have viciously attacked the credibility of just about every single one of these witnesses in the media, claiming that each of them had “axes to grind” against him, mostly out of jealousy or a fallout. He also points out that they were given “sweetheart deals” of six month suspensions in exchange for providing evidence against him, which is potentially another reason to doubt their claims.

If it were just two or three people, then okay, I might be able to imagine a situation where a few former teammates fabricated stories against Armstrong together in order to receive lighter sentences. But first of all, there are 11 former teammates, which makes that highly unlikely. Is it more likely that they are all in some massive conspiracy together to bring down one person out of jealousy or other petty disagreements, or is it more likely that one person is lying?

Second of all, what has been forgotten in the attacks is that all these former teammates have admitted to doping themselves. Many of them previously denied doping until the evidence became too insurmountable. While it does not prove that Armstrong doped as well, the fact that so many of his former teammates admitted their guilt makes it a lot more difficult to believe that Armstrong, the star of the team, was not involved as well, and had no idea that they were doping right under his nose for so many years.

Tyler Hamilton

There were also several witness statements from non-riders close to Armstrong, such as Frankie Andreu’s wife Betsy, as well as Armstrong’s masseuse, Emma O’Reilly, who claimed that she once used make-up to help Armstrong cover bruising from syringe-use. These people clearly had less to gain from turning against Armstrong.

Many of the statements from the witnesses are solely their word against Armstrong’s, but they do paint a convincing narrative because most of them are in line with known facts.

For instance, Armstrong tested positive for cortisone in 1999 but was not punished because he had a medical authorization for it to treat saddle sores — witnesses claim that the excuse was fabricated and that the medical authorization was illegally backdated by his doctor.

In 2000, Armstrong dropped out of a race at the last minute —  a witness claims that he only did so after being warned by the witness that testing officers were after him.

Also in 2000, French authorities discovered that Armstrong’s team had dumped a bag of medical waste with syringes including a blood doping product, but dropped the case after being told that it was to treat a diabetic staff member — again, witnesses claim that this excuse was made up.

In 2001, Armstrong’s samples from the Tour Du Swisse were found to be “suspicious for the presence of EPO” (though not positive), but this did not come to light until years later when Floyd Landis admitted to doping. Landis claims that Armstrong used his powerful stature and contacts to make the problem “go away”, allegedly with a “financial agreement” with the UCI. While the UCI official in question denies he was bribed, he did acknowledge that Armstrong visited UCI headquarters at the time and offered at least US$100,000 to help the development of cycling.

One of the most damning pieces of evidence was Betsy Andreu’s claim that Armstrong admitted to doctors at an Indiana hospital before surgery in 1996 that he had used performance enhancing drugs. Armstrong said it was a fabrication that arose out of jealousy after Frankie Andreu was dropped from the UPS team in 2001, though three other people provided witness statements stating that Betsy told them of Armstrong’s admission several days after the incident, undermining his assertion that the story was concocted five years later.

USADA has strongly defended the credibility of all the witnesses in the report, saying that it came at a “considerable cost and substantial risk”, including having years of competitive results disqualified, risking current and future employment, suspensions and competition opportunities.

Documentary evidence

The documentary evidence was not quite as strong as I had expected it to be, as most of it was to back up the witness statements or attack Armstrong’s credibility.

For example, Armstrong claimed that he had severed all professional relations with his former trainer Michele Ferrari in 2004, when Ferrari was convicted of sporting fraud and implicated in doping. Records showed that Armstrong paid Ferrari more than US$1 million between 1996 and 2006, and an email trail between Armstrong and Ferrari’s son, who acted as an intermediary, proved that the two continued to work together post-2004.

Another example is an email chain between Armstrong and Frankie Andreu, which showed that the former had requested the latter to return to the UPS team in 2001, but the offer was declined. This tears down Armstrong’s assertion that the Andreu’s turned on him out of jealousy after Frankie was dropped from the team.

There were also other emails to Frankie which asked him to warn Betsy not to “bring him down” with doping inferences in the press. “There is a direct link to all of our success here and I suggest you remind her of that,” the email said, suggesting that Armstrong was guilty (as he would have simply denied doping or accused her of lying had he been innocent).

Scientific evidence

For me, the most compelling evidence was the scientific evidence that Armstrong doped. They are:

– an expert examination of Armstrong’s blood parameters established that the likelihood of Armstrong’s blood values from the 2009 and 2010 Tours de France occurring naturally is less than one in a million and is therefore consistent with blood doping;

– blood samples from 2009 were also found to be consistent with Armstrong having taken part in a blood transfusion during the tour, which suggests he was involved in blood doping (where riders take out 500 ccs of blood and re-inject it back into the body later on);

– Armstrong’s stored samples  from the 1999 Tour de France tested in 2004 by French authorities found EPO on six occasions (with probabilities of 100%, 89.7%, 96.6%, 88.7%, 95.2% and 89.4%) — however, the UCI overruled the findings on the basis that proper protocols were not followed;

– Armstrong’s 2001 Tour du Suisse samples which tested “suspicious” for EPO showed 70%-80% the parameters of EPO, which meant that the probability of doping was high but not definitive as it could have been produced naturally — however, under current testing criteria the result would have been “positive” as opposed to just “suspicious”.

Tellingly, the UCI refused to provide USADA with Armstrong’s stored samples which could have returned a lot more positive results. Some of the samples were refused on the basis that Armstrong refused to give his consent, which is suspicious in itself.

Other evidence

The Reasoned Decision offers a lot of other “supporting” evidence which I did not find particularly material, even though it does help paint a more complete story.

For instance, the USADA used Armstrong’s unlikely dominance as support for the assertion that he cheated, including reports that he intentionally held back at certain stages of races. Personally, I think that’s a little unfair.

The USADA also painted Armstrong as a complete dickhead and bully who would set out to belittle, humiliate and destroy anyone who dared to go up against him. While this is probably true, it isn’t necessarily relevant to the question of whether he actually doped.

More relevant was the fact that Armstrong attempted to prevent witnesses from giving evidence against him, including by intimidating and threatening potential witnesses, both personally and through his lawyers.

Perhaps most damning was the fact that Armstrong surrounded himself with doctors, trainers and staff who have been involved in or at least strongly suspected and accused of being involved in doping. There is a long list, including the aforementioned Ferrari, Johan Bruyneel, Luis Garcia del Moral, Jose Marti and Pedro Celaya. Again, it might not prove that he doped, but it certainly doesn’t help.

How Armstrong managed to get away with it

What I was very interested in was how Armstrong managed to get away with cheating for so many years. To me, being able to plausibly explain in detail how he passed so many drug tests is critical to the USADA’s case.

Growing up, I had always assumed that drug testing in sports was almost foolproof. Even though many high profile athletes in sprinting and baseball have been sprung in recent years, for the most part I still believed that the risks were too high for most athletes to try to dope.

But as the USADA report showed, doping is a chronic problem in cycling and has been for years. Apparently all but one of the podium finishers during Armstrong’s seven-year reign have been linked to or found guilty of doping, which is both remarkable and disgraceful.

The USADA downplayed Armstrong’s claim that he passed more than 500-600 drug tests, saying that he had only been tested 60 times by the USADA and 200 times by UCI, of which many were likely tests for its health test and biological passport programs (which are not actual tests for performance enhancing drugs).

According to the USADA and its witnesses, Armstrong employed the following tactics to avoid being caught:

– avoiding testers during windows of detection — this was easy for Armstrong as the UCI did not have an out of competition testing program. He was also able to evade testers by not answering the door, while his teams had surveillance crews on the lookout for testers. He also often hid at a hotel in Spain when he needed to get away from testers, and his team staff were good at predicting when testers would come. When tested, Armstrong received at least an hour’s notice, during which his team could mask his blood. Armstrong was also accused of providing untimely and incomplete whereabouts information to USADA, thereby making it more difficult to locate him for out of competition testing;

– using undetectable substances and methods — blood doping and human growth hormones, which Armstrong was said to have used, were not detectable back in those days. As mentioned above, Armstrong also cheated the system by getting false and backdated medical authorizations for cortisone, and his team was said to have known very well how long certain drugs would be detectable by testers;

– understanding limitations to drug tests — Armstrong allegedly used hypoxic chambers and training at altitudes to lessen likelihood of detecting EPO; and

– using saline solutions to mask his blood and micro-doping EPO so that it would not come up in tests.


I’ve just realised how bloody long this summary is, and I guess that shows how much evidence there is against Armstrong. It is also telling that Nike, Armstrong’s longtime sponsor, dumped him after the report was released and said that he had misled them for more than a decade. Armstrong himself stepped down as chairman of his Livestrong foundation to spare it of the negative effects of his tarnished reputation.

Importantly, the UCI’s decision to accept the USADA’s findings and officially strip Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and enforce a lifetime ban is indicative of the report’s strength and credibility. Having been embroiled in a jurisdictional dispute with the USADA over the Armstrong case and uncooperative in assisting the agency in its investigations, the UCI’s ratification of the Reasoned Decision speaks volumes.

Initially, a lot of people were convinced that Armstrong was telling the truth and that enemies were really “out to get him”. But the question that has never been answered adequately is why? Why would people want to do this to a sporting legend and cancer hero? Why would they be willing to risk or destroy their reputations, careers and futures just to bring down a former close friend and/or teammate with lies, all for something silly like jealousy? Would you lie to risk perjury and ruining your reputation and future just because you despise someone? Would 26 people?

In the Federal Court decision granting the USADA jurisdiction to arbitrate Armstrong’s case, concerns were raised about the motives of the USADA in going after Armstrong, claiming that “it is difficult to avoid the conclusion” that it is “motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations to USOC (United States Olympic Committee).”

It is true that the USADA has relentlessly pursued Armstrong for allegations as far as a decade ago and has more or less forced him to arbitrate. However, it seems highly unlikely that the USADA would frame an innocent man and make others lie about him just so they could build a compelling case. There is no logical reason for them to pick on Armstrong of all people if he had nothing to hide. The bottom line is that they were convinced Armstrong doped and had strong reasons for believing so.

I suspect the number of die-hard Armstrong supporters who still insist that he is innocent and is the victim of a massive conspiracy is very low right now — the evidence is simply too overwhelming to deny or rebut. But what remains puzzling to me is all those people who try and defend Armstrong’s doping with his contributions to cancer research. I don’t get it because the two are completely separate issues. He can still be a hero for cancer even as a drug cheat. People who supported Livestrong need to remember that they are supporting a cause, not a person.

The other thing I find appalling is how people could defend Armstrong’s doping on the basis that pretty much everyone from his era doped, so the playing field was actually level. Some have even gone as far as to suggest that people should just be allowed to dope in any sport. I don’t think I need to explain why this is appalling.

The oft-used assertion that Armstrong is innocent or at least deserves the presumption of innocence because he “never failed a drug test” is no longer tenable. First of all, Armstrong has failed drug tests, but the results were explained away with medical authorizations and elaborate stories — which witnesses now say were fraudulent. Further, there may have been cover ups of test results through bribes, as some of them claim.  From the very limited number of samples the USADA could get their hands on (as the UCI refused to hand theirs over), they have scientifically shown that it is virtually impossible that Armstrong did not dope. And remember that a lot of Armstrong’s former teammates, ones that have admitted to doping after years of denials, managed to pass all their drug tests for years as well. George Hincapie, who is believed to be one of the most credible witnesses in the case, has admitted to doping with Armstrong even though he has never “failed” a drug test either.

I used to believe that athletes can only be proven guilty with definitively positive drug tests, but as the last few years have shown, the biggest drug cheats rarely get sprung during their prime, and it is only through improving technologies and the vigilance of anti-doping authorities that the truth ultimately gets uncovered.

So while Lance Armstrong continues to maintain his innocence, what we know for certain is this:

– as a historical fighter, he refused to contest the charges and mountain of evidence against him, preferring instead to acquiesce to whatever punishment the USADA, and now UCI, issued;

– 26 witnesses, including 15 cyclists and 11 teammates, have voluntarily given evidence saying that he doped; the number of witnesses would have been higher had Armstrong contested the charges;

– almost all of his former teammates on the UPS team have admitted to doping despite having passed years of testing themselves, and yet Armstrong claims he had no idea anyone on his team doped;

– he “passed” a combined 260-280 drug tests from the USADA and UCI, not the 500-600 claimed; many of the UCI tests were health as opposed to drug tests;

– former teammates and witnesses have offered credible explanations for how most of the drug tests were avoided, masked or explained away; many doping methods he allegedly used were undetectable at the time;

– in 2000, his team suspiciously drove 60 miles to dump used syringes in roadside trashcans, which they claim were to treat a diabetic member and road rash;

– he tested positive for cortisone in 1999 but was not punished because he later provided a medical authorization;

– 1999 samples retested in 2004 tested positive for EPO six times but the results were ignored by the UCI;

– his 2001 blood, “suspicious” for EPO back then, would produce a “positive” under current testing standards;

– the odds of his blood being natural in 2009 and 2010 was one in a million; his 2009 blood was also consistent with having received a blood transfusion during the tour;

– he has worked with or has been closely associated with doctors, trainers and staff who have admitted to, convicted of, or strongly suspected of being involved in doping, and he lied about his ongoing association with one of them;

– he and his legal team have intimated, threatened and publicly lashed out at anyone who has spoken out against him, including potential witnesses;

– the UCI, which has had a massive financial interest in protecting him for years, affirmed the USADA’s findings despite fighting the same agency earlier over jurisdiction; and

– major sponsors such as Nike and Oakley, who have supported him and defended him against doping allegations for years, have dumped him and called him a cheat.

When you list all the known facts like this, the case against Lance Armstrong becomes pretty compelling, doesn’t it? Imagine you were on a jury and was presented with all of this — would you still believe there is enough “reasonable doubt”?

I don’t think Armstrong, who has proven himself to be a dick and a half in the way he has handled the controversy and those who have spoken up against him, will ever publicly admit that he doped. He just doesn’t seem like that kind of person, and plus there are potentially dire financial ramifications. His lawyer even suggested a few days ago that he could undergo a lie detector test to prove his innocence. I actually think he would pass that test. As George Costanza once said, “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”

Mayweather-Pacquiao is OFF!!!

January 7, 2010 in Boxing

Biggest fight ever (maybe) is no more

Slap me because I don’t believe it.

From the words of Manny Pacquiao’s promoter, Top Rank’s Bob Arum, the most lucrative fight in boxing history between Floyd Mayweather Jr and Manny Pacquiao on 13 March 2010 at the MGM in Las Vegas is off.  All because the two sides cannot agree on the drug testing procedures.

According to Arum, Pacquiao will still fight on March 13, against new Junior Middleweight titlist Yuri Foreman (who was on Pacquiao’s undercard against Cotto) in an attempt to win a world title in his eighth weight division.  Mayweather, on the other hand, will probably fight former Junior Welterweight titlist Paulie Malignaggi.

Is this really happening?  I was surprised when Mayweather and Pacquiao agreed to fight each other so quickly, even agreeing on a 50-50 split.  I was also surprised when the negotiations stalled over random drug testing and the parties had to go to arbitration.  But I never expected the fight to be called off completely.

Now, Arum is known to be full of crap, and this could be just another one of his ploys, but the fact is, the mediation process failed.  Apparently, the parties to the mediation had agreed on a specific deal, and all that was required was sign-off by the actual boxers.

(Click on ‘More…’ to read about what really happened)

Read the rest of this entry →

Mayweather-Pacquiao at risk over drug testing!

December 24, 2009 in Boxing

[For an update on Mayweather-Pacquiao click here]

Big Fight called off?!

The big story in the boxing world today is that the potential megafight between Floyd Mayweather Jr and Manny Pacquiao (tentatively scheduled for 13 March 2010 at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas) is possibly OFF because of a fundamental disagreement in negotiations relating to the drug testing procedures for the bout.

Ordinarily, drug testing in Vegas would be performed by the Nevada State Athletic Commission.  This would entail a urine test before the fight and another one after the fight.  However, Mayweather’s camp is demanding Olympic-style drug testing for his fight with Pacquiao (which will be performed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency), which would subject both fighters to random blood and urine testing.  According to Leonard Ellerby, Floyd’s adviser, this would effectively mean 3-5 random blood tests and 10-12 random urine tests over approximately 10 weeks.  This could literally happen at any time, including in the middle of the night and up to the day of the weigh-in.

Pacquiao’s camp is furious at this demand, to the point where his promoter Bob Arum (from Top Rank) announced that the fight was off completely – and he blames Mayweather, saying this was his way of trying to get himself out of the fight.  He said that Pacquiao, who has never failed a drug test before, was willing to agree to more stringent testing, including blood tests, but there has to be a limit.  A superstitious man, Pacquiao believes and feels that taking blood ‘weakens’ him (though scientifically it only takes an hour to physically recover from the amount of blood they would draw), and does not want anyone to take blood from him any closer than 30 days from the fight.  Accordingly, Pacquiao drew the line at one blood test before the kick-off press conference (in January) and another one after the fight.  Urine testing could still take place at any time.

On the other hand, CEO of Golden Boy, Richard Schaefer (who represents Floyd in those negotiations) is saying that Pacquiao’s refusal means he has something to hide.  Floyd Mayweather Jr’s father, Floyd Sr, has repeatedly claimed that Pacquiao is on performance enhancing drugs, and this is their way of ensuring a ‘level playing field’.  Mayweather’s camp is adamant about this and aren’t budging either.

And that constitutes a stalemate in the negotiations.  If the fight is not finalised before the end of the year, the March 13 date would be a near impossibility.

Golden Boy were the first to release details of the disagreement, and have consistently argued that if Pacquiao has nothing to hide, then why refuse their demand?  To add fuel to the fire, the Mayweather camp has revealed that they agreed to an exorbitant $10 million per pound penalty for every pound over the 147 lb limit at which the fight would take place.  This was of course due to Mayweather’s blatant disregard of the catch weight of 144 pounds when he fought Juan Manuel Marquez by coming in at 146 (and paying $600,000 to get away with it).  If they were willing to accept such an unprecedented demand, then Pacquiao ought to accept their demands too, they said.

Here are some of the quotes from the Mayweather camp:

Mayweather Jr: “I understand Pacquiao not liking having his blood taken because, frankly, I don’t know anyone who really does.  But in a fight of this magnitude, I think it is our responsibility to subject ourselves to sportsmanship at the highest level. I have already agreed to the testing and it is a shame that he is not willing to do the same. It leaves me with great doubt as to the level of fairness I would be facing in the ring that night.  I hope that this is either some miscommunication or that Manny will change his mind and step up and allow these tests, which were good enough for all these other great athletes, to be performed by USADA.”

Richard Schaefer “I do hope it is some sort of miscommunication and that Pacquiao is not even aware of what is going on and he will clear this up and say what is good enough for these great Olympic athletes is good enough for him and Floyd, and he agrees to do these drug tests.  Team Mayweather is very surprised that an elite athlete like Manny Pacquiao would refuse drug testing procedures which Floyd has already agreed to and have been agreed to by many other top athletes. Why would Pacquiao refuse to have the same kind of testing that Lance Armstrong, Michael Phelps, LeBron James and Kobe Bryant have had?”

Leonard Ellerbe: “We hope that Manny will do the right thing and agree to the testing as it is an egregious act to deny the testing and hence, deny the millions of fans the right to see this amazing fight. We just want to make sure there is a level playing field in a sport that is a man-to-man contest that relies on strength and ability.  I still hope this decision is coming from someone in Pacquiao’s camp and not Manny himself as it would be a shame that an athlete of his stature and who represents his whole country would not be able to show the public or his fellow athletes that he agrees to the highest standards in sports competition.”

“The reason why they don’t want to do that is because obviously there is something to hide.  You’re not going to dictate to an organization like USADA, which has tested the elite athletes of the world, on how their testing is conducted. Arum is talking about the fighters like they’re going to have a blood transfusion. We’re talking about a tablespoon of blood. We’re taking about a tablespoon. This is the same representation of Manny Pacquiao that says he’s superstitious and doesn’t like needles and then you look all over his body and he has tattoos. So which one is it? If there’s nothing to hide then what is the problem?  Boxing has an opportunity and a platform with the whole world watching to say we have a clean sport. What better opportunity that with the two top guys in the sport stepping up to make this happen?”


Top Rank, which previously refused to comment, has suggested a compromise to put a stop to the bad PR this story was generating.  Bob Arum says Pacquiao would agree to testing by any of the independent drug testing agencies utilised by the NBA, NFL and MLB.  And there would be a limit of 3 blood tests – 1 during the week in January when the fight is announced, 1 no later than 30 days before the fight, and 1 after the fight in the dressing room.  Urine tests would still presumably be conducted by the Nevada State Athletic Commission as usual for normal fights.

Here are some quotes from Top Rank:

Bob Arum: “Manny says, ‘I’m not going to let them take my blood whenever they want when I’m getting seriously ready for a fight. They can take all the urine they want.’  My fighter feels uncomfortable with that and feels that would weaken him. I know if I deal with an organization that deals with pro athletes we can agree to the protocol.”

“He’ll give them blood but he wants to know it will stop at a particular point.  He wants the fight. But he’s a proud guy. He won’t be pushed around by this guy [Mayweather].  Let’s be very clear on the real issues we differ on. It’s not about being tested.  Manny is on board with that since it’s such a major concern of Floyd Mayweather Jr. It’s about who does the testing and the scheduling of the procedures.  The major issue related to the testing rests with which independent agency will administer these tests. The United States Anti Doping Agency cannot do it because they will not amend its procedures to accommodate the blood testing schedule we have outlined. USADA, under its guidelines, would have the right to administer random blood tests as many times as they want up to weigh-in day and that is ludicrous.”

“If Mayweather Promotions and Golden Boy Promotions are sincere in creating ‘a level playing field,’ as they stated in their [Monday news] release, our recommendations should put their minds at ease. If not, one has to wonder if their motives are more about leveling the fight.”

“You gotta understand.  I’m dealing with a Filipino fighter who is superstitious and I have to tell him they [USADA] have the power to come into his dressing room before the fight and take his blood. Any time means any time. They would put nothing in writing as to any kind of schedule. That is ludicrous. Let’s bring in the testers from the NBA or the NFL or baseball.”

And the response from Golden Boy:

Leonard Ellerby: “We’re sticking to what we’ve been saying.  Manny Pacquiao or any of his representatives are not going to dictate random testing. That’s the whole point of random testing, so you don’t get a chance to study for the test. USADA is the premiere agency for doing this, the gold standard. They’re not going to have Top Rank, Mayweather Promotions or Golden Boy Promotions dictate to them. It’s pretty simple. Manny Pacquiao can put an end to this whole thing by stepping up to the plate and doing this.”


There’s a lot of positioning and fluff in their statements but when you strip that away, I can still see the arguments from both sides.

On the one hand, you have Mayweather, who is obviously concerned about Pacquiao’s unprecedented ability to skip weight classes and still maintain his speed and power.  This is a negotiation.  It is perfectly within his right to ask for more stringent drug testing, especially when he accepted the $10 million per pound penalty.  Maybe there’s a little bit of trying to gain a mental advantage over Pacquiao too, particularly if he knows Pacquiao is superstitious and doesn’t like to have his training interrupted.  Either way, the fundamental argument remains the same: if Pacquiao has nothing to hide, then why not accept the terms, especially when it won’t have a physical effect on his performance in the ring?

On the other hand, you have Pacquiao, who must be thinking – I’ve never failed a drug test, I’m superstitious and I don’t like people taking blood from me, it makes me feel weak and I believe it does – so why should I agree to something that no other fighter has ever had to agree to, something that is beyond the ambit of ordinary protocols?  I’ve already agreed to compromise by accepting blood tests by independent drug agencies, but making such an arbitrary and unreasonable demand is pushing me too far.

To me, it’s not that complicated.  There are two questions that could solve the whole debacle.

1. Are there drugs which a urine test would not pick up but a blood test would?

2. Can a fighter still dope and manage to go undetected with the 3 blood tests proposed by Top Rank?

If the answer to both of these questions is YES, then then there’s more room for maneuvering from the Mayweather camp.  Not to say that Pacquiao must accept the terms, but there’s an argument to be made – perhaps another blood test in between to eliminate any doubt whatsoever.  If the answer to either question is NO, then Pacquiao shouldn’t have to accept more stringent terms.

Clearly a blood test before the press conference in January means there is no chance of taking a banned substance 2 months out form the fight.  Another one up to 30 days before the fight means there’s no chance of doping before then either.  And a final blood test after the fight means no banned substances in his system for the fight itself.  So really, there is only a small window of opportunity for doping (if any) – ie 30 days before the fight till how ever long the usage would have to stop before it would show up in a post-fight blood test.  And they would only be substances which could only be detected in a blood test, not a urine test.

Furthermore, even if it is possible to dope and get away with it during that small time frame, how much of an advantage can one genuinely gain from it?  Consider the risks and rewards – if there’s not much of an advantage to be gained, would a fighter be willing to take the extremely high risk of getting caught?

Anyway, let’s just hope this seemingly small detail doesn’t get in the way of potentially the biggest fight of all time (in terms of revenue at least).  Despite threats to walk away, both sides are determined to reach a mutual position – there’s too much money at stake for them not to.

[Update: Pacquiao is now set on suing the Mayweathers for defamation!  He is genuinely pissed off, though I think the statement that was released was just another ploy in getting the Mayweather camp to back off.  It was said that John McCain would be brought in as a mediator, but Pacquiao is fuming and refuses.  Doesn’t look good.  Really, they just need to get some medical experts and formulate a testing schedule that makes it impossible (or at least extremely unlikely) for a fighter to dope.  I’m sure that does not have to involve random testing at any hour of the day.  Perhaps another scheduled one several days out if the proposed 3 tests are insufficient to eliminate all doubt.  Come on, stop acting like babies and get this on!]