I’m being framed. It was in a supplement I took. I ate contaminated beef. My brother spiked my drink.
Just some of the excuses that are trotted out when a boxer fails a PED test.
Such testing failures are sadly common, but even then the true scale of the problem is surely even bigger. One has to assume that for every fighter who fails a drugs test, there are yet more who evade detection.
DOPING AND THE LACK OF A DETERRENT
And when implicated, they (almost) always protest their innocence. I can think of only one example where a doping boxer put his hands up, and that was only because when Larry Olubamiwo tested positive for a whopping 13 different banned substances, there couldn’t possibly be any plausible mitigation for offending on such a massive scale.
Instead, Olubamiwo tried to rationalise his actions: I did it because everyone else is doing it, he said.
We’ll never know the truth of that claim, but if indeed more boxers are doping than are not, it would be easy to understand why: a deterrent simply doesn’t exist.
At the top level, offending boxers are fined thousands of dollars when they make millions. They are suspended for three or six months when they only fight once or twice a year anyway.
Sometimes they are not punished at all, with governing and sanctioning bodies quick to accept their excuses so that a contest may proceed.
Ostensibly, this is in the spirit of “innocent until proven guilty”. But if one is to take a more cynical approach, you might wonder if the money lost when a show is cancelled is of greater concern.
As for the presumption of innocence, it is true that some accused boxers have gone on to clear their names. It is rare, but we have to accept that possibility before vilifying a fighter.
Still, this is not like any other allegation, where the accused can go about their business until their guilt is either proven or refuted.
In combat sports, allowing any competitor to participate while there is even a possibility that they have an artificial advantage is not only unfair, it is dangerous.
Imagine somebody reports a shark sighting at a tourist beach. Any competent authority would close the beach until they could establish for sure that there was no shark. Letting people continue to swim there in case there might not be a shark after all would be irresponsible in the extreme.
THE PURSUIT OF PROFIT OVER SAFETY
This is what the organisers of the doomed Conor Benn-Chris Eubank Jr bout tried to do.
It was reported on Wednesday that Benn had failed a VADA test when traces of clomifene, which is typically administered to treat female infertility and reportedly boosts testosterone, were detected, yet it wasn’t until Thursday – some 48 hours before doors were set to open at the O2 in London – that the fight was called off.
This was only after promoter Eddie Hearn explored and attempted to exploit every possible legal loophole to allow it to go ahead despite the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC) withdrawing sanctioning.
The point being argued by Hearn was that while Benn failed a test administered by one organisation – VADA, or the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association – he passed another (later) test by UKAD (UK Anti-Doping), which the BBBofC officially recognises.
There was also the matter of the results of VADA’s ‘B’ sample not yet being reported, although these very rarely differ from the ‘A’ sample results, as ‘A’ and ‘B’ are simply the same sample split into two in case one is lost or contaminated.
It all reeked of a man desperate to retain a blockbuster payday, when his overarching concern should have been for the safety of his boxers.
It may yet turn out that Benn is innocent, and this saga will have been terribly unfortunate for him if so. But the prospect of compensating him for such an eventuality pales in comparison to the potential repercussions if Eubank had been hurt in this fight and Benn’s test results were confirmed.
The only sane, logical and responsible thing to do was to cancel the match.
If Benn is cleared, it can be rescheduled, and Hearn will be assuaged by it being even bigger.
And if the doping allegations are proven, Benn will face the consequences. But at least his opponent won’t have to.
AN OFFENCE WITH UNSUFFERED CONSEQUENCES
What consequences, if guilty, might Benn face, though?
History has shown us that drug cheats get off very lightly in boxing.
Quite apart from the relatively small fines and the short suspensions, fighters often find the fans are quick to forgive, too.
A long list of big-name boxers have fallen foul of drug testing, but none of them faced more than temporary inconvenience as a result, nor have they been made pariahs like doping athletes in other sports often are.
The careers and reputations of cyclist Lance Armstrong and sprinter Ben Johnson were ruined by failed drugs tests – yet in their sports, there was no chance of their opponents being literally ruined.
The spectre of danger and even death hangs over combat sports like it does over no other. Conor Benn and Chris Eubank Jr know this better than most, their fathers having inflicted life-changing injuries on opponents in the 1990s; two of the most harrowing episodes in all of sport.
That is why it’s so important to clamp down properly on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in boxing.
Too often, the consequences for the offender of taking PEDs are negligible, or even nil, despite the potential consequences for an opponent being the gravest of all.
Doping violations are brushed aside. The show, almost always, goes on, and the offender, almost always, is forgiven. Only Larry Olubamiwo, really, bore his cross for more than a few weeks or months, and even he was eventually given his licence back.
WHY BOXING FANS ARE SO FORGIVING
Conor Benn, right now, is facing unprecedented criticism over his failed test, but that is more due to its timing than its grievousness.
The test results were made public in the thick of fight week, with the full glare of media publicity bearing down on the promotion and its participants.
This also meant it was far too late for any fans who had planned to attend to change their plans. Even if their tickets are refunded, they still stand to lose out on hotel bookings and public transport costs.
Media outlets will have planned their coverage, assigned reporters and crews, set aside pages and time slots. Trade paper Boxing News had churned out vast amounts of preview coverage for its magazine’s release on Wednesday, the same day everything started to fall apart, rendering its efforts redundant.
Even those who were simply going to watching the fight on TV will feel aggrieved. They might have already bought the PPV and invited friends round to watch it. Or perhaps they’d planned a night out around it. Or they just might have simply been looking forward to it, and now it’s off.
The outrage is greater this time because of all of the above, because the controversy erupted so close to the opening bell.
But had it been a month or two ago, it likely would have been very different – albeit very familiar.
There would have been some groans of annoyance, but little more than that. The fight would have been comfortably rescheduled or, if there was enough time, it would have gone ahead as planned after an excuse or explanation had been trundled out – and accepted.
Boxing fans are a forgiving lot. Perhaps it comes with the territory, given the sport famously attracts competitors from the wrong side of the tracks.
Convicts, drug-users, alcoholics, wife-beaters, rule-breakers, robbers, racists and rapists have all been tolerated – even celebrated – in boxing.
But it’s not necessarily hypocritical to welcome such characters into the ring, because there are innumerable examples of wayward lives being steered towards positive outcomes by boxing.
That is perhaps why second chances are so much easier to come by in this sport.
I, too, have always been of the opinion that people are entitled to make at least one mistake – not just in boxing, but in life in general.
I, too, have been guilty (as a fan) of tolerating PED violations.
I have allowed for the possibility of honest mistakes, of accidents, of carelessness, or even for deliberate acts, if the offence was a one-off.
But how many of these incidents will truly have been one-offs? Were they caught the first time they’d done it, or was it merely the first time they were caught?
You don’t have to be an incurable cynic to imagine the latter scenario is far more plausible.
So, I have now changed my tune.
IGNORANCE IS NOT A BYWORD FOR INNOCENCE
Previously, I would have suggested a minimum one-year ban for first-time PED offences. This would have been more of a deterrent than what currently exists, but would also allow for the possibility of genuine carelessness.
However, I’m now learning towards an immediate and permanent ban even for first-time offenders, as well as an automatic suspension enacted the moment an adverse test result is recorded and lasting until the case is resolved.
The latter scenario would be a hindrance to the genuinely innocent, but it would prevent circuses such as that which unfolded this week as Hearn desperately tried to herd swimmers into (reportedly) shark-infested waters. If Benn-Eubank Jr had been permitted, it would have set an alarmingly risky precedent.
As for a permanent, immediate ban for proven violations, some may argue that would be excessive and would leave no room for honest mistakes, but what’s the betting that such mistakes would dramatically decrease if the consequences for carelessness were that severe?
As convenient as the “unknown supplement ingredients” and “spiked drinks” excuses are, ultimately an athlete should take responsibility for what goes into their body. Ignorance is not a byword for innocence.
And that’s even if we’re to believe all these offences/mistakes are isolated incidents. Yet, assuredly, the majority won’t be.
The call for a lifetime ban is not only to serve as a deterrent, it’s to prevent harm that may be caused further down the line, even if a previously doping fighter is now testing “clean”.
Because the way PEDs work is not that a boxer takes one and – ping! – a performance-enhancing button is pressed, serves him for that one fight, and then its effects are switched off as soon as the competition ceases.
No, they are taken in courses, usually through the duration of a fight camp, if not multiple camps. While it’s purely speculation, you can imagine boxers doing this for months, or more likely years. Olubamiwo admitted to doping for the entirety of his pro career.
So, PEDs aid athletes not just on fight night but potentially throughout large periods of their development. They might not have achieved what they achieved, gained the endurance, the explosiveness, the strength they possess, without “medical assistance”.
And, if this was a habit they had maintained for a year, or five years, or 10, the gains from it will not be suddenly switched off just because they have now been caught, and now – only now – are testing clean.
In other words, the benefits of unfair advantages gained by PED use can be reaped even after such use stops.
That’s why an immediate life ban for proven PED users is the only solution.
That may seem harsh on boxers who mistakenly eat tainted beef (or men who take female infertility drugs), but with such a deterrent in place, you can be sure they’d be a lot more careful about where they buy their steaks.
Leave a Reply