PDA

View Full Version : Chavez Jr misses post fight drug test....



Hex-One
02-06-2012, 10:51 AM
I thought Chavez Jr looked decent Saturday night and gave him props for the first time. Now I understand he misses a post fight drug test and refuses to answer questions about it. This raises some serious questions and if I were Rubio I would fight this until the end.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2qJ8hpDUSx8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

**JIMMY**
02-06-2012, 10:56 AM
Sounds dodgy.

Hex-One
02-06-2012, 11:27 AM
http://www.boxingscene.com/wbc-responds-rubios-ped-test-claims-on-chavez-jr--49306

Here is another update. I think the fight should be a NC. Something is up and the protecting of Chavez Jr must stop.

Double L
02-06-2012, 11:40 AM
It's a joke. HBO should be ashamed of itself for being every bit complicit in manufacturing this guy as Arum is. The guy's a complete sham. The size advantage he enjoys in the ring means he can be anywhere from 25-50% as good as his opponent and still walk through them. And even then, he's faced crappy competition, with Rubio, a mere tune-up for Pavlik years back, a supposed big step up for Jr.

What a fucking joke.

It's funny because Steward, in Chavez Jr.'s defense, talked about the fact he hadn't had a amateur career, and that for this reason, his lack of a single top opponent is understandable. Fine. But half the guy's fights have been on HBO or PPV. So basically, HBO has used up spots for amateur boxing?

HBO needs to pull the plug on this Chavez Jr. bit. It's gotten ridiculous.

Trplsec
02-06-2012, 12:34 PM
Chavez struggles to make weight and then avoids a post fight piss test.

Seems innocent enough to me.

Irish 2002/2003
02-06-2012, 01:09 PM
:lol:


These areas have been drained. Thanks to the open and frank nature of discussion on this forum, myself and steveE_davE were working on this matter as of Sunday. :laugh11:

Nobleart
02-06-2012, 01:12 PM
So, I'm assuming the concern is that he took some laxative that has been banned.

Irish 2002/2003
02-06-2012, 01:15 PM
So, I'm assuming the concern is that he took some laxative that has been banned.

The concern is that he missed the test. As of now, that's the only concern, and thats as much detail its should be taking on. I say that out of both fairness and a desire to not see this dressed up prematurely as a "Oh, it was probably just a laxative" kind of thing. By that same token, I doubt he was taking anything anabolic.

Jake
02-06-2012, 01:44 PM
So, I'm assuming the concern is that he took some laxative that has been banned.
The diuretic found in his system when he got suspended a couple of years ago is also used as a masking agent to hide other drugs.

Not saying it's why Chavez Jr used it last time (or even that he used anything this time), but it's become a common use in sports. And even as a Chavez fan, there's every reason to suspect he cut several corners in order to make weight for this fight. The fact that no post-fight drug test was administered only heightens such suspicions.

The only question I had when reporting on it was whether or not Rubio would have a beef over the absence of drug test, if he had won the fight.

Double L
02-06-2012, 01:48 PM
The diuretic found in his system when he got suspended a couple of years ago is also used as a masking agent to hide other drugs.

Not saying it's why Chavez Jr used it last time (or even that he used anything this time), but it's become a common use in sports. And even as a Chavez fan, there's every reason to suspect he cut several corners in order to make weight for this fight. The fact that no post-fight drug test was administered only heightens such suspicions.

The only question I had when reporting on it was whether or not Rubio would have a beef over the absence of drug test, if he had won the fight.

Why would he? Of course he wouldn't care. What does that prove? I think the obvious implication of Rubio's complaint is that he lost the fight BECAUSE Chavez was using something. Take that away, and why would he care whether there were a test or not?

*Z*
02-06-2012, 02:00 PM
Nobody cares what the other guy was on if you win.

Jake
02-06-2012, 02:02 PM
Why would he? Of course he wouldn't care. What does that prove? I think the obvious implication of Rubio's complaint is that he lost the fight BECAUSE Chavez was using something. Take that away, and why would he care whether there were a test or not?

It was a rhetorical question, Double L. Calm down.

Roll With The Punches
02-06-2012, 02:34 PM
:scratcher:

ludicrous



:atu:



:say:

Nobleart
02-06-2012, 02:38 PM
...........and that's why the fight was in Texas.

:shit:

*Z*
02-06-2012, 02:50 PM
I love how Suliaman says "We forgot" when asked about Chavez not leaving a sample. WE? Really?

Nobleart
02-06-2012, 02:54 PM
Wasn't there open scoring during this fight? Why did Rubio have his arms raised at the end?

Was it only Chavez's corner who had open scoring?

The conspiracy deepens. Muldur, Scully, where are you?

:goodnews:

Double L
02-06-2012, 03:52 PM
It was a rhetorical question, Double L. Calm down.

:lol:

okay. :doh:

Double L
02-06-2012, 03:53 PM
Wasn't there open scoring during this fight? Why did Rubio have his arms raised at the end?

Was it only Chavez's corner who had open scoring?

The conspiracy deepens. Muldur, Scully, where are you?

:goodnews:

And Lederman mentioned that - making the point that there is no open scoring in the U.S. And that despite appearances, the fight did not take place in Mexico, but rather in the U.S.

Jake
02-06-2012, 03:58 PM
Wasn't there open scoring during this fight? Why did Rubio have his arms raised at the end?

Was it only Chavez's corner who had open scoring?

The conspiracy deepens. Muldur, Scully, where are you?

:goodnews:

Open scoring is actually only revealed after the 4th and 8th rounds. In the US they don't truly allow open scoring, but the WBC reps does inform each corner and they have to sign the scorecard verifying they were informed, just so there's no conspiracy theory afterward.

Irish 2002/2003
02-06-2012, 04:00 PM
And Lederman mentioned that - making the point that there is no open scoring in the U.S. And that despite appearances, the fight did not take place in Mexico, but rather in the U.S.

Doesn't anyone remember when the "traditional anthem" of the functional-weight-advantage-having Ortiz was sung?? :laugh11:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZKwadXNRqMQ?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZKwadXNRqMQ?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

Nobleart
02-06-2012, 04:00 PM
Open scoring is actually only revealed after the 4th and 8th rounds. In the US they don't truly allow open scoring, but the WBC reps does inform each corner and they have to sign the scorecard verifying they were informed, just so there's no conspiracy theory afterward.


That's a bit confusing. There's no open scoring, but the corners are shown the score?

So it's open scoring to the corners, but not the fans? :scratcher:

Jake
02-06-2012, 04:09 PM
I know, I don't get it either. And quite honestly, I've never heard of even that part of it being practiced anywhere in the US other than Saturday's fight.

Double L
02-06-2012, 04:34 PM
Doesn't anyone remember when the "traditional anthem" of the functional-weight-advantage-having Ortiz was sung?? :laugh11:


<OBJECT style="WIDTH: 640px; HEIGHT: 390px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZKwadXNRqMQ?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></OBJECT></P>
seriously? fcked up if you ask me.

Trplsec
02-06-2012, 04:34 PM
Well, you gotta admit that open scoring is helpful in the event your protected fighter falls behind. Then you can signal the ref to intervene to even things back out.

It's all good.

Irish 2002/2003
02-06-2012, 04:59 PM
</P>
seriously? fcked up if you ask me.

Oh yeah, Mexican anthem for a US Citizen. Something to do with heritage.

Double L
02-06-2012, 05:14 PM
Well, you gotta admit that open scoring is helpful in the event your protected fighter falls behind. Then you can signal the ref to intervene to even things back out.

It's all good.

There's so many reasons open scoring is bad. And the funny thing is, I don't even understand the up-side. It's not clear what if anything it does to protect against corruption.

Azazel
02-06-2012, 05:17 PM
I often have defended Chavez Jr. but this, if true, is outrageous

Nobleart
02-06-2012, 05:24 PM
There's so many reasons open scoring is bad. And the funny thing is, I don't even understand the up-side. It's not clear what if anything it does to protect against corruption.


It certainly doesn't prevent bad score cards if that one judge in the Donaire fight is any indication.


:shit:

Irish 2002/2003
02-06-2012, 05:31 PM
It certainly doesn't prevent bad score cards if that one judge in the Donaire fight is any indication.


:shit:

:lol:

Steve Bunce was all over that one :lol: He immediately jumped on the scores and had a giggle at how "you are always in with a shout my son as a Puerto Rican fighting for a WBO title" :laugh11:

He also complemented Colonel Bob Sheridan for not apologizing to the viewers for the bad language being used in some of the undercard fights {especially that <strike>8 rounder</strike> six rounder }

Jesus of montreal
02-06-2012, 05:49 PM
It was a rhetorical question, Double L. Calm down.

Still, it was a pretty weird rethorical question.

BTW not that it,s anything new, but sulumain is one of the worst pos in the sport. We forgot, yeah really. the guy should be suspended fopr negligence

*Z*
02-06-2012, 06:37 PM
WBC is as shady as it gets.

Irish 2002/2003
02-06-2012, 07:04 PM
WBC is as shady as it gets.

Its no worse than the IBF, is it? :dunno:

*Z*
02-06-2012, 08:47 PM
Its no worse than the IBF, is it? :dunno:

They are all corrupt. The WBC is just blatant about it.

Double L
02-06-2012, 08:51 PM
Anyone know if they made him take one after the fact? Day later?

Jake
02-06-2012, 08:52 PM
Its no worse than the IBF, is it? :dunno:

As far as they go today, the IBF is actually by far the cleanest of the bunch. Save for, of course, the whole mystery man thing in Peterson-Khan :lol:

Jake
02-06-2012, 08:56 PM
Still, it was a pretty weird rethorical question.

BTW not that it's anything new, but sulumain is one of the worst pos in the sport. We forgot, yeah really. the guy should be suspended fopr negligence

I knew the answer to it, since it was obvious. Was just pointing out that people suddenly get righteous about the rules once they lose a fight (or a game). Happens on every level.

Double L
02-06-2012, 09:26 PM
I knew the answer to it, since it was obvious. Was just pointing out that people suddenly get righteous about the rules once they lose a fight (or a game). Happens on every level.

Which they're perfectly entitled to do, imo.

Free Ike
02-06-2012, 10:18 PM
You anti-steroids people make me laugh. Steroids are great. If Rubio didn't want steroids, then Chavez deserves the win.

BOSS
02-07-2012, 12:30 AM
B.S If anyone was on drugs it was Rubio. Dude looked like he rolled in a pile of coke right before the fight.

Nobleart
02-07-2012, 01:36 AM
B.S If anyone was on drugs it was Rubio. Dude looked like he rolled in a pile of coke right before the fight.


Don't let the Frankie Goes To Hollywood mustache fool you. :nono:

Double L
02-07-2012, 10:00 AM
You anti-steroids people make me laugh. Steroids are great. If Rubio didn't want steroids, then Chavez deserves the win.

So controversial! I can't believe you just said what you said. It's outlandish. Your attitude seems to undermine everything I hold sacred. It simply can't be. What have we come to? Your statement flies in the face of everything I've been taught. I can't believe you'd say that. This is shocking. I'm shocked.

REEDsART
02-07-2012, 10:18 AM
So controversial! I can't believe you just said what you said. It's outlandish. Your attitude seems to undermine everything I hold sacred. It simply can't be. What have we come to? Your statement flies in the face of everything I've been taught. I can't believe you'd say that. This is shocking. I'm shocked.
That's the Intent...He's a SHOCK VALUE/SHITS & GIGGLES Poster...Wishing Death & Disease Upon his Fellow Man...Holding On to Opinions like "Ali & Leonard were BORING...Chris Byrd is EXCITING"...

That's his SCHTICK...



REED:limp:

Jesus of montreal
02-07-2012, 01:53 PM
So controversial! I can't believe you just said what you said. It's outlandish. Your attitude seems to undermine everything I hold sacred. It simply can't be. What have we come to? Your statement flies in the face of everything I've been taught. I can't believe you'd say that. This is shocking. I'm shocked.

that's a gem of a post :lol:

mikE
02-07-2012, 02:20 PM
As far as they go today, the IBF is actually by far the cleanest of the bunch. Save for, of course, the whole mystery man thing in Peterson-Khan :lol:

Why the IBF love? If we do this objectively first by listing examples of dirt and then do it subjectively by trying to figure out who is worst, I think the IBF very well could be considered worst.

Irish 2002/2003
02-07-2012, 02:41 PM
Why the IBF love? If we do this objectively first by listing examples of dirt and then do it subjectively by trying to figure out who is worst, I think the IBF very well could be considered worst.

Certainly at the time of the Bob Lee thing, yeah, but I think Jake means since that....personally, I don't know any more. The WBC had that thing with Rocchigianni and the Frazier thing with Roy Jones.

the WBO used to be pilloried but it was more for shambolic sanctioning than any corruption, per se, things like listing dead fighters, being the last of the big 4 to be created, etc. They've had some good champions and have made a lot of money for guys who would have otherwise been frozen out. That said, the sight of Ivan Calderon festooned with WBO belts, and the Rican fighter {WV2} getting a split decision loss in a fight for a WBO title would suggest they have a homer tendency at the very least.

Jake
02-07-2012, 03:53 PM
Certainly at the time of the Bob Lee thing, yeah, but I think Jake means since that
Precisely. You could've stopped there. That's why I prefaced my comment with "as far as they go today..." They've come a long way since the Bob Lee scandal. The other sanctioning bodies... haven't.

Double L
02-07-2012, 04:01 PM
I don't know what everyone's problem is with the WBC. Sulyaman already said that Chavez Jr. must face Martinez. Didn't he? It's not like they don't enforce their own rules.

mikE
02-07-2012, 04:27 PM
we can start the timeline wherever. I still don't think the IBF will compare favorably. It will be difficult to figure out what to count and what not to, but the IBF has a lot of stupid shit going on. For example, the IBF loves to have vacancies in their ratings. So no fighter is rated #1. That makes dickall sense. Often there is a vacancy at #2, as well.

Maybe we count this in rating the sanctioning bodies, maybe we don't. I just don't think the IBF deserves any props as being superior to the others.

*Z*
02-07-2012, 04:27 PM
How long did it take though? He should have been forced to face Martinez right after winning the WBC title. In fact, he shouldn't have a WBC world title at all until he fights the real champ. He's made a few defenses of his "title" and none of them were Martinez.

EDIT: Forgot to quote Double L

steve_dave
02-07-2012, 04:39 PM
we can start the timeline wherever. I still don't think the IBF will compare favorably. It will be difficult to figure out what to count and what not to, but the IBF has a lot of stupid shit going on. For example, the IBF loves to have vacancies in their ratings. So no fighter is rated #1. That makes dickall sense. Often there is a vacancy at #2, as well.

Maybe we count this in rating the sanctioning bodies, maybe we don't. I just don't think the IBF deserves any props as being superior to the others.

No one cares dawg.

Jake
02-07-2012, 04:52 PM
we can start the timeline wherever. I still don't think the IBF will compare favorably. It will be difficult to figure out what to count and what not to, but the IBF has a lot of stupid shit going on. For example, the IBF loves to have vacancies in their ratings. So no fighter is rated #1. That makes dickall sense. Often there is a vacancy at #2, as well.

Maybe we count this in rating the sanctioning bodies, maybe we don't. I just don't think the IBF deserves any props as being superior to the others.
Incorrect. The IBF leaves the spaces open for the purpose of creating mini-tournaments for fighters to earn a #1 ranking, as opposed to just being elevated on a whim.

What I like about that is even if fighters are wrongly ranked (and it's a problem in every sanctioning body), they still have to fight their way to a mandatory and rarely if ever does the #3 guy get to fight #15 for a shot at a title.

The counter claim to that is the IBF collecting extra sanctioning fees for said eliminators. But think about that - Judah/Paris is a $75K fight, which means the IBF gets a whopping $2,250. Had Guzman/Cayo been made, we're talking about max $50k fight, which gives the IBF $1,500.

It's not like the IBF is making a fortune on these fights.

Compare that to:
- Three champions per division in the WBA
- Silver, diamond and regular champions in the WBC

And the fact that both alter ranking as they go.

Think about it, the IBF has a champ but two vacant spots among its Top 15, which means you have 14 ranked fighters.

The WBA has three guys claiming to be champ, plus 15 ranked fighters. That's 18 guys available to challenge for mostly bullshit titles.

Even if you don't find either system ideal, it certainly stands to reason that one is far less flawed.

Jake
02-07-2012, 05:01 PM
I don't know what everyone's problem is with the WBC. Sulyaman already said that Chavez Jr. must face Martinez. Didn't he? It's not like they don't enforce their own rules.
He said it after the Manfredo fight as well.

The WBC rules also state that anyone convicted of a crime should be stripped of his title, yet they continue to stand tall with Floyd.

Canelo never had to fight a single ranked 154 lb fighter on his way to the title, and even missed contracted weight, yet was still rewarded with the belt. He now gets to go more than a year before even being assigned a mandatory, even though three separate fighters have claims to such a fight.

Tim Bradley stripped of his belt, just because they felt like it.

Just let me know when you'd like for me to stop.

Double L
02-07-2012, 05:12 PM
He said it after the Manfredo fight as well.

The WBC rules also state that anyone convicted of a crime should be stripped of his title, yet they continue to stand tall with Floyd.

Canelo never had to fight a single ranked 154 lb fighter on his way to the title, and even missed contracted weight, yet was still rewarded with the belt. He now gets to go more than a year before even being assigned a mandatory, even though three separate fighters have claims to such a fight.

Tim Bradley stripped of his belt, just because they felt like it.

Just let me know when you'd like for me to stop.

I guess I didn't make my sarcasm obvious enough. I was totally kidding. The WBC is clearly full of shit in all facets of its operation.

mikE
02-07-2012, 05:30 PM
Incorrect. The IBF leaves the spaces open for the purpose of creating mini-tournaments for fighters to earn a #1 ranking, as opposed to just being elevated on a whim.

What I like about that is even if fighters are wrongly ranked (and it's a problem in every sanctioning body), they still have to fight their way to a mandatory and rarely if ever does the #3 guy get to fight #15 for a shot at a title.

The counter claim to that is the IBF collecting extra sanctioning fees for said eliminators. But think about that - Judah/Paris is a $75K fight, which means the IBF gets a whopping $2,250. Had Guzman/Cayo been made, we're talking about max $50k fight, which gives the IBF $1,500.

It's not like the IBF is making a fortune on these fights.

Compare that to:
- Three champions per division in the WBA
- Silver, diamond and regular champions in the WBC

And the fact that both alter ranking as they go.

Think about it, the IBF has a champ but two vacant spots among its Top 15, which means you have 14 ranked fighters.

The WBA has three guys claiming to be champ, plus 15 ranked fighters. That's 18 guys available to challenge for mostly bullshit titles.

Even if you don't find either system ideal, it certainly stands to reason that one is far less flawed.

The WBA system is the worst and probably at the top of my list of things that need to be changed re sanctioning bodies. The WBC...whatever...at least you can identify what is going on...the IBF's vacancies is just stupid...the top 15 rated guys should be available to fight for the title in voluntary defenses. This is pretty much uniform throughout.

The IBF has confused mandatory designation with #1 rankings. Their system would be more defensible if the vacancies were not so prevalent, but they are. I've never had a problem with the idea of rating a guy #1 (because he is deemed to be the best challenger by the sanctioning body), but the #3 guy being the mandatory challenger because he earned the designation by fulfilling the sanctioning body's requirements. Or you just permit the #3 rated guy to leapfrog into the #1 spot when he meets sanctioning body's requirements. That's probably the better way. Not just leaving holes.

You claimed the IBF is the best by far, but you haven't cut on the WBO. What is your criticism of them?

mexican wedding shirt
02-07-2012, 05:41 PM
But mikE, I thought you loved all sanctioning bodies equally?

mikE
02-07-2012, 05:55 PM
But mikE, I thought you loved all sanctioning bodies equally?

I've never said that, have I? So why would you think that?

Irish 2002/2003
02-07-2012, 09:38 PM
Incorrect. The IBF leaves the spaces open for the purpose of creating mini-tournaments for fighters to earn a #1 ranking, as opposed to just being elevated on a whim.

What I like about that is even if fighters are wrongly ranked (and it's a problem in every sanctioning body), they still have to fight their way to a mandatory and rarely if ever does the #3 guy get to fight #15 for a shot at a title.

The counter claim to that is the IBF collecting extra sanctioning fees for said eliminators. But think about that - Judah/Paris is a $75K fight, which means the IBF gets a whopping $2,250. Had Guzman/Cayo been made, we're talking about max $50k fight, which gives the IBF $1,500.

It's not like the IBF is making a fortune on these fights.

Compare that to:
- Three champions per division in the WBA
- Silver, diamond and regular champions in the WBC

And the fact that both alter ranking as they go.

Think about it, the IBF has a champ but two vacant spots among its Top 15, which means you have 14 ranked fighters.

The WBA has three guys claiming to be champ, plus 15 ranked fighters. That's 18 guys available to challenge for mostly bullshit titles.

Even if you don't find either system ideal, it certainly stands to reason that one is far less flawed.

The WBA's thing is a total total joke, the WBC thing isn't far behind. But apart from all of this, I blame the networks. They could kill the Sanctioning Bodies in the morning. Remember "pooey, I spit on the belts..." ....that disappeared in a hurry once Max got the HBO gig, not because Max sudddenly got rich, but, ostensibly, because HBO don't swing that way.

Double L
02-08-2012, 12:06 AM
How long did it take though? He should have been forced to face Martinez right after winning the WBC title. In fact, he shouldn't have a WBC world title at all until he fights the real champ. He's made a few defenses of his "title" and none of them were Martinez.

EDIT: Forgot to quote Double L

It was sarcasm. Sulyman's words are lip-service. That's it. I was joking. My point was, the WBC doesn't even enforce its own rules.

Jake
02-08-2012, 01:10 AM
The WBA system is the worst and probably at the top of my list of things that need to be changed re sanctioning bodies. The WBC...whatever...at least you can identify what is going on...the IBF's vacancies is just stupid...the top 15 rated guys should be available to fight for the title in voluntary defenses. This is pretty much uniform throughout.

The IBF has confused mandatory designation with #1 rankings. Their system would be more defensible if the vacancies were not so prevalent, but they are. I've never had a problem with the idea of rating a guy #1 (because he is deemed to be the best challenger by the sanctioning body), but the #3 guy being the mandatory challenger because he earned the designation by fulfilling the sanctioning body's requirements. Or you just permit the #3 rated guy to leapfrog into the #1 spot when he meets sanctioning body's requirements. That's probably the better way. Not just leaving holes.

You claimed the IBF is the best by far, but you haven't cut on the WBO. What is your criticism of them?
The WBO just seems to lack any authority or even morals. Not sure they've ever once said "no" to Arum and/or Zanfer. I don't have a huge problem with them, but only because I never took them entirely serious. I regard them as a major organization, but never saw any real impact they've yet made.

For recent examples, Donaire and Arce basically swapping belts, while their challengers leapfrogged higher ranked opponents really didn't sit well.

Overall I don't have much of a beef with them, but really can't point to anything they do "right". The weigh-in policy would be ideal if its enforcement wasn't limited to Puerto Rico. Which by the way is something the IBF gets right - they not only monitor pre-fight, but also cap the amount of weight you can gain after the weigh-in.

Jake
02-08-2012, 01:11 AM
I guess I didn't make my sarcasm obvious enough. I was totally kidding. The WBC is clearly full of shit in all facets of its operation.

Ha. Looks like we zinged each other over the course of this thread :lol:

REEDsART
02-08-2012, 05:43 AM
[quote] You Care for Sanctionoing Bodies in an Almost LUSTFUL Way...The Moment Jake Mentioned Sanctioning Bodies, U were Seemingly AROUSED...As if your Scholong is ERECT, w/Sanctioning Body Acronym's Tatted on them...

Strange....



REED:scared:

Irish 2002/2003
02-08-2012, 09:48 AM
The WBO just seems to lack any authority or even morals. Not sure they've ever once said "no" to Arum and/or Zanfer. I don't have a huge problem with them, but only because I never took them entirely serious. I regard them as a major organization, but never saw any real impact they've yet made.

For recent examples, Donaire and Arce basically swapping belts, while their challengers leapfrogged higher ranked opponents really didn't sit well.

Overall I don't have much of a beef with them, but really can't point to anything they do "right". The weigh-in policy would be ideal if its enforcement wasn't limited to Puerto Rico. Which by the way is something the IBF gets right - they not only monitor pre-fight, but also cap the amount of weight you can gain after the weigh-in.

That's what I was saying, as the Irish used to say, the only crime is to be poor. :lol: The worst thing the WBO ever did was to be not taken seriously by anyone, despite having a decent strip of champions. Too many dead guys on their lists. At least they weren't so fast to strip guys who unified, I will give them that much. Or maybe you heard different. :dunno:

cdogg187
02-08-2012, 07:14 PM
Chavez struggles to make weight and then avoids a post fight piss test.

Seems innocent enough to me.

:giggle::giggle:

cdogg187
02-08-2012, 07:15 PM
I love how Suliaman says "We forgot" when asked about Chavez not leaving a sample. WE? Really?

"sanctioning bodies are good for the sport"

Neil
02-08-2012, 07:29 PM
what does the sanctioning body have to do with drug testing? that should fall on the state commission. i blame Dick cole

Irish 2002/2003
02-08-2012, 08:14 PM
I blame Dick Cavett.

*Z*
02-08-2012, 08:24 PM
I blame Dick Clark

Double L
02-08-2012, 08:29 PM
I blamr PBF.

mexican wedding shirt
02-08-2012, 09:05 PM
I blame mikE.

mikE :lol:

steve_dave
02-08-2012, 09:53 PM
:lol:

mikE
02-09-2012, 02:50 PM
Didn't take too long to find a recent example of the IBF being far from 'the best' sanctioning body.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
from fightnews:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The IBF has made Carl Froch the mandatory challenger to Lucian Bute’s super-middleweight title. The former two-time WBC champion had been linked to a “home and away” clash with <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Bute</st1:place> and now the 34 year-old looks set to challenge the Canadian for the title after the IBF installed him as the number one contender for the belt.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Okay, a quick review of the past 2 pages will show why I have no love for the IBF.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Froch is coming off of a clear loss. He has done nothing to justify a #1 mandatory rating, has he? Especially, when the idea of the vacancies is to make a guy earn the #1 (or #2) rating to become a mandatory. This is just pure arbitrary bullshit on the part of the IBF.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I'm not saying I care for their typical way to accomplish this...that would be having the guy they want to be #1 (Froch) fight some chump American who just happens to be the 'highest available challenger'. Looking at their current ratings...<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
oh, this is beautiful...http://www.ibf-usba-boxing.com/

1. Not Rated
2. Not Rated
3. Edwin Rodriguez
4. Arthur Abraham
5. Carl Froch

Two freaking days ago (!) they posted new rankings with Froch rated at #5, Abraham at #4, and Edwin Rodriguez at #3. Now, two days later, Froch leapfrogs to #1 and becomes a mandatory?<o:p></o:p>

cdogg187
02-09-2012, 07:59 PM
being "among the best sanctioning bodies' is like being "among the fastest runners in a room containing 10 people, 90% of whom are quadriplegics"

V10
02-12-2012, 01:18 AM
being "among the best sanctioning bodies' is like being "among the fastest runners in a room containing 10 people, 90% of whom are quadriplegics"

:lol:

*Z*
02-13-2012, 01:35 PM
Didn't take too long to find a recent example of the IBF being far from 'the best' sanctioning body.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
from fightnews:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The IBF has made Carl Froch the mandatory challenger to Lucian Bute’s super-middleweight title. The former two-time WBC champion had been linked to a “home and away” clash with <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Bute</st1:place> and now the 34 year-old looks set to challenge the Canadian for the title after the IBF installed him as the number one contender for the belt.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Okay, a quick review of the past 2 pages will show why I have no love for the IBF.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Froch is coming off of a clear loss. He has done nothing to justify a #1 mandatory rating, has he? Especially, when the idea of the vacancies is to make a guy earn the #1 (or #2) rating to become a mandatory. This is just pure arbitrary bullshit on the part of the IBF.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I'm not saying I care for their typical way to accomplish this...that would be having the guy they want to be #1 (Froch) fight some chump American who just happens to be the 'highest available challenger'. Looking at their current ratings...<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
oh, this is beautiful...http://www.ibf-usba-boxing.com/

1. Not Rated
2. Not Rated
3. Edwin Rodriguez
4. Arthur Abraham
5. Carl Froch

Two freaking days ago (!) they posted new rankings with Froch rated at #5, Abraham at #4, and Edwin Rodriguez at #3. Now, two days later, Froch leapfrogs to #1 and becomes a mandatory?<o:p></o:p>

Abraham moved back to 160, and who the fuck is Edwin Rodriguez?

mikE
02-13-2012, 02:16 PM
[1] Abraham moved back to 160, and [2] who the fuck is Edwin Rodriguez?


[1] Yes he did.

[2] An undefeated guy who has fought on tv several times and who has beaten some decent competion.

Neither of these has anything to do with the absurdity and lack of integrity displayed by the IBF by posting ratings one day and then changing them two days later in order to force negotiations between Bute and Froch. As I recall, sanctioning bodies are required to explain changes in their rankings. Good luck to the IBF in justifying this change.

Jake
02-13-2012, 02:47 PM
[1] Yes he did.

[2] An undefeated guy who has fought on tv several times and who has beaten some decent competion.

Neither of these has anything to do with the absurdity and lack of integrity displayed by the IBF by posting ratings one day and then changing them two days later in order to force negotiations between Bute and Froch. As I recall, sanctioning bodies are required to explain changes in their rankings. Good luck to the IBF in justifying this change.
Rodriguez is fighting Donovan George next month on HBO. Both turned down eliminators to instead fight each other. Don't blame them, but that's the reason they were both passed over.

I have a story coming on Froch receiving placement in the IBF and why he's being fast-forwarded to a title. The abridged version is that between Froch and Andrade, no fewer than half-dozen fighters turned down eliminators, instead holding out for their own title shots. The IBF covered its bases in this, none of it was done on a whim.

Jake
02-13-2012, 02:52 PM
And why are you not as vocal w/ the WBC and its lack of feasible explanation for ordering no fewer than three eliminators for the 154 lb title, yet Alvarez (who never beat a ranked fighter to win the title and yet to make a mandatory defense) continues to do as he pleases - all the while with criminal charges hanging over his head.

To say that Froch receiving a ranking constitutes a "lack of integrity" is absurd. He's no worse than the 3rd best SMW on the planet, and certainly the best 168 lb. challenger in the world (meaning, fighter w/o a title, lineal or otherwise).

mikE
02-13-2012, 02:56 PM
Rodriguez is fighting Donovan George next month on HBO. Both turned down eliminators to instead fight each other. Don't blame them, but that's the reason they were both passed over.

I have a story coming on Froch receiving placement in the IBF and why he's being fast-forwarded to a title. The abridged version is that between Froch and Andrade, no fewer than half-dozen fighters turned down eliminators, instead holding out for their own title shots. The IBF covered its bases in this, none of it was done on a whim.

Interesting. When I saw the timing on what happened, I didn't think there would be any way that this would be the case.

mikE
02-13-2012, 03:07 PM
[1] And why are you not as vocal w/ the WBC and its lack of feasible explanation for ordering no fewer than three eliminators for the 154 lb title, yet Alvarez (who never beat a ranked fighter to win the title and yet to make a mandatory defense) continues to do as he pleases - all the while with criminal charges hanging over his head.

[2] To say that Froch receiving a ranking constitutes a "lack of integrity" is absurd. He's no worse than the 3rd best SMW on the planet, and certainly the best 168 lb. challenger in the world (meaning, fighter w/o a title, lineal or otherwise).

[1] I didn't say the IBF was the best, you did. I didn't say the WBC is the best, either, though. I am all for legitimate criticism of sanctioning bodies which is what you are describing. Frankly, I wasn't aware of what you are describing.

[2] I don't care if they rank him at #1 after his loss to Ward. My problem was with him being rated as the 3rd best by the IBF and two days later getting to leapfrog the two guys in front of him and becoming a mandatory with seemingly no possible justification. Now I will wait for your story to find out what happened. It does seem odd that they couldn't find anyone to fight Froch for mandatory status and the #1 ranking, though. As I remember their language.."the two highest rated available challengers" or something like that fight to fill vacancies. Obviously, Froch didn't have to fight anyone to move from 5th (3rd highest) to #1 and become the mandatory.

Double L
02-13-2012, 03:54 PM
Could the IBF have leap-frogged Froch in preparation for stripping Bute, knowing that Bute and Froch are not fighting?

Nobleart
02-13-2012, 04:22 PM
Yeah, I hate to, when sanctioning bodies leapfrog the best available fighter to the #1 spot in hopes of forcing a compelling fight.

Crooked f#*kin' scumbags!


:lol:

steve_dave
02-13-2012, 06:00 PM
Yeah, I hate to, when sanctioning bodies leapfrog the best available fighter to the #1 spot in hopes of forcing a compelling fight.

Crooked f#*kin' scumbags!


:lol:

:lol:

You wouldn't rather see Bute vs. Rodruguez?

Jake
02-14-2012, 04:05 AM
[2] I don't care if they rank him at #1 after his loss to Ward. My problem was with him being rated as the 3rd best by the IBF and two days later getting to leapfrog the two guys in front of him and becoming a mandatory with seemingly no possible justification. Now I will wait for your story to find out what happened. It does seem odd that they couldn't find anyone to fight Froch for mandatory status and the #1 ranking, though. As I remember their language.."the two highest rated available challengers" or something like that fight to fill vacancies. Obviously, Froch didn't have to fight anyone to move from 5th (3rd highest) to #1 and become the mandatory.
The IBF ordered a total of seven eliminators from the time of Bute's last defense, which was when he fought Mendy in July.

Donovan George was supposed to fight Pablo Farias (1) in Argentina. Pablo got injured, and his handlers stopped answering phone calls and e-mails when it came time to reschedule.

George was then positioned to face Andrade (2) in December. That fight fell through when George pulled out the day of the fight over ring size discrepancy.

George-Andrade was re-ordered (3). George's team instead declined to fight.

Andrade-Farias (4) was ordered. Farias again had problems communicating w/ the outside world.

During that time, Froch's handlers - on the heels of his newfound status as ex-champion - requested a ranking (not uncommon for any fighter who loses/gives up a title). IBF honored request, placed him on Top 5 based on recent past achievements and level of comp.

Rodriguez-Andrade (5) was ordered, but Rodriguez' people immediately notified IBF they were instead fighting George.

Adonis Stevenson-Jesus Gonzalez is already for #2 ranking.

Froch-Andrade (6) was attempted to be ordered, but Golden Boy already stated it had other plans for Andrade (though for the moment Andrade has no clue what they are).

Froch-Thomas Oosthuizen (7) was ordered. DiBella and Rodney Berman (Oosthuizen's S.A. promoter) instead decided he's better served fighting for IBO title.

IBF finally said fuck it, Froch only fighter available in time for Bute's next due mandatory, so he was bumped to top spot.

Irish 2002/2003
02-14-2012, 05:14 AM
Rodriguez is fighting Donovan George next month on HBO. Both turned down eliminators to instead fight each other. Don't blame them, but that's the reason they were both passed over.

I have a story coming on Froch receiving placement in the IBF and why he's being fast-forwarded to a title. The abridged version is that between Froch and Andrade, no fewer than half-dozen fighters turned down eliminators, instead holding out for their own title shots. The IBF covered its bases in this, none of it was done on a whim.

And it helps that Froch is basically a very respectable fighter with no embarrassments. Froch vs Anyone is a decent, marketable affair- he's either fought and beaten anyone that also deserves a fight with Bute, or they were afraid to fight him in the first place.

Froch vs Bute is a good fight for anyone. With no titles of his own, Froch can get placement pretty much anywhere.

mikE
02-14-2012, 02:02 PM
The IBF ordered a total of seven eliminators from the time of Bute's last defense, which was when he fought Mendy in July.

Donovan George was supposed to fight Pablo Farias (1) in Argentina. Pablo got injured, and his handlers stopped answering phone calls and e-mails when it came time to reschedule.

George was then positioned to face Andrade (2) in December. That fight fell through when George pulled out the day of the fight over ring size discrepancy.

George-Andrade was re-ordered (3). George's team instead declined to fight.

Andrade-Farias (4) was ordered. Farias again had problems communicating w/ the outside world.

During that time, Froch's handlers - on the heels of his newfound status as ex-champion - requested a ranking (not uncommon for any fighter who loses/gives up a title). IBF honored request, placed him on Top 5 based on recent past achievements and level of comp.

Rodriguez-Andrade (5) was ordered, but Rodriguez' people immediately notified IBF they were instead fighting George.

Adonis Stevenson-Jesus Gonzalez is already for #2 ranking.

Froch-Andrade (6) was attempted to be ordered, but Golden Boy already stated it had other plans for Andrade (though for the moment Andrade has no clue what they are).

Froch-Thomas Oosthuizen (7) was ordered. DiBella and Rodney Berman (Oosthuizen's S.A. promoter) instead decided he's better served fighting for IBO title.

IBF finally said fuck it, Froch only fighter available in time for Bute's next due mandatory, so he was bumped to top spot.

Good stuff.

However, look at the hoops the IBF jumped through trying to exert its authority. If we go back to the previous ratings that would have been in effect when all of this was going on, here were the ratings (without Froch being inserted, yet):

1 Blank
2 Blank
3 Pablo Farias
4 Don George
5 Edwin Rodriguez
6 Librado Andrade
7 Thomas Oosthuizen
...
12 Jesus Gonzalez
...
15 Adonis Stevenson

Here's why I don't think the IBF is off the hook on what happened, although you may have more information...

(1) Only possible one to blame is Farias.

(2) George's fault. *

(3) George's fault. *

(4) Farias's fault.

(5) Here's something that doesn't make sense.

* In the IBF's July 2011 ratings, Andrade is rated 7 and Rodriguez is rated 8. However, in Aug 2011 through to the present ratings, Rodriguez is rated ahead of Andrade. So why was George vs Andrade ordered before George vs Rodriguez? With Farias out of the picture, George vs Rodriguez were the next two highest available challengers. This had to be the case when (5) occurred, wasn't it?

Not only that, but they have a freaking HBO date. If there ever is a time to bend a rule a bit, it's when two non-champions get a chance to fight on HBO.

(5.5) These two guys probably should not be eligible for a #2 rating according to the IBF's rules. http://assets.ibf-usba-boxing.com/File/IBFRatingsCriteria.pdf
Were the guys rated above them given the opportunity to fight for the #2 rating? Stevenson last fought in December 2011, so I am guessing not.

This just demonstrates some of the reasons I do not believe the IBF is 'the best sanctioning body by far'. They've got a convoluted system that rarely works (look at how many vacancies they have--it is ridiculous) and when your two highest available challengers schedule a fight on HBO, they get leapfrogged by a lower-rated former champion because they didn't get to the same exact fight that the IBF should have ordered by waiting for the IBF to order it.

Nobleart
02-14-2012, 02:05 PM
:lol:

You wouldn't rather see Bute vs. Rodruguez?


Bute vs. The Hilton Brothers..........all of 'em.


Make it happen IBF!

:pray:

steve_dave
02-14-2012, 02:14 PM
Bute vs. The Hilton Brothers..........all of 'em.


Make it happen IBF!

:pray:

Real talk.

steve_dave
02-14-2012, 02:15 PM
The IBF ordered a total of seven eliminators from the time of Bute's last defense, which was when he fought Mendy in July.

Donovan George was supposed to fight Pablo Farias (1) in Argentina. Pablo got injured, and his handlers stopped answering phone calls and e-mails when it came time to reschedule.

George was then positioned to face Andrade (2) in December. That fight fell through when George pulled out the day of the fight over ring size discrepancy.

George-Andrade was re-ordered (3). George's team instead declined to fight.

Andrade-Farias (4) was ordered. Farias again had problems communicating w/ the outside world.

During that time, Froch's handlers - on the heels of his newfound status as ex-champion - requested a ranking (not uncommon for any fighter who loses/gives up a title). IBF honored request, placed him on Top 5 based on recent past achievements and level of comp.

Rodriguez-Andrade (5) was ordered, but Rodriguez' people immediately notified IBF they were instead fighting George.

Adonis Stevenson-Jesus Gonzalez is already for #2 ranking.

Froch-Andrade (6) was attempted to be ordered, but Golden Boy already stated it had other plans for Andrade (though for the moment Andrade has no clue what they are).

Froch-Thomas Oosthuizen (7) was ordered. DiBella and Rodney Berman (Oosthuizen's S.A. promoter) instead decided he's better served fighting for IBO title.

IBF finally said fuck it, Froch only fighter available in time for Bute's next due mandatory, so he was bumped to top spot.

I'm going to this fight on Saturday. Think it'll be a good scrap?

Nobleart
02-14-2012, 02:16 PM
Good stuff.

However, look at the hoops the IBF jumped through trying to exert its authority. If we go back to the previous ratings that would have been in effect when all of this was going on, here were the ratings (without Froch being inserted, yet):

1 Blank
2 Blank
3 Pablo Farias
4 Don George
5 Edwin Rodriguez
6 Librado Andrade
7 Thomas Oosthuizen
...
12 Jesus Gonzalez
...
15 Adonis Stevenson

Here's why I don't think the IBF is off the hook on what happened, although you may have more information...

(1) Only possible one to blame is Arias.

(2) George's fault. *

(3) George's fault. *

(4) Farias's fault.

(5) Here's something that doesn't make sense.

* In the IBF's July 2011 ratings, Andrade is rated 7 and Rodriguez is rated 8. However, in Aug 2011 through to the present ratings, Rodriguez is rated ahead of Andrade. So why was George vs Andrade ordered before George vs Rodriguez? With Farias out of the picture, George vs Rodriguez were the next two highest available challengers. This had to be the case when (5) occurred, wasn't it?

Not only that, but they have a freaking HBO date. If there ever is a time to bend a rule a bit, it's when two non-champions get a chance to fight on HBO.

(5.5) These two guys probably should not be eligible for a #2 rating according to the IBF's rules. http://assets.ibf-usba-boxing.com/File/IBFRatingsCriteria.pdf
Were the guys rated above them given the opportunity to fight for the #2 rating? Stevenson last fought in December 2011, so I am guessing not.

This just demonstrates some of the reasons I do not believe the IBF is 'the best sanctioning body by far'. They've got a convoluted system that rarely works (look at how many vacancies they have--it is ridiculous) and when your two highest available challengers schedule a fight on HBO, they get leapfrogged by a lower-rated former champion because they didn't get to the same exact fight that the IBF should have ordered by waiting for the IBF to order it.



So, you're in favor of the good old fashioned, in your face cronyism of the WBC and WBA?

No convoluted plots to sniff out. Just utter ridiculousness. Plain as day. No point in even dissecting the ratings or who did or didn't turn down fights.


:bears:

mikE
02-14-2012, 04:34 PM
So, you're in favor of the good old fashioned, in your face cronyism of the WBC and WBA?

No convoluted plots to sniff out. Just utter ridiculousness. Plain as day. No point in even dissecting the ratings or who did or didn't turn down fights.


:bears:

You'll have to better explain your point. I don't get it. I don't think you get it, either.

Nobleart
02-14-2012, 04:38 PM
You'll have to better explain your point.


I don't think I will. :lol:


A sound byte is all you'll get from me on this matter. The rest is just a waste of time.

steve_dave
02-14-2012, 04:42 PM
I don't think I will. :lol:


A sound byte is all you'll get from me on this matter. The rest is just a waste of time.

It was a good clip Noble. I'd use it in a story.

Jake
02-14-2012, 05:46 PM
I'm going to this fight on Saturday. Think it'll be a good scrap?

If Gonzalez comes to fight, then perhaps so. But as long as Stevenson has a chin, he should win with room to spare

Jake
02-14-2012, 05:48 PM
Good stuff.

However, look at the hoops the IBF jumped through trying to exert its authority. If we go back to the previous ratings that would have been in effect when all of this was going on, here were the ratings (without Froch being inserted, yet):

1 Blank
2 Blank
3 Pablo Farias
4 Don George
5 Edwin Rodriguez
6 Librado Andrade
7 Thomas Oosthuizen
...
12 Jesus Gonzalez
...
15 Adonis Stevenson

Here's why I don't think the IBF is off the hook on what happened, although you may have more information...

(1) Only possible one to blame is Farias.

(2) George's fault. *

(3) George's fault. *

(4) Farias's fault.

(5) Here's something that doesn't make sense.

* In the IBF's July 2011 ratings, Andrade is rated 7 and Rodriguez is rated 8. However, in Aug 2011 through to the present ratings, Rodriguez is rated ahead of Andrade. So why was George vs Andrade ordered before George vs Rodriguez? With Farias out of the picture, George vs Rodriguez were the next two highest available challengers. This had to be the case when (5) occurred, wasn't it?

Not only that, but they have a freaking HBO date. If there ever is a time to bend a rule a bit, it's when two non-champions get a chance to fight on HBO.

(5.5) These two guys probably should not be eligible for a #2 rating according to the IBF's rules. http://assets.ibf-usba-boxing.com/File/IBFRatingsCriteria.pdf
Were the guys rated above them given the opportunity to fight for the #2 rating? Stevenson last fought in December 2011, so I am guessing not.

This just demonstrates some of the reasons I do not believe the IBF is 'the best sanctioning body by far'. They've got a convoluted system that rarely works (look at how many vacancies they have--it is ridiculous) and when your two highest available challengers schedule a fight on HBO, they get leapfrogged by a lower-rated former champion because they didn't get to the same exact fight that the IBF should have ordered by waiting for the IBF to order it.
Rodriguez wound up fighting Will Rosinsky at that time. I don't understand the motives of his management. He's a damn good fighter, but I don't get why they get him to a certain point and then refuse to take advantage of the system in place. He honestly should be Bute's mandatory by now. Maybe they feel he's not ready yet?

Irish 2002/2003
02-14-2012, 05:51 PM
Rodriguez wound up fighting Will Rosinsky at that time. I don't understand the motives of his management. He's a damn good fighter, but I don't get why they get him to a certain point and then refuse to take advantage of the system in place. He honestly should be Bute's mandatory by now. Maybe they feel he's not ready yet?

Does Rosinksy know Jakubowski? I bet he does.

steve_dave
02-14-2012, 06:41 PM
If Gonzalez comes to fight, then perhaps so. But as long as Stevenson has a chin, he should win with room to spare

Yeah, that's what I figure.