Why It Matters If That Mayweather Rumor Is Truth

Three days before Floyd Mayweathers‘ “final” professional fight, an “October surprise” kerfuffle popped up, as it always does, in the days leading up to fights involving the man self- billed as The Best Ever.

This bombshell wasn’t a lawsuit lodged by an ex, or the like; the news peg here was the subject of PED testing, and the story, entitled “Can Boxing Trust USADA: Questions Surround Drug Testing For Mayweather-Pacquiao and Other Bouts,” drew some heavy buzz.

Maybe, arguably, not as much buzz as some might expect, being that a case was laid out by the dean of fight-writers, Thomas Hauser, and it involved the lead dog of the sport, Mayweather, who in the last several years had become a figure who transcended his sport.

The story came out during the lunch-time hour back east, but during a gathering held hours later in Vegas, none of the bigshot boxing media asked Mayweather about it, and elements that might be of interest to fight fans.

Such as, the Hauser story repeated an enduring rumor, that Mayweather had tested positive for a banned PED in three previous fights, but received a pass from the testing organization hired to handle PED testing and analyze and process the results of the testing.

Hauser had touched on that element before, back in November 2012, and then, as now, the story fizzled out. The writer went back to the well, on Oct. 13, believing, as I do, that this story deserves to have legs, and shouldn’t be summarily dismissed by the masses as being irrelevant.

Floyd fans, in particular, will disagree, by and large: as the “three failed tests” portion of the story was presented as a rumor, and lacked corroboration, they dismiss it as spurious, or, at least, lacking in enough merit to be plausible. There is no “there,” there…there is no smoking gun for us to make up our minds on, thus, they posit, we should move on.

That line of thinking I don’t summarily dismiss; after all, one learns, in journalism courses, that rumors must be verified before being reported. There must be strong sourcing, and ideally, multiple sources confirming something before rumor can become accepted fact. And that is why this story, this subject, this case, is more than a sports story. It is yes a sports story, but also a journalism story, a culture study, an ethical matter…

In short, it is complex, and, frankly, we the media don’t usually do “complex” well.

It’s easier to traffic in less complicated, less charged matters. But in the end, to delve into substantive matters, and try to make sense of the difficult-to-grasp issues, make us better humans, and in this vein, can and could make our sport safer, and better.

In that vein, in trying to nail down some facts, and move from rumor to fact, or, also, to debunk this persistent rumor, I tried to follow up.

In my mind, it made sense for the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), an organization that Hauser, right there in the headline of his piece, posits may not be trustworthy, to answer, explicitly, that designation and firmly rebut the “tested positive on three occasions” rumor, if it were not fact.

Some of us follow politics, and recall back in 2004, John Kerry, a Massachusetts Senator, snagged the Democrats nomination to run for President, to unseat incumbent George W. Bush.

All is fair in love and war, and politics is modified war, with character often being bombed to smithereens…so opponents went at Kerry hard. His record while serving in Vietnam came under scrutiny, with allegations being lobbed at him that his Purple Hearts were bogus, that descriptions of his valor in the field were fabricated. The allegations were dismissed in his camp, the campaign runners deciding that the accusers were fringe loons, with obvious axes to grind, and would be treated as such by potential voters. They missed the (Swift) boat; this is a new age, where information, right or wrong, travels around the world digitally in half the blink of an eye. A juicy lie can snowball into a hellish package of “truthiness” than can wreak havoc, summon carnage of reputation, and derail a campaign with surging with positive momentum. Swift Boating, with the definition by and large seen as opinion disguised and presented as fact used to assassinate in character as public figure, entered our lexicon…

Now, this is the SB Nation passage that struck me, hard, on the temple, before that last Floyd fight:

As reported by this writer on MaxBoxing in Dec. 2012, information filtered through the drug-testing community on May 20, 2012 to the effect that Mayweather had tested positive on three occasions for an illegal performance-enhancing drug. More specifically, it was rumored that Mayweather’s “A” sample had tested positive three times and, after each positive test, USADA had given Floyd an inadvertent use waiver.

Pro Floyd sorts sometimes reach out to me on social media, and tell me they think their guy is being Swift Boated. But even some folks who normally align on the “Floyd side” read the Hauser piece and said, at minimum, ‘jeeze, there’s a lot of smoke here, I do at least wonder if there is fire there, too.’

I try to see all sides; it’s what we as journos need to do, as best we can, because if we don’t start at that baseline, finding the truth becomes that much harder. When I read this portion of the Hauser story, I knew I needed to follow through, to attempt to separate fact from fiction, to get to the heart of the matter: did, in fact, the leader in our sport, who was able to secure the richest contract for any professional athlete ever, cheat his way to that rarefied place?

Was Floyd Mayweather, who helped build his rep, partially, by trumpeting the phrase “take the test” at potential rival Manny Pacquiao, and thereby implying that the Filipino was a cheater, in fact, a cheater?

If yes, we need to know, just because.

Because the sport and our society deserve better.

If no, we also need to know, because if he is being smeared, without basis in fact, then that must be rectified. Even if you don’t care for his out of the ring behavior, decry his history in getting into altercations with women, find despicable his recent lack of penitence surrounding the incident which saw him beat up the mother of his children, in front of said children, which is a matter of public record, then he still deserves to not be labeled a drug cheat if he isn’t. If he didn’t test positive three times and get those results swept under the rug, then I’d like to have that stated to us all, forcefully, unequivocally…because Floyd Mayweather does not deserve to be Swift Boated.

So, with that in mind, I reached out to USADA and Team Mayweather and asked, explicitly, please confirm or deny this rumor, that he tested positive before three mega-fights, so I can furnish that response to readers.

Here is my request to USADA:

Greetings: Can Travis please respond to this issue, and either confirm or deny that Mr. Mayweather tested positive three times. Here is the Hauser material which I’d like to get clarified, so the rumor, if false, can be reported far and wide.

As reported by this writer on MaxBoxing in Dec. 2012, information filtered through the drug-testing community on May 20, 2012 to the effect that Mayweather had tested positive on three occasions for an illegal performance-enhancing drug. More specifically, it was rumored that Mayweather’s “A” sample had tested positive three times and, after each positive test, USADA had given Floyd an inadvertent use waiver. These waivers, if they were in fact given, would have negated the need to test Floyd’s “B” samples. And because the “B” samples were never tested, a loophole in Mayweather’s USADA contract would have allowed testing to continue without the positive “A” sample results being reported to Mayweather’s opponent or the Nevada State Athletic Commission……If Mayweather’s “A” sample tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug on one or more occasions and he was given a waiver by USADA that concealed this fact from the Nevada State Athletic Commission, his opponent, and the public, it could contribute to a scandal that undermines the already-shaky public confidence in boxing. At present, the relevant information is not a matter of public record.

USADA CEO Travis Tygart (through senior communications manager Annie Skinner) declined to state how many times the “A” sample of a professional boxer tested by USADA has come back positive for a prohibited substance.

I think this is crucial, that we get clarity on this portion of the story. I hope you agree.

Thanks much,

Michael Woods

Here is the USADA response, from a spokesperson:

Dear Mr. Woods,

You can find USADA’s full response, including the response to your request below in the detailed chart at http://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/USADAs-Detailed-Correction-to-SB-Nation-Article-by-Tom-Hauser.pdf

I responded, thusly: So (Tygart) will not respond to THIS element of the allegations, separately, to me, then?

And I didn’t receive an answer to that query.

Also, I emailed Mayweather publicist Kelly Swanson, and her associate Lisa Milner, and asked them to furnish a request to Mayweather, so he could respond to this rumor and get an opportunity to bat down the allegations.

Greetings: Can Team Mayweather please respond to this issue, and either confirm or deny that Mr. Mayweather tested positive three times, as was alleged in the Sept. 9 Thomas Hauser story?

Here is the Hauser material which I’d like to get clarified, so the rumor, if false, can be reported far and wide.

I didn’t receive a reply from either Swanson or Milner.

So, where do we stand? Probably, sadly, where we stood before, in a foggy zone of uncertainty. To my way of thinking, and I will put it right out there that I won’t submit my POV is the only right manner to see this issue, if it were my reputation and legacy, if I were Floyd Mayweather, I’d want to eradicate lingering questions.

If I were Tygart of USADA, if I were Team Mayweather, I’d push back without equivocation on this ‘Floyd tested positive three times and the results were shoved under a rung’ rumor, put it in its place.

That neither of these parties do, to me, is at best curious.



-ZonaDeBoxeo.com :

<img src="http://www.zonadeboxeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Holyfield-Jones-Mayweather.jpg"> Evander, Roy y Floyd: el sueño frustrado -Pocos aficionados y estudiosos de la historia del boxeo, en su versión amateur y profesional, pondrán argumentos en contra de la siguiente afirmación: no hay mejor manera de dar el salto hacia el profesionalismo, en términos de ganancias y fama, que con una medalla de oro olímpica en el cuello. Es un premio que no garantiza el triunfo posterior en la carrera como asalariado, pero que sí facilita un despegue mediático y financiero a todo motor, y permite fabricar una imagen exitosa del pugilista en los primeros años, eligiéndole cuidadosamente a sus contrarios, sin apresurar el verdadero bautizo de fuego. Con una dosis decente de talento y esfuerzo del boxeador, el resto corre por cuenta del mánager, el promotor y el entrenador hasta que, inevitablemente, llega la hora de la verdad y el hombre queda a solas con un rival con calidad suficiente como para someterlo a prueba, en un espacio de unos 20 metros cuadrados y sin nadie que pueda darle una mano extra (a menudo surge como último recurso salvador el auxilio del referí y/o el trío de jueces). Varios de los boxeadores rentados que han dominado sus respectivas divisiones de forma inobjetable escalaron antes a lo más alto del podio en Juegos Olímpicos de Verano. En un recuento rápido de algunos nombres inmortalizados en Canastota (o camino de serlo), obviando seguramente otros con similar palmarés, resaltan los de los estadounidenses Floyd Patterson (peso mediano –75 kg–, Helsinki 1952), Mohamed Ali, entonces llamado Cassius Clay (semipesado –81 kg–, Roma 1960), Joe Frazier (pesado –+81 kg–, Tokio 1964), George Foreman (pesado, México 1968), Sugar Ray Leonard (ligerowélter –63,5 kg–, Montreal 1976), Oscar de La Hoya (ligero –60 kg–, Barcelona 1992) y Andre Ward (semipesado, Atenas 2004); así como el canadiense, luego representante de los colores británicos en el profesionalismo, Lennox Lewis (superpesado –+91 kg–, Seúl 1988), el ucraniano Wladimir Klitschko (superpesado, Atlanta 1996) y el cubano Guillermo Rigondeaux (gallo –54 kg–, Sídney 2000 y Atenas 2004). Pero también están los casos que son mayoría, los de aquellos que alcanzaron la cumbre en el boxeo de paga, e incluso encabezaron el mítico ránking libra por libra, y no pudieron teñirse de dorados en citas estivales o ni tan siquiera registraron una participación. Un trío de representantes de la bandera de las barras y las estrellas sobresale en esa relación de atletas que consiguieron asistir al certamen multideportivo cuatrienal, sin embargo, quedaron a muy poco de alcanzar el premio más preciado y, para mayor coincidencia, a los tres les tocó vivir una suerte similar en sus respectivas incursiones olímpicas. Evander Holyfield, Roy Jones Jr. y el recientemente retirado Floyd Mayweather Jr. fueron víctimas de polémicas decisiones arbitrales que los privaron de unas medallas áureas que, a juzgar por el dominio que exhibieron sobre cada oponente que enfrentaron, parecían tener grabadas sus iniciales. [url=https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evander_Holyfield]Evander Holyfield y el nocaut que no contó en Los Ángeles 1984 Evander Holyfield llegó a la vigesimotercera edición del certamen multideportivo bajo los cinco aros, Los Ángeles 1984, como un total desconocido, a pesar de que, paradójicamente, el joven de 21 años defendía los colores del país sede y había superado en el preolímpico nacional al principal verdugo de sus años como amateur, Ricky Womack (quien lo había vencido en los dos duelos previos). Pero muy poco tiempo necesitó para ganarse el respeto y la admiración de sus coterráneos en suelo californiano, para desgracia de sus rivales en las primeras instancias del torneo. A su primer obstáculo, el ghanés Taju Akay, lo despachó por RSC (el árbitro detuvo el combate: una decisión similar al TKO en el boxeo profesional) en el tercer asalto de una –nunca mejor dicho–? olímpica paliza. En su segunda salida a liza, Evander se apiadó todavía menos del iraquí Ismail Salman y le recetó la misma fórmula pero en dos fracciones. Cuando en cuartos de final aniquiló con un demoledor gancho de izquierda al keniano Syivaus Okello, sin dejarle siquiera escuchar el gong del cierre del round de apertura, ya Holyfield era la gran estrella de la competición, considerado por la inmensa mayoría de los expertos como el virtual campeón de la división semipesada (81 kg). Entonces llegó la controversia. En semifinales, frente al neozelandés Kevin Barry, el púgil norteño se encaminaba fácilmente a la disputa del título tras imponer su ley en el primer capítulo de acción y los compases iniciales del siguiente. En los últimos 6 segundos de ese episodio intermedio, mientras el de la isla del Pacífico buscaba desesperadamente otro agarre (su enésimo a pesar de ya haber sido penalizado con dos puntos), el gladiador anfitrión descargó una combinación lapidaria de golpes. Un derechazo al cuerpo seguido de un zurdazo adormecedor a la cabeza pusieron a Barry en la lona y el combate listo para sentencia. Pero el tercer hombre en el ring, Gligorije Novicic, ahogó el grito de celebración a los aficionados presentes en la Memorial Sports Arena de Los Ángeles. El referí de Yugoslavia determinó que el segundo impacto de Evander se había producido mientras daba la orden de ?alto! y valiéndose de este argumento lo descalificó automáticamente. Según las reglas de la Asociación Internacional de Boxeo (AIBA, por sus siglas en francés), todo púgil víctima de un nocaut debe mantenerse inactivo durante 28 días, con lo cual, el de Nueva Zelanda quedó totalmente inhabilitado para presentarse al pleito por el oro y su victimario, fuera de contienda. En un gesto de reconocimiento a la superioridad de su contrincante, Barry levantó el brazo de Holyfield señalándolo como el verdadero triunfador. Las sospechas sobre un mal proceder de Novicic se acrecentaron cuando salió a relucir que, en la final olímpica, quien esperaba por contrincante no era otro que su compatriota, el también yugoslavo Anton Josipovic. La descalificación de Holyfield suponía la victoria del balcánico sin tener que calzar los guantes ni lidiar dentro del encordado con los temibles puños del norteamericano. Las protestas de la delegación de Estados Unidos, alegando un amaño del resultado, no fructificaron, pero en un hecho insólito, el púgil oriundo de Atlanta recibió la medalla de bronce en la premiación, algo que, según lo estipulado, no debió ocurrir una vez que se oficializó su polémica infracción. En una entrevista concedida en el año 2000, Barry rememoraría aquella controversia y afirmaría: “A los aficionados estadounidenses, quiero decirles que era una conclusión inevitable que Holyfield ganaría la medalla de oro”. Con una presea bronceada se tuvo que conformar, en Los Ángeles 1984, Evander “The Real Deal” Hollyfiel (44-10-2, 29 KOs), el púgil que en las siguientes dos décadas, como profesional,?se adjudicaría títulos mundiales en las divisiones crucero (unificó los cinturones de las 200 libras) y pesada (único de la historia en ganar alguna de las fajas cuatro?veces en las más de 200 libras), y protagonizaría combates convertidos en clásicos del deporte de los puños con Riddick Bowe (3), Mike Tyson (2) y Lennox Lewis (2).