Is Lamont Peterson In Another PED Flap?

BY Michael Woods ON March 28, 2013

PetersonKhanIILAPC Blevins17

UPDATE: The original story has been taken down from, and now the circumstances of the whole affair are even less clear. We aren't sure who, or if anyone, frankly, tested positive. Seems like it is up to the IBF to clarify what has happened; hopefully they will do that in timely fashion, because if indeed Peterson did not test positive, he deserves that news to be put out ASAP.

Is it two strikes and you're out for Lamont Peterson?

The DC based boxer has tested positive for human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), according to Lem Satterfield of Lem cited a "source familiar with the fighter's post-fight results" of a drug test administered after Peterson beat Kendall Holt (TKO8) in DC on Feb. 22.

Peterson is slated to fight Lucas Matthysse on May 18 in Atlantic City. He'd been through the PED grinder before, as he tested positive before a May 19, 2012 fight with Amir Khan.

Peterson beat IBF 140 pound champion Khan on December 10, 2011, but the rematch was scrapped, ten days before the fight, when he tested dirty in pre-fight testing. Peterson explained that he suffered from low testosterone, and was given testosterone by a doctor, to combat that condition. He admitted that he was taking testosterone before the 2011 scrap, won by Peterson via split decision.

The IBF ruled that their doctor said that the level of testosterone found in Peterson wasn't at a level where it could enhance his performance, for the rematch, or in the first fight; thus, they allowed him to keep his IBF strap.

The Holt fight was an IBF title defense, and Peterson's first fight since the win over Khan.

HCG has been touted as a weight loss aid, and the US Food and Drug Administration put out a release in December 2011 which said that the hormone produced by the human placenta and found in urine of pregnant women is not FDA-approved for weight loss. That release said that HCG is approved to treat female infertility.

HCG is used, apparently, by some people after a steroid cycle, because it stimulates the body to make testosterone, which it does not do while ingesting a cycle of anabolic steroid. It can be used to attend to testicle shrinkage which can accompany steroid use, too.

Satterfield wrote that the head of the DC commission, Sheldon Brown, had told Daryl Peoples, the head of the IBF, which sanctioned Peterson-Holt, that Peterson and Holt had tested negative. Holt's attorney, Pat English, said Satterfield, asked to see testing documentation from Peoples.

So, where do we stand now? Most of us will seek clarity about Brown supposedly telling Peoples that Peterson and Holt both tested negative. And while the Twittersphere is keen to hammer Peterson for getting busted, we don't know if there is any exculpatory info that hasn't bubbled up. Will Peterson, if indeed HCG was flagged, maintain that a physician again prescribed it for him? If yes, did he not make certain that the chemical would not raise a flag with whatever outfit administered testing, which in this case was under the umbrella of WADA, not VADA or USADA.

Readers, what are your thoughts on the matter?

Comment on this article

deepwater says:

anything from washington dc tests dirty anyway. let lucas m knock him out. fans wont pay and away he goes after that

amayseng says:

I was really looking forward to the Lucas fight.

Peterson just can't stop the peds

Like a damn junkie.

I figured he'd have 2 fights before testing positive again

SouthPaul says:

There are now reports the information was false. Never tested dirty. Some sort of mistake. He's clean. Allegedly.

deepwater says:

There are now reports the information was false. Never tested dirty. Some sort of mistake. He's clean. Allegedly.

Ban the damn dc commission then. No wonder dc can't handle fights

SouthPaul says:

No doubt, that's an unforgivable mistake. Dude don't need any negative press like that. Law suit time!

ali says:

I just heard they made a mistake his test was really clean.I wonder when these guys fu%k up on a PED test result r they fired immediately? Mistakes like these r hard to overcome in the public eye.

stormcentre says:

Where did you hear that Ali? Was it reliable, or something unconfirmed at this stage?

ali says:

Stormcentre I read it on boxingscene it a pretty reliable Web site

stormcentre says:

Ta Ali.

I had a quick look at the article and I think it, perhaps, personifies my views expressed on this in my previous posts about Donaire’s upcoming fight, and PEDs.

Such is the nature of this mater that even if someone does test positive (like in the Peterson V Holt fight), the way the agreements and contracts are written there is always a loophole for at least ambiguity, if not a complete escape; almost entirely defeating the purpose of using testing to guarantee to the public and spectators that the sport is serious about PEDs, and clean.

Mostly, in my opinion, this ambiguity and back-dooring, is due to deliberate (but debatable) confidentiality inclusions and the lack of disclosure on other related matters – that allow it all to be swept under the carpet so that all that remains is the (shallow/hallow) ability for promoters to say “we take PEDs seriously and there will be testing for this fight”.

Note the omission of any disclosure and penalties – a common, but sad, trait in the sport.

Particularly if it is – as it claims - to be serious about being serious.

Anyway it’s all been said and done before.

From the BS report it appears that someone has tested positive; just that WADA don’t know (or want to say) who is really is.


And with those procedures, even if I was a dirty fighter, I would probably openly ask for testing too; as what currently happens.

Either way the substance WADA found has been associated with synthetic testosterone - which, aside from presenting the sporting, masking and competitive advantages previously mentioned, even if they are medically justified; Peterson has previously been detected using.

In any regard my previous view was that I wouldn’t be surprised if either Holt or Peterson tested positive.

So as pessimistic (or realistic) as that may sound, and aside from the ambiguity associated with the positive test resulting from the Peterson V Holt fight; perhaps it was a little bit of serendipity on my part to have hedged my bets on either fighter testing positive.

As clearly (and perhaps understandably considering that above-mentioned and also the involvement of) WADA believe they tested “someone” positive for banned substances.

They just, in their infinite wisdom, don’t know who

Maybe it was the referee?

You can’t take these things too seriously though. After all no-one else does. So, in my opinion you gotta have a laugh.

ali says:

Stormcentre they don't even know what fighter was dirty wow!! Idiotic!!

amayseng says:

Something is fishy.

First PEDerson tests positive.

Then it comes out they don't know which fighter tested positive.

Then DLH gets out the checkbook an now none of them tested positive.


I don't buy it.

stormcentre says:

[QUOTE=ali;27976]Stormcentre they don't even know what fighter was dirty wow!! Idiotic!![/QUOTE]

Yes I know Ali, it's as hilarious as it sad and incompetent.

Just as golden girl has perfectly played it.

Don't dare get VADA to do it, and empower them with the right to speak publicly on the results - as well as penalise those genuinely guilty; will you GBP?

Nope, it's much easier to claim; "we're cleaning up the sport", and instead muddy it's name more. And that's what frustrates me the most.


Related Articles


Latest Videos on

The Talk N Shoot Boxing Podcast - 12th Edition - International Boxing Hall of Fame Inductees (June 7)

Live Boxing Coverage

Who will win the Sergey Kovalev vs Andre Ward fight?

52.6%   (30)
47.4%   (27)