Understanding the Performance Enhancing Drugs Problem in Boxing:

Identifying Contributing and Enabling Factors of Its Widespread Use

INTRODUCTION

This thesis intends to educate the public about the issue of performance enhancing drugs
(PEDs) in boxing. By identifying the contributing factors of its widespread use, it aims to
present solutions to the current landscape of drug abuse and its regulation. Understanding
drug use and drug regulation in sports will allow us to emphasize the seriousness and
detrimental impact that PEDs have on the safety and integrity of the sport.

Boxing is a brutal, violent, life-threatening sport, and the use of PEDs only exacerbates the
problem. Exploring the PED problem in boxing consists of understanding the dynamics of drug
testing and its accompanying suspensions, and how the overall sport of boxing is regulated.
Recent examples of PED controversies and cases are presented to allow us to understand the
current means of drug regulation in boxing.

WHAT ARE PEDs AND WHY ARE THE BANNED IN SPORTS?

A performance enhancing drug (PED) is any type of substance that has been shown to benefit
athletic performance (The Gale Encyclopedia of Fitness, 2012). The use of most PEDs is banned
unless an athlete has a legitimate medical need. Athletes use performance enhancing drugs in
order to increase their strength, speed, endurance, muscle mass, and recovery in order to
obtain a competitive physical advantage over their opponent.

Most PEDs carry anabolic agents that promote muscle growth or hypertrophy beyond natural
capabilities. In the boxing community, it is an understood that PEDs give an unfair advantage to
the athletes who use them. Unfortunately, the variety of drugs and methods of administration
make it difficult to understand and confront, but there are measures in place to regulate the
use of PEDs in sports.

All of the major professional sports leagues in America ban PEDs because they are detrimental
to the long-term health of the athlete and diminish the integrity of the game. Sports author
Rob Beamish describes the banning of performance enhancing drugs in sports as a measure to
“ensure a fair and level playing field, protect the integrity of sports, safeguard the health of
athletes, and ensure that athletes set a wholesome example for others” (Steroids: A New Look
at Performance-Enhancing Drugs, 2011).

Arguments validating drug regulation in sports have been outlined in the academic perspective
of Barry Houlihan who explains the negative consequences that PED usage has on the athlete,
the competitor and society (Dying To Win, 2002). When an athlete uses performance
enhancing drugs, they endanger their own health and well-being as well as that of their peers
and put spectators and supporters in a precarious predicament when interpreting fair
competition. 

WHY THEY JUICE

Research supports that most athletes use performance enhancing drugs because of the
pressure to perform at an optimal level. Of course, optimal performance often translates into
winning, but the victory is tainted when PEDs are involved. The British Medical Association
described the increased use of drugs in sports as a “modern phenomenon” in which the nature
of competition emphasizes an “importance in winning” (Drugs In Sport: The Pressure To
Perform, 2004). The pressures involved in delivering optimal athletic performance have
influenced the athlete to use PEDs especially due to the proliferation of commerce in sports.
Research suggests that the increased use of PEDs is in large part due to the ingratiation of
commercialization in sports which has provoked “institutional” pressures on the athlete to dope
defining it as a “new social organization of doping practices” (Institutional Transformations and
the Rationalization of “Doping,” 2002). Commercialization as defined as the commerce and
revenue involved in the business of sports has fostered an environment in which the people
and organizations associated with the athlete have increasingly influenced the athlete to use
performance enhancing drugs. These practices are efforts to generate monetary gain as well as
the satisfaction of victory.

Additionally, there is a growing fear that failing to use will put athletes a step behind the
competition. Research identifies that the rationale of the athlete to use is believed to come
from a cognitive inclination that they believe their foe is doping. This premise has been
acknowledged in Stephanie McPherson’s book Doping In Sports: Winning At All Costs where she
explains the ongoing pursuit of the athlete to stay on an even playing field as their peers.
McPherson writes, “just as nations stockpile weapons to keep pace with the supplies of other
countries, athletes strive to ensure that their doping practices are on par with those of their
opponents.” Social evidence evidently has justified the use of PEDs in the rationale of the
athlete. Robert B. Cialdini describes social evidence as “our tendency to assume that an action
is more correct if others are doing it.” Given the current landscape of sports, and an
understanding of the culture of drug use in sports, it’s conceivable that the athlete has been
increasingly influenced to use PEDs because they know that their opponents are using them.

There is a high percentage of athletes who are willing to cheat by any means necessary. In
1982, Dr. Bob Goldman conducted a survey on one-hundred and ninety-eight world-class
athletes that asked whether they were willing to take a magic drug that will guarantee them
victory in competitions for the next five years; the caveat was that they would become
deceased after the five year span was up (Goldman, Klatz and Bush, 1984). An alarming fifty-
two percent of the athletes were in favor of Goldman’s proposition which concluded that more
than half of his study group was willing to die in order to win. The study was coined the
Goldman Dilemma. A book titled Critical Issues In Global Sports Management concluded that
the findings of the Goldman Dilemma proved that “athletes are willing to do absolutely
anything for sporting glory – even sacrifice their own life” (Schulenkorf, N., & Frawley, S., 2017).

Unfortunately, in boxing, the abuse of performance enhancing drugs can have a far more
detrimental impact on the athlete because of the sheer brutality it involves. PEDs in boxing are
especially dangerous because unlike swinging a baseball bat or peddling a bike, boxing consists
of fist to fist combat. This is why it is so important to understand and confront the issues
involving performance enhancing drugs in boxing and educate people about the change(s) that
need to be made.

PED’s IN BOXING

It is no secret that performance enhancing drugs have been an increasing problem in boxing for
the better part of the last half-century. This issue has been well documented in cases involving
some of the most highly profiled fighters in the sport. Francois Botha had to relinquish his IBF
heavyweight title in 1995 after testing positive for a banned substance following his fight
against Axel Shultz. Botha had won the title by unanimous decision only to be stripped after
testing positive for Nandrolone. All-time welterweight great “Sugar” Shane Mosley will forever
be linked to the high-level operation that involved his paid consumption of steroids seen in the
BALCO (Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative) Investigation of 2007. Finally, the highly anticipated
middleweight rematch of 2018 between Canelo Alvarez and Gennady Golovkin was delayed
due to an adverse finding of clenbuterol discovered in Alvarez’s drug test weeks before the
fight. These are just a few of the cases that highlight the increasing problem of PEDs in boxing
and are especially significant because all of which involved the top champions in the game.

Top pundits of prizefighting* have acknowledged the abuse of performance enhancing drugs
including ESPN’s Max Kellerman who said in a recent interview that “boxing has been this way
where it is widely known that there is widespread performance enhancing (drug) use” (iFL TV,
2019). The data specifically within the heavyweight division especially supports his claim.
Consider Ring Magazine’s official rankings of the current top eight heavyweight boxers (Ringtv,
2020). Of these top eight, at least four have tested positive for a PED at some point in their
careers. Even the current WBC champion, Tyson Fury, tested positive for the banned substance
Nandrolone; an anabolic steroid that is known to increase muscle mass (Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 2004).

The history shows it, the pundits know it, so why have PEDs continued to plague boxing? Here
a few considerations:

The absence of a unified commission within boxing makes for poor cooperation among states
regarding drug regulation.

Inconsistencies in reliable and effective drug testing have hindered efforts towards drug
regulation.

Fighters who test positive have a bevy of alibis they can use to facilitate discourse towards their
innocence.

There is a lack of transparency among the administrators of boxing who are also responsible for
the inadequate suspensions handed down to PED cheats.

ABSENSE OF A UNIFIED COMMISSION

To begin to understand the problem of performance enhancing drugs in boxing, one must
realize the dynamics of boxing commissions in America and around the world. Part of the
reason this issue has persisted is because in boxing there is no ultimate oversight from a unified
board (a national commission does not exist) as the sport is structured in a manner in which
each individual state can regulate competition how it pleases.

Each state abides by its own regulations regarding PED testing, suspensions, licensing, and
whether a fighter is allowed to compete. A Ring magazine article featured president of the
Voluntary Anti-Doping Association (VADA) Dr. Margaret Goodman and explored the possibility
of creating a national commission that would introduce ultimate oversight of boxing in America.
Goodman was described as “skeptical that the boxing industry or Congress would ever bypass
politics to form a central commission for the betterment of the sport” (Dixon, 2019). So, when
it comes to unifying rules regarding performance enhancing drugs across the board, there is a
political stand-still. Consequently, this has done irrefutable damage to the preservation of
clean play because there is a lapse in coordination among states regarding drug sanctions.

One of the grievances brought against boxing commissions is the “lack of centralized control
which makes for poor cooperation among states regarding suspensions” (Bernard, 1953). This
would indicate that a suspension given to a fighter from the Florida commission may be
completely different than a suspension given to a fighter in New Jersey. In some cases, states
fail to honor the concurrent suspension(s) of a fighter if that fighter was handed down the
suspension from another state. Unfortunately, this systemic flaw still holds true today.

For example, in 2019, Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. refused to take a random drug test administered by
the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association (VADA) while training at his gym in preparation for a
proposed fight against Daniel Jacobs. The fight was slated to take place in Las Vegas, Nevada
but with Chavez failing to comply with drug testing protocols of the Nevada State Athletic
Commission (NSAC), he was temporarily suspended by Nevada which put his fight in jeopardy
of being cancelled.

In response to the suspension, the promoter of Chavez, Eddie Hearn, decided to search for a
different venue outside of Nevada in order to stage the fight. Hearn quickly locked in a venue
for Phoenix, Arizona and the fight was to carry on as scheduled but the move brought into
question whether Hearn’s venue shopping was a violation of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform
Act. The bill, which was enacted in Congress in 2000, aims to “assist State boxing commissions
in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and to promote
honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the
industry.”

Boxing Columnist Dan Rafael described the incident:

“When Nevada suspended Chavez, Hearn moved the fight to Phoenix, setting up a standoff
between the Nevada commission and the Arizona Boxing & Mixed Martial Arts Commission.
Chavez ultimately sued the Nevada commission and won the temporary restraining order when
Nevada State Judge Jim Crockett ordered the Nevada commission to lift the suspension, at least
until a date to review his case is determined” (ESPN, December 2019)

The fight took place as Chavez’s situation is just one example of how performance enhancing
drug regulation can be nullified by the poor cooperation among states; fighters and promoters
alike have continuously seeked these systemic loopholes to evade the rules of drug testing. The
Chavez example shows us exactly how a fighter can be ushered out of the sanctions of drug
regulation from one state to another.

Boxing has suffered the malpractices of performance enhancing drug use in large part because
of the systemic disposition of the sport which makes for a disconnected protocol in drug
regulation but also because of drug testing inconsistencies.
 DRUG TESTING PROBLEMS

Drug testing in boxing is a slippery slope because it involves politics regarding the consistency in
reliable drug testing. For one, drug testing protocols are usually negotiated between the
fighters and promoters involved in signing the contractual obligations for the fight but are also
dictated by the commissions and belt organizations who sanction it. For example, a fighter who
is fighting from the WBC championship will be contractually obligated to adhere to drug testing
via the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association (VADA) but if he/she were to compete for the WBA
championship there may not be any drug testing at all. Once again, this makes for a
disconnected effort into the preservation of fair play because the regulation of drug testing
varies from fight to fight.

The WBC’s “clean boxing program” requires fighters to enroll in year-round random drug
testing performed by the VADA and mandates that in order for a fighter to compete in a WBC
championship fight, he or she must be enrolled in random VADA drug testing. However,
random VADA drug testing costs money and usually the only people who can afford it are the
fighters of the top echelon who are competing for a world title. This disparity leaves the up and
coming prospects excluded from extensive and reliable drug testing, and in many cases these
fighters choose to pursue belts that are less stringent on drug testing.

Not all belt organizations have a substantial level of regulation when it comes to drug testing
and leave it in the hands of the corresponding commission who is hosting the bout to
administer it. The state commissions find themselves in a vulnerable position where they have
to disseminate the drug testing on their own; this type of coordination is a problem because it
is widely known that state commission administered drug tests are not as extensive and do not
produce the results that an independent agency like VADA would.

Sportswriter Patrick L. Stumberg acknowledged this very premise in his argument to the lack of
VADA testing for the Manny Pacquiao vs Keith Thurman fight in 2019 where the Nevada State
Athletic Commission had to handle the entire drug testing in house.

“In a bit of a puzzling move, the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association won’t be handling drug
testing for Manny Pacquiao’s July 20th bout with Keith Thurman. Instead, the Nevada State
Athletic Commission will take charge. It’s not that I think Pacquiao or Thurman are juicing; I just
don’t believe NSAC would administer the testing in the most efficient way possible or handle a
positive outcome in an objective fashion” (Badlefthook.com, June 2019).

The inconsistency of reliable and valid drug testing has allowed PED use to flourish and there
are even arguments and questions that have been raised toward the validity of the
independent testing organizations that are responsible for catching the cheaters.
 VADA OR NADA

World renowned boxing journalist and author, Thomas Hauser, wrote an article that exposed
the reliability of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) due to their lack of reported
positive detections of banned substances for drug tests they had administered. Hauser
reported that USADA had given a total of 1,501 drug tests to professional boxers from 2010
through 2018 and during that time frame only reported one adverse finding in total. This was
an alarming realization as the article referenced a comparison between USADA and VADA to
understand the effectiveness in detection of performance enhancing drugs between the two.

Hauser writes:

“By way of comparison, Dr. Margaret Goodman reports that close to four percent of the tests
for illegal performance enhancing drugs conducted by VADA come back positive. Using the
four-percent benchmark, one would expect that 60 of the 1,501 tests conducted by USADA
from 2010 to date would have yielded a positive result.”

The legitimacy of USADA testing was thrown into question because of their lack of positive
detections as well as the technological flaws in their testing procedures. Hauser also featured
former president of the BALCO, Victor Conte, who was quoted as stating that USADA fails to use
“carbon isotope ratio” for their tests which “can increase the number of positive tests in a given
situation from one percent to five percent.”

Conte sounds off on USADA’s lack of positive findings:

“Numbers like this for professional boxing don’t make sense. It’s just not credible. You have to
ask whether there’s a genuine interest on the part of USADA in catching these athletes.”

Hauser’s article presents numerous questions towards the legitimacy of the testing agency
USADA and their ineffectiveness in detecting performance enhancing drugs. How can this be?
Why are there questions over the legitimacy of the very agencies that are supposed to be
responsible for catching the cheaters? Simply put, it is because the so-called regulators will
always be a step behind the cheaters.

There are sentiments within scholarly research that echo this premise that testing is lacking in
detection capabilities. David R. Mottram reinforces this idea in his 2011 book Drugs In Sports
by stating that the detection of drugs has always been a step behind the cheaters who take
them. Mottram says, “The effectiveness of testing methods has tended to lag behind the
practices of serious dopers and their facilitators, though current testing regimes are highly
sophisticated” (Drugs in Sport. Vol. 5th ed 2011). The fighters who are in the business of using
performance enhancing drugs have always been able to cheat without being caught because
there is a black market that allows them to take substances that are undetectable.
The former heavyweight champion of the world, Deontay Wilder stated in an interview this
past February, “that PED cheats will always resort to these black-market methods. Of course,
the technology comes out to detect these drugs, but a smart user is always in the knowing of
where the next drug is and it's a big problem in boxing.”

With a continuous battle between the people attempting to regulate drug use and the people
who attempt to swerve the detections of drug use, it should be noted that the VADA’s random
three hundred- and sixty-five-day drug testing organization is the most reliable form of drug
testing regulation in boxing. VADA has established a reputation of actually catching cheaters,
reporting all findings to the parties involved in a fight and are known to have the technological
advancements that allow them to detect positive results at a higher and more reliable rate that
any other testing organization in sports. Hauser says that VADA is “widely regarded as the most
credible testing organization in professional boxing.” With no presence of VADA testing for a
given fight, there is a high probability that the fighters will be using PEDs.

LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN PED CASES

Whistleblowing is the act of exposing unethicality within an organization or business (Alford,

2016). A whistleblower is known as someone who acts in the best interest of society as
opposed to holding an affiliation with the party that would benefit from the wrongdoing
(Chapman, 2013). As it pertains to media, a whistleblower is someone who exposes
investigative information to the public in an effort to act as a watchdog of the organization.
Understanding whistleblowing can contextualize that in many instances, the act of
whistleblowing is triggered by a lack of honesty or transparency. Transparency is defined as a
state of openness that allows people to understand the actions and behaviors of others for
what they are doing and why (Marquardt, 2016). An absence of transparency would suggest
that there is a lack of openness about a situation.

Thomas Hauser exposed one of the most recent drug controversies in boxing when he became
known as a whistleblower for the notorious Dillian Whyte drug case in 2019. Hauser published
a story online that reported the findings of Whyte’s failed drug test in his fight against Oscar
Rivas. This case featured a lack of transparency because the promoter, commission and testing
agency all withheld the information of a positive drug test two days before the fight from both
the public as well as the opponent of the fighter who tested dirty. The organizations in
question were Dillian Whyte, Matchroom Boxing, The British Boxing Board of Control and the
United Kingdom Anti-Doping organization. Hauser’s report alleged that all the parties in
question corroborated to keep the news of Whyte’s positive drug test private and confidential
in order to allow the fight to take carry on. It was not until Hauser broke the story of Whyte’s
adverse findings a week after the conclusion of the fight (which Whyte won by unanimous
decision) that Rivas and the public were made aware of the situation. To this day, Hauser says
that nobody has refuted his story as he “double sourced” the findings of Whyte’s positive test
before he published the story online.
The alarming reality of the Whyte’s situation is that this offense would have made him a repeat
offender after he had served a two-year ban from UKAD in 2012 for testing positive for
Methylhexaneamine; not to mention the substance that he tested positive for this time around
(dianabol) is one of the oldest steroids known in medicine. UKAD and Whyte were both quiet
about the case in the months after the incident and eventually Whyte was cleared of all
wrongdoing a day before his next fight just a few months later. In the end, Whyte was
exonerated as UKAD labeled the positive test an “isolated contaminated event,” meaning they
claimed that there was an independent mix-up that has nothing to do with Whyte (Ukad.org.uk,
2019).

The Dillian Whyte example is a perfect scenario to understand the way in which the so-called
administrators of boxing are disingenuous about drug regulation. The promoter, commission
and testing agency all played a part in concealing the results of a positive drug test. Hauser’s
story showed us how the powers in boxing have been more concerned with making money as
opposed to doing what is right. Fellow British promoter Frank Warren weighed in on the Whyte
situation and expressed the lack of morality in the handling of the case.

Warren states:

“Morally and ethically, how can you allow somebody who has tested positive to fight without
his opponent knowing? Nobody can justify that I don’t care what they say. You want to sue me
for it you can do whatever you want. You can’t tell me that is right, that is wrong!”

The interview of Warren expressing these sentiments was posted by BT Sport Boxing but has
since been removed from the internet because of potential legal issues his opinion may have
provoked.

NEVER ENDING LIST OF ALIBIS

Drug-cheats in boxing have been able to clear their names of wrongdoing far too easily and
without much contention or objection. This lack of oversight is because there is an endless list
of alibis at their disposal that they are able to use when on the wrong end of a positive drug
test. Fair play is nullified when these culprits gravitate to the convenience of age-long excuses
which presumably prove their innocence, it’s egregious.

Excuses range from the presence of nasal sprays, blood pressure medications, tainted protein
shakes, and the consumption of contaminated meat. If their claims do not eradicate them from
wrongdoing altogether, they certainly reduce the perception of their suspensions.

In 2017, heavyweight Luis Ortiz had his suspension lifted by the WBC after it was concluded that
the banned substances that he tested positive for (chlorithiazide and hydroclorothiazide) was a
result of ingesting “high blood pressure medication.” Tyson Fury was given a back-dated
suspension in 2016 after claiming that the adverse levels of Nandrolone found in his urine
sample was due to his consumption of “wild boar meat.” And finally, Canelo Alvarez’s 2018
excuse for testing positive for the banned substance clenbuterol was a direct result of ingesting
“contaminated beef.”

Research into the specific claims to which the fighter credits their positive drug test is only fair
as there are due process rules that apply to drug cases in boxing. It should also be noted that
fighters have constitutional rights such as privacy, equal protection, and the investigation into
the validity of test procedures and results when inquiries of a failed drug test occur; (The SAGE
Encyclopedia of Pharmacology and Society, 2015). Unfortunately, the cheaters of the sport
have learned how to use the system to their advantage.

The Alvarez case is a perfect example to refer to because there is evidence that livestock in
Mexico, where he lives, are injected with clenbuterol during domestication in order to amplify
the muscle growth in the animals. However, it has been noted for many years that clenbuterol
can also be used to benefit athletic capabilities. Studies on clenbuterol report its abuse in
livestock and in sports performance thanks to its anabolic properties (Brockway, 1987).

The grim truth is that Alvarez’s “contaminated meat” claim presented just enough reasonable
doubt in the public eye to qualify him towards some form of innocence. When ESPN’s Dan
Rafael was asked about the Alvarez case, he said that, “there is significant precedent of
Mexican athletes who have tested positive for clenbuterol because of the way the beef is
farmed in Mexico…so there is a believability factor to his (Canelo’s) story.” Alvarez was handed
a six-month suspension and still maintains today that his positive result was due to tainted
beef.

Contaminated meat or not, the frequency in which we see fighters who test positive for a PED
claim their positive result(s) was due to an external alibi is often used and abused. These antics
produce enough reasonable doubt in the eyes of the rule makers which consequently results in
inadequate punishments and accountability. Thomas Hauser makes this premise clear in his
own explanation of fighters who test positive:

“Almost always, fighters who test positive express disbelief and maintain that the prohibited
substance was ingested without their knowledge. In most instances, punishment has been
minimal or there has been no punishment at all” (A Hard World: An Inside Look at Another Year
in Boxing, 2016)

INADEQUATE SUSPENSIONS

Fighters who test positive for performance enhancing drugs have not been punished
adequately enough for their actions. When a fighter is caught doping, people within the sport
believe that suspensions are nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Boxing trainer Jay Deas
described to me that the reason why fighters continue to use PEDs is because they know that if
they get caught, they’re only going to be “on the shelf for six months” and will be able to fight
again.

For example, middleweights Willie Monroe Jr. and Jermall Charlo were set fight for the WBC
championship in New York in December of 2018 but just days before the fight, VADA
determined that there was an adverse finding of testosterone in Monroe’s urine sample.
Incidentally, the WBC replaced Monroe as an opponent for the main event however, there was
never an official suspension handed down by the New York State Athletic Commission nor the
WBC themselves. Monroe, just a handful of months removed from his failed drug test, ended
up competing in a fight in California in June of 2019 and still has yet to receive any extensive
punishment for his failed drug test. This example illustrates how a fighter can be guilty of using
PEDs but is allowed to compete without the presence of a legitimate suspension. Situations
such as the Monroe case shows just how committed some of these so-called clean advocates
(yes, I’m talking about the WBC) of the sport really are.

Fairness is not the only underlying concern to the use of PEDs but that the effects of laws and
risk depend on the presence or absence of league rules (Landy, Walco & Bartels, 2017).
Furthermore, when there is an absence in the unification of league rules concerning
performance enhancing drugs, widespread use of drugs will flourish.

What also needs to be understood in boxing is that there is a conflict of interest between
cleanliness and business when it comes to handing down a stringent punishment. Unlike
football or baseball where an athlete who tests positive for a performance enhancing drug will
be suspended for a series of games and their team event carries on, boxing is an individualistic
sport that suffers far more drastic consequences when a fighter gets popped. Usually, the
event is cancelled or postponed and the promoters, networks, belt organizations and fighters
all lose out on money, creating a nightmare for the business of boxing. This could be a reason
why boxing has failed to legitimately penalize drug cheats.

There is no denying that harsher sanctions should be given to the drug cheats in boxing; the
current state of drug regulation does not deter fighters from using PEDs because there is an
absence of unified enforcement. The cheaters know that even if they get caught, they will be
able to fight again in no time because it is in the best business interest of the sport.

SOLUTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Considering the systemic faults of boxing which has contributed to the absence of unified
protocol regarding drug regulation, the efforts to preserve fair competition has been greatly
hindered. This has not only tarnished the reputation of the sport but more importantly, it has
put the lives of fighters at risk given the dangers that drug use exhibits. There needs to be
stronger precedents made in regard to drug testing, suspensions and cooperation among the
various commissions who license boxing.

State commissions, belt organizations and promoters should come together to impose
mandatory year-round VADA drug testing for all professional boxers who compete. Funding for
this venture could either come from the aforementioned entities as a collective union fund
(where a percentage of the revenue from every professional fight will be allocated to pay for
drug testing) or from an imposed tax by the federal government. If the current administrators
of boxing fail to bind together to tighten up on drug testing, the federal government should
step in and mandate this proposal in order to ensure safety, fairness and integrity in the sport.

In regard to suspensions, a no tolerance rule should be implemented across the board so that
when a fighter tests positive for a banned substance, they will receive a legitimate and
righteous punishment. A mandatory two-year suspension should be given to first offenders, a
five-year suspension for second offenders, and anything more than two offenses should
warrant a lifetime ban from the sport. Also, a rule that mandates the uniformity of all states to
cooperate and honor concurrent suspensions of fighters should be imposed. With the absence
of ultimate oversight in boxing, the federal government should be informed about these
sanctions from each of the individual states that encounter a drug case so that there is cross
examination in order to prevent corruption in drug cases.

With a lack of transparency in cases involving drug regulation, there also needs to be legislation
passed that criminalizes the act of bribery and corroboration in covering up performance
enhancing drug usage. Fortunately, there is a proposition in place that has recently begun to
counter this front as the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act was introduced in congress in January of
2019 as a measure to “impose criminal sanctions on certain persons involved in international
doping fraud conspiracies” (Senate Bill 259, 2019). The bill confronts the idea of bribery and
corruption involved in drug fraud.
“It shall be unlawful for any person, other than an athlete, to knowingly carry into effect,
attempt to carry into effect, or conspire with any other person to carry into effect a scheme in
commerce to influence by use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method any major
international sports competition.”
It also implements legal protections for whistleblowers of doping fraud. “Whistleblowers…
often expose major international doping fraud conspiracies at considerable personal risk. By
criminalizing these conspiracies, such whistleblowers will be included under existing witness
and informant protection laws.” Not only will the bill hold people accountable for conspiring
bribery and corruption in covering up drug usage, but it will also protect the people who aim to
exposes these malpractices.
In order for the bill to become a law, the president of the United States would have to sign off
on it. This would greatly improve the regulation of performance enhancing drugs in boxing
because it will force cheaters to think twice about using PEDs. It will also deter the shysters
involved in enabling drug usage from engaging in foul play. If legislation is passed to confront
these issues, it is less likely we will see circumstances like the Dillian Whyte case.
Ultimately, there needs to be a collective effort from all parties involved in boxing to combat
this widespread problem of performance enhancing drug use. Money and politics should not
be the preventing force from taking steps towards more legitimate drug regulation. Boxing has
been riddled by corruption for many years but education and understanding of the
performance enhancing drug problem in boxing will begin discourse towards finding a solution.
Creating a wholesome drug regulating system in boxing will protect fighter’s health, preserve
the integrity of fair competition and will facilitate a culture in boxing that pledges to being
clean. Ridding boxing of performance enhancing drugs is for the betterment of the sport.
 REFERENCES

Houlihan, B. (2002). Dying to win (2nd ed.). Council of Europe Publishing.

Beamish, R. (2011). Steroids: A new look at performance-enhancing drugs. Praeger.

Bernard, G. C. (1952). The morality of prizefighting. The Catholic University Of America Press,
Washington, D.C.

Brewer, B. D. (2002). Commercialization in professional cycling 1950-2001: Institutional

transformations and the rationalization of “doping.” Sociology of Sport Journal, 19(3),
276–301. Retreived from: https://doi-
org.uiwtx.idm.oclc.org/10.1123/ssj.19.3.276

British Medical Association. (2002). Drugs in sport: The pressure to perform. BMJ Books.

Brockway J.M., MacRae J.C., Williams P.E. (1987). Side effects of clenbuterol as a repartitioning
agent. Vet Rec. 120, 381–383.

Dixon, T. (2019, August). Dreaming a dream. The Ring, 98(8), 60–63.

Goldman, B., Klatz, R. and Bush, P. J. (1984). Death in the locker room. IcarusPress.
South Bend, IN.

Heavyweight Ratings. (2020, April 17). Retrieved from: https://www.ringtv.com/ratings/?

weightclass=272

Hauser, T. (2016). A hard world: An inside look at another year in boxing. University of Arkansas
Press.

Hauser, T. (2018, September 7). 1,501 tests, one reported positive? What’s going on with
USADA and boxing? Retrieved from: https://tss.ib.tv/boxing/featured-boxing-articles-
boxing-news-videos-rankings-and-results/52512-1501-tests-one-reported-positive-
whats-going-on-with-usada-and-boxing
Hauser, T. (2019, July 24). Dillian Whyte tests positive for banned substance. Retrieved from:
https://www.boxingscene.com/dillian-whyte-tests-positive-banned-substance--
141178

iFL TV. (2019, April 19). Huge % of athletes juice! – Max kellerman on miller failed test, wants
joshua v ortiz, talks khan [Video file]. Retrieved from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjVS_ydPxvE

Landy, J. F., Walco, D. K., & Bartels, D. M. (2017). What’s wrong with using steroids? Exploring
whether and why people oppose the use of performance enhancing drugs. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 377–392.

Legal Issues in Testing for Performance-Enhancing Drugs. (2015). The SAGE Encyclopedia of
Pharmacology and Society. doi: 10.4135/9781483349985.n227

Lichtenbelt, W. D. V. M., Hartgens, F., Vollaard, N. B. J., Ebbing, S., & Kuipers, H. (2004).
Bodybuilders??? Body composition: Effect of nandrolone decanoate. Medicine & Science
in Sports & Exercise, 36(3), 484–489. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000117157.06455.b0

McPherson, S. (2016) Doping in sports: Winning at any cost? Twenty-First Century Books.

Mottram, D. R. (2011). Drugs in Sport (5th ed.). Taylor & Francis.

Rafael, D. (2019, December 17). Nevada judge clears way for daniel jacobs vs. julio cesar chavez
Jr. Retrieved from: https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/28321988/nevada-judge-
clears-way-daniel-jacobs-vs-julio-cesar-chavez-jr

Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act of 2019, S.259, 116th cong. (2019) 

Schulenkorf, N., & Frawley, S. (2017). Critical Issues in Global Sport Management. Routledge.

Stumberg , P. L. (2019, June 24). NSAC, not VADA to handle manny pacquiao-keith thurman
drug testing. Retrieved from:
 https://www.badlefthook.com/2019/6/24/18715849/pacquiao-vs-thurman-drug-
testing-nevada-commission-not-vada-fox-pbc-boxing

UKAD and Mr. Dillian Whyte issue joint statement. (2019, June 12). Retrieved from:
https://www.ukad.org.uk/news/ukad-and-mr-dillian-whyte-issue-joint-statement