By Steve Lewis: Three months after failed negotiations, the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao blood testing issue is still a hot topic.
Arguments from both sides have been repeated ad naseum. Many points have been beaten like a dead horse. Yet, the blood testing issue is still a point of contention.
Recently, RingTalk.com’s Jarrad Woods wrote a piece about how Pacquiao should come clean, and lays most of the blame on Pacquiao for the failed superfight with Mayweather.
The point that Woods made about boxing adopting better testing procedures was reasonable. This author has no problems if the various state boxing commissions decide to conduct Olympic-style blood testing for all its participants. No one with an ounce of common sense would object to stricter guidelines if it means ensuring a cleaner sport.
But what Woods fails to address, and I have yet to see anyone address this issue adequately, is Mayweather’s compromise of a 14-day testing window.
Was not the reason Mayweather demanded Olympic-style testing in the first place was because he was concerned that Pacquiao could “play the testing calendar?” Mayweather was concerned that Pacquiao could conceivably shoot up on PEDs and flush them out of his system a day or two before the fight and still test negative immediately after the fight. That was what all the brouhaha was all about. It was not enough that Pacquiao submit to a blood test right after the fight because Mayweather contends that Pacquiao would have enough time to flush out the traces of PEDs from his system, and that it would only take a day or two to do so.
So why all of a sudden would Mayweather agree to a 14-day testing window, and not to 24-days like Pacquiao countered with? What difference would it make to Mayweather if it was 24 days instead of 14? Looking at Pacquiao’s rationale for refusing to give blood so close to the fight, it makes sense that he wants it as far back as possible, to minimize any perceived weakness that results from giving blood (however unscientific that notion may be). The point is that Pacquiao is genuine and sincere about his beliefs that giving blood too close to fight night has negative drawbacks.
But how about for Mayweather? How does settling for a 14-day testing window address his concern that Pacquiao could shoot up on PEDs and flush it out of his system a day or two before the fight?
It does not.
A 14-day testing window will not accomplish what Mayweather is trying to achieve or rectify. Which means that his proposal of 14-days is mere pretext. If he was truly concerned that Pacquiao could play the calendar up until the day of the fight, how does Mayweather reconcile that with a 14-day testing window? Unless, of course, it was all for posturing.
Some say Pacquiao should have given in to Mayweather’s demands, but how about Mayweather? If the 14-day testing window was not going to solve his allegedly sincere concern, then why not give in to the extra 10 days and settle on the 24-day testing window as proposed by Pacquiao’s camp? It would not have made a difference anyway. So it makes me skeptical that Floyd was really concerned about fighters’ ability to manipulate the testing calendar, when he proposes things that would be counter-productive anyway.
So are stricter blood testing needed? Yes!
But let us not confuse the issue of needing stricter testing to what was and was not pretense during the Mayweather-Pacquiao negotiations. Let us not have any illusions as to Mayweather’s all-of-a-sudden altruistic motives to clean up the sport of boxing. His timing could not be any more dubious.
Pacquiao has already stated that if the Nevada State Athletic Commission wants to change its rules and adopt Olympic-style testing, he will abide by those rules. But until then, he does not want to be dictated by an opponent, who appears to be motivated by psychological tactics and pugilistic mind games, and by a camp who spews unsubstantiated innuendo, merely because they are in disbelief of Pacquiao’s accomplishments (i.e., “Damn, you are way too good, it can’t possibly be for real!”), which, if you think of it, is an indirect and unconscious compliment.
Comments are closed.