HAVE we created a monster named random drug testing?
Seemingly, the answer is yes.
A brainchild of Floyd Mayweather Jr., the random drug testing was inserted in the fight contract for a May 2 (May 3 in the Philippines) bout between ?The Money? and Manny ?PacMan? Pacquiao.
It calls for both fighters to be subjected to blood and urine tests anytime in a bid to make the combatants drug-free before fight night.
At first, Pacquiao rejected it. But he would soon relent, and even collected a reported $5 million from an out-of-court settlement arising from a libel suit he filed against Mayweather.
The case stemmed from Mayweather?s accusation that Pacquiao used PEDs (performance enhancing drugs) to bulk up, gain more power and strength in the PacMan?s unprecedented march to eight world titles in eight weight divisions.
Perhaps buoyed up by this triumph, Pacquiao, through his Canadian adviser Michael Koncz, proposed a $5-million penalty for either one of them found with a dirty drug test.
Mayweather, through his chief executive at Mayweather Promotions, torpedoed the idea even as two tests done on Pacquiao produced negative results.
Mayweather?s ward even called Koncz an ?idiot? and a ?moron? for proposing the $5-million fine.
And even before Koncz could counter on the stinging insult to his character, the US Anti-Doping Agency (Usada) had joined the fray.
It said the $5M penalty would amount to nothing and was short of saying that?d be peanuts should anyone tested positive for banned drugs.
Anyone found drugged could kill the fight, according to Travis Tygart, the Usada chief executive. Tygart added the guilty fighter could suffer a four-year ban, in which case it could potentially end the boxer?s career.
So, what have we got here but a rock picked up from hell and, horrifically, used to smash our own skulls.
The fight contract that Mayweather and Pacquiao signed called for both the Nevada Athletic Commission and Usada to impose sanctions to either fighter tested positive for a banned substance.
?It?s a contract that would be enforceable against them,? said Tygart.
That?s the problem?a problem of monumental proportions should it hit the $250M bout bandied about as the richest in history.
I?m looking the other way.
