Why Does the UFC Test for PEDS?

[Arrrrgh]

I was under the impression the argument against ped use is that there is a greater risk of injury in the cage.

It's been 5 years.

Can we get a study showing how many fewer injuries there are now that we have USADA?

And if it hasn't reduced the number or severity of injuries by any objective measure then unless there is another valid argument for it I am missing can we get rid of it? It seems to me that it is just a pointless waste of money that does nothing but serve to ruin good fights and shorten fighter's careers and earning potential.


EDIT**

The fighters make the sport. They work extremely hard in the gym to reach the top of the sport. By allowing them to take banned PEDs we know they can compete longer. That benefits both the fighter and the sport as a whole in my mind.
The fighter:
Fight longer, potentially, and therefore have greater potential career earnings, more fights, longer legacy, potentially better fighter into 30's or 40's with higher skill and maintained performance from peds.
The sport:
More parity. All fighters are better when they face better competition. PEDS allow longer training which means more skilled fighters. Certainly some fighters will just use that time to overuse and try to offset their skill gap with strength but I think the weight classes already handle most of those issues... and from the history of this sport we've seen with similar size, skill always wins, and usually skill wins even with a size discrepancy.​

 

[SecondToNone]

Roids provide an unfair advantage. They also cause your heart to explode.

 

[Get To Da Choppa]

We need to see the best athletes science can produce

Nate puts the current situation eloquently here

 

[BFoe]

Because athletes shouldn’t have to drastically alter their hormone levels and put shit that could have adverse effects into their bodies in order to be competitive in a sport. One should be striving to be the best based on natural ability.

 

[ccc77]

Public perception. The average person thinks PEDs are evil, therefore the UFC (and every other sporting organization) has to pretend to give a fuck about them.

 

[Arrrrgh]

Roids provide an unfair advantage. They also cause your heart to explode.

How do they provide an unfair advantage if everyone has the option to use them? That's like saying training harder than your opponent causes an unfair advantage.

Yes I know your post was steeped in sarcasm but I think it is important to be direct in this conversation.

I'm serious that I think banning peds from the sport is dumb and we probably have the data now to quash every counter argument because we have 5 years with testing data to show any benefits. I haven't done a study but I have a hunch we'll see no difference at all.

 

[Casanova]

PEDs and steroids definitely make you a different fighter.

Faster, stronger, tougher, more explosive,more aggressive, more alert and focused and recovery from training, better cardio, more power etc

When you allow PEDs, it can cause an extreme unfair advantage to a fighter who’s not on them plus more danger of hurting someone bad.

 

[maximus__]

I was under the impression the argument against ped use is that there is a greater risk of injury in the cage.

It's been 5 years.

Can we get a study showing how many fewer injuries there are now that we have USADA?

And if it hasn't reduced the number or severity of injuries by any objective measure then unless there is another valid argument for it I am missing can we get rid of it? It seems to me that it is just a pointless waste of money that does nothing but serve to ruin good fights and shorten fighter's careers and earning potential.

Sage Northcutt is a pretty decent example of what can potentially happen in a less tested org. Cosmo Alexander destroyed his face. there was obviously also a skill gap there, but Sage was usually the bigger guy in the UFC.

UFC is marketting itself as the premier top level of mma. It needs to have high levels of testing and legitimacy to maintain it's high level tv deals.

There are plenty of untested orgs out there. Just go fight in them if you want to use.

 

[Arrrrgh]

Because athletes shouldn’t have to drastically alter their hormone levels and put shit that could have adverse effects into their bodies in order to be competitive in a sport. One should be striving to be the best based on natural ability.

Why?
Food drastically alters our hormones.
Mood swings do too. So do sleep patterns, training, etc, etc, etc.

You still have to put in the work to be a good fighter. The PEDS allow you to be better because they let you train longer and harder. You aren't magically better because you stuck a needle in your leg,

So why should "natural ability" be the standard and why draw the line at peds? I agree, having a robot arm built out of titanium would be an unfair and unnatural advantage, but increasing your own strength/speed/awareness by taking supplements that allow you to focus and train harder is maximizing your "natural ability."

 

[SecondToNone]

How do they provide an unfair advantage if everyone has the option to use them? That's like saying training harder than your opponent causes an unfair advantage.

Yes I know your post was steeped in sarcasm but I think it is important to be direct in this conversation.

I'm serious that I think banning peds from the sport is dumb and we probably have the data now to quash every counter argument because we have 5 years with testing data to show any benefits. I haven't done a study but I have a hunch we'll see no difference at all.

Not all roids are created equal, not every fighter wants to take stuff that'll make your heart explode, not every fighter has access to good roids.

 

[fzoid4454]

I was under the impression the argument against ped use is that there is a greater risk of injury in the cage.

It's been 5 years.

Can we get a study showing how many fewer injuries there are now that we have USADA?

And if it hasn't reduced the number or severity of injuries by any objective measure then unless there is another valid argument for it I am missing can we get rid of it? It seems to me that it is just a pointless waste of money that does nothing but serve to ruin good fights and shorten fighter's careers and earning potential.

I believe the main argument against it is that it is cheating, actually.

 

[Dreyga Hates You Sherbums]

I was under the impression the argument against ped use is that there is a greater risk of injury in the cage.

It's been 5 years.

Can we get a study showing how many fewer injuries there are now that we have USADA?

And if it hasn't reduced the number or severity of injuries by any objective measure then unless there is another valid argument for it I am missing can we get rid of it? It seems to me that it is just a pointless waste of money that does nothing but serve to ruin good fights and shorten fighter's careers and earning potential.

Here’s my take:

The real reason for USADA is for PR

General public opinion condemns PEDs

Mass PEDs can greatly damage the public perception and the value of the company if public at large views that the sport has PED issue.

In order to make the company more valuable they had to address that.

I’m willing to bet the UFC would not have been able to sell their broadcasting rights to ESPN without addressing PEDs in the sport.

 

[YungSithLxrd]

How do they provide an unfair advantage if everyone has the option to use them? That's like saying training harder than your opponent causes an unfair advantage.

Yes I know your post was steeped in sarcasm but I think it is important to be direct in this conversation.

I'm serious that I think banning peds from the sport is dumb and we probably have the data now to quash every counter argument because we have 5 years with testing data to show any benefits. I haven't done a study but I have a hunch we'll see no difference at all.

But not everyone's bodies can safely process the usage. You shouldn't have to risk having a stroke or heart attack bc ur body cant handle the hormones just to avoid being ragdolled. Meanwhile the guy who doesn't have any effects can juice into the hulk

 

[Hellowhosthat]

How do they provide an unfair advantage if everyone has the option to use them? That's like saying training harder than your opponent causes an unfair advantage.

Yes I know your post was steeped in sarcasm but I think it is important to be direct in this conversation.

I'm serious that I think banning peds from the sport is dumb and we probably have the data now to quash every counter argument because we have 5 years with testing data to show any benefits. I haven't done a study but I have a hunch we'll see no difference at all.

You shouldn't have to shorten your lifespan to be competitive.

 

[Arrrrgh]

PEDs and steroids definitely make you a different fighter.

Faster, stronger, tougher, more explosive,more aggressive, more alert and focused and recovery from training, better cardio, more power etc

When you allow PEDs, it can cause an extreme unfair advantage to a fighter who’s not on them plus more danger of hurting someone bad.

Yes, those are the claims that are made to ban peds.

I'm saying we now have the data to find out if they are real or bullshit.
If more injuries or more severe injuries happen and it is so unfair then we should see that in the fight results.
Again I haven't done a study but on the surface I see no difference today from 10 years ago in terms of that. And further I see no major difference in fairness/injuries from the UFC to the other orgs that don't use USADA.

You can claim this or that all day but does the data back up those claims?
We've known the earth is round for over 2000 years but some people still say it's flat. The data disagrees with them.

 

[BFoe]

Why?
Food drastically alters our hormones.
Mood swings do too. So do sleep patterns, training, etc, etc, etc.

You still have to put in the work to be a good fighter. The PEDS allow you to be better because they let you train longer and harder. You aren't magically better because you stuck a needle in your leg,

So why should "natural ability" be the standard and why draw the line at peds? I agree, having a robot arm built out of titanium would be an unfair and unnatural advantage, but increasing your own strength/speed/awareness by taking supplements that allow you to focus and train harder is maximizing your "natural ability."

No, PEDs allow one to exceed what is natural. The test levels one has with various PEDs are not natural. The muscle and strength one can build are not natural. The stamina and endurance one can build, in addition to recovery time, exceeds what is natural. I don’t disagree that one also has to have talent and work hard. But all of the things that I listed can be brought into unnatural territory with PEDs.

 

[IsNormal]

I was under the impression the argument against ped use is that there is a greater risk of injury in the cage.

When was this said Might've been mentioned as an additional argument. But perhaps not the primary one?

I'm sure fairness is the primary argument.

Sure - that begs the question: "What is fair? Someone might consume allowed supplements that are risky but provide a benefit? So why is doping not allowed? Isn't that just another supplement that people should be allowed to take at their own risk" and I don't have an answer to that but I'm sure someone else will.

 

[FKAri]

Here's one no one seems to bring up: Because it costs a lot to be on a really good stack and most fighters can't even afford rent. This is how it creates not just an unfair advantage but a strong barrier to entry.

 

[eddymotto]

The actual argument against PEDs is that they are bad for business

A significant percentage of sports fans are turned off by PED use. Until that changes, sport businesses position themselves as being anti-PED

Just follow corporate interests.

Tiger Woods is exposed as an asshole with substance absuse problems. No big problem. We can PR that.

Lance Armstrong is exposed as an asshole who cheated to win. Big problem. Every major sponsor gone overnight.

 

[MikeyB]

I'm pretty sure the GNC store of pills most guys take nullifies these arguments.

The real answer is probably the Lyle Alzado interview with Roy Firestone. The negative press has buried roids in the us.