Floyd Mayweather used a banned intravenous injection the day before his $300million fight against Manny Pacquiao, it has emerged.
The undefeated champion, who beat Pacquiao convincingly in May, was found with evidence of the procedure by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) when they arrived for a random pre-fight test.
However USADA did not issue an exemption to the fighter until 19 days later, almost three weeks after the fight, according to a report by SB Nation.
And the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC), which was responsible for the fight, has confirmed that they were not notified about the incident until after the fight.
The organisation also blasted USADA for issuing an exemption without consulting them, stating that they, and only they, were authorised to do so.
IV injections are banned under international anti-doping laws, because they can be used to mask banned substances.
The substances being injected were a combination of saline and multi-vitamins which were to help Mayweather with concerns over dehydration.
Mayweather's team applied for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) 19 days later, which was granted by USADA.
Mayweather has never failed a drugs test in his career and has been a driving force behind anti-doping procedures in boxing.
But while NSAC executive director Bob Bennett defended the fighter, he also hit out at the anti-doping agency over the incident.
'Floyd has always been a proponent of drug testing, which I applaud,' Bennett told the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
'He's set a fine example for all to emulate. He's never tested positive in his entire career for any performance-enhancing drugs and, as a commission, we have no problem with Floyd Mayweather.'
'As far as USADA, I was extremely disappointed that I wasn't notified right away. When it comes to TUE, we are the sole agency that approves the administering of TUEs.
'USADA, nor any other anti-doping agency that does drug testing, doesn't have the authority to adminster a TUE.'
'The bottom line is USADA didn't keep us informed, which is totally unacceptable and unprofessional.'
No comments:
Post a Comment