Is there a difference between using plaster and performance inhancing drugs?

In combat sports is there a difference? Should the punishment be the same? Do we view them as the same? It seems to me that steriods could be just as dangerous as plaster.

What do you guys think?

no. PEDs are more of a way to just make yourself better. its not going to make you hit that much harder. they will just make you a little better all around. plaster can actually break bones and hurt or even ruin a career.

Plaster is a weapon. Someone using PED's still has to make weight restrictions (outside of heavys), so there are limits as to what one can accomplish and what damage can be done.

PED's in sports like boxing are simply used for upping recovery time, not gaining massive amounts of strength and size.

Plaster fists can literally murder someone.

Both are cheating. But using plaster to me is much more heinous.

We saw what happens when plaster is used in the Resto-Collins fight. Also in that fight padding was removed from Resto's gloves.

Now look at the Vargas-De La Hoya fight. Vargas was juicing and Oscar really wasnt punished severely. Also in other fights where boxers have tested positive for steroids (Holyfield, Toney, Jones Jr., etc.) they really didnt have much effect as far as their opponents getting hospitalized, severely damaged, or anything to that effect.

Nope. No difference in terms of impact or intent in my view. Both show a fighter is willing to unreasonably risk the life of the other guy. Both should lead to permanent banishment.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Nope. No difference in terms of impact or intent in my view. Both show a fighter is willing to unreasonably risk the life of the other guy. Both should lead to permanent banishment.

Agreed.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Nope. No difference in terms of impact or intent in my view. Both show a fighter is willing to unreasonably risk the life of the other guy. Both should lead to permanent banishment.

See thats the way I view it. Because of the nature of this sport both are very very dangerous and should come with severe punishments.

Ask a professional fighter which they would rather face in the ring....someone that had used PED's or someone with concrete in their gloves.

KrazyHorseBennett wrote:

Ask a professional fighter which they would rather face in the ring....someone that had used PED's or someone with concrete in their gloves.

Bet they would say neither if they had the choice.

Is there a difference between using plaster and performance enhancing drugs?

Yes...definitely. No matter how many PED's I stuffed in my gloves, it just didn't seem to have an effect on the other guy.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Nope. No difference in terms of impact or intent in my view. Both show a fighter is willing to unreasonably risk the life of the other guy. Both should lead to permanent banishment.

+1

flapanther2001 wrote:

Is there a difference between using plaster and performance enhancing drugs?

Yes...definitely. No matter how many PED's I stuffed in my gloves, it just didn't seem to have an effect on the other guy.

THAT was funny!

KrazyHorseBennett wrote:

Ask a professional fighter which they would rather face in the ring....someone that had used PED's or someone with concrete in their gloves.

But isn't that like asking someone whether they'd prefer to be killed by a gun or a knife? Either way they are still dead aren't they.

They are both bad, but I think the plaster is worse. It's just a much more concentrated way of doing damage. Peds will usually help your whole body get stronger somehow, but the plaster only goes right to the hands. It's specifically designed to do damage.

But there shouldn't be a distinction in how they are dealt with because both are illegal.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

KrazyHorseBennett wrote:

Ask a professional fighter which they would rather face in the ring....someone that had used PED's or someone with concrete in their gloves.

But isn't that like asking someone whether they'd prefer to be killed by a gun or a knife? Either way they are still dead aren't they.

Oscar not only survived the Vargas fight, but won it, did he not? You think the outcome would have been the same had Vargas had plaster in his gloves? Especially the way the fight started out?

Cheating is wrong. I see no difference in the two actions (in terms of boxing). You cheat, you should get banned. You can't kind of cheat.


The only difference I see is plaster can have legal consequences outside of the ring.

captainanddew wrote:

Cheating is wrong. I see no difference in the two actions (in terms of boxing). You cheat, you should get banned. You can't kind of cheat.


The only difference I see is plaster can have legal consequences outside of the ring.

Purchasing PED's is also illegal so it should have legal consequences outside the ring also.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Nope. No difference in terms of impact or intent in my view. Both show a fighter is willing to unreasonably risk the life of the other guy. Both should lead to permanent banishment.

I disagree. PEDs have other uses, like speeding recovery from injuries, which aren't therefore used with the intention of injuring the other man. Plaster there is no excuse for. Obviously both are unfair and should be punished, but there could be cases where the difference in intent is meaningful.

It looks like the consensus is:

Both are equally bad in terms of cheating.

Plaster is worse in terms of being able to harm another fighter (most guys would rather fight someone with PEDS than plaster).

Gumby wrote:

It looks like the consensus is:

Both are equally bad in terms of cheating.

Plaster is worse in terms of being able to harm another fighter (most guys would rather fight someone with PEDS than plaster).

Kinda agree

No because they are both methods to cheat against your competitor, but yes because they are very different methods. Different paths to the same destination.

sn, anyone remember an episode of CSI or NCIS about the boxer putting slat or mercury in his gloves, I forget what it was actually in his gloves.