Logo, Upcoming Boxing Fight in UK, Heavyweight Title Fights In UK

LATEST NEWS

BREAKING NEWS JOSHUA AND POVETKIN -JOSHUA AND POVETKIN COLLIDE ON SEPTEMBER 22

CUMMINGS & MAXWELL ADDED TO HISTORIC WINDSOR PARK BILL - Conrad Cummings and Sam Maxwell will both be in action on the Windsor Park extravaganza headlined by Carl Frampton, Tyson Fury and Paddy Barnes.

WILLIAMS – TOO CLOSE TO CALL

Abel Sanchez: Usyk on his back before nine

TERRY FLANAGAN CONFIRMED FOR WORLD SERIES

EGGINGTON STEPS IN TO FACE COOK AT THE O2

Usyk and Gassiev face-off in Moscow

We have a winner - Usyk becomes inaugural Ali Trophy Champion!

Ali Trophy quarter-finals set at Draft Gala in Moscow

Christopher 'Pitufo' Díaz Hopes Puerto Rico Will Have a New World Champion on July 28

CUMMINGS: I’D BEAT KEELER IN A REMATCH

"BREAKING NEWS " DAVE ALLEN BACK IN THE RING ON JULY 28TH AS HE MEETS NICK WEBB

"BREAKING NEWS" JACKSON ACCUSES FRAMPTON OF BEING OVERWEIGHT

Benn goes for first professional title at the O2

Groves vs Smith - Date and Venue Announced for WBSS Final

"BREAKING NEWS" SHAUN PORTER Vs DANNY GARCIA ON SEPT 8TH IN NEW YORK

Anthony Joshua signs three-year contract extension with Matchroom Boxing

FIGHT PREVIEW: Mikey Garcia vs Robert Easter Jr.

Matchroom Delivers Epic Night of Boxing!

WARREN DELIVERS JACK CATTERALL V OHARA DAVIES

Floyd "MONEY' Mayweather discusses potential Manny Pacquiao rematch

Ljungquist on Fury sparring "There is no doubt Fury is something special***

HUGHIE FURY ACCEPTS PULEV CLASH

***Full fight card confirmed for Struer’s biggest boxing event***

FRAMPTON READY FOR WARRINGTON SHOWDOWN

RITSON RETURNS TO METRO RADIO ARENA NEWCASTLE ON OCTOBER 13

FRAMPTON V JACKSON/ROSALES V BARNES FINAL PRESS CONFERENCE QUOTES

RETURN OF THE MACK Part 2

Confirmed: Ali Trophy to feature Cruiserweight in Season II

Carlos Cuadras, undisputed winner

***Thorslund: "It is going to be an actionpacked fight between two warriors"***

***Mansour replaces Cornish as Hrgovi? opponent for September 8***

VARGAS WARNS KHAN - "IF I TOUCH HIM ON THE CHIN, HE'S GOING DOWN"

***Undefeated Heavyweight Smakici headed to Arena Zagreb on September 8***

***Munoz warns Thorslund: “You’ve never met a Mexican warrior before!”***

Garcia Vs Porter 'PRIDE AT STAKE'

***Habazin defends IBO World title against Ankrah at Arena Zagreb***

ARCHIE SHARP CONFIDENT HE’LL BEAT ‘ONE DIMENSIONAL’ WOODSTOCK

***Thompson to perform live as Hrgovi? enters the ring at Arena Zagreb***

CATTERALL IS SAFE FROM OHARA ATTACK

FITZGERALD TARGETS DOMESTIC SHOWDOWN WITH FOWLER

Linares takes on Abner "Pin" Cotto

VERBAL WAR CONTINUES BETWEEN WOODSTOCK AND SHARP

KHAN VS. VARGAS PRESS CONFERENCE QUOTES

Phenomenal Ali Trophy Quarter-Finals in Glasgow, Scotland Nov. 3

WELBORN: THIS IS THE END OF TOMMY LANGFORD!

KHAN VS. VARGAS WEIGHTS AND RUNNING ORDER

"""BREAKING NEWS'''' CRUISERWEIGHT CHAMPION OLEKSANDR USYK SIGN MULTI-FIGHT DEAL WITH MATCHROOM BOXING

Pacquiao vs Top Rank

USYK AND BELLEW COLLIDE IN HISTORIC UNDISPUTED CRUISERWEIGHT CLASH

The passing of Enzo Calzaghe

Fury vs Wilder

DAVID PRICE PULLS OUT 4TH ROUND AT WEMBLEY

Kuzmin gets the victory over Price

Luke Campbell gets revenge

Anthony Joshua stops Alexander Povetkin in the seventh round at Wembley Stadium

LIVE POLL: Anthony Joshua asks fans to pick next opponent

HBO Is Leaving The Boxing Business

Billy Joe Saunders reportedly fails drugs test ahead of WBO title clash with Demetrius Andrade

Christian Kinsiona gets title shot

Saunders license denied

Former World Champs Postol & Butler confirmed as reserves for Nov 3rd in Glasgow

WATKINS: DON'T BLINK

"IT'S AN UNBELIEVABLE FEELING"- GARTON REFLECTS ON BRITISH TITLE WIN

Pulev vs. Fury live on free to air Channel 5 from 9pm GMT on Saturday, October 27th.

VALDEZ: GIVE ME WARRINGTON V FRAMPTON WINNER

***Hrgovi? continues World title hunt on December 8 in Zagreb***

Allen beats Bracamonte

Josh Kelly is a special talent

YARDE LANDS SPOT ON WILDER-FURY DECEMBER 1ST BLOCKBUSTER

WALSH PUTS BRITISH TITLE ON THE LINE AGAINST BELLOTTI AT THE 02

SUNNY LOOKING TO SHINE IN TOUGH MEXICAN CHALLENGE

DANIEL DUBOIS FACES RAZVAN COJANU IN BRENTWOOD LIVE ON BT SPORT

GALAHAD: I WANT YORKSHIRE DERBY WITH WARRINGTON

LEAPAI: GORMAN IS JUST A BIG BABY

'The Special One' ready for emotional Sheffield farewell

TOMMY FURY: “I COULDN’T BE PROUDER - SO MUCH OF MY MOTIVATION COMES FROM TYSON!”

10 of Tyson Fury’s Best Quotes on Mental Health

BREAKING: Wilder v Fury II sanctioned by WBC

Latest Boxing News In UK

Latest boxing news news

The Legal Meat in the Case of Canelo Alvarez

Ahead of Canelo's NSAC hearing on April 18th, we consider what standards should be applied to professional athletes who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs.

By

The Legal Meat in the Case of Canelo Álvarez

By Paul Frolish

As the world now knows, Saúl ‘Canelo’ Álvarez tested positive for the consumption - one way or another - of the banned substance, Clenbuterol.

Of course, Canelo and his team claim innocence - innocence of intent, that is, and this is the issue that we will now consider more closely. Canelo and his team fully accept the legitimacy of the test results, and therefore are not disputing the presence of the drug in his system. They are also not claiming that someone, unbeknownst to them, injected him with the drug - which would, if true (though obviously absurd, and untrue), absolve Canelo of all blame. Rather, they are claiming that Canelo 'accidentally' consumed meat contaminated with the performance enhancing drug.

A question, then, that needs to be asked, is: what standard ought to be applied to professional athletes with regard to performance-enhancing drugs, especially in combat sports, which by their very nature could result in the serious injury or death of one's opponent, with regard to holding them responsible for what they consume?

Should we say that they ought only to be subject to punishment if we can prove 'intent' beyond reasonable doubt? Which, of course, would mean we would need some kind of confession, or video evidence, or some other hard evidence of the 'intent element' of the fact pattern. Or, should there be an expectation that banned substances will not be found in their systems, and if they are found, that they be held responsible for that fact, based on what in a legal context would be called a 'duty of care' or a 'duty to know' regarding the substances they are consuming - given the potentially catastrophic effects that either malice or negligence could have.

Many analogous cases could be described in a legal context. In criminal law there is the concept of 'strict liability' offences, in which grossly negligent or reckless behaviour is criminal in and of itself, irrespective of the effects of that behaviour. Equally, there are many cases in a civil law context in which a 'legal presumption' - in the absence of a legally valid excuse - given certain facts, will hold one party responsible, and hold them to a higher standard than might otherwise be the case.

The practical effect of constructing offences in this way is to reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. So, given certain facts, the presumption of innocence is waived, and guilt is presumed unless the accused can prove otherwise - because it was the accused's responsibility to stop the offence from occurring, and it was reasonable to expect that it was within their power to stop it from occurring.

There are certain 'special relationships', such as doctor/patient, teacher/pupil, and the driver/pedestrian relationships, where the former party is held to a higher standard. For example, in the case of the doctor/patient relationship, there is a presumption of expert knowledge on the part of the doctor, such that the patient is being reasonable when they act on the doctor's advice, and if that advice turns out to be defective, the doctor will be held responsible for the outcome.

Perhaps a closer analogy to the present case would be that of a driver pulled over and found to have a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. In such a case the law is not concerned with whether the alcohol was consumed accidentally. The failed test is sufficient to establish guilt, because the driver had a duty of care with regard to other road users and pedestrians.

So, the question is: do boxers have a duty of care with regard to their opponents, and is it within their power to control what substances they consume? Or, put another way, should a boxer's failed drug test be a strict liability offence like drink driving?

Another legal concept that is pertinent here is that of 'reasonable foreseeability'. Given the widely known problem of contaminated meat in Mexico, and a history of Mexican athletes failing drug tests 'because of this' (as they claim), is it not, by now, reasonably foreseeable that consuming Mexican meat from unverified sources might lead to failed drug tests? And of course, it is reasonably foreseeable. In other legal contexts, when an outcome is held to be reasonably foreseeable, you will be held responsible for your actions if they result in negative, but foreseeable, outcomes.

Perhaps merely negligent consumption of banned substances could rightly be distinguished from cases where clear intent could be proven or presumed from the nature of the case - and perhaps this is one of those cases where intent can be presumed from the nature of the facts - but it is clearly arguable that even in the cases of negligent consumption, such negligence itself ought to be culpable and actionable, even if the punishment is significantly lighter.

It will also not go unnoticed that it is no coincidence that the drug Canelo has tested positive for does exactly what he would want if he was going to take one. It increases stamina, burns fat, enhances protein synthesis, and strengthens muscles. All of these effects would be those most desired by a fighter who struggles to make weight, gassed out in the first fight, and failed to land strong enough blows to slow Golovkin down.

Of course, everyone would still want to see this fight even if Canelo had tested clean for the remainder of his training, but no one can be foolish enough to think that the advantages gained will have completely disappeared come fight night. Would anyone think that a bodybuilder using steroids would not still be displaying some of the effects of those drugs two months after stopping using them?

Perhaps Canelo hasn't been 'using' any drugs and the effects of what has entered his system will amount to nothing, and perhaps his story is true. But it would be a tragedy for boxing if he has, and possibly even more so for Golovkin if he were to be seriously hurt in the rematch, should it still happen later this year or in 2019.