Matthew Paras · @Matthew_Paras
18th Jul 2013 from TwitLonger
This is my first time ever using TwitLonger and I wanted to use it in regards to share my thoughts with @Gabriel_Montoya's previous non disclosure of him consulting to a promotional company (Interbox). There are both problems in not only Gabe's involvement with this, but also with the way it went down.
First off, let me say that while I've never met Gabe personally, I've interacted with him numerous times in the past as a Maxboxing colleague. He can come off as arrogant to others (which he would fully acknowledge, I'm sure) but what he does is because he's a passionate individual who doesn't care about making friends or enemies. It's in this though that he can come off as hypocritical and where serious problems arise.
The biggest problem with Gabe's secret agreement isn't the fact he actually was a consultant to Interbox. Is that a huge violation of journalism ethics? Debatable, and I would say yes. However, Gabe said he would do it if it were to help the sport. Fair enough. If Gabe wants to take that route, he is free to do so. He's passionate about it and I believe he has good intentions.
His problem comes with something he's stressed all along throughout this whole drug testing process - transparency.
"The thinking was if people knew where the labs are and what the protocols are, they figure out how to beat the tests," said Montoya. "And I can't disagree with them as the rest of the anti-doping community in any sport believes the same thing. That keeping the dopers in the dark is part of the process. VADA is one of the only ones that has tried to be transparent about what tests they do, but they also do the strictest tests, so they can afford to be."
If the rest of the doping community agrees with keeping the process in the dark, then why has Gabe in the past stressed the importance that USADA and Golden Boy Promotions in disclosing the nature of their contracts and testing procedures?
"It’s easier to do testing under a shroud of secrecy and ignore media questions about alleged impropriety than it is to have a transparent drug testing program that may end up cancelling fights due to its discoveries," Montoya writes (http://www.maxboxing.com/news/max-boxing-news/boxings-ped-problem-where-do-we-go-from-here-)
"It’s easy to say 'We have to trust the commission' and lay out a plan to seamlessly pay for testing for each fight while ensuring state commissions have to act on pre-fight positive tests than actually doing it."
The testing around Bute-Pascal and Dawson-Stevenson is the exact type of secrecy that Montoya has previously criticized in the past. He acknowledges that VADA is the only one transparent enough to do so, but is that good enough? Why should we give Interbox and GYM a break for secrecy? Because they have testing protocols designed by a writer who has spent his time dedicated to the sport and this cause?
If the testing protocols are on par with WADA code and to the gold standard of anti-doping (in which Montoya calls his protocols "awesome" multiple times) than why the secrecy? Where is the transparency for all of this? Why the need to a non-disclosure agreement?
In fact, up until the point where he was a consultant for Interbox, Gabe was asking those questions. He wasn't paid apparently and Gabe says he didn't want to jeopardize an agreement he knows is sound, but why the secrecy in all of this? The shoe is on the other foot, so to speak.
I found it very weird the other week that Montoya was so critical of Kevin Iole's article of the Nevada State Commission possibly expanding its protocol for Bradley-Marquez when he wrote about the great testing that Interbox did for Stevenson-Dawson.
There are still a ton of questions regarding the NSAC's expanded role in Bradley-Marquez, but would Montoya be so quick to judge them if Top Rank asked Montoya to be a consultant and help draw up the protocol?
Essentially the protocol of the NSAC and Interbox to the public is the same. Why? Because it's all secret right now. We need transparency and Montoya's involvement with Interbox is/was anything but that.
Another thing, at times it appears that these cases are also motivated by grudges. I'm sure he would disagree with this, but Montoya's constant twitter bashing of the NSAC, Heredia, and USADA are very excessive. He's trying to be persuasive and he's passionate about these issues, but is he quicker to judge the NSAC because Keith Kizer ratted him out to Richard Schaefer?
Each the NSAC (terrible protocols), Heredia (dodging answers), and USADA (whole mess of issues) have their problems when it comes to the anti-doping cause. It's Montoya's aggressive style and seemingly know-it-all attitude that causes me to wonder at times if this is just as much about grudges as it is helping the sport.
I don't have all the answers to these questions and I'm hoping that I can talk to Gabe as a peer in the upcoming days. I do know, however, that there are some fundamental problems with his enrollment in this process.
Thanks for reading.