Matt Maher: Boxing is too savage to be so shambolic on the subject of doping

By the end of the eighth round, it felt like the fight had been going on for eight years. In nearly two decades covering boxing, rarely has this reporter felt so uncomfortable sitting at ringside. 

Frankly, you just wanted it to stop. You couldn’t understand why those in Yafai’s corner didn’t pull him out when any chance of a victory was long lost. You wondered what the long-term effects of this beating - there really is no other word which feels appropriate - might be, both for Yafai’s future career and most importantly of all, his health.

At the same time, you marvelled at Rodriguez’s relentlessness as he ripped the WBC interim title away from the home fighter’s grasp. Statistics later showed the 32-year-old had thrown more than 1,000 “power” punches, twice as many as his opponent, landing more than half. In the 12th round, he looked just as sharp as he had in the first. 

How on earth had he managed it, you asked? It took only a few more weeks to learn.

On July 9, it was announced Rodriguez had returned an adverse finding for the heart drug heptaminol, a banned substance, in a post-fight test conducted by the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association (Vada).

Barely a fortnight later, on July 26, the WBC published its ruling, claiming that after an investigation which included a series of behind-closed doors meetings with Rodriguez and his team, it had determined the fighter’s ingestion of the substance was “non-intentional” and caused by taking an over-the-counter energy booster.

Rodriguez was stripped of his win, with the fight being declared a no contest and the interim title returning to Yafai.

But there was no immediate ban for the Mexican, who was instead placed under “probation status” for 12 months, under the threat of suspension should he return any more adverse findings in that period. A rematch with Yafai was also ordered.

Those under the impression sport had a strict liability rule when it came to doping, with all athletes ultimately responsible for what they eat and drink, might consider the punishment rather lenient. Even more so when you consider the WBC report revealed the energy booster in question listed two banned substances on the label. Such carelessness on the part of Rodriguez and his handlers should really be no defence.

That was before the twist which came this week, when it emerged Rodriguez had also failed a drug test after his previous bout last December, an eight-round points win over Josue Jesus Morales in Texas.

He had subsequently been suspended by the Texas Boxing Commission for 90 days and fined 500 dollars, with the fight declared a no contest.

Yet because of boxing’s archaic structure, which meant there was no requirement for other commissions to be informed of the transgression and punishment, this rather important information was missed by everyone when Rodriguez was selected as Yafai’s opponent.

The latter’s promoter, Eddie Hearn, revealed he had recently stumbled upon Rodriguez’s previous missed test when scrolling through the boxing database, Boxrec.

“He’s failed back-to-back drug tests on the night and he’s gone 12 rounds with Galal Yafai in a fight that physically damaged Galal Yafai,” said Hearn. “In two weeks, to just rule that it was accidental, he can just come back and have a rematch, is so bizarre.”

That feels an appropriate description, yet you might also question how no-one in Hearn’s multi-million pound Matchroom operation managed to spot or query the reason for Rodriguez’s December bout being declared a no contest before allowing him in the ring with Yafai?   

From whichever point you view it, whether it be promoter, the WBC or the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC) who oversaw the bout, the story smacks of a shambles all round.

Hearn will now push for Yafai to be installed as mandatory challenger for the outright world title. Rodriguez, meanwhile, is under investigation by both UK Anti-Doping (Ukad) and the BBBofC. The former have the power to ban him from competing in the UK.

In the bigger picture, meanwhile, this story might serve as the biggest example yet as to why boxing, on a global scale, needs to get its house in order. When the sport is essentially controlled (or not) by a myriad of different parties, such stunning breakdowns in communication should really be of no surprise. 

The punishments too seem remarkably weak, considering the inherent danger of the sport. A long-time colleague on the boxing circuit has always maintained boxers who knowingly take banned substances should be given jail sentences. In a sport where fighters have been seriously injured and even died in the ring, it does not feel an extreme view.

You might also try and fit this tale into the current sporting landscape, where in the fight against doping the phrases “strict liability” and “zero tolerance” increasingly feel consigned to the past.

We are, after all, not even a month on from the Wimbledon men’s and women’s singles titles being won by players both embroiled in doping cases over the previous year.

The tennis authorities accepted both Iga Swiatek and Jannik Sinner’s explanations that positive tests were caused by contaminated medication. Yet the cases did serve to highlight an apparent two-tier system when it comes to doping, with one rule for the star players and another for those further from the spotlight. 

Sinner’s “agreed” three-month ban, which fell between the first and second Grand Slams of the year, also reeked of being much too convenient.

But that is tennis, a non-contact sport which when it comes to the fight against doping can maybe afford shades of grey. Boxing, that most savage of pursuits, certainly cannot.