Overeem, TRT, and Drug Testing

If you don't follow MMA you might want to skip this post.

I'm writing this just as news of Alistair Overeem's failed Testosterone: Epitestosterone test are coming to light.  As of right now his B sample hasn't been tested, nothing's been confirmed - as far as I know this is a huge mistake (not that I think it is).

Having said that, I've already read a few comments (some posted by professional reporters) that indicate that the authors don't understand this test or what it means.  I thought I'd explain.

We're all probably familiar with testosterone, a sex hormone produced in naturally higher levels in males than in females.  Testosterone positively influences muscle hypertophy (how big your muscles can be), recovery (how fast you can recover from a tough workout), mood, health, and a bunch of other things.  People's levels vary naturally - men almost always have higher levels than women, levels tend to peak in early twenties or so then decline gradually, and levels can be affected by your genes, stress levels, sleep, nutrition, various legal herbs, and even looking at naked women (seriously).  How much those things can influence T levels is relative - if you're at a 400, watching a bunch of porn and getting a good night's sleep might get you  up to 500, but it won't get you to 1200.

Incidentally, one way to permanently decrease your T levels is repeated head trauma.  Think about that in terms of fightsports for a moment.  And one of the most serious consequences (in my opinion) of depressed T is increased risk for depression (along with heart disease)... think about that the next time a former fighter commits suicide.

So we can all imagine that if you're going to compete in almost any sport that involves strength and/or power, higher T levels, at least up to a point, are going to be beneficial.  They'll allow you to train harder, recover faster, hold more muscle in the face of high stress, and generally be, all else being equal, a better athlete.  How do you get higher levels of T?  Sleep, nutrition, porn - they'll all help a little bit, but the most effective way is to add testosterone to your system - inject it, use a cream, whatever.

Of course, that's against the rules.  Mostly.  There's an exception - Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT).

You see, if a normal joe (like me) has low T levels - that is, significantly lower than those of an average male of our age (roughly mid-600's are average) - we can go to our doctor and get a nice legal prescription for injectable T or a T cream.  Boom, levels go back up, but, depending on how much we take, our levels may not be very high - they may still be on the low side - just higher than they were.  If your T level is 200 and you use a cream or injections to get up to 500 your T level is still lower than the average guy on the street.

Now to compete in MMA there are all kinds of hoops you have to jump through - just because something is legal doesn't mean it's okay with the athletic commission (see Nick Diaz, marijuana).  They'll accept a fighter on TRT if they go to certain doctors, file specific forms, tell them ahead of time, etc. - like I said, there are hoops to jump through, but the use of TRT isn't banned outright.  In theory, they would test you to make sure you weren't on a high enough dose of TRT to give you a competitive advantage.  Basically, if I can show them that I'm using TRT to bring my 200 up to an 800 (still well within the range of "normal"), I'd be okay, but if I bring my 200 up to a 2000 I wouldn't be allowed into the cage.

There ARE tests that check your overall T levels - blood tests, not urine as far as I know - but that's not what Overeem failed.

You see, along with T, your body makes another hormone called Epitestosterone (E) that isn't very interesting - it doesn't do too much that we're aware of, and doesn't seem to help with athletic performance.  About the only reason we do care about E is that humans tend to make about as much of it as they do of T - in other words, for pretty much everybody, whatever your T levels are, your E levels will be almost exactly the same.  Have a lot of T (say, you're a teenager watching porn)?  You'll have a lot of E.  Have a low T?  Low E.  The ratio stays at around 1:1.  But what if you inject a bunch of extra T?  Well, the ratio gets out of whack, because it's the stuff your body makes that comes out in a 1:1 ratio - when you inject extra T there's no feedback loop that has your body ramp up its production of E.

Overeem's reported T:E ratio was 14:1.  If that's true it ONLY means that he had a lot of artificial T swimming around in his system.  As far as I know he doesn't have a TRT exemption - that information may be available - but we don't actually know if his T levels were really high OR if his natural T level was ridiculously low an he used supplemental T to get his overall levels to a high-normal range.  I'm not saying that is the case - I'm just saying that we don't know if his T levels were very high, offering him some competitive advantage - only that he was injecting (or smearing through cream) extra T.

Now if Overeem hadn't applied for a TRT exemption and was still applying/ injecting extra T then it doesn't matter if his overall levels were higher than normal or not - he broke the rules, he'll be punished for it.

Please note that I'm not arguing in favor of the current regulations (or against them), I only think we should be clear on what the various test results actually mean.  I'm a little sympathetic to the view that the athletes should be allowed to drug up however much they want to - we're not seriously worried about their health, are we?   If we cared about the long term health of athletes they'd all be in headgear, if combat sports were even legal.  Forget football.  Or marathon running.  High level sports is not good for people!

One last note - if you're an amateur athlete buying illegal drugs to improve your performance then you're an idiot.  Overeem makes hundreds of thousands of dollars to risk his health - if you're an accountant who trains in martial arts for fun, to risk your health at 60 for your hobby is just dumb.  When you buy steroids from some guy at your gym you don't know what's in them, the purity level, etc.  Now if you have low (or low-ish) T levels and you want to get TRT from your doctor, that's another story (the pharmacy will sell you real T, no rat poison in it).  I don't claim to be an expert on Hormone Replacement Therapy, but I suspect that artificically replacing your T levels back to where they were when you were in your mid-20's will have only positive side effects for most people (but I'm NOT positive about this).  

So, stay away from illegal drugs, but consider legal ones.  Osu!

Combat Sports: How to fix MMA

Check out Modern Paleo for this week's Paleo Rodeo.  I remembered to submit a post this time!  Now on to business...

Ever watch a UFC match that turns into two guys holding each other against the cage for long periods of time or holding each other on the floor, doing not much of anything?  If not, then I bet you've never watched the UFC.  I'm a fan of MMA, but the fact is that a good percentage of MMA fights are boring to watch.  We can fix this.

There are two layers to the problem with MMA's ground game and clinch game.  The first is that good ground fighting can be hard to understand.  Someone without a background in ground sports might see good ground fighting but just not get what's going on.  Imagine someone watching the NFL for the first time - all they see is a bunch of guys running around, they won't appreciate what went into a great play because they don't get what's going on.  It's like when I watch soccer - instant tears of boredom.  The cure for that is knowledge - learning about what goes on in a good ground match.  It helps to watch great ground fighters with good commentary.  You can't see a lot of Dustin Hazelett or Demian Maia without gaining love for what they do.  See, I'm not against the ground game - I'm against bad ground game.

The bigger problem in MMA is boring groundfighting and boring clinchwork.  Many UFC fights turn into bad wrestling matches.  Basically, good wrestlers can win fights by grabbing their opponents and holding them - "controlling them" - for large portions of the match.  Grab a guy, drag him to the ground, and lay on top for three rounds.  This strategy is often called "lay and pray."  See Jon Fitch, George St. Pierre (the current version, not the pre-Serra knockout version), Efraim Escudero, and a ton of other guys.

Why do fighters do this?  Well, it's effective - it wins fights.  It's hard to get out from under a good wrestler.  If you have control and you really try to damage your opponent or go for a submission, you open yourself up to being swept or counterstruck or submitted (see Chael Sonnen v. Anderson Silva).  If you just hold on and move just enough that the ref doesn't stand you up you can sweep the scorecards and notch a victory.

See, the scoring is the problem.  It is popular to blame the judges for this.  Sometimes that's justified - we've all seen some horrible decisions rendered, often because the judges are boxing people and not MMA people and don't understand what they're watching.  But the judges give St. Pierre wins for lying on his opponents because that's what the rules say to do, not because they're bad judges.

The rules say that a fighter should win the round for landing strikes, attempting submissions, or controlling the opponent (I'm paraphrasing).  In other words, if you can lie on top of someone for 15 minutes you're supposed to win - that's what the rules say.  And it is easier to do than to stand and trade with someone or try to finish them, especially if you're an experienced wrestler and your opponent isn't.

How can we solve this problem?  Defenders of wrestling in MMA say that guys should learn to get out from under a wrestler, not complain about it.  I say that the rules should be changed in as organic a way as possible to prevent lay and pray.

This has been tried before - having the ref stand fighters after short periods of inactivity on the ground is a common approach.  I don't like that.  Any time the ref interferes in a fight it's artificial - it stops the flow of the fight, and therefore of the entertainment.  Referee involvement needs to be minimized to protecting the safety of the fighters, not splitting the ref's attention between protecting safety and protecting entertainment value.

Instead, the scoring criteria should be changed.  Follow my logic here:  What's the most natural way to win a fight?  To finish the opponent.  Clearly, knockouts and submissions should win fights.  What if the fight goes the distance?  Then it should come down to who came closest to finishing the fight or had the best chance to finish.  Only those two things.  How do you finish?  Strikes or submissions.  So you should be rewarded for landing hard strikes or attempting submissions - ONLY.  Which should count more?  That's a harder question, and it really will come down to the judges'... judgment.

How would this work?  Well, think about takedowns.  A slam - where a guy is picked up and really driven into the mat - would score points because it damages the opponent - effectively it's a kind of strike.  A soft takedown, though, where someone is tripped to the mat but isn't hurt in the process - wouldn't score any points.  Laying on top of someone and controlling them wouldn't score.  Putting some ground and pound on someone or going for submissions from the top would score.  Improving position - getting into mount or side control from the guard - wouldn't score on its own at all.  Fighters would only get points (in the judges' eyes) by doing damage or beginning submissions.

In this situation, laying on top of someone for a long time wouldn't get you the victory.  If fighters couldn't lay and pray and expect to win, you can bet fighters would stop doing it.  They'd start making riskier moves from the top, dishing out strikes and going for kimuras and armbars, giving the guy on bottom a chance to escape and providing entertainment for the fans.  This will make for better fights.

Does this put wrestlers out of business?  Absolutely not.  Top position is an advantage - it's easier to finish someone from the top, but you have to try to do so.  Good wrestlers who could take their opponents down could get on top and ground and pound or submit people - I'm okay with that, it would be fun to watch.  This change would only end lay and pray, not the ground game in its entirety.

Summary:  MMA would be better if decisions weren't based on control but only on damage done and submission attempts.  Controlling your opponent and maintaining a position should not in themselves contribute to victory.

Postscript:  If you don't like watching guys hug each other in the middle of a fight, you could always switch from the UFC to K-1.  There's never, or at least very rarely, a dull moment in K-1.   (By the way, I'm opposed to men hugging during a spectator fighting event, I'm not a homophobe - if two guys want to hug each other for romantic reasons I couldn't care less.  I just don't want them to interrupt a slugfest to do it, and I'm not particularly interested in watching.)