During Ryan Garcia’s fight against Devin Haney last month, he engaged in several bizarre and shocking actions. However, one of the least surprising incidents amidst all this was his meet-up with former American President Donald Trump during his victory lap after the fight.
Before news broke that Garcia had tested positive for ostarine in a pre-fight drug test, this union of minds seemed to naturally occur, intended to emphasize Garcia’s growing fame as the new face of boxing. Unbeknownst to us, however, there were even more surprising turns in the Ryan Garcia saga.
Looking back now, after a few weeks, we see the Trump meeting as more than just a gathering of self-centered individuals. It also reveals a lot about what these two men stand for. Both Trump and Garcia are avid users of Twitter, using it as a tool to shape stories in their favor. They hope that their version of events will overshadow any inconvenient facts, truth, or evidence that may contradict them. Trump took this manipulation of truth to a grand scale, embracing a post-truth world on the world stage. On the other hand, Garcia, a similar character, attempts to control narratives on a smaller level. Though less prominent, it is still concerning and captivating to observe.
It all began with the classic conspiracy strategy. Garcia, a sheltered and easily influenced 25-year-old, gathered a group of like-minded individuals who shared a strong distrust of authority, a desire to rebel against it, and a habit of questioning everything. Through his association with this diverse group, Garcia successfully built a devoted online following of followers who would support him unconditionally, stand up against any attempts by the establishment to interfere with him, or undermine his accomplishments.
When this then inevitably happened following the Haney fight, Garcia, as planned, had his army ready to defend his right to a fair trial. More than just that, Garcia, due to how open he had been on social media, and how open he continues to be on social media, was already primed to fight his own corner, shout louder than anyone else, and proclaim his innocence in his inimitable and somewhat jarring style.
He also received assistance from individuals who were eager to share updates about his failed tests on social media, which allowed them to engage with Garcia’s supporters and occasionally Garcia himself. However, this constant reporting does not benefit anyone, especially when there is a process involved. Speculating about additional banned substances found in Garcia’s tests, such as traces of 19-norandrosterone, did not serve any purpose either, as further testing was required to confirm this. Ultimately, on May 8, it was reported that there was no presence of 19-norandrosterone, causing the story to be rewritten as a “victory” for Garcia. Garcia gladly embraced this development and portrayed it as The Story. Like any boxer in trouble, Garcia was quick to seize upon an error or technicality and inform all his followers that he had been “cleared” of any wrongdoing.
The individual in question is Ryan Garcia, as pictured in the photo by Roy Rochlin/Getty Images for Empire State Realty Trust.
Admittedly, that statement wasn’t entirely accurate. While it is true that he had supposedly been cleared of using the drug 19-norandrosterone, it does not explain the significant amount of ostarine found in Garcia’s system (which exceeded the New York State Athletic Commission’s permissible limit by 60 times). Additionally, this does nothing to dispel the considerable doubt that continues to surround him.
Ideally, we would have preferred a better handling of the situation by both testers and the media. It would have been more desirable to avoid the constant and detailed account of events through social media. However, in 2024, we find ourselves in a time where everything is subject to interpretation, and individuals are always seeking to manipulate the narrative to support their own views. This trend has become particularly prevalent in the context of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in boxing. Recent examples include Conor Benn and Alycia Baumgardner, who both resorted to social media to assert their innocence without substantial evidence. It appeared that they were afraid of remaining silent or believed that silence would be perceived as guilt. Instead, both Benn and Baumgardner became extremely active on social media, mistakenly thinking that proclaiming their innocence would suffice, instead of allowing official processes to run their course.
For certain individuals, this was deemed satisfactory. Whether one held admiration for the boxer or required their participation in a fight, a mere assertion of innocence, accompanied by a badly composed statement and a generic motivational phrase, was enough to avert further scrutiny. However, by granting boxers such authority, it raises concerns about the future implications for performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in the sport.
In my opinion, the responsibility lies with the concept of the B sample itself. It is not just Ryan Garcia’s B sample (which has merely confirmed what we already knew), nor Conor Benn’s B sample, nor any specific boxer’s B sample. I am referring to the B sample as a whole, as it serves as an entryway for sensationalism and prolongation of these issues by journalists and individuals who benefit from boxing being in the headlines.
The B sample, in the end, is simply a MacGuffin – it may seem significant, but in reality, it holds little importance. It serves as a mere distraction, diverting attention and causing inconvenience. It provides an opportunity for boxers who have been caught to stall for time, gather support, manipulate the truth, and falsely claim innocence. This undermines the concept of strict liability and turns it into a mockery. Furthermore, the public spectacle surrounding the B sample has created a scenario where boxers are considered “innocent” unless it can be unequivocally proven that they knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs. It would be unprecedented for them to actually admit guilt and take responsibility for their actions.
It is impossible for something to be beneficial when it adds to the existing chaos, uncertainty, and risks of an already unruly and hazardous sport.
