Dillain the Villain
-
thepocketrocket
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3283
- Joined: 16 Jan 2003, 06:26
Dillain the Villain
http://news.boxrec.com/news/2013/dillia ... o-year-ban
What a way to blow a career.
At least we are getting tough on cheats
What a way to blow a career.
At least we are getting tough on cheats
-
Final round
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 4911
- Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 17:02
Re: Dillain the Villain
Jack3d again, that's what that girl who died marathon running took and Enzo Maccaranelli ? I think..
-
thepocketrocket
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3283
- Joined: 16 Jan 2003, 06:26
Re: Dillain the Villain
Did everyone know Jak was illegal, or has he been harshly treated?Final round wrote:Jack3d again, that's what that girl who died marathon running took and Enzo Maccaranelli ? I think..
-
Old bones Ian
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 11811
- Joined: 13 Jul 2004, 07:33
Re: Dillain the Villain
He may just of been silly enough to think buying over the counter goods wouldn't be on the banned list, but ignorance isn't an excuse.
He may still come back.
He may still come back.
-
Final round
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 4911
- Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 17:02
Re: Dillain the Villain
I thought it had been withdrawn from sale last year.thepocketrocket wrote:Did everyone know Jak was illegal, or has he been harshly treated?Final round wrote:Jack3d again, that's what that girl who died marathon running took and Enzo Maccaranelli ? I think..
-
therealhustle
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 52
- Joined: 31 Jul 2010, 16:30
Re: Dillain the Villain
Disgraceful decision.
Re: Dillain the Villain
He will only be 26 when this ban is run If he is really committed he can stay fit work on his technique and come back only time will tell if he can be bothered though.
Re: Dillain the Villain
Seems kind of tough. But probably only when its noted in comparison to people like Peterson who clearly are cheats and yet are still to suffer any adverse penalties from their cheating.
Re: Dillain the Villain
if you dont take any supplements or whatever drugs you wont get banned simple as that
Re: Dillain the Villain
I like the fact we're tough on cheats. It's seldom the genuinely good fighters that seem to do it, anyway.
-
danconnollyeire
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 3576
- Joined: 24 May 2012, 10:31
Re: Dillain the Villain
Are we though? Enzo took the same thingKarl Jade wrote:I like the fact we're tough on cheats. It's seldom the genuinely good fighters that seem to do it, anyway.
-
philipgill
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 176
- Joined: 26 Sep 2009, 15:36
Re: Dillain the Villain
Maybe its so lengthy because they belive he was taking other stuff but it didnt come up I hear a lot of the UKAD work is inteligance leed. Cant see why it would be 2 years otherwise. ??
Re: Dillain the Villain
philipgill wrote:Maybe its so lengthy because they belive he was taking other stuff but it didnt come up I hear a lot of the UKAD work is inteligance leed. Cant see why it would be 2 years otherwise. ??
No every UKAD ban starts at 2 years minimum.
Dillian Whyte was incredibly unlucky as Enzo Macrinelli and Tony Dodson both got 6 months or under.
Read the judgement UKAD stated that they believe it was a genuine mistake but he should of took more steps to find out what it contained.
DMAA is also not banned outside competition and is widely used by fighters in training.
Re: Dillain the Villain
i have tried jack3d so much energy i could of trained all day very harsh sentence some people dont get any luck.
Re: Dillain the Villain
Dead Mouse wrote:It is because it was an in-competition ban, the UKAD explains each case clearly in their rule violations section. Enzo took a substance a few weeks before a fight. Whyte took his closer to it. Hence the longer ban. They've released this information a number of times. The bans aren't absolute, they are relative to the circumstances.london wrote:philipgill wrote:Maybe its so lengthy because they belive he was taking other stuff but it didnt come up I hear a lot of the UKAD work is inteligance leed. Cant see why it would be 2 years otherwise. ??
No every UKAD ban starts at 2 years minimum.
Dillian Whyte was incredibly unlucky as Enzo Macrinelli and Tony Dodson both got 6 months or under.
Read the judgement UKAD stated that they believe it was a genuine mistake but he should of took more steps to find out what it contained.
DMAA is also not banned outside competition and is widely used by fighters in training.
Also it seems if you plead guilty its a 6 month ban but if you plead not guilty its the full 2 years But the answer is not to take anything at all
-
Matt Teague
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 322
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 16:19
Re: Dillain the Villain
A close friend of mine had a heart attack and died recently, this substance was said to be a factor in his death
Re: Dillain the Villain
The first part of your sentence seems to contradict the second halfGlass Joe wrote:i have tried jack3d so much energy i could of trained all day very harsh sentence some people dont get any luck.
Re: Dillain the Villain
Why if you don't mind me asking?Matt Teague wrote:A close friend of mine had a heart attack and died recently, this substance was said to be a factor in his death
Due to regular use? Or his heart wasn't strong enough ?
Re: Dillain the Villain
Only 18 months, from now. Doesn't seem harsh to me. Crack on with some other things, come back stronger if you believe you can fight without.
Re: Dillain the Villain
Dead Mouse wrote:
It is because it was an in-competition ban, the UKAD explains each case clearly in their rule violations section. Enzo took a substance a few weeks before a fight. Whyte took his closer to it. Hence the longer ban. They've released this information a number of times. The bans aren't absolute, they are relative to the circumstances.
No Enzo and Tony Dodson both said they stopped taking it 4 days before the fight it seems had Whyte not been so honest about when he took Jack3d
he also would of walked away with a similar ban.
Re: Dillain the Villain
Dead Mouse wrote:You're advocating that he lies to the UKAD, then? Enzo reduced the dosage due to feeling ill from it, but ditched it altogether before the fight. Whyte took his drink on the day of the fight, hence the full in-competition ban. That's the major difference here.london wrote:Dead Mouse wrote:
It is because it was an in-competition ban, the UKAD explains each case clearly in their rule violations section. Enzo took a substance a few weeks before a fight. Whyte took his closer to it. Hence the longer ban. They've released this information a number of times. The bans aren't absolute, they are relative to the circumstances.
No Enzo and Tony Dodson both said they stopped taking it 4 days before the fight it seems had Whyte not been so honest about when he took Jack3d
he also would of walked away with a similar ban.
The fact remains that all the boxers tested positive for DMAA on the fight day but Enzo and Dosdon got 6 months or under and Whyte two years.
All three tested positive "in competition"
Must be strong stuff if it shows up 4 days after taking it.
Re: Dillain the Villain
Seems like Whyte was unlucky to me. Shame as he was an exciting fighter and an active one unlike some heavyweights out there.