Kid Galahad

[expe]

The only fact is that you are stupid enough to believe your opinion is a fact, when it is far from it.

Why don't you go and have a read of the facts, then you will really be 'in the know' rather than just making things up.

That was a very cryptic response. Do you condone KGs behaviour?

How is it cryptic? I have stated that he should go and read the publicly available facts of the case rather than push some strange agenda of being in the know.

Do i condone what exactly? Read the facts of the case and you'll see there is nothing to condone and making such stupid claims as he should be banned for life is also unwarranted. The facts are he had his protein drink spiked his brother produced a signed affidavit saying he had done so and his own sister backed this up, before you throw that back actually have a look at what that means to sign one of those, go one further would you sign one to say his brother is lying? Next is the amount found in the sample, not consistent with a doper at all. Add to that fact stanozol is a very old school steroid, it's hardly first choice for boxers who are working with top sports scientists. Ben Johnson was caught using it in 1988, it's now 2016, things have moved on a bit. Just look at the drug Sharapova was using, barely anyone has heard of it.

Don't just follow what someone on a forum with a high post count has to say. Look at the facts for yourself, they are not being hidden from anyone. Even UK anti doping have put the facts out there. He was banned under the condition of culpability.

I've read the judgement, his brother Maged wasn't even called as a witness and provided no evidence of the "spiking", there were inconsistencies between the affidavit provided by his brother and Galahad's testimony, described as "notable and bizarre".

The tribunal came to the conclusion that he hadn't established how the substance entered his body, noting that Maged's account was unclear and lacking in detail, also that he had nothing to lose as he was already on remand facing serious charges. His sister's evidence was also described as "less than convincing", both Galahad and his sister failed to even question Maged about the incident when they visited him in prison, Maged's affidavit didn't even mention the visit from his brother.

They accepted the reasons for Maged being unable to attend, but that no explanation was given for the lack of detail in his statement, especially when his inability to attend made it even more important that it be as detailed as possible. It was also provided nearly 2 months late and 6 months after Maged agreed to co-operate, again with no explanation provided. The tribunal concluded that the affidavit had been produced in response to UKAD's skeleton argument in an attempt to fill in the gaps identified in it. Galahad was unable to establish that he bears no fault or negligence for his failed test.

The concentration of the drug in his sample doesn't really prove a lot other than that he didn't take the test immediately after he took the drugs. The half life of Stanozolol/Winstrol when take orally is around 9 hours, however much he took at least 75% of it would have passed out of his body within 24 hours.

Stanozolol/Winstrol is actually very useful for boxers, as it has the ability to significantly increase strength with very little gain in weight. Perfect for a boxer making weight. The tribunal accepted the evidence of UKAD's Head of Science and Medicine that it's an appealing anabolic steroid for athletes involved in sports that require them to make weight.

Enough facts in there for you?

[Stuarty]

i have thought for a while that at his best, KG's style would be a nightmare for Quigg, and present at least some problems for Frampton.

He is a good boxer. I respect your opinion on here as you seem a knowledgable guy but there is no way Galahad has the boxing skills of Frampton. I don't think he carries pure power either so any fight between the two would come down to ability and I think that Frampton has spades more ability than KG.

well, all i said was 'present at least some problems....', doesn't say that much about Galahad does it? other than i think stylewise he'd make for quite a difficult fight for Farmpton, which i'll try explain why:

reason being, from what I have seen at his best Frampton is a kindof front foot counterpuncher, he doesn't like to back off toooo much, but on the kindof half-front foot he likes to trigger his opponent into leading and falling short, which because of his shortish height and tiny arms, against a normal sized 122lber, he can sometimes struggle a bbit when made to lead; and often when made to lead against a guy who won't lead much, Frampton will fall short himself like he did against that Gonzalez kiddy. i think KG has a nice style- and his arms quite a lot longer- to try and make Frampton lead and either peck him with a jab coming in, or if he can adjust his feet quickly, to make him fall short and counter.

i don't say any more than this would 'present at least some problems', like i say.

slowfooted Quigg on the other hand i think would spend at least 6 or 7 rounds following KG round the rign with an expresssion of pure confusion on his face.

You're probably right there. Frampton doesn't like holding back but he managed to stay composed in the Quigg fight. When they both went for it Quigg looked the boss so Frampton changed gears and seen it through. I just think that Carl has far more ability than KG. He has more in his armoury from what I have witnessed. We'll need to see KG in a proper fight before we know how good he is. Martinez could maybe ask him a few questions and would be a good yardstick. Doubt he has the power to blast Kiko out so it would be interesting to see how he copes over a sustained period.

[whiskey]

[bripez]

The only fact is that you are stupid enough to believe your opinion is a fact, when it is far from it.

Why don't you go and have a read of the facts, then you will really be 'in the know' rather than just making things up.

That was a very cryptic response. Do you condone KGs behaviour?

How is it cryptic? I have stated that he should go and read the publicly available facts of the case rather than push some strange agenda of being in the know.

Do i condone what exactly? Read the facts of the case and you'll see there is nothing to condone and making such stupid claims as he should be banned for life is also unwarranted. The facts are he had his protein drink spiked his brother produced a signed affidavit saying he had done so and his own sister backed this up, before you throw that back actually have a look at what that means to sign one of those, go one further would you sign one to say his brother is lying? Next is the amount found in the sample, not consistent with a doper at all. Add to that fact stanozol is a very old school steroid, it's hardly first choice for boxers who are working with top sports scientists. Ben Johnson was caught using it in 1988, it's now 2016, things have moved on a bit. Just look at the drug Sharapova was using, barely anyone has heard of it.

Don't just follow what someone on a forum with a high post count has to say. Look at the facts for yourself, they are not being hidden from anyone. Even UK anti doping have put the facts out there. He was banned under the condition of culpability.

fornicate me mate, that is the most biased bullshit rant I have read since Homicide Henry last posted (at least Galahad isn't a fighting gypsy man otherwise the forum would be in full meltdown by now).

I know from various gyms I have trained at that Stan/Winny needs to be taken a couple of time a week as it quickly leaves your body.

How unlucky was Galahad? - after his brother decided to spike his drink (presumably the first and only time he had done it your honour) and the drug testers turned up the very next day ! - if only they had turned up a couple of days later it would have been out of his system.

At that point his luck changed and the authorities believed his explanation that his brother had spiked his drink and this was backed up by his sister (no further corroborating evidence is required - what would motivate his brother and sister to not tell the full truth?).

[Kingfield]

From the outside looking in it does not look good for KG. It looks as if he got caught then got his brother to try take the rap for it. He's in prison anyway so people will think he's already a bad guy who would do something like this, I presume that was the though process behind his excuse. Did he ever come out and say what exactly what they fell out about as to why his brother alledgley spiked his drink? His ban was a disgrace, he got less than Dillion whyte who got a very harsh ban for taking an OTC supplement. Worse still this reflects very badly on ingle who has a great reputation. I certainly won't be supporting KG after this.

Agree mate. The guy cheated then had the brass neck to try and palm that bullshit excuse off! He should be treated with contempt. I wouldn't look too harshly upon the Ingles because they obviously have a close relationship with the boy. They are giving him a second chance so fair play to them. Personally speaking, I would come down hard on any drug cheat in our sport. It's a dangerous game.

So you don't want to read the facts but you still want to post your opinion, which is made up from reading what others post? Personally speaking, the fact you are not willing to read what actually went on means your opinion holds less worth than mash potato.

[Kingfield]

That was a very cryptic response. Do you condone KGs behaviour?

How is it cryptic? I have stated that he should go and read the publicly available facts of the case rather than push some strange agenda of being in the know.

Do i condone what exactly? Read the facts of the case and you'll see there is nothing to condone and making such stupid claims as he should be banned for life is also unwarranted. The facts are he had his protein drink spiked his brother produced a signed affidavit saying he had done so and his own sister backed this up, before you throw that back actually have a look at what that means to sign one of those, go one further would you sign one to say his brother is lying? Next is the amount found in the sample, not consistent with a doper at all. Add to that fact stanozol is a very old school steroid, it's hardly first choice for boxers who are working with top sports scientists. Ben Johnson was caught using it in 1988, it's now 2016, things have moved on a bit. Just look at the drug Sharapova was using, barely anyone has heard of it.

Don't just follow what someone on a forum with a high post count has to say. Look at the facts for yourself, they are not being hidden from anyone. Even UK anti doping have put the facts out there. He was banned under the condition of culpability.

I've read the judgement, his brother Maged wasn't even called as a witness and provided no evidence of the "spiking", there were inconsistencies between the affidavit provided by his brother and Galahad's testimony, described as "notable and bizarre".

The tribunal came to the conclusion that he hadn't established how the substance entered his body, noting that Maged's account was unclear and lacking in detail, also that he had nothing to lose as he was already on remand facing serious charges. His sister's evidence was also described as "less than convincing", both Galahad and his sister failed to even question Maged about the incident when they visited him in prison, Maged's affidavit didn't even mention the visit from his brother.

They accepted the reasons for Maged being unable to attend, but that no explanation was given for the lack of detail in his statement, especially when his inability to attend made it even more important that it be as detailed as possible. It was also provided nearly 2 months late and 6 months after Maged agreed to co-operate, again with no explanation provided. The tribunal concluded that the affidavit had been produced in response to UKAD's skeleton argument in an attempt to fill in the gaps identified in it. Galahad was unable to establish that he bears no fault or negligence for his failed test.

The concentration of the drug in his sample doesn't really prove a lot other than that he didn't take the test immediately after he took the drugs. The half life of Stanozolol/Winstrol when take orally is around 9 hours, however much he took at least 75% of it would have passed out of his body within 24 hours.

Stanozolol/Winstrol is actually very useful for boxers, as it has the ability to significantly increase strength with very little gain in weight. Perfect for a boxer making weight. The tribunal accepted the evidence of UKAD's Head of Science and Medicine that it's an appealing anabolic steroid for athletes involved in sports that require them to make weight.

Enough facts in there for you?

What has half life of a drug got to do with it? Again you show just how limited your knowledge is, but insist on purporting some sort of higher intelligence than others.

The rest is regurgitated and very different to the crock which you originally posted. You seem to be trying to add 2+2 and getting mashed potato. The ban has been reduced based on evidence, not your opinion, thankfully.

[Stuarty]

From the outside looking in it does not look good for KG. It looks as if he got caught then got his brother to try take the rap for it. He's in prison anyway so people will think he's already a bad guy who would do something like this, I presume that was the though process behind his excuse. Did he ever come out and say what exactly what they fell out about as to why his brother alledgley spiked his drink? His ban was a disgrace, he got less than Dillion whyte who got a very harsh ban for taking an OTC supplement. Worse still this reflects very badly on ingle who has a great reputation. I certainly won't be supporting KG after this.

Agree mate. The guy cheated then had the brass neck to try and palm that bullshit excuse off! He should be treated with contempt. I wouldn't look too harshly upon the Ingles because they obviously have a close relationship with the boy. They are giving him a second chance so fair play to them. Personally speaking, I would come down hard on any drug cheat in our sport. It's a dangerous game.

So you don't want to read the facts but you still want to post your opinion, which is made up from reading what others post? Personally speaking, the fact you are not willing to read what actually went on means your opinion holds less worth than mash potato.

You post your 'opinion'. Your opinion doesn't equate to being a fact. You have been pretty vague in your posting so I reply accordingly. You seem to be banging the drum for a drug cheat? Correct me if I'm wrong?

Ps. I am not a spokesperson for other posters. I'm sure they are intelligent enough to speak for themselves. I disagree with your assertions on my own merit. You sound like a pure vagina flap.

[Stuarty]

How is it cryptic? I have stated that he should go and read the publicly available facts of the case rather than push some strange agenda of being in the know.

Do i condone what exactly? Read the facts of the case and you'll see there is nothing to condone and making such stupid claims as he should be banned for life is also unwarranted. The facts are he had his protein drink spiked his brother produced a signed affidavit saying he had done so and his own sister backed this up, before you throw that back actually have a look at what that means to sign one of those, go one further would you sign one to say his brother is lying? Next is the amount found in the sample, not consistent with a doper at all. Add to that fact stanozol is a very old school steroid, it's hardly first choice for boxers who are working with top sports scientists. Ben Johnson was caught using it in 1988, it's now 2016, things have moved on a bit. Just look at the drug Sharapova was using, barely anyone has heard of it.

Don't just follow what someone on a forum with a high post count has to say. Look at the facts for yourself, they are not being hidden from anyone. Even UK anti doping have put the facts out there. He was banned under the condition of culpability.

I've read the judgement, his brother Maged wasn't even called as a witness and provided no evidence of the "spiking", there were inconsistencies between the affidavit provided by his brother and Galahad's testimony, described as "notable and bizarre".

The tribunal came to the conclusion that he hadn't established how the substance entered his body, noting that Maged's account was unclear and lacking in detail, also that he had nothing to lose as he was already on remand facing serious charges. His sister's evidence was also described as "less than convincing", both Galahad and his sister failed to even question Maged about the incident when they visited him in prison, Maged's affidavit didn't even mention the visit from his brother.

They accepted the reasons for Maged being unable to attend, but that no explanation was given for the lack of detail in his statement, especially when his inability to attend made it even more important that it be as detailed as possible. It was also provided nearly 2 months late and 6 months after Maged agreed to co-operate, again with no explanation provided. The tribunal concluded that the affidavit had been produced in response to UKAD's skeleton argument in an attempt to fill in the gaps identified in it. Galahad was unable to establish that he bears no fault or negligence for his failed test.

The concentration of the drug in his sample doesn't really prove a lot other than that he didn't take the test immediately after he took the drugs. The half life of Stanozolol/Winstrol when take orally is around 9 hours, however much he took at least 75% of it would have passed out of his body within 24 hours.

Stanozolol/Winstrol is actually very useful for boxers, as it has the ability to significantly increase strength with very little gain in weight. Perfect for a boxer making weight. The tribunal accepted the evidence of UKAD's Head of Science and Medicine that it's an appealing anabolic steroid for athletes involved in sports that require them to make weight.

Enough facts in there for you?

What has half life of a drug got to do with it? Again you show just how limited your knowledge is, but insist on purporting some sort of higher intelligence than others.

The rest is regurgitated and very different to the crock which you originally posted. You seem to be trying to add 2+2 and getting mashed potato. The ban has been reduced based on evidence, not your opinion, thankfully.

'Mashed potato' is my patter ya rent boy! Get your own! Copywrited!

[Counter-puncher]

Kingfield: Do you believe the 'me brutha spiked me drink, like' story?

[expe]

How is it cryptic? I have stated that he should go and read the publicly available facts of the case rather than push some strange agenda of being in the know.

Do i condone what exactly? Read the facts of the case and you'll see there is nothing to condone and making such stupid claims as he should be banned for life is also unwarranted. The facts are he had his protein drink spiked his brother produced a signed affidavit saying he had done so and his own sister backed this up, before you throw that back actually have a look at what that means to sign one of those, go one further would you sign one to say his brother is lying? Next is the amount found in the sample, not consistent with a doper at all. Add to that fact stanozol is a very old school steroid, it's hardly first choice for boxers who are working with top sports scientists. Ben Johnson was caught using it in 1988, it's now 2016, things have moved on a bit. Just look at the drug Sharapova was using, barely anyone has heard of it.

Don't just follow what someone on a forum with a high post count has to say. Look at the facts for yourself, they are not being hidden from anyone. Even UK anti doping have put the facts out there. He was banned under the condition of culpability.

I've read the judgement, his brother Maged wasn't even called as a witness and provided no evidence of the "spiking", there were inconsistencies between the affidavit provided by his brother and Galahad's testimony, described as "notable and bizarre".

The tribunal came to the conclusion that he hadn't established how the substance entered his body, noting that Maged's account was unclear and lacking in detail, also that he had nothing to lose as he was already on remand facing serious charges. His sister's evidence was also described as "less than convincing", both Galahad and his sister failed to even question Maged about the incident when they visited him in prison, Maged's affidavit didn't even mention the visit from his brother.

They accepted the reasons for Maged being unable to attend, but that no explanation was given for the lack of detail in his statement, especially when his inability to attend made it even more important that it be as detailed as possible. It was also provided nearly 2 months late and 6 months after Maged agreed to co-operate, again with no explanation provided. The tribunal concluded that the affidavit had been produced in response to UKAD's skeleton argument in an attempt to fill in the gaps identified in it. Galahad was unable to establish that he bears no fault or negligence for his failed test.

The concentration of the drug in his sample doesn't really prove a lot other than that he didn't take the test immediately after he took the drugs. The half life of Stanozolol/Winstrol when take orally is around 9 hours, however much he took at least 75% of it would have passed out of his body within 24 hours.

Stanozolol/Winstrol is actually very useful for boxers, as it has the ability to significantly increase strength with very little gain in weight. Perfect for a boxer making weight. The tribunal accepted the evidence of UKAD's Head of Science and Medicine that it's an appealing anabolic steroid for athletes involved in sports that require them to make weight.

Enough facts in there for you?

What has half life of a drug got to do with it? Again you show just how limited your knowledge is, but insist on purporting some sort of higher intelligence than others.

The rest is regurgitated and very different to the crock which you originally posted. You seem to be trying to add 2+2 and getting mashed potato. The ban has been reduced based on evidence, not your opinion, thankfully.

The half life of a drug determines how long it takes to for the drug to pass out of the body, rendering your argument that because he only had a small amount of it in his body he must not have been taking drugs completely irrelevant. Basic physics.

The rest of it is from the report from the tribunal hearing into his case, the only opinions in there are the conclusions of the panel after hearing all the evidence. It was in response to the complete shite you posted about the evidence of his brother and sister, that the tribunal didn't exactly look favourably upon, the amount found in his system and why he wouldn't have used it.

Read the judgement if you don't want to believe me.

http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule ... tegory=521

[Stevieb8006]

Loving this thread! Hilarious entertainment!

[Kingfield]

I've read the judgement, his brother Maged wasn't even called as a witness and provided no evidence of the "spiking", there were inconsistencies between the affidavit provided by his brother and Galahad's testimony, described as "notable and bizarre".

The tribunal came to the conclusion that he hadn't established how the substance entered his body, noting that Maged's account was unclear and lacking in detail, also that he had nothing to lose as he was already on remand facing serious charges. His sister's evidence was also described as "less than convincing", both Galahad and his sister failed to even question Maged about the incident when they visited him in prison, Maged's affidavit didn't even mention the visit from his brother.

They accepted the reasons for Maged being unable to attend, but that no explanation was given for the lack of detail in his statement, especially when his inability to attend made it even more important that it be as detailed as possible. It was also provided nearly 2 months late and 6 months after Maged agreed to co-operate, again with no explanation provided. The tribunal concluded that the affidavit had been produced in response to UKAD's skeleton argument in an attempt to fill in the gaps identified in it. Galahad was unable to establish that he bears no fault or negligence for his failed test.

The concentration of the drug in his sample doesn't really prove a lot other than that he didn't take the test immediately after he took the drugs. The half life of Stanozolol/Winstrol when take orally is around 9 hours, however much he took at least 75% of it would have passed out of his body within 24 hours.

Stanozolol/Winstrol is actually very useful for boxers, as it has the ability to significantly increase strength with very little gain in weight. Perfect for a boxer making weight. The tribunal accepted the evidence of UKAD's Head of Science and Medicine that it's an appealing anabolic steroid for athletes involved in sports that require them to make weight.

Enough facts in there for you?

What has half life of a drug got to do with it? Again you show just how limited your knowledge is, but insist on purporting some sort of higher intelligence than others.

The rest is regurgitated and very different to the crock which you originally posted. You seem to be trying to add 2+2 and getting mashed potato. The ban has been reduced based on evidence, not your opinion, thankfully.

'Mashed potato' is my patter ya rent boy! Get your own! Copywrited!

Shut up you pudendum.

[Stuarty]

What has half life of a drug got to do with it? Again you show just how limited your knowledge is, but insist on purporting some sort of higher intelligence than others.

The rest is regurgitated and very different to the crock which you originally posted. You seem to be trying to add 2+2 and getting mashed potato. The ban has been reduced based on evidence, not your opinion, thankfully.

'Mashed potato' is my patter ya rent boy! Get your own! Copywrited!

Shut up you pudendum.

love it

[whiskey]

[Stuarty]

That's me when she takes the kids to her mams

[Kingfield]

'Mashed potato' is my patter ya rent boy! Get your own! Copywrited!

Shut up you pudendum.

love it

Thought you would

[Kingfield]

I've read the judgement, his brother Maged wasn't even called as a witness and provided no evidence of the "spiking", there were inconsistencies between the affidavit provided by his brother and Galahad's testimony, described as "notable and bizarre".

The tribunal came to the conclusion that he hadn't established how the substance entered his body, noting that Maged's account was unclear and lacking in detail, also that he had nothing to lose as he was already on remand facing serious charges. His sister's evidence was also described as "less than convincing", both Galahad and his sister failed to even question Maged about the incident when they visited him in prison, Maged's affidavit didn't even mention the visit from his brother.

They accepted the reasons for Maged being unable to attend, but that no explanation was given for the lack of detail in his statement, especially when his inability to attend made it even more important that it be as detailed as possible. It was also provided nearly 2 months late and 6 months after Maged agreed to co-operate, again with no explanation provided. The tribunal concluded that the affidavit had been produced in response to UKAD's skeleton argument in an attempt to fill in the gaps identified in it. Galahad was unable to establish that he bears no fault or negligence for his failed test.

The concentration of the drug in his sample doesn't really prove a lot other than that he didn't take the test immediately after he took the drugs. The half life of Stanozolol/Winstrol when take orally is around 9 hours, however much he took at least 75% of it would have passed out of his body within 24 hours.

Stanozolol/Winstrol is actually very useful for boxers, as it has the ability to significantly increase strength with very little gain in weight. Perfect for a boxer making weight. The tribunal accepted the evidence of UKAD's Head of Science and Medicine that it's an appealing anabolic steroid for athletes involved in sports that require them to make weight.

Enough facts in there for you?

What has half life of a drug got to do with it? Again you show just how limited your knowledge is, but insist on purporting some sort of higher intelligence than others.

The rest is regurgitated and very different to the crock which you originally posted. You seem to be trying to add 2+2 and getting mashed potato. The ban has been reduced based on evidence, not your opinion, thankfully.

The half life of a drug determines how long it takes to for the drug to pass out of the body, rendering your argument that because he only had a small amount of it in his body he must not have been taking drugs completely irrelevant. Basic physics.

The rest of it is from the report from the tribunal hearing into his case, the only opinions in there are the conclusions of the panel after hearing all the evidence. It was in response to the complete shite you posted about the evidence of his brother and sister, that the tribunal didn't exactly look favourably upon, the amount found in his system and why he wouldn't have used it.

Read the judgement if you don't want to believe me.

http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule ... tegory=521

Physics?! The half life has NOTHING to do with this, drugs in sport is all about detection times. You would know this if you could understand the reports you are quoting and if you understood which element of science they come under.

But you'd rather make ridiculous comments about life time bans based on your weak understanding and own poorly formed opinion.

If you are right and i am wrong, why have the very same people you are quoting reduced the ban?

What an absolute clown.

[expe]

That's me when she takes the kids to her mams

[expe]

What has half life of a drug got to do with it? Again you show just how limited your knowledge is, but insist on purporting some sort of higher intelligence than others.

The rest is regurgitated and very different to the crock which you originally posted. You seem to be trying to add 2+2 and getting mashed potato. The ban has been reduced based on evidence, not your opinion, thankfully.

The half life of a drug determines how long it takes to for the drug to pass out of the body, rendering your argument that because he only had a small amount of it in his body he must not have been taking drugs completely irrelevant. Basic physics.

The rest of it is from the report from the tribunal hearing into his case, the only opinions in there are the conclusions of the panel after hearing all the evidence. It was in response to the complete shite you posted about the evidence of his brother and sister, that the tribunal didn't exactly look favourably upon, the amount found in his system and why he wouldn't have used it.

Read the judgement if you don't want to believe me.

http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule ... tegory=521

Physics?! The half life has NOTHING to do with this, drugs in sport is all about detection times. You would know this if you could understand the reports you are quoting and if you understood which element of science they come under.

But you'd rather make ridiculous comments about life time bans based on your weak understanding and own poorly formed opinion.

If you are right and i am wrong, why have the very same people you are quoting reduced the ban?

What an absolute clown.

And the detection time is influenced by the half life of the drug.

I can understand the report perfectly clearly, you don't need to be a scientist to do so, some simple reading comprehension will suffice.

"The facts are he had his protein drink spiked his brother produced a signed affidavit saying he had done so and his own sister backed this up, before you throw that back actually have a look at what that means to sign one of those"

Some great knowledge from you there, shame the tribunal disagreed, which you would know if you had read the report properly.

[expe]

And now we know why you're talking so much shite.

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 8#p4036088

Not just trying to defend a drug cheat, are you defending yourself?

You were working with Kell Brook at the time, both him and Galahad work with Sheffield University for their strength and conditioning, I don't think it's unfair to suggest that you were working with Galahad too based on that. If that's true then a fighter you were working with failed a drug test, wouldn't particularly reflect well on you, which explains why you would be so keen to defend him.

[Kingfield]

You are wrong to assume that. But again, don't let facts get in the way of you needing to make out you know more than you do. So yes it is unfair to suggest that, so i think you should delete that comment, it has no relevance to this.

Wrong on the detection time and half life too.

[rio]

You are wrong to assume that. But again, don't let facts get in the way of you needing to make out you know more than you do. So yes it is unfair to suggest that, so i think you should delete that comment, it has no relevance to this.

Wrong on the detection time and half life too.

"The half life of a drug determines how long it takes to for the drug to pass out of the body, rendering your argument that because he only had a small amount of it in his body he must not have been taking drugs completely irrelevant. Basic physics."

Actually he had it spot on.Walk me through how the above quote is wrong? Guarantee if the the test had been done 24 hours earlier he would have a higher amount of PED's in his system.

[Boxerbeetle]

I just think it's really lovely that Galahad's brother - presumably feeling hugely weighed down by the guilt - saw the error of his ways and redeemed himself by confessing his sins in a sworn affidavit. Makes me feel all fuzzy and warm to know there are still decent, honest people around.

[Kingfield]

You are wrong to assume that. But again, don't let facts get in the way of you needing to make out you know more than you do. So yes it is unfair to suggest that, so i think you should delete that comment, it has no relevance to this.

Wrong on the detection time and half life too.

"The half life of a drug determines how long it takes to for the drug to pass out of the body, rendering your argument that because he only had a small amount of it in his body he must not have been taking drugs completely irrelevant. Basic physics."

Actually he had it spot on.Walk me through how the above quote is wrong? Guarantee if the the test had been done 24 hours earlier he would have a higher amount of PED's in his system.

He didnt! it's not just about how mcuh its detection time, i am pretty sure that some peds half short half lifes but can be detected for months, due to metabolites. this is why i know he's wrong.

[los2]

He didnt! it's not just about how mcuh its detection time, i am pretty sure that some peds half short half lifes but can be detected for months, due to metabolites. this is why i know he's wrong.

fck me...............expe is going to have to do some googling to compete with this guy..............