Kid Galahad

[los2]

The most realistic fight for him down the road would be Mcdonnell or Dickens. He's lost too much ground on Quigg and Frampton now.

dillian whyte didnt get his 2 yr ban reduced and then boxed joshua ppv...........mcdonnell already ducked galahad......hes already ko dickens.....frampton wont go near him..........that leaves quigg..........

The only reason Frampton 'wouldn't go near' Galahad is that the fight wouldn't make commercial sense for him. Not because he is scared. There is levels in boxing and KG is a few below Frampton. Carl is just coming off a win in a big box office event and KG is just coming back from a doping ban! Different ends of the spectrum mate...

frampton gave up his euro instead of fighting galahad...........galahad beats frampton.........

[Stevieb8006]

This the best thread since the john fury one. Love it.

[los2]

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.

great detective work............but as u spent a couple of years on here slagging kell brook whats ur agenda????????????............

[bripez]

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.

And the plot thickens ......

I just tried to read the thread on the above link only to see that Kingfield has gone in earlier today (presumably after the link was posted) and removed his comments.

It would be interesting if this person is connected to Galahad and Brook - what is he trying to hide ?

[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.

great detective work............but as u spent a couple of years on here slagging kell brook whats ur agenda????????????............

Took me about 30 seconds and a few clicks, anyone could have done it.

No agenda other than being anti-drugs in sport, especially combat sports where the risks are already high. If Brook fought better opposition I wouldn't slag him off, not that I do so that often anyway, but while he's happy to sit around fighting overmatched mandatory challengers and Frankie Gavin as he waits to see if he can get the Khan fight, he's going to get stick, whether it's from me or others.

[expe]

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.

I'm sure they can be, even if the half life of any substance is short it will still take a long time to break down, especially if there's a lot of it. I'm not disputing that, what I am disputing is your claim that because the amounts of the drug found in his sample were small, he mustn't have been using it to enhance his performance. The low concentration shows that while he was within the detection time, he was tested some time after the drug entered his system, it can't really be taken as an indication that he wasn't knowingly taking it.

[los2]

Took me about 30 seconds and a few clicks, anyone could have done it.

No agenda other than being anti-drugs in sport, especially combat sports where the risks are already high. If Brook fought better opposition I wouldn't slag him off, not that I do so that often anyway, but while he's happy to sit around fighting overmatched mandatory challengers and Frankie Gavin as he waits to see if he can get the Khan fight, he's going to get stick, whether it's from me or others.

u were slagging brook off 4 years saying gavin would beat him..........now ur slagging him off for fighting gavin ...............................

[expe]

Took me about 30 seconds and a few clicks, anyone could have done it.

No agenda other than being anti-drugs in sport, especially combat sports where the risks are already high. If Brook fought better opposition I wouldn't slag him off, not that I do so that often anyway, but while he's happy to sit around fighting overmatched mandatory challengers and Frankie Gavin as he waits to see if he can get the Khan fight, he's going to get stick, whether it's from me or others.

u were slagging brook off 4 years saying gavin would beat him..........now ur slagging him off for fighting gavin ...............................

I was wrong about Gavin, I thought he was going to win a world title and he didn't come close. If Brook had fought him before he lost to Bundu I wouldn't have had a bad word to say about the fight, but by the time the fight came around I think the likely outcome was clear to most.

[Counter-puncher]

This the best thread since the john fury one. Love it.

[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.

And the plot thickens ......

I just tried to read the thread on the above link only to see that Kingfield has gone in earlier today (presumably after the link was posted) and removed his comments.

It would be interesting if this person is connected to Galahad and Brook - what is he trying to hide ?

Should have screenshotted it.

He said in that thread that he had 11 months of data on his laptop from working with Brook, 6 weeks later Brook's stablemate Galahad, who uses the same strength and conditioning team as far as I know, tested positive for Stanozolol in the drug test after his fight with Dos Santos.

[bripez]

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.

And the plot thickens ......

I just tried to read the thread on the above link only to see that Kingfield has gone in earlier today (presumably after the link was posted) and removed his comments.

It would be interesting if this person is connected to Galahad and Brook - what is he trying to hide ?

Should have screenshotted it.

He said in that thread that he had 11 months of data on his laptop from working with Brook, 6 weeks later Brook's stablemate Galahad, who uses the same strength and conditioning team as far as I know, tested positive for Stanozolol in the drug test after his fight with Dos Santos.

Maybe Galahads brother got hold of Kingfields computer and wiped the memory for a laugh (I am sure that they could find another close relative who would say they saw him do it).

Move along folks, nothing to see here - nothing strange going on at all.

[Counter-puncher]

KG's brother is a notorious prankster, after all

[bripez]

His ban being reduced is a joke.

Blatantly guilty as his excuse was as good as the dog ate my homework.

.

True that mate - even more so, it is like the equivalent of the kid actually taking the dog into school and saying "ere sir, this is my dog who ate my homework, didn't you Rover?" And the dog goes "sausages" (like they used to do on That's Life) and the teacher then actually believes it.

The fact that some big hitters seem to be involved make me even more suspicious - if some middle of the road pro had taken some cough medicine from Boots then he would be thrown to the wolves.

[PredatorHayds]

KG's brother is a notorious prankster, after all

His brother is actually Jeremy Beadle apparently.
Watch out Galahad beadles about.

[ttornado]

even if the half life of any substance is short it will still take a long time to break down,

That statement contradicts itself.

[Stuarty]

dillian whyte didnt get his 2 yr ban reduced and then boxed joshua ppv...........mcdonnell already ducked galahad......hes already ko dickens.....frampton wont go near him..........that leaves quigg..........

The only reason Frampton 'wouldn't go near' Galahad is that the fight wouldn't make commercial sense for him. Not because he is scared. There is levels in boxing and KG is a few below Frampton. Carl is just coming off a win in a big box office event and KG is just coming back from a doping ban! Different ends of the spectrum mate...

frampton gave up his euro instead of fighting galahad...........galahad beats frampton.........

I love British fighters but Galahad isn't anywhere near on the level.

[magwitch]

His ban being reduced is a joke.

Blatantly guilty as his excuse was as good as the dog ate my homework.

.

True that mate - even more so, it is like the equivalent of the kid actually taking the dog into school and saying "ere sir, this is my dog who ate my homework, didn't you Rover?" And the dog goes "sausages" (like they used to do on That's Life) and the teacher then actually believes it.

The fact that some big hitters seem to be involved make me even more suspicious - if some middle of the road pro had taken some cough medicine from Boots then he would be thrown to the wolves.

absolutely spot on. agree with that. I remember seeing some "Boy made good" profile of him on Sky a few years ago. It's disappointing. He wouldn't have wanted that putting in his little documentary... ..... I personally do subscribe to a lifetime ban for doping violations that involve PEDs, even regardless that the toerag denied it!

[magwitch]

His ban being reduced is a joke.

Blatantly guilty as his excuse was as good as the dog ate my homework.

.

True that mate - even more so, it is like the equivalent of the kid actually taking the dog into school and saying "ere sir, this is my dog who ate my homework, didn't you Rover?" And the dog goes "sausages" (like they used to do on That's Life) and the teacher then actually believes it.

Dogs can't say sausages, silly!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... FsKjsRE4Kc

[Pugilist-specialist]

This the best thread since the john fury one. Love it.

Kid Galahad's real name is Bari Partridge.

[Stevieb8006]

This the best thread since the john fury one. Love it.

Kid Galahad's real name is Bari Partridge.

[olij999]

Very entertaining thread - I love a bit of good detective work. This beats Death In Paradise hands down.

But a bit irritating that the appeal decision is still not on the UKAD website yet - will be interesting to see the exact reason for decreasing the ban length.

[jimcook]

dont see what all the fuss is about. half of the hall of fame from the last 20 years were obviously on gear. roy jones , holyfield etc. im pretty sure mayweather is or has been, but either been too smart to get caught , or paid off the right people etc. look at khan turning up bigger than canelo, the long periods between fights etc. professional boxing is as bent as it gets ffs. where theres money involved , it just encourages it. same goes for footballers...when i was playing most top players looked like normal guys, nowadays they all look like superheroes, and how many players have failed drugs tests? probably less than have been done for noncing offences.
im not condoning galahads actions( if it was taken knowingly) but i feel that theres probably loads of them out there doing the same thing , but not getting caught. i have no evidence , of course, but common sense tells you that when guys like ariza are in gyms all over the world in the shadiest of shady business, the likes of galahad is the tip of the iceberg.
btw , i think galahad was an excellent boxer, and if he had a fight with frampton on even terms, would be a good fight.

[los2]

tried to post a link earlier but didnt work..........search "can boxing trust usada" by thomas hauser.........good read about mayweather, morales etc............

[Supremo]

Criminal theories demonstrate that the most effective crime prevention tactic is increasing the likelihood of getting caught, and making the punishment severe. So, more random drug testing and lifetime bans would seem to be the answer.

Not wholly true, severity of sentence is not a factor which has an impact upon behaviour it is the likely hood of being caught (as you say) and the swiftness of punishment (celerity) i.e. that they are punished asap after the offence.

Detterence through increased sentences has been shown over repeated studies to have no impact.

However, in the case of drug cheats whilst severity of sentence may not lessen the chances of them committing the crime it prevents them being able to fight and inflict drug fuelled injuries upon opponents and therefore is a necessity.