Dillian Whyte Tests Positive For Banned Substance

[Nondescript]

"Clear to fight" doesn't address the situation.

Eddie Hearn is covering Matchroom's back and protecting his company's best interests.

Dillian Whyte is a free agent and only works with Matchroom on a fight-by-fight basis.

Eddie’s main concern is to justify Matchroom’s staging of the Whyte-Rivas bout, which was a PPV event in the UK. He didn’t disclose Whyte’s PED test failure to the paying audience and chose to stage the bout anyway. He'll inevitably be criticised for this.

I’m guessing that UKAD and the BBBofC’s rules operate under the assumption that a fighter should be deemed as being innocent until proven guilty (after due process has been carried out). And from that perspective, Matchroom’s prior knowledge of the test failure didn’t (technically) need to be disclosed to the paying British public, hence the nature of Eddie Hearn's tweet.

That being said, I am not sure if I would have paid to watch the Whyte-Rivas bout had this information been disclosed on the 17th July, since it would have clearly been a pointless fight that served no purpose whatsoever.

Eddie Hearn would have probably come under severe criticism from both the media and fight fans had he announced Whyte’s test failure beforehand and proceeded to stage the bout anyway.

In terms of Eddie Hearn’s actions, he would have been criticised regardless of what he did, so he chose the lucrative option that generated revenue for Matchroom.

If he was intelligent, he would have called the fight off.

[Enlightened-One]

Eddie Hearn is covering Matchroom's back and protecting his company's best interests.

Dillian Whyte is a free agent and only works with Matchroom on a fight-by-fight basis.

Eddie’s main concern is to justify Matchroom’s staging of the Whyte-Rivas bout, which was a PPV event in the UK. He didn’t disclose Whyte’s PED test failure to the paying audience and chose to stage the bout anyway. He'll inevitably be criticised for this.

I’m guessing that UKAD and the BBBofC’s rules operate under the assumption that a fighter should be deemed as being innocent until proven guilty (after due process has been carried out). And from that perspective, Matchroom’s prior knowledge of the test failure didn’t (technically) need to be disclosed to the paying British public, hence the nature of Eddie Hearn's tweet.

That being said, I am not sure if I would have paid to watch the Whyte-Rivas bout had this information been disclosed on the 17th July, since it would have clearly been a pointless fight that served no purpose whatsoever.

Eddie Hearn would have probably come under severe criticism from both the media and fight fans had he announced Whyte’s test failure beforehand and proceeded to stage the bout anyway.

In terms of Eddie Hearn’s actions, he would have been criticised regardless of what he did, so he chose the lucrative option that generated revenue for Matchroom.

If he was intelligent, he would have called the fight off.

Based on what I’m reading from the media though, under British legal protocols, Eddie Hearn may have breached contracts with both Rivas and Whyte had he cancelled the bout (assuming the official UK stance of a fighter being deemed “innocent” until due process has been carried-out).

It’s a no-win situation for Hearn, so he chose the safe and easy option that guaranteed a financial return for his company.

I can’t applaud Eddie for his actions, as it’s cost me money to watch a fight I probably wouldn’t have watched had I known about the test failure, but I do understand the logic he used for his decision.

[Ruthless-RKO]

[dagilechia]

Finally this overrated fighter got exposed

[Ruthless-RKO]

Andy Ruiz tweeted out, "I ain't going over to the UK for the rematch."

[Ruthless-RKO]

[Ruthless-RKO]

[dagilechia]

Testing in UK is a joke. Szpilka demanded VADA tests in the contract for Chisora fight, but wasn't tested even once.

[Nondescript]

If he was intelligent, he would have called the fight off.

Based on what I’m reading from the media though, under British legal protocols, Eddie Hearn may have breached contracts with both Rivas and Whyte had he cancelled the bout (assuming the official UK stance of a fighter being deemed “innocent” until due process has been carried-out).

It’s a no-win situation for Hearn, so he chose the safe and easy option that guaranteed a financial return for his company.

I can’t applaud Eddie for his actions, as it’s cost me money to watch a fight I probably wouldn’t have watched had I known about the test failure, but I do understand the logic he used for his decision.

I see what you're saying there, but do you not think Rivas and his team, would have atleast liked to have known that Whyte was suspected of failing a test?

I mean say that fight went badly and Rivas had have ended up in a serious way in hospital. That almost seems like grounds to sue to me.

[Enlightened-One]

Assuming Whyte’s B-sample comes back negative (and let’s face it, the probability of it doing so is negligible), then I actually appreciate the sentiments expressed by Ruiz Jr., Traux and J-Rock.

And whilst I understand Matchroom’s business decision to stage the Whyte-Rivas bout, despite the adverse test results, I can’t help feeling that Eddie Hearn behaved hypocritically, in the context of his deservedly harsh criticism of Jarrell Miller.

The following quote from boxing trainer, Stephen "Breadman" Edwards, seems to be absolutely true in this case:

"No one in boxing from the networks, to managers, to promoter’s care who is using PEDs. They only care who gets caught."

[Ruthless-RKO]

Booth hit it right on the head

[Enlightened-One]

Based on what I’m reading from the media though, under British legal protocols, Eddie Hearn may have breached contracts with both Rivas and Whyte had he cancelled the bout (assuming the official UK stance of a fighter being deemed “innocent” until due process has been carried-out).

It’s a no-win situation for Hearn, so he chose the safe and easy option that guaranteed a financial return for his company.

I can’t applaud Eddie for his actions, as it’s cost me money to watch a fight I probably wouldn’t have watched had I known about the test failure, but I do understand the logic he used for his decision.

I see what you're saying there, but do you not think Rivas and his team, would have atleast liked to have known that Whyte was suspected of failing a test?

I mean say that fight went badly and Rivas had have ended up in a serious way in hospital. That almost seems like grounds to sue to me.

I don’t know the terms of the contract Rivas had signed when he agreed to take the Whyte fight. I don’t know if there were stipulations about the disclosure of adverse test results. And nor do we know whether Oscar knew about the failed test but decided to take the fight anyway.

For instance: AJ claims he would have faced Miller, regardless the American’s test failure. So, Rivas may have had the same mind-set.

That being said, from purely a safety perspective, there should have been some sort of moral obligation from those involved in the staging of the fight or the relevant authorities to inform Rivas of Whyte’s test failure.

If Oscar wasn’t informed and the contract he signed didn’t cover the non-disclosure of adverse drug test results, regardless as to whether he was hurt or not, the Columbian may have sufficient grounds for a lawsuit.

[Fightnight Scores]

Boxing continues to shoot itself in the foot, time and again!

It's a shitstorm from top to bottom. I understand the financial implecations cancelling the event would have caused, but surely, SURELY, if the tests back were for a PED that would never get the go ahead for the fight to happen, given it was known prior.

It must surely be a more recreational drug. Or maybe I am actually giving too much credit to the testing authorities AND Hearn in letting the show go on

I guess we have to wait and see what comes out.

[dagilechia]

People's champ

[BitPlayer]

Andy Ruiz tweeted out, "I ain't going over to the UK for the rematch."

I think at this point I'd rather be the away fighter in North Korea than the UK.

[marvelous marv]

There is also some sort of glove controversy with Whyte in this bout. Rivas team was complaining he didnt use approved gloves.

[BitPlayer]

Boxing continues to shoot itself in the foot, time and again!

It's a shitstorm from top to bottom. I understand the financial implecations cancelling the event would have caused, but surely, SURELY, if the tests back were for a PED that would never get the go ahead for the fight to happen, given it was known prior.

It must surely be a more recreational drug. Or maybe I am actually giving too much credit to the testing authorities AND Hearn in letting the show go on

I guess we have to wait and see what comes out.

They wouldn't even need to cancel the event. Just make Chisora Vs Szpilka the main event, bring in an opponent for Rivas and make it not a PPV.

Kownacki has a fight soon anyway, or maybe Takam. Plenty of options

[adislav123]

all of you suckers pullin shit out of your ass, not one has a clue what the positive even was for!

[Boxtune]

Whyte finally caught red handed ..mother fornicator PED users ..even then no balls to fight Pulev

[Onetimeonly]

Whyte finally caught red handed ..mother fornicator PED users ..even then no balls to fight Pulev

One thing is certain. You're the preeminent expert on pulevs balls.

[Paci]

Haha, he if isn't stripped after this Im gonna take a piss on the WBC.

No wonder he looked so strong on fight night.

[margaret thatcher]

lol that tweet by eddie is such an obvious strategic wording , not very subtle

[CiganoBoxer]

anyone actually know what drug / drugs it was

This is the key information currently left out. I'm sure it won't be an over the counter issue like his Jack3d stuff before as he surely can the that silly can he?

Everyone is purposely leaving the drug found out, perhaps until the B sample is tested. However, if you look at the Fury case it didn't come out for quite a while after the Hammer fight, actually managed to get the Klitchsko fight before it was revealed by UKAD if I remember correctly?

,Fury never technically tested positive did he !?
Fury had raised levels in sample A but sample B was tested and was totally clean,this was prior to him challenging for the world titles, he was then sat down with UKAD and told what foods to avoid and given the all clear to box on, it wasn't un till some years later he made those homosexual and pedophile comments they decided to dig up that case they had already let him go on some years previous .
By my understanding to achieve a positive test the athlete needs raised levels in both A&B samples to test positive,wasnt this why UKADA couldn't fine/or ban Fury and had to drop the suspension with both parties coming to an understanding and calling it "a back dated ban" but in reality they just dropped it.
Would Whyte just be given just the benefit of the doubt until his B sample is tested ??

[tiny_acres]

Whyte is not known for remaining quiet
But he sure is not saying anything now.
Interesting

[Enlightened-One]

Based on what I’m reading from the media though, under British legal protocols, Eddie Hearn may have breached contracts with both Rivas and Whyte had he cancelled the bout (assuming the official UK stance of a fighter being deemed “innocent” until due process has been carried-out).

It’s a no-win situation for Hearn, so he chose the safe and easy option that guaranteed a financial return for his company.

I can’t applaud Eddie for his actions, as it’s cost me money to watch a fight I probably wouldn’t have watched had I known about the test failure, but I do understand the logic he used for his decision.

I see what you're saying there, but do you not think Rivas and his team, would have atleast liked to have known that Whyte was suspected of failing a test?

I mean say that fight went badly and Rivas had have ended up in a serious way in hospital. That almost seems like grounds to sue to me.

I’ve just read about Oscar Rivas and his team being unaware of Whyte failing a drug test and his handlers claim they would have withdrawn from the bout had they known about it.

They obviously demand the outcome of the fight to be changed, probably to a “No Contest”, and depending on the language contained in the contract they signed with Matchroom, they may even consider filing a lawsuit against Eddie Hearn’s company.

I guess this may be dependent on the actual substance Dillian tested positive for, because if it was only a recreational drug, then Matchroom’s actions wouldn’t have posed any unnecessary health risks to Rivas.