UKAD clears Dillian Whyte - charges dropped!

[oogiebe]

They might as well all be gas station sushi

That's my point. Their job is to promote.
Like a politician they say what you want to hear

They say what they THINK you want to hear. My feelings on promoters has been made clear at this point. Hate all them mf'ers.

[Enlightened-One]

Are WIlder and PBC just as BS as Hearn and Whyte, or are there varying levels? Is everyone just full of it or are some more honest.

None of them are 'independant' sources. Can't use them to 'prove facts.'

Read the UKAD statement and then comprehend the absurdity of your post!

[oogiebe]

None of them are 'independant' sources. Can't use them to 'prove facts.'

Read the UKAD statement and then comprehend the absurdity of your post!

Talking about the promoters; fighters; and trainers. Why is that absurd?

[Enlightened-One]

Read the UKAD statement and then comprehend the absurdity of your post!

Talking about the promoters; fighters; and trainers. Why is that absurd?

Have you read the UKAD statement?

[oogiebe]

Talking about the promoters; fighters; and trainers. Why is that absurd?

Have you read the UKAD statement?

Yup. Inconclusive. Honestly, I really don't care much anymore. We all knew Whyte wouldn't be suspended or if he was he'd be back relatively soon. Shvt...Look at Miller?

[Finkel]

I love a good conspiracy theory

[Enlightened-One]

Have you read the UKAD statement?

Yup. Inconclusive. Honestly, I really don't care much anymore.

OK, this is what you wrote.

None of them are 'independant' sources. Can't use them to 'prove facts.'

And this is what the joint statement issued by Whyte and UKAD said:

"Since the charge against Mr Whyte has been withdrawn, neither UKAD nor Mr Whyte intend to make any further public comment in respect of this matter, in accordance with the confidentiality provisions of the UK Anti-Doping Rules. Any public comments made by anyone other than UKAD or Mr Whyte will not be made on the basis of an understanding of the full facts."

We’ve known for a long time that Whyte was filing lawsuits against those that slandered him (and this was confirmed by various videos on the 'iFL TV' YouTube channel last weekend), which is one of the reasons why Dillian has been advised to refrain from publicly discussing the matter in great detail by his legal team.

So based on the above, why would anyone expect any third-party (i.e. an "independent source") not affiliated to Whyte, UKAD or Matchroom to be capable of providing a more detailed account of events than the “official” statement that was issued last Friday?

[oogiebe]

Yup. Inconclusive. Honestly, I really don't care much anymore.

OK, this is what you wrote.

None of them are 'independant' sources. Can't use them to 'prove facts.'

And this is what the joint statement issued by Whyte and UKAD said:

"Since the charge against Mr Whyte has been withdrawn, neither UKAD nor Mr Whyte intend to make any further public comment in respect of this matter, in accordance with the confidentiality provisions of the UK Anti-Doping Rules. Any public comments made by anyone other than UKAD or Mr Whyte will not be made on the basis of an understanding of the full facts."

We’ve known for a long time that Whyte was filing lawsuits against those that slandered him (and this was confirmed by various videos on the 'iFL TV' YouTube channel last weekend), which is one of the reasons why Dillian has been advised to refrain from publicly discussing the matter in great detail by his legal team.

So based on the above, why would anyone expect any third-party (i.e. an "independent source") not affiliated to Whyte, UKAD or Matchroom to be capable of providing a more detailed account of events than the “official” statement that was issued last Friday?

EO - I was responding to Margie and nothing you posted. Please stop looking to engage.

[Enlightened-One]

[margaret thatcher]

What has been done to Whyte with the suspension and smearing of his reputation is a big injust, right up there with the Trump impeachment scam. He's now been shown to been innocent yet people will still go on about him being a PED cheat. Dill deserves better

[dickbelden]

What has been done to Whyte with the suspension and smearing of his reputation is a big injust, right up there with the Trump impeachment scam. He's now been shown to been innocent yet people will still go on about him being a PED cheat. Dill deserves better

WHYTE tested positive for DIANABOL & the B sample was never tested.

[margaret thatcher]

Scam!!! PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT !

[oogiebe]

What has been done to Whyte with the suspension and smearing of his reputation is a big injust, right up there with the Trump impeachment scam. He's now been shown to been innocent yet people will still go on about him being a PED cheat. Dill deserves better

WHYTE tested positive for DIANABOL & the B sample was never tested.

UKAD is a joke. Terrible protocol.

[tiny_acres]

What has been done to Whyte with the suspension and smearing of his reputation is a big injust, right up there with the Trump impeachment scam. He's now been shown to been innocent yet people will still go on about him being a PED cheat. Dill deserves better

I would prefer all organizations to error on the side of safety first.
I think the WBC did the right thing and now they are doing the right thing in lifting the suspension

[Deleted_Scenes]

A couple of things I don't really understand:

"In light of the above points, the trace amounts of metabolites found in the 20 June 2019 sample are consistent with an isolated contamination event, and they are not suggestive of doping."

Readily available information on dianabol, states it has a half-life of just 3 to 6 hours, and (dependent on the dose) is expected to be fully flushed from the system in 24 to 48 hours.

Therefore, a clean test 72 hours before trace amounts of metabolites were detected, is not conclusive of anything. It could easily have been taken intentionally on the morning of 18th June, or it could have been the result of contamination (of something Whyte ingested, not during the analytical process, as Hearn admitted the B sample would likely have shown the same result).

Either way, UKAD's own rules don't allow contamination as an excuse anyway. Whyte's previous UKAD ban was for a substance found in a supplement, which wasn't even listed as an ingredient by the manufacturer. For that, they banned him for 2 years, instead of 4.

The UKAD statement tells us absolutely nothing about Whyte's innocence or guilt. Based on what's been listed at evidence in favour of Whyte, the only difference between this case and Ryan Martin's (right down to the trace amounts, and previous clean samples), is that it's not Whyte's first offence.

This whole thing reeks of the party with the smaller legal budget (UKAD) being bullied into backing down.

[greg]

what is actually "an isolated contamination event"?..sounds like they created a convenient excuse and a precedent for any future doper...

[oogiebe]

what is actually "an isolated contamination event"?..sounds like they created a convenient excuse and a precedent for any future doper...

Or they just didn't have the wherewithall to make a stand. WBC and VADA is doing the same thing with Mexican fighters. Lowering the bar.

[Deleted_Scenes]

what is actually "an isolated contamination event"?..sounds like they created a convenient excuse and a precedent for any future doper...

Unless they're trying to say dianabol was already in the cup Whyte pissed into, which is ridiculous, then it shouldn't matter. Contamination = guilt, as per UKAD rules.

Something else from Ryan Martin's case:

“3. The facts as set out in paragraph 2 are accepted. In particular, it is accepted at
paragraph 2.4 that the metabolites of testosterone; androseterone; and
etiocholanone, was found in his A sample. He does not wish for his B sample to be
tested.
…
4. Therefore, the Athlete accepts the charge at paragraph 3.2. He does not accept that
he intentionally ingested testosterone. He will maintain that he ingested a
contaminated supplement or another body, that contained the metabolites which
were found in his sample. It is also noted that there was only a very small trace
which was not found in the initial sample.”

Not sure how Whyte's case is any different.

[Bandog]

Athletes take supplements
Mistakes are made by athletes who have yet to make the big time so don't have dieticians
Nothing more to say
Read up about it if you need to

https://www.bbc.com/sport/boxing/22047144

Dillian Whyte makes millions. No way in hell he doesn't have a dietician

It reminds me of Canelo's excuse of eating tainted meat, from a country known for tainted meat. Like Canelo doesn't have a chef, dietitian, and people that are supposedly smart. Some boxers (and their teams) are just plain dumb. Being rich apparently makes it ok though, and they even change the rules because of it.

[ewenhay]

Dillian Whyte makes millions. No way in hell he doesn't have a dietician

It reminds me of Canelo's excuse of eating tainted meat, from a country known for tainted meat. Like Canelo doesn't have a chef, dietitian, and people that are supposedly smart. Some boxers (and their teams) are just plain dumb. Being rich apparently makes it ok though, and they even change the rules because of it.

Surely as wbc franchise champion he must be exempt from pesky inconveniences such as drug testing as well as mandatories?

[Enlightened-One]

Dillian Whyte makes millions. No way in hell he doesn't have a dietician

It reminds me of Canelo's excuse of eating tainted meat, from a country known for tainted meat. Like Canelo doesn't have a chef, dietitian, and people that are supposedly smart. Some boxers (and their teams) are just plain dumb. Being rich apparently makes it ok though, and they even change the rules because of it.

Under the WBC’s and WADA’s new threshold rules surrounding clenbuterol, Canelo would not have been deemed guilty of consuming a banned substance.

We should hold Canelo accountable to today’s standards, which are based on newly-acquired knowledge gained via extensive research.

If Canelo or any athlete tests positive for clenbuterol that falls within the acceptable tolerance today, they will be considered as submitting a clean sample.

[Enlightened-One]

WHYTE tested positive for DIANABOL & the B sample was never tested.

According to UKAD’s very own rules, Dillian Whytes’s B-sample would only have ever been tested after they had actually charged him with an offence - not beforehand.

There’s no conspiracy, because UKAD’s rules about this process have existed for at least a decade.

I don’t even know why you complained about this, because the forum was discussing this point at length a couple of months ago.

[ewenhay]

It reminds me of Canelo's excuse of eating tainted meat, from a country known for tainted meat. Like Canelo doesn't have a chef, dietitian, and people that are supposedly smart. Some boxers (and their teams) are just plain dumb. Being rich apparently makes it ok though, and they even change the rules because of it.

Under the WBC’s and WADA’s new threshold rules surrounding clenbuterol, Canelo would not have been deemed guilty of consuming a banned substance.

We should hold Canelo accountable to today’s standards, which are based on newly-acquired knowledge gained via extensive research.

If Canelo or any athlete tests positive for clenbuterol that falls within the acceptable tolerance today, they will be considered as submitting a clean sample.

Complete nonsense.

You abide by the rules at the time not what they change to in the future.

[Enlightened-One]

Under the WBC’s and WADA’s new threshold rules surrounding clenbuterol, Canelo would not have been deemed guilty of consuming a banned substance.

We should hold Canelo accountable to today’s standards, which are based on newly-acquired knowledge gained via extensive research.

If Canelo or any athlete tests positive for clenbuterol that falls within the acceptable tolerance today, they will be considered as submitting a clean sample.

Complete nonsense.

You abide by the rules at the time not what they change to in the future.

So sports science cannot make advancements?

So a person that was wrongly jailed and subsequently freed in light on new evidence, should always remain in prison?

Are the doping agencies not allowed to revise their rules based on newly-acquired knowledge obtained from extensive research?

Canelo already served his punishment. And based on hindsight alone, he probably shouldn’t have been suspended in the first place.

[greg]

I have NO IDEA why you have started this thread...everything seems to be so clear to you--why bother