Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑17 Dec 2019, 00:37
OK then...
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Dec 2019, 06:53
There’s no mention of contamination or B-sample testing in that quote, is there?
The main assertions in your previous post about the UKAD/Whyte situation refer directly to the existence of alleged rules about contamination and B-sample testing, but you can’t qualify your claims can you?
1. The lack of intent, fault, negligence or knowledge part covers contamination, no?
2. I haven't mentioned rules on B samples, only that they declined to have it tested (Eddie's words).
3. Not my main point. We're talking inconsistent application of the rules. That stands, whatever the detail says.
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Dec 2019, 07:40
Alright, let’s deal with each point your raised about the Whyte/UKAD situation head on, shall we?
Here's what dozens of media sources claimed:
"Dillian Whyte drugs test: Brit facing potential lifetime ban after testing positive for banned substance" (Source: Independant)
"When testing agencies take blood or urine from athletes, they split the samples into A and B samples, with the latter being a smaller amount used for back-up, re-analysis or verification purposes.
"When told about the initial positive, Whyte asked for his B sample to be tested, as is his right, which would not have been possible..."
I can cite at least a dozen media articles conveying precisely the same claim.
There is no evidence to suggest that Whyte’s B-sample wasn’t tested. And nor is there any evidence to support your claim that Dillian didn’t even want this B-sample tested.
Eddie Hearn said they chose not to have the B sample tested. No point. The result would have been the same (his words), and it also may have meant postponing the fight. I don't really care what the media reported. You've said yourself that they don't have the facts.
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Dec 2019, 07:40
Here’s another false claim you made:
Here 's the official rule regarding this point detailed in UKAD's official website:
"Results Management" (Source: UKAD)
"...an athlete has the opportunity to eliminate or reduce the period of ineligibility in exceptional circumstances.
"A period of ineligibility may be reduced in a number of ways...
"In matters concerning the presence of a specified substance, if an athlete is able to establish that the detected Prohibited Substance came from a contaminated product."
UKAD’s rules regarding contamination are crystal clear for any mentally competent individual to comprehend.
The contamination clause, in the sanctions section, begins like this:
"In cases where the Athlete or other Person
can establish No Significant
Fault or Negligence and
that the detected Prohibited Substance came
from a Contaminated Product,"
That's something they have to do, right? Not a grey area. Not "may have come from a contaminated product."
Case details, from UKAD:
"The levels of the metabolites found in Mr Whyte's 20 June 2019 sample were extremely low.
Mr Whyte had provided a urine sample to VADA on 17 June 2019, i.e. 3 days before his 20 June 2019 sample, which was tested by a WADA-accredited laboratory and which returned a negative result, including for the metabolites in question.
Mr Whyte provided several other doping control samples to UKAD and VADA between 20 June and 20 July 2019 (i.e. the date of his fight with Oscar Rivas) – all of which also tested negative.
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,"
So, no mention of where the contamination occurred, no food, no supplements etc. Just the clean sample submitted on June 17th, and the assertion that this points to contamination.
The science says this is a drug with a half-life of 3 to 6 hours, and (dose dependent) completely undetectable after 24 to 48 hours.
So, we have a trace finding that is consistent with contamination, but also consistent with doping on the morning of the 18th.
UKAD's own statement raises more questions than it answers, especially compared to other cases listed on their site (full case notes available).
Rules are applied inconsistently. Whyte has got off for something others get years for. That's my point.
You seem to be distancing yourself from your original claims, so here goes:
Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑17 Dec 2019, 00:371. The lack of intent, fault, negligence or knowledge part covers contamination, no?
No it doesn’t.
You originally claimed the following:
Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑15 Dec 2019, 17:02Under UKAD rules, contamination is not considered an acceptable defence.
I quoted UKAD’s rules clearly explaining that contamination is actually considered an acceptable defence. It’s mentioned on the official website and also on their PDF rulebook, which is more comprehensive in nature.
So UKAD mentions in two places that contamination is considered an acceptable defence.
I quoted these rules in one of my posts you even quoted, but you appear to be ignoring UKAD’s rules, because they don’t adhere to your preferred perception of reality.
Simply put, you either lied about UKAD’s rules or you grossly misunderstood them to the point you believed in the polar opposite, which would be an astonishing thing to do!
Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑17 Dec 2019, 00:372. I haven't mentioned rules on B samples, only that they declined to have it tested (Eddie's words).
I never claimed you mentioned rules about B-samples.
It seems to be a common theme with you, because you can’t comprehend UKAD’s written words nor my own.
You stated the following:
Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑15 Dec 2019, 17:02Whyte declined the opportunity to have his B sample tested.
This is untrue.
Eddie Hearn never claimed that Whyte actively refused to allow his B-sample to be tested, but you claimed he had. The keyword is “refused”, since you can’t pretend to know Whyte’s intention or whether he even had any say in this.
And you don't even know whether Dillian's B-sample was tested or not, since this piece of information has never been disclosed by UKAD nor Whyte himself.
It is categorically impossible to pretend that Whyte refused to have is B-sample tested, hence the reason why you keep refusing to provide evidence to support this claim.
In fact, as per one of my previous posts, dozens of media sources claimed that Dillian Whyte wanted his B-sample tested. And I backed up my words with evidence.
Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑17 Dec 2019, 00:373. Not my main point. We're talking inconsistent application of the rules. That stands, whatever the detail says.
The main point of you post was to pretend that there was some sort of conspiracy claiming that UKAD were somehow favouring Dillian Whyte, based on deeply flawed comparisons between ‘The Bodysnatcher’ and Ryan Martin’s situations.
The problem with your theory though, was the criteria being used for comparison purposes was based on nothing but pure lies (as per the Dillian Whyte’s situation).
And you cannot defend these claims either, because your assertions never happened in this version of reality.
And the reason why I’m attacking you is not simply because you’re lying, but also because you attacked me first.
You ignored UKAD's rules but claim they're corrupt and applying double-standards! Do you not feel embarrassed?
