..which interview is that? ...the one I listened to was all about "I can't talk about it or I'm innocent blah blah blah"...
It's easy to access the iFL TV YouTube channel and find their videos of Dillian Whyte's interviews.
In terms of him declaring his innocence to Kugan Cassius about the recent accusations, what more do you need him to say?
UKAD and Dillian Whyte also issued a joint statement about the matter.
The official explanation for the likely cause for the trace amounts of the metabolites was due to an "isolated contamination event", based on the multitude of clean VADA and UKAD samples taken around the timeframe (i.e. 17th June until the 20th July).
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 10:20
It's easy to access the iFL TV YouTube channel and find their videos of Dillian Whyte's interviews.
In terms of him declaring his innocence to Kugan Cassius about the recent accusations, what more do you need him to say?
UKAD and Dillian Whyte also issued a joint statement about the matter.
The official explanation for the likely cause for the trace amounts of the metabolites was due to an "isolated contamination event", based on the multitude of clean VADA and UKAD samples taken around the timeframe (i.e. 17th June until the 20th July).
What more do you need?
do you have this link or NOT?
Yes I do. Can you not go to YouTube? Do you need spoon feeding or NOT?
I'm ALWAYS providing links, you never do. I'm not your slave!
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 10:44
Yes I do. Can you not go to YouTube? Do you need spoon feeding or NOT?
I'm ALWAYS providing links, you never do. I'm not your slave!
give us that link where Whyte reasonably and with facts explains what actually happened? thank you!
I stated that Whyte had simply discussed the situation at length! And don't pretend I said anything else either! In fact my previous reponse already stated this:
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 10:20In terms of him declaring his innocence to Kugan Cassius about the recent accusations, what more do you need him to say?
Anyway, you’re a ḟṹḉḱḯṅḡ lazy ḃḁṡṫḁṛḓ, here you go, watch this!
Nobody discusses these things as if they're in a court of law when they're being interviewed by iFL TV! FFS!
give us that link where Whyte reasonably and with facts explains what actually happened? thank you!
I stated that Whyte simply discussed the situation at length! And don't pretend I said anything else either! In fact my previous reponse already stated this:
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 10:20In terms of him declaring his innocence to Kugan Cassius about the recent accusations, what more do you need him to say?
Anyway, you’re a ḟṹḉḱḯṅḡ lazy ḃḁṡṫḁṛḓ, here you go, watch this!
Nobody discusses these things as if they're in a court of law when they're being interviewed by iFL TV! FFS!
...if that's not the most convincing interview proving Whyte's innocence beyond any reasonable doubt, I don't know what is.. :
Re: UKAD clears Dillian Whyte - charges dropped!
Posted: 10 Dec 2019, 11:09
by Enlightened-One
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 11:07
...if that's not the most convincing interview proving Whyte's innocence beyond any reasonable doubt, I don't know what is.. :
We're going around in circles:
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 06:35UKAD and Dillian Whyte also issued a joint statement about the matter.
The official explanation for the likely cause for the trace amounts of the metabolites was due to an "isolated contamination event", based on the multitude of clean VADA and UKAD samples taken around the timeframe (i.e. 17th June until the 20th July).
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 11:07
...if that's not the most convincing interview proving Whyte's innocence beyond any reasonable doubt, I don't know what is.. :
We're going around in circles:
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 06:35UKAD and Dillian Whyte also issued a joint statement about the matter.
The official explanation for the likely cause for the trace amounts of the metabolites was due to an "isolated contamination event", based on the multitude of clean VADA and UKAD samples taken around the timeframe (i.e. 17th June until the 20th July).
What more do you need?
why on earth have you provided a TOTALLY irrelevant link proving absolutely nothing?
why on earth have you provided a TOTALLY irrelevant link proving absolutely nothing?
I provided a video of Whyte discussing the UKAD situation. I also provided a copy of Whyte's and UKAD's joint statement.
.......
I'm sure I read this statement BEFORE you provided it...your link like I said is irrelevant in this discussion ...Is it my sacred duty to agree with any statement made by UKAD or do I have the right to have certain doubts? Just to remind you that we are dealing here with an organisation that has less than stellar reputation and with an individual who had previously been caught cheating. Do I still have to apologize for having second thoughts regarding the "verdict of not guilty"...
Re: UKAD clears Dillian Whyte - charges dropped!
Posted: 10 Dec 2019, 11:40
by Enlightened-One
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 11:28I'm sure I read this statement BEFORE you provided it...your link like I said is irrelevant in this discussion...
The link I provided contained a copy of UKAD's statement, which I posted to this forum within 30 minutes of it being released. It is the topic of the thread.
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 11:28Is it my sacred duty to agree with any statement made by UKAD or do I have the right to have certain doubts?
It’s your prerogative to determine guilt based solely upon the "no smoke without a fire" justice system, regardless of the assertions of the accused party.
That being said, the vast majority of legal proceedings involving anti-doping organisations are confidential in nature, with only minimal information being disclosed to the public domain.
UKAD adhered to their own rules, which have remained pretty static for the last decade or so.
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 11:28Just to remind you that we are dealing here with an organisation that has less than stellar reputation and with an individual who had previously been caught cheating.
I'm highly familiar with UKAD's dealings with Tyson Fury and his cousin Hughie.
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 11:28Do I still have to apologize for having second thoughts regarding the "verdict of not guilty"...
You don’t have to apologise for a damn thing, but it’s clear that even if the same sources you claim to distrust furnished you with the evidence that you’ve demanded, you still wouldn’t believe them.
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 11:28I'm sure I read this statement BEFORE you provided it...your link like I said is irrelevant in this discussion...
The link I provided contained a copy of UKAD's statement, which I posted to this forum within 30 minutes of it being released. It is the topic of the thread.
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 11:28Is it my sacred duty to agree with any statement made by UKAD or do I have the right to have certain doubts?
It’s your prerogative to determine guilt based solely upon the "no smoke without a fire" justice system, regardless of the assertions of the accused party.
That being said, the vast majority of legal proceedings involving anti-doping organisations are confidential in nature, with only minimal information being disclosed to the public domain.
UKAD adhered to their own rules, which have remained pretty static for the last decade or so.
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 11:28Just to remind you that we are dealing here with an organisation that has less than stellar reputation and with an individual who had previously been caught cheating.
I'm highly familiar with UKAD's dealings with Tyson Fury and his cousin Hughie.
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 11:28Do I still have to apologize for having second thoughts regarding the "verdict of not guilty"...
You don’t have to apologise for a damn thing, but it’s clear that even if the same sources you claim to distrust furnished you with the evidence that you’ve demanded, you still wouldn’t believe them.
thank you for stating the obvious...rest assured that you are not the only source of information on boxrec including this issue ...you are wrong claiming that if I was provided with relevant information including that from independent sources as well as Whyte's personal accurate account I wouldn't be prepared to reconsider my opinion...at the moment though there's nothing out there except for UKAD's statement...considering the lack of transparency and the reputation of the parties involved it is just not good enough to go along with it imo...
Re: UKAD clears Dillian Whyte - charges dropped!
Posted: 10 Dec 2019, 12:13
by Enlightened-One
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 12:09you are wrong claiming that if I was provided with relevant information including that from independent sources as well as Whyte's personal accurate account I wouldn't be prepared to reconsider my opinion...
I've already provided you with the postal addresses of UKAD and Dillian Whyte's lawyer. You should use them to request the information you're yearning for.
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 12:09you are wrong claiming that if I was provided with relevant information including that from independent sources as well as Whyte's personal accurate account I wouldn't be prepared to reconsider my opinion...
I've already provided you with the postal addresses of UKAD and Dillian Whyte's lawyer. You should use them to request the information you're yearning for.
I believe they have nothing more to add to their statement...but I might appreciate a couple of credible links from independent sources...
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 12:13
I've already provided you with the postal addresses of UKAD and Dillian Whyte's lawyer. You should use them to request the information you're yearning for.
I believe they have nothing more to add to their statement...but I might appreciate a couple of credible links from independent sources...
Eddie Hearn has explained to Kugan Cassius that Dillian Whyte is already in the midst of legal proceedings against the various media outlets that slandered him or conveyed mistruths, since there were financial implications caused by their actions.
This is apparently the reason why Team Whyte haven’t published the highly-detailed explanation that you’ve requested, they’ve been advised by their own legal team from refraining from discussing the situation in public for the time being.
Re: UKAD clears Dillian Whyte - charges dropped!
Posted: 10 Dec 2019, 12:32
by greg
Eddie Hearn is not exactly an independent source or is he?..
greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 12:32
Eddie Hearn is not exactly an independent source or is he?..
I trust gas station sushi more than I do Eddie Hearn or any other promoter
typical EO. Everything Hearn or AJ or Whtye say is gospel. ANything Wilder or PBC say is bvllshvt. He's the quintessential nuthugger. But...he's consistant!
Re: UKAD clears Dillian Whyte - charges dropped!
Posted: 10 Dec 2019, 15:16
by margaret thatcher
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.
Re: UKAD clears Dillian Whyte - charges dropped!
Posted: 10 Dec 2019, 15:17
by margaret thatcher
BTW EO loves PBC, have you followed his posts? He is a Haymon lover for sure and probably his biggest supporter here
Re: UKAD clears Dillian Whyte - charges dropped!
Posted: 10 Dec 2019, 15:19
by oogiebe
margaret thatcher wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 15:16
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.'
Re: UKAD clears Dillian Whyte - charges dropped!
Posted: 10 Dec 2019, 15:25
by margaret thatcher
They might as well all be gas station sushi
Re: UKAD clears Dillian Whyte - charges dropped!
Posted: 10 Dec 2019, 15:35
by tiny_acres
margaret thatcher wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 15:25
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
give us that link where Whyte reasonably and with facts explains what actually happened? thank you!
...Is it my sacred duty to agree with any statement made by UKAD or do I have the right to have certain doubts? Just to remind you that we are dealing here with an organisation that has less than stellar reputation and with an individual who had previously been caught cheating. Do I still have to apologize for having second thoughts regarding the "verdict of not guilty"... 
