BoxRec

Datsue wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 03:46

Controversial wrote: ↑02 Aug 2019, 14:01Otherwise I can't understand how a banned substance can be found but then he is given the all clear to fight, that makes no sense does it.

Um, apart from his rich & powerful promoter pulled every string in the effing book to try to get the failed result ignored on a technicality, thinking "Win the fight & we'll deal with this later, worked for Fury so eff it...", you mean?

Occam's razor, innit.

On what technicality though, if a fighter is caught then I can't believe any promotor could get the BBBoC and/or UKAD to ignore the result until after a fight.

I cant understand why UKAD would give Whyte the all clear to fight, it makes me wonder if he did actually "fail" a test in the true sense of the word, maybe there was an adverse finding, Whyte brought in VADA to explain why there might be an issue and UKAD accepted it, who knows but UKAD bring things on themselves with their secrets and confidentiality agreements

handsofstone wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 09:27 I cant understand why UKAD would give Whyte the all clear to fight, it makes me wonder if he did actually "fail" a test in the true sense of the word, maybe there was an adverse finding, Whyte brought in VADA to explain why there might be an issue and UKAD accepted it, who knows but UKAD bring things on themselves with their secrets and confidentiality agreements

Yeah but mate, do you not remember when both Tyson and Hughie failed a test for nandrolone on the card where Tyson beat Hammer? Anyway for some very strange reason UKAD/BBoC didn't put in a provisional suspension and Tyson was free to go and fight Wlad and he ends up winning the world titles.

It wasn't until like 3 odd years later that they were both given backdated 2 year bans and it seems like that was generous in the end because UKAD was worried about not having the funds to actually fight it anymore in the legal system.

Controversial wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 09:01

Boxing Prospect wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 03:43

Imagine being wasted the night before, driving home then getting the test the following morning as you're leaving the house. The morning test has a lower amount of alcohol in your system, but they tested the night before you'd have been proper fucked

Yeah I appreciate that and that's what I meant, was it such a microscopic trace that was found that it could argued it wouldn't give him any advantage in the fight? In the same way a trace level of alcohol in your system wouldn't affect your ability to drive? Otherwise if the amount found is irrelevant then why was he given the nod to fight, thats the bit I can't work out.

It’s not for a fight night advantage, it’s so they can train harder, recover quicker while in camp.

tobyh5 wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 09:47

Controversial wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 09:01

Yeah I appreciate that and that's what I meant, was it such a microscopic trace that was found that it could argued it wouldn't give him any advantage in the fight? In the same way a trace level of alcohol in your system wouldn't affect your ability to drive? Otherwise if the amount found is irrelevant then why was he given the nod to fight, thats the bit I can't work out.

It’s not for a fight night advantage, it’s so they can train harder, recover quicker while in camp.

I'm just trying to second guess their decision to allow the fight to go ahead, its should be a clear case if you are caught then the fight is off or delayed until it's looked into. Not fail a test, be allowed to fight and then argue the toss afterwards. It's all very bizarre.

This is shaping up to be another example of UKAD doing themselves no favours at all...

chinarich wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 13:01 This is shaping up to be another example of UKAD doing themselves no favours at all...

Not talking about this particular case but generally, UKAD's role is hampered by lawyers. They get priced out of doing their job.
There shouldn't be the right to make a legal challenge above and beyond getting your B sample tested in a third party lab, you should just get banned for life.

Nondescript wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 09:34

handsofstone wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 09:27 I cant understand why UKAD would give Whyte the all clear to fight, it makes me wonder if he did actually "fail" a test in the true sense of the word, maybe there was an adverse finding, Whyte brought in VADA to explain why there might be an issue and UKAD accepted it, who knows but UKAD bring things on themselves with their secrets and confidentiality agreements

Yeah but mate, do you not remember when both Tyson and Hughie failed a test for nandrolone on the card where Tyson beat Hammer? Anyway for some very strange reason UKAD/BBoC didn't put in a provisional suspension and Tyson was free to go and fight Wlad and he ends up winning the world titles.

It wasn't until like 3 odd years later that they were both given backdated 2 year bans and it seems like that was generous in the end because UKAD was worried about not having the funds to actually fight it anymore in the legal system.

Ah right mate the whole Fury saga was confusing as hell I never actually knew what even happened totally, it's a shambles all round, UKAD need to shape up or ship out

Hearn has been making the point about Matchroom not doing anything wrong, and has been doubling down on that in recent interviews. This talk of Whyte having his own legal team working on a defense while all the time Eddie is distancing himself from doing anything wrong looks ominous for Whyte.

Pretty sure the B sample is going to be positive. Hearn hinted as much in one of his recent interviews, although he was talking about B samples generally.

handsofstone wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 13:44

Nondescript wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 09:34

Yeah but mate, do you not remember when both Tyson and Hughie failed a test for nandrolone on the card where Tyson beat Hammer? Anyway for some very strange reason UKAD/BBoC didn't put in a provisional suspension and Tyson was free to go and fight Wlad and he ends up winning the world titles.

It wasn't until like 3 odd years later that they were both given backdated 2 year bans and it seems like that was generous in the end because UKAD was worried about not having the funds to actually fight it anymore in the legal system.

Ah right mate the whole Fury saga was confusing as hell I never actually knew what even happened totally, it's a shambles all round, UKAD need to shape up or ship out

They can't exactly 'ship out', they are a government agency.

They are employed to test sportsmen and women across all sports in the UK.

Their budget barely covers that, let alone lawyers fees.

They have flaws, no doubt about that.

But they do the best they can and they are not corrupt.

They just have a bizarre set of procedures, are actually in line with WADA, I believe.

JimStone wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 13:07

chinarich wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 13:01 This is shaping up to be another example of UKAD doing themselves no favours at all...

Not talking about this particular case but generally, UKAD's role is hampered by lawyers. They get priced out of doing their job.
There shouldn't be the right to make a legal challenge above and beyond getting your B sample tested in a third party lab, you should just get banned for life.

That’s perhaps a tad extreme...

chinarich wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 14:32

JimStone wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 13:07

Not talking about this particular case but generally, UKAD's role is hampered by lawyers. They get priced out of doing their job.
There shouldn't be the right to make a legal challenge above and beyond getting your B sample tested in a third party lab, you should just get banned for life.

That’s perhaps a tad extreme...

A tad extreme possibly but it was fairly obvious Tyson benefitted from having more money to throw at a legal case than UKAD did

chinarich wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 14:32

JimStone wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 13:07

Not talking about this particular case but generally, UKAD's role is hampered by lawyers. They get priced out of doing their job.
There shouldn't be the right to make a legal challenge above and beyond getting your B sample tested in a third party lab, you should just get banned for life.

That’s perhaps a tad extreme...

The deterrents in place aren't fit for purpose. 100% or nothing is the best approach. fornicate these cheats off full stop or fornicate the testers off full stop. Anything in between just benefits lawyers, journalists and cheats.

JimStone wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 03:57

chinarich wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 14:32

That’s perhaps a tad extreme...

The deterrents in place aren't fit for purpose. 100% or nothing is the best approach. eff these cheats off full stop or eff the testers off full stop. Anything in between just benefits lawyers, journalists and cheats.

I’m all for harsh penalties, and boxing needs a global anti-doping body which hands down consistent sanctions. However, you can’t just advocate a life ban without any legal recourse no matter what the offence is. Take for example the case of Alain Baxter, a British skier, who tested positive because he had used a nasal spray (the same brand he always used) but in the country he was in the formulation was different and it contained a banned substance.

Should a boxer in this case receive a life ban?

JimStone wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 05:23

tobyh5 wrote: ↑03 Aug 2019, 04:40 I have just had a thought, or another angle to look at this whole thing.

Passing VADA is being used to cast doubt on a failed UKAD test. It should be the other way round. A failed UKAD test should raise questions over passed VADA test.

Further, the fact he was tested throughout camp by VADA and not caught, when we know he used PED's (he has to of, its in his p1ss), suggests it is easy to use PED's and pass VADA tests. So further again and bigger picture - remind me again why we are to believe AJ is clean? Oh, because he pays for and passes VADA.

The way VADA is funded leaves it open to temptation and accusations of corruption.

Agreed, If fighters are paying them 40k each fight then a negative test is preferable to both parties

chinarich wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 04:08

JimStone wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 03:57

The deterrents in place aren't fit for purpose. 100% or nothing is the best approach. eff these cheats off full stop or eff the testers off full stop. Anything in between just benefits lawyers, journalists and cheats.

I’m all for harsh penalties, and boxing needs a global anti-doping body which hands down consistent sanctions. However, you can’t just advocate a life ban without any legal recourse no matter what the offence is. Take for example the case of Alain Baxter, a British skier, who tested positive because he had used a nasal spray (the same brand he always used) but in the country he was in the formulation was different and it contained a banned substance.

Should a boxer in this case receive a life ban?

Yes. Kill one to warn a thousand.

JimStone wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 07:02

chinarich wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 04:08

I’m all for harsh penalties, and boxing needs a global anti-doping body which hands down consistent sanctions. However, you can’t just advocate a life ban without any legal recourse no matter what the offence is. Take for example the case of Alain Baxter, a British skier, who tested positive because he had used a nasal spray (the same brand he always used) but in the country he was in the formulation was different and it contained a banned substance.

Should a boxer in this case receive a life ban?

Yes. Kill one to warn a thousand.

I kinda agree, as harsh as it is.

But it is through being harsh and a no tolerance attitude that the next British Skier wanting to use a nasal spray would check the formula if using it abroad. If the onus was on the athlete completely, they would be a lot more cautious, as they should be.

Btw, I wonder if Baxter really did use the same brand in the UK or if he failed a test and they searched like fck for any possible alternative reason it could have been found in his system. Reminds me of Linford Christie being caught and saying it was in some ginseng tea he drank (one of the times he got off with a failed test, rather than the other times he got caught and banned)

Look at the goon that wrote this article. Talk about misleading

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sportbib ... 1.amp.html

Nondescript wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 10:03 Look at the goon that wrote this article. Talk about misleading

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sportbib ... 1.amp.html

Wow! I admire that work. All factually correct but not the true story either.

That’s a lot of skill tbh

tobyh5 wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 12:52

Nondescript wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 10:03 Look at the goon that wrote this article. Talk about misleading

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sportbib ... 1.amp.html

Wow! I admire that work. All factually correct but not the true story either.

That’s a lot of skill tbh

Yeah I should have been more clear - the headline specifically.

Nondescript wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 14:49

tobyh5 wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 12:52

Wow! I admire that work. All factually correct but not the true story either.

That’s a lot of skill tbh

Yeah I should have been more clear - the headline specifically.

Sorry mate, was not at all arguing your post which was bang on. I was backing it up - factually correct but not giving a true reflection of events, so totally misleading as you said

tobyh5 wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 14:56

Nondescript wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 14:49

Yeah I should have been more clear - the headline specifically.

Sorry mate, was not at all arguing your post which was bang on. I was backing it up - factually correct but not giving a true reflection of events, so totally misleading as you said

I don't wanna sound like some tin pot conspiracist but it makes you wonder if some of these websites just act as propaganda arms for certain promoters. For instance on the flip side there's always one boxing website that seems to shit on everything Matchroom related and talks up another certain promoter.

It's all very strange.

tobyh5 wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 14:56

Nondescript wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 14:49

Yeah I should have been more clear - the headline specifically.

Sorry mate, was not at all arguing your post which was bang on. I was backing it up - factually correct but not giving a true reflection of events, so totally misleading as you said

Sounds like the majority of EO's posts

ewenhay wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 17:29

tobyh5 wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 14:56

Sorry mate, was not at all arguing your post which was bang on. I was backing it up - factually correct but not giving a true reflection of events, so totally misleading as you said

Sounds like the majority of EO's posts

Yeah but you cannot refute him with facts!

Nondescript wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 17:34

ewenhay wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 17:29

Sounds like the majority of EO's posts

Yeah but you cannot refute him with facts!

LMFAO!