UKAD clears Dillian Whyte - charges dropped!

[ewenhay]

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.

You know you're talking nonsense.

Changing the rules now doesn't make him innocent of the rules at the time he failed.

[MarkMcBurney]

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.

In the words of Dillian Whyte, you're 'taarkin rubbish'. A change in rules does not mean that someone previously breaking them is now innocent. Canelo knew full well what the rules were at that time and he flouted them. As Whyte's mate Bomber Bellew says, 'simple as that'.

[Deleted_Scenes]

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.

Whyte declined the opportunity to have his B sample tested.

Ryan Martin also declined to have his B sample tested.

Both tested positive for trace amounts of banned substances.

Both submitted clean tests prior to the adverse findings.

Both cases were attributed to contamination, even though the time scales in neither case prove anything of significance either way.

Under UKAD rules, contamination is not considered an acceptable defence.

The first time offender is now serving a 4 year suspension (may be reduced at a later date).

The repeat offender was cleared.

There's your conspiracy.

[tiny_acres]

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.

Whyte declined the opportunity to have his B sample tested.

Ryan Martin also declined to have his B sample tested.

Both tested positive for trace amounts of banned substances.

Both submitted clean tests prior to the adverse findings.

Both cases were attributed to contamination, even though the time scales in neither case prove anything of significance either way.

Under UKAD rules, contamination is not considered an acceptable defence.

The first time offender is now serving a 4 year suspension (may be reduced at a later date).

The repeat offender was cleared.

There's your conspiracy.

Great post

[MarkMcBurney]

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.

Whyte declined the opportunity to have his B sample tested.

Ryan Martin also declined to have his B sample tested.

Both tested positive for trace amounts of banned substances.

Both submitted clean tests prior to the adverse findings.

Both cases were attributed to contamination, even though the time scales in neither case prove anything of significance either way.

Under UKAD rules, contamination is not considered an acceptable defence.

The first time offender is now serving a 4 year suspension (may be reduced at a later date).

The repeat offender was cleared.

There's your conspiracy.

[Enlightened-One]

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.

Whyte declined the opportunity to have his B sample tested.


Under UKAD rules, contamination is not considered an acceptable defence.

Have you read UKAD’s rules?

If you want to challenge me on my assertions about Dillian Whyte’s situation and UKAD’s rules, without performing research, then please do.

[oogiebe]

Whyte declined the opportunity to have his B sample tested.


Under UKAD rules, contamination is not considered an acceptable defence.

Have you read UKAD’s rules?

If you want to challenge me on my assertions about Dillian Whyte’s situation and UKAD’s rules, without performing research, then please do.

You should include his entire post.

[Deleted_Scenes]

Whyte declined the opportunity to have his B sample tested.


Under UKAD rules, contamination is not considered an acceptable defence.

Have you read UKAD’s rules?

If you want to challenge me on my assertions about Dillian Whyte’s situation and UKAD’s rules, without performing research, then please do.

"2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance
enters his/her body. An Athlete is responsible for any Prohibited
Substance or any of its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in
his/her Sample. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault,
negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in
order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1; nor is
the Athlete's lack of intent, Fault, negligence or knowledge a valid
defence to a charge that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been
committed under Article 2.1."

Quoted directly from UKAD Anti-Doping Rules.

You'll probably go on to find some discretion clause (which does exist), and try to argue semantics.

Irrelevant. It's the inconsistent application of the rules that's the issue, not the fine detail of what they say.

[margaret thatcher]

[tiny_acres]

Have you read UKAD’s rules?

If you want to challenge me on my assertions about Dillian Whyte’s situation and UKAD’s rules, without performing research, then please do.

"2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance
enters his/her body. An Athlete is responsible for any Prohibited
Substance or any of its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in
his/her Sample. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault,
negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in
order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1; nor is
the Athlete's lack of intent, Fault, negligence or knowledge a valid
defence to a charge that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been
committed under Article 2.1."

Quoted directly from UKAD Anti-Doping Rules.

You'll probably go on to find some discretion clause (which does exist), and try to argue semantics.

Irrelevant. It's the inconsistent application of the rules that's the issue, not the fine detail of what they say.

I'm eagerly waiting on the guaranteed argument.
I'm making popcorn and sitting anxiously

[Deleted_Scenes]

"2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance
enters his/her body. An Athlete is responsible for any Prohibited
Substance or any of its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in
his/her Sample. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault,
negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in
order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1; nor is
the Athlete's lack of intent, Fault, negligence or knowledge a valid
defence to a charge that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been
committed under Article 2.1."

Quoted directly from UKAD Anti-Doping Rules.

You'll probably go on to find some discretion clause (which does exist), and try to argue semantics.

Irrelevant. It's the inconsistent application of the rules that's the issue, not the fine detail of what they say.

I'm eagerly waiting on the guaranteed argument.
I'm making popcorn and sitting anxiously

I know what's coming. I think I've said all that needs to be said though.

I would be interested to know if EO could provide any previous examples (ever) of UKAD choosing not to suspend a fighter, following a 2nd rule violation. Pretty sure Whyte is the first.

[tiny_acres]

I'm eagerly waiting on the guaranteed argument.
I'm making popcorn and sitting anxiously

I know what's coming. I think I've said all that needs to be said though.

I would be interested to know if EO could provide any previous examples (ever) of UKAD choosing not to suspend a fighter, following a 2nd rule violation. Pretty sure Whyte is the first.

I'm interested if there are others also.

[greg]

..UKAD rules seem to be very clear.. ...but hey, may be they don't apply to the second-time offenders ..

[Evander]

Dillian Whyte
I think Dillian is a different bod, Chisora is similar, same mentality but different styles and at different stages in their careers,
The London firm at Heavyweight rank high, they've been very competitive
Unless Dillian has been misguided he's on course for the biggest payday of his career.

[Enlightened-One]

Have you read UKAD’s rules?

If you want to challenge me on my assertions about Dillian Whyte’s situation and UKAD’s rules, without performing research, then please do.

"2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance
enters his/her body. An Athlete is responsible for any Prohibited
Substance or any of its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in
his/her Sample. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault,
negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in
order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1; nor is
the Athlete's lack of intent, Fault, negligence or knowledge a valid
defence to a charge that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been
committed under Article 2.1."

Quoted directly from UKAD Anti-Doping Rules.

You'll probably go on to find some discretion clause (which does exist), and try to argue semantics.

Irrelevant. It's the inconsistent application of the rules that's the issue, not the fine detail of what they say.

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?

[Enlightened-One]

You'll probably go on to find some discretion clause (which does exist), and try to argue semantics.

Alright, let’s deal with each point your raised about the Whyte/UKAD situation head on, shall we?

Whyte declined the opportunity to have his B sample tested.

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.

Here’s another false claim you made:

Under UKAD rules, contamination is not considered an acceptable defence.

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.

You’ve either not read these rules or you should attend adult literacy classes.

To those fools that supported your absurd claims, simply because they’re snowflakes that deem feelings more important than facts, then perhaps they should review the evidence I’ve cited and then eat some humble pie, because you’ve all been silenced!

[oogiebe]

I'm eagerly waiting on the guaranteed argument.
I'm making popcorn and sitting anxiously

LMFAO! And look above for your answer! (No need to read...just look!)

[keirw]

There is no real evidence of curruption here or in any of the other dubious cases UKAD have been involved in down the years.

That being said, it is natural for people to be sceptical when an unknown boxer receives a harsh 2 year ban for taking a recently banned over the counter preworkout. Yet, a few years later, the very same boxer (now a big name) gets let off completely despite 'allegedly' taking anabolic steroids.

Boxing is only a small part of UKAD's remit and they have form across the board. Recently a low level athlete received a lengthy ban for recreational drugs yet Chris Froome gets nothing for blatantly abusing TUEs.

From the outside looking in it appears that athletes with financial backing tend to get the benefit of the doubt and those without the resources to put up a fight get a raw deal.

Although I do believe Whyte is innocent in this case (naive, I know) I fully understand the cynicism this situation has received.

[Deleted_Scenes]

Should I, or shouldn't I?

You've just done exactly what I said there, EO, and then gone a bit further.

Ignoring the central point - check
Semantics - check
Missing context - check
Strawman - check

[oogiebe]

Should I, or shouldn't I?

You've just done exactly what I said there, EO, and then gone a bit further.

Ignoring the central point - check
Semantics - check
Missing context - check
Strawman - check

Are you surprised?

[Enlightened-One]

Should I, or shouldn't I?

You've just done exactly what I said there, EO, and then gone a bit further.

Ignoring the central point - check
Semantics - check
Missing context - check
Strawman - check

Citing easily accessible rules isn’t “semantics”.

Quoting media articles opposing your creatively imagined fictional claims isn’t ignoring the “central point”.

Your reasoning is deeply flawed, because it’s built solely upon concepts you’ve dreamed, rather than studiously research real-world events that actually occurred.

You forget that you were the one who originally challenged my assertions.

And my counter-argument, which was supported by evidence, completely decimated any fictional claims you’d conveyed.

By the way, you haven’t provided a single shred of evidence to support any of your claims and it’s categorically impossible for you to undermine mine.

[oogiebe]

Should I, or shouldn't I?

You've just done exactly what I said there, EO, and then gone a bit further.

Ignoring the central point - check
Semantics - check
Missing context - check
Strawman - check

Citing easily accessible rules isn’t “semantics”.

Quoting media articles opposing your creatively imagined fictional claims isn’t ignoring the “central point”.

Your reasoning is deeply flawed, because it’s built solely upon concepts you’ve dreamed, rather than studiously research real-world events that actually occurred.

You forget that you were the one who originally challenged my assertion and my counter-argument, which was supported by evidence, completely decimated any fictional claims you’d conveyed.

By the way, you haven’t provided a single shred of evidence to support any of your claims and it’s categorically impossible for you to undermine mine.

One word of advice. Never run a poll asking posters to take sides.

[Enlightened-One]

Citing easily accessible rules isn’t “semantics”.

Quoting media articles opposing your creatively imagined fictional claims isn’t ignoring the “central point”.

Your reasoning is deeply flawed, because it’s built solely upon concepts you’ve dreamed, rather than studiously research real-world events that actually occurred.

You forget that you were the one who originally challenged my assertion and my counter-argument, which was supported by evidence, completely decimated any fictional claims you’d conveyed.

By the way, you haven’t provided a single shred of evidence to support any of your claims and it’s categorically impossible for you to undermine mine.

One word of advice. Never run a poll asking posters to take sides.

People want me to be wrong, simply because they don’t like me, then that’s fine by me.

I convey real-world facts supported by evidence.

Feelings aren’t more important than facts.

And whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they aren’t entitled to their own facts.

[oogiebe]

One word of advice. Never run a poll asking posters to take sides.

People want me to be wrong, simply because they don’t like me, then that’s fine by me.

I convey real-world facts supported by evidence.

Feelings aren’t more important than facts

Well, you've got your bases covered.

[Enlightened-One]

People want me to be wrong, simply because they don’t like me, then that’s fine by me.

I convey real-world facts supported by evidence.

Feelings aren’t more important than facts.

And whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they aren’t entitled to their own facts.

Well, you've got your bases covered.

Let’s not forget though, that the person you’re cheerleading lied about UKAD’s rules and also lied about Whyte’s reluctance to have his B-sample tested.

I provided evidence to disprove those lies.

I am happy to be disliked by those that respect liars or who regularly tell lies themselves.