BoxRec

So PEDvetkin will fight against Dohoupas who took that fight on 5 hours notice. Or was this all planned? I would not be surprised with RUSSIA.

They act like angels and blame AMERICA , while they are not "saint" too :)

Allowed by whom???

It's not WBC title(some) fight, just Riabinski waisting some more money to save face....Duhaupas earning unexpected paycheck...

You mean Stiverne took doping right in front of the doping agency but was allowed to fight anyway?
And the Americans most likely screwing up a dopingtest AGAIN! and waste another few months by doing that?

asdfjkl wrote:You mean Stiverne took doping right in front of the doping agency but was allowed to fight anyway?
And the Americans most likely screwing up a dopingtest AGAIN! and waste another few months by doing that?

Ye ye stop making excuses for your Russian boy. We all know you and Freedom are biased toward Americans.

You would do anything to make Russian looks innocent

Unbiased Expert wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:You mean Stiverne took doping right in front of the doping agency but was allowed to fight anyway?
And the Americans most likely screwing up a dopingtest AGAIN! and waste another few months by doing that?

Ye ye stop making excuses for your Russian boy. We all know you and Freedom are biased toward Americans.

You would do anything to make Russian looks innocent

It's not me, it's Wada and Vada who had no choice but admit Povetkin was innocent all the time, why would that be any differend this time?

asdfjkl wrote:

Unbiased Expert wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:You mean Stiverne took doping right in front of the doping agency but was allowed to fight anyway?
And the Americans most likely screwing up a dopingtest AGAIN! and waste another few months by doing that?

Ye ye stop making excuses for your Russian boy. We all know you and Freedom are biased toward Americans.

You would do anything to make Russian looks innocent

It's not me, it's Wada and Vada who had no choice but admit Povetkin was innocent all the time, why would that be any differend this time?

He wasn't proven innocent - it was just shown that he hadn't taken meldonium since April 11th. Meldonium has been banned since January.

the_doctor wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

Unbiased Expert wrote:

Ye ye stop making excuses for your Russian boy. We all know you and Freedom are biased toward Americans.

You would do anything to make Russian looks innocent

It's not me, it's Wada and Vada who had no choice but admit Povetkin was innocent all the time, why would that be any differend this time?

He wasn't proven innocent - it was just shown that he hadn't taken meldonium since April 11th. Meldonium has been banned since January.

He hasn't taken it in 2016 at all, despite they first suggested he might have done.

asdfjkl wrote:

the_doctor wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: It's not me, it's Wada and Vada who had no choice but admit Povetkin was innocent all the time, why would that be any differend this time?

He wasn't proven innocent - it was just shown that he hadn't taken meldonium since April 11th. Meldonium has been banned since January.

He hasn't taken it in 2016 at all, despite they first suggested he might have done.

There's a huge difference between "He definitely didn't take it" and "We couldn't prove he had taken it", surely you acknowledge that?

the_doctor wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

the_doctor wrote: He wasn't proven innocent - it was just shown that he hadn't taken meldonium since April 11th. Meldonium has been banned since January.

He hasn't taken it in 2016 at all, despite they first suggested he might have done.

There's a huge difference between "He definitely didn't take it" and "We couldn't prove he had taken it", surely you acknowledge that?

That's like saying, I can't proof Deontay Wilder isn't from Mars.

asdfjkl wrote:

the_doctor wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: He hasn't taken it in 2016 at all, despite they first suggested he might have done.

There's a huge difference between "He definitely didn't take it" and "We couldn't prove he had taken it", surely you acknowledge that?

That's like saying, I can't proof Deontay Wilder isn't from Mars.

Yep. That's exactly the same

Povetkin was never considered innocent. Doctors from Wada testified against him at his WBC hearing. They argued that his levels of Meldonium were not possible if he had stopped using before Jan 1, 2016 and not possible after testing for having nothing in his system prior. WBC just allowed him to continue to fight rather than suspend him since he had been inactive several months by then.

marvelous marv wrote:Povetkin was never considered innocent. Doctors from Wada testified against him at his WBC hearing. They argued that his levels of Meldonium were not possible if he had stopped using before Jan 1, 2016 and not possible after testing for having nothing in his system prior. WBC just allowed him to continue to fight rather than suspend him since he had been inactive several months by then.

It's easely possible, just test the samples from the Wach fight and you'll see everything is perfectly natural.
That's also why Wilder knew beforehand that this would show up and that's also why he could easely act like he wanted to fight Povetkin anyway, because he knew Wada/Vada would screw up that time as well.

How certain is the Duhaupas step-in? I can't imagine it really comes off. A few weeks is considered very short notice (Klitschko-Lennox Lewis), and a few days' notice is almost unheard of (Cooper vs. Holyfield). Has anyone ever stepped in on fight day itself? I mean recently, not in like 1905 when it probably happened all the time...

Unbiased Expert wrote:Povetkin allowed to fight after he failed test - JOKE

Your name is kind of ironic, because you are biased and you're the antonym of the word "expert", because if we learned one thing from the Wilder-Povetkin situation... is that there has to be an assumption of innocence until guilt has been proven according to the due processes and bylaws of the sport.

It would be unfair if Povetkin was compelled to miss out on a payday, due to accusations that have not yet been proven to be true.

If it was alleged that you had committed some sort of "crime", would it be fair for your employer to sack you on the basis of rumour or accusations where you've not been granted the opportunity to defend oneself in court?

i dont understand any of the drugs stuff....but frankly I'm not bothered anymore. the sport is in a shocking state

leaving the drugs aside...I would still have Povetkin as world number 2 (below wlad and above all the baubles holders including Wilder and josh. His record thoroughly deserves it

funso banjo baby wrote:i dont understand any of the drugs stuff....but frankly I'm not bothered anymore. the sport is in a shocking state

leaving the drugs aside...I would still have Povetkin as world number 2 (below wlad and above all the baubles holders including Wilder and josh. His record thoroughly deserves it

What record exactly??? Warwzik? Rahman??

funso banjo baby wrote:i dont understand any of the drugs stuff....but frankly I'm not bothered anymore. the sport is in a shocking state

leaving the drugs aside...I would still have Povetkin as world number 2 (below wlad and above all the baubles holders including Wilder and josh. His record thoroughly deserves it

Doubtful he ever gets his shot at Wilder now. With a 2nd positive test Wilder just won't ever fight him...and nobody would blame him. I figure the WBC will remove him as the mandatory as well, and they should.

gilgamesh wrote:

funso banjo baby wrote:i dont understand any of the drugs stuff....but frankly I'm not bothered anymore. the sport is in a shocking state

leaving the drugs aside...I would still have Povetkin as world number 2 (below wlad and above all the baubles holders including Wilder and josh. His record thoroughly deserves it

Doubtful he ever gets his shot at Wilder now. With a 2nd positive test Wilder just won't ever fight him...and nobody would blame him. I figure the WBC will remove him as the mandatory as well, and they should.

According to their previous ruling from August they(WBC) MUST strip him from his status and ban him.

Other ABC can do whatever they want....

Enlightened-One wrote:

Unbiased Expert wrote:Povetkin allowed to fight after he failed test - JOKE

Your name is kind of ironic, because you are biased and you're the antonym of the word "expert", because if we learned one thing from the Wilder-Povetkin situation... is that there has to be an assumption of innocence until guilt has been proven according to the due processes and bylaws of the sport.

It would be unfair if Povetkin was compelled to miss out on a payday, due to accusations that have not yet been proven to be true.

If it was alleged that you had committed some sort of "crime", would it be fair for your employer to sack you on the basis of rumour or accusations where you've not been granted the opportunity to defend oneself in court?

Even an employment tribunal is "on the balance of probabilities" rather than "innocent until proven guilty".

Plus, they're not accusations. His sample contained a banned substance, for the second time this year. It's not safe putting someone in against another fighter who could be pumped full of all sorts.

If he wants to take the WBC/Wilder/whoever to court to claim back his "payday" he's perfectly entitled to do so, but his sample tested positive. The fight is off. End of.

the_doctor wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Unbiased Expert wrote:Povetkin allowed to fight after he failed test - JOKE

Your name is kind of ironic, because you are biased and you're the antonym of the word "expert", because if we learned one thing from the Wilder-Povetkin situation... is that there has to be an assumption of innocence until guilt has been proven according to the due processes and bylaws of the sport.

It would be unfair if Povetkin was compelled to miss out on a payday, due to accusations that have not yet been proven to be true.

If it was alleged that you had committed some sort of "crime", would it be fair for your employer to sack you on the basis of rumour or accusations where you've not been granted the opportunity to defend oneself in court?

Even an employment tribunal is "on the balance of probabilities" rather than "innocent until proven guilty".

Plus, they're not accusations. His sample contained a banned substance, for the second time this year. It's not safe putting someone in against another fighter who could be pumped full of all sorts.

If he wants to take the WBC/Wilder/whoever to court to claim back his "payday" he's perfectly entitled to do so, but his sample tested positive. The fight is off. End of.

You’re missing the point. The title of this thread is this… "Povetkin allowed to fight after he failed test - JOKE"

I couldn’t really care less whether Povetkin is or isn’t guilty of taking PED’s, but I do believe in the presumption of innocence until guilt has been categorically proven via due process, whereby the accused party was given an opportunity to defend themselves against accusations.

Povetkin had previously faced a trial by the media when he was generally assumed of being a drug cheat, when he “technically” failed a drug test. He was subsequently cleared by both WADA and the WBC. There are multiple examples of boxers failing drug tests, but being subsequently cleared.

So I can categorically say that the latest bout of “accusations”… is precisely that… “accusations”, because due process has not been carried out yet and guilt has not been ascertained.

Povetkin hasn’t been given an opportunity to defend himself yet, we don’t if the second sample has been tested to verify the initial results of the positive test and we also don’t know if the drug tests were administered according to the rules and regulations.

For sure, there’s a possibility that Povetkin is guilty, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make…

I’m not interested in your nonsense theory about employment tribunals, because employers cannot sack employees due to accusations of criminal activity without sufficient evidence, without going through due process or without obtaining both sides of the story by discussing the matter with the accused party, otherwise they’d get sued for wrongful dismissal. Do you want to know why employers receive punishment for dismissing an employee using baseless accusations? It’s because it’s “wrong”.

The same rule applies to those actively complaining about Povetkin fighting Johann Duhaupas later on tonight. He should still be allowed to earn a living competing in the sport of boxing until wrongdoing has been categorically proven!

“The Povetkin-Duhaupas fight is on. End of.”

SportsRatings wrote:Has anyone ever stepped in on fight day itself? I mean recently, not in like 1905 when it probably happened all the time...

Yep, if 1993 is recent enough.
Tim Tomashek was plucked from the crowd to fight Tommy Morrison for the WBO title.
Morrison's original opponent, Mike Williams, withdrew from the contest one hour before fight time.

the_doctor wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

the_doctor wrote: There's a huge difference between "He definitely didn't take it" and "We couldn't prove he had taken it", surely you acknowledge that?

That's like saying, I can't proof Deontay Wilder isn't from Mars.

Yep. That's exactly the same

Keep in mind doctor you are trying to get a point across with arguably the dumbest mfer on the forum.

Enlightened-One wrote: I’m not interested in your nonsense theory about employment tribunals, because employers cannot sack employees due to accusations of criminal activity without sufficient evidence, without going through due process or without obtaining both sides of the story by discussing the matter with the accused party, otherwise they’d get sued for wrongful dismissal. Do you want to know why employers receive punishment for dismissing an employee using baseless accusations? It’s because it’s “wrong”.

They only receive punishment if the accusation is shown to be baseless. And this isn't a criminal case either.

When we are talking about a fight, if there is some evidence (and there is some evidence - not concrete evidence) that one of the fighters is on something that could unnaturally improve his performance, the fight should be cancelled. The fact that Povetkin is still allowed to fight despite potentially having something in his system is a disgrace and a massive health risk to his opponent. And I say that as someone who wanted to see Povetkin win, then smash Wilder.

Badhusker wrote:

the_doctor wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: That's like saying, I can't proof Deontay Wilder isn't from Mars.

Yep. That's exactly the same

Keep in mind doctor you are trying to get a point across with arguably the dumbest mfer on the forum.

Arguably? That's unbelievably generous.

Povetkin has zero credibility. He should retire or fight hapless Russian bums until he's 50. He is an embarrassment.