Povetkin-WOB bring up new information in Wilder Meldonium case
Posted: 19 Jul 2017, 09:44
"Povetkin-WOB bring up new information in Wilder Meldonium case" (Source: MMA Payout)
The attorneys in the Deontay Wilder-Alexander Povetkin/World of Boxing case are at it again with letters to the court sent late last month. The parties await a pending Motion for New Trial and/or Motion for JNOV but the attorneys for Povetking and WOB are lobbying the Court to consider newfound information.
As you may recall, at trial in February, a jury took little time in siding with Wilder. The jury decided that Povetkin had ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2016, the sole issue at trial, and Wilder won as a result. Povetkin filed a Motion for New Trial, or in the alternative, Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
In a letter to the Court dated, June 21, 2017, the attorneys for Povetkin and WOB note that a WADA Technical Document dated May 17, 2017 stated that WADA advised that “urinary concentrations of Meldonium below 100 ng/mL “should not be reported” “as an Adverse Analytical Finding.” The attorneys argue that this was in direct contrast to the opinion of Wilder’s expert which noted that he follows the WADA technical documents.
They also note that the WADA laboratory that examined Povetkin’s specimen has had its accreditation partial suspended. The suspension was announced via WADA press release on June 20, 2017 and Povetkin and WOB argue that this “goes to the heart of this litigation.” The argument is that the reliance on the accreditation by Wilder’s attorneys and his expert place the verdict into question since these issues have arisen after the verdict.
Thoughts?
The attorneys in the Deontay Wilder-Alexander Povetkin/World of Boxing case are at it again with letters to the court sent late last month. The parties await a pending Motion for New Trial and/or Motion for JNOV but the attorneys for Povetking and WOB are lobbying the Court to consider newfound information.
As you may recall, at trial in February, a jury took little time in siding with Wilder. The jury decided that Povetkin had ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2016, the sole issue at trial, and Wilder won as a result. Povetkin filed a Motion for New Trial, or in the alternative, Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
In a letter to the Court dated, June 21, 2017, the attorneys for Povetkin and WOB note that a WADA Technical Document dated May 17, 2017 stated that WADA advised that “urinary concentrations of Meldonium below 100 ng/mL “should not be reported” “as an Adverse Analytical Finding.” The attorneys argue that this was in direct contrast to the opinion of Wilder’s expert which noted that he follows the WADA technical documents.
They also note that the WADA laboratory that examined Povetkin’s specimen has had its accreditation partial suspended. The suspension was announced via WADA press release on June 20, 2017 and Povetkin and WOB argue that this “goes to the heart of this litigation.” The argument is that the reliance on the accreditation by Wilder’s attorneys and his expert place the verdict into question since these issues have arisen after the verdict.
Thoughts?
