BoxRec

allegedly said he knows for a fact that members of the BBBoC didn't want the Whyte/Rivas fight to go on, but they were overruled by UKAD.

UKAD can force boxing matches to happen ?

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑29 Jul 2019, 20:53 UKAD can force boxing matches to happen ?

I have no idea. I just listened to Wvrren speak. Maybe it's that UKAD has the power to make that decision? Or the recommendation has to come from UKAD to NOT have the fight?

As far as I’m aware only the BBBC can sanction a BBBC sanctioned fight

I would question why does Warren know this for a fact?

Is it really appropriate for disgruntled BBBoC members to use a rival promoter to Hearn as a mouth piece for such information?

Nightmare Roy wrote: ↑29 Jul 2019, 22:08 As far as I’m aware only the BBBC can sanction a BBBC sanctioned fight

I'd imagine it's down to the fact that the UK government grant the right to issue sanctions for PED use to UKAD directly, not to the bodies governing each individual sport. UKAD consider a fighter innocent, until all samples have been tested, all evidence evaluated, appeals process followed, and a final verdict reached.

The up side of this, is you don't get commissions being overly lenient with big names, because they want their next fight to happen under their jurisdiction. The down side, is that the BBBoC can't cite 'PED use' as a reason to remove sanctioning for a fight, until UKAD say so.

They could probably refuse to license a fighter, or refuse to sanction a fight, to begin with, but once they've given it the go ahead, with all the money involved, if they then removed the sanction without a legally valid reason, they'd open themselves up to legal action from the promoter, and likely lose a ton of money in court. Hearn would have taken them to the cleaners.

I'd question how Warren knows any of this though. It may be true, or not, but it sounds like something he's just pulled out of his arse.

In regards to Wḁṙṙḛns claims, he’s been a boxing promoter for roughly four decades, which means he’s bound to have established relationships with most, if not all, boxing insiders. He’ll be aware of lots of shenanigans about our beloved sport that fight fans are never informed of.

So his assertions could either be true or a slightly embellished account of events, but he is biased, since he’s Eddie Hearn’s rival.

That being said, is anyone intrigued about the lack of news relating to Dillian Whyte’s situation?

Six days ago, Boxing Scene published Thomas Hauser’s article alleging Dillian Whyte’s drug test failure due to two metabolites of the banned drug Dianabol being detected in ‘The Body Snatcher’s’ A-sample, with the positive test results coming back on the 17th July.

So it’s been thirteen days since that date and neither UKAD nor the BBBofC have officially announced anything about the situation. The WBC and VADA have not confirmed anything either.

It’s highly-unusual for the sports’ main governing bodies to maintain this sort of radio silence for any newly-discovered alleged drug cheat for such a lengthy timeframe. There has to be a reason for this!

What on earth is going on?

oogiebe wrote: ↑29 Jul 2019, 20:32 allegedly said he knows for a fact that members of the BBBoC didn't want the Whyte/Rivas fight to go on, but they were overruled by UKAD.

Mate, you should post this in the British & Irish board aswell. It will be of interest of people in there for sure.

oogiebe wrote: ↑29 Jul 2019, 20:54

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑29 Jul 2019, 20:53 UKAD can force boxing matches to happen ?

I have no idea. I just listened to Wvrren speak. Maybe it's that UKAD has the power to make that decision? Or the recommendation has to come from UKAD to NOT have the fight?

There's the problem

If UKAD were happy for the fight to go ahead pending investigation but the BBBofC decided not to sanction the fight then they could have left themselves open to legal action from Matchroom and Rivas’ side I imagine...

oogiebe wrote: ↑29 Jul 2019, 20:54

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑29 Jul 2019, 20:53 UKAD can force boxing matches to happen ?

I have no idea. I just listened to Wvrren speak. Maybe it's that UKAD has the power to make that decision? Or the recommendation has to come from UKAD to NOT have the fight?

BBBofC would probably leave themselves open to a lawsuit if they suspended the fight without UKAD backing.

chinarich wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 10:34 If UKAD were happy for the fight to go ahead pending investigation but the BBBofC decided not to sanction the fight then they could have left themselves open to legal action from Matchroom and Rivas’ side I imagine...

Oops, snap, just noticed this.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 05:01 That being said, is anyone intrigued about the lack of news relating to Dillian Whyte’s situation?

Six days ago, Boxing Scene published Thomas Hauser’s article alleging Dillian Whyte’s drug test failure due to two metabolites of the banned drug Dianabol being detected in ‘The Body Snatcher’s’ A-sample, with the positive test results coming back on the 17th July.

So it’s been thirteen days since that date and neither UKAD nor the BBBofC have officially announced anything about the situation. The WBC and VADA have not confirmed anything either.

It’s highly-unusual for the sports’ main governing bodies to maintain this sort of radio silence for any newly-discovered alleged drug cheat for such a lengthy timeframe. There has to be a reason for this!

What on earth is going on?

It's common practice for UKAD to announce initial findings only to the fighter, and to the BBBoC. If they were testing on behalf of one of the alphabets, then they'd be included too.

Until the B sample is tested, and other evidence and mitigation reviewed fully, they operate under an innocent until proven guilty policy. That's why the fight went ahead, Rivas wasn't told, and there hasn't been any official announcement made yet. It's the exact same situation as the Furys, except we don't know how long this will drag out yet.

The WBC haven't said anything, because they weren't told either. Their testing was conducted by VADA, which Whyte passed.

Wonder why BT removed that clip of Warren saying he knows that BBBC was against the fight

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 12:15 Wonder why BT removed that clip of Warren saying he knows that BBBC was against the fight

That is odd.

Guessing there were some legal second thoughts

The press association allege that Dillian Whyte has instructed his legal team to ask the Boxing Scene website to "remove the initial story, and their subsequent reports, on the grounds they are defamatory and an invasion of privacy."

I’m guessing that BT and/or Queensberry Promotions either might have been asked to remove the video or they did it voluntarily, due to fear of litigation.

It's been almost two weeks since Dillian Whyte's failed test and neither UKAD nor the BBBofC have officially announced anything about the situation. The WBC and VADA have not confirmed anything either.

If Whyte had tested positive for banned substances on the 17th July, the B-sample should have already been tested by now, but the various sports’ governing bodies have clearly chosen to maintain some sort of radio silence.

The testing of B-samples usually takes in the region of 24 to 30 hours and usually costs $500.

It now seems 100% certain that Dillian Whyte successfully passed his VADA testing and that the issue relates specifically to the UKAD tests.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 12:44 The press association allege that Dillian Whyte has instructed his legal team to ask the Boxing Scene website to "remove the initial story, and their subsequent reports, on the grounds they are defamatory and an invasion of privacy."

I’m guessing that BT and/or Queensberry Promotions either might have been asked to remove the video or they did it voluntarily, due to fear of litigation.

It's been almost two weeks since Dillian Whyte's failed test and neither UKAD nor the BBBofC have officially announced anything about the situation. The WBC and VADA have not confirmed anything either.

If Whyte had tested positive for banned substances on the 17th July, the B-sample should have already been tested by now, but the various sports’ governing bodies have clearly chosen to maintain some sort of radio silence.

The testing of B-samples usually takes in the region of 24 to 30 hours and usually costs $500.

I know we can agree on this one EO: None of this is good for boxing.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 10:45

chinarich wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 10:34 If UKAD were happy for the fight to go ahead pending investigation but the BBBofC decided not to sanction the fight then they could have left themselves open to legal action from Matchroom and Rivas’ side I imagine...

Oops, snap, just noticed this.

Great minds, ha!

oogiebe wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 12:48

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 12:44 The press association allege that Dillian Whyte has instructed his legal team to ask the Boxing Scene website to "remove the initial story, and their subsequent reports, on the grounds they are defamatory and an invasion of privacy."

I’m guessing that BT and/or Queensberry Promotions either might have been asked to remove the video or they did it voluntarily, due to fear of litigation.

It's been almost two weeks since Dillian Whyte's failed test and neither UKAD nor the BBBofC have officially announced anything about the situation. The WBC and VADA have not confirmed anything either.

If Whyte had tested positive for banned substances on the 17th July, the B-sample should have already been tested by now, but the various sports’ governing bodies have clearly chosen to maintain some sort of radio silence.

The testing of B-samples usually takes in the region of 24 to 30 hours and usually costs $500.

I know we can agree on this one EO: None of this is good for boxing.

Yeah, I completely agree.

What’s weird though is that VADA believed that Billy Joe Saunders tested positive for banned substances, but UKAD considers him to be a clean athlete.

However, if the rumour is true, UKAD believed that Dillian Whyte tested positive for banned substances, but VADA probably considers him to be a clean athlete.

The lack of consistency in terms of what is deemed as having failed a drug test and also the procedures adhered to by the various governing bodies to handle alleged drug cheats are clearly huge issues for our sport.

Could it be UKAD and VADA tested on different days and so were working with different samples.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 13:17

oogiebe wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 12:48

I know we can agree on this one EO: None of this is good for boxing.

Yeah, I completely agree.

What’s weird though is that VADA believed that Billy Joe Saunders tested positive for banned substances, but UKAD considers him to be a clean athlete.

However, if the rumour is true, UKAD believed that Dillian Whyte tested positive for banned substances, but VADA probably considers him to be a clean athlete.

The lack of consistency in terms of what is deemed as having failed a drug test and also the procedures adhered to by the various governing bodies to handle alleged drug cheats are clearly huge issues for our sport.

I think under UKAD rules the BJS substance is permitted out of competition. I may be wrong as I haven’t rechecked the facts but I recall this being mentioned at the time...

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 12:44 The press association allege that Dillian Whyte has instructed his legal team to ask the Boxing Scene website to "remove the initial story, and their subsequent reports, on the grounds they are defamatory and an invasion of privacy."

I’m guessing that BT and/or Queensberry Promotions either might have been asked to remove the video or they did it voluntarily, due to fear of litigation.

It's been almost two weeks since Dillian Whyte's failed test and neither UKAD nor the BBBofC have officially announced anything about the situation. The WBC and VADA have not confirmed anything either.

If Whyte had tested positive for banned substances on the 17th July, the B-sample should have already been tested by now, but the various sports’ governing bodies have clearly chosen to maintain some sort of radio silence.

The testing of B-samples usually takes in the region of 24 to 30 hours and usually costs $500.

It now seems 100% certain that Dillian Whyte successfully passed his VADA testing and that the issue relates specifically to the UKAD tests.

Where did you see that? I've tried searching for it but can't find it. Both those articles are still up on BS as of now btw.

chinarich wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 10:34 If UKAD were happy for the fight to go ahead pending investigation but the BBBofC decided not to sanction the fight then they could have left themselves open to legal action from Matchroom and Rivas’ side I imagine...

They are definitely open to legal action, as they didn't notify Rivas.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 13:19 Could it be UKAD and VADA tested on different days and so were working with different samples.

That's exactly what it is. VADA turned up a few days before UKAD, apparently, so what they found must have been ingested after VADA had taken their samples. Had VADA turned up at the same time as UKAD, Whyte would have failed both.