BoxRec

Posted: **30 Jul 2019, 16:14**

A sample "A" UKAD collected from Mr. Dillian Whyte in connection with his fight against Oscar Rivas yielded an adverse finding. In light of that finding, and pending the outcome of the investigation and the WBC award process, the World Boxing Council provisionally suspends the recognition of Dillian Whyte as WBC Interim World Champion and mandatory division challenger.

The WBC has notified Mr. Whyte and his team about the suspension of the WBC. Mr. Whyte will be given the opportunity to present his position to the WBC at an investigation hearing, the date and place of which will be announced in the near future. Throughout its investigation and hearing, the WBC will provide Mr. Whyte and his team with the opportunity to present any available information and materials, as well as any exculpatory evidence they may deem appropriate.

https://wbcboxing.com/estado-de-dillian-whyte/

Posted: **30 Jul 2019, 16:20**

May not be as fortunate as Ortiz or Stiverne then

Posted: **30 Jul 2019, 16:35**

https://www.BS.com/wbc-suspend ... ry--141319

Replace "BS" with Boxing Scene with no space.

Posted: **30 Jul 2019, 16:42**

I figure he probably needs to fight about 3 or 4 more Eliminators to get to a Final Eliminator huh?

Posted: **30 Jul 2019, 16:43**

gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 16:42 I figure he probably needs to fight about 3 or 4 more Eliminators to get to a Final Eliminator huh?

It's his own fault for testing hot. It deprives us of a fight we all want.

Posted: **30 Jul 2019, 16:45**

oogiebe wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 16:43
gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 16:42 I figure he probably needs to fight about 3 or 4 more Eliminators to get to a Final Eliminator huh?
It's his own fault for testing hot. It deprives us of a fight we all want.

He was never gonna get a shot anyway. Hell he's been the #1 contender for f*cking ever already anyway. The whole situation with Whyte has been f*cky every step of the way.

Posted: **30 Jul 2019, 16:57**

doesnt look good for DW !

unless something emerges to exonerate him which frankly I cant see .
it somehow seems worse given how much crap he has dished out to other fighters in the last 2 years or so .

fool

Posted: **30 Jul 2019, 16:59**

The WBC didn't go hard on Pov, Ort, or Stiv

Posted: **30 Jul 2019, 17:04**

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 16:59 The WBC didn't go hard on Pov, Ort, or Stiv

I mean Pov still ain't fought Wilder.

They didn't go hard on the PBC guys that popped hot. Their policy changes when the check clears.

Posted: **30 Jul 2019, 17:21**

gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 17:04
margaret thatcher wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 16:59 The WBC didn't go hard on Pov, Ort, or Stiv
I mean Pov still ain't fought Wilder.

They didn't go hard on the PBC guys that popped hot. Their policy changes when the check clears.

True but they basically put him right straight back into a fight for mandatory status. Then of course Ortiz and Stiverne had there title shots actually go ahead even though they failed for that fight!

Posted: **30 Jul 2019, 18:02**

I have no sympathy for PED cheats. I think any 2nd time violation should result in a lifetime ban. Whyte could have gotten his shot at Wilder if he would have fought Ortiz, but refused. He also turned down a shot at Joshua for all his belts this past year.

Posted: **31 Jul 2019, 04:22**

Eddie Hearn and Dillian Whyte have both avoided providing confirmation about submitting drug tests that resulted in adverse findings. They’ve instead skirted around the issue and used careful language that refrained from directly admitting this point.

And I’m amazed that Whyte’s B-sample hasn’t been tested yet, because otherwise the WBC would have had no choice but to remove him from their rankings and suspend him.

It only takes 24 to 30 hours, at a cost of $500, to test the B-sample, but the WBC’s statement suggests that it hasn’t been tested yet.

If UKAD had also tested Whyte’s B-sample, then they (in conjunction with the BBBofC) surely would have had no choice but to suspend his licence. At least that’s what happened to Tyson Fury.

What’s weird though is the inconsistent nature of the testing protocols between UKAD and VADA.

For instance:

• Billy Joe Saunders was deemed to be a clean athlete by UKAD, but VADA considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

• Dillian Whyte was deemed to be a clean athlete by VADA, but UKAD considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

Both fighters were tested by both UKAD and VADA during their training camps. It’s hard to know whom to believe.

Posted: **31 Jul 2019, 06:22**

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑31 Jul 2019, 04:22 Eddie Hearn and Dillian Whyte have both avoided providing confirmation about submitting drug tests that resulted in adverse findings. They’ve instead skirted around the issue and used careful language that refrained from directly admitting this point.

And I’m amazed that Whyte’s B-sample hasn’t been tested yet, because otherwise the WBC would have had no choice but to remove him from their rankings and suspend him.

It only takes 24 to 30 hours, at a cost of $500, to test the B-sample, but the WBC’s statement suggests that it hasn’t been tested yet.

If UKAD had also tested Whyte’s B-sample, then they (in conjunction with the BBBofC) surely would have had no choice but to suspend his licence. At least that’s what happened to Tyson Fury.

What’s weird though is the inconsistent nature of the testing protocols between UKAD and VADA.

For instance:

• Billy Joe Saunders was deemed to be a clean athlete by UKAD, but VADA considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

• Dillian Whyte was deemed to be a clean athlete by VADA, but UKAD considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

Both fighters were tested by both UKAD and VADA during their training camps. It’s hard to know whom to believe.

BJS was using a nasal decongestant that can also be used as a performance enhancer. Anyway UKAD allows said Nasal decongestant to be allowed out of competition (which is when BJS used it) whereas VADA doesn't permit the use of it in competition or out of competition, hence why BJS was okay with UKAD but not VADA.

Posted: **31 Jul 2019, 06:53**

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑31 Jul 2019, 04:22 Eddie Hearn and Dillian Whyte have both avoided providing confirmation about submitting drug tests that resulted in adverse findings. They’ve instead skirted around the issue and used careful language that refrained from directly admitting this point.

And I’m amazed that Whyte’s B-sample hasn’t been tested yet, because otherwise the WBC would have had no choice but to remove him from their rankings and suspend him.

It only takes 24 to 30 hours, at a cost of $500, to test the B-sample, but the WBC’s statement suggests that it hasn’t been tested yet.

If UKAD had also tested Whyte’s B-sample, then they (in conjunction with the BBBofC) surely would have had no choice but to suspend his licence. At least that’s what happened to Tyson Fury.

What’s weird though is the inconsistent nature of the testing protocols between UKAD and VADA.

For instance:

• Billy Joe Saunders was deemed to be a clean athlete by UKAD, but VADA considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

• Dillian Whyte was deemed to be a clean athlete by VADA, but UKAD considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

Both fighters were tested by both UKAD and VADA during their training camps. It’s hard to know whom to believe.

I love it how people are saying VADA cleared Whyte to fight. According to this article, It wasn't a VADA test at all. Like VADA is less strict than UKAD or the BBBofC? UKAD cleared Whyte and the British Boxing Board of Control allowed the fight to proceed. "Enlightened One"? lol

"Had Whyte failed a VADA test, the results would have been reported not only to the Whyte camp and British regulators but also to the Rivas team."

https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/ ... -drug-test

Posted: **31 Jul 2019, 20:37**

Nondescript - why do you start the exact same thread with the same content in 2 places on the same forum?

Posted: **01 Aug 2019, 01:46**

nmhz wrote: ↑31 Jul 2019, 20:37 Nondescript - why do you start the exact same thread with the same content in 2 places on the same forum?

A lot of the guys on the British section never enter the current scene.

Posted: **01 Aug 2019, 01:59**

Bandog wrote: ↑31 Jul 2019, 06:53
I love it how people are saying VADA cleared Whyte to fight.

You quoted my words when you supplied this response, but your comments bears no relation whatsoever to anything I’d actually written.

The WBC and Eddie Hearn both confirmed that Whyte hadn’t failed a VADA test.

In fact, VADA reported no adverse findings from their tests. VADA doesn't clear any fighters to compete, because it's not in their remit. They simply report the test results and allow other organisations to handle the rest.

I relly do feel that you need to read your response to my post and try to provide some sort of explanation as to why it relates to my words.

Posted: **01 Aug 2019, 02:56**

Nondescript wrote: ↑31 Jul 2019, 06:22
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑31 Jul 2019, 04:22 Eddie Hearn and Dillian Whyte have both avoided providing confirmation about submitting drug tests that resulted in adverse findings. They’ve instead skirted around the issue and used careful language that refrained from directly admitting this point.

And I’m amazed that Whyte’s B-sample hasn’t been tested yet, because otherwise the WBC would have had no choice but to remove him from their rankings and suspend him.

It only takes 24 to 30 hours, at a cost of $500, to test the B-sample, but the WBC’s statement suggests that it hasn’t been tested yet.

If UKAD had also tested Whyte’s B-sample, then they (in conjunction with the BBBofC) surely would have had no choice but to suspend his licence. At least that’s what happened to Tyson Fury.

What’s weird though is the inconsistent nature of the testing protocols between UKAD and VADA.

For instance:

• Billy Joe Saunders was deemed to be a clean athlete by UKAD, but VADA considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

• Dillian Whyte was deemed to be a clean athlete by VADA, but UKAD considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

Both fighters were tested by both UKAD and VADA during their training camps. It’s hard to know whom to believe.
BJS was using a nasal decongestant that can also be used as a performance enhancer. Anyway UKAD allows said Nasal decongestant to be allowed out of competition (which is when BJS used it) whereas VADA doesn't permit the use of it in competition or out of competition, hence why BJS was okay with UKAD but not VADA.

The sentences I wrote in regards to the comparisons between the Saunders and Whyte situations, such as highlighting the inconsistencies between the drug test protocols of VADA and UKAD was entirely accurate.

VADA and UKAD have a completely different set of barometers they use to determine whether a fighter should be deemed as being a drug cheat or not.

It's as simple as that!

Posted: **01 Aug 2019, 07:29**

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑31 Jul 2019, 04:22 What’s weird though is the inconsistent nature of the testing protocols between UKAD and VADA.

For instance:

• Billy Joe Saunders was deemed to be a clean athlete by UKAD, but VADA considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

• Dillian Whyte was deemed to be a clean athlete by VADA, but UKAD considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

Both fighters were tested by both UKAD and VADA during their training camps. It’s hard to know whom to believe.

Whyte tested clean with VADA, because they turned up earlier, before whatever Whyte tested positive for was in his system. It's nothing to do with differing policies or thresholds. If VADA had turned up the same day as UKAD, Whyte would have failed both.

What may have happened, is VADA turned up to take their samples, Whyte knew he was clean at the time, then after they left he took a risk in assuming he wouldn't be tested again before the fight and cycled back on to something. Then UKAD throw a spanner in the works.

Or, he ingested something 'contaminated' during that period, but in the UK that's still a 4 year ban for a second offence, so isn't much of a defence.

Posted: **01 Aug 2019, 08:53**

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑01 Aug 2019, 07:29
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑31 Jul 2019, 04:22 What’s weird though is the inconsistent nature of the testing protocols between UKAD and VADA.

For instance:

• Billy Joe Saunders was deemed to be a clean athlete by UKAD, but VADA considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

• Dillian Whyte was deemed to be a clean athlete by VADA, but UKAD considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

Both fighters were tested by both UKAD and VADA during their training camps. It’s hard to know whom to believe.
Whyte tested clean with VADA, because they turned up earlier, before whatever Whyte tested positive for was in his system. It's nothing to do with differing policies or thresholds. If VADA had turned up the same day as UKAD, Whyte would have failed both.

What may have happened, is VADA turned up to take their samples, Whyte knew he was clean at the time, then after they left he took a risk in assuming he wouldn't be tested again before the fight and cycled back on to something. Then UKAD throw a spanner in the works.

Or, he ingested something 'contaminated' during that period, but in the UK that's still a 4 year ban for a second offence, so isn't much of a defence.

It's not really a case of not believing anyone; they have different banned substance lists and in competition rules

Posted: **01 Aug 2019, 14:30**

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑01 Aug 2019, 07:29
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑31 Jul 2019, 04:22 What’s weird though is the inconsistent nature of the testing protocols between UKAD and VADA.

For instance:

• Billy Joe Saunders was deemed to be a clean athlete by UKAD, but VADA considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

• Dillian Whyte was deemed to be a clean athlete by VADA, but UKAD considered the Brit as a drug cheat.

Both fighters were tested by both UKAD and VADA during their training camps. It’s hard to know whom to believe.
Whyte tested clean with VADA, because they turned up earlier, before whatever Whyte tested positive for was in his system. It's nothing to do with differing policies or thresholds. If VADA had turned up the same day as UKAD, Whyte would have failed both.

What may have happened, is VADA turned up to take their samples, Whyte knew he was clean at the time, then after they left he took a risk in assuming he wouldn't be tested again before the fight and cycled back on to something. Then UKAD throw a spanner in the works.

Or, he ingested something 'contaminated' during that period, but in the UK that's still a 4 year ban for a second offence, so isn't much of a defence.

Do you have any proof that what I’ve written is factually inaccurate and your theory is 100% correct?

VADA and UKAD follow different drug testing protocols.

If you feel that the above statement is incorrect then you haven’t done your research.

Posted: **01 Aug 2019, 14:42**

I'm sure Dianobol is on both their lists though.

The question is whether they have different thresholds before they consider it 'adverse'

Posted: **01 Aug 2019, 15:13**

ewenhay wrote: ↑01 Aug 2019, 14:42 I'm sure Dianobol is on both their lists though.

The question is whether they have different thresholds before they consider it 'adverse'

is it definitely Dbol though !?

Posted: **01 Aug 2019, 15:31**

CiganoBoxer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2019, 15:13
ewenhay wrote: ↑01 Aug 2019, 14:42 I'm sure Dianobol is on both their lists though.

The question is whether they have different thresholds before they consider it 'adverse'
is it definitely Dbol though !?

Who knows. It's hard to keep up

Posted: **01 Aug 2019, 17:32**

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑01 Aug 2019, 14:30
Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑01 Aug 2019, 07:29
Whyte tested clean with VADA, because they turned up earlier, before whatever Whyte tested positive for was in his system. It's nothing to do with differing policies or thresholds. If VADA had turned up the same day as UKAD, Whyte would have failed both.

What may have happened, is VADA turned up to take their samples, Whyte knew he was clean at the time, then after they left he took a risk in assuming he wouldn't be tested again before the fight and cycled back on to something. Then UKAD throw a spanner in the works.

Or, he ingested something 'contaminated' during that period, but in the UK that's still a 4 year ban for a second offence, so isn't much of a defence.
Do you have any proof that what I’ve written is factually inaccurate and your theory is 100% correct?

VADA and UKAD follow different drug testing protocols.

If you feel that the above statement is incorrect then you haven’t done your research.

I haven't claimed their testing is identical. I'm just saying it's irrelevant, given they tested on different dates. It's well known that VADA testing isn't the same as most others, as being a 'voluntary' agency, they don't follow WADA code (their policies and protocols are slightly more strict, if anything).

Your bullet point on Whyte, the way you link this to the BJS case, and your final paragraph, seemed to infer that the reason Whyte failed UKAD but passed VADA was down to this difference in policy.

All I'm saying, is we can't assume that, given that it's much more likely that Whyte's blood/urine levels we're not the same at the times the samples were taken.

BoxRec

DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC

Re: DILLIAN WHYTE STATUS WITH THE WBC