BoxRec

Finkel wrote: ↑06 Dec 2019, 21:13 The ball is very much in the WBC court.

Something tells me the WBC will come out with some bullcrap along the lines of it would be unfair on Tyson Fury to push back his mandatory, therefore Whyte will remain mandatory for a fight in 2021.

I also wonder if the journalist who ran with the story will come out in support of Whyte on this.

Boxing Prospect wrote: ↑06 Dec 2019, 21:20

Finkel wrote: ↑06 Dec 2019, 21:13 The ball is very much in the WBC court.

Something tells me the WBC will come out with some bullcrap along the lines of it would be unfair on Tyson Fury to push back his mandatory, therefore Whyte will remain mandatory for a fight in 2021.

I also wonder if the journalist who ran with the story will come out in support of Whyte on this.

Journo was right, there was an adverse finding. Only thing is UKAD has accepted the explanation. They have stated an adverse sample was found, as Hauser reported.

The UKAD statement leaves a lot more questions than answers.
What were the dates of the other tests? What was the explanation given? How did the metabolites get there? Have UKAD changed their general strict liability ruling from Whytes first failed test? Had the drug been taken on the night of June 17th would it have been expected to have anything other than very small number of metabolites on June 20th? Why was this made public a day before Whyte's next fight? During an investigation is there no issue with trainer and sparring? (as per Molina's extention) What was different about this case and that of Ryan Martin, who tested for low level of metabolites and claimed contamination?

By virtue of his win, Whyte became the "mandatory" challenger for Deontay Wilder's WBC heavyweight crown. In all likelihood, the WBC would have withdrawn its sanction of Whyte-Rivas had it been aware of the positive test result prior to the fight.

It has been widely speculated that the WBC will elevate Wilder to "franchise champion" status, thus eliminating the mandatory requirement that he fight Whyte. This latest development might further complicate Whyte's path to a fight against Wilder.

Finkel wrote: ↑06 Dec 2019, 21:32

Boxing Prospect wrote: ↑06 Dec 2019, 21:20

Journo was right, there was an adverse finding. Only thing is UKAD has accepted the explanation. They have stated an adverse sample was found, as Hauser reported.

The UKAD statement leaves a lot more questions than answers.
What were the dates of the other tests? What was the explanation given? How did the metabolites get there? Have UKAD changed their general strict liability ruling from Whytes first failed test? Had the drug been taken on the night of June 17th would it have been expected to have anything other than very small number of metabolites on June 20th? Why was this made public a day before Whyte's next fight? During an investigation is there no issue with trainer and sparring? (as per Molina's extention) What was different about this case and that of Ryan Martin, who tested for low level of metabolites and claimed contamination?

Sorry I had editted my initial post.

I don't want to suggest the journalist was wrong to report the existence of a failed test.

But I did feel at the time the final two paragraphs went a little beyond reporting the facts and turned into an editorial:

By virtue of his win, Whyte became the "mandatory" challenger for Deontay Wilder's WBC heavyweight crown. In all likelihood, the WBC would have withdrawn its sanction of Whyte-Rivas had it been aware of the positive test result prior to the fight.

It has been widely speculated that the WBC will elevate Wilder to "franchise champion" status, thus eliminating the mandatory requirement that he fight Whyte. This latest development might further complicate Whyte's path to a fight against Wilder.

Whyte reputation took a severe beating these last 5-6 months based on this one article. And it gave the excuse for the WBC to push back any potential mandatory to 2021. Based on a leak of information whilst the governing body (UKAD) was following its standard procedure.

ewenhay wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 05:06

Finkel wrote: ↑06 Dec 2019, 21:32

Sorry I had editted my initial post.

I don't want to suggest the journalist was wrong to report the existence of a failed test.

But I did feel at the time the final two paragraphs went a little beyond reporting the facts and turned into an editorial:


Whyte reputation took a severe beating these last 5-6 months based on this one article. And it gave the excuse for the WBC to push back any potential mandatory to 2021. Based on a leak of information whilst the governing body (UKAD) was following its standard procedure.

It wasn't any subsequent article that affected his reputation.

Failing the test in the first place was the reason for that.

Finkel wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 11:32 Seems he is still guilty in most people's eyes...

First povetkin
Then Whyte

Common thread?
Really makes you think...

Finkel wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 12:21 Athletes take supplements
Mistakes are made by athletes who have yet to make the big time so don't have dieticians
Nothing more to say
Read up about it if you need to

https://www.bbc.com/sport/boxing/22047144

mustlogin wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 10:05 He will not be cleared in the eyes of the public unless he explains to the public what he explained to UKAD. Releasing the full decision would be right think to do.
......

tiny_acres wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 12:55

Finkel wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 12:21 Athletes take supplements
Mistakes are made by athletes who have yet to make the big time so don't have dieticians
Nothing more to say
Read up about it if you need to

https://www.bbc.com/sport/boxing/22047144

Dillian Whyte makes millions. No way in hell he doesn't have a dietician

Bandog wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 06:28 I wonder how much cash that cost Fast Eddie?

UKAD is satisfied that the presence of the very low amounts of metabolites in his 20 June 2019 sample was not caused by any fault, negligence or wrongdoing on Mr Whyte’s part

mustlogin wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 10:05He will not be cleared in the eyes of the public unless he explains to the public what he explained to UKAD. Releasing the full decision would be right think to do.

1. What steroid was he caught using?
2. How did it get in his system?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 06:35 ......
UKAD and Dillian Whyte issued a joint statement about the matter. ‘The Body Snatcher’ has also discussed the issue at length on the iFL TV YouTube channel.
......

greg wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 09:42

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Dec 2019, 06:35 ......
UKAD and Dillian Whyte issued a joint statement about the matter. ‘The Body Snatcher’ has also discussed the issue at length on the iFL TV YouTube channel.
......

..which interview is that? ...the one I listened to was all about "I can't talk about it or I'm innocent blah blah blah"...