Is Dillian Whyte suing Boxingscene?

I really hope so, would be hilarious seeing some of the posters get called up on their lies and misinformation.

He was cleared because he had a clear VADA tesr a couple of days before they found trace amounts. So he could not have taken a therapeutic dose and it could unreasonably of only been contamination. Had Whyte not paid for VADA testing, he might have been shafted. Hes got a good defense then. Id still say he could have been on it, they have all kinds of methods and masking agents to beat the tests. Its entirely possible to pass one test and then trace amounts show up in another test. You could only argue that its not possible to have zero and then trace amounts if you are assuming no attempts made to mask/pass the tests which of course if you are a pro athlete subject to testing, youre going to try to mask if you are using.

There’s no arguing over whether or not Dillian Whyte failed a drug test. He did. Eddie Hearn even said he did. "Dillian Whyte was not suspended by anybody and the British Boxing Board of Control approved him to box," Hearn said. "Prior to the fight taking place there was a hearing during the week of the fight where Dillian Whyte had to provide information. He was cleared and approved to take part in the contest... It wasn't like he failed the test and they said, 'Don't worry about it.' They had a hearing." https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/27262881/ukad-cleared-whyte-failed-drug-test Firstly the test in question was UKADs and the NADP decide what is or isn't a failed test, you don't and neither does Hauser and that might be where the issue arises, that is what I mean by semantics. Regardless of that, Hearn did not say he failed a drug test in that quote obviously.

I won’t argue with you anymore because you’re nice hahahahaha. We can agree to disagree, that’s fine with me. Actually made me laugh. Cunny funt.

He said it’s not like he failed a test and they said don’t worry about it. They had a hearing and cleared him. He said Whyte failed a test. I don't know where to go with this conversation as it just comes down to understanding the meaning and context of words. I've read plenty of your posts and you're one of the more articulate posters on here. I'd be surprised if you can't see the alternative view of what he said. You might be able to infer that he said he failed the test, but he definitively didn't say that Whyte failed a drug test in that statement. It's not like... anything I write after that is something that it is not like.

There’s no arguing over whether or not Dillian Whyte failed a drug test. He did. Eddie Hearn even said he did. "It wasn't like he failed the test and they said, 'Don't worry about it.' They had a hearing." Eddie is pretty careful with his words. He never said Whyte failed a test. Not even in the above quote. He took a test, had a hearing about the results, and was cleared. UKAD have very clearly supported that view of the events in their statement.

Be very surprised if the source was from Matchroom or UKAD, I believe VADA may have known or had a fair idea because their tests were used as evidence. You would think truth would be an absolute defense in either jurisdiction, although even then it could come down to semantics, Hauser reported Whyte tested positive for a PED, in hindsight it could be argued this statement may not be correct, UKAD seemed to have ruled there were trace amounts of DBol metabolites but he didn't test positive. Hauser better hope every T is crossed and I dotted, because I get the feeling that if there is any inaccuracies it could be very costly, considering the information was confidential and medical in nature, undoubtedly cost Whyte millions.

That case is an engineer suing an engineer. It has nothing to do with a media report. No, it sets a legal precedent, the principles of which have been used in thousands of cases since. The law of confidentiality does not come from Statute.

Whatagwaan inna here? Ya scared mi lawyers gonna get ya?

Any court decision in the UK for money against a US entity is immediately enforceable in the US (rubber stamp, pay the cash). Same the other way around. Umm. Not what I'm hearing. In fact the Yanks actually crafted a law specifically to prevent libel tourism or libel cases being brought against their citizens or en****** (EDIT: jesus christ, that isn't even how you spell T1TT1ES :lol1:).. under foreign - particularly Uk - law... English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable and unrecognizable by U.S. courts if they don't comply with U.S. protections for freedom of speech and due process, and was made largely in response to the English laws. Though it's worth noting that UK law was sunsequently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013, enacted 01/01/14) changed to bring into more closely into line with Us and other international standards, though without changing the most significant difference which is where the burden of proof lies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law Though I freely acknowledge my general ignorance of the topic so if I'm using false or outdated sources or am misunderstanding the issue in some way please point me in the direction of some more accurate information. And for what it's worth on broader issues not necesaarily related to legal compensation they got a number of other powers over us that ain't fully reciprocated - extraditions is one biggie, though both Governments have tried to claim otherwise - and I suspect the trend will absolutely continue post Brexit, especially in trade law since we'll be negotiating from a position of even greater weakness.

It's possible there's a case under UK law, but not under US law... what the benefit would be of establishing guilt in a UK court that was not enforceable over Hauser or the 'Scene ain't immediately obvious to me, but I'd like to imagine they've got some reason for it. Any court decision in the UK for money against a US entity is immediately enforceable in the US (rubber stamp, pay the cash). Same the other way around.

Reporters aren’t bound by UKAD’s policies. No, but they are bound by laws of confidentiality. Facts suck I know but the legal basis in the UK: COCO V A N CLARK (ENGINEERS) LTD: CHD 1968 A claim was made for breach of confidence in respect of technical information whose value was commercial. Held: Megarry J set out three elements which will normally be required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to succeed. In this case the information was found not to be of a confidential nature as it was already in the public domain. Megarry went on to say: ‘where information of commercial or industrial value is given on a business-like basis and with some avowed common object in mind, such as a joint venture . . I would regard the recipient as carrying a heavy burden if he seeks to repel a contention that he was bound by an obligation of confidence.’ ‘First, the information must be of a confidential nature. As Lord Greene said in the Saltman case . . ‘something which is public property and public knowledge’ cannot per se provide any foundation for proceedings for breach of confidence. However confidential the circumstances of communication, there can be no breach of confidence in revealing to others something which is already common knowledge. But this must not be taken too far. Something that has been constructed solely from materials in the public domain may possess the necessary quality of confidentiality: for something new and confidential may have been brought into being by the application of the skill and ingenuity of the human brain . . Novelty depends on the thing itself, and not upon the quality of its constituent parts . . whether it is described as originality or novelty or ingenuity or otherwise, I think there must be some product of the human brain which suffices to confer a confidential nature upon the information. The second requirement is that the information must have been communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. However secret and confidential the information, there can be no binding obligation of confidence if that information is blurted out in public or is communicated in other circumstances which negative any duty of holding it confidential. From the authorities cited to me, I have not been able to derive any very precise idea of what test is to be applied in determining whether the circumstances import an obligation of confidence. In the Argyll case . . Ungoed-Thomas, J. concluded his discussion of the circumstances in which the publication of marital communications should be restrained as being confidential by saying ‘If this was a well-developed jurisdiction doubtless there would be guides and tests to aid in exercising it’. In the absence of such guides or tests he then in effect concluded that part of the communications there in question would on any reasonable test emerge as confidential. It may be that that hard-worked creature, the reasonable man, may be pressed into service once more; for I do not see why he should not labour in equity as well as at law. It seems to me that if the circumstances are such that any reasonable man standing in the shoes of the recipient of the information would have realised that upon reasonable grounds the information was being given to him in confidence, then this should suffice to impose upon him the equitable obligation of confidence. In particular, where information of commercial or industrial value is given on a business-like basis and with some avowed common object in mind, such as a joint venture or the manufacture of articles by one party for the other, I would regard the recipient as carrying a heavy burden if he seeks to repel a contention that he was bound by an obligation of confidence: see the Saltman case . . On that footing, for reasons that will appear, I do not think I need explore this head further. I merely add that I doubt whether equity would intervene unless the circumstances are of sufficient gravity; equity ought not to be invoked merely to protect trivial tittle-tattle, however confidential. Thirdly, there must be an unauthorised use of the information to the detriment of the person communicating it. Some of the statements of principle in the cases omit any mention of detriment; others include it. At first sight, it seems that detriment ought to be present if equity is to be induced to intervene; but I can conceive of cases where a plaintiff might have substantial motives for seeking the aid of equity and yet suffer nothing which could fairly be called detriment to him, as when the confidential information shows him in a favourable light but gravely injures some relation or friend of his whom he wishes to protect. The point does not arise for decision in this case, for detriment to the plaintiff plainly exists. I need therefore say no more than that although for the purposes of this case I have stated the proposition in the stricter form, I wish to keep open the possibility of the true proposition being that in the wider form.’ Megarry J said: ‘if the circumstances are such that any reasonable man standing in the shoes of the recipient of the information would have realised that upon reasonable grounds the information was being given to him in confidence, then this should suffice to impose on him the equitable obligation of confidence.’

I hope so ,it’s a fraudulent site with defamation of characters all the time bc it’s a Wilder site ......yea and what ? What a bunch of crap daily on here and the posters are ignorant 24/7 on here like Larry and co.....if they got hit by a bus ppl would laugh on here.lolololll More trash pouring out of this walking trash can

Then they’re wrong. That’s not up to me or you.

This part from the English law wiki does interest me. "English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff..." Possibly, Whytes counsel is hoping that Hauser cannot prove the authenticity of the statements. I feel like American law should have jurisdiction, but my knowledge of international law is zero, barring a brief lecture on the complexities of international adoption. Yeah. The burden of proof is the most glaring and obvious difference... Law ain't a field I ever paid much attention to beyond where it affected me directly and usually then it was just a case of saying 'guilty'..:lol1: Thing is reading Hausers article it's hard for me to see anything that is really controversial and since the substance of Hausers claims (ie that 'Multiple sources have confirmed that an "A" sample taken from Dillian Whyte tested positive for one or more banned substances prior to Whyte's July 20 fight in London against Oscar Rivas.') has already been accepted de facto by virtue UKAD releasing their recent statement I'm not sure what success they might have. Reading a little bit around it, it seems that furthermore the US SPEECH act of 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act) basically renders foreign (and most specifically UK) libel cases unenforceable in the Us, which begs the question of why Whytes legal advisors are going down this route at all - And I'm gonna assume they ain't just incompetent or somesuch.

Then they’re wrong. It's possible there's a case under UK law, but not under US law... what the benefit would be of establishing guilt in a UK court that was not enforceable over Hauser or the 'Scene ain't immediately obvious to me, but I'd like to imagine they've got some reason for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law Seems to me much of the confusion here is down to the significant differences in UK and US defamation laws. I've reread the Hauser article a number of times... https://www.boxingscene.com/dillian-whyte-tests-positive-banned-substance--141178 and I can't really see anything which I can see as an obvious falsehood (at least as it pertains to Dilian Whyte's case) or even as 'reckless disregard for the truth' which might also justify a defamation case under US law, but equally I don't claim to have any particular knowledge of either US or UK jurisprudence, so I could be completely wrong. If Whyte's lawyers have advised him to go down the path of litigation they would be legally bound to be giving him what they believed was sound advice, so presumably they're seeing something, though it might be more an attempt to establish guilt under UK law for some purpose other than the genuine expectation of compensation.:dunno: This part from the English law wiki does interest me. "English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff..." Possibly, Whytes counsel is hoping that Hauser cannot prove the authenticity of the statements. I feel like American law should have jurisdiction, but my knowledge of international law is zero, barring a brief lecture on the complexities of international adoption.

I feel like I just talked about this the other day. Under American law, defamation has four essential elements: falsity, unprivileged communication, fault, and damages. If any of those fail, then Whyte doesn't have a leg to stand on. The easiest element to scrutinize is falsity. If the statement is true, then the test fails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law Seems to me much of the confusion here is down to the significant differences in UK and US defamation laws. I've reread the Hauser article a number of times... https://www.boxingscene.com/dillian-whyte-tests-positive-banned-substance--141178 and I can't really see anything which I can see as an obvious falsehood (at least as it pertains to Dilian Whyte's case) or even as 'reckless disregard for the truth' which might also justify a defamation case under US law, but equally I don't claim to have any particular knowledge of either US or UK jurisprudence, so I could be completely wrong. If Whyte's lawyers have advised him to go down the path of litigation they would be legally bound to be giving him what they believed was sound advice, so presumably they're seeing something, though it might be more an attempt to establish guilt under UK law for some purpose other than the genuine expectation of compensation.:dunno:

Why do you think UKAD’s policy on confidentiality applies to reporters? This isn't my opinion. Am relaying with i know from Team Whyte.

Amongst all of the corruption in Boxing, a man pisses dirty and is then cleared of any wrong doing. We are expected to take his word that he is clean and it was not his fault. He gave the same exact speeches the previous time he got caught red-handed and served a ban. He still to this day denies the first time he was juicing, even though it was proven beyond doubt. So who are we to believe? The whole thing stinks. the irony that u have fury as ur avy while saying this lmao gold