You evidently don’t understand it fully though, you’re essentially just regurgitating the same stuff Hearn, Sky, the BBBofC etc have said to try and clear the name of a fighter who represents them. To think Whyte is “completely innocent” is beyond delusional tbh.
What facts are presented in the link exactly?
If you are actually educated about the subject matter it’s clear Whyte is in now way “completely innocent”. The other tests prove nothing! D-Bol can leave your system within 4-6 hours. Look at how many tests the cyclists used to pass, or the Russian athletes regularly passed before Rodchenkov blew the whistle. You clearly have no real concept of how cycles work if you think the other tests prove anything besides he hadn’t ingested a banned substance within 4-6 hours of the said tests.
Admittedly it’s a complex subject, I’m not expecting you to know the ins and outs but do not assume the guy is “completely innocent” when there’s a mountain of evidence to suggest the opposite. Even if it was contamination, which I highly doubt, Whyte is still guilty of putting the D-Bol into his body- as I said Whyte must’ve ingested the substance so that still makes him, at the very least, partly guilty whether it was intentional or not.
You’re free to believe Whyte’s circumstantial excuses if you please, that’s not my issue. My main issue was you said Whyte was “completely innocent” surely you can’t stand by that.
What facts are presented in the link exactly?
If you are actually educated about the subject matter it’s clear Whyte is in now way “completely innocent”. The other tests prove nothing! D-Bol can leave your system within 4-6 hours. Look at how many tests the cyclists used to pass, or the Russian athletes regularly passed before Rodchenkov blew the whistle. You clearly have no real concept of how cycles work if you think the other tests prove anything besides he hadn’t ingested a banned substance within 4-6 hours of the said tests.
Admittedly it’s a complex subject, I’m not expecting you to know the ins and outs but do not assume the guy is “completely innocent” when there’s a mountain of evidence to suggest the opposite. Even if it was contamination, which I highly doubt, Whyte is still guilty of putting the D-Bol into his body- as I said Whyte must’ve ingested the substance so that still makes him, at the very least, partly guilty whether it was intentional or not.
You’re free to believe Whyte’s circumstantial excuses if you please, that’s not my issue. My main issue was you said Whyte was “completely innocent” surely you can’t stand by that.
Comment