Comments Thread For: Hearn Will Make Decision on New UK Broadcast Deal Within Two Weeks

[Monty Fisto]

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.

I do stand by it. There isn't a mountain of evidence backing what you are saying; it's the opposite. I explained my position and you don't understand it, as you are sticking with the notion that the substance could only get into his sample by him ingesting it. That is not contamination. Ingesting dbol by accident is still a bannable offence. Giving mutiple clean urine samples and one gets externally contaminated is the suggestion here. Hence innocent.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

I do stand by it. There isn't a mountain of evidence backing what you are saying; it's the opposite. I explained my position and you don't understand it, as you are sticking with the notion that the substance could only get into his sample by him ingesting it. That is not contamination. Ingesting dbol by accident is still a bannable offence. Giving mutiple clean urine samples and one gets externally contaminated is the suggestion here. Hence innocent.

The other tests prove nothing, Dianabol only remains in your system for 4-6 hours. That doesn’t clear him of the failed test in the slightest.

Former convicted drugs cheat fails a test again. Covers up the initial failing, never requests for the B sample. Yeah sounds “completely innocent”.

Are Canelo and Fury also completely innocent in your opinion?

[Ray*]

The obsession with this guy from certain posters is laughable . It’s like whenever they see his name the red mist comes on... The rage . That phrase “Living rent free in their heads” is the perfect way to describe this.

[Bain01D]

I think it would be a bad move to leave sky. Sky made matchroom as much as Hearn and the fighters did.

Sky has huge subscription numbers in the uk and their ppv model works well regardless of the quality of certain cards

If he moves to Dazn I think that’s a move back towards the hardcore fans and away from casuals. It will only be those with an interest in boxing who pay for the ongoing subscription

Then when there is a bigger event which typically would be PPV it won’t do as many buys because you haven’t the build up among the casual fan base with the free to air (sky subscription) shows leading up to it

I think overall boxing would be worse off if he doesn’t renew the deal with sky

[Monty Fisto]

The other tests prove nothing, Dianabol only remains in your system for 4-6 hours. That doesn’t clear him of the failed test in the slightest.

Former convicted drugs cheat fails a test again. Covers up the initial failing, never requests for the B sample. Yeah sounds “completely innocent”.

Are Canelo and Fury also completely innocent in your opinion?

I'm not here to debate Canelo or Fury. Nor was I intending to debate Whyte here, other than the tedious refrain of what about the B sample came up. That's the point: that mention of Hearn's name elicits a yawnsome response from certain quarters, despite the BBofC statement clearly suggesting all the samples have been looked at. If you have actual firm evidence proving the B sample was not looked at, please provide it.

Repeating that Dianabol only remains in your system for 4-6 hours is of limited utility, btw, when obviously the drug testers are looking for the giveaway markers of the metabolites that last for three days. When they have multiple tests with only one sample showing trace levels of those markers and their professional conclusion is that it is consistent with contamination of that sole sample, the onus is on anyone claiming he is guilty to prove that guilt. The guilt cannot be assumed, which is what you are trying to do. Someone convicted of a prior crime is not automatically guilty in the future of the same crime in the future. You have to consider what the evidence actually proves.

Absence proof of guilt, someone is considered innocent.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

I'm not here to debate Canelo or Fury. Nor was I intending to debate Whyte here, other than the tedious refrain of what about the B sample came up. That's the point: that mention of Hearn's name elicits a yawnsome response from certain quarters, despite the BBofC statement clearly suggesting all the samples have been looked at. If you have actual firm evidence proving the B sample was not looked at, please provide it.

Repeating that Dianabol only remains in your system for 4-6 hours is of limited utility, btw, when obviously the drug testers are looking for the giveaway markers of the metabolites that last for three days. When they have multiple tests with only one sample showing trace levels of those markers and their professional conclusion is that it is consistent with contamination of that sole sample, the onus is on anyone claiming he is guilty to prove that guilt. The guilt cannot be assumed, which is what you are trying to do. Someone convicted of a prior crime is not automatically guilty in the future of the same crime in the future. You have to consider what the evidence actually proves.

Absence proof of guilt, someone is considered innocent.

You’ve completely exposed your lack of education on the subject matter with the whole “it last 3 days” stuff. Firstly you’ve blatantly read that on wiki.

Secondly, it would last three days if you take it orally, Wikipedia might not make that clear as it’s an non-citable academic source. This also makes the contamination excuse somewhat doubtful as if it lasted 3 days how did he pass the other tests without traces also showing assuming they were within 3 days of each other.

As Whyte was more than likely doping, he’d have used an IV. This prevents the D-Bol from crossing various biological barriers (semipermeable cell membranes) before it reaches the systemic circulation (the blood.) This why I keep saying the D-Bol would have only had a shelf life of around 4-6 hours. The other tests literally prove nothing.

The reason I’m asking about Canelo and Fury is I at least want to know your consistent. Both are also guilty IMO. If you fail a test you’re guilty regardless of circumstantial excuses. I get the feeling you’re a Whyte/Matchroom fan and that’s why you feel he’s “completely innocent” not because you’ve actually analysed or at least understood the evidence.

[Monty Fisto]

You’ve completely exposed your lack of education on the subject matter with the whole “it last 3 days” stuff. Firstly you’ve blatantly read that on wiki.

Secondly, it would last three days if you take it orally, Wikipedia might not make that clear as it’s an non-citable academic source. This also makes the contamination excuse somewhat doubtful as if it lasted 3 days how did he pass the other tests without traces also showing assuming they were within 3 days of each other.

As Whyte was more than likely doping, he’d have used an IV. This prevents the D-Bol from crossing various biological barriers (semipermeable cell membranes) before it reaches the systemic circulation (the blood.) This why I keep saying the D-Bol would have only had a shelf life of around 4-6 hours. The other tests literally prove nothing.

The reason I’m asking about Canelo and Fury is I at least want to know your consistent. Both are also guilty IMO. If you fail a test you’re guilty regardless of circumstantial excuses. I get the feeling you’re a Whyte/Matchroom fan and that’s why you feel he’s “completely innocent” not because you’ve actually analysed or at least understood the evidence.

Link to your evidence or as an alternative admit you have none. It really is as simple as that.

When your line of reasoning begins "As Whyte was more than likely doping..." you have admitted your own bias and inability to adjudge the situation objectively.

Also: "Assuming they were within 3 days of each other".... Did you even bother to absorb the information in the BBofC statement? Just forget about it. You can't seem to grasp the concept of what is meant by contamination nor bother to read the dates involved.

Believe me, I am not a fan of Whyte. I don't care whether he is with matchroom or not. I care about evidence-based decision making. You seem to view everything through the filter of whether you are a fan or not a fan of matchroom, and that is sad.

[Monty Fisto]

I am curious if you are able to distinguish between what is meant by contamination and inadvertently consuming a banned substance?

It seems you cannot grasp the difference it and it would be useful to know for sure.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Link to your evidence or as an alternative admit you have none. It really is as simple as that.

When your line of reasoning begins "As Whyte was more than likely doping..." you have admitted your own bias and inability to adjudge the situation objectively.

Also: "Assuming they were within 3 days of each other".... Did you even bother to absorb the information in the BBofC statement? Just forget about it. You can't seem to grasp the concept of what is meant by contamination nor bother to read the dates involved.

Believe me, I am not a fan of Whyte. I don't care whether he is with matchroom or not. I care about evidence-based decision making. You seem to view everything through the filter of whether you are a fan or not a fan of matchroom, and that is sad.

The evidence is there in front of us. He FAILED a f***ing test.

You’re completely out of your depth with this one kid- keep reading wiki to try and keep up.

So are Canelo and fury also “completely innocent” yes or no? They also used the old contamination excuse. You seem reluctant to answer this question because you know it will expose your bias.

[Monty Fisto]

The evidence is there in front of us. He FAILED a f***ing test.

You’re completely out of your depth with this one kid- keep reading wiki to try and keep up.

So are Canelo and fury also “completely innocent” yes or no? They also used the old contamination excuse. You seem reluctant to answer this question because you know it will expose your bias.

No, see my previous post. Your bias is already revealed by your starting assumption that 'Whyte was more than likely doping.' There is no point in going any further with a such a frank admission of bias.

Use all the laugh emojis you want, but when the sum total of your ability to discern what is going on amounts to 'he failed a test', it's clear you don't want to discuss the nuances of what is actually at hand and this is further underlined by your continuing inability to get a grip with the idea of a contaminated sample.

Sequence of events:

1. He fails a test.
2. The people conducting the test admit the results were consistent with someone innocent whose sample was contaminated.
3. He is declared innocent as a consequence.
4. You say he is guilty anyway on account of the 'because I say so argument'.
5. I ask for something/anything from you to back up what you are saying.
6. You post some laugh emojis.


I think that about sums it up.

I'm willing to keep an open mind on the subject, but until the substance of your argument ticks above the zero reading, I'll accept the drug testing and boxing authorities' official admission that they screwed up and that he is innocent.