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

[Monty Fisto]

And since you are so desperate to try and rope in Canelo and Fury as a scattershot way of deflecting from the discussion you are so desperately losing, no, they really didn't use the contamination argument. I've asked multiple times if you understand contamination and now it is clear you don't.

Canelo admitted he had the shlt in his system. His sample was therefore genuine, not contaminated. His argument is that the shlt getting in his system was not his fault.

This is not what happened with Whyte. Please try and understand the basics of the case.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

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.

I’m laughing because it’s so delusional, you’re trying to tell me a fighter who’s failed two drug tests is “completely innocent”. It’s lunacy...

You have no concept of what bias is. It’s not bias whatsoever. I think the vast majority of high level fighters are likely doping, hell I think the vast majority of high level athletes are doping. Bias would be me saying Whyte is guilty because I dislike him or something petty like that. It’s not, it’s because there’s clear evidence to suggest he was. Roy Jones is my all time favourite fighter, do I think he was clean? Probably not. The Same way Whyte likely isn’t clean. That’s completely consistent irrespective of the fighter, athlete etc.

You could argue I’m cynical but when you look at the gargantuan issue that is doping in sports, I feel we have to be cynical as there’s so many loopholes.

Your comprehension is shocking to suggest I haven’t provided evidence, I’ve backed it up several times by EXPLAINING how it’s completely plausible that Whyte was doping based on the results of his failed test, the properties of D-Bol, the fact he must’ve ingested it, the other tests being largely irrelevant etc etc. I don’t need to post a link for that to be true, fact check anything I’ve wrote, it’s scientifically accurate and can’t be contradicted.

Look at any athlete who failed a test for trace levels of a PED. It’s always consistent with contamination, it’s a essentially a f***ing loophole. You can literally never prove an athlete has been doping unless they f***ing admit to it. By your criteria essentially everybody who ever fails a test should be deemed “completely innocent” as long as there’s circumstantial evidence which there always will be.

STOP DUCKING THIS QUESTION too... do you also think Canelo, Fury etc are completely innocent? If you’re willing to take these excuses at face value that’s fair enough but just prove to me your at least consistent and are not just defending Whyte because it fits your agenda and then we can end this debate.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

And since you are so desperate to try and rope in Canelo and Fury as a scattershot way of deflecting from the discussion you are so desperately losing, no, they really didn't use the contamination argument. I've asked multiple times if you understand contamination and now it is clear you don't.

Canelo admitted he had the shlt in his system. His sample was therefore genuine, not contaminated. His argument is that the shlt getting in his system was not his fault.

This is not what happened with Whyte. Please try and understand the basics of the case.

What?

Canelo tested positive for trace levels yet escaped any serious punishment as it was consistent with contamination. Sounds familiar huh...

Genuine question, are you slow or something?

[Monty Fisto]

What?

Canelo tested positive for trace levels yet escaped any serious punishment as it was consistent with contamination. Sounds familiar huh...

Genuine question, are you slow or something?

Plain answer: no. With that, some advice: try attacking the substance of my argument rather than saying things like 'are you slow or something?' You can always tell when someone has given up on the actual discussion when they abandon discussing it in favour of attacking the person they are conversing with.

Canelo did not dispute his test. He admitted clenbuterol was in his system, He gave an excuse, which was eating contaminated meat. I suppose you are getting confused with the dual usage of contamination.

This is not the same as the facts have been relayed pertaining to Whyte. The sample was contaminated. There is no admission of ingestion of a proscribed substance.

As always, if you can provide anything that refutes this, go ahead. Otherwise, I'll take it as tacit admission that you concede how utterly wrong you are on this issue.

By the way, your argument that you have satisfied the request for evidence by saying he must have ingested D-bol is... special.

What more evidence could be needed than your word?

[Monty Fisto]

I’m laughing because it’s so delusional, you’re trying to tell me a fighter who’s failed two drug tests is “completely innocent”. It’s lunacy...

You have no concept of what bias is. It’s not bias whatsoever. I think the vast majority of high level fighters are likely doping, hell I think the vast majority of high level athletes are doping. Bias would be me saying Whyte is guilty because I dislike him or something petty like that. It’s not, it’s because there’s clear evidence to suggest he was. Roy Jones is my all time favourite fighter, do I think he was clean? Probably not. The Same way Whyte likely isn’t clean. That’s completely consistent irrespective of the fighter, athlete etc.

You could argue I’m cynical but when you look at the gargantuan issue that is doping in sports, I feel we have to be cynical as there’s so many loopholes.

Your comprehension is shocking to suggest I haven’t provided evidence, I’ve backed it up several times by EXPLAINING how it’s completely plausible that Whyte was doping based on the results of his failed test, the properties of D-Bol, the fact he must’ve ingested it, the other tests being largely irrelevant etc etc. I don’t need to post a link for that to be true, fact check anything I’ve wrote, it’s scientifically accurate and can’t be contradicted.

Look at any athlete who failed a test for trace levels of a PED. It’s always consistent with contamination, it’s a essentially a f***ing loophole. You can literally never prove an athlete has been doping unless they f***ing admit to it. By your criteria essentially everybody who ever fails a test should be deemed “completely innocent” as long as there’s circumstantial evidence which there always will be.

STOP DUCKING THIS QUESTION too... do you also think Canelo, Fury etc are completely innocent? If you’re willing to take these excuses at face value that’s fair enough but just prove to me your at least consistent and are not just defending Whyte because it fits your agenda and then we can end this debate.

I'll say this again as it's a point worth making (and it seems to escape you). The point we have been discussing is: Whyte's innocence or otherwise. This exists in complete isolation to Canelo or Fury. Whether Whyte is innocent or guilty of doping hinges on one thing: whether he doped or not. It boggles the mind that you want to rope in other cases when that clearly has no bearing on whether he doped or not.

[Monty Fisto]

And as for 'it's not bias' whatsoever.

I contend when your starting point is 'Whyte was more than likely doping' that this is self-evident as bias. To refute this you need to make a more compelling argument than saying 'it's not bias whatsoever'. Try it: make a cogent, compelling argument as to why your starting assumption that he is more than likely doping is not biased.

You see, an actual argument explaining a position might go something like this:

Exhibiting a lack of neutrality is showing bias.
A neutral stance would be to assume an open mind as to guilt or innocence.
You assumed a likelihood of guilt.
You are therefore biased.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Exhibiting a lack of neutrality is showing bias.
A neutral stance would be to assume an open mind as to guilt or innocence.

You literally said Whyte is “completely innocent”. How is that a neutral stance you absolute fool? How is that keeping an open mind in regard to guilt or innocence?

You dumb f***er, you’ve massively slipped up with that one.

I believe he was LIKELY (not definitely) doping, based on him being a previous offender and failing a f***ing test. That isn’t bias it’s basic f***ing logic. I’d say the same about any other athlete who failed a test. Because I’m unbiased and consistent. You’re evidently not and that’s why you keep ducking the question.