Should Khan V Petersen be ruled a No Contest?

**LeG00N** · 05-16-2012, 02:58 AM

without a doubt

**Earl-Hickey** · 05-16-2012, 03:04 AM

People saying no should front up with an explaination

**Weebler I** · 05-16-2012, 03:12 AM

of course, in fact Hatman should be consulted to change it back to a Khan 'W' like it was going to be in first place

**DeadLikeMe** · 05-16-2012, 03:17 AM

I voted "I don't know" because I want to let the proper people investigate this. As it stands right now, I would say it should be. However, I don't think two weeks is enough time for all the fact finding to be done. I voted "I don't know" because I'm not going to just throw the guy under the bus, I'll let the proper authorities do it.

**gingerbreadman** · 05-16-2012, 04:07 AM

Yes, pending further news. If this were a real trial and I were a jury member, I'd be thinking guilty, but aware that I hadn't heard all the evidence yet.

**komodo** · 05-16-2012, 04:25 AM

Failing to disclose the use of a banned substance = cheating.

I have all the info I need. The fight should be a NC and Peterson banned.

**mani1** · 05-16-2012, 07:15 AM

If I'm not mistaken kizer has all the information and he recommends it should.

Should Khan V Petersen be ruled a No Contest?