Tweet
say it aint so man
-
-
I think it's most likely they used both, VADA to satisfy the demands of the CPB (EDIT: **** CBP!) and UKAD to satisfy the requirements of the BBBoC, it's just that the UKAD happened to be the ones that caught him... let's see what comes out.
I am curious about one thing though... Hauser states that
Whereas I just checked and VADA protocols only state that they inform the fighter who failed, the promoter (which would have been Hearn in this case) and the appropriate governing body.. (the BBBoC in this case).... which is exactly what UKAD did, so I'm not really understanding the point he's making there.Under VADA protocols, the positive test result would have been reported to the World Boxing Council and Rivas camp. That appears to have not been the case in this instance with UKAD.
4. If the initial review of the Adverse Analytical Finding by VADA does not reveal an applicable TUE, or departure from laboratory standards that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, VADA shall promptly notify the Athlete of the A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding and the Athlete's right to promptly request the analysis of the B Sample or, failing such request, that the B Sample analysis may be deemed waived. VADA shall also promptly notify the applicable promoter and athletic commission of the A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding.
What isn't clear yet is whether the WBC were informed in advance or not, though I think it is appalling that neither under VADA or the UKAD protocols is there a requirement to inform the the opposing fighter or his team that their opponent may have been using a banned substance. That ish is disgusting.
EDIT: And damn... I keep making that same CPB typo - I've been writing comments about that ish for as long as the damn things been in existence and I know exactly what it means but I think I've been using the wrong acronym the entire time cos it's just ingrained habit now..
cept you're the first one to correct me on it!
Last edited by Citizen Koba; 07-25-2019, 02:26 AM.Comment
-
...
The OP reads:
"Although Whyte is in the World Boxing Council Clean Boxing Program which is administered by the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association (VADA), the test in question was administered by UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)."
... I don't understand what VADA actually did in this particular situation?... Did VADA test White and he came out clean for them?... Did VADA delegate the testing to the UKAD, or what?... Did UKAD report to VADA that Whyte was positive?... VADA keeps silence...
#VADAComment
-
.................................
Further to reports I can confirm that both Dillian Whyte and Oscar Rivas were subject to extensive VADA and UKAD testing for their bout. Both fighters were cleared to fight by both bodies and the BBBofC
— Eddie Hearn (@EddieHearn) July 24, 2019Comment
-
We'll wait and see what his B sample turns up, but I'm not inclined to give a fighter the benefit of the doubt when they've already been busted once, and especially if it's for more than one substance as the other thread alleges. This sucks because I went from disliking Whyte to building up a grudging respect for him after his recent win streak. He's really done well since his loss to Joshua, but now this casts all those wins into doubt. Also it makes him a massive hypocrite, because he was quick to make unfounded accusations of juicing at Joshua while for all we know he was actively turning his own bloodstream into a chemical spill. It's the same BS as Miller. Juicing is a goddamn plague in boxing, and especially at heavyweight it seems. I just hope that if the B sample comes back dirty and his guilt is proven, that he doesn't get away with it. It seems far too easy for these guys to just get away with an inconsequential slap-on-the-wrist ban that they can often just sidestep by fighting in another jurisdiction.Comment
-
Fake news
Whyte was cleared to fight by vada and ukad
Anything to protect wilderComment
Comment