Will VADA congratulate Whyte for successfully completing VADA testing?

[Robbie Barrett]

Why are you on here trying to defend a guy who failed a drug test so bad?? I am confused

****ting on VADA testing is defending Whyte?

[IceTrayDaGang]

Why are you on here trying to defend a guy who failed a drug test so bad?? I am confused

At the same time, he's accusing other fighters of being dirty without any proof. Yet, he's on here defending a cheater that actually got caught. Smh.

[Robbie Barrett]

At the same time, he's accusing other fighters of being dirty without any proof. Yet, he's on here defending a cheater that actually got caught. Smh.

Who Pacquiao? I posted a video inhaling banned substances. Can't argue with video evidence.

[Phenom]

I'm assuming it relies on local agencies outside of the states

VADA shouldn't conduct testing in Europe since obviously it doesn't have the resources for it

[LA_2_Vegas]

There's a point to be made there without having to defend Whyte - going to have to wait to see if they have anything to say (maybe they haven't wrapped up all the testing for that fight as someone mentioned).

[champion4ever]

LOL, You're one funny dude! Hell Nah! Why would they congratulate him? He slipped through the cracks. I agree. VADA really dropped the ball on this one

[Rip Chudd]

It's sad so many people want to defend VADA and their complete failure to catch someone.

The issue isn't vada. The issue is a boxer tested positive for 2 banned substances and was still given the green light to fight. This was hidden from that fighter's opponent, that's the issue. It shows corruption. Meanwhile you seem to be the only one worried about vada when that's not the important thing

[Robbie Barrett]

The issue isn't vada. The issue is a boxer tested positive for 2 banned substances and was still given the green light to fight. This was hidden from that fighter's opponent, that's the issue. It shows corruption. Meanwhile you seem to be the only one worried about vada when that's not the important thing

I disagree. VADA failing to catch someone at all is the much bigger issue. Boxing relies on VADA to catch fighters when they are using not just the UK.

[Citizen Koba]

The issue isn't vada. The issue is a boxer tested positive for 2 banned substances and was still given the green light to fight. This was hidden from that fighter's opponent, that's the issue. It shows corruption. Meanwhile you seem to be the only one worried about vada when that's not the important thing

I've had this discussion with someone else also - and whilst I agree absolutely that it's an unethical (and in fact dangerous) policy I don't understand the accusation of corruption. Neither UKAD not VADA are required to inform the opposing fighter of adverse findings until they have been investigated unless it is contractually specified.

EDIT: Unless it's the BBBoC that you're accusing of corruption... that's an accusation that might hold more weight, but would kind of depend on what their protocols are and upon how they've treated other, similar, cases in the past.

EDIT 2: Actually scratch that - the BBBoC have stated clearly that they are just following UKADs lead... I'm just wading through the morass of officialese that makes up UKAD rules but the upshot is that they basically won't take further action until it's established there is a case to answer... ie there's no TUE and the proper collections procedures have been adhered to... the relevant passages are below:

7.3 Review of Atypical Findings

7.3.1

As provided in the Prohibited List and/or in the International Standard for Laboratories, where a Prohibited Substance or its Marker or Metabolite that may also be produced endogenously is found to be present in an A Sample, in certain circumstances laboratories are directed to report such presence as an Atypical Finding that should be investigated further. In that case, UKAD(using Independent Reviewers as appropriate) will conduct a review to determine whether:

(a)the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Marker or Metabolite in the Athlete’s Sample is consistent with a valid and applicable TUE held by the Athlete(or which could be referred to the retroactive TUE procedure in accordance with Articles 4.2.5and 4.2.6);

or

(b)there has been any apparent departure from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations or from the International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Atypical Finding.


7.3.2

If it is determined pursuant to Article 7.3.1 either that the Atypical Finding is consistent with a valid and applicable TUE held by the Athlete(or with a retroactive TUE), or that there has been an apparent departure from either the International Standard for Testing and Investigations or the International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Atypical Finding, then UKAD shall advise the Athlete and each Interested Party of that fact. UKAD shall take no further action in relation to such Atypical Finding.

7.3.3

If it is determined pursuant to Article 7.3.1 that there is neither a valid and applicable TUE with which the AtypicalFinding is consistent, nor a departure from either the International Standard for Testing and Investigations or the International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Atypical Finding, then UKAD may conduct any necessary follow-up investigation.

7.3.4

The results of the investigation shall be referred to one or more Independent Reviewers, as appropriate. If the Independent Reviewer(s) conclude(s) that the Atypical Finding should be considered an Adverse Analytical Finding, such that there is a case to answer under Article 2, UKADshall send the Athlete a Notice of Charge in accordance with Article 7.7.

7.3.5

Pending the outcome of the investigation, the Atypical Finding shall be kept confidential, save that:

(a) if it determines that the B Sample should be analysed as part of the investigation, UKAD shall notify the Athlete in accordance with Article 7.7.1(e), and such notice shall additionally include a description of the Atypical Finding and specify the Athlete's right to request copies of the A and B Sample laboratory documentation packages; and

(b) if requested by the NGB, an International Federation or Major Event Organisation or a sports organisation that is about to select Athletes to participate in an International Event, UKAD may confirm that the Athlete has a pending Atypical Finding, after informing the Athlete.


7.3.6

If UKAD decides not to pursue the Atypical Finding as an Adverse Analytical Finding, it shall notify the Athlete and each Interested Party of that fact. Any Interested Party may either appeal that decisionas set out in Article 13 or may elect to treat the Atypical Finding as an Adverse Analytical Finding and initiate proceedings under its own rules.

(my emphasis)

https://www.ukad.org.uk/sites/defaul...ping_rules.pdf

Basically it looks to me that what is going on is less a matter of corruption than a matter of the rules and procedures being adhered to in a manner that's really not flexible enough for a sport such as boxing where rapid decisions may need to be made over whether a fight should take place... UKAD has (it appears) the same protocols for boxing as for all the other sports it administers - problem is that in most other sports it ain't of such potentially critical importance if it takes a while to make sure that no mistakes have been made and a proper investigation has been carried out.



Article 7.3.5 appears to contain the most immediately pertinent material,, there is a note about informing 'interested parties' in 7.3.2 if the adverse finding is found to be under a TUE or if there's been some failure in the testing protocol but I'm guessing neither is the case here, nor is it made exactly clear what precisely is meant by an interested party and whether that extends to a fighters opponent.