Finally! A real reporter corners Hearn and asks him the tough questions!

[Citizen Koba]

But he was able to get more out of Eddie in 6 minutes than anyone else has the whole weekend

As far as him not knowing the process he admits that but knowing that part wasn't important to him. If you allow Hearn to sit back and fillibuster about the process, like IFL did, you're wasting your interview. So whenever Eddie would talk about the process he'd say yes ok then get to the question "Did you inform the WBC?" " Why didn't you inform the WBC?" "when did you first find out?" We got more info out of this interview than any other interview.

Why didn't yall say you could've did better than that guy from IFL where we learned nothing and heard Hearn spin?

Ain't heard the IFL so I can't comment, but you are right in that one of Hearn's interview techniques is to divert conversation towards areas where his knowlege of boxing politics and procedure puts him in a position of strength and then just keep talking. Problem is although the interviewer did succeed in rattling slick Eddie's cage a little, his questions seemed to me to betray a deep misunderstanding of the situation.

Why would it be important to notify the WBC for instance? - sure you could keep em in the loop, but their only power would be to say that it was no longer an eliminator, they have no jurisdiction to decide whether the fight should be cancelled or a fighter banned in a certain country so their involvement is of secondary importance. And why would it be considered Hearns responsibility to inform Rivas and his team, when it was BBBoC and UKAD who made the adverse finding and the decision on whether to allow the fight? Furthermore I been reading UKAD regs today - pasted some into another post actually - and there actually is a confidentiality policy - though I'm not sure how far that extends to second parties. It's like the interviewer simply didn't get how boxing operates or the roles of the various individuals or organisations involved and then refused to let Hearn explain why his questions were kinda meaningless.


Shit, sure, I'd love to see Hearn put on the spot by someone who knew their stuff, but that dude just didn't seem to have a clue.

[RoyJonesJrp4pno1]

It's great that they are asking the hard questions here.

However, my issue with these guys is they reserve the hard questions for guys they don't like. They need to ask everyone hard questions not just Eddie Hearn because they dislike him.

[johnbook]

I believe he's correct. I was just trying to make the point that Eddie can say a lot more than he's letting on. If he hears something blatantly false he'll correct it. But when confronted with something he knows be true he'll say he can't speak on it. So from there we can surmise what is true and what is false.

OK. Thanks.
I'm sure u r right. Sounds like an intel agent.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Now we know they were aware of the failed test at least 36 hours before the fight. Hearn said Whyte had two choices. Open the B sample or have a hearing. Hearn said they picked the hearing because the B sample would take to long to come back. I thought it took 24-48 hrs to come back. Hearn still can't come up with an acceptable answer as to why he didn't inform the WBC or Rivas team. Hearn is red in the face with these questions. He's telling the reporter her doesn't know the facts and the reporter tells him that's why I'm asking you the facts. Hearn turns red :rofl
Timestamped at 6:30




Second part

Only watched the first vid but a huge shout out to the reporter for actually asking pressing questions. I generally despise these wannabe YouTube journalists but that was a really insightful watch.

Who was the reporter? I’d definitely watch his content again.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

It's great that they are asking the hard questions here.

However, my issue with these guys is they reserve the hard questions for guys they don't like. They need to ask everyone hard questions not just Eddie Hearn because they dislike him.

I never really watch this kind of stuff..

So is this guy not consistent when interviewing other boxers, promoters etc?

[Mammoth]

It was ultra trace amounts or what?

[Bmore18]

It was ultra trace amounts or what?

Yes, Coppinger posted details in his story. 2 substances "ultra-trace" amounts. Quote from Conte (take that how you will) saying to him it confirms Whyte was exposed to a PED. Im waiting on B sample and figure out reasoning BBBoC cleared him.

From day 1 there hasnt been a denial from Whyte/Matchroom/Eddie that the positive test happened

[KTFOKING]

One thing Hearn said is that Whyte didn't fail a test for 2 different drugs. So Hearn is bull****ting acting like he doesn't know what's going on. He knows a lot more than he's letting on. He'll tell what he knows if it makes him and Whyte look good. But he's holding back a lot of info that's not good for them

From Coppinger:

One metabolite — 17-epimithandienone —was evident in Whyte’s system at a measurement of 0.9 ng/ml (nanograms per milliliter), an industry source told The Athletic. That’s nine-tenths of one part per trillion, signifying an ultra-trace amount of the substance.

Another metabolite — 6B-hydroxymethandienone — was found at a measurement of 3.0 ng/ml, per source, which equals three parts per trillion, also considered an ultra-trace amount.

That’s pretty specific so is he wrong with his report as well?

[saopaulo]

Barbershop Conversations grilled him pretty good but that dude lost my respect a while back when he acted like a f@ggot to Andre Ward. I remember him badmouthing Superstarnelo saying he'd fight Shawn Porter lol....

andre ward is dirt piece of sh-t i have no problem with that

[Motorcity Cobra]

I never really watch this kind of stuff..

So is this guy not consistent when interviewing other boxers, promoters etc?

No he's not at all. He's biased.