I'm calling it now. Whyte will be cleared.

[Alan Smithee]

The british board of control has to inspect thr glove prior to the fight and weigh them so no,its a non issue and could be numerous things like a hand injury to Whyte and such where he needed different gloves but it doesn't matter they are always inspected and shouldn't even be an issue .


im a fight fan not like you ,which is an imbecile so yea I wouldn't want any fighter getting banned until its really proven,and again boy would I like to punch your lights out, thats also a fact now that I know you were a corrections officer. lmao

Do some research in to the glove situation in that fight. It is not a non issue. Whyte was gloved up with different gloves than the one's that were approved. Rivas and his camp asked for the gloves to be removed and inspected which is standard procedure and they were rebuffed. I heard that your video showed that you can not punch your way out of a paper bag yet you are punching "lights out". Wannabe perhaps?

[kafkod]

What do you expect from Robbie Barrett (know it all who know's little). Shave his head,lol! What a clown!

You're the last person who should be calling somebody else a know it all.

Give me another lecture about how UKAD and the BBBoC are not allowed to provisionally suspend a fighter unless his B sample tests positive.

[juggernaut666]

Do some research in to the glove situation in that fight. It is not a non issue. Whyte was gloved up with different gloves than the one's that were approved. Rivas and his camp asked for the gloves to be removed and inspected which is standard procedure and they were rebuffed. I heard that your video showed that you can not punch your way out of a paper bag yet you are punching "lights out". Wannabe perhaps?

No dummy,if it were an issue they wouldn't have allowed the change ,when made there are extra precautions in place to o.k the change.


Wanna be ? Nope,id cave your face in and laugh my balls off and actually post it on this VERY forum .lol

[Alan Smithee]

You're the last person who should be calling somebody else a know it all.

Give me another lecture about how UKAD and the BBBoC are not allowed to provisionally suspend a fighter unless his B sample tests positive.

Did you read my earlier responses. Too much liability involved! No lecture just facts! Why do you think no action was taken? liability!

[Alan Smithee]

Whyte has hair at the moment. He left it on for a reason, to be tested.

Shows you didn't watch the fight.

Did I watch the fight? lol Jerkoff!

[Alan Smithee]

Body hair doesnt grow at the same rate and is difficult to determine because theres less concentration of a substance per ratio you idiot.

Wow! Are you guys all related?



A body hair sample is typically collected by cutting or shaving hair from the arms, legs, chest, stomach, underarms, or face of a male donor. A good sample is typically the size of a large cotton ball. We do not perform body hair testing for female donors.

Who should choose body hair drug testing?
Body hair drug testing is usually performed when head hair testing cannot occur due to a lack of sufficient head hair or in cases where a history of use is suspected, but the approximate time of use isn't known or isn't important.

Unlike head hair testing, body hair drug testing does not have a hair length requirement, only a volume requirement. In general, a viable body hair sample is about the size of a large cotton ball (approximately 1 inch in diameter when bunched). If a donor is not able to provide enough of a hair sample, nail testing may be an option.

Body hair drug testing has been used successfully in legal proceedings.

[REDEEMER]

Any word today ,is there supposed to be a BBBC statement ?

[Alan Smithee]

You're the last person who should be calling somebody else a know it all.

Give me another lecture about how UKAD and the BBBoC are not allowed to provisionally suspend a fighter unless his B sample tests positive.

I will continue my lecture. There is a reason that athletes are not "suspended" based on the "A" sample alone. This applies to all sports including boxing. In the NFL if the "A" sample is positive but the "B" sample is negative then the only party that is notified is the player in writing. Not the league, not the team, just the player. If Whyte was "provisionally suspended" on the day of the fight based on the "A" sample then if the "B" sample came back negative his purse or "lost earnings" would have to be reimbursed. It's called liability. Who would reimburse Mr. Whyte, certainly not keyboard warrior "kafkod" who lives in his parents basement eating cheetos!

[REDEEMER]

I will continue my lecture. There is a reason that athletes are not "suspended" based on the "A" sample alone. This applies to all sports including boxing. In the NFL if the "A" sample is positive but the "B" sample is negative then the only party that is notified is the player in writing. Not the league, not the team, just the player. If Whyte was "provisionally suspended" on the day of the fight based on the "A" sample then if the "B" sample came back negative his purse or "lost earnings" would have to be reimbursed. It's called liability. Who would reimburse Mr. Whyte, certainly not keyboard warrior "kafkod" who lives in his parents basement eating cheetos!

This is a lie. Mr,Whytes purse wouldn't have anything to do with the BBBC, had the fight been postponed its just that.

The team is notified,in fact the promoter has to be notified of the findings ,its who ever is outside the promoter doesn't.

Liability is only found to those who would have breached the confidentiality cluse ,Whyte himself cannot sue if the rules state the fight would need to be haulted but it doesn't under the BCCC. You again haven't any clue what you're talking about,why are you making things up ? Ha

[REDEEMER]

If you have read all of my previous posts you would see the links and "proof". Two asian athletes sued UKAD based on similar situations. There would most certainly be liability if someone was suspended based on a positive "A" sample with the " B" sample being negative? If the "B" sample is negative then it is considered a negative result or a "pass". The group on here is clueless.

Yea and what happened in those cases? BCCC cannot be sued if they have reason to stop a fight ,they cannot assume the B sample will be negative the very case you are ,it all depends when the accussed challenged the findings and in what time frame, in this one the B sample is being challenged and had other testing involved outside UKAD so you are just trying to not be wrong which isn't possible here.

Had they stopped the fight and the B is negative it would have only happened if Whyte didn't challenge the findings so no legal action can occure ,that's the problem you are putting up links and thinking you sound smart,just stop. Ha


EDIT : and what link are you talking about ,you posted one about boxing gloves or are you lying as usual ? Ha