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

[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?

Well you're the self admitted CORRECTIONS officer,so ?Lets see how tough you are since tyou deem me some punk on here? Oh that's right you're probably another little kid in his moms house right ? I tell you what punk mofo ,im going to be on you on here 24 /7 now ,,,,,that's right biatch bc I know your near me ...lol


And BTW testing for SYNTHETIC subtances and recreational are completely different when testing any type of hair particularly body as was explained to you....and everyone who responded to you clowned you completely anyway.


Did I mention id cave your 50 yr old f'ing face in ?

Don't worry about what others say why don't you do something about something if you have a problem ...BIATCH ???

[thesmokingman]

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.

Just look up the settlement and lame arse backdated ban on the Fury's. That's all the proof you need. Had the Fury's won their case, UKAD would be on the hook for their salary for the missed time. And UKAD handled that case improperly yet it doesn't change the adverse findings I think right? That siad, they'd probably be bankrupted, so many articles on this.

[kafkod]

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!

Fella, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about!

Frank Warren has been promoting boxing in the UK for nearly 40 years. This is a quote from his latest article on the main page of this site. He's talking about the Dilian Whyte drama, of course:

"Normally, under these circumstances, a boxer is immediately suspended and is given seven days to respond. Of the two samples taken – A and B – the B sample is retained to be tested, at the request of the boxer at a later date if he refutes the findings in the A Sample."

We all make mistakes and get things wrong sometimes. Just accept that were mistaken about this and stop doubling down on your error.

[kafkod]

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

This is what Frank Warren said about it in his latest article published at this site today. Old Fish Eyes has been promoting boxing in the UK long enough to know how UKAD and the BBBoC normally handle a positive test result.

"Normally, under these circumstances, a boxer is immediately suspended and is given seven days to respond. Of the two samples taken – A and B – the B sample is retained to be tested, at the request of the boxer at a later date if he refutes the findings in the A Sample."

[REDEEMER]

This is what Frank Warren said about it in his latest article published at this site today. Old Fish Eyes has been promoting boxing in the UK long enough to know how UKAD and the BBBoC normally handle a positive test result.

"Normally, under these circumstances, a boxer is immediately suspended and is given seven days to respond. Of the two samples taken – A and B – the B sample is retained to be tested, at the request of the boxer at a later date if he refutes the findings in the A Sample."

Well i'm not from the U.K but know enough what i'm talking about and that joke of poster Brett is making things up ,probably that WBC guy alt. ? In that case I hope Juggs gets a hold of him, well not really could be ugly for Brett, Ha

[COVID-19]

Fully exonerated like Donald Trump.

[Robbie Barrett]

Some people don't know what they're talking about. If Whyte can provide enough evidence that on the balance of probability he didn't intentional use Dianabol he will be cleared. Those VADA tests will do that.

[ShoulderRoll]

Some people don't know what they're talking about. If Whyte can provide enough evidence that on the balance of probability he didn't intentional use Dianabol he will be cleared. Those VADA tests will do that.

Are you saying that he will be cleared of using dianobol? How much are you willing to bet on this...like $500 or what?

[Robbie Barrett]

Are you saying that he will be cleared of using dianobol? How much are you willing to bet on this...like $500 or what?

I'm saying if he provides enough evidence that makes it look like he didn't intentionally take dianabol he won't be punished. That's how it works. If he passed all VADA tests then he's got a great argument.

[ShoulderRoll]

I'm saying if he provides enough evidence that makes it look like he didn't intentionally take dianabol he won't be punished. That's how it works. If he passed all VADA tests then he's got a great argument.

But he didn't pass UKAD tests. And you didn't answer how much money you would be willing to bet.