-
-
Read my next post Redeemer. You obviously do not know me or where I am getting my information from. I can assure you that everything that I have posted regarding the Whyte situation is valid. I have no dog in this fight. I am just posting as much information as possible for those in the dark and who are asking. There obviously will be more information, hopefully shortly regarding the "B" sample. If it's clear than Whyte is good to go. If not then he has problems.Comment
-
People shouldn't be fooled into believing the level of metabolite has anything to do with his suitability to fight. If he trained with the aid of steroids, he cheated. Almost no one goes into the ring juiced. They all do it in camp, and those with traces get caught. A guy might clear a test if he used fake/substitute urine or a masking agent that day but not another.Comment
-
I don't even know what you are ranting about as usual/
If Whyte wasn't cleared he would have been told by the hearing with BCCC . You really need to get a grip but I don't expect it from another Wilder cluesless who doesn't understand the B sample would have nothing to do with being cleared to fight .Comment
-
Agreed. A fail is a fail and the fight should have been canceled. Fear of liability should not trump a fighter's safety. At the very least the WBC and Rivas camp should have been made aware of the situation. Rivas could have either pulled out or still fought. There was a recent case (I forget the fight) where the other fighter was notified of the failed test but still elected to fight. I will have to research that incident again for clarity.Last edited by Alan Smithee; 07-29-2019, 04:14 PM.Comment
-
He was allowed to fight based on the facts and circumstances on the day of the fight. When was he "cleared" of anything? Did he or did he not fail a drug test for Dianabol metabolites? Are you alleging that he did not fail a drug test? The "B" sample absolutely is part of the investigation. Why the fu.k would they split the samples anyway. Are you familiar with drug testing? As far as employment testing? You aren't even notified until both samples come up positive. Clueless? When the Whyte case unfolds we will see who the clueless one's are!Comment
-
You are changing topics. You like Espinoza are lying if you are saying he wasn't cleared to fight. Espinoza like most Wilder fans lie ,if you cant understand what hes insinuating is false that makes you one to. It doesn't matter what is the outcome the fact and sole fact is the commission cleared him to fight, its another lame attempt by these guys to be relevant and really has nothing to do with Steve as usual whom last time was clowned by Hearn about the 50 million and like you and posters like you on here its easy to do .Comment
-
He definitely wasn’t “Cleared” to fight. The wording makes it look like he is clean and that’s that. UKAD are just scared they would be sued, if and that’s a big “if” Whyte’s B-sample comes back clean, so they had to allow him to fight. So even if Whyte B-sample comes up clean they could be like “Well he can’t Sue sure for lost of earnings”Comment
-
"It doesn't matter what is the outcome the fact and sole fact is the commission cleared him to fight".
Lol. Nice defense. Like the Canadian poster you are confusing cleared with allowed. If he failed a drug test then he was not cleared of anything unless they allow drugs, that is! Let's see how this situation "clears" itself out. How about a friendly wager? If the "B" sample comes back negative then Mr. Whyte is cleared. Until then a cloud of su****ion hangs over his head.Comment
Tweet
Comment