Stephen Espinoza Drops The Truths! "WHYTE WASNT CLEARED, HE WAS ALLOWED TO FIGHT!"

[Bmore18]

So wait... Whyte has to request his B sample be tested and since he was able to fight, he probably wont have them test it (since it'll almost certainly be positive as well) So without the B sample results, where is this going to lead us in this nonsense

[Citizen Koba]

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 recnt case (I forget the fight) where the other fighter was notified of the failed test but still elected to fight. I will have to reaerch that incident again for clarity.

This is very much my take... and I was working on the same su****ion - that both UKAD and VADA have it as policy to only inform the governing body, lead promoter and testee for fear of legal repercussions in the event of the initial result proving inaccurate - though I've yet to find this specifically stated anywhere.

Regardless - this policy needs to change, there can never be any justification for allowing a fighter to compete without full and complete knowledge of any additional advantages or even suspected advantages his opponent may have. Fighter health must always be paramount. I personally think it's less necessary to involve the relevant sanctioning body - especially if time is critical, since they have no jurisdiction to stop the fight, and there is no real issue with de-sanctioning it at a later date if necessary, but equally I can't see any compelling reason not to involve them either.

Like you say my suggestion would be to provide full disclosure to the opposing fighter and their team - involve them in any hearing and then give them the right to withdraw form the fight without prejudice or reschedule until a time when they can feel confident that there is no likelihood of the opponent benefiting from illegal methods.

[rolshans]

"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.

From Merriam-Webster:

Cleared, transitive verb

Synonyms: AUTHORIZE,*APPROVE

Ex. The Editor cleared*the article for publication.
Ex. The plane was*cleared*to land.

I understand it contradicts what you're saying, and so you disagree with it, but under the right context, cleared literally means authorized/approved.

[champion4ever]

Technically speaking Espinoza is right. Whyte was not cleared to fight. He is currently appealing the UKAD findings, pending the B-sample results; Which was why the BBBoC allowed him to fight. It's more than likely that the B-sample would come back testing positive also.

[juggernaut666]

From Merriam-Webster:

Cleared, transitive verb

Synonyms: AUTHORIZE,*APPROVE

Ex. The Editor cleared*the article for publication.
Ex. The plane was*cleared*to land.

I understand it contradicts what you're saying, and so you disagree with it, but under the right context, cleared literally means authorized/approved.

Ask this joker Brett if hes deranged and ****** ? That will end what your trying to deal with and put in perspective why hes a Wilder fan. lol

[Alan Smithee]

From Merriam-Webster:

Cleared, transitive verb

Synonyms: AUTHORIZE,*APPROVE

Ex. The Editor cleared*the article for publication.
Ex. The plane was*cleared*to land.

I understand it contradicts what you're saying, and so you disagree with it, but under the right context, cleared literally means authorized/approved.

I get it Rols. It's not that it contradicts what i'm saying but it is misleading. The terminology in this instance appears to "clear" him of any wrongdoing. That is not the case. Eddie Hearn was challenged on the wording and did his best to weasel out of the question. Technically he was "cleared" or "approved" or "allowed" to fight but the investigation is far from over.

[uppercut510]

people are really defending whyte and hearn wow

[Bmore18]

Technically speaking Espinoza is right. Whyte was not cleared to fight. He is currently appealing the UKAD findings, pending the B-sample results; Which was why the BBBoC allowed him to fight. It's more than likely that the B-sample would come back testing positive also.

As of 3 days ago the B-sample has not even been tested. Only Whyte can request it be tested and he probably wont because it will come back the same and BBBoC allowed him to fight.

[champion4ever]

As of 3 days ago the B-sample has not even been tested. Only Whyte can request it be tested and he probably wont because it will come back the same and BBBoC allowed him to fight.

Exactly! In addition, it can take up to a year before the B-sample is ever tested. In the meantime, this miserable creep Whyte will continue to fight which is pathetic. There needs to be an overhaul off the BBBoC protocol when comes to steroid testing and cheats. Team Rivas and the WBC sanctioning body should have been notified.

[Alan Smithee]

So wait... Whyte has to request his B sample be tested and since he was able to fight, he probably wont have them test it (since it'll almost certainly be positive as well) So without the B sample results, where is this going to lead us in this nonsense

I'll break it down for you Bmore. If an "A" sample comes back positive and the athlete accepts the results he is then in a sense pleading guilty and accepting the consequences. If an "A" sample comes back positive the athlete can request that the "B" sample be tested. If it's negative then he is good to go. If it is positive then the test is a confirmed fail and the athlete is "provisionally suspended" subject to appeals and hearings. There can be action taken in boxing soley on the "A" sample but in this situation there was a hastily announced private meeting with the fighter, his team, and all required authoritative parties. Being that the meeting was private there is no definitive proof of exactly what was discussed but multiple sources have stated that because Whyte passed a VADA test on 7/15 and then failed a UKAD test on the 17th for low level metabolites of Dianabol plust the fact that Whyte requested that his "B" sample be tested, the British Boxing Board of Control had little choice but to clear "Whyte" to fight with the investigation ongoing.