We should know the results of Whyte’s B-sample by now

[_Rexy_]

Let's be generous and presume Whyte's innocence.

UKAD tested him and then called him in for a hearing.

What policy needs to change? What should UKAD do differently.

It was Boxing Scene that reported it, not anyone involved in the matter.

I highlighted the first thing that needs to change.

[_Rexy_]

Seriously am not. I hope someone can ask UKAD that direct question. This is the information that I have been told.

Did you hear that they removed all of the fighters who tested positive except for Eric Molina? He was freaking out on twitter over this whole thing.

[M Bison]

I’m sure it’s been tested, Eddie has his statement ready, and then...one in a million.

Inb4 he blames it on some sort of supplement or meat. We get so many trash excuses in boxing, I wish us as fans had a bigger say in the sport to try and do something. Unfortunately the best it gets is we can boycott... Doesn't mean much when hundreds of thousands will pay for this cheaters PPV fights.

[PotentialToast]

Them anti-doping guys are negotiating with Hearn. If Whyte wants to keep boxing it's gonna cost him a lot.

Why would a government agency (which UKAD is) negotiate. It is embarassing that fan boys are trying to make up a narrative to suit their allegiences. That is pathetic; having some objectivity and self-respect.

I suspect the B sample is a red herring. It is likely the same (if it is not, Whyte is exonerated anyway). More likely is the proximity of UKAD and VADA tests show that the 'ultra trace' levels are consistent with contamination which if Whyte has been sticking to approved supplements (i.e. all he can reasonably do) will see him cleared (if this has not already happened).

[kafkod]

Haven’t you heard? It could take up to a year to open up the B-sample (Please don’t ask me why lol).

The B sample doesn't need to be opened in order for Whyte to be either cleared of the charge or found guilty and sanctioned.

It could take up to a year for the whole process to be completed, if their are other legal claims and counterclaims that need to be settled first - as in the UKAD vs Team Fury case - but I'm sure Whyte's case will be settled a lot faster.

[REDEEMER]

Seriously am not. I hope someone can ask UKAD that direct question. This is the information that I have been told.

There would be a final ruling before that happened, Whyte cant fight again until the matter is cleared up unless he pulls a Fury and waits out a statute of limitations which he wont do because hes not hiding anything .

[REDEEMER]

The B sample doesn't need to be opened in order for Whyte to be either cleared of the charge or found guilty and sanctioned.

It could take up to a year for the whole process to be completed, if their are other legal claims and counterclaims that need to be settled first - as in the UKAD vs Team Fury case - but I'm sure Whyte's case will be settled a lot faster.

Whyte doesn't have to be cleared of a B sample ? I thought the next process was that and then they get another hearing and so forth where they would determine final word if it goes that far ?

[kafkod]

Let's be generous and presume Whyte's innocence.

UKAD tested him and then called him in for a hearing.

What policy needs to change? What should UKAD do differently.

It was Boxing Scene that reported it, not anyone involved in the matter.

Hearn says the Boxingscene report was factually incorrect. I started a thread about it earlier:

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19947713&posted=1#post19947713

[kafkod]

Whyte doesn't have to be cleared of a B sample ? I thought the next process was that and then they get another hearing and so forth where they would determine final word if it goes that far ?

It could be settled either way without the B sample being opened, if Dillian accepts the decision of the panel. But if they find him guilty he would be cleared if the B sample was opened and came up clean.

[Citizen Koba]

Let's be generous and presume Whyte's innocence.

UKAD tested him and then called him in for a hearing.

What policy needs to change? What should UKAD do differently.

It was Boxing Scene that reported it, not anyone involved in the matter.

I think the main change required is that the opponent be notified at the earliest opportunity if a fight is imminent... as things stand when an adverse or atypical finding is made the first step is to check whether there is a TUE in place and make sure that all the collection protocols have been adhered to, and the only parties that need to be informed are the fighter who had the adverse finding, the lead promoter and the governing body (the BBBoC). This is an understandable measure - after all, there is no enforceable case in either of these instances - and disseminating the information too widely could be prejudicial to the interests of the fighter who received the finding. However in the event that a fight is imminent and these procedures would delay a full investigation past the fight date my feeling is that the potential threat to the health of the opposing fighter should always trump the procedural rights of the testee.

In this case, at the very least Rivas and his team deserved the right to be informed of the decision made, and to my mind should have been involved in the full proceedings and given the right to withdraw without prejudice or delay the fight as appropriate.