Comments Thread For: WBO Denies Dillian Whyte Appeal, Upholds Usyk Mandatory Ruling

[Larry the boss]

Did I miss something? Has his B sample also come back positive?

lol, keep hope alive

[andocom]

I get that - but how long does it take UKAD to test the B sample?? They seemed to test the A sample and get a result real quick.

I'm not sure that it is the B sample that is the holdup, they are apparently able to test that shortly after, Whyte could have rep present for the testing.

I think it is more likely just the time frame of the UKAD/NADP process which is usually a couple months.

Although I think Whyte was notified on July 17, but the actual test was like a month before or something like that, can't remember the date off hand, but it was a while, so the testing of the B sample plus the NADP process probably adds up to a couple months. If you look into other WADA/UKAD/USADA etc cases, that is a pretty standard timeline though I believe.

[_Rexy_]

A brick would envy your simplicity.

You know, If someone is arrested for ****, murder, actually ANY CRIME, one DNA sample is all it takes.

But we require multiple for Whyte. One sample doesn’t prove anything.

[TheUptownKid]

So the word interim means between, like the in between champion while we’re waiting for a true champion. Why is there an interim belt holder, if we already have a true belt holder? Sooo weak

[alexjust]

You know, If someone is arrested for ****, murder, actually ANY CRIME, one DNA sample is all it takes.

But we require multiple for Whyte. One sample doesn’t prove anything.

Not sure what you mean...your first two sentences contradict the 3rd, no?

[_Rexy_]

Not sure what you mean...your first two sentences contradict the 3rd, no?

The second one was intended to be sarcasm. We need a font for that.

[LetOutTheCage]

lol, keep hope alive

I was asking a legitimate question...you said he just failed 2 tests leading me to believe that the B sample had come back positive and I had somehow missed it in the news...

Is it so hard for you to answer like an adult and simply clarify a question?

[alexjust]

The second one was intended to be sarcasm. We need a font for that.

We don't. You need to understand what sarcasm actually is and how it fits in the point you are trying to make. It doesn't. Unless you made a point PRO Whyte. Which you didn't judging by previous post and the inconsistent two sentences.

[Marchegiano]

You know, If someone is arrested for ****, murder, actually ANY CRIME, one DNA sample is all it takes.

But we require multiple for Whyte. One sample doesn’t prove anything.

The a sample is for the cheap but less reliable tests, the B sample is for the more reliable and more expensive test. They only have to pay more if they pop dirty of the cheapo but the B could, theoretically still come back clean on the more surefire test.

In court the government goes for the kill straight away and uses their considerable means against all defendants. The could test a murder's blood using cheaper and less reliable means but they're going to give the defense a reasonable doubt for that test.