Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comments Thread For: Dillian Whyte Decisions Mariusz Wach in Tough Outing

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Brettcappe View Post
    You keep asking the same questions. Do some fighters get artificial rankings? Absolutely! I have been following boxing since the 70's. My first "favorite" fighter was Smokin Joe frazier. Are the sanctioning bodies corrupt? Of course but Dillian Whyte is his own worst enemy. A win over Ortiz and he would have forced their hand. Do other guys get title shots with worse resumes? Yes but that matters little. Whyte put himself in the position that he is in. It is always easy to blame others but if he fought and beat Ortiz then he would have had his coveted shot. Wilder will rematch Fury and if he wins then Whyte may eventually get his shot. My prediction? Whyte get's knocked the fu.k out. Time will tell!
    You are furious I ask you the same question you couldn't answer because it defeats all your agenda but in turn you want to insist whyte must fight Ortiz that was KOed cold twice.
    You guys claim everybody is a bum but when it comes to this particular bum, he has to go fight this and that before he will get a shot at wilder. Ha
    I only hear of final eliminator only when whytes name is mentioned. Every other guy gets a voluntary except whyte.
    You can't be these dull man.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by LetOutTheCage View Post
      Canelo was officially banned for 6 months, Lucas Browne was also banned for clenbuterol and I believe he had a lot less of the stuff in his system.If you honestly believe Canelo's story then I feel sorry for you.

      This is a completely different scenario and you know it, Whyte wasnt suspended, the statement made by UKAD confirms all of this.
      This has nothing to do with believing the excuse. He was also banned by the NSAC (not WADA) who don't care about "the how". WADA deemed the doses consistent with contaiminated meat. Bottom line, both had adverse findings, both were cleared by testing agencies for what appeared to be unintentional use. You're ok with one situation, but not the other.

      Now that is bias.

      Comment

      Working...
      X
      TOP