Is Dillian Whyte suing Boxingscene?

[ShaneMosleySr]

Reporters aren’t bound by UKAD’s policies.

You don't have to agree to hold confidential information in confidence to get sued if you blab when you acquired it from a breach. Basically Hauser is getting it and CBS will pay what he can't.

[ShaneMosleySr]

Reporters have been reporting “confidential” information on public figures since the beginning of time.

UKAD and Whyte both release a joint statement about the findings.

It’s safe to say Whyte isn’t suing them, the target is Hauser and whoever his source is. Hauser reported a confidential information, which had a knock on effect of Whyte getting his mandatory status taken away by the WBC.

Now it has been proven that the information that was leaked was wrong. But it has already cost Whyte his status.

This is the basis of him going after Hauser, basis saying in future wait until the outcome of any investigation before reporting it.

Do not assume someone is guilty until they have had their day in court.

[GGG Gloveking]

I feel like I just talked about this the other day. Under American law, defamation has four essential elements: falsity, unprivileged communication, fault, and damages. If any of those fail, then Whyte doesn't have a leg to stand on. The easiest element to scrutinize is falsity. If the statement is true, then the test fails.

[ShaneMosleySr]

In case people here didn’t know, not only is Thomas Hauser a hall of fame journalist, he’s also a lawyer.

I think he understands how to report without breaking the law better than the message board clowns on this website.

[Split Decision]

Amongst all of the corruption in Boxing, a man pisses dirty and is then cleared of any wrong doing. We are expected to take his word that he is clean and it was not his fault. He gave the same exact speeches the previous time he got caught red-handed and served a ban. He still to this day denies the first time he was juicing, even though it was proven beyond doubt. So who are we to believe? The whole thing stinks.

the irony that u have fury as ur avy while saying this lmao gold

[Ray*]

Why do you think UKAD’s policy on confidentiality applies to reporters?

This isn't my opinion. Am relaying with i know from Team Whyte.

[Citizen Koba]

I feel like I just talked about this the other day. Under American law, defamation has four essential elements: falsity, unprivileged communication, fault, and damages. If any of those fail, then Whyte doesn't have a leg to stand on. The easiest element to scrutinize is falsity. If the statement is true, then the test fails.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

Seems to me much of the confusion here is down to the significant differences in UK and US defamation laws. I've reread the Hauser article a number of times...

https://www.boxingscene.com/dillian-whyte-tests-positive-banned-substance--141178

and I can't really see anything which I can see as an obvious falsehood (at least as it pertains to Dilian Whyte's case) or even as 'reckless disregard for the truth' which might also justify a defamation case under US law, but equally I don't claim to have any particular knowledge of either US or UK jurisprudence, so I could be completely wrong.

If Whyte's lawyers have advised him to go down the path of litigation they would be legally bound to be giving him what they believed was sound advice, so presumably they're seeing something, though it might be more an attempt to establish guilt under UK law for some purpose other than the genuine expectation of compensation.

[ShaneMosleySr]

This isn't my opinion. Am relaying with i know from Team Whyte.

Then they’re wrong.

[GGG Gloveking]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...defamation_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

Seems to me much of the confusion here is down to the significant differences in UK and US defamation laws. I've reread the Hauser article a number of times...

https://www.boxingscene.com/dillian-whyte-tests-positive-banned-substance--141178

and I can't really see anything which I can see as an obvious falsehood (at least as it pertains to Dilian Whyte's case) or even as 'reckless disregard for the truth' which might also justify a defamation case under US law, but equally I don't claim to have any particular knowledge of either US or UK jurisprudence, so I could be completely wrong.

If Whyte's lawyers have advised him to go down the path of litigation they would be legally bound to be giving him what they believed was sound advice, so presumably they're seeing something, though it might be more an attempt to establish guilt under UK law for some purpose other than the genuine expectation of compensation.

This part from the English law wiki does interest me.

"English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff..."

Possibly, Whytes counsel is hoping that Hauser cannot prove the authenticity of the statements.

I feel like American law should have jurisdiction, but my knowledge of international law is zero, barring a brief lecture on the complexities of international adoption.

[Citizen Koba]

Then they’re wrong.

It's possible there's a case under UK law, but not under US law... what the benefit would be of establishing guilt in a UK court that was not enforceable over Hauser or the 'Scene ain't immediately obvious to me, but I'd like to imagine they've got some reason for it.