This is how Dillian Whyte was "cleared" in record time by UKAD

[thabanga510]

Still never explained how he had a banned substance in his system.

[Son Lyme]

That would be because he didn't you halfwit.

[andocom]

Remember, we have no idea how common this situation is or how often this type of thing happens in any sport covered by the WADA code (i.e. most international level sports).

The only reason UKAD released a statement is because information was leaked and had done significant damage to Whyte's reputation. The normal process would have been only a statement published when doping is judged to have occurred.

There still seems to be some uncertainty around what actually happened, although some things do appear clear.

Firstly Whyte wasn't doping, the testing time frames before and after the test in question, the metabolite levels and half life make this obvious.
With the exception of the leaked information, the WADA process seems to have been followed as it should have been.

What isn't clear to me at least is were the metabolites actually in Whytes blood stream at all, was it testing contamination or supplement contamination. If it was supplement contamination that makes it a little trickier as the athletes still have strict liability as far as I know, if that was the case he may have been able to supply his supplements for testing and shown that is where the trace amounts came from.

The issue with strict liability is the testing is getting increasingly accurate to the point of picking up trace amounts of banned chemicals from environmental pollution. Think popping for MDMA because you ate fish or shrimp that came from a river near a city.

[kafkod]

I didn't read anywhere that he was proved innocent.

The charge was withdrawn because the evidence showed the result was consistent with "an isolated contamination event" and not consistent with deliberate doping, and because Whyte provided further evidence that the contamination did not occur because of any negligence on his part.

If the "B" sample had been tested and come back negative, that would have done that. Nobody thought The B sample would come back negative, nobody.

Exactly, if the B sample was any different than the A sample, the case would have been closed immediately. So what was the damned point of idiots asking, "What about the B sample? Where is the B sample?" Over and over and over and over again?

[kafkod]

Pretty obvious... to everyone outside the UK.

There is a very obvious reason why a legal firm called Morgan Sports Law have been representing sports stars in PED allegation cases. You don't need to live outside the UK to get it, you just need to have a brain between your ears.

[Toffee]

Exactly, if the B sample was any different than the A sample, the case would have been closed immediately. So what was the damned point of idiots asking, "What about the B sample? Where is the B sample?" Over and over and over and over again?

you just need to have a brain between your ears.

Correct, whether innocent or guilty it was never about the B sample.

Everytime I read "B Sample" on here I just figured the poster was missing a few cells.

[kafkod]

Remember, we have no idea how common this situation is or how often this type of thing happens in any sport covered by the WADA code (i.e. most international level sports).

The only reason UKAD released a statement is because information was leaked and had done significant damage to Whyte's reputation. The normal process would have been only a statement published when doping is judged to have occurred.

There still seems to be some uncertainty around what actually happened, although some things do appear clear.

Firstly Whyte wasn't doping, the testing time frames before and after the test in question, the metabolite levels and half life make this obvious.
With the exception of the leaked information, the WADA process seems to have been followed as it should have been.

What isn't clear to me at least is were the metabolites actually in Whytes blood stream at all, was it testing contamination or supplement contamination. If it was supplement contamination that makes it a little trickier as the athletes still have strict liability as far as I know, if that was the case he may have been able to supply his supplements for testing and shown that is where the trace amounts came from.

The issue with strict liability is the testing is getting increasingly accurate to the point of picking up trace amounts of banned chemicals from environmental pollution. Think popping for MDMA because you ate fish or shrimp that came from a river near a city.

If the athlete can show that they took all reasonable precautions to guard against accidental ingestion of the banned substance, they are off the hook.

The UKAD statement says that Whyte showed them evidence which proved it didn't happen because of negligence on his part. And that might not have been too difficult, because he passed VADA tests only days before and after the flagged test result, meaning the time frame involved was very short.

And you are right, we have no idea how often dramas like this occur behind the scenes, because if the story isn't leaked to the press, we wouldn't know anything about it.

[Citizen Koba]

So he passed a test one day and failed another test on another different date what's your point

The concept is that if he pissed clean a known period before testing positive it's then possible to calculate the maximum quantity of a substance that could originally have entered his system based on the elimination half life of that substance or it's metabolytes. If the maximum quantity of the substance that could have entered his system is well below that which would be consistent with doping then contamination of some form would seem to be the most likely explanation.

I have no idea whether the figures support this argument cos they ain't released Dillian's metabolyte concentrations, but those are the grounds on which he's been cleared I believe. As a general principle both WADA and VADA have accepted the principle of mitigating circumstances (ie inadvertant use or contamination) despite the apparent contradiction with their policy of strict liability, as demonstrated by the Clenbuterol contamination issue, so clearing him if there is a belief that he did not deliberately attempt to cheat ain't really controversial any more.

What this really boils down to is your willingness to believe that UKAD would participate in some kind of cover up or obfuscation to protect Dillian... and I think it's not too much of a surprise that most of us are more likely to accept the legitimacy of our own national based testing agencies than those of other countries, though to my knowledge there ain't any particularly strong evidence that UKAD is any more or less corrupt or competent than USAD or indeed VADA (though I believe UKAD are at least partially answerable to both Parliament and WADA which means they have a degree more oversight than VADA.

[kafkod]

Correct, whether innocent or guilty it was never about the B sample.

Everytime I read "B Sample" on here I just figured the poster was missing a few cells.

Lol, same here!

[OnePunch]

the nerve of people retaining qualified professionals to represent their interests.

How dare they...........