Tweet
I have no issue that he was "cleared" by ukad. I haven't posted much if anything about it.
Whyte is getting progressively heavier in his last 2 fights, up 25 lbs since the Chisora fight. Lets see where he is in his next fight.
-
Not implying anything. Just asking what you thought. It's not like I am making it up.
I have no issue that he was "cleared" by ukad. I haven't posted much if anything about it.
Whyte is getting progressively heavier in his last 2 fights, up 25 lbs since the Chisora fight. Lets see where he is in his next fight. -
His next fight should be after a full training camp not 2-3 weeks notice, I wouldn't read much of anything into his weight for this fight.Comment
-
Your devil's advocate account leaves out one critical factor, as do all the comments I've seen posted here going on about UKAD being in Hearn's pocket .. Whyte was initially cleared to fight by the NAPD, not by UKAD. If it wasn't for them, the Rivas fight would have been cancelled and Dillian would have been provisionally suspended until the UKAD investigation was completed and the charge withdrawn.You know how this works, man. If someone wants to construct a hypothetical scenario in which UKAD have covered up then it's aways possible. Once you're accepted the proviso that they're dishonest then any number of explanations for the circumstance you've brought up could be made.
If I was to play Devil's advocate I'd say that UKAD must have been leaned on after reporting the result to the BBBoC and Hearn, and I'd then progress to maybe say that it's evidence that Hearn's a crook and UKAD are spineless corruptable degenerates... you know how this ish goes..
Like I say though, this ain't really a subject that's gonna yield to logical argument at this point, once someone's decided that UKAD are lying there ain't much you can do with it, cos even if they were to, say, release Dillian's actual urinary concentrations you'll always then get folk claiming they were falsified or somesuch.
Problem is then if we ain't gonna trust UKAD, why trust any other testing organisation? Why trust VADA, who have even less oversight? If we ain't gonna trust BBBoC why trust NAC or any of the other US commissions? That ish just devolves into speculative nonsense.
Personally I'm happy to keep an open mind... I don't trust any fucker anyway, but the dude's been cleared by the bodies responsible for clearing him and the reasons provided are rational and coherent even if there's still questions unanswered and the full facts haven't been released. That's sufficient for me to put a line under it even if it won't put the objections of any doubters to bed. If further evidence comes to light at some future time that points to UKAD corruption then I'll revisit it then, but for now more discussion's kinda pointless.
The NAPD are not affiliated with either UKAD or the BBBoC, and there is no possibility of them being leaned on by Eddie Hearn, as each adjudicating panel is chosen on an ad hoc basis, depending on the sport and the issues involved, and is presided over by a QC.
Now you are doing what Koba-Grozny was talking about in his post above .. constructing a hypothetical scenario, then working from it as if it was a fact.
There is no evidence at all that Whyte threatened UKAD with a lawsuit, and he certainly didn't threaten to sue the NAPD, who cleared him to carry on fighting after UKAD charged him with a violation. That would have been like the defendant in a criminal case threatening to sue the judge and jury if they didn't find him innocent.Comment
-
Well done. They are learning from the Americans who invade small MF's in the name of Peace, freedom and safety, LOL! Bunch of imbeciles.Comment
-
Yeah, actually it does appear that you're largely correct (although I've been unable to find any reference to an actual requirement of having a QC as the chair in the NADP rules even though the article below states it as the norm) according to the following article, which I'm gonna just quote verbatim cos it addresses most of the confusion and misunderstandings that are being thrown up on here:
What is an NADP?
The National Anti-Doping Panel is an independent body that determines anti-doping disputes in sport in the United Kingdom. Membership of the NADP is made up of a President, eleven legally qualified arbitrators and ten specialist arbitrators, all of whom have experience in high performance sport, sports science and sports medicine.
Can an athlete compete after an adverse test finding?
If a provisional suspension has been levied, an athlete can apply to the NADP to have that lifted to allow them to compete before their hearing.
How does the NADP process work?
If an athlete exercises their right to have their case heard by an independent tribunal, the NADP will appoint three arbitrators to adjudicate your case. The Tribunal will normally consist of a senior solicitor or barrister to chair the tribunal, alongside two other Tribunal members who have specialist expertise in high-performance sport, sports science or medicine. If an oral hearing is required, this will normally take place within 40 days of the case being referred to the NADP, unless otherwise requested. It is sometimes possible to accelerate proceedings and hold a hearing sooner if the matter is urgent.
Is there any public right to view the NADP hearing or know the results?
Hearings are held in private and no members of the press or public are permitted to attend, save for those notified in advance by the athlete or UKAD. The athlete and UKAD are invited to make any opening remarks, and then both parties take it in turns to present their case, with the other party having the opportunity to cross-examine their witnesses. Finally, both parties will be invited to make any closing remarks. The full transcript of the hearing is for the use of the tribunals and the parties and is not made public. The athlete will not receive a verbal decision on the day of the hearing. NADP decisions are provided in writing to the parties within 15 working days of the hearing.
Who is informed of the NADP decision?
The athlete, UKAD, both the national governing body (unclear if the BBBoC would qualify for this in boxing) and the international federation of the sport, and the World Anti-Doping Agency all receive a copy of the decision.
What are the next steps after an NADP decision has been rendered?
After the decision has been sent out, the parties have 21 days within which to file an appeal. If it has been found that the athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and no appeal is filed then the decision will be published on the NADP (and normally UKAD) website. If it has been found that the athlete has not committed an anti-doping rule violation then the decision will not be published without permission from the athlete. If, however, an appeal is filed by any of the above parties then the decision will not be published until the appeal has been dealt with.
The sorry thing is I'm sure I skimmed that exact same article not long after the Hauser story first broke and I was looking around for further information, but for some reason the information just didn't stick... I must be getting old, man.
The only claim you make which isn't directly addressed is the ad hoc nature of the tribunal, although it is kinda implied... further clarification of that can be found under the NADPs rules *(article 5):
(Actually the full rules document linked should cover everything everyone needs to know about the matter but it's a little too lengthy to post here in it's entirety)5.1 Where a Request for Arbitration is received, the President shall appoint a “Tribunal” made up of three NADP arbitrators, one acting as chairman, to hear and determine the charge(s) in accordance with the NADP Rules, unless it appears to the President that the matter is suitable for determination by a sole arbitrator. The President’s appointee(s) pursuant to this Article shall be referred to as the “Arbitral Tribunal”.
It does appear that all parties must be notified of the identity of panel members in advance of the hearing, so critics could claim that an extremely fast working corruptor could have somehow influenced 'em prior to the hearing, but it's stressed all panel members must make written declarations of their impartiality and any conflict of interest, which would render them subject to legal action (or at the very least professional censure) should it later be revealed that they had been approached and had not declared it even if this were to happen after they originally signed their declaration.
Under these circumstances and given the extremely rushed nature of the hearing it's very difficult to see how Hearn or anyone else could have got to the panel in advance of the hearing, so anyone claiming corruption has to be pointing to endemic corruption both throughout UK sports and in it's arbitration system.... and I'm sure there'll be some folk who'll do just that before acknowledging the possibility that Dillian might actually not have deliberately cheated.Last edited by Citizen Koba; 12-11-2019, 04:43 AM.Comment
-
Those people won't accept that there is even a remote, theoretical possibility that Dillian wasn't deliberately cheating. They start with the assumption of guilt and work from there.Yeah, actually it does appear that you're largely correct (although I've been unable to find any reference to an actual requirement of having a QC as the chair in the NADP rules even though the article below states it as the norm) according to the following article, which I'm gonna just quote verbatim cos it addresses most of the confusion and misunderstandings that are being thrown up on here:
The sorry thing is I'm sure I skimmed that exact same article not long after the Hauser story first broke and I was looking around for further information, but for some reason the information just didn't stick... I must be getting old, man.
The only claim you make which isn't directly addressed is the ad hoc nature of the tribunal, although it is kinda implied... further clarification of that can be found under the NADPs rules *(article 5):
(Actually the full rules document linked should cover everything everyone needs to know about the matter but it's a little too lengthy to post here in it's entirety)
It does appear that all parties must be notified of the identity of panel members in advance of the hearing, so critics could claim that an extremely fast working corruptor could have somehow influenced 'em prior to the hearing, but it's stressed all panel members must make written declarations of their impartiality and any conflict of interest, which would render them subject to legal action (or at the very least professional censure) should it later be revealed that they had been approached and had not declared it even if this were to happen after they originally signed their declaration.
Under these circumstances and given the extremely rushed nature of the hearing it's very difficult to see how Hearn or anyone else could have got to the panel in advance of the hearing, so anyone claiming corruption has to be pointing to endemic corruption both throughout UK sports and in it's arbitration system.... and I'm sure there'll be some folk who'll do just that before acknowledging the possibility that Dillian might actually not have deliberately cheated.
The BBBoC are the national governing body for boxing in the UK. They are affiliated with UKAD and effectively act as one entity in PED abuse cases.
According to Eddie Hearn, he was informed of Whyte's adverse test result but didn't attend the NADP hearing and had no part in the appeal process, which was handled by Dillian's legal representatives. I see no reason to doubt Eddie's word on that.
This forum would be a different place if more members took the same trouble as you to check facts before forming opinions and sounding off about them!Last edited by kafkod; 12-11-2019, 08:44 AM.Comment
-
I think that is actually quite good, it meant you cannot bribe everybody. You cannot bribe UKAD (USADA in america) then go on and look for the independent arbitrators to bribe.
This was why it was easier for Armstrong to be able to bribe USADA with fundings before the new head nailed him.Comment
-
In the UK - that's England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland - there are only 2 organisations involved in clearing or cancelling fights. They are BBBoC/UKAD, who are affiliated and act as one entity, and the NAPD, who adjudicate and make a ruling if a boxer appeals against a UKAD charge.
How many panels can clear or cancel fights in the US?
Well, how many State Athletic Commissions do you have in your country?Comment
Comment