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

[New England]

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

thisi what is important. in past cases of "contamination" there have been explanations put forward to explain how the substance got there in the first place.

i'll give you an example. white has been busted for PEDs before. got a 2 year ban, actually. he tested positive for trace amounts of a stimulant. let's be clear, drug tests always find "trace elements." we're often talking about parts per million. white argued that he used the substance "jacked" which was distributed over the counter in his country at the time, and which contained the stimulant. probably produced receipts, talked about his dosage, etc. he still received a 2 year ban because it was a banned substance and he's supposed to know what's in his supplements and ultimately be responsible for them.


WE DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THAT IN THIS CASE! they didn't provide an explanation for the contamination. in fury's case it ws "uncastrated boar." if you look at the literature, of course, you will find that no scientists support the idea that eating uncastrated boar will produce the results from the fury brothers. and even then they were given bans. nobody cared about hughie, and tyson "retired" amid mental health issues. in canelo's case it was clenbuterol use in beef. this happens and fighters can pop positive after eating mexican beef. that said, canelo had 13 times the average amount sampled in mexican athletes, and more than all but one of the 50 + athletes sampled to study the phenomenon. and again, he got a ban.


in this case there was no explanation for the contamination. nothing from white's camp, nothing from UKAD or the bbboc. "i took this supplement, which was manufactuered with equipment that manufactures X supplement with Y ingredient, etc. we got none of that! UKAD doesn't have the muscle to fight htese multi million dollar athletes and their promoters. they just said it was consistent with contamination. it is also consistent with PED use.


this would have been swept under the rug and even rivas and his team wouldn't ahve heard about it without an american journalist breaking the story. it is what it is, dillian white got caught cheating again and it was swept under the rug because he's a multi million dollar B side opponent for AJ with a style taylor made to get stopped in 6-8 rounds.


still on the fence about all of this, and the idea that the UK has corrupt commissions and drug testing bodies regulating the sport? look into what happened with white's gloves during the rivas. fight. his team brought their own pair to the fight, they were an entirely different brand from what was in the contract, and rivas team wasn't allowed to inspect them. the commission knew about all of this and bullied rivas team out of the locker room. the fix was f#cking in and you're british if you can't understand that. the gloves also LOOKED F#CKING TINY. this is dangerous, criminal levels of corruption and it will get somebody killed if fights for the HW title are in england and under this commission.

eddie hearn shoudl literally be in prison if he brought in an 8 oz glove to a HW fight. just look at thos ef#cking gloves, they don't look like 10 oz to me.

[The Big Dunn]

Bro you just said "I'm not implying anything, but it does seem strange.."

That's literally the definition of implying.

He also took this fight on 2 weeks notice, on the back of potentially quitting boxing.

Cut him some slack.

Kafkod made the same point that he took the fight on short notice.

That is a viable, reasonable excuse for looking so slovenly.

I think we can both agree at first glance it was an extremely bad look.

[Citizen Koba]

UKAD didn't just say that Whyte's results weren't suggestive of deliberate cheating, they said they were inconsistent with deliberate cheating, which I would say is a stronger and more definitive statement of innocence.

Also, you didn't mention anything about Canelo admitting to breaking the WADA rule about taking reasonable precautions against accidental congestion, which is another important difference between his case and Whyte's.

https://www.ukad.org.uk/news/ukad-an...oint-statement

Pretty sure they just say 'not suggestive of' in the statement, although in legalese that's pretty strong, stopping just short of definitive proof. 'Not consistent with' would imply definite proof which is a claim I ain't seen 'em make and doesn't seem to be in the statement though maybe they said it elsewhere and I missed it.

WRT Canelo you were actually adding somewhat to my statement which is fair enough. Personally I try to avoid interpretations that go beyond what the actual scientific evidence shows, for the sake of avoiding getting mired in endless bullchit arguments, but naturally I have personal beliefs about the matter that I usually don't disclose.

[Ray*]

When your back is up against a perma-ban, TRUST ME you will pay.

Which is why it’s better when you have MORE people to pay off. You cannot pay off everyone. Your logic is way off 😂

[Ray*]

Lol, yeah, and if even one of those people you try to bribe doesn't want come on board, your goose is cooked!

Yep, his logic is way off. People need to be rational when they hate someone. They make themselves look dumb. How can paying multiple off better than paying one person off? 😂

[Citizen Koba]

thisi what is important. in past cases of "contamination" there have been explanations put forward to explain how the substance got there in the first place.

i'll give you an example. white has been busted for PEDs before. got a 2 year ban, actually. he tested positive for trace amounts of a stimulant. let's be clear, drug tests always find "trace elements." we're often talking about parts per million. white argued that he used the substance "jacked" which was distributed over the counter in his country at the time, and which contained the stimulant. probably produced receipts, talked about his dosage, etc. he still received a 2 year ban because it was a banned substance and he's supposed to know what's in his supplements and ultimately be responsible for them.


WE DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THAT IN THIS CASE! they didn't provide an explanation for the contamination. in fury's case it ws "uncastrated boar." if you look at the literature, of course, you will find that no scientists support the idea that eating uncastrated boar will produce the results from the fury brothers. and even then they were given bans. nobody cared about hughie, and tyson "retired" amid mental health issues. in canelo's case it was clenbuterol use in beef. this happens and fighters can pop positive after eating mexican beef. that said, canelo had 13 times the average amount sampled in mexican athletes, and more than all but one of the 50 + athletes sampled to study the phenomenon. and again, he got a ban.


in this case there was no explanation for the contamination. nothing from white's camp, nothing from UKAD or the bbboc. "i took this supplement, which was manufactuered with equipment that manufactures X supplement with Y ingredient, etc. we got none of that! UKAD doesn't have the muscle to fight htese multi million dollar athletes and their promoters. they just said it was consistent with contamination. it is also consistent with PED use.


this would have been swept under the rug and even rivas and his team wouldn't ahve heard about it without an american journalist breaking the story. it is what it is, dillian white got caught cheating again and it was swept under the rug because he's a multi million dollar B side opponent for AJ with a style taylor made to get stopped in 6-8 rounds.


still on the fence about all of this, and the idea that the UK has corrupt commissions and drug testing bodies regulating the sport? look into what happened with white's gloves during the rivas. fight. his team brought their own pair to the fight, they were an entirely different brand from what was in the contract, and rivas team wasn't allowed to inspect them. the commission knew about all of this and bullied rivas team out of the locker room. the fix was f#cking in and you're british if you can't understand that. the gloves also LOOKED F#CKING TINY. this is dangerous, criminal levels of corruption and it will get somebody killed if fights for the HW title are in england and under this commission.

eddie hearn shoudl literally be in prison if he brought in an 8 oz glove to a HW fight. just look at thos ef#cking gloves, they don't look like 10 oz to me.

It hinges in whether you trust the relevent UK arbitration, legal and governing bodies I guess. If you choose not to then nothing anyone can say will make you, but the explanation UKAD have given of their reason to clear Whyte is logical and consistent and doesn't really require an explanation of how the shit got there in the first place, simply relying on the principle that there was far too little of it to have ever been used as a performance enhancer.

I ain't looked into the gloves thing but I'm given to believe that there was some snafu with Dillian's gloves having been accidentally taken by one of the undercard fighters. And if you actually got some evidence of the gloves being illegal despite having been cleared for use you really have a responsibility to take that **** to the highest authority, cos you're right that actually is a major, possibily life threatening, offense. If all you got is the eye test then, well... not so much.

In terms of receiving a ban international standards have actually become less strict over time and more accepting of the principle that proof of intent is a major factor (reference the recent change in policy towards Clenbuterol which allows a much higher tolerence on countries where Clen contamination is a reasonable possibility). Once you've accepted the principle that not all adverse / atypical findings are going to be punished - even under a policy of strict liability - then this is what you get.

[_Rexy_]

Kafkod made the same point that he took the fight on short notice.

That is a viable, reasonable excuse for looking so slovenly.

I think we can both agree at first glance it was an extremely bad look.

just like how BJS could no longer make 160 once he got busted for his nasal spray.


What I found funny though was that the DAZN announcers mentioned how Whyte has spent the last six months in the gym to avoid any distractions.

[_Rexy_]

It hinges in whether you trust the relevent UK arbitration, legal and governing bodies I guess. If you choose not to then nothing anyone can say will make you, but the explanation UKAD have given of their reason to clear Whyte is logical and consistent and doesn't really require an explanation of how the shit got there in the first place, simply relying on the principle that there was far too little of it to have ever been used as a performance enhancer.

I ain't looked into the gloves thing but I'm given to believe that there was some snafu with Dillian's gloves having been accidentally taken by one of the undercard fighters. And if you actually got some evidence of the gloves being illegal despite having been cleared for use you really have a responsibility to take that **** to the highest authority, cos you're right that actually is a major, possibily life threatening, offense. If all you got is the eye test then, well... not so much.

In terms of receiving a ban international standards have actually become less strict over time and more accepting of the principle that proof of intent is a major factor (reference the recent change in policy towards Clenbuterol which allows a much higher tolerence on countries where Clen contamination is a reasonable possibility). Once you've accepted the principle that not all adverse / atypical findings are going to be punished - even under a policy of strict liability - then this is what you get.

First, that just doesn't happen. There is no ****ing way in hell some no name fighter just goes into Whyte's dressing room and takes his commission approved gloves and nobody notices.

Second, Anber and the rest of Rivas team did bring this up, they did argue it, and Whytes team said there was no time to weigh or examine the gloves because they were already on. There was also a grievance filed which I'm sure we will never hear anything about.

[Citizen Koba]

First, that just doesn't happen. There is no ****ing way in hell some no name fighter just goes into Whyte's dressing room and takes his commission approved gloves and nobody notices.

Second, Anber and the rest of Rivas team did bring this up, they did argue it, and Whytes team said there was no time to weigh or examine the gloves because they were already on. There was also a grievance filed which I'm sure we will never hear anything about.

I don't know, like I say I ain't looked into it. Are you claiming there's evidence of a deliberate attempt to use illegal gloves by Whyte or his team?

Again it depends which you think is more likely. In my experience snafus are amusingly commonplace even amongst those we imagine are consumate professionals, whether at an organisational or individual level, but of course there's also no shortage of cunts who'll cheat with utter disregard for another human's health too.

[kafkod]

https://www.ukad.org.uk/news/ukad-an...oint-statement

Pretty sure they just say 'not suggestive of' in the statement, although in legalese that's pretty strong, stopping just short of definitive proof. 'Not consistent with' would imply definite proof which is a claim I ain't seen 'em make and doesn't seem to be in the statement though maybe they said it elsewhere and I missed it.

WRT Canelo you were actually adding somewhat to my statement which is fair enough. Personally I try to avoid interpretations that go beyond what the actual scientific evidence shows, for the sake of avoiding getting mired in endless bullchit arguments, but naturally I have personal beliefs about the matter that I usually don't disclose.

My memory deceived me. I thought the words used in the statement were: "consistent with an isolated contamination event and inconsistent with doping."

But you are correct, what it actually says is this: "... the trace amounts of metabolites found in the 20 June 2019 sample are consistent with an isolated contamination event, and they are not suggestive of doping."