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

[kafkod]

Guys, I'm even more confused now : I went to UKAD's website and now I think that there are other channels of appeals besides the NADP.



So you got UKAD/BBBofC, the Courts, and NADP.

Ok... I think, best I understand it, the initial call on a doping violation is made by UKAD who organise and conduct all sports testing in the UK, any disagreement or appeal is dealt with by NADP and any challenge to the national body can be taken to the highest supranational / international body directly related to sports which is the CAS. Possibly legal sporting disputes involving parties from more than one country may go directly to the CAS , bypassing the national body, but I ain't sure about that.

https://www.ukad.org.uk/

https://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/services/national-anti-doping-panel

https://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/images/uploads/files/D_1_-_2019_NADP_Rules.pdf

https://www.tas-cas.org/en/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_...tion_for_Sport

The Court of Arbitration for Sport is a red herring in the context of this discussion because it's an international organisation, not based in the UK, and any boxer in the world can potentially appeal to them for arbitration in a PED case.

[4truth]

They didn't say he was innocent, just that he might be.

[COVID-19]

You hire the right law firm. If you want to beat a failed drug test you hire the right law firm. UKAD doesn't have the resources. Big bank take little bank. Simple as that

What’s wrong with hiring lawyers when faced with potential legal issues?

[kafkod]

WTF?! And this is suppose to be better than Nevada?! Who did Canelo appeal to?

IDK if it's better but I would hope that NAC has an appeals process and independent bodies to appeal to. The UK system seems to have more checks and boundaries and more opportunity for appeal, but the downside is that that ish can drag on for months or even years. Since boxing in the US is not directly overseen by WADA (or it's US affiliate in USADA) then it's kinda pecemeal I think. There's different rules in different states I believe and as far as I know no unified testing system or oversight. Possibly the relevent State athletics commision or governing body is the highest authority and the only other recourse is to take it through the legal system, I don't know but I'm sure it should be easy enough to find out.

Problem with Canelo's situation - although I believe he was actually suspended for reasons of political expedience (read PR) - is that it was impossible to prove with any degree of certainty from his test results whether he had cheated or not, though contamination had a good likelihood due to the prevalence of meat contamination in Mexico.

In the Whyte case, at least according to UKADs statement, the evidence involved was consistent with (and here UKAD use the same terminoligy as was used for the Canelo case) an isolated contamination incident and (and this is the caveat that could not be included with Canelo's) were not suggestive of doping, despite many of us - myself included - being sceptical of the possibility of Dianabol contamination.

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

The problem with Canelo's case is that his results were consistent with both accidental contamination and with deliberate cheating. That wasn't so in Dillian's case.

Also, Canelo, as part of his defence against the charge of deliberate cheating, admitting breaking another WADA rule which states that an athlete must take take all reasonable precautions to guard against the possibility of accidental ingestion of a banned substance in order for that defence to work:

"In a statement delivered to the Nevada Athletic Commission and provided to ESPN, Álvarez said he had eaten beef in Mexico on at least six occasions ahead of his positive test in February. That included tacos at a party and tortas from a street vendor.

"This was my mistake for not reading up on the risks, not researching more, more on the subject, on what's going on with the beef in Mexico," Álvarez said to ESPN's Ramona Shelburne through a translator in June."

https://www.espn.co.uk/boxing/story/_/id/24633860/gennady-golovkin-vs-canelo-alvarez-ii-story-clenbuterol-mexican-ranch

Imo, Canelo was lying through his teeth when he said that. There is no way that a professional Mexican athlete, especially one with a coach who works in the meat industry, would not know about the danger of inadvertently eating clenbuterol contaminated beef in his country, given the number of highly publicised cases of Mexican athletes, including high profile boxers, testing positive for clen in recent years.

[kafkod]

They didn't say he was innocent, just that he might be.

They said that his test results were not consistent with cheating and withdrew the charge against him, which means he is innocent of that charge.

[Citizen Koba]

The problem with Canelo's case is that his results were consistent with both accidental contamination and with deliberate cheating. That wasn't so in Dillian's case.

Also, Canelo, as part of his defence against the charge of deliberate cheating, admitting breaking another WADA rule which states that an athlete must take take all reasonable precautions to guard against the possibility of accidental ingestion of a banned substance in order for that defence to work:

"In a statement delivered to the Nevada Athletic Commission and provided to ESPN, Álvarez said he had eaten beef in Mexico on at least six occasions ahead of his positive test in February. That included tacos at a party and tortas from a street vendor.

"This was my mistake for not reading up on the risks, not researching more, more on the subject, on what's going on with the beef in Mexico," Álvarez said to ESPN's Ramona Shelburne through a translator in June."

https://www.espn.co.uk/boxing/story/_/id/24633860/gennady-golovkin-vs-canelo-alvarez-ii-story-clenbuterol-mexican-ranch

Imo, Canelo was lying through his teeth when he said that. There is no way that a professional Mexican athlete, especially one with a coach who works in the meat industry, would not know about the danger of inadvertently eating clenbuterol contaminated beef in his country, given the number of highly publicised cases of Mexican athletes, including high profile boxers, testing positive for clen in recent years.

Ha ha. That's twice now you've quoted me saying pretty much exactly the same as am I using slightly different words. I know I got a propensity for over explaining shit but is my meaning that hard to discern that you feel the need to translate my posts, man?

[kafkod]

When your back is up against a perma-ban, TRUST ME you will pay. If it was up to UKAD, Dillian's career would of probably been over considering his age and the lengthy ban that he was facing for his second offense.

I know Shyte is thankful that the NAPD was his last hope -- I wonder if Tyson Fury had this option, I remember he was going to bankrupt UKAD ; now that I know about the NAPD I'm surprised I never heard of it during the Fury steroids scandal.

If you had bothered to read the articles about Fury's case, instead of just jumping into the comments threads with your "Gypsy Queen" "all Brits are cheats" bull****, you would have known about the NAPD.

[1hourRun]

Guys, I'm walking away with more questions than answers, but thats a product of the broken UK doping legal process. In the end, it seems it all comes down to law, not so much the original purpose of Anti-Doping ; which is to clean up the sport. I'm out, thanks for your replies.

[kafkod]

Ha ha. That's twice now you've quoted me saying pretty much exactly the same as am I using slightly different words. I know I got a propensity for over explaining shit but is my meaning that hard to discern that you feel the need to translate my posts, man?

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.

[Citizen Koba]

They said that his test results were not consistent with cheating and withdrew the charge against him, which means he is innocent of that charge.

In respect of Mr Whyte's drug testing results, the following points are relevant:


There is nothing in Mr Whyte's longitudinal urinary profile to suggest that he has used steroids.

The levels of the metabolites found in Mr Whyte's 20 June 2019 sample were extremely low.

Mr Whyte had provided a urine sample to VADA on 17 June 2019, i.e. 3 days before his 20 June 2019 sample, which was tested by a WADA-accredited laboratory and which returned a negative result, including for the metabolites in question.

Mr Whyte provided several other doping control samples to UKAD and VADA between 20 June and 20 July 2019 (i.e. the date of his fight with Oscar Rivas) – all of which also tested negative.

In light of the above points, 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.

The final phrase 'not suggestive of' is the key term here, indicating, in legal or scientific terminology, a strong possibility of something being the case though stopping short of claiming decisive proof.