Comments Thread For: Dillian Whyte: Wilder Is Injured; WBC Should Order Fury To Fight Me Next

[Roberto Vasquez]

You underestimate Joe Bloggs tho. He is the third best retired cruiser weight from Albania who hasn’t had a fight in years. That means he’s the freshest heavyweight out there. Hater!

Sorry man. I stand corrected. Respect to Fury if he fights Bloggs - for daring to fight the best!

[Jkp]

Quite simply you are wrong. UKAD was established by the UK government in 2009 and is 100% owned by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. The fighters that use it pay zero to UKAD. You may be getting confused with VADA.

As for it not being a government organisation, UKAD often complain that due to them being 100% owned by the UK Government they lack the "operating freedom from the Government" to pursue commercial activities to earn income outside of their dependence on government money. Fighters or athletes are never UKAD's customers and that is simply a complete misunderstanding of how the system works.

UKAD had plenty of money to fight the Fury case and only put the story out that they may go bankrupt as there was a spending review and they wanted to ensure that they continued to receive extra funding. This is in the context of them receiving an extra £6.1m of funding over 2 years at the beginning of 2018 which by happy coincidence they were awarded just after they made the fanciful claims of going bankrupt. It was a ploy by the head of UKAD to extract more funding from the government and it worked effectively increasing the money they get from the government by over 50%.

I actually agree with you about there may be lots of other cases of contamination where no charges are ever brought and that is why these cases are dealt with by UKAD initially until there is evidence that proves innocence. This happened in the Whyte case but only after it was widely publicised.

Wrong.
How does a government agency go bankrupt? would that mean the whole country is bankrupt?

[Jkp]

I understand what you are saying but under strict liability the contamination of a supplement would still have been a fail and then they would have a hearing to look at mitigating factors to reduce the ban from the normal tariff. It seems clear that there was never any substance in his system which is why the statement was put out like that by UKAD and why there were no charges. You have to remember that the statement mentions other tests that were done at the same time and basically it must have been impossible for any metabolites to have come from Whyte due to the levels etc.

Your really grasping at straws.

If the dianabol didnt come from whyte, explain how it got in his sample?

Did the wind blow it in there from a body builder who had a syringe of dianabol nearyby?

[Counterleft]

Wrong.
How does a government agency go bankrupt? would that mean the whole country is bankrupt?

Are you really that ******? That was my point.

[Counterleft]

Your really grasping at straws.

If the dianabol didnt come from whyte, explain how it got in his sample?

Did the wind blow it in there from a body builder who had a syringe of dianabol nearyby?

There is no straw grasping at all other than by you. UKAD carried out a full in-depth investigation and came to the conclusion that there was no testing failure. You aren't happy with that but then again you have an complete inability to read and comprehend simple posts on an internet forum so there is little point in trying to rationalise with you.