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

[Counterleft]

I thought that was the fight he got suspended for?

No, Molina was suspended after his fight with Joshua. So was actually suspended for 2 years but just carried on fighting for the title and other fights all whilst under a PED suspension.

[_Rexy_]

No, Molina was suspended after his fight with Joshua. So was actually suspended for 2 years but just carried on fighting for the title and other fights all whilst under a PED suspension.

And then he served the suspension after the Breazelle fight? That doesn't make sense.

[Counterleft]

Can you answer me about how UKAD explained where the Dianabol came from, when they exonerated Whyte?

They said it was a contamination event. The fact that he wasn't charged and they apologised would suggest it was a contaminated sample and that it wasn't in his system at all otherwise they would have charged him.

[ShoulderRoll]

They said it was a contamination event. The fact that he wasn't charged and they apologised would suggest it was a contaminated sample and that it wasn't in his system at all otherwise they would have charged him.

Ok. But did they ever say how his sample was contaminated?

That's where the skepticism towards Whyte and UKAD is coming from.

[Counterleft]

And then he served the suspension after the Breazelle fight? That doesn't make sense.

It doesn't;t make sense at all but he was suspended after his fight with Anthony Joshua as he had injected Dexamethasone and was provisionally banned and then officially banned for 2 years in October 2017 before his fight with Breazeale. He also got banned again because he was sparring with Parker during his ban. I think he only got a month or two extra ban for that one though.

[Counterleft]

Ok. But did they ever say how his sample was contaminated?

That's where the skepticism towards Whyte and UKAD is coming from.

They couldn't be much more emphatic than this:

"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.

Having rigorously scrutinised and investigated the detailed factual and scientific evidence provided by Mr Whyte, UKAD is satisfied that the presence of the very low amounts of metabolites in his 20 June 2019 sample was not caused by any fault, negligence or wrongdoing on Mr Whyte’s part and, given the circumstances, could not have affected the fight between Mr Whyte and Mr Rivas on 20 July 2019."

[ShoulderRoll]

They couldn't be much more emphatic than this:

"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.

Having rigorously scrutinised and investigated the detailed factual and scientific evidence provided by Mr Whyte, UKAD is satisfied that the presence of the very low amounts of metabolites in his 20 June 2019 sample was not caused by any fault, negligence or wrongdoing on Mr Whyte’s part and, given the circumstances, could not have affected the fight between Mr Whyte and Mr Rivas on 20 July 2019."

That still doesn't tell us anything about how Whyte's sample came to be contaminated with Dianabol.

UKAD is clearing him without offering a plausible explanation for how this happened. That's what a lot of people have a problem with.

[Counterleft]

That still doesn't tell us anything about how Whyte's sample came to be contaminated with Dianabol.

UKAD is clearing him without offering a plausible explanation for how this happened. That's what a lot of people have a problem with.

Look at it this way. UKAD operate under strict liability and anyone has to prove their innocence and UKAD don't have to prove guilt at all. He must have been 100% innocent otherwise they would have charged him under their strict liability rules. It tells you that UKAD were completely convinced that Whyte had nothing to do with any trace of anything as they said so themselves. They never normally comment on cases like these at all and only did so in this case because some information was leaked.

[ShoulderRoll]

Look at it this way. UKAD operate under strict liability and anyone has to prove their innocence and UKAD don't have to prove guilt at all. He must have been 100% innocent otherwise they would have charged him under their strict liability rules. It tells you that UKAD were completely convinced that Whyte had nothing to do with any trace of anything as they said so themselves. They never normally comment on cases like these at all and only did so in this case because some information was leaked.

There's a lack of transparency there. Which is the reason you'll see posters openly speculating about corruption.

But if UKAD must remain tight lipped then Whyte at least should have offered an explanation. Whether one believes Canelo Alvarez or not he could point to tainted meat for his clenbuterol positive test.

Whyte can't point to meat or energy drinks or supplements. Dianabol is simply not present in a typical, everyday environment.

[OctoberRed]

They said it was a contamination event. The fact that he wasn't charged and they apologised would suggest it was a contaminated sample and that it wasn't in his system at all otherwise they would have charged him.

What that means, is that something Whyte came in contact with was contaminated (drink, food, supplement, etc), not the sample itself. Basically they are trying to say they accepted his explanation that he didn't knowingly take something.

Saying the sample was contaminated would raise far bigger questions on how an illegal steroid came in contact with his sample at the UKAD lab, and what was an illegal steroid doing there in the first place.