Warren explains the holes in Hearn's story and potential UKAD cover-up

[Kezzer]

Frank has an agenda, don’t forget that .

I suspect, and time will tell, that Whyte had taken a substance that he had already reported to them and they had accepted. I suspect that the levels of that substance were above the agreed levels.

If you view the ukad website it says that any test which finds a prohibited substance will result in an immediate ban. Any test which finds “specified” substances allow an expedited hearing. That appears to be the case here, but what does “specified” mean exactly?

[Citizen Koba]

Frank has an agenda, don’t forget that .

I suspect, and time will tell, that Whyte had taken a substance that he had already reported to them and they had accepted. I suspect that the levels of that substance were above the agreed levels.

If you view the ukad website it says that any test which finds a prohibited substance will result in an immediate ban. Any test which finds “specified” substances allow an expedited hearing. That appears to be the case here, but what does “specified” mean exactly?

8. What is a ‘specified substance’?


It should be clear that all substances on the Prohibited List are prohibited. The sub-classification of substances as “Specified” or “Non-Specified” are important only in the sanctioning process.

A “Specified Substance” is a substance which potentially allows, under defined conditions, for a greater reduction of a sanction when an athlete tests positive for that particular substance.

The purpose of the sub-classifications of “Specified” or “Non-Specified” on the Prohibited List is to recognize that it is possible for a substance to enter an athlete’s body inadvertently, and therefore allow a tribunal more flexibility when making a sanctioning decision.

“Specified” substances are not necessarily less effective doping agents than “Non-Specified” substances, nor do they relieve athletes of the strict liability rule that makes them responsible for all substances that enter their body.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/question...ibited-list-qa

That's from WADA but they use the same regs - close as makes little difference anyway.

[Citizen Koba]

Also in that interview, he says he knows for a fact that people on the control board tried to stop the fight but were overruled by UKAD. Disgusting.

That is a very concerning issue.


I've touched on other posts about what I think may be a possible issue here. UKAD is basically the UK arm of WADA and their procedures and protocols are very much not specific to boxing. The vast majority of their work will be concerned with other sports, generally those where there is no mano-a-mano opponent who could be hurt or injured as a direct result of delaying a decision and allowing an event to proceed.

I'll have to look into some more, but if that is the case, then I think it's absolutely necessary for them to either set up a specific arm for combat sports or introduce a subset of regulations to deal with the particular risks and circumstances around such sports.

I do find it extremely disappointing that the BBBoC - who should have more understanding of risks involved, and ultimately had to make the call - caved under pressure if this is indeed how things went down.

[Citizen Koba]

Frank has an agenda, don’t forget that .

I suspect, and time will tell, that Whyte had taken a substance that he had already reported to them and they had accepted. I suspect that the levels of that substance were above the agreed levels.

If you view the ukad website it says that any test which finds a prohibited substance will result in an immediate ban. Any test which finds “specified” substances allow an expedited hearing. That appears to be the case here, but what does “specified” mean exactly?

Frank does have an agenda - it doesn't mean he might not have a point, but there's no doubt in my mind that his rivalry with Hearn is at least part of the reason for how vocal he's being on this issue.

The TUE issue is just one of a few possibilities here... typically - and this applies to WADA and VADA as well (per their regs) - the first thing that needs to be established after and adverse or atypical finding is whether there was a TUE in place and to ensure that the collection protocols were adhered to... Under both UKAD and VADA no-one else (beyond testee, lead promoter and governing body) is usually informed until this has been confirmed.

[alexguiness]

I have always been a bit suspicious of Whyte and juicing to be honest.

He comes from a shady background and clearly has had issues with stamina in the past.

It's genuinely pathetic when fighters and promoters try to deflect and deny these very strong case of drug abuse. Just admit it, take the punishment and move on.

In most other sports a 10 year or even lifetime ban for doping, yet in boxing its usually 6 months and a tissue of excuses and lies.

[DuckAdonis]

Warren is a hypocrite

His fighter in Fury did the exact same thing. He got popped before the Klitschko fight. The Klitschko camp wasn't notified and the fight happened anyway. Only after the fight was over it was declared that Fury failed a test.
It's normal UKAD procedure, it's even in their rules. So I don't see how there is a cover-up. If Rivas was screwed then so was Klitschko and probably Hammer as well

[RoyJonesJrp4pno1]

Warren is a hypocrite

His fighter in Fury did the exact same thing. He got popped before the Klitschko fight. The Klitschko camp wasn't notified and the fight happened anyway. Only after the fight was over it was declared that Fury failed a test.
It's normal UKAD procedure, it's even in their rules. So I don't see how there is a cover-up. If Rivas was screwed then so was Klitschko and probably Hammer as well

Actually, Fury got popped before the Hammer fight which was the fight before Wlad.

[_Rexy_]

Warren is a hypocrite

His fighter in Fury did the exact same thing. He got popped before the Klitschko fight. The Klitschko camp wasn't notified and the fight happened anyway. Only after the fight was over it was declared that Fury failed a test.
It's normal UKAD procedure, it's even in their rules. So I don't see how there is a cover-up. If Rivas was screwed then so was Klitschko and probably Hammer as well

Warren wasn’t Fury’s promoter though.

[A.K]

Frank has an agenda, don’t forget that .

I suspect, and time will tell, that Whyte had taken a substance that he had already reported to them and they had accepted. I suspect that the levels of that substance were above the agreed levels.

If you view the ukad website it says that any test which finds a prohibited substance will result in an immediate ban. Any test which finds “specified” substances allow an expedited hearing. That appears to be the case here, but what does “specified” mean exactly?

Franks agenda is the truth yours is a groupie excuse effort, Hearn is a well known con man and the sooner we can get his cult like followers out of boxing the better.

[Redd Foxx]

That is a very concerning issue.


I've touched on other posts about what I think may be a possible issue here. UKAD is basically the UK arm of WADA and their procedures and protocols are very much not specific to boxing. The vast majority of their work will be concerned with other sports, generally those where there is no mano-a-mano opponent who could be hurt or injured as a direct result of delaying a decision and allowing an event to proceed.

I'll have to look into some more, but if that is the case, then I think it's absolutely necessary for them to either set up a specific arm for combat sports or introduce a subset of regulations to deal with the particular risks and circumstances around such sports.

I do find it extremely disappointing that the BBBoC - who should have more understanding of risks involved, and ultimately had to make the call - caved under pressure if this is indeed how things went down.

And, that's exactly what it comes down to. The consequence isn't just that someone unfairly wins and gets it overturned (which seems to be the limit of their vision). It's that someone has a physical and unnatural advantage at punching someone in the head.

A lot of people are bringing up the past. They're bringing up people who don't test. All of that is completely irrelevant to factually knowing someone recently used PEDs and allowing them to fight.