Is Dillian Whyte suing Boxingscene?

[Ray*]

They reported a failed a test for Dianabol I think, not that he had (deliberately) taken it. There's a subtle difference, but one that's possibly very significant in this context.

I don’t think Hauser was accusing Whyte as being guilty. But the fact that it costed him his mandatory status is what they are going for. Hopefully they can all sit down and come to an understanding.

To be honest I don’t blame Hauser for reporting it even though it’s confidential and I don’t blame Team Whyte for wanting to sue him.

I blame the WBC for actually removing him when he passed their own drug testing protocol. And the fact that UKAD didn’t tell the WBC that they have concluded their finds.

[LacedUp]

Are you saying the accuracy of the confidential information has no bearing on whether the breach of confidentiality is actionable? That may very well be the case, though it does preclude certain types of action being brought I think, certainly most types of deformation are ruled out if the information is accurate.

As to the re-publishing bit it's not a field I'm really familiar with, I kinda assumed journalistic freedoms allowed journalists a good deal of latitude with the reporting of confidential information, though I'm not sure about the status of republishing especially how that applies to websites based in a different country to the one in which the breach took place. You got any further information on that, man?

No that's actually not true at all. A defamation case is not alwyas being judged on whether the information is correct, but whether or not it has a negative impact on a person.

For example, if I say i'm not a cheater and you say I am. I can sue you for defamation based on you calling me a liar. There are countless examples of the case being granted even though the information turns out to be true.

For example, if you call me a liar or tell publicly that I've done something, and it'll impact my earning ability. I can sue you on grounds of defamation and win almost every single time.

I studied media law in university and you'll be surprised about the rights of the subject.

[LacedUp]

Ah, I get you... I hadn't been considering the legal staus of Dianabol in the UK as a Class C drug, but was only considering the situation from the point of view of boxing rules and regs.

Then again Hauser does not at any actuallly claim anything other that that Whyte failed a test I think, at no point in his article does he actually make the claim that Dillian used the drug deliberately. Bit of a grey area I should imagine.

https://www.boxingscene.com/dillian-...stance--141178

I don't remember the article, and I would have to study it deeper. And also it would be boxingscene not hauser that would be sued.

Anything that brings Whyte's character into question OR anything that puts them in possible contempt of court or pre-impact court opinion OR impacts Whyte's earning ability in the future can be sued for.

And it would be very expensive.

[UNBANNED]

Did he say that in the interview or something?

He tested positive for Dianabol. If it goes to court then they have power of discovery and he will have to admit that he did test positive for Dianabol....

How the fuk did he get cleared? The commission just basically said yeah we believe you that you dont know how you had Dianabol in your system.. what a joke.

It's the same with the Canelo Clenbuterol.

Boxingscene is saying Whyte and Canelo used PEDs which implies intent. There is no proof either man intentionally cheated. That's Libel and it can absolutely be sued.

Dont know about Whytes case, but Canelo couldve sued this website easily if he cared because his excuse is actually pretty strong

[Citizen Koba]

No that's actually not true at all. A defamation case is not alwyas being judged on whether the information is correct, but whether or not it has a negative impact on a person.

For example, if I say i'm not a cheater and you say I am. I can sue you for defamation based on you calling me a liar. There are countless examples of the case being granted even though the information turns out to be true.

For example, if you call me a liar or tell publicly that I've done something, and it'll impact my earning ability. I can sue you on grounds of defamation and win almost every single time.

I studied media law in university and you'll be surprised about the rights of the subject.

More than happy to bow to your superior knowledge, man (pending my own further invstigation, naturally..), and that's good to know about your field of study. I always like to get a feel for what people have real knowledge about and when they're blowing smoke.. you just never know when you might need an informed opinion.

Damn, I want to pick your brain on the underlying principles of defamation in law now, but it probably ain't the time and besides I got the kids tearing up the house whilst I'm typing this cos Ms Ks having a lie in.

[Prince Madison]

Id love to sue some of the clowns on here.

[Citizen Koba]

I don’t think Hauser was accusing Whyte as being guilty. But the fact that it costed him his mandatory status is what they are going for. Hopefully they can all sit down and come to an understanding.

To be honest I don’t blame Hauser for reporting it even though it’s confidential and I don’t blame Team Whyte for wanting to sue him.

I blame the WBC for actually removing him when he passed their own drug testing protocol. And the fact that UKAD didn’t tell the WBC that they have concluded their finds.

That's kinda where I'm at.

UKAD / BBBoC probably want to look at their prophylactic procedures and possibly fire someone's ass or at least give 'em a stern talking to, but personally I'm big on the rights of journalists having the right to report genuine stories - providing they keep within the bounds of accurate reporting - without fear of sanction or censure.

Hauser's job is to report (even though I think he had an agenda here) and he should have the right to do it. If Dillian's livelihood is harmed unfairly then he absolutely has the right to sue and should do so.

[LacedUp]

More than happy to bow to your superior knowledge, man (pending my own further invstigation, naturally..), and that's good to know about your field of study. I always like to get a feel for what people have real knowledge about and when they're blowing smoke.. you just never know when you might need an informed opinion.

Damn, I want to pick your brain on the underlying principles of defamation in law now, but it probably ain't the time and besides I got the kids tearing up the house whilst I'm typing this cos Ms Ks having a lie in.

There's a reason why celebrities go to the UK to sue newspapers for defamation. We have the craziest laws in the world for this.

I remember a story, I want to say it's that curly haired guy from the band queen. There was a story in the newspaper that he was gay, and he sued the newspaper on the grounds that he had previously denied being gay and so it made him out to be a liar. He won.. and only a few years later it came out that he was gay

There are so many crazy stories where the allegation is totally true but the defamation suit is based on loss of potential earnings etc. again fair grounds to sue on. That's why you'll hear people in the media, when they give controversial statements say "it's my opinion that..."

Because under 'fair comment' law you can pretty much say whatever you want as long as you say it's an opinion and not present it as a fact. There are loads of these funny little things.

I suspect the article says Whyte 'failed a drug test' which is not true and therefore he can sue quite easily anyway.

[Mammoth]

Pathetic if true

[jreckoning]

He looked crappy in the ring so he's gonna try to win court battles instead.

Just watched the fight. God was he bad. Who fears this guy?