Dillian Whyte PED Discussion: Guilty? Not Guilty? Who Cares?

Maybe because he's looking to become mandatory WBC challenger and holds the WBC Silver belt or whatever. I don't know the rules but I'm sure you have to do some VADA testing if you want to remain ranked in the WBC, nevermind carry their titles.

Look, it's far more likely he used dianabol deliberately than it somehow ended up in his system inexplicably or through "tainted supplements".

VADA didn't catch him anyway, so that proved a pretty good investment !

 

Ingesting supplements which include a banned substance is both a legit reason - as in PEDs can be taken without the intent to cheat - and a great basis for a cover story for a cheater looking for an excuse. So this supplements revelation clears up nothing. Bad news for Whyte is the strict liability aspect of failing a dope test.

 

With regards to the Fury ban, people do talk a lot about Fury being given an easy ride.

From what I understand from it is that he tested positive for Nandralone in Feb 2015, to which both Tyson and Hughie deny knowingly taking anything, blaming it on uncastrated Wild Boar meat (not tainted as it naturally occurs). The Fury stance was to fight it all the way as they continued to deny, and UKAD finally struck a deal with Tyson's team saying they will take it no further if they accept a backdated ban of two years. This appealed to all parties, as UKAD didn't have to go into a costly court battle, and Fury was free to fight, but the only reason he accepted that deal is that him allowed to fight. Sitting on the fence here, but that seems the sensible option. Fury still maintains that although he accepted the backdated ban, he didn't take PEDs. There was no charge for any fights after Feb 2015. Personally I think that if UKAD had carried on, they wouldn't have won, because from what I have read, the amount of Nandralone found to be in Tyson's sample meant it would be impossible to prove that it wasn't through the Wild Boar meat.

So I think this one with Whyte is completely different, and the reason Fury gets the easy ride is that, in reality, nothing has been proven other than nobody wanted a long court case.

Don't @ me

 

What are you on about? Nowadays in sport, Twitter and social media is the optimal avenue for putting out statements!

Every single fighter and promoter now announces news of fights via Twitter. They all put statements out on Twitter.

Hearn yesterday said that Whyte's statement would clear things up. It hasn't. There is no denial of PED use, no denial of a failed test actually happening and they are trying to cloud the matter into secrecy once again.

It's quite simple. If he hasn't tested positive for the dianabol metabolites, issue a statement to deny that that happened. His statement has multiplied his guilt.

Hearn and Whyte - two shithouse dossers who should be removed from sport.

 

My Twitter mentions have hit the hundreds in replying to Whyte saying he still failed a test and therefore isn't innocent.

It's insane.

 

lol good one

 

read it.

 

ha ha ha
so twitter is now a legal statement hahaha
love it.

from your last quote i see your a fury fan, a ped cheat

 

That's all you got? Or am I meant to read between the lines like with Whyte's statement? If you're gonna step up to the plate, say something of value. You and Dillian both need to learn that lesson...

 

Where have I said that Twitter is a "legal statement". Your low IQ is showing.

When Canelo failed his drug test, GBP put a statement out on Twitter. It's best practice now when athletes or sports teams etc want to put out a statement to the media and general public.

Clearly the realisation that Whyte takes drugs runs deep for you.

 

Fair and square he says

 

Sounds like there is gonna be some lawsuit
So obviously he ain't saying much

 

Actually any statement made which is shared with a third party - only one other person, is enough for this - is criteria for making a comment bound by the country's laws of defamation (and contempt). I write you an email which defames someone, you pass it on to someone else, you've technically published that information and would be liable to legal action.

So yes, something said on Twitter is theoretically bound to the same constraints as a press release or comments made in a press conference, although the protection of the Press when quoting in a press conference is slightly more robust. Legally-speaking Dillian has 'published'. Which is precisely why he was vague in what he said...

 

From memory I dont know a time when an athlete has failed an A test and it not being announced what had been defected in the sample at the time of the announcement

 

Where has it been stated by the board that he failed a test? He was asked to provide information at a hearing which he did and this information was sufficient so was cleared to box. People just want this to be Miller levels of drug abuse which it clearly isn’t.