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

The problem is that however the B sample comes back, it's results are confidential between UKAD, Whyte and the BBBoC. Whyte has apparently been advised not to say anything as legal proceedings may be happening and his team want the best chance to clear his name. It's almost immaterial how the B comes back if there was exonerating evidence for the A sample.

 

Really you're quoting someone from seven days ago, during which a massive amount of information has come to light which would naturally colour-in many of the grey areas which were being discussed at the time and were minute-by-minute reactions to evolving events? And as far as I can work out, this is your first intervention. And it took you a week. GTFOH...

 

i thought his hearing was with UKAD. I wouldn’t consider that independent.

It is certainly possible to test clean on Monday, ingest something on Tuesday, pop dirty two days later and clean (after flushing more) the day after that.

Someone give me a reasonable explanation of how he got anabolic steroids in his system that doesn’t involve doping. Didn’t come from an uncastrated boar intestine.

UKAD should change its name to SHADYAF.

 

You don't have to be banned for the fight to be stopped, duh. And the whole process UKAD uses is whacked and is not according to WADA Code. Anyone arguing that UKAD is doing it right has a clear agenda. What good is anti-doping if it systematically allows suspected fighters to go thru with said fight??????

 

It appears UKAD (SHADYAF) only consider it doping when they believe it was intentionally ingested and a trace amount. And to a great extent they take into account the amount of PEDs detected to determine this. So if an athlete is caught with a trace amount and persuades them it got into his body without his knowledge, that isn't considered 'doping', although it's still a fail. I think the substance which triggered the fail is relevant too and, as of now, it seems Hauser might have been wide of the mark when he identified metabolites of Dianabol as the reason for a positive test.

Sounds like a cheater's charter to me, especially as the process has very little or no transparency....

 

**** Whyte. Stop investigating strip and ban him NOW

 

Whyte should seek a fight (after his Ban) with Big Fat Baby Roids Miller in his next fight billed as the "Battle of the Fat Juicers"

 

As far as I know, Dianabol is a no tolerance substance, so any trace amount or metabolite means violation of anti-doing programme, even 0,00002%. So if the A sample is dirty and the B sample is dirty, there's just no way a zero tolerance drug violation can be dismissed by the BBBoC. Or I am missing something in the procedure.

 

Then Joshua's human punch bag won't fight again.

 

Weird things can happen. Remember how Charr's lawyers weren't present during the unsealing of the B sample and thus the entire drug sample was ruled invalid and Charr went scot-free.

 

I'm on holiday in Italy and this was the first chance I got to read the board.

 

The BBBOC will clear Whyte if UKAD do. They follow whatever UKAD do. So if UKAD sanction him he'll cop a ban, if not, he won't.

 

It hasn't been verified what he failed for. In Hearns interview with IFL yesterday, he alludes to the fact that not all of the story is accurate. So really we don't know yet.

 

So, people are suggesting it wasn't Dianabol now ?
What was it then ?