Some reports that Joe Parker is cleared to come back. Not sure if true.

Parker wasn’t cleared. That’s the fact. He served three months for failing tests for a banned substance. Now comes the story that the contamination came from his nutritionist. Cool story. But stories aren’t proof. He doesn’t get to drop a convenient excuse and call it fact. If that’s the claim, the burden is on those making it to provide the tests that verify it. Until then, it’s an explanation, not a fact

 

He was initially suspended, an investigation took place, and the suspension was lifted with Parker cleared to fight with the investigation concluding that Parker did not knowingly or intentionally violate the rules, and accepted that the contamination source was from the nutritionist. That is a fact, and widely reported on. If you want to claim otherwise, feel free to add some proof.

A simple google search would do you wonders my friend...

https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_...says-failed-test-due-nutritionist-cocaine-use

https://www.skysports.com/boxing/ne...-of-nutritionist-ahead-of-fabio-wardley-fight

 

here's the report right here: https://www.ukad.org.uk/sites/defau..._decision_-_joseph_parker_-_6_august_2026.pdf

Highlight the part for me where they verified the contamination was from the nutritionist. You also might want to check out #22 of the scientific experts opinion.

You were also spouting off about VADA's findings. Got a link to their findings lmao. You're all over the place. Just quit while you're ahead I'm getting tired of wrecking you

 

Its all in the UKAD article. Short answer is that they cant prove either way. BUT.....

- UKAD imposed provisional suspension on Parker
- Expert determined the finding was ingested out of competition and unrelated to performance enhancement
- The Substance of Abuse out of competition carries a penalty - reduced 3 month sanction
- Parker claims a contamination case with a written explanation by his nutritionist
- Expert considered the amount, timing of events and the mechanism to be scientifically plausible, his explanation had credibility
- Provisional suspension was lifted, his minimum 3 month period of ineligibility was already served

https://www.ukad.org.uk/news/new-zealand-professional-boxer-joseph-parker-serves-three-month-ban-anti-doping-rule-violation

 

An explanation is all that he can give... Since there is no provable fact either way- whether he was contaminated or took it voluntarily.

The main fact is that it was in his system but it was out of competition. He received a 3 month sanction (which is not the same as a regular doping ban). He is not treated as a criminal or cheat.

It was not a performance enhancing violation either. Add to that he has multiple clean tests prior and a written admission of guilt from his team mate. Plus there are only trace amounts of the drug in his system.

I think its reasonable to let this one slide...

 

This one confused me because it makes zero sense. Why would he get into the coke on fight week where he would be surely caught. Everything on the line???? I suspected maybe a rat. But maybe the truth is stranger than fiction and his dumb nutritionist did **** up. Or the cook just took the wrap for someones **** up? Who knows

Either way cocaine taken out of competition is not a performance enhancer. It is therefore scheduled as an Abuse Substance carries less penalty.

Cocaine is a stimulant (S6.A) and absolutely prohibited in-competition. Then we're talking 2-4 year bans.

 

Basically my thoughts to the letter straight after I heard he was pinged for Coke. But pure speculation though

 

Why's that? It is well known they both like a sniff. Why does that make me a ****?

 

How are you "wrecking me"? That PDF only solidifies my point that Parker isn't guilty of consuming PEDs, served a temporary suspension and is now CLEARED TO FIGHT.

I think you need to take that L and move on bro

 

I've never said anything about PEDs, I've asked how it was verified that contamination was from the nutritionist. At this stage I think you're just a shill for Parker

I'm still waiting for your link showing VADAs findings where they verify how contamination was from the nutritionist

This is a lie, the investigation did not conclude that. That is what Parker claimed, not proved

This was not accepted and is not a fact, "22. I cannot exclude the possibility that the finding of benzoylecgonine has arisen as the tail end of the administration of a larger pharmacologically active dose of cocaine"

This statement clearly shows that there is another possibility for contamination. Wrecked again, I can keep doing this as long as you want to continue pushing lies

 

Still waiting for your smoking gun showing guilt, which you've failed to provide.

 

He's been cleared to fight

And the "Nutritionist" thing was found plausible.

End of story. Time to move on.