Dillian Whyte breaks down Oscar Rivas fight

I initially wanted to be cheeky but I am actually really intent on turn a new leaf as they say. So, I will respond differently.

Personally, I feel Whtye has been busted 2 times and is intentionally cheating and has no shame in doing so. Any boxer worth their socks checks all supplements with their team before taking them. This is a very standardised method.

When other have been busted, for example Garrell Miller, Tyson Fury and Canelo we have righteously called them out on it? So, why not Whyte? The circumstances may be a little different in each case but guilty is guilty.

 

You didn't answer one question here really. How much do you know?

 

To be fair, I think the board which sat before the fight acted in accordance with the options available to them - they were hamstrung by their own protocol - but their ruling to allow the fight to go on will have no direct influence at all with any future decision regarding a ban and does not indicate innocence. It can't; he failed a test. The ban will be decided after the B Sample is tested - Dillian seems in no rush to get that result - and after any appeal Whyte might choose to make when a ban is handed down.

Something I did learn yesterday. From what I heard, they could only allow the fight to go on if they accepted the possibility the banned substance was taken unintentionally. So it would appear this will form the basis of Whyte's defense, although strict liability dictates he would be banned regardless. Like the last time he tested positive and was banned for two years....

 

Whyte had an NADP hearing:

"An athlete / ASP charged with an ADRV has the right to a fair hearing. The hearing process will determine whether an ADRV has been committed and, if so, the appropriate consequences.

Depending on the applicable anti-doping rules, it is likely that the hearing will be held before the NADP.

The NADP is a national tribunal and appellate body for the UK, entirely independent of sporting governing bodies and UKAD"

How does the hearing work?

The National Anti-Doping Panel is an independent body that determines anti-doping disputes in sport in the United Kingdom. Membership of the NADP is made up of a President, eleven legallyqualified arbitrators and ten specialist arbitrators, all of whom have experience in high performance sport, sports science and sports medicine.

If an athlete exercises their right to have their case heard by an independent tribunal, the NADP will appoint three arbitrators to adjudicate your case. The Tribunal will normally consist of a senior solicitor or barrister to chair the tribunal, alongside two other Tribunal members who have specialist expertise in high-performance sport, sports science or medicine. It is sometimes possible to accelerate proceedings and hold a hearing sooner if the matter is urgent.

The athlete, UKAD, both the national governing body (unclear if the BBBoC would qualify for this in boxing) and the international federation of the sport, and the World Anti-Doping Agency all receive a COPY of the decision.

THIS is almost as independent as a public jury, except these guys are professionals and are needed on the panel, however I personally doubt they are regulars, I think they get swapped depending on who is available in any given field of expertise.

 

I might use this thread title again in a few months time: 'Dillian Whyte breaks down; Oscar Rivas fights'

 

I think compared to those cases, Whyte's case is very unique given that he was voluntarily having himself tested, that extra mile, using his own hard earned money, to be extra safe, and ultimately I believe this is what solved the problem for him at his hearing, and that he was really in the clear. I still believe this.

My spidey sense is so strong right now.

So I don't class Whyte as the same bracked as those guys, unless somehow VADA does not check for metabolites of Dianabol? I swear all these agencies use WADA accreditied laboratories? So how come VADA didn't detect anything on it's reporting, weird man.

So that was good enough for the independent hearing, I believe.