Dillian Whyte tests positive for banned substance

You are going on ignore as he decline the offer made and renegotiated and AJ didnt want to give up more than 15 per cent of the purse and also wanted the lion share in the rematch

Even when Whyte rematched Chisora Hearm suggested if Whyte loses they can reverse the split on a trilogy

 

Regardless of your stance, this is quite interesting. The group who represented Whyte were the same ones who represented Fury in their case against UKAD. Chris Froome too...

https://www.morgansl.com/en/latest

 

So why would UKAD be scared to lose a court battle? If they have all the evidence against someone they would be favoured in court?

They win the case the opposition pay the fees? Guidelines for anti doping are very clear so how would they lose a case???

Unless the judges are corrupt? Everyone is corrupt right?

WADA accredited Lab who hold the test results are the only once who aren't corrupt yeah? How convenient to fit the narrative of all Whyte haters

 

I fully expect Dillian Whyte to be upgraded to full WBC Champion, with Wilder being made franchise champion.

Hearn also deserves credit as he set a new Guinness World Record with the Saudi card.

I counted four past drug offenders on the bill. Five, if you count Joshua's criminal convction for intent to supply.

He actually deserves a knighthood for the drug rehabilitation service he and Matchroom provide.

Eddie " Narcos " Hearn puts the original cartel of Mickey Duff, Jarvis Astaire, Terry Lawless and Mike Barret to shame.

 

Going to court costs a lot of money, a lot of money that UKAD famously do not have. They had to back out of the Fury one, effectively saying "ok we cannot prove that it WASN'T contaminated meat" for that very reason. My guess being this law team used the VADA tests being clean as a way to scrutinise UKAD's practices and my guess is they didn't really see the point in taking the risk of going to court. Their best case scenario is that they win and...that's about. In doing so they risk going bankrupt.

The court room battle would have looked like the blue haired lawyer from The Simpsons against Lionel Hutz, ultimately.

 

They renegotiated to 50/50
For the rematch anywayway

Still said no

 

So you are saying the money UKAD could win from the case is less than how much it would cost them to go to court?

because if their evidence against Whyte is so strong its an easy win?

Everything is done by the book WADA guidleines

 

Doesn't matter really, if you're going to court against someone with a bigger war chest than you there's a good chance you'll lose. Which again, is how Furys were both able to blame wild ****ing boar. Do any of us really buy that? Outside of the weird Fury love sphere that is.

In a normal world, a Heavyweight boxer pissing dirty for a steroid would result in a ban but we don't live in that world. Look at how the WBC now preemptively exonerates Mexican fighters for clen for example.

 

Cmon you know full well a good solicitor will drag a case on
Possibly costing the other party far more financially than they can risk

Its hardly so cut and dry as you imply Ad

 

Yeah good, he should say no.

50/50 is not good enough, if Whyte can reverse split for other fighters under advisement from Hearn, AJ should do the same if Whyte wins and is champ/

Whats the problem? You worried Whyte has a chance to win? Awww

 

Mate I guarantee I have more experience with legal cases and going to court than you do. I know full well the ins and outs and how it gets dragged out.

The only way it doesnt get dragged out is by going to court. without goung to court it can cost more because there is no ultimate decision, there is no reaching middle ground, mediation activities wont get anywhere until a judge can perform a ruling.

Now if UKAD are right, and the evidence is stakced in their favour against Whyte... whats the problem? Go court, pay some money, get MORE money back when you win .

It is that simple. IF UKAD REALLY DID HAVE A GOOD CASE WHICH LOOKS LIKE THEY DONT/

Ive spent enough time with solicitors and courtrooms to know when to call the others bluff.

So take Whyte to court, show me what you got? Because they dont... he aint guilty... dont give me tripe about not affording it.

If a regular person of the street can pay to go to court, UKAD can do it too. They can even get a loan, or no win no fee. And collect the winnings when they win, and break even.

Their job is simple, collect the evidence.

 

Have you been to court before? Because a bigger warchest doesnt win cases. A judge or jury will review each sides case and god knows what he or she will rule, but you can get a good indication from previous cases where the facts and evidence has been made public.

If UKAD had enough evidence on Whyte to prove he is guilty, it would have been an EASY CASE SIMPLE ASS.

Stop reaching down the conspiracy rabbit hole... its embarrassing... you've made so many hypothetical statements we are in lala land right now.

I know exactly how courts work, and how solicitors operate, and all the options available outside of going to court. If they had a case, they would have gone to court.

If someone has a case against me, id very openly say... take me to court and show me what you got? I know how much it cost, and I know how much it will cost them when they lose.

 

Ok

 

Why do you think some lawyers are more expensive than others?

You're impossibly myopic when it comes to Whyte.

"EASY CASE SIMPLE ASS" you've just created my new nickname for you. Good work.

 

Aydamn, do you believe Jeffery Epstein committed suicide?