Comments Thread For: Hearn Backs Whyte, But Admits He Should Be Banned if Guilty

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

As BoxingScene.com reported on Tuesday, the WBC has provisionally suspended Dillian Whyte of his WBC interim heavyweight title and status as mandatory challenger to champion Deontay Wilder. Whyte climbed off the canvas to beat Oscar Rivas by way of a twelve round unanimous decision 11 days ago and earned his shot at Wilder.
[Click Here To Read More]

[VislorTurlough]

600 days!

We’ve heard his tired mantra for weeks - as if Whyte is the only guy who’s waited long because sanctioning bodies are bent. And Hearn was ****ily spewing this propaganda in the ring after the Rivas fight when he knew his guy came up dirty. Obnoxious con man. Only a total Wilder hater or Hearn suckler thinks Whyte could beat Wilder. Wilder’s resume is meh but if Rivas and Parker put Whyte down, Wilder would put him in a body cast

[Tatabanya]

Boxing is increasingly becoming a replica of The Truman Show.

[Straightener]

Kind of how I feel

If he’s been juicing he needs a lifetime ban and the guys who declared him good to fight on the night need f**king too

Don’t think we are getting the full story here

[4truth]

Ask yourself why he was cleared, perhaps there’s a very good chance that they saw the evidence that meant that he was innocent.

I don't get it. If there was evidence that metabolites produced from a banned steroid were in his blood, what evidence could there possibly have been that he was innocent?? I mean other than test results from the "B" sample, which hasn't been tested.

[Corelone]

It reminds me of Night and the City, but with Terry Thomas instead of Richard Widmark, the flying machine Terry Thomas.

[trippers1]

I find it really strange that the wbc for who whyte was fighting for their interm title werent informed of this before the fight. The fact there has been a meeting and the opponent or the wbc didnt know about just seems off.

[EnglishOxide]

I don't get it. If there was evidence that metabolites produced from a banned steroid were in his blood, what evidence could there possibly have been that he was innocent?? I mean other than test results from the "B" sample, which hasn't been tested.

There's a possibility that whatever the substance was that Whyte had in his system that UKAD are aware can be ingested unintentionally. Hence it being a 'listed substance' by their definition. That's why Whyte was allowed a hearing. We don't know for sure what that substance is or where it came from but we do know that NAPD, UKAD and VADA allowed him to fight.

If it was a 'prohibited' substance then he wouldn't get a hearing and just a straight ban and his licence revoked.

I think I'm both cases Whyte still has a right of appeal via the B sample.

[Oldskoolg]

Eddie “Lucifer” Hearn needs to be booted out of boxing for good....that is after he “takes over American boxing” like all the little British casual nerds were claiming yesteryear

[Alan Smithee]

I don't get it. If there was evidence that metabolites produced from a banned steroid were in his blood, what evidence could there possibly have been that he was innocent?? I mean other than test results from the "B" sample, which hasn't been tested.

I really believe and this is just my opinion that he was "cleared" to fight because he had passed all previous tests including VADA two day before and the metabolite levels were supposedly trace (possible contamination) although it would be difficult for Dianabol to be explained. Add that to the fact that the hearing was the day of the fight. It may be possible that UKAD is allowing for any additional evidence along with the "B" sample before making a determination. The stance by the WBC shows possible guilt. Below is a copy and paste explaining intended versus unintended doping.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5691710/