Back to supplements: UKAD, boxing and the Dillian Whyte case:
The facts of the case:
Has anyone looked at the actual rules here (soz, I'm being lazy today and not looking for them myself) and do they allow for thresholds, like the amended MMA rules do? Or is there a get out of gaol free card in the strict liability clause that allows UKAD to say "We ain't never caught this guy doping before and we really need to catch em twice in order to punish em once?"
More questions than answers here so let's go from the top:UK Anti-Doping and the professional boxer, Dillian Whyte, can today jointly confirm that Mr Whyte was charged with an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) earlier this year, but that this charge has now been withdrawn.
Is UKAD's role in boxing like USADA's role in MMA? Boxing isn't part of WADA, has it's own rules, and the management is outsourced to UKAD?The British Boxing Board of Control, having delegated responsibility for anti-doping matters to UKAD, has been informed of the resolution of these proceedings against Mr Whyte.
The facts of the case:
At the heart of it, then, UKAD are saying the Dianabol entered Whyte's system between the 17th and the 20th and by the 20th was in such low amounts they concluded it wasn't performance enhancing. Can we confidently assume this is a tainted supplement?
- There is nothing in Mr Whyte's longitudinal urinary profile to suggest that he has used steroids.
- The levels of the metabolites found in Mr Whyte's 20 June 2019 sample were extremely low.
- Mr Whyte had provided a urine sample to VADA on 17 June 2019, i.e. 3 days before his 20 June 2019 sample, which was tested by a WADA-accredited laboratory and which returned a negative result, including for the metabolites in question.
- Mr Whyte provided several other doping control samples to UKAD and VADA between 20 June and 20 July 2019 (i.e. the date of his fight with Oscar Rivas) – all of which also tested negative.
- In light of the above points, the trace amounts of metabolites found in the 20 June 2019 sample are consistent with an isolated contamination event, and they are not suggestive of doping.
Has anyone looked at the actual rules here (soz, I'm being lazy today and not looking for them myself) and do they allow for thresholds, like the amended MMA rules do? Or is there a get out of gaol free card in the strict liability clause that allows UKAD to say "We ain't never caught this guy doping before and we really need to catch em twice in order to punish em once?"