Wilder Granted WBC Voluntary Defence After Povetkin Fight Postponed

First topic message reminder :

So what price David Haye throwing his hat into the ring? He's rated at #8 & gets to avoid the Briggs nonsense plus we might actually get an interesting fight. I don't think for a minute that Wilder will take it though. Pulev is #3 and would probably be a much easier fight for Deontay. He's already beaten Stiverne (#2) and Duhaupas (#4). Takam & Parker were at #5 & #6 so in theory either could be pencilled in but it'd be a while before they're ready given they've both done a (fairly hard) 12-rounder and Parker's already contracted for his next fight.

Maybe Wilder will go further down the list and produce a less-worthy challenger: Step forward the following from #20, #22 & #24: Alexander "No Show for Shannon" Dimitrenko, Dillian "I need a name" Whyte and David "The Chin" Price. It'd be a payday for each of them if nothing else.

So who's it gonna be?

Well, well, well VADA have revealed Povetkin's other samples have proved clear and Povetkin's team are looking to sue Wilder's people....

Innnnnnnteresting..................!!!!!

Sorry, on my phone so hard to flick between screens. Here's a link:

https://www.boxing247.com/boxing-news/alexander-povetkin-new-sample/57084

A.Ryabinsky, Povetkin’s promoter: “I want to emphasize that Alexander Povetkin has never taken any prohibited drugs.

The new result proves that the positive sample in April was a residual effect of Mildronat taken last year.


What were you taking that for, Alexander? Just taking a supplement with no benefits?

I sympathise with your view Dave but technically, it looks like he did nothing illegal.

Simple drugs like caffeine and aspirin can give beneficial effects not intended by the traditional uses, so it's not clear cut.

However, these are common chemicals so it is stretching the defence a bit far.

When the drug is something that's prescribed for angina and only on a 6-12 week course maximum, and you take it for years, I doubt you're taking it to help maintain a shiny coat.....

Happytravelling wrote:I sympathise with your view Dave but technically, it looks like he did nothing illegal.

Simple drugs like caffeine and aspirin can give beneficial effects not intended by the traditional uses, so it's not clear cut.

However, these are common chemicals so it is stretching the defence a bit far.

What was he taking it for? Hammers seems to think it's OK for him to refuse to give an explanation as to why it should be in his system, but me, I'd be happy to hear his reasons/explanations/excuses/mitigation.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

I agree. It's fairly obvious he, and others were using it for performance enhancing reasons, which is why it was banned without tangible, only circumstantial, evidence.

However, like all rules and laws it can and is argued that unless it's outlawed it's legal.

Not satisfactory, I agree but banning based on suspicion and circumstantial evidence isn't either.

Happytravelling wrote:I agree. It's fairly obvious he, and others were using it for performance enhancing reasons, which is why it was banned without tangible, only circumstantial, evidence.

However, like all rules and laws it can and is argued that unless it's outlawed it's legal.

Not satisfactory, I agree but banning based on suspicion and circumstantial evidence isn't either.

A fighter/athlete found with a substance in their system that's specifically designed to treat a medical condition that person doesn't have, should be, if not banned then at least suspended until they come up with a compelling explanation as to why it's there.

Sorry, the logical extension of your argument could be taken to any substance, caffeine for instance (a performance enhancing drug).

For practical and ethical reasons, it's perfectly normal to assume something can be used in sport unless explicitly stated otherwise. It's the nature of all sports and doesn't just limit itself to drugs but swimming suits, for example. I think rabbit punches haven't always been illegal.

I appreciate this still leaves a bitter taste because it's obviously deliberate and I do sympathise but do you think caffeine should be outlawed etc?

For practical reasons, they have to base the law on proof etc. Just bring suspicious and using coincidence, no matter how overwhelming, is the road to insanity.

So, they did the right thing. They noticed a 'coincidence' that appeared suspicious. Banning people based on that would be legally frought so they did the sensible thing and ban it from a certain date, with reasonable time to allow those on the drug to come off it.

Happytravelling wrote:Sorry, the logical extension of your argument could be taken to any substance, caffeine for instance (a performance enhancing drug).

For practical and ethical reasons, it's perfectly normal to assume something can be used in sport unless explicitly stated otherwise. It's the nature of all sports and doesn't just limit itself to drugs but swimming suits, for example. I think rabbit punches haven't always been illegal.

I appreciate this still leaves a bitter taste because it's obviously deliberate and I do sympathise but do you think caffeine should be outlawed etc?

For practical reasons, they have to base the law on proof etc. Just bring suspicious and using coincidence, no matter how overwhelming, is the road to insanity.

So, they did the right thing. They noticed a 'coincidence' that appeared suspicious. Banning people based on that would be legally frought so they did the sensible thing and ban it from a certain date, with reasonable time to allow those on the drug to come off it.

Is caffeine used to treat a medical condition? Is it prescribed by a doctor as studies have shown it to aid recovery/ease the symptoms of this condition? Have fighters been diagnosed with a medical condition where the best drug to be administered is caffeine? Would caffeine, taken to excess, be of any use to a fighter as I'm not sure a fighter with the jitters would be benefitted in any way shape or form? Do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages?

No, but I understand sprinters drink coffee to increase reflexes. I think 6 cups has been suggested to me by a friend who's a runner.

Your argument against is that this is a drug not being used for its original intent. Coffee isn't served as an aid to sprinters or in that sort of quantity. Indeed, doctors advise against drinking that much coffee.

But, it a common drug and isn't illegal.

Lots of drugs are used for reasons other than those originally intended. Isn't Viagra used for heart conditions?

I totally agree with you, in this case the fact so many athletes have used this drug suggests it's a performance enhancing drugs. But, just because they're suspicious doesn't mean it should be illegal, at least not without clear statements, as they have.

There are people who think there are those whose eyes are too close together....

It's dodgy but with no proof that those taking the drug definitively knew the drug was performance enhancing, they can't ban people until they claimed it illegal. Unless you're advocating suspensions, bans etc purely based on suspicion?

It seems it was a performance enhancing drugs but there was no evidence so the course they took was the most reasonable. As he, technically, hasn't committed an offence, he's entitled to keep boxing.

I doubt he'd win his action over the fight though, as it was a reasonable course of action given the evidence at the time.

I agree that its strange they are taking it, especially with no medical reason as far as we know

But how is it different from other supplements that help?

WBC said they will make a ruling over the next couple of days

The WBC will look after the Yank.

All professional sports people are looking for an edge, training techniques, diet, this fad that fad. Of course they're taking this drug to try and improve performance. If their advisor tells them it might help and its not (yet) on the banned list they're going to take it.

I'm not sure what the fuss is about. As happy says there are plenty of assorted stimulants taken in everyday life, and athletes don't have a 'normal diet' anyway.  Most normal people don't live on chicken and boiled rice. It's not considered wrong to take unnatural levels of protein in shakes to build muscle, or assorted vitamin supplements. Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable or gaining an unfair advantage?

To me, it can only be by not taking what is on a banned list... everything else is fair game. You can question the morality/ethics of it if you wish but ultimately 'fair' is sticking to the rules.

If you want a level playing field, stick all boxers on a card in a camp 8 weeks out and feed them a strict diet of pie and mash. It worked for ricky hatton.

milkyboy wrote:
I'm not sure what the fuss is about. As happy says there are plenty of assorted stimulants taken in everyday life, and athletes don't have a 'normal diet' anyway.  Most normal people don't live on chicken and boiled rice. It's not considered wrong to take unnatural levels of protein in shakes to build muscle, or assorted vitamin supplements. Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable or gaining an unfair advantage?

Its not possible to take unnatural amounts of protein and vitamins. The body will absorb what it needs and excrete the rest. or get ill.

The only way to utilize unnatural amounts of protein to build muscle is by taking anabolic banned substances - that is where you draw the line.

I understand that rodders... and it wasn't phrased as well as it might have been, but it wasn't really the point I was trying to make.

Plenty of people not on steroids take all sorts of supplements to maximise the effects of training, so they can train harder, longer, recover faster etc. They could just eat chicken and greek yoghurt etc, but guys like to boost up with shakes before and after exercise... because they feel (and the jury's out I believe as to whether it actually matters) that the timing of the protein hit is critical to muscle regeneration. We can argue the toss as to how natural that is.

Obviously, the key in all this is whether something alters the body's 'natural state', so I do get Dave's point, I think to some degree what's natural gets blurred these days.

My point was, athletes do all they can to get any kind of edge, and the only place we can draw the line is where the relevant authorities draw it.  If this drug was legal before, they've done nothing wrong really... even if they're taking it for something that wasn't it's original purpose. Until it's on the banned list its seen as a supplement not a PED.

Happytravelling wrote:Sorry, the logical extension of your argument could be taken to any substance, caffeine for instance (a performance enhancing drug).

For practical and ethical reasons, it's perfectly normal to assume something can be used in sport unless explicitly stated otherwise. It's the nature of all sports and doesn't just limit itself to drugs but swimming suits, for example. I think rabbit punches haven't always been illegal.

I appreciate this still leaves a bitter taste because it's obviously deliberate and I do sympathise but do you think caffeine should be outlawed etc?

For practical reasons, they have to base the law on proof etc. Just bring suspicious and using coincidence, no matter how overwhelming, is the road to insanity.

So, they did the right thing. They noticed a 'coincidence' that appeared suspicious. Banning people based on that would be legally frought so they did the sensible thing and ban it from a certain date, with reasonable time to allow those on the drug to come off it.

There was a time when caffeine actually was banned until the powers that be came to their senses. Difficult to justify banning a substance that is found naturally in tea, coffee & cocoa.

milkyboy wrote:All professional sports people are looking for an edge, training techniques, diet, this fad that fad. Of course they're taking this drug to try and improve performance. If their advisor tells them it might help and its not (yet) on the banned list they're going to take it.

I'm not sure what the fuss is about. As happy says there are plenty of assorted stimulants taken in everyday life, and athletes don't have a 'normal diet' anyway.  Most normal people don't live on chicken and boiled rice. It's not considered wrong to take unnatural levels of protein in shakes to build muscle, or assorted vitamin supplements. Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable or gaining an unfair advantage?

To me, it can only be by not taking what is on a banned list... everything else is fair game. You can question the morality/ethics of it if you wish but ultimately 'fair' is sticking to the rules.

If you want a level playing field, stick all boxers on a card in a camp 8 weeks out and feed them a strict diet of pie and mash. It worked for ricky hatton.

I think you will find more people consume rice daily with some form of flesh than don't. I'm with you on the 8 week camp on pie & mash tho

sohotnot wrote:

Happytravelling wrote:Sorry, the logical extension of your argument could be taken to any substance, caffeine for instance (a performance enhancing drug).

For practical and ethical reasons, it's perfectly normal to assume something can be used in sport unless explicitly stated otherwise. It's the nature of all sports and doesn't just limit itself to drugs but swimming suits, for example. I think rabbit punches haven't always been illegal.

I appreciate this still leaves a bitter taste because it's obviously deliberate and I do sympathise but do you think caffeine should be outlawed etc?

For practical reasons, they have to base the law on proof etc. Just bring suspicious and using coincidence, no matter how overwhelming, is the road to insanity.

So, they did the right thing. They noticed a 'coincidence' that appeared suspicious. Banning people based on that would be legally frought so they did the sensible thing and ban it from a certain date, with reasonable time to allow those on the drug to come off it.

There was a time when caffeine actually was banned until the powers that be came to their senses. Difficult to justify banning a substance that is found naturally in tea, coffee & cocoa.

When is Meldonium found? Apart from Sharapova's p!ss obviously

It's not, that was my point about banning caffeine, it occurs naturally in food substances and wasn't proven to aid physical performance nor was it prescribed by a doctor, so they dropped the ban.

sohotnot wrote:

milkyboy wrote:All professional sports people are looking for an edge, training techniques, diet, this fad that fad. Of course they're taking this drug to try and improve performance. If their advisor tells them it might help and its not (yet) on the banned list they're going to take it.

I'm not sure what the fuss is about. As happy says there are plenty of assorted stimulants taken in everyday life, and athletes don't have a 'normal diet' anyway.  Most normal people don't live on chicken and boiled rice. It's not considered wrong to take unnatural levels of protein in shakes to build muscle, or assorted vitamin supplements. Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable or gaining an unfair advantage?

To me, it can only be by not taking what is on a banned list... everything else is fair game. You can question the morality/ethics of it if you wish but ultimately 'fair' is sticking to the rules.

If you want a level playing field, stick all boxers on a card in a camp 8 weeks out and feed them a strict diet of pie and mash. It worked for ricky hatton.

I think you will find more people consume rice daily with some form of flesh than don't. I'm with you on the 8 week camp on pie & mash tho

Yes, amongst its other obvious limitations, there's no doubting my post displayed a very poor grasp of global socio-geographic dietary intake!

AAAAWWWWW Mirky, you no rissen!

http://www.fightnews.com/Boxing/wilder-arreola-coming-together-for-july-16-342170

Well, it seems that Wilder's next opponent will be the Lumbering Nipple himself, Cris Arreola. I think he's shot and has also received a recent drug ban - although for marijuana rather than a performance enhancer. Arreola is certainly no stranger to the Taco Truck either - maybe because he had the munchies.

Easy defence for Wilder, although Cris may be difficult to shift, he will go. Wilder in 4 to 5.

What the hell has Nips done to earn a title shot? Whilst Wilder's entitled to a voluntary isn't he supposed to at least pick some who still has an interest in boxing?

he'll go out in a blaze of glory Dave

Well, it's his life, it's now or never (I'm struggling for more lyrics) Oh wait... he ain't gonna last forever, gonna live while he's alive, it's...his...life!

he just needs to keep the faith or he'll be living on a prayer.

that's the full range of my bonjovi back catalogue. So who did you lose a bet to for the name change?

So, you're not much of a bonjovi fan then!

Big nip will be the 2nd best fighter on wilder's record. I think it will be a fun fight. Nips is generally durable, has decent power. Chances are he's as big as a house though and short notice might mean they need a forklift to get him in the ring.

I'll remain optimistic though that this will be a good scrap, with a chance that wilder gets caught clean.

Wilder will be using him as a punchbag after five rounds. people will be sick at ringside due to the carnage and it will prove nothing. Wilder may as well call Charlie Z in for a fight again

Dave what's the deal with the name? I thought I was high reading it!!

AdamT wrote:Dave what's the deal with the name? I thought I was high reading it!!

Your namesake on the Moderation team has taken offence at certain comments made re his ability to know decent wine from a bucket of donkey p!ss. As a result, he banned me for a day and now he's deliberately changed my username and is refusing to change it back again.

Tina recently referred to him as a c*nt and I'm struggling to find reasons to disagree.

He should change it to BIG DAVE 666. Or DANGEROUS DAVE 666!!!