Technically he has not failed the second test as he never took it. For the first test why were the 'fail' results declared 15 months later? Think. Before. You. Type.
They stripped James Toney of his HW title some years ago for the same thing Strip the cheating clown and let's move on already
If you refuse a test then you failed it. End of. All these Fury fans still trying to defend him kinda remind me of people who tried to defend Jimmy Saville by saying it was all a witch hunt and conspiracy.
While technically he hasn't failed a 2nd test, a refusal to take a test when prompted to is regarded as an adverse result just like a failed test according to WADA's code. As for why the tests results were not revealed until 15 months later, it's standard practice to release no details until a full investigation is completed and a decision made. The only reason we heard about it prior to a final decision was because it was leaked. Tony Thompson delayed his own adverse doping results for about 15 months through legal proceedings against UKAD, I think it's likely Fury did the same as he has openly declared he is doing this after he was formally charged with a failed test. So nothing out of the ordinary in regards to how UKAD have dealt with Fury, this isn't a witch hunt, it's a fighter delaying the inevitable.
The fight was cancelled , so why would he allow agents sent over by Bernd Bounter give him tests for a fight that wasn't happening. He ran them off the premises good and proper.
Well, it comes down to whether you think UKAD are a trustworthy and honourable organization or whether they might be capable of witch hunts, fitting people up, blackmail and other corrupt, unjust and vindictive practices. In all honesty, I think these anti-doping bodies are as corrupt and malignant as the rest of the sports racket. Just like any enforcement agency. On the other hand, I think all athletes use the PEDs sometime during their careers, and often.
No they didn't. They stripped him for a post-fight positive test in the actual title fight, not for a fight that happened 9 months earlier.
And what are you basing this opinion on? Your gut feeling or actual facts and examples of this supposed corruption. Can organisations be corrupt? Of course they can be, especially if they are not answerable to anybody, but you need something to base any suspicion of impropriety.