Tyson Fury has failed 3 drug tests which is more than Povetkin and Ortiz but gets no abuse.

Its pretty simple..

Povetkin was set up by Wilders team to get out of fighting him..

Ortiz being 48 yo needs them to keep his blood pressure down..

Fury is the currently the official lamb for the "Wilder is gud doh" party..

The common thing is all three men are related to Wilder so that will determine the hate they get here..

Povetkin because Wilder was too scared to fight him. "Worst drug taken eva" (even though was found innocent of all charges)...

Ortiz's drug issues were forgotten when it was shown he needed blood pressure meds and Wilder was going to fight the "boogie man of the division).

Fury now is the "lineal champ" and is looking in career best form so it will be a huge scalp needing 50/50 billing with AJ... No issue with drugs here!!!!

It also could be to do with the fact its so easy now to fall foul of drug testing because there is way too much **** on it which it is becoming impossible not to take something on the banned list..

 

Just to clarify the dropped charge I was refering to was the failure to provide a specimen charge not the 'elevated' levels of Nandrolone.

Unfortunately for the anti Fury brigade BBBoC do not alter results retrospectively so the Hamer and Rudenko results stand.

 

Victor Conte stated that you are allowed 2 or 3 passes without anything being done about it, just goes to show how **** poor the effort is to keep sports clean. I'm not sure what standards boxing has but i imagine it won't be much different.

 

This is a nice political answer to Holler's question, but I think what he means is; "Do you or don't you believe he willingly took peds?" yes/no

 

I even underlined it and you still missed it.

 

Yes I did.

 

Dude, I would agree with you with you on one, small condition:

YOU have to turn pro and take at least 10 fights.

 

The Fury nut huggers on here are unreal:

Both Fury’s popped for Nandrolone.

Using “elevated levels” as if this doesn’t constitute a fail is pathetic. The levels were “elevated” above the already high limit to constitute a fail. The same way every PED failure is categorised. There is no grey area here.

It was agreed by all including the Fury’s that the source of the Nandrolone was exogenous. The levels were impossible to have occurred naturally and could only have come from ingestion or injection. They later claimed that it came from Wild Boar which was denied as complete bull**** by Frank Warren. I even joked about this as an excuse on here before they came up with the bull****.

The failure hurdle for Nandrolone is way above the naturally occurring level and false positives are impossible.

It is a complete lie that the B samples were negative. They were positive which led to the provisional bans. Yes they had other tests that were negative but these ones were positive. Lance Armstrong also tested negative hundreds of times.

Fanboys are also deliberately trying to mislead by saying that Ohurugu did the same thing by refusing three tests. This is crap. There is a huge difference between missing whereabouts tests and point blank refusing a test by telling UKAD to **** off. A refusal of a test is an automatic ban.

UKAD were however **** in the way they handled this case. This was also due to the fact that they were threatened with bankruptcy repeatedly along with claims of racism and the government refused to back them. They were told they would not be given the money to fight the case and only then they compromised and let the Fury’s off the hook.

 

If you want anyone to take what say seriously you will need to provide a source. It was widely reported in the press that the B sample was negative as was a blood test taken around the same time. UKAD themselves told the Fury's the elevated levels were likely from a contaminated dietry supplement.

 

Err...you think it’s worse to not be in the location for an hour that said you would be to the testers a week before. Any right thinking person knows that to be in your gym and to tell testers to **** off is only done to cover up steroid use.

Thanks for clarifying that it’s the system you are fighting against. Keep fighting the power brother.

 

UKAD are pussies and were **** scared of the claims of racism. Stop creating excuses and instead ask why the Furys felt the need to use steroids. After all they rely on their superior skills don’t they?

 

Ah OK. So I have to provide a source for the universally accepted doping procedures that is clear that once a B sample comes back negative that all proceedings immediately stop. I won’t even ask for your sources of the repetition of a lie but simply ask you if the Fury’s were handed a provisional ban? Because if they were then that means that the B sample has come back positive. Which by the way the Fury’s accepted.

 

No offense pal but you are absolutely clueless about UKAD, drug testing procedures or the Fury's case. There are three possible results from a drug test with UKAD a negative test, a positive test or an adverse analytical finding. In the case of the latter there is a review, a hearing and an appeal. It's during the review that UKAD will decide if 'there is a case to answer'. So no they did not fail a test for Nandrolone but indeed had adverse analytical findings which upon review UKAD decided there was a case to answer.

 

I thought about it and decided to quote the relevant section of the UKAD site:

“B Sample
Where the Notice of Charge is based on an Adverse Analytical Finding, the athlete has the right to request analysis of the B-Sample.

If the B-Sample does not confirm the result of the A-Sample then the entire test is considered as negative and the Notice of Charge withdrawn. No further action will be taken against the athlete.

If the B-Sample analysis confirmed the Adverse Analytical Finding in respect of the A-Sample, then the athlete can either accept the finding and consequences specified in the Notice of Charge or request that the matter proceed to a hearing.”

So, the B sample was negative but the Fury’s decided **** it, you know what I want to spend a couple of years and hundreds of tbousands fighting a charge that has already been dropped and UKAD went along with it...OK then.