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

OK pal. You can perform as much semantic trickery as you like but they both failed a test for a substance that’s actually really hard to fail on. Here’s a post I made before they came up with their bull**** wild boar excuse.

“The level at which a test becomes a fail for 19-norandrosterone is actually really quite high. The level is set at 2ng per ml which means **** all until you realise that to fail it naturally you'd have to be chewing on the offal of an uncastrated boar in the minutes and hours before the test.

Many control experiments have been carried out to see if a failed test of above 2ng could be achieved through exercise alone. The short answer is no. In one major study they could only find one athlete who had levels that were even detectable following the exercise experiment and these levels were at 1/16th of the unnaturally high failure rate of 2ng.

In short, there is no excuse. If the levels were high enough for both Hughie and Tyson to fail then it looks bad for them both.”

They may have failed the steroid test but at least they convinced you if their innocence.

 

Three possible outcomes Positive, Negative and Adverse. See if you can work out which one applied to Fury's A + B samples and why it went to review.

 

If you read through my previous posts in this thread you will see I have already stated I believe the Fury's are guilty of a doping offence.

 

You believe that their B samples were negative? Despite this the case wasn’t dropped or even mentioned in the UKAD proceedings? See if you can work out why that sounds like shite.

 

Also, it was clear that this was not a case of an adverse analytical finding as it was clearly stated and agreed that the source of the Nandrolone metabolites was exogenous and not endogenous.

 

The case was dropped and the Fury's were told they would face no further action. 16 months later and a leak to a national newspaper and UKAD suddenly decide there is a case to answer.

 

Ok, fair enough. So if you don’t care about PEDs you don’t care whether or not the Fury’s are guilty. They’ve accepted their guilt and their lenient backdated bans.

 

There’s no argument that UKAD were appallingly bad with this case. The point wasn’t that the case was dropped it was that it wasn’t started when it should be which provided the Fury’s with the defence that their case was lenidiced by the unreasonable passing of time. It was a gift. Tyson himself states that he was facing a 12 year ban due to his multiple failures and the refusal.

However you didn’t answer the question. Do you seriously still believe that their B samples were negative?

 

The test showed adverse analytical findings. This is not a positive test.

 

No, not buying it. As described above adverse analytical findings would lead to something that could be covered by a TUE or a reading that could be explained by endogenous factors. This wasn’t the case and also couldn’t be the case with Nandrolone metabolites. The source of the Nandrolone was clearly exogenous and not only was this agreed but was the basis of their laughable excuse.

They failed a difficult test to fail for Nandrolone. Not adverse analytical findings but test failures. Not sure why you are suddenly hiding behind an adverse analytical finding excuse when you were previously emphatic about the B samples being clear. I’m assuming you now concede that the B samples were positive?

 

I think that they were treated very leniently yet still play the victim card and that annoys me. It is tiresome that people make excuses for their failures and simly call it “elevated levels” when it was a simple case of cheating.

 

Fair enough. I don’t actually want either of them banned for 4, 8, 12 years either I just hate the justification and cleansing that goes on. Anyway, I’m looking forward to watching Hughie vs Pulev later.

 

They were told by UKAD that no further action would be taken and that it was probably caused by a contaminated supplement. They were effectively given a warning which was the appropriate punishment at the time.

 

Nice try. And the B sample?

 

I don’t think UKAD could have handled the situation any worse. They went soft, then hard, then capitulate. Fury’s were treated too leniently initially, then proper action was proposed and then they folded with a straight flush when they faced the prospect of a suit for lost earning and resulting bankruptcy and redundancy. They are pussies who should all be fired. The BBBoC should pay for VADA testing for all of their licences boxers and completely cut UKAD out of the loop. That way there would be no confusion of whether a substance is “in competition” or not.