It was incompetent no doubt about it, but he was caught cheating and it’s on record that he was, it doesn’t really bother me what you think because opinions don’t matter when there’s proof, he accepted punishment, both sides called it compromise but he along with hugie was found to have elevated levels of nandrolone.
I didn’t do anything of the sort, I highlighted the stupidity of the suggestion that they both ate a wild boar a week, it’s absolutely ridiculous to believe that to be true. Iam actually implying that the levels were so high that they had to admit that they ate a wild boar each a week for a period of 6 weeks, but at this point iam coming down to your level and implying things, when I have clearly started facts and backed them up with the findings of the testing body in question and quoted the parts that statement they released. While I find drug cheats deplorable I can kind of see what might bring someone to cheat but I cannot see why anyone would lie and try and ignore facts in order to defend someone who was found to have cheated, I find that harder to understand than anything else.
Right, the incompetent organization which made the "finding" and tried to charge him 16 months after the fact, and was nearly sued out of business for it, made the "conclusion" that you are posting. It is a tautology. And please stop posting multiple times so that I have to answer each one.
You are living in a fantasy world. Please get this back to one conversation after thoroughly reading this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/...otched-case-cost-ukad-7-entire-annual-budget/ Ukad was forced to strike a deal with the Furys after what chief executive Nicole Sapstead admitted had been its “failure” to inform the fighters they could face action until charging them 16 months after nandrolone was discovered in their urine. What a crock of ****. How can anything being proven or disproven 16 months after the fact. And how could they left fights go on if there was a real issue? Nothing was ever proven. A deal was made.
Ok I love how you quote two words and I do agree that they are factually correct there was a “finding” and there was a “conclusion” “Findings” were the elevated levels of nandrolone in samples that hugie and Tyson submitted for testing. The “conclusion” was that their results from February 2015 were disqualified.
No such thing has happened. you are living on your own planet. A conclusion made by the people who made the charge 16 MONTHS AFTER THE FACT. This proves nothing. By the way, as for their "upholding..." “In recognition of the retrospective counter-arguments and the risks inherent in the dispute resolution process, each side has accepted a compromise of its position,” UKAD said. So no, they "upheld" nothing. They made a deal to save face.
It’s easy I’ll explain for you samples don’t deteriorate as they are kept in temperature controlled laboratories so those samples are still just as good as the day they were taken, so that’s how anything can be proven or disproven 16 months after and I will quote you here “after the fact” as you put it. You are correct a deal was made between two fighters that failed a drug test and ukad that didn’t have the finances to take it to court, due to the ridiculous 16 month’s they took to bring the case against the two drug cheats.
It’s all here UKAD's position is that the anti-doping rule violations it has asserted have been committed and the consequences set out in the UK Anti-Doping Rules should apply. Tyson and Hughie Fury's position is that they have never knowingly or deliberately committed any anti-doping rule violation. In recognition of the respective counter-arguments and the risks inherent in the dispute resolution process, each side has accepted a compromise of its position. The proceedings have therefore been resolved on the following basis: the anti-doping rule violations based on the reported presence of elevated levels of nandrolone metabolites are upheld, the refusal charge is withdrawn, Hughie and Tyson Fury each receive a two-year period of ineligibility, and their results from their respective fights in February 2015 are disqualified. Taking into account that no adverse analytical findings or adverse passport findings were reported in respect of any of the urine and/or blood samples collected from either boxer after February 2015 (including from Tyson Fury on 11 May 2015, 16 July 2015, 8 October 2015, 17 October 2015, 11 November 2015, 13 July 2016, and 4 May 2017; and from Hughie Fury on 11 May 2015, 25 July 2015, 8 October 2015, 17 October 2015, 14 November 2015, 18 July 2016, 29 September 2016, 18 February 2017, 19 April 2017, 8 August 2017, 29 August 2017, and 23 September 2017), their competition results after February 2015 are not disqualified. Taking into account the delays in results management that meant charges were not brought in respect of the nandrolone findings until June 2016, and the provisional suspensions that Tyson and Hughie Fury have already effectively served, the two year period of ineligibility is backdated to 13 December 2015, and therefore expires at midnight on 12 December 2017 The British Boxing Board of Control has also agreed to the resolution of these proceedings on this basis.
I know you’re simply trolling in this time of lockdown but here goes anyways... He beat Wlad, who was getting older, and Wilder, a guy who everyone says can’t fight or box, just has a war crime of a right hand. He is not the GOAT. He’s great at what he does, nothing more. If he beats AJ, and if he defends his title ten times, he may be GOAT material, but Ali is the only GOAT at heavyweight. Sugar Ray Robinson is the p4p GOAT. Can’t just throw around terms like GOAT to get a rise out people, you come off as simple jack.
Would that be the same Sugar Ray who retired with 19 losses? The same Ali who was outboxed by Joe Frazier who had beaten nobody of note prior? Fury is unbeaten. He has beaten two world champions who were both looking unbeatable at the time.
You have to realize that most guys criteria for GOAT is very short and the bar is super low. There has not been a spectacular heavyweight presence since Tyson and everyone else has been trying to just fill his shoes which he was just trying to fill Ali's. Once you break down any of these guys resumes and see how hollow it is then you know that the HW scene died when Lewis retired. Fury is entertaining but he has taken more break in between major fights as Sugar Ray Leonard . He may be close to great of this age but of ALL TIME , no. I totally agree with you.
Well Ali's bar was pretty low too, look at the string of no hopers his best victories beat. What made any of them any good in the first place?
PLEASE STOP DOING TWO OR MORE POSTS. SAY WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IN ONE. We know they upheld their own accusations, which says nothing. The fact is, they accepted a compromise discipline, which was none at all, because of the strength of the Fury's case, and the weight of their accusations against UKAD. It took a compromise because the organization could not prove anything. Tyson Fury denies the anti-doping rule violation asserted in the Refusal Proceedings, and alleges (among other things) that the incident in question would never have happened (1) had it not been for UKAD bringing the Nandrolone Proceedings against him in June 2016, after having led him to believe that no charges would be brought against him or Hughie Fury in relation to the elevated levels of nandrolone metabolites reported to be present in their February 2015 urine samples; and (2) if he had been expressly warned at the time of the and UKAD's position is that the anti-doping rule violations it has asserted have been committed and the consequences set out in the UK Anti-Doping Rules should apply. Tyson and Hughie Fury's position is that they have never knowingly or deliberately committed any anti-doping rule violation. In recognition of the counter-arguments and the risks inherent in the dispute resolution process, each of UKAD and the Respondents (together, the Parties) recognises that it/he will have to compromise its/his claims to some degree. They made a deal to salvage their incompetence, with a penalty that was not a penalty. That is all.
