Tyson Fury's PED issues. Should some fights be ruled a NC?

The whole debacle makes no sense. Hughie got the same penalty yet still fought for a world title during the time he was supposed to be banned.
Ukad dropped the case against Fury and cleared him when they feared the resulting lawsuit would bankrupt them.

UK Anti-Doping faces bankruptcy if it loses legal battle with Tyson Fury

 

Another word from you cheese dip and I'll dunk your stupid face into the foulest bucket of fart sauce known to man

 

It amazes the power and influence Eddie Hearn possesses. He can sway independently funded doping bodies to stitch up fighters like Fury and make sanctioning bodies ignore mandatory's like Ortiz apparently. He's also a clairvoyant to have foreseen that 2 years later stitching up Fury would benefit Joshua who at the time was fighting Jason Gavern and no where near world level.

 

I want to join the hearn payroll i keep hearing about, apparently he's paying off 100s of posters online but im yet to see a cent

 

They didn't drop the case they came to a compromise. They both accepted a back dated 2 year ban. So he accepted he was guilty of doping as long as it was agreed he has already served the time having not fought for over 2 years.

As for Hughie, because they appealed the decision, it lifted the suspension as per UKAD rules. That allowed Hughie to fight during that time.

 

Wish I was on that payroll too. If I was paid by the hour I'd be raking it in with the amount of time I spend on here lol.

 

Perhaps Fury could have taken it all the way and sued them for 20m+ , but decided not to as it would have taken years and years out of his boxing career and sent him into a worse state of depression than he was already in.
There is no compromise for persons who are guilty. Fury was right to put the debacle behind him and move on with his life.

 

There's a reason why Fury has to talk like he's in Sunday school these days. The man upset the worng people. We'll leave it at that!

 

I see you agree, the Wlad fight was within the period where the two year ban should have been. congrats.

 

I have no problem with it. From what I heard they didn't have the best evidence, and working this out along these terms was a way for both parties to save face. Otherwise risky and expensive litigation continues.

Also, all these people so eager to backdate bans and take away Furys win over Wlad, for which there was no evidence of ped use, are you equally willing to take away the best wins of Evan Fields? From the eye test, I suspect his success in the division was more dependent upon ped use than Furys.

 

Don't you think the fight he tested positive for should be overturned? That was the Hammer fight.

Now if you backdate a ban after a long delay, rule is you start from the point the sample was taken. Otherwise you don't backdate the ban and start it from the point a decision is made. Both options would be devastating for Fury, so they came up with a 3rd option. Ban him one month after his big upset win and let him even keep the fight he was caught for.

Issue with Holyfield is that everybody knows he was a user, and actually only became a HW by probably using HGH and such, but he was never officially caught. You don't have to be a detective to figure it out, but they never went after him for some reason (probably not to disgrace their sports hero). Like you said, he probably would never have become the HW champion if he was clean, but that's not the issue here. Fury got caught, Holyfield got found out, but never officially.

 

Fury actually refused to test after Klitschko 1, and before the rematch.

 

Fair post. No, I don't really think the Hammer fight should be overturned, although reasonable people can disagree. Mainly, the agreement they reached was a compromise agreement made because both sides had weaknesses in their case and a lot to lose if it went south. After all, it was only an "official" ped conviction because of the compromise agreement made; therefore the terms can be whatever both sides agree to. A particular punishment is no more mandated for a case that is brought and a settlement reached, than one where a case is never brought in the first place, but where overwhelming circumstantial evidence (much greater evidence than in the Fury case) exists but charges are never brought because of a lack of political will, as you suggest, re: Holyfield. Personally I liked the Hammer fight and the result was almost certainly not heavily influence by the PEDS, so it should stand. The differences between Holyfield and Fury are ultimately fairly perfunctory, imo. I think fairly superficial distinctions can be made, that for me, personally, go more against Holyfield than Fury, but ultimately I'm good with both their win records staying intact. We can go down a deep rabbit hole on PEDS that would leave few fighters completely intact. I don't want to excuse it, by any means, but it seems that most posters just use PEDS at their convenience, to attack fighters they don't like while ignoring the implications for fighters that they do like.

 

the meat in mendozas head