You're wrong; the evidence shows you are wrong and I am tired of going back and forth on this with you. If anyone is exhibiting fanboy bias it is you. In fact, you are the living embodiment of fanboy bias. It is your general MO to do your best to highlight every single negative aspect - to the point of defamation - of any boxer, who can threaten your precious mind's eye view of the Klitschkos (and Golovkin, where middleweights are concerned).
Fury would have been trounced by quarry, ellis, bonevena etc had hed been around at that time....fury is of the buddy baer talent pool
Your opinion here is inescapable, I think Joe Frazier would wear him out in a 15 round fight since Fury doesn't have the juice to really hurt Joe and Fury has,,,NEVER ,,seen the kind of pace Smokin Joe Frazier would set
Why is the PED thing being brought up? Most of these ATGs were never even testedfor steroids. Steroids were invented in the 50s. Wilder himself is plenty suspect with his weight(pure muscle) fluctuations since VADA testing began for the WBC And Wlad is the number 2 poster boy for HGH after evander holyfield
I know this won't answer your specific question but, just for additional information, the summary of a joint statement made by UKAD and the Furys can be seen here: https://ukad.org.uk/news/article/UKAD-and-Mr-Tyson-Fury-and-Mr-Hughie-Fury-issue-joint-statement The full decision from UKAD, regarding the Furys, is no longer available on the UKAD site. However, a law blog in Canada, which belongs to Combat Sports Law have uploaded a copy to their site, which can be found here: https://canadianmmalawblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/uk-anti-doping-fury-decision.pdf Within its contents, paragraph 2.1 refers specifically to the fact that Tyson and Hughie Fury " This content is protected " This means that UKAD didn't act on the finding for over a year, which his highly suspect, in its own right. In any event, this circumstance led to UKAD having little choice but to resolve the situation with the following conclusion: " This content is protected " Few papers reported the above conclusion. The same reasoning is reiterated in paragraph 3.3, with the added summary evidence: " This content is protected " This indicates that, even whilst unaware that an adverse finding had been discovered by UKAD, they tested negative in all samples taken after the February 2015 finding, up until being informed and charged in June 2016.
And you don't think any other fighters have been on PED's over the years, it's rife and has been for a long time.
