You are the one with your panties in a bunch. Fact is Fury is an open book. We know he was busted, did his time and suspension. Life then moves on. The only fool who thinks he's getting away with **** is you. Then you whine and cry about AJ who is very suspicious with which you give a complete pass to. You don't see your own bias ahahaha!
Read the top post again, I mention Fury failing tests and get.. "UKAD are full of shart", "They are behind the mega machine of Team Sky Cycling", "They conveniently lost track..", "UKAD, where you go to strike deals". Then read the bottom post, so what is it? Is Fury a filthy PED cheat or isnt he? Because you seem to be casting doubt on Furys failed tests yet seem to be casting guilt on a fighter that hasn't tested positive for anything.. Your logic is back to front my friend.
Did I not write that Fury paid for his failed tests or not? WTF is your problem? You don't understand plain English when typed out? Whether Fury was busted or not and served his time, doesn't make UKAD clean either. They are hugely suspicious as well. Only a fool would believe UKAD wholeheartedly. The ironic thing is it is a fact that AJ could be on test right now because he is under UKAD who follow WADA protocols. And under WADA they ALLOW a T:E ratio of 4:1 before they even bat an eyelash. In plain English, that means you can use steroids under UKAD/WADA and won't be flagged until you go over a ratio of 4:1 testosterone to episterone. That is a big bold JOKE, ya. Did you know that? There are factors going this way and that way, which you clearly don't understand. That's why you act the fool and are crying over AJ.
Bl00dy hell those two? Agreed, most disturbing. That interview could have been in Borley Rectory or the Amityville mansion and the ghosts and spirits would flee. Later warning to avoid, as they're creepy, unsettling and haunted.
No, I never defended Floyd simply because he didn’t come out from under the radar until his IV scandal. While the rise through the weight classes between Manny and Floyd were similar, Floyd won his fights by potshotting, shoulder rolling and cherry picking; Manny won his fights by blitzing his opponents. Because of that, along with Manny bungling Floyd’s drug testing challenge, Manny was under much greater suspicion. Do you actually believe that journalists would somehow be looking to expose the truth of celebrity athletes? GTFOH! Yeah, right after they expose Hollywood pedophiles and a certain middle eastern tribe’s banking practices - but then I repeat myself Journalists have the morals of meth addicted hyenas. They’re nothing more than paid propaganda shills looking to star f#ck celebrities. The couple of journalists that actually did try to report on Armstrong found themselves out of jobs quite quickly and ridiculed by their peers. “Why would an athlete not get an upper hand using legal techniques?” The better question is why wouldn’t they get an upper hand using every technique available to them?
Ok, so I actually laughed out loud at your post as well. We’ve both proven ourselves to be able to make each other laugh. You have a pretty good writing style when you set your mind to it But just how in the hell do you know so much about YouTube conspiracy channels...unless of course you’re part of the.........Illuminati
Obviously you can't wrap your head around the idea of evidence, proof, failed tests, facts. You have your opinions, which are not facts, I'm talking about evidence and facts. I believe you should have evidence, proof, facts before you start claiming athletes are on PEDs because you're not an expert, you are not an authority on the subject, you just have an opinion and that's fine but don't state it as facts, that's all.
Would you include an athlete's body composition, performance, lean body mass, speed, strength etc. as "facts" and "evidence" ? I would. For example, if a sprinter somes along and runs faster than everyone who ever lived (incl. those who failed tests) I'd consider the fact that he runs so fast as EVIDENCE. If a bodybuilder has a certain level of muscle mass that matches that of a load of genetically-gifted bodybuilders who admitted they needed anabolic drugs to get that big, I'd regard that as EVIDENCE. It might not be 100% proof but it is factual evidence.
Figure of speech, OK, you should have evidence if you are outright accusing somebody of something. I don't really understand what is going on here, I can't believe I'm actually having a conversation about this, I don't think it's outrageous or revolutionary to say "before you accuse somebody of something or say something about somebody like it's a fact, you should be 100% sure you're correct, back your accusation with evidence" I don't see why that is so difficult to understand or controversial.
Fury failed tests and isn't ripped, Povetkin failed tests and isn't ripped, Whyte failed tests and isn't ripped, Ortiz failed tests and isn't ripped. So therefore looking at somebody isn't evidence, it isn't proof somebody is or isn't juicing, you need then to fail a test, it really is that simple. Also I suggest you go and look at video and pictures of Joshua when he was an amateur, before being a full time professional with the benefit of professional sports science and all that goes with it. He has never been small, he has never been fat or even averagely built, he has always been big and muscular or was he juicing way back then also? Just a constant career of juicing without one failed test as an amateur or professional, nobody can catch him? But many many others have been caught as amateurs and professionals, so what are you telling me? It's all one big conspiracy?
AJ was found guilty of the Eddie Chambers and Robert Muagabe supporting and the media was all on lockdown. Money speaks bro...money is king
Actually you are wrong. THERE IS NOT ONE PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE proving Lance doped. All media was shutdown because they had no proof or evidence. And what is this about sources? Walsh had plenty of sources, except NO ONE would speak on the record. David Walsh was nearly blacklisted and ruined for chasing Armstrong down. He was later like a decade later vindicated when Armstrong admitted to doping. Should Walsh have given up back then? It wasn't until USADA resorted to coercion with the help of the FEDs that they were able to turn ppl inside Lance's circle ultimately leading Lance to his fateful admission. Thus you are WRONG. Everyone is up for suspicion as we are in a clear doping age as boxing catches up with the rest of the world level sports on the doping front. And this whole BS about not judging a book by its covers... yea that is great for social skills but it doesn't mean **** in anti-doping. Might as well stop antidoping tests since no proof or evidence, why should anyone have to submit to dope testing? Huh, why not take it to stupid lengths then? No one can call anyone a doper w/o proof, ahahah moronic! And finally you clearly missed the reference to Lance Armstrong. The point of which is that even though there is no evidence or proof that Lance was doping, HE CLEARLY WAS A MASSIVE DOPER. Thus the defense of there's no proof or evidence is beyond stupid as it takes a major leap to ignore the logistics of being a cheater. The whole point of doping, cheating is to not get caught while getting that advantage. Well... you mean you won't find proof or evidence cuz dopers try not to leave any behind? What OMG??
