Latest from Fury's UKAD hearing!

I will let others judge if I was right or not, I have nothing to prove. Evidence is clear for any rational and intelligent person.

 

"As of the 10th of May 2017 after a lengthy hearing in regards to a positive drugs test we have concluded that not a man born from his mother can beat Tyson Luke Fury therefore we have elected to impose an

This content is protected

on the boxer with immediate effect to ensure the safety and well bieng of other competitors"

 

You do know that any ban by UKAD after the failed test was only enforceable in the UK right and that after he was caught he didn't fight once in the UK, the only fight he had several months later was Wlad in Germany. So for all we know Fury was banned when he fought Wlad.

This is the problem with boxing without a unified body these bans are not really enforceable. Recent example would be Teper, banned for 2 years, fought a year after being caught, messed up, but this is our sport. Even if Fury gets a 4 year ban by UKAD, he could fight Wilder this summer in the US and there nothing UKAD can do about it.

Same thing happened with Tony Thompson. He was caught doping after the Price fight, was banned for 18 months, but just fought in other countries. Thompson through legal proceedings ensured it didn't come out until a lot later.

So the whole "why was he allowed to fight after he was caught doping" is easily explainable and proven by a previous example with Thompson, Teper etc, etc.

We can all speculate this and that, but all we know for sure is that they failed the test, B sample also failed, UKAD initially ruled against the Fury's and now they are appealing it after many delays by the Fury's.

 

And yet everything being reported NOW contradicts your theory.
The hearing occuring now is being reported as for deciding the matter. UKAD have re-stated in recent months that the suspension remains lifted, since last summer.
Your claim that the Furys are already serving secret doping bans seems to already have been proved wrong.

 

This is not factually correct. Traces of nandrolone were found in a urine sample from both fighters. (May 2015) The B samples were clear from both Hughie and Tyson. A subsequent blood test given by Tyson was also clear. Tyson was tested on 7 other separate occasions and all tests were clear.

What we do know is that Tyson has refused a test from UKAD (pre Klitschko 2, told them to f-off) and also admitted to taking cocaine and had a positive cocaine test from a different testing organisation (VADA).

They (Hennesey Sports and Team Fury) are bringing charges against UKAD for leaks to the press about their positive drugs test and of course damage to the reputations of both fighters, which they are right to do because no charges had been bought against either fighter.

 

As I said.....rational and intelligent. It goes without saying you fall beyond these parameters.

 

Nice story but UKAD issued this statement on 3rd August 2016:

"In response to public comments made by Tyson and Hughie Furys' representatives, UK Anti-Doping can confirm that both boxers were charged on 24 June 2016 with presence of a Prohibited Substance. Mandatory Provisional Suspensions were imposed pursuant to Article 7.9.1 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules.


The UK Anti-Doping Rules allow athletes to challenge the imposition of a Provisional Suspension and the independent National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) today lifted the athletes’ suspensions, pending full determination of the charges. These charges will be heard at a hearing before the NADP in due course.

UK Anti-Doping will not comment further on the case until due legal process has been completed."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So ...
1. UKAD themselves stated that they charged the Furys on 24 June 2016 and imposed suspensions then.
2. UKAD themselves stated that the suspensions were lifted on 3 August 2016.

But ... you and others here have other theories .... theories where apparently he was banned way prior to UKAD's claimed dated charges, banned throughout 2015, and slinked off to Germany because he couldn't fight here, and/or found guilty and banned SINCE the August 2016 date where UKAD claims his suspension was lifted pending.....

 

Yeah, because I would rather go by UKAD's own statements and the current reporting of professional journalist than believe your unsubstantiated internet garbage.

 

Exactly my point. AJ is thin and athletic looking, he is not "gigantic and unnatural" in size.

 

Fact is we don't know what happened from the failed test to the charges being leaked and UKAD being forced to make that statement. So in reality what I said has as much truth as any story about possible theories that people are out to get the Fury's. Nobody knows and that's my point we can all speculate as to what happened and have theories but both sides to the speculation have equal validity.

I simply am looking for possible answers, not stating that it's the truth, hence why I said "for all we know" as we know little real facts on this case. And again it's as valid as any idea that UKAD have done something untoward.

 

Care to provide a source for the B sample. Only articles that site B sample was clean that I have seen quote the Fury's as a source which quite frankly is ludicrous.

If B sample was actually clean there would be no case and as per UKAD's own rules they would have not pursued any case. Fury's wouldn't even need to go to NADP hearing they could get it upturned in court easily.

 

The statement that UKAD put out is fairly self-explanatory.
The Furys were charged on June 24, 2016.

I don't see any reason to doubt that.

The theories about there being more to it than that are thrown about on this forum with no solid rationale behind them, nothing in the mainstream media to back them up, nothing in UKAD's statements to back them up, nothing in the Furys' version to back them up.
No one outside of a few (mostly anti-Fury) persons on this forum are stating anything that even slightly suggests or hints at those theories.

 

Where is your source?

Carry on 'googling' pal.