Team Fury: we flunked roid test due to eating boar entrails

Boar chitlins? Who'da thunk it!

 

Them boar wont fill Tyson up
He will be hunting Bigfoot next

 

Yea, the excuse will not fly. It doesn't matter cuz it seems the OP is all over it creating this narrative lol. And as I wrote earlier, it doesn't matter what his excuse is. Accidental ingestion of steroids is not excusable. Many have tried and many have failed. Obviously taking this logic further, once they start accepting accidental ingestion of steroids, they might as well stop PEDs testing. No point to it anymore...

 

Only thing is, plenty of boxers have presented cases of having tested positive due to banned substances in over the counter products which didn't have the ingredients listed. Surely if all is to remain consistent the Furys should be told they need to be more aware of what they are putting in their bodies, as the research you have found is freely available on the Internet.

That being said I think it is a big stretch of the imagination, and taking into account their teams history of lies I think it's fairly obvious what's really going on.

 

Tyson and Hughie are honest god fearing men. They wouldn't lie.

Actually I have seen several cases of false positive drug tests from eating Wild Boar.

 

True, but things are taken on a case-by-case basis.
We don't know the full details of their defence.
I'm not even attempting to defend them, I'm pointing out that they might have actually constructed a decent defence case.
Let's say, just for example, they have testimony to suggest they bought "free range pigs liver" in good faith. Are they expected to google "uncastrated boar and nandrolone" before they consume the liver ?

The fact is, athletes don't send every morsel of food and every sip of liquid to a lab before they consume it, and aren't actually expected to. It would be impossible. There are limits within reason.
You're correct in what you are saying but the judges of these cases do acknowledge grey areas of responsibility.

Yeah, but that's besides the point.
A judging panel would be expected to decide a case based on the relevant facts of the case and nothing else. They do so by weighing the evidence for prosecution against evidence on the defence. "history of lies" probably wouldn't be presented as evidence.

 

If you believe this, you're a f***ing idiot.