Tyson Furys UKAD hearing 6th Feb 2017

If they remove the win, like they did with Toney for example, then it's hard to give him that validation.
Ring for example would remove him from their championship if found guilty. It's their policy.

Look at it this way.
VADA acted like UKAD (instead of how it really went) and Povetkin just fakes an injury to postpone the Wilder fight, which then took place say 2 months later with no positive tests inbetween.
Povetkin beats Wilder and becomes the WBC champion, but later news of the failed test starts to surface and then Povetkin vacates his belt and claims mental issues about everyone coming after Russian athletes for 'unproven' accusations.

Would you say Povetkin was just a victim and the actual WBC champ?

 

James Toney tested positive for the actual fight in which he was declared champion. The announcement was swift and the result was overturned within a few days.
If it turns out Fury is guilty of PED use around the time or the Hammer fight it doesn't necessarily invalidate his win over Wladimir, and I don't think any officials or representatives will claim that.

When did Tyson Fury fake an injury to postpone the first Wladimir fight ? I thought it was the other way round.
Wlad-Fury took place 9 months after Fury-Hammer. He was cleared to fight. He passed all tests concerning the world title match.

This looks different to your hypothetical Povetkin scenario, which I don't really have an opinion on anyway. In such a case the WBC will do what they like.

The point I'm making is that it would unprecendented and arguably harsh to have the Wlad-Fury result declared an "NC". Even if Fury was guilty for the Hammer fight. He was offered the world title fight as a mandatory challenger, he apparently passed all tests surrounding the fight. If UKAD and the BBBoC failed to bar him or inform the world bodies or whoever that isn't his fault.
I mean, if this is what sport has come to, all the more reason to do away with this drugs testing farce.

 

People leak nuclear secrets on Wikileaks. I'm not convinced that Tyson Fury meets the standard of "he must not be named" by people who whisper what's up to journalists.

 

It was about the possibility with a retroactive ban.

 

Yeah, most likely this isn't much of a story. When sentenced is passed it will be reported but for the time being the tabloids aren't eager to plaster more "Tyson Fury Drugs Guilt" headlines around, that's so 2016.

 

I just don't think it's ever been done before. It's unprecented in boxing. Therefore he could cry unfair treatment. Whatever the technicalities, it would be a first.

 

that's why I don't think the Fury's would take that offer if that's on the table, but rather be banned for a while longer before returning. (if found guilty)

 

From what I have read, there is no conclusive date to when he tested positive. I saw something saying February 2015, but considering how this has been kept under the rug, there is a decent chance there is more dirt out there. Obviously steroids have a prolonged effect, so maybe they will act swiftly and take his win away.

Not that it really mattered, IMO. I wanted Wlad to win but he was so tentative. Didn't really look like steroids helped Tyson win anything, but then again there is a standard to be set here.

 

No story in the British press is ever too small for a "Tyson Fury SHOCKER" headline.

 

sounds similar to micheal jordans gambling suspension.

 

You don't need to be convinced, but if a judge has ruled that there should be an injunction and then you breach it, then you are going to prison.

 

Of course I am not going to 'back these statements up', as you put it. If I provided information to do so , then I would be breaking the law.

Your argument is moot. Of course dates where hearings take place are allowed to be reported. An injunction does not stop this, just the results and content.

 

Doubtful at best.

 

It is also worth noting that the NADP who hear the UKAD case, gave DARTS player Richie Burnett an 18 month ban for testing positive for cocaine. The standard ban is 2 years but he was given a lesser ban due to mitigating circumstances.

Bearing in mind Fury has failed coke tests, tested positive for PEDs and refused other tests, then we should expect a VERY lengthy ban if the NADP are shown to be consistent. As peoples lives are at risk in the ring, I would suggest a 4 year ban should be the minimum.

 

I hope he doesn't get banned for long but I suspect they will come down quite hard on the cocaine thing.
The BBBoC don't want boxers thinking they can get away with using recreational drugs anyway.