The A sample from both tested positive but the B samples did not. A blood sample from Fury also tested negative. Team Fury have a legal (claiming for damages) case against UCAD which need to be resolved before they can conclude the hearing. Because of the legal proceedings there is not much being said about it.
Says the fella who thinks there is a High court super injunction on the matter because there hasent been any reporting of the events in the press. :-D
There is an injunction. I said nothing about it being a high court super injunction, they are your words.
A while ago you were calling it a super injunction, where is the evidence for this injunction. Zero hits for it online.
It's simple. If Peter Fury is allowed to enter NZ, Hughie Fury fights Parker. If he isn't, then no. The resolution of Peter's entry should not be left to the last minute by the Furys.
Hopefully it is cancelled soon as it is a waste of space fight anyway. Parker needs a better test and even Dillian Whyte would provide a greater test than Hughie.
Right after you show me some proof of an injunction... Edit - I'm completely wrong about that, it was another poster. Sorry for the mix up. But seeing as you're 100% certain there is an injunction, just a regular one, not a super - dooper one. How do you know this? Can you show some proof of it?
You can't provide proof because I never said it, as the archive on here shows. Unlucky kid, nice try.
Sorry my edit wasn't fast enough, I admit I'm wrong, it wasn't you. So now we've got that out of the way can we have a bit of proof on the regular, normal, everyday injunction?
If you understand the principles of inference when applied to syllogistic logic, then you will get there.
Hahahaha so in laymans terms you're making an assumption. An inference is supposed to be based on evidence, would you care to share this evidence? Something tangible please :-D
lawslaw's idea is that the Furys are stupid and amateurish enough to fail a test for nandrolone (and all the other stupid things they've said and done, obvious little lies, etc. , which we've all seen ) ......... yet clever/shrewd/influential enough to have a court injunction" gagging order" solidly in place for 6 months. Whatever. We'll see.
I think they may not be smart enough to sort out an injunction themselves, but definitely rich enough to hire someone who is. Not saying that is the case but you've got to admit it is really strange that there is absolutely no information on what is happening, especially something of this scale.
