Tyson Fury UKAD Hearing Starts Monday, Facing 4 Year Ban

[Boxerbeetle]

So are Tyson’s mental health issues all cleared up as well now then?

[mickey1975]

So are Tyson’s mental health issues all cleared up as well now then?

Hopefully. I think it was brought on by the strain of being falsely accused. Training regularly will help too. Exercise increases serotonin. We can only keep our fingers crossed, mate.

[bripez]

So are Tyson’s mental health issues all cleared up as well now then?

Hopefully. I think it was brought on by the strain of being falsely accused. Training regularly will help too. Exercise increases serotonin. We can only keep our fingers crossed, mate.

#prayfortyson

#itsnothisfault

#anyonewhodisagreesisclearlyaracistand/orhater

[nmhz]

Hughie has had 3 fights within the backdated 2 year ban - 2 wins and 1 loss. What does this mean for his record?

[jameswilson]

Hughie has had 3 fights within the backdated 2 year ban - 2 wins and 1 loss. What does this mean for his record?

#justiceforfredkassi

[nitro5912]

Here is the actual decision.


https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... e_Fury.pdf

As I've said all along UKAD are not fit for purpose there needs to be serious investigations into how they operate.

The 16 months delay in charging them for the doping violation still hasn't been explained and that is ultimately why Tyson has been cleared of refusing a drugs test and why the case has ended in a compromise . I expecting him to be banned for the refusal and cleared for the Nandrolone.

People can celebrate about Fury coming back but Tyson and Hughie are now convicted drugs cheats.

Whyte and Ortiz are convicted drug cheats, AJ a convicted drug dealer, even Wilder was caught with drugs in the car. Tyson never knowingly took anything illegal.

And peter fury ran a drug empire which he probably still gets the fruits off, john fury gouged a mans eye out. Not sure what this has to do with AJ,wilder,povetkin or ortiz

There is no way on earth tyson never took anything knowingly. If he didn't he wouldn't have accepted the charges espcially as ukad couldn't nail the proof. He could have taken ukad to the cleaners if he was innocent or he took something.

Funny how everyone who gets caught taking PEDs is innocent but all accept the bans.

The wild boar excuse is up there withkid galahads excuse of his brother spiked him.

[Sklar]

Why do so many people care what tyson, or anyone for that matter, does?

It's like they're old bill, or grasses

He and his cousin have admitted using performance enhancing drugs. Lots of boxing people care about that because it's not allowed in the sport. Fairly straightfotward.

Agree with you that unrelated matters should not be brought up.

[tobyh5]

I say it everytime, funny old world we live in with honourable, decent people and almost a utopia in which no one takes PED's and cheats knowingly. Has any athlete who has failed a test ever admitted it? So if we believe them all, we are to believe no one cheats. And everytime, there are people shouting how they are innocent. Those people are never neutral and have a clear bias (Mickey in this instance).

No way he is taking and acceptable this charge which will always stick to his legacy if innocent, not consistent with any interview or how he projects himself unless guilty. And having a fight result removed from his record? Give me a break with the innocence claims.

Put it this way, No way on earth I would ever stop fighting this charge if it was me and I had not taken anything, would any of you just admit something you had not done?

[Sklar]

He's not denying the drugs were in his system. He's denying he knowingly took them. He's accepted he should have done a better job of monitoring what he was putting into his body.

He can, therefore, continue to claim innocence of knowingly cheating. Some people may even believe him.

[mickey1975]

I say it everytime, funny old world we live in with honourable, decent people and almost a utopia in which no one takes PED's and cheats knowingly. Has any athlete who has failed a test ever admitted it? So if we believe them all, we are to believe no one cheats. And everytime, there are people shouting how they are innocent. Those people are never neutral and have a clear bias (Mickey in this instance).

No way he is taking and acceptable this charge which will always stick to his legacy if innocent, not consistent with any interview or how he projects himself unless guilty. And having a fight result removed from his record? Give me a break with the innocence claims.

Put it this way, No way on earth I would ever stop fighting this charge if it was me and I had not taken anything, would any of you just admit something you had not done?

Yes, I've accepted a plea bargain on something I was completely innocent of, on solicitors advice, as I didn't fancy the trial and would have been locked up if I got found guilty.

[Sklar]

Was that the flashing thing, Mick?

[mickey1975]

Was that the flashing thing, Mick?

No.

[Jack B]

Hughie has had 3 fights within the backdated 2 year ban - 2 wins and 1 loss. What does this mean for his record?

Good question. Is it just me or is a bit of a fudge that somebody can be given a backdated ban..... during which period they fought 3 times?!

Seems like a complete fudge to me?!

[dirk2686]

Was that the flashing thing, Mick?

Mick was telling everyone Tyson was ready to take UKAD to the cleaners. Today Tyson's record includes a two year drug ban and a win against Hammer has been declared a no contest after Tyson admitted violating anti doping rules.

Mick can keep his head in the sand, his fingers in his ears, and keep repeating to himself 'it WAS just wild boar it WAS just wild boar it WAS just wild boar' but nobody really believes it.

Furys a drug cheat - plain and simple. I'm glad he's back and has a path towards fighting again, (albeit he needs to lose ten stone and knock off a couple of warm ups and basically stay on the wagon for two years), but let's not dress this up as a victory.

[london]

Dillian Whyte received a ridiculous ban for drinking Jack3d that contained a stimulant NOT banned for training it just shouldn’t be in the boxers system fight night.

UKAD fully accepted Whyte took the drink not knowing it contained a banned substance but under the strict liability rule the athlete is fully responsible for what goes into their system and he should of carried out more checks.

Bermaine Stiverne failed a test for the same indgredient and received no ban.

Enzi Macrinelli received 6 months and Tony Dodson 5 months for the exactly same indgredient.

Tyson and Hughie failed a test for Nandrolone which is banned IN and OUT of competition.

[mickey1975]

Dillian Whyte received a ridiculous ban for drinking Jack3d that contained a stimulant NOT banned for training it just shouldn’t be in the boxers system fight night.

UKAD fully accepted Whyte took the drink not knowing it contained a banned substance but under the strict liability rule the athlete is fully responsible for what goes into their system and he should of carried out more checks.

Bermaine Stiverne failed a test for the same indgredient and received no ban.

Enzi Macrinelli received 6 months and Tony Dodson 5 months for the exactly same indgredient.

Tyson and Hughie failed a test for Nandrolone which is banned IN and OUT of competition.

UKAD are useless. Obviously the boxers you mention don't have the backing Tyson has. Good point about Enzo, I forgot about him. He never gets referred to as a drug cheat, either.

[london]

Enzo and Whyte took the over the counter drinks not knowing they contained a substance that’s not banned for training but shouldnt be in their system on fight night.

If a boxer wanted to cheat they’d take a proper steroid not a mild stimulant.

The Fury’s got banned for eating copious amounts of uncastrated wild boar that contained a substance, Nandrolone, that is banned both in training and competition.

[BitPlayer]

Enzo and Whyte took the over the counter drinks not knowing they contained a substance that’s not banned for training but shouldnt be in their system on fight night.

If a boxer wanted to cheat they’d take a proper steroid not a mild stimulant.

The Fury’s got banned for eating copious amounts of uncastrated wild boar that contained a substance, Nandrolone, that is banned both in training and competition.

And Erkan Teper was on every PED known to man and boxed within and only year, Povetkin was on some serious anabolics and only lost a title shot.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Nearly as stupid as a poster who called Tyson a fat bastard who couldn't be bothered to defend himself only yesterday? Whilst Tysons lawyers had already sorted the deal out

Well, he's now a fat bastard and a convicted drug cheat.

As a big Tyson fan, I wonder why you're celebrating this. He could have been found innocent of all charges. Indeed, many said that would happen and UKAD were facing bankruptcy. Instead he's now a two year banned drug cheat. It casts a huge shadow over his career.

Does it? Nobody mentions it when Whyte boxes or the countless others are discussed from RJJ to Holyfield.

To be fair most people don't really care about Whyte. He's not that big a deal.

I wish people would stop apologising for Fury, and acting like the whole world is against him, and thumping on endlessly about Joshua's former conviction. Move on.

[dalcumly]

What an absolute utter shambles! UKAD have made a complete mess of their processes allowing a loophole to appear which was fully exploited by the Fury's.
Because of the loophole and potential legal suit made by the Fury's UKAD might have been bankrupted ( they have an annual income of £8 million), so they reach an agreement with the Fury's, a retrospective 2 year ban and everybody involved breathes a sigh of relief.
However, the 2 year ban was imposed by UKAD not the BBB of C. When Fury applies for his licence how does the interview go ?
The public announcement states that he unknowingly took PEDs and was banned as a result. What does the Board do because they're not bound by the UKAD decision. What will be foremost on the Boards decision will be how they would fair in a trial if they refused Fury's licence.
The Board have a responsibility to all clean boxers, and fans, to make it clear that PED's are totally unacceptable in the sport. They also have to ensure that any future circumstance will be treated similarly. Big decision!!!
Finally , NO ONE, in any sport UNKNOWINGLY takes PEDs. Anyone with half a brain has to have some sort of clue what's going on.

[dirk2686]

What an absolute utter shambles! UKAD have made a complete mess of their processes allowing a loophole to appear which was fully exploited by the Fury's.
Because of the loophole and potential legal suit made by the Fury's UKAD might have been bankrupted ( they have an annual income of £8 million), so they reach an agreement with the Fury's, a retrospective 2 year ban and everybody involved breathes a sigh of relief.
However, the 2 year ban was imposed by UKAD not the BBB of C. When Fury applies for his licence how does the interview go ?
The public announcement states that he unknowingly took PEDs and was banned as a result. What does the Board do because they're not bound by the UKAD decision. What will be foremost on the Boards decision will be how they would fair in a trial if they refused Fury's licence.
The Board have a responsibility to all clean boxers, and fans, to make it clear that PED's are totally unacceptable in the sport. They also have to ensure that any future circumstance will be treated similarly. Big decision!!!
Finally , NO ONE, in any sport UNKNOWINGLY takes PEDs. Anyone with half a brain has to have some sort of clue what's going on.

The only people backing the boar excuse on here are the people who even if he'd been found guilty as sin and caught red handed would still maintain he'd done nothing wrong. Mick is the biggest fanboy on here by miles.

[banjo]

So what's the story here? I've heard the Hammer fight will be changed to a NC and he can resume his career as soon as he gets his license back.

[mickey1975]

What an absolute utter shambles! UKAD have made a complete mess of their processes allowing a loophole to appear which was fully exploited by the Fury's.
Because of the loophole and potential legal suit made by the Fury's UKAD might have been bankrupted ( they have an annual income of £8 million), so they reach an agreement with the Fury's, a retrospective 2 year ban and everybody involved breathes a sigh of relief.
However, the 2 year ban was imposed by UKAD not the BBB of C. When Fury applies for his licence how does the interview go ?
The public announcement states that he unknowingly took PEDs and was banned as a result. What does the Board do because they're not bound by the UKAD decision. What will be foremost on the Boards decision will be how they would fair in a trial if they refused Fury's licence.
The Board have a responsibility to all clean boxers, and fans, to make it clear that PED's are totally unacceptable in the sport. They also have to ensure that any future circumstance will be treated similarly. Big decision!!!
Finally , NO ONE, in any sport UNKNOWINGLY takes PEDs. Anyone with half a brain has to have some sort of clue what's going on.

The only people backing the boar excuse on here are the people who even if he'd been found guilty as sin and caught red handed would still maintain he'd done nothing wrong. Mick is the biggest fanboy on here by miles.

Fanboy? Ok, Dirk...

[Boxerbeetle]

Hughie has had 3 fights within the backdated 2 year ban - 2 wins and 1 loss. What does this mean for his record?

Could those fights be changed to a no-contest? If so, that means...Hughie is an unbeaten fighter

[jamesmcdonnell]

What an absolute utter shambles! UKAD have made a complete mess of their processes allowing a loophole to appear which was fully exploited by the Fury's.
Because of the loophole and potential legal suit made by the Fury's UKAD might have been bankrupted ( they have an annual income of £8 million), so they reach an agreement with the Fury's, a retrospective 2 year ban and everybody involved breathes a sigh of relief.
However, the 2 year ban was imposed by UKAD not the BBB of C. When Fury applies for his licence how does the interview go ?
The public announcement states that he unknowingly took PEDs and was banned as a result. What does the Board do because they're not bound by the UKAD decision. What will be foremost on the Boards decision will be how they would fair in a trial if they refused Fury's licence.
The Board have a responsibility to all clean boxers, and fans, to make it clear that PED's are totally unacceptable in the sport. They also have to ensure that any future circumstance will be treated similarly. Big decision!!!
Finally , NO ONE, in any sport UNKNOWINGLY takes PEDs. Anyone with half a brain has to have some sort of clue what's going on.

The only people backing the boar excuse on here are the people who even if he'd been found guilty as sin and caught red handed would still maintain he'd done nothing wrong. Mick is the biggest fanboy on here by miles.

Fanboy? Ok, Dirk...

Oh come on Mickey. You've got to admit it's pretty ludicrous.

I mean, Mick is a promoter, or is it manager, but come on fella.