Tyson Fury record update

[Bushlun]

Fury's record on this website shows as a win vs Christian Hammer but that result was disqualified and is officially a no contest. His record should also therefore show 31 bouts, 29 wins, 1 draw.

Understand many people won't like it, but what is on this website is factually inaccurate

[John]

You are wrong, the BBBofC did not retrospectively change the result.

[Bushlun]

You're wrong, as per the statement on the UKAD website.

https://ukad.org.uk/news/article/UKAD-a ... -statement

"The proceedings have therefore been resolved on the following basis: the anti-doping rule violations based on the reported presence of elevated levels of nandrolone metabolites are upheld, the refusal charge is withdrawn, Hughie and Tyson Fury each receive a two-year period of ineligibility, and their results from their respective fights in February 2015 are disqualified. Taking into account that no adverse analytical findings or adverse passport findings were reported in respect of any of the urine and/or blood samples collected from either boxer after February 2015 (including from Tyson Fury on 11 May 2015, 16 July 2015, 8 October 2015, 17 October 2015, 11 November 2015, 13 July 2016, and 4 May 2017; and from Hughie Fury on 11 May 2015, 25 July 2015, 8 October 2015, 17 October 2015, 14 November 2015, 18 July 2016, 29 September 2016, 18 February 2017, 19 April 2017, 8 August 2017, 29 August 2017, and 23 September 2017), their competition results after February 2015 are not disqualified. Taking into account the delays in results management that meant charges were not brought in respect of the nandrolone findings until June 2016, and the provisional suspensions that Tyson and Hughie Fury have already effectively served, the two year period of ineligibility is backdated to 13 December 2015, and therefore expires at midnight on 12 December 2017

The British Boxing Board of Control has also agreed to the resolution of these proceedings on this basis."

[John]

UKAD have no authority over the BBBofC and the BBBofC rules did not allow a result to be retrospectively changed.

[Bushlun]

Have you got a reference to that rule? UKAD are able to impose sanctions and their legal statement clearly states that BBBoC agree to the terms, I''ve not seen anything in writing to suggest otherwise. Happy to be proved wrong

[John]

UKAD is not a statutory body they are just a limited company they cannot enforce anything. The BBBofC rules at the time prevented a decision from being over-turned. Remember how the ring announcer used to say "the referee's decision is final".

[Bushlun]

That's true of VADA but UKAD are able to impose bans no? VADA are purely advisory but UKAD can (and in this case did) charge. That makes them more than just a separate ltd company. Also without trying to be pedantic I've posted a legal statement that stated BBBoC have agreed to the terms. The NC was also reported in every major UK news outlet. The counter argument thus far is unreferenced. Simply saying something is true doesn't make it so.

The referee comment is, with respect, naive. Clearly there are situations where if foul play was discovered the referees decision could be overturned. There is precedence for this. The Charlie Edwards v Martinez fight was declared NC by Sulaiman and Charles Giles (chairman of BBBoC) after the fight had been given to Martinez by Mark Lyson.

I have contacted BBBoC for clarification but no response to date.

[claudevsq]

John is the owner/founder of BoxRec and lives in England. You can believe him what he tells you. Even if BBBoC would give you a different answer, which they won't, that would still not change the slightest bit...

[Mighty Atom]

UKAD is not a statutory body they are just a limited company they cannot enforce anything. The BBBofC rules at the time prevented a decision from being over-turned. Remember how the ring announcer used to say "the referee's decision is final".

Just to make a correction here. UKAD does enforce decisions, they just do the investigative work and charge the sportsperson if they break doping rules.

The statutory body is the NADP (National Anti-Doping Panel) which the BBBOC have agreed they will be legally bound to respect their decisions even if overrules their own rules and regulations.

Basically UKAD are the police, NADP is the courts.

[John]

UKAD is not a statutory body they are just a limited company they cannot enforce anything. The BBBofC rules at the time prevented a decision from being over-turned. Remember how the ring announcer used to say "the referee's decision is final".

Just to make a correction here. UKAD does enforce decisions, they just do the investigative work and charge the sportsperson if they break doping rules.

The statutory body is the NADP (National Anti-Doping Panel) which the BBBOC have agreed they will be legally bound to respect their decisions even if overrules their own rules and regulations.

Basically UKAD are the police, NADP is the courts.

Sorry but that is just nonsense, UKAD are a non profit limited company just like any other and thus they have no statutory authority. They rely on the goodwill of the parties involved. They are not part of the government like the police and courts are but a Quango. If they wanted to enforce anything they would have to go to court just like any other company. And there's the rub, they never do because they exists on a shoestring and are very averse to a) going bust and b) everyone realising they are a paper tiger with no teeth.

[Mighty Atom]

I can't disagree with you about UKAD but you do understand the difference between UKAD and the NAPD don't you?

And can I change the bit in the last post to read?
"UKAD act like the police in this case, NAPD act as a legally binding tribunal with the agreement of both parties"

[John]

I can't disagree with you about UKAD but you do understand the difference between UKAD and the NAPD don't you?

Yes, they are both quangos with zero, no, none, nill statutory authority.

And can I change the bit in the last post to read?
"UKAD act like the police in this case, NAPD act as a legally binding tribunal with the agreement of both parties"

Once again, they may "act like the police" but they are not the Police. They have no statutory powers whatsoever. They cannot enforce anything, they need to go to the courts to do that. And they know very well what would happen if they went to court and tried to enforce their tribunal decision on the BBBofC to change the bout decision. The big problem they have is that the contract entered into with them by the BBBofC is preceded by the contract that Fury entered into with the BBBofC prior to the fight that the decision is final. That would be asking the court to retrospectively invalidate a legally binding contract with Tyson in favour of a new contract with UKAD. Now a question for you, what do you think the court would do in that situation?

[Mighty Atom]

The problem here is that, as part of the process that led to Tyson getting a 2 year ban instead of the usual 4, he and his lawyers agreed to the Hammer fight being a no contest. It's there, plain to see, in the tribunal decision.

If the BBBOC insists it's still a Fury win they're actually contradicting what Tyson has agreed with them.

But, after all this, I have to agree with you to keep it as a Fury win until the BBBOC come out and confirm the result publicly.
Even if them not recording as a NC seems stupid and hypocritical on their part

[Bushlun]

Which actually I understand and I think you make sound factual points. But this for me it feels irresponsible to claim a record as a fact without then approaching BBBoC or having any sort of written statement clarifying the discrepancy.

What in fact seems to be happening is that BBBoC have released no statement disputing the UKAD statement but because they haven't released a statement confirming it then UKAD's statement is disregarded. Similarly because my post was based on a UKAD statement it was simply dismissed since it would need to go to court, but that statement was the settlement statement from a legal case. Surely the resolution to this is not to ignore the only written evidence we have but in fact to seek clarification?

As I've said the whole way along surely a record has to be evidence based. If there is a dispute it is absolutely correct to not amend until clarified but why is this not being clarified? Can we reference the tribunal documentation?

I am not trying to insult anyone or discredit anyone but it seems to me that this is something which is 100% unresolved still, I'm just a fan, a nothing really. But wouldn't it be a positive thing to end the uncertainty?

All just questions, not trying to piss in anyones cornflakes here!

[John]

You are making a lot of assumptions. We are the official record keeper for the BBBofC and we record the results as they instruct us.

[oogiebe]

Which actually I understand and I think you make sound factual points. But this for me it feels irresponsible to claim a record as a fact without then approaching BBBoC or having any sort of written statement clarifying the discrepancy.

What in fact seems to be happening is that BBBoC have released no statement disputing the UKAD statement but because they haven't released a statement confirming it then UKAD's statement is disregarded. Similarly because my post was based on a UKAD statement it was simply dismissed since it would need to go to court, but that statement was the settlement statement from a legal case. Surely the resolution to this is not to ignore the only written evidence we have but in fact to seek clarification?

As I've said the whole way along surely a record has to be evidence based. If there is a dispute it is absolutely correct to not amend until clarified but why is this not being clarified? Can we reference the tribunal documentation?

I am not trying to insult anyone or discredit anyone but it seems to me that this is something which is 100% unresolved still, I'm just a fan, a nothing really. But wouldn't it be a positive thing to end the uncertainty?

All just questions, not trying to piss in anyones cornflakes here!

Sounds like your question is for the BBBoC. Write them a letter explaining your question and get back to us.

[Mighty Atom]

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.c ... ad-ruling/

I guess this is the definitive answer to the question

[SteveO]

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.c ... ad-ruling/

I guess this is the definitive answer to the question

That's that sorted then
The win stands.