BoxRec

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 17:36 So are Tyson’s mental health issues all cleared up as well now then?

mickey1975 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 17:43

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 17:36 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.

nmhz wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 19:42 Hughie has had 3 fights within the backdated 2 year ban - 2 wins and 1 loss. What does this mean for his record?

mickey1975 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 15:37

Naandrew wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 14:29 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.

Oiky wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 16:02 Why do so many people care what tyson, or anyone for that matter, does?

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

tobyh5 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 02:39 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 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 02:57 Was that the flashing thing, Mick?

nmhz wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 19:42 Hughie has had 3 fights within the backdated 2 year ban - 2 wins and 1 loss. What does this mean for his record?

Sklar wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 02:57 Was that the flashing thing, Mick?

london wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 04:30 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.

london wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 06:08 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.

mickey1975 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 16:31

dirk2686 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 16:29

mickey1975 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 15:47 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.

dalcumly wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 07:07 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 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 07:28

dalcumly wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 07:07 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.

nmhz wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 19:42 Hughie has had 3 fights within the backdated 2 year ban - 2 wins and 1 loss. What does this mean for his record?

mickey1975 wrote: ↑14 Dec 2017, 17:47

dirk2686 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 07:28

dalcumly wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 07:07 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...