BoxRec

FURY: I'LL SUE YOU Tyson Fury: British world heavyweight champion launches legal case against UK anti-doping after drug claims.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/boxing/1 ... ug-claims/

Good man

I've been waiting a while for an update for this.

I wonder if this thread will get as much traffic the same as the thread from the Trolls accusing Fury ?

CiganoBoxer wrote:I wonder if this thread will get as much traffic the same as the thread from the Trolls accusing Fury ?

Seems pretty rancid that this even came out considering his b sample was negative and all his other tests are negative.

Tomasino wrote:

CiganoBoxer wrote:I wonder if this thread will get as much traffic the same as the thread from the Trolls accusing Fury ?

Seems pretty rancid that this even came out considering his b sample was negative and all his other tests are negative.

Just another Witch hunt mate weren't it .

Hopefully he follows through with this. They should be held accountable.

CiganoBoxer wrote:I wonder if this thread will get as much traffic the same as the thread from the Trolls accusing Fury ?

Not a chance mate!

Surely he should be suing the newspaper? Am I missing something here?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Surely he should be suing the newspaper? Am I missing something here?

Unless the paper printed something that was false, in which case he could sue them for libel, I'm sure Frank would give him some tips on that, then they've done nothing wrong. UKAD have breached confidentiality which puts them at risk legally because of the effect on Tyson's reputation. If what we know so far is true then UKAD could end up paying hefty compensation and when they find who was responsible for the leak, they'll be sacked on the spot.

expe wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Surely he should be suing the newspaper? Am I missing something here?

Unless the paper printed something that was false, in which case he could sue them for libel, I'm sure Frank would give him some tips on that, then they've done nothing wrong. UKAD have breached confidentiality which puts them at risk legally because of the effect on Tyson's reputation. If what we know so far is true then UKAD could end up paying hefty compensation and when they find who was responsible for the leak, they'll be sacked on the spot.

But did they? All I saw them do was they could neither confirm or deny that he'd failed a sample. Did I miss some follow up on the story, where did the paper get their info from, it wasn't an official statement from the UKADA was it?

They say any publicity is good publicity. Keeps his name out there. Everyone who doubted him now knows he ain't a cheat. Can't wait till he beats klitschko for a second time and puts all this bollocks to bed

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

expe wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Surely he should be suing the newspaper? Am I missing something here?

Unless the paper printed something that was false, in which case he could sue them for libel, I'm sure Frank would give him some tips on that, then they've done nothing wrong. UKAD have breached confidentiality which puts them at risk legally because of the effect on Tyson's reputation. If what we know so far is true then UKAD could end up paying hefty compensation and when they find who was responsible for the leak, they'll be sacked on the spot.

But did they? All I saw them do was they could neither confirm or deny that he'd failed a sample. Did I miss some follow up on the story, where did the paper get their info from, it wasn't an official statement from the UKADA was it?

They made no real official statement other than the can't confirm or deny line, but the paper will have almost certainly got the info from within UKAD, in which case they will be held responsible for it legally, they have a duty to maintain confidentiality and one of their employees has likely breached that. Internally, someone will be responsible and if/when found, they will face disciplinary action, almost certainly dismissal.

Someone connected somehow to Fury may have leaked it for a few quid.

Loose lips sink ships.

Phones hacked.

Etc.

Someone at the doping dept may have given the story, they may not. Who knows?

Sklar wrote:Someone connected somehow to Fury may have leaked it for a few quid.

Loose lips sink ships.

Phones hacked.

Etc.

Someone at the doping dept may have given the story, they may not. Who knows?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Surely he should be suing the newspaper? Am I missing something here?

Weren't you the same pair of poofs/ trolls posting/pressing the guilt from the mirror paper "of all papers" over big Tyson's guilt on the original troll thread ??

Uhm, am I missing something? A test did turn up a negative result and once again, the contaminated supplement line comes out along with the fact he passed every other test. In the article it says he has been charged.

"The world champ’s lawyers lodged High Court papers to refute charges that he used a performance-enhancing substance. Fury, who denies the doping allegations, is demanding answers over why he has been charged and also wants damages."

tobyh5 wrote:Uhm, am I missing something? A test did turn up a negative result and once again, the contaminated supplement line comes out along with the fact he passed every other test. In the article it says he has been charged.

"The world champ’s lawyers lodged High Court papers to refute charges that he used a performance-enhancing substance. Fury, who denies the doping allegations, is demanding answers over why he has been charged and also wants damages."

No mate he's never had a test with the results even close to the fail threshold, so he's never been charged ...it was the mirror paper that falsely reported he was under investigation from a test from not even close to the fail threshold nearly two years ago , so the trolls jumped all over it , they know who they are , they will probably have more to say than a cows pudendum in a bit .....

CiganoBoxer wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

CiganoBoxer wrote:I wonder if this thread will get as much traffic the same as the thread from the Trolls accusing Fury ?

Seems pretty rancid that this even came out considering his b sample was negative and all his other tests are negative.

Just another Witch hunt mate weren't it .

It's looks that way big guy, I hope he gets what he wants out the legal action. I've really warmed to the big maniac recently. I doubted him at every step up. He's the champ and I hope he gets in great shape and does a number on Wlad, more so Joshua.

CiganoBoxer wrote:

Sklar wrote:Someone connected somehow to Fury may have leaked it for a few quid.

Loose lips sink ships.

Phones hacked.

Etc.

Someone at the doping dept may have given the story, they may not. Who knows?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Surely he should be suing the newspaper? Am I missing something here?

Weren't you the same pair of poofs/ trolls posting/pressing the guilt from the mirror paper "of all papers" over big Tyson's guilt on the original troll thread ??

Not me. I suggested it was highly unlikely the story had been pulled out of thin air, which has been proven true. That I hoped nothng came of it from Tyson's point of view, which has happened. That I'd like to know who the original source is, still do. And one glib joke.

I have hardly followed the story due to complete lack of interest but did I miss something? I did not see anywhere in the article that says he has actually been cleared?!

The article says he HAS been charged and he is demanding answers to why this is. It then uses as defence that apparently UKAD told them it was all fine.

I am reading that to mean he has been charged but he is arguing they had previously told him it was all fine and no problem and he wants to know why he is now facing these charges.

I can see how he can sue for breach of confidentiality, but not much else.

It's factually true that his first test failed, but that his second test did not, meaning he, rightly, has no case to answer, as he's been told. But it's not defamatory to say he failed a drug test, as it's protected by the defence of it being truthful.

I do think it's shameful that this was leaked, whether that's by UKDA (which I doubt, as they've got a very got track record, of not leaking much higher profile sportsman than Tyson who failed one of their tests), and he clearly has an action against that person.

Loynesy wrote:I can see how he can sue for breach of confidentiality, but not much else.

It's factually true that his first test failed, but that his second test did not, meaning he, rightly, has no case to answer, as he's been told. But it's not defamatory to say he failed a drug test, as it's protected by the defence of it being truthful.

I do think it's shameful that this was leaked, whether that's by UKDA (which I doubt, as they've got a very got track record, of not leaking much higher profile sportsman than Tyson who failed one of their tests), and he clearly has an action against that person.

x2 that's what I meant and tried to say.

Anyway when is fury fighting again? Or is he too busy buying drinks for everyone?

Loynesy wrote:I can see how he can sue for breach of confidentiality, but not much else.

It's factually true that his first test failed, but that his second test did not, meaning he, rightly, has no case to answer, as he's been told. But it's not defamatory to say he failed a drug test, as it's protected by the defence of it being truthful.

I do think it's shameful that this was leaked, whether that's by UKDA (which I doubt, as they've got a very got track record, of not leaking much higher profile sportsman than Tyson who failed one of their tests), and he clearly has an action against that person.

I'm confused, was there ever an announcement from UKADA, or was it just a leak from someone who worked for them to the newspaper. Despite Cigano's suggestion that I'm a gay troll who has it in for Tyson that isn't the case, a story appeared in the newspaper, and it appears that one of Tyson's samples came back positive, that much at least seems to be true - I'm not sure I can see what grounds for legal action there are - if someone leaked the failed sample information, that is not the fault of UKADA, it's that individual.

We'll see how this pans out.

No, the UKDA put out an express statement saying that they don't comment on claims until they reach enforcement status.

Someone leaked it. Strongly suspect that this is a lawsuit to garner headlines rather than be pursued. I will get one of my junior guys to check if court papers have actually been filed.