BoxRec

Still all very quiet on this one! Looking online it looks like Fury is no longer in London , does this mean it's finished or just that Fury is no longer required to be in attendance!?!

Regardless of what Furys have or haven't done, the way UKAD have conducted is ridiculous.

These things should be sorted within a few months , not a few years.

It's a fvcking joke.

Complete farce - and the inactivity of both Tyson and Hughie give me the impression that they are merely serving their bans in anticipation of getting a guilty on something (as any ban seems to get backdated to the date of the test).

Fury wont get a ban.

Ive been reading something that if the BBBoC ban Fury he will be getting letters to go with other bodies and fight elsewhere. I'm not sure who is responsible for suspending Fury that no other licensing body can give Fury a licence and fight for them and cash in while Fury is suspended by the BBBoC.

Can you imagine fury getting banned for 2 years and Fury fighting under another body while the BBBoC are looking over the fence? Not going to happen. The BBBoC will accept any excuse and let Fury carry on so they do not miss out of lots of Kching!

He should buy a house on the Isle of Man, get registered for tax and boxing there.

mimmy123 wrote:Fury wont get a ban.

Ive been reading something that if the BBBoC ban Fury he will be getting letters to go with other bodies and fight elsewhere. I'm not sure who is responsible for suspending Fury that no other licensing body can give Fury a licence and fight for them and cash in while Fury is suspended by the BBBoC.

Can you imagine fury getting banned for 2 years and Fury fighting under another body while the BBBoC are looking over the fence? Not going to happen. The BBBoC will accept any excuse and let Fury carry on so they do not miss out of lots of Kching!

He can't get a license anywhere as they are all affiliated. Peter Fury said this.

Also abide by WADA rules.

bripez wrote:Complete farce - and the inactivity of both Tyson and Hughie give me the impression that they are merely serving their bans in anticipation of getting a guilty on something (as any ban seems to get backdated to the date of the test).

It's interesting if they get banned for nandrolone as they have fought since. Probably be last fight date but I am unaware of any ban where a athlete has competed after testing positive m.

That whole thing is a farce and shows how unfit for purpose UKAD are.

It's Tyson refusing the drugs test which I think will get him banned.

That will be dated from Sept 2016.

Will know in the next few weeks.

mimmy123 wrote:Fury wont get a ban.

Ive been reading something that if the BBBoC ban Fury he will be getting letters to go with other bodies and fight elsewhere. I'm not sure who is responsible for suspending Fury that no other licensing body can give Fury a licence and fight for them and cash in while Fury is suspended by the BBBoC.

Can you imagine fury getting banned for 2 years and Fury fighting under another body while the BBBoC are looking over the fence? Not going to happen. The BBBoC will accept any excuse and let Fury carry on so they do not miss out of lots of Kching!

At least get your facts right before you try and slag off the board. The decision, as suggested in the thread title, has nothing to do with them, it's a UKAD hearing and responsibility for the decision lies with them. If they chose to ban Fury, he can't get another professional licence because he'd be serving a drugs ban. Exactly what money they're supposed to be making from Fury and who for I'm not exactly sure.

As for the hearing itself, based on what we know up to now, the 'failed' test from February 2015 wasn't actually failed as the B test came back negative, which clears Hughie entirely. That leaves Tyson with two issues, his cocaine use and telling the testers to fornicate off when they knocked on his door. There's a good chance that those, in particular the problem with the testers, will be able to be put down to his mental health issues and the state of mind he was in at that time. In which case with any ban being backdated he should be able to fight this year.

expe wrote:There's a good chance that those, in particular the problem with the testers, will be able to be put down to his mental health issues and the state of mind he was in at that time. In which case with any ban being backdated he should be able to fight this year.

That wouldn't surprise me.

What exactly are Tysons mental health issues?

As far as I can see they were self diagnosed as I have never read that he has been assessed by a doctor (although I am sure they could find a doctor somewhere who would hapilly confirm what Tyson and Peter have tweeted).

KiwiRider wrote:He should buy a house on the Isle of Man, get registered for tax and boxing there.

Wouldn't the Isle of Man sink if you put 90,000 people on it?

bripez wrote:

expe wrote:There's a good chance that those, in particular the problem with the testers, will be able to be put down to his mental health issues and the state of mind he was in at that time. In which case with any ban being backdated he should be able to fight this year.

That wouldn't surprise me.

What exactly are Tysons mental health issues?

As far as I can see they were self diagnosed as I have never read that he has been assessed by a doctor (although I am sure they could find a doctor somewhere who would hapilly confirm what Tyson and Peter have tweeted).

The mental health issues are self-diagnosed and bear all the hallmarks of someone who knows nothing about mental illness.

expe wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:Fury wont get a ban.

Ive been reading something that if the BBBoC ban Fury he will be getting letters to go with other bodies and fight elsewhere. I'm not sure who is responsible for suspending Fury that no other licensing body can give Fury a licence and fight for them and cash in while Fury is suspended by the BBBoC.

Can you imagine fury getting banned for 2 years and Fury fighting under another body while the BBBoC are looking over the fence? Not going to happen. The BBBoC will accept any excuse and let Fury carry on so they do not miss out of lots of Kching!

At least get your facts right before you try and slag off the board. The decision, as suggested in the thread title, has nothing to do with them, it's a UKAD hearing and responsibility for the decision lies with them. If they chose to ban Fury, he can't get another professional licence because he'd be serving a drugs ban. Exactly what money they're supposed to be making from Fury and who for I'm not exactly sure.

As for the hearing itself, based on what we know up to now, the 'failed' test from February 2015 wasn't actually failed as the B test came back negative, which clears Hughie entirely. That leaves Tyson with two issues, his cocaine use and telling the testers to eff off when they knocked on his door. There's a good chance that those, in particular the problem with the testers, will be able to be put down to his mental health issues and the state of mind he was in at that time. In which case with any ban being backdated he should be able to fight this year.

Why is it going to hearing if a b sample come back negative ?

There was talk of a negative b sample but nothing has come out officially. There are so many questions regarding that nandrolone charge that need answering by ukad.

If they clear furys or ban them it proves UKAD are not fit for purpose.

expe wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:Fury wont get a ban.

Ive been reading something that if the BBBoC ban Fury he will be getting letters to go with other bodies and fight elsewhere. I'm not sure who is responsible for suspending Fury that no other licensing body can give Fury a licence and fight for them and cash in while Fury is suspended by the BBBoC.

Can you imagine fury getting banned for 2 years and Fury fighting under another body while the BBBoC are looking over the fence? Not going to happen. The BBBoC will accept any excuse and let Fury carry on so they do not miss out of lots of Kching!

At least get your facts right before you try and slag off the board. The decision, as suggested in the thread title, has nothing to do with them, it's a UKAD hearing and responsibility for the decision lies with them. If they chose to ban Fury, he can't get another professional licence because he'd be serving a drugs ban. Exactly what money they're supposed to be making from Fury and who for I'm not exactly sure.

As for the hearing itself, based on what we know up to now, the 'failed' test from February 2015 wasn't actually failed as the B test came back negative, which clears Hughie entirely. That leaves Tyson with two issues, his cocaine use and telling the testers to eff off when they knocked on his door. There's a good chance that those, in particular the problem with the testers, will be able to be put down to his mental health issues and the state of mind he was in at that time. In which case with any ban being backdated he should be able to fight this year.

Where have I actually slagged off anyone in my reply?

Secondly i said i had read something suggesting what i had written.

Then i said i was unclear who would be banning Fury and who could profit and who could lose out.

I never slag off anyone.

What a f*cking shambles this is

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/39903265

It took nearly 11 months to get to a hearing and now this. UKAD needs to fold and start again from scratch. The first failed test is from nearly 2 and a half years ago and people have saying ( such as Fr@nk w@rren ) that a b sample was clean !!,!

It is simply not fit for purpose

Wow. Even if the Furys end up being 100% guilty, I reckon they'd still stand a good chance of successfully suing UKAD for the way this has been handled. What an absolute fvcking joke of an organisation.

Rob3_142 wrote:

KiwiRider wrote:He should buy a house on the Isle of Man, get registered for tax and boxing there.

Wouldn't the Isle of Man sink if you put 90,000 people on it?

Nah, but it would sink if you put Tyson Fury on it.

Boxerbeetle wrote:Wow. Even if the Furys end up being 100% guilty, I reckon they'd still stand a good chance of successfully suing UKAD for the way this has been handled. What an absolute fvcking joke of an organisation.

If they are cleared then they have wasted the past year of Furys career and possibly contributed to a mental breakdown which will have cost him serious money. ( he would have defended against Joshua by now )

If they are guilty then they allowed a drug cheat to fight for the world heavyweight title when he should have been banned.

Either outcome UKAD are a joke.

Naandrew wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Wow. Even if the Furys end up being 100% guilty, I reckon they'd still stand a good chance of successfully suing UKAD for the way this has been handled. What an absolute fvcking joke of an organisation.

If they are cleared then they have wasted the past year of Furys career and possibly contributed to a mental breakdown which will have cost him serious money. ( he would have defended against Joshua by now )

If they are guilty then they allowed a drug cheat to fight for the world heavyweight title when he should have been banned.

Either outcome UKAD are a joke.

I don't think it is a fair assumption that the cause of Fury's mental capitulation was because of the drugs allegations.

Naandrew wrote:What a f*cking shambles this is

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/39903265

It took nearly 11 months to get to a hearing and now this. UKAD needs to fold and start again from scratch. The first failed test is from nearly 2 and a half years ago and people have saying ( such as Fr@nk w@rren ) that a b sample was clean !!,!

It is simply not fit for purpose

The delay is due to a "Potential conflict of interest on the panel"

Who was on the panel - uncle Peter?
And how come nobody noticed this potential conflict before now?

Having said that, Frank is a promoter involved in Fury and is obviously looking to make the biggest fight in British boxing history against Joshua, so his comments should be taken accordingly.

I think that UKAD are clearly incompetent however the fact that the Furys have been silent on this issue makes me think that there is something in it.

I also think that they will be cleared in the sense that someone gets a not guilty based on a technicality, and not that they didn't actually do it.

Naandrew wrote:What a f*cking shambles this is

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/39903265

It took nearly 11 months to get to a hearing and now this. UKAD needs to fold and start again from scratch. The first failed test is from nearly 2 and a half years ago and people have saying ( such as Fr@nk w@rren ) that a b sample was clean !!,!

It is simply not fit for purpose

Where does UKAD get its authority from? Is it officially sanctioned by the BBBC to carry out testing? Is it legally registered with the UK government? Even if it is I don't understand why they haven't been stripped of any responsibility as they are clearly inept. What happened to the BBA, the pro boxers trade union that Barry McGuigan set up? Surely they should be asking questions (if they are still active) because UKAD's due process is painfully slow and unprofessional. And why isn't Fury's manager/promoter etc speaking out more? If it was a Matchroom fighter I'm sure the Hearns' would be mounting some sort of legal challenge to hurry the process up.

If you test positive for a PED then a ban should be effected immediately and b sample checked then a charge for the boxer forthcoming. How can it take so long ffs?

Jackson328 wrote: And why isn't Fury's manager/promoter etc speaking out more? :

The Furys themselves have also been absolutely silent on this issue, and they are not exactly known for their measured and well constructed considered tweets.

The prolonged absence and cancelling of fights (mostly Hughie) is also strange.

bripez wrote:

Jackson328 wrote: And why isn't Fury's manager/promoter etc speaking out more? :

The Furys themselves have also been absolutely silent on this issue, and they are not exactly known for their measured and well constructed considered tweets.

The prolonged absence and cancelling of fights (mostly Hughie) is also strange.

Yes its very strange and actually suspicious! Like I said, The Hearn's would be calling in the legal eagles long ago . . . . . .

Jackson328 wrote:

Naandrew wrote:What a f*cking shambles this is

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/39903265

It took nearly 11 months to get to a hearing and now this. UKAD needs to fold and start again from scratch. The first failed test is from nearly 2 and a half years ago and people have saying ( such as Fr@nk w@rren ) that a b sample was clean !!,!

It is simply not fit for purpose

Where does UKAD get its authority from? Is it officially sanctioned by the BBBC to carry out testing? Is it legally registered with the UK government? Even if it is I don't understand why they haven't been stripped of any responsibility as they are clearly inept. What happened to the BBA, the pro boxers trade union that Barry McGuigan set up? Surely they should be asking questions (if they are still active) because UKAD's due process is painfully slow and unprofessional. And why isn't Fury's manager/promoter etc speaking out more? If it was a Matchroom fighter I'm sure the Hearns' would be mounting some sort of legal challenge to hurry the process up.

If you test positive for a PED then a ban should be effected immediately and b sample checked then a charge for the boxer forthcoming. How can it take so long ffs?

I don't really understand what has gone on. I come from a predominantly athletics background, and never ever hear of these things going on with UKAD. I mean if anything, they're the picture of strict and professional. In the case with the Fury's there clearly must be something else going on as well. The lack of portrayed information to the public eye or transparency I feel is making us jump to conclusions a bit.

Regarding getting the lawyers in, I would have no doubt whatsoever that if there is the slightest opening to go on the offensive with legal threats/action, fwank would throw the kitchen sink at them.

UKAD aren't worth two pence