BoxRec

Everyone seems to be pointing the finger at UKAD for the delay in a resolution but their latest press release concerning the situation cites the NADP. Another article states that the reason the NADP are dragging their feet is that the Fury team are pushing for certain evidence to be excluded.

So ultimately, the Fury team are the main reason for the delay...

The question is, what type of evidence would you want excluded if you were a non-doping athlete?

jizzle wrote:Everyone seems to be pointing the finger at UKAD for the delay in a resolution but their latest press release concerning the situation cites the NADP. Another article states that the reason the NADP are dragging their feet is that the Fury team are pushing for certain evidence to be excluded.

So ultimately, the Fury team are the main reason for the delay...

The question is, what type of evidence would you want excluded if you were a non-doping athlete?

Would it be the same evidence they have already been spoken to over an adjudicated for ?
They only found traces in sample A but as far as i know it wasn't below the tolerance threshold ,2nd B sample was clear so they sat them down told them to steer clear of certain foods and set them on their way .
Something stinks with all this TBF , how can UKAD adjudicate for the same thing twice? , let them go then decide to change their mind after they have let them fight for honors !?
I can't remember anything like this happening before with two other athletes ,i mean HF fought for the world title at the weekend lol

jizzle wrote:Everyone seems to be pointing the finger at UKAD for the delay in a resolution but their latest press release concerning the situation cites the NADP. Another article states that the reason the NADP are dragging their feet is that the Fury team are pushing for certain evidence to be excluded.

So ultimately, the Fury team are the main reason for the delay...

The question is, what type of evidence would you want excluded if you were a non-doping athlete?

I'm no big fan of the Furys but of course they'd want evidence excluded if it might look them bad, the issue here is that UKAD have allowed this farce to drag on for so long. If they don't have the power to push along issues like this then what is the point of them?

CiganoBoxer wrote:

jizzle wrote:Everyone seems to be pointing the finger at UKAD for the delay in a resolution but their latest press release concerning the situation cites the NADP. Another article states that the reason the NADP are dragging their feet is that the Fury team are pushing for certain evidence to be excluded.

So ultimately, the Fury team are the main reason for the delay...

The question is, what type of evidence would you want excluded if you were a non-doping athlete?

Would it be the same evidence they have already been spoken to over an adjudicated for ?
They only found traces in sample A but as far as i know it wasn't below the tolerance threshold ,2nd B sample was clear so they sat them down told them to steer clear of certain foods and set them on their way .
Something stinks with all this TBF , how can UKAD adjudicate for the same thing twice? , let them go then decide to change their mind after they have let them fight for honors !?
I can't remember anything like this happening before with two other athletes ,i mean HF fought for the world title at the weekend lol

You have ignored the fact that the Furys have asked for certain evidence to be excluded - although nobody knows what this is.

A bit like the previous delay when there was a conflict of interest or something on the panel - anybody know what this conflict was or who it involved?

It sounds like a load of smoke and mirrors and appeals based on procedure rather than proving that they are innocent.

bripez wrote:

CiganoBoxer wrote:

jizzle wrote:Everyone seems to be pointing the finger at UKAD for the delay in a resolution but their latest press release concerning the situation cites the NADP. Another article states that the reason the NADP are dragging their feet is that the Fury team are pushing for certain evidence to be excluded.

So ultimately, the Fury team are the main reason for the delay...

The question is, what type of evidence would you want excluded if you were a non-doping athlete?

Would it be the same evidence they have already been spoken to over an adjudicated for ?
They only found traces in sample A but as far as i know it wasn't below the tolerance threshold ,2nd B sample was clear so they sat them down told them to steer clear of certain foods and set them on their way .
Something stinks with all this TBF , how can UKAD adjudicate for the same thing twice? , let them go then decide to change their mind after they have let them fight for honors !?
I can't remember anything like this happening before with two other athletes ,i mean HF fought for the world title at the weekend lol

You have ignored the fact that the Furys have asked for certain evidence to be excluded - although nobody knows what this is.

A bit like the previous delay when there was a conflict of interest or something on the panel - anybody know what this conflict was or who it involved?

It sounds like a load of smoke and mirrors and appeals based on procedure rather than proving that they are innocent.

Where did i ignore it !?
I said might it be the same evidence they were already adjudicated for ?
If so their argument would be they have nothing to answer for etc
Like most on here i am no lawyer ,but how can UKADA find someone guilty a 2nd time for something they have already adjudicated them for !?
How could that be considered fair ?
On top of the scandal of it being leaked , how would that look for UKADA !?
Why change a ruling 2 years after ?
You say it sounds like a load of smoke and mirrors and appeals based on procedure rather than proving that they are innocent....what makes you think he wants to be out of the ring longer than they have to !?

I sense the involvement of MI5 and other Deep State apparatuses

CiganoBoxer wrote:

bripez wrote:

CiganoBoxer wrote: Would it be the same evidence they have already been spoken to over an adjudicated for ?
They only found traces in sample A but as far as i know it wasn't below the tolerance threshold ,2nd B sample was clear so they sat them down told them to steer clear of certain foods and set them on their way .
Something stinks with all this TBF , how can UKAD adjudicate for the same thing twice? , let them go then decide to change their mind after they have let them fight for honors !?
I can't remember anything like this happening before with two other athletes ,i mean HF fought for the world title at the weekend lol

You have ignored the fact that the Furys have asked for certain evidence to be excluded - although nobody knows what this is.

A bit like the previous delay when there was a conflict of interest or something on the panel - anybody know what this conflict was or who it involved?

It sounds like a load of smoke and mirrors and appeals based on procedure rather than proving that they are innocent.

Where did i ignore it !?
I said might it be the same evidence they were already adjudicated for ?
If so their argument would be they have nothing to answer for etc
Like most on here i am no lawyer ,but how can UKADA find someone guilty a 2nd time for something they have already adjudicated them for !?
How could that be considered fair ?
On top of the scandal of it being leaked , how would that look for UKADA !?
Why change a ruling 2 years after ?

There is a lack of detail from all parties - apart from those directly involved (who are all keeping very quiet) does anybody know what is actually going on?

At the moment UKAD appear to be incompetent and Tyson / Hughie appear guilty of a doping offence - both could be true, who knows?

UKAD are a bunch of rank divs

Counter-puncher wrote:I sense the involvement of MI5 and other Deep State apparatuses

Meh, I heard it was Jay Z and the all seeing eye.

Its clear that no-one really gives much credence to UKAD or this would have been sorted a long time ago. An anti-doping agency is only as good as the powers it has, if the UK government and the BBBoC want to be taken seriously about anti-doping then they need to empower a relevant agency to carry out their will. The agency would have to be outwardly transparent and technically competent for such a serious task so that probably rules out UKAD. If this was any other sport I can't see it being dragged out for so long; football, rugby and especially cycling seem to be light years ahead of boxing on this. I don't understand how both Fury's can have fought for world titles if they are under investigation for drugs offences. I know he gets a lot of stick on here and often deserves it but I refuse to believe that Eddie Hearn would let this happen to one of his fighters, he would be all over UKAD for a speedy resolution