BoxRec

UKAD will not release specific information relating to therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs), including for Anthony Joshua, on the basis of privacy/data protection principles.

How many boxers applied?
How many were approved?
What substances were they for?
What TUE's are in place for Anthony Joshua?

UKAD refused to provide under section 21 and 41 of freedom on information act.

Some interesting information about TUE's from a poster on Boxing Squared.

"1) TUEs are administered by a Govt registered/ National Sporting body i.e an athlete doesnt get a licence to just shoot up from their pharmacy of choice , they have to get their TUE dosage from a sanctioned body that does the due diligence to determine why and how much before administering the drug.

2) An exemption is only granted provided that there is no unfair advantage given to the athlete by taking the substance or using the method. i.e they wont give any athlete a TUE because you asked for it and they wont give you a dosage that grants you any advantage

3) WADA and UKAD has to approve the TUE and it undergoes review per usage its not a life long licence

4) Given the above you might also need to verify what advantage if any TUEs give the athlete because it would not make sense for WADA / UKAD to allow an athlete to compete with an advantage they have granted.

Dillian Whyte , Miller , Fury have all been caught using drugs without TUEs so their intelligence regarding this issue is to be taken with a pinch of salt, If they know about "Legal juicing" why didn't they go that route? Maybe because of point 1 2 3 and 4 above"


Sounds like there are no advantages to TUE's when administered correctly to overall performance. Sounds like a witch-hunt on AJ as of now. But I don't know enough about the topic.

..all of the above is just theory of course...surely there's enough room for abuse...

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 17:53 UKAD will not release specific information relating to therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs), including for Anthony Joshua, on the basis of privacy/data protection principles.

How many boxers applied?
How many were approved?
What substances were they for?
What TUE's are in place for Anthony Joshua?

UKAD refused to provide under section 21 and 41 of freedom on information act.

Some interesting information about TUE's from a poster on Boxing Squared.

"1) TUEs are administered by a Govt registered/ National Sporting body i.e an athlete doesnt get a licence to just shoot up from their pharmacy of choice , they have to get their TUE dosage from a sanctioned body that does the due diligence to determine why and how much before administering the drug.

2) An exemption is only granted provided that there is no unfair advantage given to the athlete by taking the substance or using the method. i.e they wont give any athlete a TUE because you asked for it and they wont give you a dosage that grants you any advantage

3) WADA and UKAD has to approve the TUE and it undergoes review per usage its not a life long licence

4) Given the above you might also need to verify what advantage if any TUEs give the athlete because it would not make sense for WADA / UKAD to allow an athlete to compete with an advantage they have granted.

Dillian Whyte , Miller , Fury have all been caught using drugs without TUEs so their intelligence regarding this issue is to be taken with a pinch of salt, If they know about "Legal juicing" why didn't they go that route? Maybe because of point 1 2 3 and 4 above"


Sounds like there are no advantages to TUE's when administered correctly to overall performance. Sounds like a witch-hunt on AJ as of now. But I don't know enough about the topic.

Don't know a massive amount about TUE's in the UK, however, the freedom of information act isn't overruling in all circumstances so they can say no for various reasons. It doesn't just have to be a cover up.

The big thing you have to notice is that they refused to answer all four questions. Add a fifth, "What TUE's are in place for Dillian Whyte?" and they will refuse to answer all five. Just adding his name into a question that won't get an answer implies that they're hiding it for him but they would almost certainly refuse the request for others, barring a huge conspiracy.

greg wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 18:09 ..all of the above is just theory of course...surely there's enough room for abuse...

I imagine there may be but my understanding is that testing still happens as the levels of the substance, if used in accordance with the prescription TUE is known; so if there is abuse, it would still show up in some range. I think the whole thing is just to try and get into AJ's head.

joshj909 wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 18:12 Don't know a massive amount about TUE's in the UK, however, the freedom of information act isn't overruling in all circumstances so they can say no for various reasons. It doesn't just have to be a cover up.

The big thing you have to notice is that they refused to answer all four questions. Add a fifth, "What TUE's are in place for Dillian Whyte?" and they will refuse to answer all five. Just adding his name into a question that won't get an answer implies that they're hiding it for him but they would almost certainly refuse the request for others, barring a huge conspiracy.

I'm certainly not suggesting a coverup. Just sharing what I felt was interesting info. I bolded the most important statement (IMHO) in that the use is approved so that there is no ADVANTAGE. Could be anti-biotics that have traces of a banned substance that gets TUE'd.

UKAD suddenly remember privacy when its about AJ.... i'm sure some cyclists have had their TUEs leaked?!

kbackup408 wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 18:18 UKAD suddenly remember privacy when its about AJ.... i'm sure some cyclists have had their TUEs leaked?!

I think they refused more generally than just AJ, so they were consistent in this instance. I'm not familiar with other situations.

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 18:18 I think they refused more generally than just AJ, so they were consistent in this instance. I'm not familiar with other situations.

It is all unfair not just aiming this at AJ - but anyone in the sport with TUEs! The paying punter should know what his/her athelte is taking (just like how the athletes advertise their protein company/shakes/bars/training gear)

kbackup408 wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 18:21 It is all unfair not just aiming this at AJ - but anyone in the sport with TUEs! The paying punter should know what his/her athelte is taking (just like how the athletes advertise their protein company/shakes/bars/training gear)

Like I said in another post, it's a witch-hunt and unfair to Joshua. The information on the process provided was rather interesting though and worth sharing I thought.

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 17:53 UKAD will not release specific information relating to therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs), including for Anthony Joshua, on the basis of privacy/data protection principles.

How many boxers applied?
How many were approved?
What substances were they for?
What TUE's are in place for Anthony Joshua?

UKAD refused to provide under section 21 and 41 of freedom on information act.

Some interesting information about TUE's from a poster on Boxing Squared.

"1) TUEs are administered by a Govt registered/ National Sporting body i.e an athlete doesnt get a licence to just shoot up from their pharmacy of choice , they have to get their TUE dosage from a sanctioned body that does the due diligence to determine why and how much before administering the drug.

2) An exemption is only granted provided that there is no unfair advantage given to the athlete by taking the substance or using the method. i.e they wont give any athlete a TUE because you asked for it and they wont give you a dosage that grants you any advantage

3) WADA and UKAD has to approve the TUE and it undergoes review per usage its not a life long licence

4) Given the above you might also need to verify what advantage if any TUEs give the athlete because it would not make sense for WADA / UKAD to allow an athlete to compete with an advantage they have granted.

Dillian Whyte , Miller , Fury have all been caught using drugs without TUEs so their intelligence regarding this issue is to be taken with a pinch of salt, If they know about "Legal juicing" why didn't they go that route? Maybe because of point 1 2 3 and 4 above"


Sounds like there are no advantages to TUE's when administered correctly to overall performance. Sounds like a witch-hunt on AJ as of now. But I don't know enough about the topic.

What on earth has sections 21 and 41 of freedom on information act got to do with UKAD? And more specifically, which individuals allegedly requested information?

Related to TUE's, I work with protected health information, and we basically have to guard it like top government secrets. Your company can get like a million-dollar fine if you e-mail PHI to a co-worker over a secure company server and you were just trying to get work done and forgot that you weren't supposed to e-mail it. These laws exist especially to protect people who might have a disease that carries a serious stigma, like HIV; but the penalties are equally harsh regardless of how plain the diagnosis is.

If you're interested in UKAD's relationship to TUE disclosures, privacy, and the legal ramifications of such, the link below (from 2013) is extremely informative. But I won't summarize it, because I don't have time to read that sh*t.
https://www.lawinsport.com/blog/item/an ... al-privacy

It would be absurd for Josh at his age and shape to need that, but aren't the ukad the ones who busted Tyson and waited on it for a couple years?

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 17:53

Sounds like there are no advantages to TUE's when administered correctly to overall performance. Sounds like a witch-hunt on AJ as of now. But I don't know enough about the topic.

I suspect you're at least a little bit naive, there.

If Joshua actually was on a TUE for test for instance, then that is suspicious af, because it would likely mean that he's been on roids in the past and his body can no longer produce testosterone naturally and he needs exogenous testosterone. All hypothetical of course.

kbackup408 wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 18:18 UKAD suddenly remember privacy when its about AJ.... i'm sure some cyclists have had their TUEs leaked?!

I don't think UKAD did leak them. I think their database/s were hacked by the Russians and then that info got leaked.

Rather unfair grouping Whyte (who bought an over the counter supplement) with Miller who took EPO and HGH!

On the subject of TUE’s, I don’t have any issue if they are justifiable and correctly administered and I don’t think details need to be released because in so doing you could reveal private medical details. Just because sportspeople are in the public eye doesn’t mean everything about them needs to be.

chinarich wrote: ↑02 May 2019, 04:11 Rather unfair grouping Whyte (who bought an over the counter supplement) with Miller who took EPO and HGH!

On the subject of TUE’s, I don’t have any issue if they are justifiable and correctly administered and I don’t think details need to be released because in so doing you could reveal private medical details. Just because sportspeople are in the public eye doesn’t mean everything about them needs to be.

yes what whyte got caught with was actively available ( jack3d) I even remember people talking about it in gyms

kbackup408 wrote: ↑02 May 2019, 04:28 yes what whyte got caught with was actively available ( jack3d) I even remember people talking about it in gyms

Whyte got 2 years for that aswell, 4 times the punishment Miller gets for injecting growth hormones.

keirw wrote: ↑02 May 2019, 04:51 Whyte got 2 years for that aswell, 4 times the punishment Miller gets for injecting growth hormones.

Jarell Millers punishment is as yet unknown.

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑02 May 2019, 04:59 Jarell Millers punishment is as yet unknown.

Pretty sure I read the other day that he was getting a six month ban.

I think every single British Olympian has asthma of some kind...officially of course...

chinarich wrote: ↑02 May 2019, 04:11 Rather unfair grouping Whyte (who bought an over the counter supplement) with Miller who took EPO and HGH!

On the subject of TUE’s, I don’t have any issue if they are justifiable and correctly administered and I don’t think details need to be released because in so doing you could reveal private medical details. Just because sportspeople are in the public eye doesn’t mean everything about them needs to be.

Regarding these points. I'll start with the second one. As this is a physical competition which is going to cause damage to another human, I think at the very minimum the opponent should know what external substances that their opposition has been allowed to administer if they are strictly prohibited from receiving the same benefit.

Now to the first one, sometimes we need to reveal information to get an understanding of whether it is correctly administered or not and the reasons for the exemptions but make of this as you will. In MMA it was used quite widely, with Vitor Belfort as a key example. He had tested positive for Steroids in his younger years and had been given a TUE for testosterone in his 30s where his physique became the best he had ever had and he became a wrecking ball. It had been exploited but the MMA industry (or whichever commission) ended up cracking down on exemptions and it led to others such as Bigfoot Silva losing his exemption. He suffered from acromegaly, a form of gigantism, which leads to things such as lactation when he doesn't receive the testosterone. He went from being a top competitor to getting repeatedly knocked out. Nobody felt sympathy for Vitor but Bigfoot deserved the exemption and it didn't really matter if we knew about it.

kbackup408 wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 18:18 UKAD suddenly remember privacy when its about AJ.... i'm sure some cyclists have had their TUEs leaked?!

That was because hackers revealed they had stuff in their system

joshj909 wrote: ↑02 May 2019, 06:16 Regarding these points. I'll start with the second one. As this is a physical competition which is going to cause damage to another human, I think at the very minimum the opponent should know what external substances that their opposition has been allowed to administer if they are strictly prohibited from receiving the same benefit.

Now to the first one, sometimes we need to reveal information to get an understanding of whether it is correctly administered or not and the reasons for the exemptions but make of this as you will. In MMA it was used quite widely, with Vitor Belfort as a key example. He had tested positive for Steroids in his younger years and had been given a TUE for testosterone in his 30s where his physique became the best he had ever had and he became a wrecking ball. It had been exploited but the MMA industry (or whichever commission) ended up cracking down on exemptions and it led to others such as Bigfoot Silva losing his exemption. He suffered from acromegaly, a form of gigantism, which leads to things such as lactation when he doesn't receive the testosterone. He went from being a top competitor to getting repeatedly knocked out. Nobody felt sympathy for Vitor but Bigfoot deserved the exemption and it didn't really matter if we knew about it.

Pretty sure Belfort didn't have therapeutic levels of testosterone in his system either. He had some ridiculously high levels that were probably very damaging to his own health, let alone the damage to opponents.

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑02 May 2019, 03:50 I suspect you're at least a little bit naive, there.

Why would testosterone benefit a man? Lol, very polite retort. I didn't know boxing still allowed it, the UFC stopped it ages ago. Of all the ways boxing could take notes from the UFC, drug testing is the biggest one.