Fury's nandrolone reading was never revealed by UKAD

I genuinely don't believe they have anything on him, it was a warning shot from them to get him to behave himself. Yet at the same time we are expected to believe aj put 30lbs of muscle on in a year, one face fits the other doesn't. Call me naive, but at one time I had complete faith in the integrity of UKAD. What happened with Fury, and the way they helped the UK cycle team to break their own rules, changed my opinion on that big time. As an AJ fan, I'm not jumping ship or accusing him of anything. But I must admit, I wouldn't be too surprised if it turned out that Anthony Joshua, MBE, OBE, was getting the same kind of favourable treatment as the cycle team back then.

Smashed it mate ^^ :beerchug:

... I don't know what you want to "demonstrate" with this... ... ped testing was always shady until VADA was instated by WBC... ... Wilder "embraced" VADA as late as for his July 2016 fight vs "big star" Arreola... The reason I started this thread is that the OP of another thread called me a liar for saying that Fury's nandrolone levels were never revealed by UKAD, then put me on ignore so I couldn't respond to his bullshit. That is one of the lowest tricks that anybody can play at this place, and I wanted to set the record straight.

The entire incident was sketchy as hell, but it won't stop the usual army of trolls and alts crying about it in every thread.

The Chairman of UKAD and 3 of his top aides left the organisation before the deal with Team Fury was struck. Would the the people in charge now like to bring Fury down if they got the chance? Fury is still licensed by the BBBoC, and has become much more "PC" in his public statements and interviews. but it It wouldn't surprise me at all if he eventually decided to base himself permanently in the US. I genuinely don't believe they have anything on him, it was a warning shot from them to get him to behave himself. Yet at the same time we are expected to believe aj put 30lbs of muscle on in a year, one face fits the other doesn't.

UKAD have never shown that level of incompetence before. Their policy is to bring charges as soon as possible after a flagged test result - usually within a week - so as to give the accused athlete every chance to defend themselves against the charge by referring to the source of the flagged substance. UKAD have accepted that they did not follow correct procedure with the Furys. So what made them decide to dig up test results obtained 15 months previously, and use them to to bring these charges? Don't you find it strange that they did that literally weeks after Tyson Fury was criticised by MPs in Parliament ... the same Parliament that funds UKAD? I do. I also find it a little strange to see people taking the same line as you on this - UKAD are incompetent, maybe also corrupt. But they charged the Furys with PED abuse, so the Furys must be guilty, even though their cases were never heard by an independent tribunal, and the only strike against them is an accusation by the corrupt and incompetent UKAD. Smashed it mate ^^

Correct it was purely a political move, look at the British cycling team for state sponsored cheating. They wanted rid of fury for his views and they tried everything possible, it's obviously why he's chosen to be basically based in the US from now on, don't blame him. Well said.

Correct it was purely a political move, look at the British cycling team for state sponsored cheating. They wanted rid of fury for his views and they tried everything possible, it's obviously why he's chosen to be basically based in the US from now on, don't blame him. The Chairman of UKAD and 3 of his top aides left the organisation before the deal with Team Fury was struck. Would the the people in charge now like to bring Fury down if they got the chance? Fury is still licensed by the BBBoC, and has become much more "PC" in his public statements and interviews. but it It wouldn't surprise me at all if he eventually decided to base himself permanently in the US.

Fury's nandrolone reading was never revealed by UKAD I've been reading posts by a few ill informed members - AKA lying kunts - talking about the sky-high concentration of nandrolone in Tyson Fury's flagged urine sample back in 2015. The truth is that the actual amount of nandrolone in Tyson and Hughie's urine samples was never disclosed by either UKAD or Team Fury. https://www.ukad.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-06/FOI-187.pdf ... I don't know what you want to "demonstrate" with this... ... ped testing was always shady until VADA was instated by WBC... ... Wilder "embraced" VADA as late as for his July 2016 fight vs "big star" Arreola...

It's a funny one for sure, can't help thinking the MSAC went beyond their remit here though it's hard to be sure whether they were leaned on to do so, cos I can't think of any obvious reason they would deny him otherwise, especially on review - unless perhaps they thought the publicity created made it politically expedient to deny a license - specially in the light of the Canelo case... understandable, but not really acceptable from a governmental organisation. It is a little amusing how some posters took the opportunity to declare how the US had the Gold Standard in testing as a result of this when in fact the majority of members of the ABC (those that have testing protocols at all) use the exact same WADA protocols as the BBBoC and everyone else involved in the sport. It's also worth mentioning that USADA follow those same protocols. They adhere to the same rules on PEDs as UKAD.

UKAD have never shown that level of incompetence before. Their policy is to bring charges as soon as possible after a flagged test result - usually within a week - so as to give the accused athlete every chance to defend themselves against the charge by referring to the source of the flagged substance. UKAD have accepted that they did not follow correct procedure with the Furys. So what made them decide to dig up test results obtained 15 months previously, and use them to to bring these charges? Don't you find it strange that they did that literally weeks after Tyson Fury was criticised by MPs in Parliament ... the same Parliament that funds UKAD? I do. I also find it a little strange to see people taking the same line as you on this - UKAD are incompetent, maybe also corrupt. But they charged the Furys with PED abuse, so the Furys must be guilty, even though their cases were never heard by an independent tribunal, and the only strike against them is an accusation by the corrupt and incompetent UKAD. Correct it was purely a political move, look at the British cycling team for state sponsored cheating. They wanted rid of fury for his views and they tried everything possible, it's obviously why he's chosen to be basically based in the US from now on, don't blame him.

Fury and his cousin were caught cheating. Forget all the loopholes that they were able to exploit using UKAD incompetence against themselves, I don’t care how many things you want to throw out, they were cheats. They had a great lawyer and use whatever they could to get away with the “2 years mental health issues (Drug ban)” UKAD have never shown that level of incompetence before. Their policy is to bring charges as soon as possible after a flagged test result - usually within a week - so as to give the accused athlete every chance to defend themselves against the charge by referring to the source of the flagged substance. UKAD have accepted that they did not follow correct procedure with the Furys. So what made them decide to dig up test results obtained 15 months previously, and use them to to bring these charges? Don't you find it strange that they did that literally weeks after Tyson Fury was criticised by MPs in Parliament ... the same Parliament that funds UKAD? I do. I also find it a little strange to see people taking the same line as you on this - UKAD are incompetent, maybe also corrupt. But they charged the Furys with PED abuse, so the Furys must be guilty, even though their cases were never heard by an independent tribunal, and the only strike against them is an accusation by the corrupt and incompetent UKAD.

It's a funny one for sure, can't help thinking the MSAC went beyond their remit here though it's hard to be sure whether they were leaned on to do so, cos I can't think of any obvious reason they would deny him otherwise, especially on review - unless perhaps they thought the publicity created made it politically expedient to deny a license - specially in the light of the Canelo case... understandable, but not really acceptable from a governmental organisation. It is a little amusing how some posters took the opportunity to declare how the US had the Gold Standard in testing as a result of this when in fact the majority of members of the ABC (those that have testing protocols at all) use the exact same WADA protocols as the BBBoC and everyone else involved in the sport. Imo, the MSAC were either leaned on or took it upon themselves to make a decision which they knew full well would open up an easy route to a world title for a US fighter from a neighbouring state. Re the bolded ... when did facts start altering opinions at this place? :lol1:

Furys face and things he was saying didn't fit at the time, powerful people didn't want him as the heavy weight champ. Joshua is an example of state sponsored cheating, soon as he's out the UK he loses.

It was all motorcity Cobras fault he is the mastermind behind all this.

Fury and his cousin were caught cheating. Forget all the loopholes that they were able to exploit using UKAD incompetence against themselves, I don’t care how many things you want to throw out, they were cheats. They had a great lawyer and use whatever they could to get away with the “2 years mental health issues (Drug ban)”

Both BJS, and Frank Warren - no doubt advised by his lawyers - were convinced that MSAC had no grounds for refusing BJS a licence. But they and the WBO seemed to have treated the whole case in a very perfunctory manner. They didn't even allow BJS or Warren to say anything at the hearing, which took place via a conference call. It was like the MSAC viewed the granting of a boxing license as a privilege, not a right, which it was in their gift to extend or not, as they saw fit, and the WBO just went along with that. It's a funny one for sure, can't help thinking the MSAC went beyond their remit here though it's hard to be sure whether they were leaned on to do so, cos I can't think of any obvious reason they would deny him otherwise, especially on review - unless perhaps they thought the publicity created made it politically expedient to deny a license - specially in the light of the Canelo case... understandable, but not really acceptable from a governmental organisation. It is a little amusing how some posters took the opportunity to declare how the US had the Gold Standard in testing as a result of this when in fact the majority of members of the ABC (those that have testing protocols at all) use the exact same WADA protocols as the BBBoC and everyone else involved in the sport.

Mmm. https://www.espn.co.uk/boxing/story/_/id/24943978/billy-joe-saunders-denied-boxing-license-massachusetts-state-athletic-commission-failed-drug-test Valcarcal basically says what you said: but I can't find anything specific in the MSAC regs that says you're required to abide by fighter contracts https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/10/06/523cmr6.pdf Unless it's something in one of the bits I've bolded (either the application requires you to declare that you've adhered to the conditions of your fighter contract or there's something in CMR 20:00 - prohibited acts - about fighter contracts) which doesn't seem particularly likely, I can't see what reason MSAC would have to deny him - after all, he abided by their rules. Andrade, sure, depending on what was in the fighter contract, the WBO, sure - their regs allow 'em to strip a guy for creating a situation which prevents a defense from proceeding, but the SAC? I don't get it. Odd... Both BJS, and Frank Warren - no doubt advised by his lawyers - were convinced that MSAC had no grounds for refusing BJS a licence. But they and the WBO seemed to have treated the whole case in a very perfunctory manner. They didn't even allow BJS or Warren to say anything at the hearing, which took place via a conference call. It was like the MSAC viewed the granting of a boxing license as a privilege, not a right, which it was in their gift to extend or not, as they saw fit, and the WBO just went along with that.

That's a really good story, I like how at the end Fury accepts a ban for failing his drug test. Seriously man, he had 2 options .. accept a backdated 2 year ban, which left him free to fight again immediately, or refuse to make a deal, get a 4 year ban for refusing to be tested, and then spend a fortune and his athletic prime fighting UKAD in the courts instead of Wilder, AJ, etc, in the ring.

The Fury's accepted they failed tests and a 2 year ban. They're guilty, get over it. What did Canelo do? Aahhh you meant the fury's. Sorry.