Comments Thread For: Sensational Daniel Dubois Destroys Filip Hrgovic In Eight Violent Rounds

[Boro]

The fact that the charge of nandrolone use was upheld is a non point?

It's a fact that Fury had nandrolone in his system, was caught by UKAD, was banned by UKAD, and released a shared statement with UKAD confirming this.

No, the fact you intentionally ignore the imperative part of their statement about them "disqualifying" their results and ironically done it again in this very reponse.

Which clearly speaks to my point about them coming to an agreement due to their negligence and it being "alleged" rather than a fact.

I've already conceded they were banned, you imbecile.

Hence the redundancy in the previous comment and this one.

[Toffee]

No, the fact you intentionally ignore the imperative part of their statement about them "disqualifying" their results and ironically done it again in this very reponse.

Which clearly speaks to my point about them coming to an agreement due to their negligence and it being "alleged" rather than a fact.

I've already conceded they were banned, you imbecile.

Hence the redundancy in the previous comment and this one.

Big words with an incredible lack of, well, anything of substance.

You stated that Fury's drug use was alleged. I told you that you were wrong. You've stated it again. So I'll tell you again.

The compromise on results changes nothing... though that compromise came from the governing bodies rather than UKAD, who were clear that the results should be changed. The compromise between Fury and UKAD was about the period of the ban and the further charge of refusing a test - not the charge of nandrolone use. The joint statement included an acceptance of that charge of nandrolone use.

This isn't a redundant point. Fury was charged with nandrolone use. The charge was upheld. Fury and UKAD released a joint statement confirming that it had been upheld.

There is no allegation element to that. It's 100% fact.

[Boro]

Big words with an incredible lack of, well, anything of substance.

You stated that Fury's drug use was alleged. I told you that you were wrong. You've stated it again. So I'll tell you again.

The compromise on results changes nothing... though that compromise came from the governing bodies rather than UKAD, who were clear that the results should be changed. The compromise between Fury and UKAD was about the period of the ban and the further charge of refusing a test - not the charge of nandrolone use. The joint statement included an acceptance of that charge of nandrolone use.

This isn't a redundant point. Fury was charged with nandrolone use. The charge was upheld. Fury and UKAD released a joint statement confirming that it had been upheld.

There is no allegation element to that. It's 100% fact.

What are you struggling to comprehend about to avoid UKAD and BBBofC filing bankruptcy and accepting their fúck up and the Furys further delaying their career and dragging out through court they accepted a "deal" under the proviso it was backdated and their fights didn't get disqualified...

The both came to an agreement irrespective of the TRUTH, it's beyond shocking to me you're struggling with such a basic concept.

I swear to god being slow on the up take is some kind of requirement to be a regular on this site.

[Toffee]

What are you struggling to comprehend about to avoid UKAD and BBBofC filing bankruptcy and accepting their fúck up and the Furys further delaying their career and dragging out through court they accepted a "deal" under the proviso it was backdated and their fights didn't get disqualified...

The both came to an agreement irrespective of the TRUTH, it's beyond shocking to me you're struggling with such a basic concept.

I swear to god being slow on the up take is some kind of requirement to be a regular on this site.

The deal they accepted included an upheld charge of nandrolone use.

There's no argument you can present that changes that fact.

[Boro]

The deal they accepted included an upheld charge of nandrolone use.

There's no argument you can present that changes that fact.

WOW you're comprehension skills are pathetic, it's useless replying to you.

I shouldn't of engaged with your dumb ass as soon as you intentionally glossed over things and clearly aren't engaging with anything in good faith.

But rather from the perspective of "my minds made up".

Despite the fact they both took a deal and accept culpability (IMPERATIVE WORD) rather than guilt.

As I've said already it's to avoid UKAD, BBBofC and by extension NADP being fúcked over for their negligence and malfeasance and for the Furys careers to not be stalled out by a prolonged case AGAINST UKAD and BBBofC.

No one is trying to present a case they've not got a nandrolone charge either, the "charge" being legit though is a different matter entirely.

>>>>> The both came to an agreement irrespective of the TRUTH <<<<< (the most imperative part of my last response to you).

Another case of you baffling me with your lack of nuanced understanding (even though it isn't nuanced).

[Toffee]

Boro I'm not going to quote all that rubbish.

What do you think culpability means? They were at fault, they were guilty, they were culpable, and the charge was upheld.

They had nandrolone in their respective systems. They're drug cheats. I can say that without any fear of someone proving me wrong because not only is it what they were charged with, not only is it what they were found guilty of, but it's also what they accepted and released a press statement confirming!

[Roberto Vasquez]

Of you shouldn't believe Fury, just like you shouldn't believe a guy who's willing to claim he's committing perjury right after a guy admits publicly to his biggest payday and instead of going to the correct people he goes to the press...

You understand what all means right!? that includes Fury...

Because we were having a discussion about PEDs and for some reason the guy was obsessed with British fighters and brought up Benn, Fury and others so I explained the ways the can and can't be explained within reason.

Yeah I know he claims he ate uncastrated wild boar the fact he has to point out the fact a wild boar is uncastrated is laughable in and of itself, it's self evident a wild boar would be uncastrated.

FYI eating testicles and offal (heart, kidney, liver and tongue etc etc) are literally negligible differences as I said, we're talking 8 ng/ml vs 7.8 ng/ml differences...

And yes I do know, not just about wild boar.

SO what you are saying is based on your expert knowledge of wild boar and lying farmers than Fury is innocent? It seems crazy now that the UKAD did not listen to you - an expert in the field on a boxing forum who is totally impartial in the matter

But what about your knowledge of lying Fury? Where does that information factor into your argument? We have numerous examples of Fury lying and contradicting himself.

Also you said in an earlier post that ALL Heavyweight boxers were on PEDS. So is it correct that your conclusion now is that all boxers APART from Fury are on PEDS??

This is shocking information from you - Fury is the ONLY boxer in the division who is not on PEDS. Should we now ban every other boxer in the division and make Fury "Supreme Champ"?

[Boro]

SO what you are saying is based on your expert knowledge of wild boar and lying farmers than Fury is innocent? It seems crazy now that the UKAD did not listen to you - an expert in the field on a boxing forum who is totally impartial in the matter

But what about your knowledge of lying Fury? Where does that information factor into your argument? We have numerous examples of Fury lying and contradicting himself.

Also you said in an earlier post that ALL Heavyweight boxers were on PEDS. So is it correct that your conclusion now is that all boxers APART from Fury are on PEDS??

This is shocking information from you - Fury is the ONLY boxer in the division who is not on PEDS. Should we now ban every other boxer in the division and make Fury "Supreme Champ"?

apparently you don't read, even the very thing you quoted.

[billeau2]

No i didn't have to make that claim to make it seem okay Fury was juicing, Ali was juicing, Tyson was Juicing "Evan Fields" was juicing if you aren't juicing you're are a moron.

As for uncastrated wild boar, it wasn't sold by a butcher it was allegedly a farmer and secondly nandrolone is actually naturally occurring in Wild boar.

I don't care about your approximates, now it's top 20? you're changing your mind like the wind changes direction, Ruiz wasn't top 20 either, nor was Helenius or Takam but you're shifting goalposts to fit your narrative.

The only person you can actually claim Fury has ducked is Price, he's fought everyone else he's been linked with and he'll likely fight AJ so it's rétarded to claim he's a duck.

It'd be the equivalent to me claiming AJ is a duck because he didn't fight Wilder or he took ages to fight Usyk despite Usyk wanting to face him immediately when he moved up and that being his privilege as an undisputed champion.

I want you to be consistent with your shít not deciding what's acceptable for AJ when he's fighting CANS like Takam, Helenius, Breazeale, Franklin, Wallin etc and when Fury does the same it's suddenly a travesty, moral consistency isn't much to ask... Well apparently it is.

Your pissing in the wind my friend... AJ tends to encourage a certain sort of devoted follower, not all, but many of his fold. These are people that will buy something jacked up in price, because it has a nice bottle, next to the same thing in a different bottle: I will use the idiot Daggum tn illustrate this point: While every major heavyweight has fought the same base level of competition, because the division is uniformly weak... We are told that AJ has fought better opponents than Wilder and Fury. To do this Ortiz is diminished... when, ironickly, he may be the one guy who could have transitioned to one of the top of the division, because he boxed well in his loss to Wilder. Remember the pretty package? Well we are told Ortiz is "old" never mind the actual fights, where he was undefeated until Wilder... Then we are told fighters like Wallin are remarkable...

Aj can do no wrong! Even his fights with Usyk are mischaracterized... Most people who know boxing concede that the Fury, Usyk fight was close, and that AJ was beat handily, by comparison... Not these folks! Logical thought left the building ages ago with these sort.

[Boro]

Boro I'm not going to quote all that rubbish.

What do you think culpability means? They were at fault, they were guilty, they were culpable, and the charge was upheld.

They had nandrolone in their respective systems. They're drug cheats. I can say that without any fear of someone proving me wrong because not only is it what they were charged with, not only is it what they were found guilty of, but it's also what they accepted and released a press statement confirming!

Culpable and guilty hold two very different and distinct meanings legally and you know it, you're being intentionally disingenuous just like you were intentionally ignoring previous parts of comments and only addressing what you felt would fit what you had to say throughout this whole back and forth.

Both you and Roberto Vasquez have been doing this, I've consistently tried to address every point you brought forth with both of you, I'm not denying they're cheats.

I'm simply denying the validity of the boards ban and thereby the validity of the cheating charge in this particular case, not that they're cheats, stop conflating the two things and get out of your emotions.

Imagine you were accused of something you've allegedly done 16 months ago and now you've got to give an adequate reason as to why you allegedly done it and you've got to account for everything you ate, took and the likes.

It's completely unreasonable and as I've said is malfeasance on the BBBofC and UKADs behalf, it's why the NADP suggested both parties come to a compromise in the first place.

Fury has clearly been juicing most of his career, there is a reason why he's said in previous interviews he thinks juicing should be legal and he doesn't believe it's that bad.

Both of you seem to struggle with parsing things out, "Roberto" struggled with over hyped equating to "bad" in the case of AJ which was never implied.

And you're struggling to grasp the difference between a legitimate case, them actually being guilty and deals being struck.

Also they've never released a statement the board on their site, just like they always do on fighters behalf.