Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How UKAD operate

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How UKAD operate

    The difference between UKAD and other PED testing agencies is that UKAD don't announce failed tests themselves and they won't make public statements about them until the case has been investigated and the outcome decided by a legal tribunal.

    UKAD always suspend a UK fighter's licence immediately if they get a positive result which they class as a failed test, and that fighter's licence will stay suspended till his case is heard by the tribunal. If the fighter isn't licenced in the UK, they will bar him from competing here immediately the positive result is obtained, which is what happened with Tony Thompson.

    The reason Fury's licence wasn't suspended immediately when he, allegedly, tested positive for nandrolone, is that UKAD didn't class his result as a failed test at the time. Then, 16 months later, they changed their minds, charged him with nandrolone abuse, and suspended his licence.

    They were then ordered to lift Fury's suspension by a judge after he took them to court.
    Last edited by kafkod; 09-26-2016, 11:05 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by kafkod View Post
    The difference between UKAD and other PED testing agencies is that UKAD don't announce failed tests themselves and they won't make public statements about them until the case has been investigated and the outcome decided by a legal tribunal.

    UKAD always suspend a UK fighter's licence immediately if they get a positive result which they class as a failed test, and that fighters licence will stay suspended till his case is heard by the tribunal. If the fighter isn't licenced in the UK, they will bar him from competing here immediately the positive result is obtained, which is what happened with Tony Thompson.

    The reason Fury's licence wasn't suspended immediately when he, allegedly, tested positive for nandrolone, is that UKAD didn't class his result as a failed test at the time. Then, 16 months later, they changed their minds, charged him with nandrolone abuse, and suspended his licence.

    They were then ordered to lift Fury's suspension by a judge after he took them to court.
    It doesn't matter what we try and say about this dodgy happening these Fury haters are living it up big time.I can't wait for tomorrow when the statement is released.Hopefully some of the co.cksuckers pipe down,i highly doubt it though.Until then i'll keep my sh.it locked tight and then we're gonna fire some sh.it off

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by HughJass View Post
      It doesn't matter what we try and say about this dodgy happening these Fury haters are living it up big time.I can't wait for tomorrow when the statement is released.Hopefully some of the co.cksuckers pipe down,i highly doubt it though.Until then i'll keep my sh.it locked tight and then we're gonna fire some sh.it off
      I can't wait till UKAD's PED charges are thrown out by the tribunal.

      Maybe then Tyson can get his head together and get back in the ring to defend his titles.

      Comment


      • #4
        Popped positive on a test and told testers to **** off recently. Where there is smoke there's fire. End of.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies)

          Otherwise known as "innocent proven guilty"

          That principle is the bedrock of the legal and judicial systems of every civilised nation on Earth, but 90% of the ignorant buffoons who post here seem never to have heard of it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Why'd Fists of Fluff refuse testing ? kafkod

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kafkod View Post
              Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies)

              Otherwise known as "innocent proven guilty"

              That principle is the bedrock of the legal and judicial systems of every civilised nation on Earth, but 90% of the ignorant buffoons who post here seem never to have heard of it.
              this is the court of public opinion, not a court of law. Very different standards.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kafkod View Post
                Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies)

                Otherwise known as "innocent proven guilty"

                That principle is the bedrock of the legal and judicial systems of every civilised nation on Earth, but 90% of the ignorant buffoons who post here seem never to have heard of it.

                Burden of proof is typically ignored in the court of public opinion.

                And in boxing, where cynicism reigns and many fans already believe that most top fighters are on something, any hint of ped use is usually met with condemnation and assumption of guilt.

                It's kind of like how the police operate in America. They pull you over, make the same old joke as they pat you down, "got any guns, knives, bombs, grenade launchers?" lolllderp

                Then when they ask, "do you mind if I check your vehicle?" and if you hesitate before answering or try to refuse, they immediately assume you have something to hide. By their logic, why would you refuse a search unless you had something illegal in the vehicle?

                The recent drama with Fury has likely convinced many boxing fans that he was using peds.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'll wait for the tribunal hearing before judging completely because, like most of us, all I have is hearsay and conjecture to form opinions.

                  I will say that if it was Joshua or Wilder who had been reportedly popped for nandrolone and told a tester to **** off, there definitely wouldnt have been any 'innocent until proven guilty' bs, they would have been hung from the rafters the moment the story had hit the press

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You're right in that he hasn't been proven guilty yet, but EVERYTHING points to him being a PED cheat.

                    -Postponing the fight twice.
                    -Prior test for PEDs, I don't care why, he got popped for an anabolic steroid.
                    -His cousin also got popped for the same thing, and they have the same trainer
                    -His cousin had legit WTF backne, a known effect of anabolic steroids
                    -Fury told testers to go away. If he was clean, wouldn't this be his best opportunity to showcase that?
                    -He's now pleading insanity saying he can't fight for awhile.. how convenient. A year ago, he's this hard working fighter who had to overcome so much adversity to get to where he is now. Al of sudden he's a frail ltitle girl who's emotionally hurt because people don't 'appreciate' him? Get the hell out of here. He's buying time to get all the Nandrolone out of his system.
                    -Always saying everyone else cheats. That's the #1 diversionary tactic used by cheaters. "Nono, I'm not the cheater, YOU ARE!".

                    So yeah, we don't know for sure, but there's a 90% chance he's a PED cheat who's getting rammed by karma. Just because you like him doesn't mean you should be blind to all the signs.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP