Originally posted by BoxingFan85
View Post
Aschcroft was at pains to explain why Ukad does not discuss individual cases whilst the case is still ongoing. However, she explained that the board take into account mitigating circumstances that may totally absolve an athlete from responsibility, or adjudge them liable to a low or high extent. The degree of fault in negligence is reflected in the length of the ban;or no ban imposed at all, if the athlete was for example; suffering from a cognitive impairment.
The process of this reasoning is intuitively sound and denotes the fact that any evidential mental impairment suffered by an athlete during the period in question, amounts to the view that this athlete may not have been accountable for their actions. This latter conclusion will necessarily rely on irrefutable evidence showing the athlete to have been mentally unfit.
The process of this reasoning is intuitively sound and denotes the fact that any evidential mental impairment suffered by an athlete during the period in question, amounts to the view that this athlete may not have been accountable for their actions. This latter conclusion will necessarily rely on irrefutable evidence showing the athlete to have been mentally unfit.
https://theeyeofmedia.com/tyson-fury...ot-get-banned/
Comment