Comments Thread For: Team Hammer Smile at UKAD Ruling To Reverse Tyson Fury Loss

[Jewish-Reptile]

No you don't go read the deal you tard.

The Respondents have waived their rights to a hearing on the charges, accepted the findings at paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 above (which amounts to an admission for the purposes of UK ADR Article 7.7.4), and acceded to the consequences set out at paragraphs 2 and 3.

https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploa...ughie_Fury.pdf

They’re guilty.

[cameltoe]

Fury has accepted his guilt, are you really contesting his innocence ?

That’s not what happened.

Learn to read.

[cameltoe]

It’s undisputable Fury was hitting harder in the rematch, he stopped Chisora ! Also his stamina was evidently superior, the steroids he has admitted to taking increase stamina, endurance. For me it’s clear he’s been cheating since after Kevin Johnson, his hair has fallen out, his cousin also started with the extremely rare acne coglobata which can be a side effect of steroid abuse.

Undisputable to you, because that’s what you want to think.

I saw Fury hit him more frequently and cleaner, not necessarily harder. Certainly not measurable by watching at home, so unless you are Dereck Chisora I don’t see how you can possibly know.

He didn’t knock him out. He didn’t stop him on his feet. The referee didn’t step in. Chisora’s corner pulled him out between 10 and 11th due to the punishment he had been receiving.

You say this shows extra power. Because that’s your agenda. I disagree. Fury was just a lot better in this fight.

[cameltoe]

No you don't go read the deal you tard.

I have read it. And I understand it.

It’s you that seems to have an issue with comprehension.

“In recognition of the respective counter-arguments and the risks inherent in the dispute resolution process, each side has accepted a compromise of its position.” UKAD website.

This is what you have somehow interpreted as:

“Fury pleaded guilty”

This makes you a moron.

[Robbie Barrett]

I have read it. And I understand it.

It’s you that seems to have an issue with comprehension.

“In recognition of the respective counter-arguments and the risks inherent in the dispute resolution process, each side has accepted a compromise of its position.” UKAD website.

This is what you have somehow interpreted as:

“Fury pleaded guilty”

This makes you a moron.

Read it all. Read the quote from the guy earlier. It says in the deal it counts as an admission.

[cameltoe]

It is an admission of guilt. This is effectively a plea bargain. Admit it and we'll give you less punishment

See I know what the problem is.

You’ve watched a few court dramas and seen the ‘plea bargain’, where a defendant accepts a lesser charge in order to avoid a trial for a more serious charge. We’ve all seen that happen on TV and I’ve seen it happen in real life at Crown Court.

That’s not what’s happened in this case. I know you can’t stop drawing parallels between them, but you need to wrap your tiny mind around this.

[cameltoe]

Read it all. Read the quote from the guy earlier. It says in the deal it counts as an admission.

F*** me you’re an idiot.

[cameltoe]

They accepted they couldn't prove it, so the charge should be deemed rebutted.

Why are you so keen to ignore that?

And why do you think UKAD waited 18 months to bring charges, so that the source of the nandrolone couldn't be established?

And why did they withdraw the charge of refusal to take a test against Tyson?

And why are you such a biased, agenda driven cunt on every topic you ever comment on?

I’ll just repost this, instead of going over old ground, as he said it perfectly.

[Robbie Barrett]

See I know what the problem is.

You’ve watched a few court dramas and seen the ‘plea bargain’, where a defendant accepts a lesser charge in order to avoid a trial for a more serious charge. We’ve all seen that happen on TV and I’ve seen it happen in real life at Crown Court.

That’s not what’s happened in this case. I know you can’t stop drawing parallels between them, but you need to wrap your tiny mind around this.

The Respondents have waived their rights to a hearing on the charges, accepted the findings
at paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 above (which amounts to an admission for the purposes of UK
ADR Article 7.7.4), and acceded to the consequences set out at paragraphs 2 and 3, above.
Subject only to paragraph 4.3, below, each of the Parties hereby waives its/his rights to
appeal against or otherwise challenge this decision in any forum, whether pursuant to UK
ADR Article 13 or otherwise.

https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploa...ughie_Fury.pdf





They admitted it.

[cameltoe]

The Respondents have waived their rights to a hearing on the charges, accepted the findings
at paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 above (which amounts to an admission for the purposes of UK
ADR Article 7.7.4), and acceded to the consequences set out at paragraphs 2 and 3, above.
Subject only to paragraph 4.3, below, each of the Parties hereby waives its/his rights to
appeal against or otherwise challenge this decision in any forum, whether pursuant to UK
ADR Article 13 or otherwise.

https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploa...ughie_Fury.pdf





They admitted it.

This is where you are getting confused. Consistently. Still. Even after 3 posters trying to point this out to you.

They’ve never denied having the nandrolone in their system. That’s the admittance point you keep referring to, but you seem to think they’ve admitted their guilt to doping. They haven’t. They’ve accepted that it was found in their system. That’s all.

It’s the doping element they dispute. How it got there. Are they guilty of intentionally doping. Are PED’s the cause of the result.

Neither side has pursued this argument. Therefore, how can Fury plead guilty to doping?

F***s sake, this was explained to you 4 pages ago.

They agreed to a settlement to avoid court, why can't you understand this?

This would have been a massive court case, with counter claims on both sides being likely, the loser would either be Fury, and be out for another 2 years, or UKAD, and Fury could sue them for loss of earnings.

Neither could accept the outcome of court so they settled it out of court, met halfway.

Basic law my friend. Happens all the time. There is no admission of guilt, just like there is no accusation from UKAD that ped's were the cause of the result, or findings of the test.

If they were confident they would have pursued it in court, they're not.

Are you seriously suggesting that all settlements are an admission of guilt?

Don't be ******. They accepted that they had increased levels of nandrolone, but we all know diet can affect this result, which they would have had to prove in court, they accepted the findings, NOT the admission that PED's or drugs were the cause.

Nice try though. Easy to take things out of context.

How many times are you going to have this argument?

Or are you going to keep posting UKAD source material which everyone but you seems to be able to interpret, along with a ****** dancing emoji?