Comments Thread For: DeGale Says PED Use Continues To Be Widespread in Boxing

[GlassJoey]

unles you are stirverne isn't it assumed all boxers eat right?

Yeah it should be. I just wonder why, moralistically,is it worse to gain an advantage through one means but not another.?

If anything you could argue that boxers should be allowed PEDs because the sport is dangerous enough as it is and they can aid proper recovery

[Premier15]

DeGale is an idiot for listening to Malinaggi!

James seems like a bright guy but he's a complete jackass to listen to Paulie I mean he's not associated with any organization that conducts drug testing, he's not an expert in the field and he's been called out by various boxing writers for his wild and untrue accusations of various fighters for no reason specifically Manny Pacquiao!! So if you use him as a verified source of info on steroids then your an idiot who needs to find someone who can actually be a credible source on the subject

[MulaKO]

True.

I'm at the point where it's too difficult and expensive to do real and fair testing all the time and there's so much corruption in the sport where I think maybe they should just legalize it all?

Your right but think of all the money lost
The corrupted organizations that do the check , the guys sent out to do the check , etc etc

This is kind of like Ronald Reagan’s fight on drugs
How much money and time was wasted not to mention lives wasred away in jail for a joint

Prohibition, drugs , cigarettes no good for you untill uncky Sam starts selling it and profiting
Imo legalize it or yeah fugh that , ban the fighter for life but we can’t have it both ways

[kafkod]

correct me if I'm wrong but he failed a drug trust immediately before the fight was due.

Let me know if this is wrong or not, its on wikipedia.

That's wrong info. I just checked the UKAD site. It says there that metabolites of nandrolone were found in his urine after he fought Christian Hammer.

It also says this:

"UKAD accepts that Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury were not put on notice before they were charged with the Article 2.1 violations in June 2016 that they may have to account for the presence of the elevated levels of nandrolone metabolites in their February 2015 samples, and that as a result there is an argument that the normal rules on burden and standard of proving source should be varied, and Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury should be found to have proved source to the required standard, or else UKAD should be found not to have proved intentional ingestion to the required standard, and as a result the presumption arising under UK ADR Article 10.2 that Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury acted intentionally should be deemed rebutted"

I bolded the end of that statement myself so people would get the message. UKAD accepted there was an argument that not notifying Fury that he he could be charged with PED abuse on the basis of that test result made it impossible for him to defend himself against the charge of intentionally ingesting nadrolone, so that charge should be deemed rebutted.

Note: It is a known fact that nandrolone can be produced in the human body naturally, as a reaction to substances found in meat and supplements.

Team Fury lawyers had started legal proceedings against UKAD on the basis of that. They intended to sue them for defamation and loss of earnings for charging Tyson and Hughie with PED abuse and suspending their licences on the basis of evidence which UKAD themselves later accepted would not have stood up in front of a legal tribunal.

However, Tyson Fury had also refused to provide samples to UKAD when they tried to test him again after the initial charge was brought. The penalty for refusing to provide test samples is a 4 year ban.

So Fury struck a deal with UKAD. He accepted a back dated ban for the nandrolone charge without taking it to the tribunal, which meant that UKAD couldn't be sued for bringing that charge, and in return, UKAD dropped their charge of refusing to provide samples.

"The Refusal Proceedings are concluded on the basis that UKAD withdraws the allegation that Tyson Fury committed an anti-doping rule violation within the meaning of UK ADR Article 2.3on 7 Septembe r2016."

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

[DreamFighter]

goodman,you should update wiki too.

That's wrong info. I just checked the UKAD site. It says there that metabolites of nandrolone were found in his urine after he fought Christian Hammer.

It also says this:

"UKAD accepts that Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury were not put on notice before they were charged with the Article 2.1 violations in June 2016 that they may have to account for the presence of the elevated levels of nandrolone metabolites in their February 2015 samples, and that as a result there is an argument that the normal rules on burden and standard of proving source should be varied, and Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury should be found to have proved source to the required standard, or else UKAD should be found not to have proved intentional ingestion to the required standard, and as a result the presumption arising under UK ADR Article 10.2 that Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury acted intentionally should be deemed rebutted"

I bolded the end of that statement myself so people would get the message. UKAD accepted there was an argument that not notifying Fury that he he could be charged with PED abuse on the basis of that test result made it impossible for him to defend himself against the charge of intentionally ingesting nadrolone, so that charge should be deemed rebutted.

Note: It is a known fact that nandrolone can be produced in the human body naturally, as a reaction to substances found in meat and supplements.

Team Fury lawyers had started legal proceedings against UKAD on the basis of that. They intended to sue them for defamation and loss of earnings for charging Tyson and Hughie with PED abuse and suspending their licences on the basis of evidence which UKAD themselves later accepted would not have stood up in front of a legal tribunal.

However, Tyson Fury had also refused to provide samples to UKAD when they tried to test him again after the initial charge was brought. The penalty for refusing to provide test samples is a 4 year ban.

So Fury struck a deal with UKAD. He accepted a back dated ban for the nandrolone charge without taking it to the tribunal, which meant that UKAD couldn't be sued for bringing that charge, and in return, UKAD dropped their charge of refusing to provide samples.

"The Refusal Proceedings are concluded on the basis that UKAD withdraws the allegation that Tyson Fury committed an anti-doping rule violation within the meaning of UK ADR Article 2.3on 7 Septembe r2016."

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

[Thuglife Nelo]

Canelo is the worst of the lot

how is he the worst? There are no cases of boxing where a fighters gets caught almost 80 days away with trace amounts. Most all cases are post fight tests, and from that, which one of those are world class level fights?

The fact Eddie Hearn said UKAD needs revision with Oxilofrine was most likely the context from Degale since its all UK.

[Thuglife Nelo]

So Fury struck a deal with UKAD. He accepted a back dated ban for the nandrolone charge without taking it to the tribunal, which meant that UKAD couldn't be sued for bringing that charge, and in return, UKAD dropped their charge of refusing to provide samples.

You do realize that WADA has a threshold for Nandrolone, and I believe that's 2000 picograms. Let me repeat, it HAS A THRESHOLD acknowledgement. Aside from that, the party with an adverse finding must then defend its case for how it entered the body.

Look at Jon Jones. The whole Jon Jones fanbase were stating that it's possible for TRACE amounts, I kid you not, including the athletic director at the UFC, said it's possible for trace amounts in the body even after a year.

Then suddenly, after the fight is done, the post fight test, Jon Jones has no trace or adverse finding. lol

[Kcvtr81]

Anyone with a brain already knows this.

That's why canelo fans are dumb

[kafkod]

You do realize that WADA has a threshold for Nandrolone, and I believe that's 2000 picograms. Let me repeat, it HAS A THRESHOLD acknowledgement. Aside from that, the party with an adverse finding must then defend its case for how it entered the body.

Look at Jon Jones. The whole Jon Jones fanbase were stating that it's possible for TRACE amounts, I kid you not, including the athletic director at the UFC, said it's possible for trace amounts in the body even after a year.

Then suddenly, after the fight is done, the post fight test, Jon Jones has no trace or adverse finding. lol

UKAD accepted that not giving Fury notice that he could be charged, and waiting 15 months before charging him, meant that he couldn't defend his case for how it entered his body. So the charge of intentional use should be deemed rebutted.

[MulaKO]

You do realize that WADA has a threshold for Nandrolone, and I believe that's 2000 picograms. Let me repeat, it HAS A THRESHOLD acknowledgement. Aside from that, the party with an adverse finding must then defend its case for how it entered the body.

Look at Jon Jones. The whole Jon Jones fanbase were stating that it's possible for TRACE amounts, I kid you not, including the athletic director at the UFC, said it's possible for trace amounts in the body even after a year.

Then suddenly, after the fight is done, the post fight test, Jon Jones has no trace or adverse finding. lol

This was some good reading

Unreal