Fury nearly bankrupted BBBoC?

[Marchegiano]

They literally ran out of funds. That’s what’s missing. They have a budget to proceed with cases, the accused had more money than them, and was willing to spend even more money up to the point where UKAD Would have to give up.

So generally speaking they simply do not nor were ever meant to have the sort of funding to be a real authority?

It's ****ing pig balls bud. I can see how that can be so expensive.

[Kezzer]

editted, cheers bud.

Any idea how that works? What is the point of them if an investigation will bankrupt them? The **** are they good for?

Basically UKAD had a small budget. Although this is all speculation, the view was that they had a strong case but in the small likely hood they lost they wouldn’t be able to afford to pay the associated legal fees of both parties. It was therefore agreed effectively to quash the case after a long period and fury took his own bills hit (not clear if he also paid ukad fees upto that point) in exchange for effectively not having to potentially be being found guilty.

You can read into that what you will, fury was never found guilty and the case was closed is the official story.

[Ray*]

So generally speaking they simply do not nor were ever meant to have the sort of funding to be a real authority?

It's ****ing pig balls bud. I can see how that can be so expensive.

Their budget is around £8m for all sports. So they most nail the little guys. If they get a bigger fish those bigger fish can use their monies to literally get off. Just keep going with the case until UKAD gives in. If you google search Larry Olubamiwo (Former boxer) you would probably see a report from him on the guardian newspaper about when he was done for PED by UKAD.

[Marchegiano]

Basically UKAD had a small budget. Although this is all speculation, the view was that they had a strong case but in the small likely hood they lost they wouldn’t be able to afford to pay the associated legal fees of both parties. It was therefore agreed effectively to quash the case after a long period and fury took his own bills hit (not clear if he also paid ukad fees upto that point) in exchange for effectively not having to potentially be being found guilty.

You can read into that what you will, fury was never found guilty and the case was closed is the official story.

I'm not much for speculation myself actually. I'm not terribly worried about whether Fury got away with something or not, I really dgaf.

I think his failing and his name and all that has taken people's focus off the bigger picture. People want to either defend or bury Tyson when really the story is UKAD and probably others are only effectual if the boxers they are going after are poor. Before I goes about talking about how they don't even have the fund to do their jobs I wanted to make sure that's true and there was nothing extra or different about this case but money.

On the surface it does not seem like a particularly expensive case, and, silly me, I'd've thought orgs meant to catch champions would have the funding to do so. I'm surprised this case is considered expensive and even more so all it took to make it a costly case is a boxer with money.

There's no particular angle or anything like that I'm missing?

[Ray*]

I'm not much for speculation myself actually. I'm not terribly worried about whether Fury got away with something or not, I really dgaf.

I think his failing and his name and all that has taken people's focus off the bigger picture. People want to either defend or bury Tyson when really the story is UKAD and probably others are only effectual if the boxers they are going after are poor. Before I goes about talking about how they don't even have the fund to do their jobs I wanted to make sure that's true and there was nothing extra or different about this case but money.

On the surface it does not seem like a particularly expensive case, and, silly me, I'd've thought orgs meant to catch champions would have the funding to do so. I'm surprised this case is considered expensive and even more so all it took to make it a costly case is a boxer with money.

There's no particular angle or anything like that I'm missing?

The issue is the “Likely hood” of them being wrong. They cannot take that chance, hence why if you have an expensive solicitor then you can literally get off.

For example the Fury case, the Wild boar defence, for me at the time I said 100% guilty, and NOTHING is going to change my mind on that.

Years later, the farmer came out etc... But when we look at everything on paper, UKAD couldn’t nail the evidence and say “Oh the farmer was lying” ....

They cannot carry on with it, so both came to an agreement. But anyone with a common sense would know that the whole wild boar defence was laughable at that time or now.

[kafkod]

editted, cheers bud.

Any idea how that works? What is the point of them if an investigation will bankrupt them? The **** are they good for?

You can easily bankrupt them. If you carry on with the case and you have more funds than they do then you would literally give in. UKAD doesn’t have unlimited budget, hence why they both came to a deal, a backdated suspension... Which some how Hughie Fury didn’t complete.

UKAD are bankrolled by the UK government. You can't win a court case against a government funded quango by simply throwing money at barristers. You need both the funds and a strong case to have any chance at all.

The reason the case dragged on for as long as it did was that UKAD asked for the hearing to be postponed and objected to members of the independent legal panel who would have ruled on the outcome. They were also facing a lawsuit brought by Tyson and Hughie for slander and loss of earnings.

In a joint statement released by UKAD and Team Fury after a settlement was reached, UKAD admitted failing to adhere to their own rules by waiting too long to bring charges after taking samples from Tyson and Hughie - 15 months - making it impossible for them to defend the charges by referring to a source of possible contamination.

UKAD wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if they didn't have another charge against Tyson Fury ... refusing to provide a sample when requested and abusing the testing team members. Tyson didn't have a leg to stand on with that one, because he had openly admitted telling UKAD officials to **** off out of his gym and never come back when they tried to test him again after the initial nandralone charge had been made.

That charge would have got Tyson banned for 4 years. UKAD agreed to withdraw it in return for Team Fury withdrawing their counter suit and accepting 2 year back dated bans for Tyson and Hughie on the nandralone charges.

Not long after the settlement was reached, the Chairman of UKAD and his 3 top aides left the organisation.

[Squ□redCircle34]

Fury isn’t some man who came from harsh livings, he grew up posh but sells the act like he’s a working mans man or the common folk hero!

One of the biggest conmen in all of boxing!

[kafkod]

The issue is the “Likely hood” of them being wrong. They cannot take that chance, hence why if you have an expensive solicitor then you can literally get off.

For example the Fury case, the Wild boar defence, for me at the time I said 100% guilty, and NOTHING is going to change my mind on that.

Years later, the farmer came out etc... But when we look at everything on paper, UKAD couldn’t nail the evidence and say “Oh the farmer was lying” ....

They cannot carry on with it, so both came to an agreement. But anyone with a common sense would know that the whole wild boar defence was laughable at that time or now.

According to Peter Fury, the uncastrasted wild boar meat was only one of several possible explanations for the nandrolone traces in Tyson and Hughie's urine samples. (No nandrolone was detected in their blood samples, which was apparently the reason why no charges were brought against them when the samples were first taken)

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

UKAD have very limited funding. Whyte/Matchroom were able to legally bully them too after Whyte popped vs Rivas.

It’s the same pattern every time, enter an ongoing litigation, the case is never resolved, then after X amount of time fighter X accepts a backdated ban and nobody is found guilty.

[Kezzer]

UKAD have very limited funding. Whyte/Matchroom were able to legally bully them too after Whyte popped vs Rivas.

It’s the same pattern every time, enter an ongoing litigation, the case is never resolved, then after X amount of time fighter X accepts a backdated ban and nobody is found guilty.

I’m not sure the Whyte situation is similar at all. Fans on here may have made Whyte guilty (in hope, I’m not sure?) but his excuses etc weren’t the same. It certainly wasn’t a financial issue that made that conclusion