Comments Thread For: Tyson Fury Free To Box After UKAD Ruling

[eco1]

My guess is the Fury (and Fury fan) spin on things will be that they are innocent victims of racist discrimination and they accepted the ban because it was the only way to fight again.

I think Fury and his fans are innocent victims of racist discrimination and they accepted the ban because it was the only way to fight again.

[Robbie Barrett]

Here's another good question - if UKAD had been able to prove that Tyson Hughie were using Nandrolone .. why would they offer them a deal?

I know the answer to that question - I think - because I just read it at the UKAD website.

But it's damned hard reading, which is why I'm still only half way through it after more than 2 hours of mental toture. I can't take any more of that shit tonight.

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

Here's part of it:

"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."

"On the other hand, Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury accept that the normal rules on burden and standard of proof may be held applicable, in which case they may be found not to have proved source to the requisite standard, and as a result they may not be able to get the presumptive four year period of ineligibility reduced."

I think what that means is that UKAD can't prove that the Furys knowingly took nandrolone, and the Furys can't prove they ingested it from contaminated meat, because UKAD left it too long before charging them.

Here is something which isn't difficult to understand:

"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 2.3 on 7 September 2016."

Refusal to provide a sample for testing carries a 4 year ban. Fury refused to provide a sample .. he isn't even trying to deny that. So why are UKAD letting him off the hook by withdrawing the allegation?

The answer is clear to me. They let him off the hook in return for Tyson and Hughie accepting technical liabilty for the test results instead of instructing their lawyers to sue UKAD.

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
1 John 1:9 ESV https://t.co/fKvWP8P2Gc

— TYSON2FASTFURY (@Tyson_Fury) 12 December 2017

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.

[yammy25]

Did you see his last fight?

It isn't about his borefest against wlad.. it's about the fact he's a cat amongst the pigeons if the bbbofc give him back his license and he sorts his fitness out.

It allows a reason for fights to be made that satisfy demand for the division rather than 3 blokes who constantly argue about their own worth in comparison to eachother

[Rip Chudd]

Here's another good question - if UKAD had been able to prove that Tyson Hughie were using Nandrolone .. why would they offer them a deal?

I know the answer to that question - I think - because I just read it at the UKAD website.

But it's damned hard reading, which is why I'm still only half way through it after more than 2 hours of mental toture. I can't take any more of that shit tonight.

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

Here's part of it:

"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."

"On the other hand, Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury accept that the normal rules on burden and standard of proof may be held applicable, in which case they may be found not to have proved source to the requisite standard, and as a result they may not be able to get the presumptive four year period of ineligibility reduced."

I think what that means is that UKAD can't prove that the Furys knowingly took nandrolone, and the Furys can't prove they ingested it from contaminated meat, because UKAD left it too long before charging them.

Here is something which isn't difficult to understand:

"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 2.3 on 7 September 2016."

Refusal to provide a sample for testing carries a 4 year ban. Fury refused to provide a sample .. he isn't even trying to deny that. So why are UKAD letting him off the hook by withdrawing the allegation?

The answer is clear to me. They let him off the hook in return for Tyson and Hughie accepting technical liabilty for the test results instead of instructing their lawyers to sue UKAD.

Good stuff, thanks for doing all the research and letting us know

[Holler]

I think Fury and his fans are innocent victims of racist discrimination and they accepted the ban because it was the only way to fight again.

They tested positive for peds, where's the discrimination?

[kafkod]

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
1 John 1:9 ESV https://t.co/fKvWP8P2Gc

— TYSON2FASTFURY (@Tyson_Fury) 12 December 2017

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.

Typically, you have taken the one part of that very complex statement which fits your agenda and ignored the context.

Team Fury have accepted that Tyson and Hughie did show trace amounts of nandrolone in ONE test result each out of 20 tests conducted by UKAD and waived their right of appeal against that particular test result, meaning UKAD can't be sued for charging them.

UKAD have accepted that by not informing team Fury of their intention to bring a charge till over a year after the samples were analysed, nothing can be proved or disproved about the source of the nandrolone traces, so the allegation of intentional use has been dropped.

UKAD have also withdrawn their charge of refusing to be tested against Tyson.

Their statement clearly says that the NAPD (National Anti Doping Panel) have made no ruling either for or against the Fury's and that ending the hearing without a ruling is a compromise from both sides.

[Robbie Barrett]

Typically, you have taken the one part of that very complex statement which fits your agenda and ignored the context.

Team Fury have accepted that Tyson and Hughie did show trace amounts of nandrolone in ONE test result each out of 20 tests conducted by UKAD and waived their right of appeal against that particular test result, meaning UKAD can't be sued for charging them.

UKAD have accepted that by not informing team Fury of their intention to bring a charge till over a year after the samples were analysed, nothing can be proved or disproved about the source of the nandrolone traces, so the allegation of intentional use has been dropped.

UKAD have also withdrawn their charge of refusing to be tested against Tyson.

Their statement clearly says that the NAPD (National Anti Doping Panel) have made no ruling either for or against the Fury's and that ending the hearing without a ruling is a compromise from both sides.

The hearing was going to be to rule if the Fury's knowingly took the drugs. No need for the hearing when they admitted. it.

[kafkod]

The hearing was going to be to rule if the Fury's knowingly took the drugs. No need for the hearing when they admitted. it.

They did not admit that they knowingly took the drugs. The UKAD statement says that clearly.

I don't know if you are stupid, autistic ... or if you just enjoy being a cunt?

[kafkod]

Good stuff, thanks for doing all the research and letting us know

I'm still not sure I understand all that convoluted legalese bullshit from UKAD, and I don't think they want it all to be understood by people like us.

One of my cousins is a qualified practising lawyer. I'm going to ask her to have a look at it for me.

[Robbie Barrett]

They did not admit that they knowingly took the drugs. The UKAD statement says that clearly.

I don't know if you are stupid, autistic ... or if you just enjoy being a cunt?

That was their stance before accepting the deal, which is an admission. Pretty obvios when you look at the language used. Like "will have to compromise"

"UKAD's position is that the anti-doping rule violations it has asserted have been committed
and the consequences set out in the UK Anti-Doping Rules should apply. Tyson and Hughie
Fury's position is that they have never knowingly or deliberately committed any anti-doping
rule violation. In recognition of the counter-arguments and the risks inherent in the dispute
resolution process, each of UKAD and the Respondents (together, the Parties) recognises
that it/he will have to compromise its/his claims to some degree."

UKAD wouldn't even be able to make the deal if it wasn't an admission. Pretty sure they aren't allowed to punish innocent people.