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

[Robbie Barrett]

Obviously? nothing to do with being out 2 years and having to get back fighting? nothing to do with avoiding a 2 year court case at massive personal cost and relying on a judges opinion? Nothing to do with the millions he can make from getting back ASAP and fighting Joshua?

I'm sure none of that mattered and he just thought he was going to lose....

The hearing was scheduled for 5 days and we would have heard the ruling from the panel. Where's this 2 year court case coming from?

[kafkod]

They can't hand punishments to people unless they have an admission or ruling that they knowingly took it. This should be basic common sense.

This a quote from the UKAD statement at their website:

"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"

Fury accepted that he tested positive for nandrolone in one test. UKAD accepted that he didn't take it knowingly. That's why they gave him a backdated 2 year ban instead of pushing for him to be banned for 4 years.

[Robbie Barrett]

This a quote from the UKAD statement at their website:

"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"

Fury accepted that he tested positive for nandrolone in one test. UKAD accepted that he didn't take it knowingly. That's why they gave him a backdated 2 year ban instead of pushing for him to be banned for 4 years.

2.1 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.
2.2 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.
3
2.3 In such circumstances, the Parties compromise by accepting that the period of ineligibility to
be imposed on the Respondents for the Article 2.1 violations asserted in the Nandrolone
Proceedings shall be two years, pursuant to UK ADR Article 10.2.

They didn't accept Fury didn't take it knowingly. They accepted that it would be harder for them to prove they didn't take it knowingly because of the delay before charging them.

Nice cherry picking though.

[kafkod]

Well when you've been popped for it, it'd be insane to carry on taking it.

Nandrolone is one of the easiest PEDs to detect, which is why nobody uses it nowadays.

So it would have been insane to take it in the first place for an easy opponent like Hammer, knowing you were going to be tested. Especially as Fury proved he didn't even need it by beating Wlad clean!

[kafkod]

They didn't accept Fury didn't take it knowingly. They accepted that it would be harder for them to prove they didn't take it knowingly because of the delay before charging them.

Nice cherry picking though.

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?

[Lester Tutor]

Would certainly explain why he's such a **** boxer

I said Erol Ceylan is a pimp! We tame them Romanians and feed their princesses to the Sultan, as the Russian and French princesses

[Jewish-Reptile]

Nandrolone is one of the easiest PEDs to detect, which is why nobody uses it nowadays.

So it would have been insane to take it in the first place for an easy opponent like Hammer, knowing you were going to be tested. Especially as Fury proved he didn't even need it by beating Wlad clean!

Who are the testers he tested clean with ? The same testers he tested dirty with and held the results back until after his title shot ?

[Robbie Barrett]

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?

They didn't have to prove it though. They are compromising because of the delay in charging them, not because they accept Fury didn't take it knowingly but because it makes it harder for Fury to prove he didn't.

It also says in 2.2 the Fury's accept that UKAD can just ignore that and carry on how they normally would, with the burden of proof being entirely on the Fury's

They gave them a break right there.


No need to get mad because you were trying to cherry pick.

[kafkod]

They didn't have to prove it though. They are compromising because of the delay in charging them, not because they accept Fury didn't take it knowingly but because it makes it harder for Fury to prove he didn't.

It also says in 2.2 the Fury's accept that UKAD can just ignore that and carry on how they normally would, with the burden of proof being entirely on the Fury's

They gave them a break right there.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. UKAD couldn't prove they took it knowingly and the Furys couldn't prove they didn't, because UKAD waited 18 months before notifying them that they were going to be charged with an offence.

[Robbie Barrett]

The burden of proof is on the accuser. UKAD couldn't prove they took it knowingly and the Furys couldn't prove they didn't, because UKAD waited 18 months before notifying them that they were going to be charged with an offence.

No it isn't, the burden of proof is on the athlete when it comes to failed drugs tests in sport. Always has been. This is common knowledge.

That's why UKAD compromised because of the delay, not because they believe Fury didn't take it knowingly like you were trying to claim.