Comments Thread For: UKAD Spent 600K To Pursue Doping Case Against Tyson Fury

[kafkod]

UK Anti-Doping agency is financed by the Government!...
... so they are able to spend whatever they want to...

UKAD are funded by Parliament from tax-payers money, but that money isn't unlimited. They will be allocated "X" amount each fiscal year, and if they go over budget, like the article says, they will be declared bankrupt.

I'm not sure what would happen in that event, but I think that whether the Government baled them out or allowed them to sink would depend on how much money was involved.

Four key UKAD officials, including the Chairman, left the organization last year, before the settlement with Fury was agreed. Coincidence?

[kafkod]

How does that work? I thought the only fight effected was the Hammer fight because he only pissed hot during that fight's camp or something?

That's correct, and the troll you are replying to knows it, because I've already told him.

UKAD's accusation was based on a test taken while Fury was training for Hammer.

He was tested 6 times by UKAD while training for Wlad, and was also doing VADA tests for that fight, and all the results were clean.

[kafkod]

Something not mentioned here is the other charge UKAD brought against Fury, refusing to be tested, which is punishable with a 4 year ban.

UKAD dropped that charge completely, though Fury freely admitted telling a UKAD team to *************** off when they came round to test him during his camp for the rematch with Wlad.

Clearly, they did that in return for him accepting a back-dated ban for the nandrolone charge, which meant that he couldn't then sue them for false accusation and resulting loss of earnings.

[1hourRun]

Tyson Fury is a menace

When does this 'Gypsy-Queen' bring any good news? nearly bankrupting the system?! was recently stripped of the Ring-Mag title? and asking for 60-40 for shot at the cash-cow?! this guy is off his meds ; UKAD made a terrible mistake offering him a deal, that will most likely will come back to haunt them, I'm sure.

[Robbie Barrett]

Something not mentioned here is the other charge UKAD brought against Fury, refusing to be tested, which is punishable with a 4 year ban.

UKAD dropped that charge completely, though Fury freely admitted telling a UKAD team to *************** off when they came round to test him during his camp for the rematch with Wlad.

Clearly, they did that in return for him accepting a back-dated ban for the nandrolone charge, which meant that he couldn't then sue them for false accusation and resulting loss of earnings.

What false accusation? He failed a drug test, that wasn't false accusation that was a fact. It never even made it to the hearing. If they banned him for 4 years he can't sue for loss of earnings because he'd be banned anyway.

The only thing he could sue for was them taking so long to charge him.

[Clegg]

Understandable, Fury's side are millionaires and stand to earn many millions more from having the case go their way so just kept their expensive lawyers fighting the case until UKAD's spending was so high they had to just settle. The cousins of nandrolone live to fight another day.

[Robbie Barrett]

That's correct, and the troll you are replying to knows it, because I've already told him.

UKAD's accusation was based on a test taken while Fury was training for Hammer.

He was tested 6 times by UKAD while training for Wlad, and was also doing VADA tests for that fight, and all the results were clean.

I'm talking about the 2 year ban ******. He only accepted the 2 year ban after so long had passed that the Wlad fight wouldn't be included in it.

[kafkod]

I'm talking about the 2 year ban ******. He only accepted the 2 year ban after so long had passed that the Wlad fight wouldn't be included in it.

UKAD explained the terms of the ban themselves, for the benefit of non-******s, which obviously rules you out.

They couldn't ban him for the period including the Wlad fight because he tested clean with them 6 times while training for it and also passed the pre and post fight tests.

Is that simple enough for you to understand it?

[kafkod]

What false accusation? He failed a drug test, that wasn't false accusation that was a fact. It never even made it to the hearing. If they banned him for 4 years he can't sue for loss of earnings because he'd be banned anyway.

The only thing he could sue for was them taking so long to charge him.

Exactly my point!

So why did UKAD do a deal with Fury and drop the refusal to be tested charge, instead of allowing both charges to be heard and ruled on by the Anti Doping Panel?

What were they worried about being sued and bankrupted for, if both charges were legit?

[Robbie Barrett]

UKAD explained the terms of the ban themselves, for the benefit of non-******s, which obviously rules you out.

They couldn't ban him for the period including the Wlad fight because he tested clean with them 6 times while training for it and also passed the pre and post fight tests.

Is that simple enough for you to understand it?

You're too ******. If he had accepted the backdated ban earlier, Wlad could have had the fight changed to an NC because Fury would have been technically banned when they fought. Doesn't matter that he tested clean.