Fury's postponed hearing "disgraceful", says promoter Warren

[Memphis]

What UKAD are doing, and what they do, is pathetic.

You participate in a sport where you can legally kill someone and we suspect you of enhancing your ability to do so by taking drugs. Until we get it all sorted out, if you ask us nicely, we'll allow you to continue to participate in this sport knowing that you might be cheating.

The Fury's and Warren, can all fuck off.

Tyson isn't absent from the ring because of UKAD, he's absent because he's a wanker and sticks coke up his snout and pretends he's got mental health issues. Hughie is still fighting aint he? All this 'a mans got to make living' bollocks.

Peter Fury is a prick as well. All for giving it the big un over social media, doesn't like it when it comes back at him. They were perfectly entitled to petition the IBF for an extension of his mandatory defence. From memory the IBF said you've got to face Glavkov, the Fury's instead of petitioning them for an extension, went off on one calling them pathetic and a disgrace. They didnt receive something they didnt ask for. Divvy cunts.

This persicution complex they all have going on is pathetic, it got old a long time ago.

[smashup]

Fury was never even allowed to ask for any grace from the IBF though, they gave him a solid ultimatum within days of beating Klitschko , fight Glazkov or lose your belt.

There is no doubt at all that AJ is getting completely different treatment to what Fury did because he is, this is why i'm as sure as i can be that Fury's past actions and what has come out of his mouth is affecting his career now.

Aj is looking like he will get a pass where as the IBF expected Fury to fight Klitschko and Glazkov at the same time?

Miles apart the way each fighter has/is being treated so let's wait and see what happens if AJ and Wlad fight a rematch - will the IBF strip AJ like they did Fury and then we'll see Pulev v Takam for the vacant title just like we saw with Martin v Glazkov when Fury was stripped.

As far as i'm concerned if this pans out any other way than AJ being stripped for fighting a Wlad rematch then it's pretty disgraceful how two fighters in exactly the same circumstances can be treated so differently by the IBF

[Memphis]

They could have asked, or as it comes at a price, asked if they could ask. Instead they go on the offensive.

*Just checked, they would have got knocked back anyway, the date for Purse bids was already set.

[Memphis]

As far as i'm concerned if this pans out any other way than AJ being stripped for fighting a Wlad rematch then it's pretty disgraceful how two fighters in exactly the same circumstances can be treated so differently by the IBF

If the IBF have sent out a notice for Joshua Pulev purse bids their situations are identical. If they havent, Joshua/Hearn has got the right to ask for the extension.

[smashup]

Joshua has asked for an extension already and it's now with the IBF who are waiting for a reply from Sauerland on behalf of Pulev before they decide.

Fury was never even given the chance to ask for an extension and was ordered (within days of beating Klitschko) by the IBF to fight his mandatory Glazkov or be stripped.


Identical situations but completely different scenarios with each fighter being treated completely differently by the IBF.

[Memphis]

But thats Joshua's right to ask for an extension. There's been no notice of a Joshua Pulev mandatory defence. If there had, their positions would be the same and Peter 'they've all got it in for us' Fury would have a point.

[Fenster]

The professional victims were aware of the IBF situation before they fought Wlad, it wasn't a secret, it wasn't sprung on them, Wlad was in the same boat.

They only cried and bitched about it because Joshua won the title. And that's the only reason this is mentioned - Joshua.

The whingers got stripped of all the micky mouse belts in the end, so why give a funk about the IBF?

[smashup]

I'm with the Fury's on this

One fighter (AJ) is allowed to apply for an extension that would enable him to fight a Wlad rematch, keep his IBF title then fight the IBF mandatory at a later date.

The Other fighter wasn't even allowed to apply for an extension to the IBF and was ordered within days of beating Wlad that he had to fight his mandatory against Glazkov or be stripped of his belt.

Exactly the same situation but one fighter is allowed to apply for an extension and the other is not.

How exactly is that fair?


Fury's camp are incensed that they were not afforded the luxury of having their request heard by the IBF because Joshua is effectively in the same situation that Fury found himself.

​https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/tyson-fu...-joshua-125914

[Dark Lord Al]

I have said fury wont fight again , he just likes the sound of his own voice.

[Ron Swanson]

I'm with the Fury's on this

One fighter (AJ) is allowed to apply for an extension that would enable him to fight a Wlad rematch, keep his IBF title then fight the IBF mandatory at a later date.

The Other fighter wasn't even allowed to apply for an extension to the IBF and was ordered within days of beating Wlad that he had to fight his mandatory against Glazkov or be stripped of his belt.

Exactly the same situation but one fighter is allowed to apply for an extension and the other is not.

How exactly is that fair?


Fury's camp are incensed that they were not afforded the luxury of having their request heard by the IBF because Joshua is effectively in the same situation that Fury found himself.

​https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/tyson-fu...-joshua-125914

Dude. Read what people wrote. They are not the same situations and it has been explained why it is not the same situations. The Fury's take advantage of the people that don't realize they are BSing, be certain they know they are full of shit. They just know that most don't know they are full of shit.

[Master]

Tyson Fury denied quick return to the ring with the BBBC refusing licence until doping case is sorted

The British Boxing Board of Control has flattened Tyson Fury's hopes of a quick return to the ring by confirming it will not lift his suspension until his doping case is resolved.

The 28-year-old lost his boxing licence last October, a day after he vacated his IBO, WBA and WBO heavyweight titles citing depression.

However, the Manchester-born fighter had already failed a drugs test in the United States for cocaine and been charged with the use of a prohibited substance by UK Anti-Doping (UKAD).

With Fury now back in training, UKAD is his most serious opponent, as his National Anti-Doping Panel was postponed earlier this month, with no date set for its resumption.

His promoter Frank Warren has described this delay as "a liberty" and said he hoped either the BBBoC or sports minister Tracey Crouch would intervene.

In theory, the BBBoC could lift his suspension at any time, but it is now clear it will not act until Fury has either been cleared by UKAD or served whatever ban he may receive from the panel.

BBBoC general secretary Robert Smith told Press Association Sport: "The BBBoC is awaiting the outcome of the UKAD hearing and at present his boxing licence is suspended until such time, after which the BBBoC will consider Mr Fury's position further."

There is also no chance of Crouch - or whoever is sports minister after next month's general election - interfering in the anti-doping process.

The frustration felt by Fury's camp is understandable, given the fact he has not fought since his famous win over Wladimir Klitschko in November 2015, a feat arguably trumped by Anthony Joshua's thrilling victory over the Ukrainian last month.

There is also no doubt a Fury-Joshua clash would be a knockout at the box office and with broadcasters.

But it is also true that this is a hugely significant case for UKAD, which has a new chairman in Trevor Pearce, the former director of special investigations at the National Crime Agency, and has been lobbying government for more money and extra powers.

Fury and his cousin Hughie, another leading British heavyweight, have been on the agency's radar since traces of nandrolone, an anabolic steroid, were detected in their urine samples in February 2015, a story first reported by the Sunday Mirror last June.

Both men have strongly denied any wrongdoing and they were not charged with an anti-doping offence until June 24, 2016, the same day Tyson Fury postponed a rematch with Klitschko because of a sprained ankle.

It is understood these initial positives were not considered strong enough for anti-doping rule violations, particularly as follow-up tests did not corroborate them, and Tyson was allowed to fight Klitschko in November 2015, while Hughie has had five subsequent fights.

But those suspicious samples made it inevitable they would be targeted for extra tests in the future, which is what ultimately triggered UKAD's decision to charge the pair.

Tyson Fury's position is complicated by something Warren has only recently revealed - the boxer refused to give a sample to a doping control officer last year.

"His big problem was, when they went for his test, Tyson told them to f*** off," the promoter told Press Association Sport.

"He filmed it; I've seen it. He said: 'What you've done to me is persecute me'. This is when he wasn't feeling too good.

"Then (his uncle and trainer) Peter Fury found out and called them, an hour later. He said: 'Can you come back?' And they wouldn't come back."

Under World Anti-Doping Agency rules, refusing a test is considered the same as a failed test and the starting point for punishing a first-time, intentional offence is a four-year ban.

Clearly, Fury's mental state is a mitigating factor, as is his uncle's attempt to bring the tester back and the uncertainty around those 2015 tests.

All of this was meant to be presented by Fury's legal team - led by top Canadian lawyer James Bunting - at this month's hearing in London, but the case was halted when UKAD's own legal star Jonathan Taylor objected to a member of the three-person panel's undeclared conflict of interest.

Given the fact these independent panels are comprised of senior lawyers, conflicts of interest due to earlier work are not uncommon, although they are usually resolved before the case starts.

Apparently, this one slipped through and a new panel must now be assembled, which is unlikely to happen until the autumn.

So any hopes Fury had of fighting on the Billy Joe Saunders-Avtandil Khurtsidze undercard in London on July can be forgotten.

A more realistic target for his return, providing the anti-doping panel either clears him or backdates a reduced ban and the BBBoC lifts his suspension, might be the beginning of next year.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/boxin...cid=spartanntp

[Fenster]

I watched a bit of an IFL interview with Hearn on that IBF situation. He said exactly what @Memphis said, Fury's mob didn't apply for the extension within the timescale, basically Fury's mob have blamed everyone else (as usual) for being mickey mouse.

[Memphis]

Better to blame the World than admit you got outsmarted by a woman?

That said. I'm assuming there must be a rule that says you can't have a license reinstated if you're under investigation by UKAD. If there isn't, then this latest twist is out of order.