What is going on with Tyson Fury?

by Rowley Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:21 am

First topic message reminder :

Am sure some of you will have seen the headlines and stories tonight about Tyson Fury being banned for anti doping offences. For those that haven't the story is here: http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/10521753/tyson-furys-provisional-suspension-lifted-by-uk-anti-doping

Now those who like a conspiracy theory will be interested to know the June 24th date was the same date Fury announced the withdrawal from the Klitschko rematch. Peter Fury is insisting on Twitter that the injury came first and is legitimate, but if so it is all one hell of a coincidence. Peter and Team Fury also claim they will be suing UK Anti Doping as they are completely innocent of this charge. UK Anti Doping are inevitably refusing to comment whilst investigations are under way.

God only knows what to make of all this. The funny thing is a wrote a thread earlier about whether Fury should leave Hennessy, my plan was to tidy it up and post it this evening. However this story has somewhat superseded that thread. That said I do think the question remains valid. Whilst obviously Hennessy cannot be blamed for either Fury or UKAD's errors he hardly grasps the nettle when it comes to getting ahead of the story from a PR perspective. As someone who has tickets for the Klitschko rematch I now have genuine doubts it will even happen. Clearly none of us have enough insight into the truths of this to comment with any authority but you can't help but get the impression chaos reigns in the Fury camp at the minute.

by Pedro147 Fri Aug 05, 2016 10:51 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Pedro147 wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
Pedro147 wrote:
AdamT wrote:25kg?? You mean pounds??

Sorry yes lbs. So it's still just under 2 stone.
So what, Arturro Gatti was notorious for it

Yes but didn't fight at the higher weight smashing people's faces up, he boiled down to fight at the lower weight as he didn't have the power to fight the bigger guys at his 'natural weight'.

Pedro you do realise that in MMA theres less padding on the gloves so theres more damage gets done when throwing a punch?

Which would mean the bigger man would have even more of an advantage so it's less advantagous to be a smaller guy moving up to fight a bigger man?

by marty2086 Fri Aug 05, 2016 10:53 pm

catchweight wrote:Yes it looks pretty shoddy from UKAD. Reading into it, it looks firstly that they weren’t confident in their own testing (looks like there might be a trace of nandroline in there, but the second sample was clean so might be our bad!) and secondly that they didn’t think it was worthy of further investigation at the time. So either they didn’t think it a genuine case for investigation, or they did think there was a case and chose to ignore it. Theres also a strong chance that the leak to the press came from within UKAD, and maybe the fact it was leaked is why they feel they have to pursue it again as it looks pretty bad that a drug testing organisation claim they found traces of a banned subjected but decided to let it slide at the time. Could also be that Furys mouth and antics have p1ssed a few people off in there, and now they want to get him.

I thought it was that both the A and B samples failed and it was tests on later dates he cleared?

by Pedro147 Fri Aug 05, 2016 10:53 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
Pedro147 wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
Pedro147 wrote:
AdamT wrote:25kg?? You mean pounds??

Sorry yes lbs. So it's still just under 2 stone.
So what, Arturro Gatti was notorious for it

Yes but didn't fight at the higher weight smashing people's faces up, he boiled down to fight at the lower weight as he didn't have the power to fight the bigger guys at his 'natural weight'.
So no different to McGregor then? Fail to see what your argument is

Except McGregor moved up in weight to fight at 170lbs and was stronger than the bigger man, Gatti didn't. Simple really.

by catchweight Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:16 pm

marty2086 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Yes it looks pretty shoddy from UKAD. Reading into it, it looks firstly that they weren’t confident in their own testing (looks like there might be a trace of nandroline in there, but the second sample was clean so might be our bad!) and secondly that they didn’t think it was worthy of further investigation at the time. So either they didn’t think it a genuine case for investigation, or they did think there was a case and chose to ignore it. Theres also a strong chance that the leak to the press came from within UKAD, and maybe the fact it was leaked is why they feel they have to pursue it again as it looks pretty bad that a drug testing organisation claim they found traces of a banned subjected but decided to let it slide at the time. Could also be that Furys mouth and antics have p1ssed a few people off in there, and now they want to get him.

I thought it was that both the A and B samples failed and it was tests on later dates he cleared?

UKAD have not released an official statement beyond they are bring forward an investigation for a failed test in Feb, but the legal case being brought by Fury appears to suggest there were samples taken over February, March and May with contradictory results and a second sample from Feb and also a blood test came back clean.

by Guest Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:30 pm

Pedro147 wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
Pedro147 wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
Pedro147 wrote:
AdamT wrote:25kg?? You mean pounds??

Sorry yes lbs. So it's still just under 2 stone.
So what, Arturro Gatti was notorious for it

Yes but didn't fight at the higher weight smashing people's faces up, he boiled down to fight at the lower weight as he didn't have the power to fight the bigger guys at his 'natural weight'.
So no different to McGregor then? Fail to see what your argument is

Except McGregor moved up in weight to fight at 170lbs and was stronger than the bigger man, Gatti didn't. Simple really.

Er...no he wasn't, his punches cut Diaz open but didn't have the same effect that they had on the likes of Aldo. If McGregor was still as strong at the weight then the number of times he landed cleanly on Diaz would have rendered him unconscious

by marty2086 Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:32 pm

Pedro147 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Pedro147 wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
Pedro147 wrote:
AdamT wrote:25kg?? You mean pounds??

Sorry yes lbs. So it's still just under 2 stone.
So what, Arturro Gatti was notorious for it

Yes but didn't fight at the higher weight smashing people's faces up, he boiled down to fight at the lower weight as he didn't have the power to fight the bigger guys at his 'natural weight'.

Pedro you do realise that in MMA theres less padding on the gloves so theres more damage gets done when throwing a punch?

Which would mean the bigger man would have even more of an advantage so it's less advantagous to be a smaller guy moving up to fight a bigger man?

There was 1kg difference at the weigh in, hardly a big enough difference to say he was the bigger man

by marty2086 Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:34 pm

catchweight wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Yes it looks pretty shoddy from UKAD. Reading into it, it looks firstly that they weren’t confident in their own testing (looks like there might be a trace of nandroline in there, but the second sample was clean so might be our bad!) and secondly that they didn’t think it was worthy of further investigation at the time. So either they didn’t think it a genuine case for investigation, or they did think there was a case and chose to ignore it. Theres also a strong chance that the leak to the press came from within UKAD, and maybe the fact it was leaked is why they feel they have to pursue it again as it looks pretty bad that a drug testing organisation claim they found traces of a banned subjected but decided to let it slide at the time. Could also be that Furys mouth and antics have p1ssed a few people off in there, and now they want to get him.

I thought it was that both the A and B samples failed and it was tests on later dates he cleared?

UKAD have not released an official statement beyond they are bring forward an investigation for a failed test in Feb, but the legal case being brought by Fury appears to suggest there were samples taken over February, March and May with contradictory results and a second sample from Feb and also a blood test came back clean.

Hes only threatened legal action so far has he not?

I read the statement about contradictory results but that can happen with doping, its done on ratios. If he brought up the other level to lower the ratio it would contradict the previous result

by RanjitPatel Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:15 am

If UKAD's own testing was compromised on the day that Tyson and Hughie were tested then surely it stands to reason and makes sense that both their tests failed because of that?

If they've both passed tests before and after and their second samples were clean then that tells me there was an issue with the testing. Seems obvious and UKAD have said as much.

To be honest I'd be absolutely stunned if either family member had used. Just doesn't add up at all.

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:29 am

RanjitPatel wrote:If UKAD's own testing was compromised on the day that Tyson and Hughie were tested then surely it stands to reason and makes sense that both their tests failed because of that?

If they've both passed tests before and after and their second samples were clean then that tells me there was an issue with the testing. Seems obvious and UKAD have said as much.

To be honest I'd be absolutely stunned if either family member had used. Just doesn't add up at all.

Doesn't say what stage of the testing was compromised though does it? You'd need to know...
Where the two fighters were tested?
Were they kept separate or were they in the same room and blood taken immediately after one another?
Were the samples taken by the same person? Who else was present? How many people came in contact with the samples?
How many other samples did that person take that day? Have they been tested to see if they've been contaminated/compromised?
How many other fighters were informed they'd failed a drugs test at that time?
How were the samples stored prior to shipping back to the lab for testing?
What do the testing procedures involve?
Were Tyson's and Hughie's samples tested on the same day in the same lab by the same person?
Where exactly did this contaminant come from?

"it's probably a contaminated sample" is not enough of an explanation from a supposedly well respected organization.

by marty2086 Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:50 am

Two samples are taken from everyone so as they can check for contamination, if Furys two tests both failed its suspect

Him having a clean bill in later tests does not mean hes clean it means his levels are normal. This depends on what UKAD test for though

by Hammersmith harrier Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:53 am

catchweight wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Yes it looks pretty shoddy from UKAD. Reading into it, it looks firstly that they weren’t confident in their own testing (looks like there might be a trace of nandroline in there, but the second sample was clean so might be our bad!) and secondly that they didn’t think it was worthy of further investigation at the time. So either they didn’t think it a genuine case for investigation, or they did think there was a case and chose to ignore it. Theres also a strong chance that the leak to the press came from within UKAD, and maybe the fact it was leaked is why they feel they have to pursue it again as it looks pretty bad that a drug testing organisation claim they found traces of a banned subjected but decided to let it slide at the time. Could also be that Furys mouth and antics have p1ssed a few people off in there, and now they want to get him.

I thought it was that both the A and B samples failed and it was tests on later dates he cleared?

UKAD have not released an official statement beyond they are bring forward an investigation for a failed test in Feb, but the legal case being brought by Fury appears to suggest there were samples taken over February, March and May with contradictory results and a second sample from Feb and also a blood test came back clean.

So what if other samples were clean, Lance Armstrong didn't fail a single drugs test.

I doubt you'd be spouting so much nonsense if it was a boxer you didn't like.

by marty2086 Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:03 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
catchweight wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Yes it looks pretty shoddy from UKAD. Reading into it, it looks firstly that they weren’t confident in their own testing (looks like there might be a trace of nandroline in there, but the second sample was clean so might be our bad!) and secondly that they didn’t think it was worthy of further investigation at the time. So either they didn’t think it a genuine case for investigation, or they did think there was a case and chose to ignore it. Theres also a strong chance that the leak to the press came from within UKAD, and maybe the fact it was leaked is why they feel they have to pursue it again as it looks pretty bad that a drug testing organisation claim they found traces of a banned subjected but decided to let it slide at the time. Could also be that Furys mouth and antics have p1ssed a few people off in there, and now they want to get him.

I thought it was that both the A and B samples failed and it was tests on later dates he cleared?

UKAD have not released an official statement beyond they are bring forward an investigation for a failed test in Feb, but the legal case being brought by Fury appears to suggest there were samples taken over February, March and May with contradictory results and a second sample from Feb and also a blood test came back clean.

So what if other samples were clean, Lance Armstrong didn't fail a single drugs test.

I doubt you'd be spouting so much nonsense if it was a boxer you didn't like.

He did actually fail a test but the head of the UCI helped cover it up with a TUE

by catchweight Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:12 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
catchweight wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Yes it looks pretty shoddy from UKAD. Reading into it, it looks firstly that they weren’t confident in their own testing (looks like there might be a trace of nandroline in there, but the second sample was clean so might be our bad!) and secondly that they didn’t think it was worthy of further investigation at the time. So either they didn’t think it a genuine case for investigation, or they did think there was a case and chose to ignore it. Theres also a strong chance that the leak to the press came from within UKAD, and maybe the fact it was leaked is why they feel they have to pursue it again as it looks pretty bad that a drug testing organisation claim they found traces of a banned subjected but decided to let it slide at the time. Could also be that Furys mouth and antics have p1ssed a few people off in there, and now they want to get him.

I thought it was that both the A and B samples failed and it was tests on later dates he cleared?

UKAD have not released an official statement beyond they are bring forward an investigation for a failed test in Feb, but the legal case being brought by Fury appears to suggest there were samples taken over February, March and May with contradictory results and a second sample from Feb and also a blood test came back clean.

So what if other samples were clean, Lance Armstrong didn't fail a single drugs test.

I doubt you'd be spouting so much nonsense if it was a boxer you didn't like.

Whats the nonsense? Or are you just having another cry over Fury?

by catchweight Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:14 am

marty2086 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
catchweight wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Yes it looks pretty shoddy from UKAD. Reading into it, it looks firstly that they weren’t confident in their own testing (looks like there might be a trace of nandroline in there, but the second sample was clean so might be our bad!) and secondly that they didn’t think it was worthy of further investigation at the time. So either they didn’t think it a genuine case for investigation, or they did think there was a case and chose to ignore it. Theres also a strong chance that the leak to the press came from within UKAD, and maybe the fact it was leaked is why they feel they have to pursue it again as it looks pretty bad that a drug testing organisation claim they found traces of a banned subjected but decided to let it slide at the time. Could also be that Furys mouth and antics have p1ssed a few people off in there, and now they want to get him.

I thought it was that both the A and B samples failed and it was tests on later dates he cleared?

UKAD have not released an official statement beyond they are bring forward an investigation for a failed test in Feb, but the legal case being brought by Fury appears to suggest there were samples taken over February, March and May with contradictory results and a second sample from Feb and also a blood test came back clean.

So what if other samples were clean, Lance Armstrong didn't fail a single drugs test.

I doubt you'd be spouting so much nonsense if it was a boxer you didn't like.

He did actually fail a test but the head of the UCI helped cover it up with a TUE

Cream for "saddle sores" wasn't it?

Hammersmith was probably the sort of bloke claiming there was an agenda against Armstrong back in the day.

by Rowley Sat Aug 06, 2016 4:10 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
catchweight wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Yes it looks pretty shoddy from UKAD. Reading into it, it looks firstly that they weren’t confident in their own testing (looks like there might be a trace of nandroline in there, but the second sample was clean so might be our bad!) and secondly that they didn’t think it was worthy of further investigation at the time. So either they didn’t think it a genuine case for investigation, or they did think there was a case and chose to ignore it. Theres also a strong chance that the leak to the press came from within UKAD, and maybe the fact it was leaked is why they feel they have to pursue it again as it looks pretty bad that a drug testing organisation claim they found traces of a banned subjected but decided to let it slide at the time. Could also be that Furys mouth and antics have p1ssed a few people off in there, and now they want to get him.

I thought it was that both the A and B samples failed and it was tests on later dates he cleared?

UKAD have not released an official statement beyond they are bring forward an investigation for a failed test in Feb, but the legal case being brought by Fury appears to suggest there were samples taken over February, March and May with contradictory results and a second sample from Feb and also a blood test came back clean.

So what if other samples were clean, Lance Armstrong didn't fail a single drugs test.

I doubt you'd be spouting so much nonsense if it was a boxer you didn't like.

Irony takes one hell of a kicking on here some days.

by huw Tue Aug 09, 2016 5:49 pm

The conspiracy theorist in me feels that Fury has upset so many people that they could be out to knock him back down.

The micky taker wants to make jokes about them being crap steroids.

The researcher in me has made me look into the steroid in question only to find that there have apparently been many people that have tested positive and been cleared in the past.

The realist in me feels that the Fury camp are unlikely to be clever enough to try to get away with this.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that I have some sort of a split personality disorder and should probably seek help, luckily most of the voices in my head think it'll be fine.

by **ShahenshahG** Tue Aug 09, 2016 5:59 pm

huw wrote:The conspiracy theorist in me feels that Fury has upset so many people that they could be out to knock him back down.

The micky taker wants to make jokes about them being crap steroids.

The researcher in me has made me look into the steroid in question only to find that there have apparently been many people that have tested positive and been cleared in the past.

The realist in me feels that the Fury camp are unlikely to be clever enough to try to get away with this.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that I ~~have some sort of a split personality disorder~~ went to boarding school in a past life ~~and should probably seek help, luckily most of the voices in my head think it'll be fine.~~

by huw Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:02 pm

ShahenshahG wrote:
huw wrote:The conspiracy theorist in me feels that Fury has upset so many people that they could be out to knock him back down.

The micky taker wants to make jokes about them being crap steroids.

The researcher in me has made me look into the steroid in question only to find that there have apparently been many people that have tested positive and been cleared in the past.

The realist in me feels that the Fury camp are unlikely to be clever enough to try to get away with this.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that I ~~have some sort of a split personality disorder~~ went to boarding school in a past life ~~and should probably seek help, luckily most of the voices in my head think it'll be fine.~~

Haha - was going t go that way it but decided I was better than that......

by **ShahenshahG** Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:11 pm

huw wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote:
huw wrote:The conspiracy theorist in me feels that Fury has upset so many people that they could be out to knock him back down.

The micky taker wants to make jokes about them being crap steroids.

The researcher in me has made me look into the steroid in question only to find that there have apparently been many people that have tested positive and been cleared in the past.

The realist in me feels that the Fury camp are unlikely to be clever enough to try to get away with this.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that I ~~have some sort of a split personality disorder~~ went to boarding school in a past life ~~and should probably seek help, luckily most of the voices in my head think it'll be fine.~~

Haha - was going t go that way it but decided I was better than that......

You're too good for this place.

by Guest Tue Aug 09, 2016 7:00 pm

ShahenshahG wrote:
huw wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote:
huw wrote:The conspiracy theorist in me feels that Fury has upset so many people that they could be out to knock him back down.

The micky taker wants to make jokes about them being crap steroids.

The researcher in me has made me look into the steroid in question only to find that there have apparently been many people that have tested positive and been cleared in the past.

The realist in me feels that the Fury camp are unlikely to be clever enough to try to get away with this.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that I ~~have some sort of a split personality disorder~~ went to boarding school in a past life ~~and should probably seek help, luckily most of the voices in my head think it'll be fine.~~

Haha - was going t go that way it but decided I was better than that......

You're too good for this place.

No he's not!

by huw Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:28 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote:
huw wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote:
huw wrote:The conspiracy theorist in me feels that Fury has upset so many people that they could be out to knock him back down.

The micky taker wants to make jokes about them being crap steroids.

The researcher in me has made me look into the steroid in question only to find that there have apparently been many people that have tested positive and been cleared in the past.

The realist in me feels that the Fury camp are unlikely to be clever enough to try to get away with this.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that I ~~have some sort of a split personality disorder~~ went to boarding school in a past life ~~and should probably seek help, luckily most of the voices in my head think it'll be fine.~~

Haha - was going t go that way it but decided I was better than that......

You're too good for this place.
No he's not!

I've got by my whole life so far being 'barely adequate' and you can't let one person say I'm to good for any place, even if meant sarcastically, thanks Dave.

by hazharrison Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:48 pm

Picked up a few more bits and pieces: it looks as though UKAD has both Tyson and Hughie in to lecture them on supplements/foods that could lead to them failing a PED test (which both appear to have done).

Since then, both have passed umpteen tests.

If they failed that initial test, though, then you'd imagine they'd be banned when the hearing comes around.

by Guest Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:57 pm

hazharrison wrote:Picked up a few more bits and pieces: it looks as though UKAD has both Tyson and Hughie in to lecture them on supplements/foods that could lead to them failing a PED test (which both appear to have done).

Since then, both have passed umpteen tests.

If they failed that initial test, though, then you'd imagine they'd be banned when the hearing comes around.

Can imagine Wlad being livid if that happens...but the cynic suggests that "influence" will be brought to bear and the fight goes ahead.

by Rowley Tue Aug 09, 2016 10:19 pm

DAVE667 wrote:but the cynic suggests that "influence" will be brought to bear and the fight goes ahead.

It fecking better do

by Guest Tue Aug 09, 2016 10:22 pm

Rowley wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:but the cynic suggests that "influence" will be brought to bear and the fight goes ahead.

It fecking better do

Careful what you wish for ROWLEY, Fat Mick may f*ck it up so badly that you're drafted in to fight Wlad

by Rowley Tue Aug 09, 2016 10:25 pm

I've booked the hotel Dave, may as well do something useful with the weekend.

by Guest Tue Aug 09, 2016 10:28 pm

Rowley wrote:I've booked the hotel Dave, may as well do something useful with the weekend.

Spending it in a coma doesn't seem like a plan

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:05 pm

Rowley wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
catchweight wrote:How does it take 18 months for this to be brought to light? Something seems off.

It looks clear that that in Feb 2015 one of Fury's tests did show traces of Nandroline (from the timeline this looks to be from his fight with Hammer). However a second sample from that date and the results of 7 other seperate tests across the last 2 year period (including all the test from the Klitschko fight) have all been clean.

Apparently, and this is where it looks off, UKAD informed Fury last Sep that one of his tests had traces of Nandroline but as the others had been clean they told him it was most likely a contaminated test / supplement and no further action would be taken.

June 24 2016 its leaked by the Sunday Mirror that Fury failed a test in Feb 2015. Now Fury is taking legal action against UKAD for damages and violating an agreement that UKAD made whereby they confirmed that no action would be taken back in September.

Not a great deal to go on, but something looks fishy with how UKAD handled this.
There's evidence to suggest you may have stabbed someone but because there was no evidence you stabbed anyone in the following seven weeks we'll just assume it's a mistake, shall we? Seems VERY professional!

You do have to apply a bit of common sense to things though. His completely clean record since and prior does raise reasonable questions. The most obvious one being why would a fighter choose to cheat against an opponent of moderate ability when he has not cheated before or since, when he has fought more dangerous opponents in that time frame. Seems at best an odd decision.

Steroids don't just make you train harder they get you in the mood for training.....Known a fair few bodybuilders who after a lay off took a cycle primarily to get them into the routine again and to re-apply focus..

Funnily enough if Fury was to take then he'd probably use them more for a stiff because he'd probably have trouble dragging his backside to the gym....

Either way innocent until guilty...Innocent perhaps because he'd probably be too dumb to take them discreetly..

by hazharrison Sun Aug 14, 2016 9:06 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Rowley wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
catchweight wrote:How does it take 18 months for this to be brought to light? Something seems off.

It looks clear that that in Feb 2015 one of Fury's tests did show traces of Nandroline (from the timeline this looks to be from his fight with Hammer). However a second sample from that date and the results of 7 other seperate tests across the last 2 year period (including all the test from the Klitschko fight) have all been clean.

Apparently, and this is where it looks off, UKAD informed Fury last Sep that one of his tests had traces of Nandroline but as the others had been clean they told him it was most likely a contaminated test / supplement and no further action would be taken.

June 24 2016 its leaked by the Sunday Mirror that Fury failed a test in Feb 2015. Now Fury is taking legal action against UKAD for damages and violating an agreement that UKAD made whereby they confirmed that no action would be taken back in September.

Not a great deal to go on, but something looks fishy with how UKAD handled this.
There's evidence to suggest you may have stabbed someone but because there was no evidence you stabbed anyone in the following seven weeks we'll just assume it's a mistake, shall we? Seems VERY professional!

You do have to apply a bit of common sense to things though. His completely clean record since and prior does raise reasonable questions. The most obvious one being why would a fighter choose to cheat against an opponent of moderate ability when he has not cheated before or since, when he has fought more dangerous opponents in that time frame. Seems at best an odd decision.

Steroids don't just make you train harder they get you in the mood for training.....Known a fair few bodybuilders who after a lay off took a cycle primarily to get them into the routine again and to re-apply focus..

Funnily enough if Fury was to take then he'd probably use them more for a stiff because he'd probably have trouble dragging his backside to the gym....

Either way innocent until guilty...Innocent perhaps because he'd probably be too dumb to take them discreetly..

PEDS allow athletes to train harder, longer, more often (repair muscle tissue etc.).

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:08 pm

Well you learn something new everyday..

by Herman Jaeger Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:59 am

Ward on John David and his relationship with Kovalev. I think Jackson who I regard as one of the better trainers out there, must be in with a shout for trainer of the year if he can pull off the win here. Ward looking relaxed and supremely confident though, he has faced punchers before but as we know Sergy is a bit freaky:

http://www.boxingscene.com/video-andre-ward-reacts-kovalevs-trash-talk--108847

by Herman Jaeger Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:05 am

Posted this on wrong thread, don't know how to change it, sorry for that

by Sponsored content

What is going on with Tyson Fury?

What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?

Re: What is going on with Tyson Fury?