By Gabriel Princewill-
Former world champ Tyson Fury may not get banned at all, a top Ukad official has indicated.
Refusing to discuss Fury’s case directly so as not jeopardise the integrity of the case, Sophie Aschcroft, Head of Media at Ukad told the eye of media.com that there are various levels of fault finding mechanisms used to determine whether an athlete is sometimes absolved from the ”strict liability rule” that makes the athlete liable for the banned substance in their system, regardless of how it got there. Strict liability places full responsibility on the athlete for the banned substance in his system.
The burden is on him to convince the panel why they should reduce his punishment or not punish him at all. The usual punishment is 4 years a full ban , but half of that at 2 years under mitigating circumstances. Aschroft pointed out that it is rare that an athlete is completely exempt from a ban under strict liability, but stated that it had happened once in the case of Jake Livermore. ”That case unusual”, Ashcroft explained, ”but it shows that it is possible for there to be no ban in some circumstances”, she stated.
UKAD PANEL
The panel, often made up of people from the legal profession, base their judgment on three criterion of fault finding:high fault in negligence, no fault in negligence, or low fault in negligence. All three represent the different scales used in determining whether the athlete in question took ‘due care’ in checking that any food or supplement they have consumed contained no banned substance in them. The higher the level of carelessness they show the more negligent they have been, and vice versa.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Aschcroft was at pains to explain why Ukad does not discuss individual cases whilst the case is still ongoing. However, she explained that the board take into account mitigating circumstances that may totally absolve an athlete from responsibility, or adjudge them liable to a low or high extent. The degree of fault in negligence is reflected in the length of the ban;or no ban imposed at all, if the athlete was for example; suffering from a cognitive impairment.
The process of this reasoning is intuitively sound and denotes the fact that any evidential mental impairment suffered by an athlete during the period in question, amounts to the view that this athlete may not have been accountable for their actions. This latter conclusion will necessarily rely on irrefutable evidence showing the athlete to have been mentally unfit.
BIPOLAR
Fury’s father recently revealed that Fury suffers from a form of bi polar , and he has shown plenty of symptoms akin to a mental health problem of some sort. This, on its own, should not exempt him from the rules that apply to everyone else in a potentially tough and dangerous sport like boxing.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
However, if Fury’s bi-polar had been aggravated by other serious issues, and he showed due diligence to ensure that no banned product was contained in any of his food or supplements, he may not even be banned at all. Ukad also sometimes take into account the fact that banned substances may potentially get into an athletes food or supplement through contamination. The UK drug regulator expect athletes to use websites like informed sport to check whether the supplements have been batch tested.
Athletes who can show they have undertaken this sort of due diligence are more likely pass the negligence test, especially where there have been other serious mitigating circumstances involved. The decision panel have the means to confirm whether claims of due diligence took place.
FURY’S COCAINE TEST
Then we have the subsequent issue of Fury failing a cocaine test. This is also one that cognitive impairment can cover too. cocaine, not being a performance enhancing drug, may also fall under mitigating circumstances. So, the outlandish Tyson Fury may not be banned after all, depending on how his case is presented. One would like to think that however dim he presents himself to the public sometimes, he is capable of hiring a good lawyer or advocate that knows his stuff, and who is furnished with all relevant information.
If all of the above requirement are satisfied in Fury’s defence, Tyson Fury may be back a lot sooner than many expect
This will be good for his mental recuperation, though Fury needs firm hands to help him curb his general wayward behaviour, so that he can think normally and sensibly. Yet, a successful outcome like this for Fury is only hypothetical, depending on other facts. Fury
voluntarily gave up his belts to pursue psychological recuperation for his depression, however, he never knew his case was not a doomed case. Fury would have boxed Klitschko in whatever state of fitness he was, if the drugs complication hanging over him were not in the equation at all.
The unbeaten former world champion has had depression for a while, according to his dad, and so has fought in the ring with whatever level of depression he had. The extra stress caused by the drug allegations and the expectation of a ban heightened may have heightened his depression, and led him to withdraw before the possibility of him being withdrawn.
TOUGH TYSON FURY
It will be a tough road back for Fury, who has been out for a year now, to regain the championship belts if Anthony Joshua beats Klitschko and becomes the new undisputed champion of the world. Joshua will sure have momentum and confidence on his side, in addition to his ability.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar