Eddie Hearn has disclosed that a significant contractual oversight means Tyson Fury has faced no obligation to participate in drug testing ahead of his blockbuster showdown with Anthony Joshua.
The Matchroom Boxing chief revealed the disparity at Saturday evening’s post-fight press conference following the Pat Brown versus John Hedges bout.
According to Hearn, Joshua’s agreement with Saudi dealmaker Turki Alalshikh contained provisions requiring him to enrol in testing from the moment he signed.
Fury’s separately negotiated contract, however, included no such requirement.
Eddie Hearn has disclosed that a significant contractual oversight means Tyson Fury has faced no obligation to participate in drug testing
|
GETTYThe revelation adds yet another layer of complexity to a fight that has been beset by contractual inconsistencies between the two camps.
Both heavyweight rivals have penned individual deals with Alalshikh for the long-awaited all-British clash, expected to take place later this year.
The discrepancies between the two fighters’ deals extend well beyond the testing issue.
Both Alalshikh and streaming giant Netflix had been keen to stage the spectacle on American soil.
Joshua’s contract, though, stipulated that this Battle of Britain must be held in the United Kingdom. Hearn and his fighter refused to budge on that point.
The bout now appears destined for Cardiff’s Principality Stadium, with a date of 11 December firmly in the frame.
Fury’s agreement contained no equivalent venue clause, which reportedly caused considerable bewilderment within the Gypsy King’s camp. The mismatch between the two contracts has been a persistent source of delay, preventing an official announcement from being made despite both men having already committed to the contest.
Tyson Fury has ‘not adhered to the drug testing protocol’ as it was not in his contract, Eddie Hearn claims
|
GETTYSpeaking to assembled media on Saturday night, Hearn was forthright about the situation. “The drug testing protocol was the same as what has always been in there,” he said. “It wasn’t adhered to in its form. I don’t actually necessarily blame Tyson Fury for that.”
He went on to elaborate on the root of the problem. “As we’ve found out on many occasions, what’s in AJ’s contract is not necessarily in Tyson Fury’s contract,” Hearn explained. “Testing was supposed to start when the original contracts were signed, and it didn’t for them.”
The promoter was careful to distinguish between contractual obligation and personal culpability. “So this is not me saying, ‘He didn’t enrol.’ I don’t think he was obligated to enrol [in his contract]. But in our contract, he was obligated to enrol.”
Hearn also acknowledged that his side had consciously overlooked a number of contractual problems in order to preserve the fight. “There have been many issues along the way with the contract that we have let slip and ride because we want to stay in the fight and make sure it happens,” he admitted.
Crucially, the promoter’s remarks do not suggest that Fury violated any agreement or engaged in any improper conduct. The Mancunian heavyweight simply was not bound by the same terms as his rival.
What the episode does expose, however, is a glaring failure on the part of those responsible for drafting the two separate contracts. The lack of uniformity between the deals has created an uneven playing field that neither fighter requested but both must now navigate as December’s showdown edges closer to confirmation.
