W arren has his say on Hatton

[Deserter]

I hope he re-groups, cleans himself up and gets on with establishing his promotional company, which is coming along strongly.

Are we talking about the same promotional company?

[frankwarrenfan]

so big lennox, if someone close to you who you cared about was taking drugs you'd just let them get on with it would you?

it's unfortunate that this has all come out in the press but it does at least force ricky to do something about it.

[Nightmare Roy]

Knew it wouldn't be long ....

Warren has his say on Hatton

So to cut a long stroy short, Fw see's the as a potential opportunity to get rid of a rival promoter.

[larry cake]

so big lennox, if someone close to you who you cared about was taking drugs you'd just let them get on with it would you?

it's unfortunate that this has all come out in the press but it does at least force ricky to do something about it.

are you saying going to the press and exposing them is in some way helpful?

[frankwarrenfan]

if it gets ricky off drugs then yes obviously.

[dondada]

Someone had a thread yesterday asking why all the Hatton threads were taken down. Surely the biggest topic this year so why censor it? You will recall that in the past any question as to WHO OWNS BOXREC was also removed. Anyone starting to put 2 and 2 together?

Wake up an smell the coffee everyone.

The reason the Hatton threads were taken down is to remove potentially libellous posts being made.

And the reason for the heightened sense of awareness over this?

Because of the legal action taken by YOU lot.

Why oh why this forum tolerates you and your one-eyed, bile-filled, self-interested posts whilst you're trying your best to undermine it is beyond me.

[dondada]

Boxing needs to make an example of Hatton as he's a role-model for millions of children. If he's allowed to get away with taking class A drugs scott-free then what kind of example does that send to the children whoo look upto him? I think his behaviour is disgusting (as is the removal of all anti-Hatton posts from this forum).

They haven't all been removed, have they? WTF is this then? Scotch mist?

Do you want this forum to continue to exist? Then if you do, be aware that there are some sh1thouses out there dying to try and shut down what is one of the last bastions of free speech in the boxing media.

That's why the threads go.

Further, it's to protect individual posters who don't understand that our libel laws are the shittest in the world and that they could be exposing themselves to costly action, unwittingly.

[dondada]

the Hattons are rumoured to have financial interests in this website, which probably explains why the Hatton threads are being dealt with different to the Calzaghe threads

Who is it that is spreading rumours about Hatton having a financial interest in this site? Why might that be the case?

Tabloid journalism 101 - the question is not, 'Is it libellous?' but 'Will they sue?'

Seeing as Gareth Williams has recently started legal proceedings for defamation against W*rren - and good on him for finding recourse in the legal system so often used by the man himself - what do you think will stop him coming after BoxRec? Or do you fancy stumping up the money to see it off?

[cutthecacklebullyup]

Boxing needs to make an example of Hatton as he's a role-model for millions of children. If he's allowed to get away with taking class A drugs scott-free then what kind of example does that send to the children whoo look upto him? I think his behaviour is disgusting (as is the removal of all anti-Hatton posts from this forum).

couldnt agree more stated this yesterday thread got removed i presume but no one agreed ,i have had to fend off questions now for 2 dyas regrading all the hype,from my son who like i said before idolised both hatton and joe calz

[dondada]

Carbo - the tabloid newspapers in questions have millions of pounds and big legal teams. BoxRec does not.

If Hatton and his team want to take them on for the stuff that the publishers can't prove, that's up to them.

What goes on in the world of tabloids, unsubstantiated rumours, etc has absolutely no bearing on what goes on here.

[dondada]

Right, I've read all the posts on here and thankfully Loynesy's too. As usual, he's right. Then again, for £650 an hour, the c*nt should be able to walk on water

It would help if some of you knew how defamation law worked but that would be a bit much, I understand that. Other than that, you'll have to trust the moderation process.

Sometimes offending posts are individually deleted. Sometimes there is too much cleaning up to do and the thread goes. All the mods - who do an incredible amount of work very few of you know about - are all volunteers doing bits in their spare time. If they see a thread with a lot of libellous posts in on a ten-minute break from work, the f*cking thing will come down. They don't have the luxury to pick and choose whilst some sh1thouse is doing a print screen and saving the page, etc.

[Carbo]

Carbo - the tabloid newspapers in questions have millions of pounds and big legal teams. BoxRec does not.

If Hatton and his team want to take them on for the stuff that the publishers can't prove, that's up to them.

What goes on in the world of tabloids, unsubstantiated rumours, etc has absolutely no bearing on what goes on here.

The flip side to that coin is that tabloid newspapers make far more attractive targets for litigation, because they can afford to pay out tens or hundreds of thousands in damages and legal expenses, whereas Boxrec probably can't. So, they might get it shut down, but would it be worth it for all the legal costs they'd have to pay?

But this is not really the point. The point is that Boxrec appears to be taking an ultra cautious view to these matters. It may be that certain individuals to take an aggressively litigious stance with the boxing sites, but without knowing the individual posts that were deleted, there were some threads, as they stood, that in no way went close to any of the rumours and views already published in far higher profile media than this, and yet were completely deleted.

What's the point of a forum if free speech and debate is stymied to such an extent? It defeats the whole point. Surely, a message telling everyone to be careful, combined with selective deletion of the most contentious posts, would have been far better than just deleting without explanation or forewarning.

It's trigger happy, it spoils the forum and it's irritating to make an effort to put together a thoughtful post that adds to the debate, only to see everything arbitrarily wiped with no word of warning.

[dondada]

Yes - to some people, it would be well worth the money shutting this place down.

I wouldn't say BoxRec is taking an 'ultra cautious' view...a cautious one perhaps. And perhaps that view has been influenced by recent legal action.

I've explained why some threads might have been deleted in full. Sometimes there isn't time for 'selective deletion' and even if there was, some mods won't know defamation law.

Free speech is not stymied by the likes of us, but by Britain's appalling libel laws and people more than willing to take advantage of them.

I'm sorry you were irritated by the deletion of the posts but if even posters like you, with an inside view, can't understand why some things are zapped, we've got little chance of convincing others.

[Carbo]

Yes - to some people, it would be well worth the money shutting this place down.

I wouldn't say BoxRec is taking an 'ultra cautious' view...a cautious one perhaps. And perhaps that view has been influenced by recent legal action.

I've explained why some threads might have been deleted in full. Sometimes there isn't time for 'selective deletion' and even if there was, some mods won't know defamation law.

Free speech is not stymied by the likes of us, but by Britain's appalling libel laws and people more than willing to take advantage of them.

I'm sorry you were irritated by the deletion of the posts but if even posters like you, with an inside view, can't understand why some things are zapped, we've got little chance of convincing others.

Well, even if we have differing views, Ian, I really appreciate the time you've taken to respond.

I guess I might be less blaze, too, if it were my site.

I wonder if they've ever thought about registering the business in Nevis and St Kitts. Then, for anyone to bring liable litigation, they would be forced to deposit USD25,000 with the court before opening the case. I know that the editor and author of the libelous claims are responsible too, rather than just the publisher, but this would definitely offer some protection.

But I guess that's a story for another day.

Anyway, it does seem that now the story has become widespread, the site has taken a more lenient view.

[earsjohn]

So, according to the article, "His actions are bad for his and boxing's image...He has brought the sport into disrepute and must not be allowed to fight or promote again until he can show he is clean. "

While there can be no dispute that this story is bad for his image, I'm not so sure that the actions of one man, acting alone and away from any boxing activity can bring a whole global sport that has battled bigger matters than this in its history.

Bringing the sport into disrepute implies that these actions have made boxing look bad. I don't think anybody is calling for a ban on boxing as a result of Hatton having a big night? I think there are a number of other examples in recent times of boxers whose out of the ring activities could legitimately be said to have brought the sport into disrepute. Someone mentioned Scott Harrison. What about Floyd Mayweather (and his coach uncle Roger)? Another boxer convicted (ie, proven by a court of law to be guilty of a crime rather than, in Hattons case, to be accused of anti-social behaviour with no right of reply) of violent assault is Kell Brook. I don't recall Frank demanding he be banned from boxing until he "sorts himself out".

[Cyclops]

I think I live in a completely different reality to most people. The reality that I live in, most people have tried cocaine and lots of people take it for recreational purposes without being 'junkies' or needing to go into rehab. Yes it's illegal, but personally I think the drug laws are archaic and outdated, cause more harm than good and need reforming. It's ridiculous to demonise people for taking drugs- it's no different to having a go at people for smoking or going down the pub. I know plenty of people who have screwed up on booze just as I know plenty of people who have screwed up on drugs, but I just as I would never just write off somebody who had been out on the p*ss as an alcoholic so I would not automatically write off as a junkie someone who took the occasional gram on a Saturday night. It's nuts. If he'd run someone over driving like a pr*ck, bashed his wife or raped some unsuspecting groupie then I'd be with all the haters, but this seems to be more of a case of people attacking something they don't really understand. Get with the program, grandads.

If you have always slagged off Hatton for his drinking (personally I have always disliked his arrogance around this- you can't go out drinking twenty pints and expect to beat Floyd Mayweather) then I respect your right to have a go. But anybody who is moaning about Hatton having a sniff while in training, and citing steroid users such as Mosley and Roy Jones as examples. well clearly you've never taken it. After a night out on the charley the last thing you want to do is train. Your timing's off, you're anxious and spaced out. It certainly isn't a performance enhancer. Well, guys out on the piss who've been sniffing THINK they can fight and are more aggressive. They're definitely a lot harder to knock out... Of course! There's your evidence right there! Hatton is IMPOSSIBLE to knock out! Hang on...

[Rocky Balboa]

so big lennox, if someone close to you who you cared about was taking drugs you'd just let them get on with it would you?

it's unfortunate that this has all come out in the press but it does at least force ricky to do something about it.

True, but if that girl (think her name's Emma) is so caring for Ricky, why not try to do something instead of filming it & then going to the NOTW?

She must have been paid to hand over the footage? If she did receive a sum, then please, don't dare tell me she cares for Hatton!

Oh, & they were in a Hotel Room, at 2.30am, after having been clubbing, this I think its fair to say the purpose of her being present was not just to film Ricky! Lol

[JamesH]

The thread has certainly clarified my understanding of why they were taken down so quickly, cheers Ian and Loynsey. It sounds like there are a lot of variables to juggle when making the call and when theres any reasonable doubt, it goes. That's how I'd run a site under similar circumstances to those explained. I don't question the work mods do on here, so I didn't want my post to come across as a criticism of them, it wasn't.

I liked Carbo's Nevis and St Kitts idea but it got me thinking, if they can't get to boxrec we might get it directly! Forget that idea right away haha

[hurlock]

was that a girl or joe egan in drag?? D

im against ricky fighting so am happy for his fighters license to be with held but his promotional company shouldnt be touched as it runs itself & alot of people rely on the buisness to feed there kids.

blessing in disguise coz he would end up in the ring.

[leforge]

was that a girl or joe egan in drag?? D

im against ricky fighting so am happy for his fighters license to be with held but his promotional company shouldnt be touched as it runs itself & alot of people rely on the buisness to feed there kids.

blessing in disguise coz he would end up in the ring.

I can't see his promotional outfit being around in 5 years anyway, I think it will last until matthew gives up.

[Asterix]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/8993837.stm - Ricky Hatton enters rehabilitation after drug claims

It also mentions that Ricky will have a meeting with the BBBofC.

[McCannW14]

Imagine though if u had ur young prospect signed with hatton,how can u have confidence if ur manager and promoter is a coke head,

Come now, what % of rich successful people do you think haven't tried it at least the once?

I would say most people who have worked their arses off to make a business or career from scratch never get invloved with shit like that. They dont have time. They are focused on what they want to acheive. Drugs are not conducive to a great career. You need to be able to think straight when the pressure is on. There really isnt anything positive to say about them.

[McCannW14]

They have to ban him. How can that be good for the sport they are supposed to regulate?
Any other sport would ban him and it's far worse than anything I've seen before.

He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near fighters or the sport he has disgraced until he has cleaned himself up. Even Max Clifford has suggested he was taking it whilst he was fighting. Hatton's quote that "it only stays in your body for three days" suggests he has looked into it and that makes Clifford assumption look very likely. If he wasn't fighting anymore when he became a junlie then why would he care how long it stays in your body?

Therefore, if this is the case he has cheated and cociane would certainly help him shift the three stones of blubber he regularly dumped to make his fighting weight.

Someone had a thread yesterday asking why all the Hatton threads were taken down. Surely the biggest topic this year so why censor it? You will recall that in the past any question as to WHO OWNS BOXREC was also removed. Anyone starting to put 2 and 2 together?

Wake up an smell the coffee everyone.

Fair comment BC. You cant run a business and look after peoples interest and your own whilst under the influence. Not in the long term anyway.

If a fighter had taken drugs the Board would look at it, so why not a promoter?

[mickeyb]

Imagine though if u had ur young prospect signed with hatton,how can u have confidence if ur manager and promoter is a coke head,

Come now, what % of rich successful people do you think haven't tried it at least the once?

I would say most people who have worked their arses off to make a business or career from scratch never get invloved with poop like that. They dont have time. They are focused on what they want to acheive. Drugs are not conducive to a great career. You need to be able to think straight when the pressure is on. There really isnt anything positive to say about them.

Not what he asked though, is it. Besides the fact that I know quite a few successful self-made types who've indulged (and often over indulged) in recreational drugs, the man asked how many rich people who've tried it, not how many entrepreneurs. I can't think of anyone I know with money in their pocket and time on their hands (Ricky is the head of Hatton Promotions and a boxing man - I doubt he spends all days doing the books, printing the posters and making the teas; he's there to set the direction of the company any delegate the grunt work to people better suited to doing it) that hasn't at least given it a little tickle.

Flip me, there's a lot of sanctimonious bollocks being written on here. Much of it, I suspect, by people who would regard going out and drinking until they fall down/throw up/fall down and throw up as all good clean fun. Which it is by the way, as long as you aren't doing it every bloody night...

If Ricky really is doing "industrial amounts" of ching, then I'm glad he's taking steps to sort out his personal demons and I wish him all the luck in the world. I dunno if he is - I've never met him, and you will have to excuse me if I don't take the word of those that sell out their 'friends' to the gutter press as gospel.

And if Ricky's a light recreational user who's checked into the priory on his PR agency's advice to get the hypocritical pondscum that make up our glorious taploid press of his back, then I also wish him all the luck in the world.

Drugs are not conducive to a great career. You need to be able to think straight when the pressure is on.

What, like the kind of pressure the Prime Minister of a nation holding out against invading fascists might feel?

[Max Molyneux]

She says she cares yet talks to the NOTW about his drug problem and sells them a clip of it? So much for being his friend!

If he's allowed to get away with taking class A drugs scott-free then what kind of example does that send to the children whoo look upto him?

He's been caught and is going into rehab according to the BBC so in a way, he isn't getting away with it. Overrated fighter but good luck to him getting his problems sorted out though, losses and lack of actvity messes a lot of boxers up badly!