W arren has his say on Hatton

[Carbo]

Carbo. You're losing this debate.

The bigger picture view places all substances that impact on a person's decision making, temporary or permanent, on a scale.

You cannot excuse alcohol. Now that fags are essentially marginalised....beer is inevitably next by a slow osmosis of cultural evolution and education alcohol will over time become demonised because of its economic burden through the anti-social and health effects its users dump on the rest of society.

Moderation will come first, as the fall of 6% in drinking last year demonstrates. Then will come health warnings on drinks and glasses, as begun by the "Drink responsibly" campaign and then it will be banned from connection with healthy pursuits and young people, as it already has begun to be.

It will mirror the demise of smoking. Up to the 60's and through them a huge percentage of people smoked. It was accepted, it didn't affect anyone, had no impact, was a social thing. People liked the smell, the taste, the feeling.

But slowly they were educated to its personal, then economic, then social impact (passive smoking) and it is now extinguished as the pastime of the many and the uber cool to the past time of the disenfranchised, rain sodden loosers and teenage girls.

Alcohol will go the same way. Big brother has started that process this past decade.

Sorry, I don't think I explained myself very well. I generally agree with you on alcohol, although I think it's far more deep seated in our lives and society to disappear in the way cigarettes have, which haven't been around very long at all.

All I'm trying to say is that the "alcohol is legal, so drugs should be too" isn't a valid argument. I'm not saying that alcohol is good for you, or good for society, but it doesn't change the fact that much of drinking is safe and is done not to inebriate but to enjoy the taste.

But I generally agree with what you're saying, and certainly abusive alcohol drinking, binge drinking, alcoholism, etc, is really bad for society, perhaps worse than class a drugs.

[Carbo]

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.

Cocaine is a recreational drug. It's benefits as an enhancer are very dubious to say the least, as it raises the heartrate, impairs respiration, and can cause a stroke. The liklihood is that he was doing it whilst he was either out of training, or occasionally whilst in training. It's extremely unlikely he would go into the ring on it, or use it as part of his regime. Cocaine impairs your bodie's functionality, and is too short lived to be of massive benefit. The only reason it would benefit shifting weight is that it is a diuretic, and there's plehty of other substances far less harmfull that he could have taken to shift weight.

I think as a short term measure, say, during a fight, it could potentially be very beneficial -- and potentially very dangerous, too.

In training, worse than useless.

[Srebmun]

Carbo. You're losing this debate.

The bigger picture view places all substances that impact on a person's decision making, temporary or permanent, on a scale.

You cannot excuse alcohol. Now that fags are essentially marginalised....beer is inevitably next by a slow osmosis of cultural evolution and education alcohol will over time become demonised because of its economic burden through the anti-social and health effects its users dump on the rest of society.

Moderation will come first, as the fall of 6% in drinking last year demonstrates. Then will come health warnings on drinks and glasses, as begun by the "Drink responsibly" campaign and then it will be banned from connection with healthy pursuits and young people, as it already has begun to be.

It will mirror the demise of smoking. Up to the 60's and through them a huge percentage of people smoked. It was accepted, it didn't affect anyone, had no impact, was a social thing. People liked the smell, the taste, the feeling.

But slowly they were educated to its personal, then economic, then social impact (passive smoking) and it is now extinguished as the pastime of the many and the uber cool to the past time of the disenfranchised, rain sodden loosers and teenage girls.

Alcohol will go the same way. Big brother has started that process this past decade.

Sorry, I don't think I explained myself very well. I generally agree with you on alcohol, although I think it's far more deep seated in our lives and society to disappear in the way cigarettes have, which haven't been around very long at all.

All I'm trying to say is that the "alcohol is legal, so drugs should be too" isn't a valid argument. I'm not saying that alcohol is good for you, or good for society, but it doesn't change the fact that much of drinking is safe and is done not to inebriate but to enjoy the taste.

But I generally agree with what you're saying, and certainly abusive alcohol drinking, binge drinking, alcoholism, etc, is really bad for society, perhaps worse than class a drugs.

On the same note, just cos drugs are illegal doesn't immediately make them bad - not saying this as if you have - am just saying as it is the usual argument of the ignorant.

We can't just introduce cocaine into society and make it legal, not overnight, we as a society would have to have licensed dispensers juxtaposed with education centres - or something, I dunno, but it's currently wrong.

The blood trail for coke is dreadful, but can you imagine if the coca farmers were subsidised and thus cocaine production of the base product became fair trade.

There's so many pros, as there are cons, to at least consider taking the complete control of controlled substances out of the hands of the criminal fraternity. You'd never get rid of the black market, but it's quite possible a real change could be made.

[Srebmun]

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.

Cocaine is a recreational drug. It's benefits as an enhancer are very dubious to say the least, as it raises the heartrate, impairs respiration, and can cause a stroke. The liklihood is that he was doing it whilst he was either out of training, or occasionally whilst in training. It's extremely unlikely he would go into the ring on it, or use it as part of his regime. Cocaine impairs your bodie's functionality, and is too short lived to be of massive benefit. The only reason it would benefit shifting weight is that it is a diuretic, and there's plehty of other substances far less harmfull that he could have taken to shift weight.

I think as a short term measure, say, during a fight, it could potentially be very beneficial -- and potentially very dangerous, too.

In training, worse than useless.

I think you raise the risk of a heart attack 12 fold by even doing 1 line of coke, something like that anyway. The combination of coke and viagra thus is dicing with death completely.

[Chambers2]

The combination of coke and viagra thus is dicing with death completely.

It's definitely dangerous as is viagra and ecstacy

[mickeyb]

I have no idea why people think that alcohol and narcotics are somehow the same. It's an easy argument to say, "well, if alcohol's legal, so should be cocaine." But it's also an incredibly lazy and ill considered argument.

Kindly point out where I said that alcohol and narcotics are "the same" or that cocaine should be legal. If you can't kindly stick to the point and stop putting words in other people's mouth.

To utterly stupefy yourself on cocaine is morally synonymous with utterly stupefying yourself on alcohol

It certainly is.

but that doesn't mean alcohol and cocaine are the same. Alcohol is a substance that need not be stupefying: millions of people drink it every day without any noticeable affect. Indeed, it is thought that in smaller quantities it is almost certainly healthy to drink. Meantime, it is possible to drink alcohol because one likes the flavour, and certianly a significant portion (most?) people who drink don't do it with the express intention of getting intoxicated. None of these things can be said about cocaine. It is taken specifically for its intoxicating affect. It is not possible to just take small amounts and not feel any affect (indeed, why would you want to?)

While I've never been a big fan of ching, the overwhelming majority of users do not use it to stupefying levels. Coke highs are pure, and over pretty quickly. The overwhelming majority of users use it to get slightly high, just like the overwhelming majority of alcohol users. I love the taste of a lot of alls, but I, like most people who drink, will have a couple to feel that little tingle rather than just a half purely for the taste. Most people drink for a bit of a buzz. Most people do ching for a buzz. A few people get carried away with either or both.

There are no real health benefits, and indeed, beyond those whose lives have been seriously affected by addiction, those who have had cocaine related strokes and heart attacks, or who have drank far more alcohol than their body could have handled without cocaine, will attest to the health risks.

Agreed, which is why I would personally not want to see it legalised.

Just because you or your mates haven't had problems, doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that out to everyone.

I am extrapolating nothing of the sort. I know people that have had a few beers or the odd spliff and downward spiralled into being complete fornicate-ups. I also know very successful people who are semi-regular heroin users. All I've done is provide a counterpoint the unhelpful, and just plain wrong, assertions of some posters that drugs are unequivocably bad.

Which brings us on to something else: We forget that these drugs were banned for a reason. Cocaine wasn't banned because the government didn't want us to have fun, but because it is an extremely dangerous drug, both in terms of the health dangers, and its addictiveness. Further, the damage caused to society by addicts was large.

See above for my general agreement. But also note the amount that alcohol and cigarettes cost society each year. Of course, they have always had powerful lobbies behind them.

Of course, the last paragraph is true of alcohol, but it is impossible to ban alcohol without affecting the majority, who drink without total inebriation, or who drink for the taste. But to say that alcohol is totally legal and free is not true. Those who sell it must have a licence, for which they must fulfil certain criteria and accept certain monitoring. The times at which it can be sold are (or were until recently) tightly controlled. I remember when I was young that pubs closed during the afternoon, for instance, and then closed for good at 11pm. No all nighters.

Of course alcohol and tobacco sellers have to be licensed. But if cocaine were to be legalised, it's sellers would be licensed and taxed too. We're back to comparing apples and oranges here. I would call this 'lazy and ill considered', but frankly I find dismissing arguments I happen to disagree with lazy and ill considered as... well, lazy and inconsidered. :)

Further, it's not true to say that we have strict prohibition of drugs here. There may be in the law, but de facto, we simply don't. I mean, are the police arresting Ricky for being caught red handed? Nope. Would they if they'd had a video of a celebrity stealing? Or beating up someone? Or committing any other crime? Yes. You just try to get arrested for carrying or smoking marijuana. It's next to impossible.

Users aren't generally arrested because they aren't the real problem, and the police have better things to do with their limited resources. Either Ricky's a light user then he's no danger to himself or, realistically, society at large. If he's a heavy user then he's booked himself in to the best place at his own expense. No point throwing taxpayer's money at the problem.

[Spud]

With regards his promotional activities whilst he is "away" - Hatton Promotions I believe can still operate - nowt the BBBofC can do about it either - all Hatton Promotions have to do if a licence is temporarily suspended is find a promoter with a current licence and they will operate under his name - worked on a couple of shows when someone did that - makes a farce of any rules that the BBBofC may have.

[DavidPayne]

oooh Gomez.....I'm almost intrigued. But I think I want to maintain a degree of mythology about my boxing heroes so please, don't tell me any names.

[Srebmun]

oooh Gomez.....I'm almost intrigued. But I think I want to maintain a degree of mythology about my boxing heroes so please, don't tell me any names.

You just look mad now since Gomez''s post was removed.

[Carbo]

I reckon that Gomez should send PMs to people telling them who's doing it (if I have understood Mr. Payne's post correctly).