I tried to use an analogy to illustrate the reason why the thread title was totally absurd! However, you’re more interested in undermining the minutiae of the analogy itself than digesting the actual point that I’m trying to make.the_doctor wrote:They only receive punishment if the accusation is shown to be baseless. And this isn't a criminal case either.Enlightened-One wrote: I’m not interested in your nonsense theory about employment tribunals, because employers cannot sack employees due to accusations of criminal activity without sufficient evidence, without going through due process or without obtaining both sides of the story by discussing the matter with the accused party, otherwise they’d get sued for wrongful dismissal. Do you want to know why employers receive punishment for dismissing an employee using baseless accusations? It’s because it’s “wrong”.
When we are talking about a fight, if there is some evidence (and there is some evidence - not concrete evidence) that one of the fighters is on something that could unnaturally improve his performance, the fight should be cancelled. The fact that Povetkin is still allowed to fight despite potentially having something in his system is a disgrace and a massive health risk to his opponent. And I say that as someone who wanted to see Povetkin win, then smash Wilder.
This is going to be the third time that I’m going to remind you of the title of this thread, which is: “Povetkin allowed to fight after he failed test – JOKE”. That’s what we’re debating here.
So I’ll make my point loud and clear, just for the sake of those that wholeheartedly believe that all human beings should receive punishment for allegations of wrongdoing based purely on the “no smoke without fire” mythical justice system!
In the last two years, Alexander Povetkin has never been judged guilty of being a drug cheat. The second sample has not been tested to verify the initial results of the positive test that has only just been announced by the media. These recent allegations have not yet been proven to be true.
Therefore, Povetkin should be allowed to fight Johann Duhaupas tonight, because his opponent is aware of the situation and Alexander has not been proven to be guilty of any wrongdoing.
Every person should be presumed innocent until guilt has been proven. Similarly, punishment should not be administered until guilt has been proven!
I noticed that you ignored the vast majority of the points I made in my previous response, which was factually correct… is this because you can’t address each one without conceding that I’m right?
Just to make myself clear, I couldn’t care less whether Povetkin is or isn’t guilty of being a drug cheat, the point I’m labouring over is that he should be considered innocent until proven guilty. And innocent people should not receive any form of punishment, such as taking away their source of income.
thank you