BoxBuzz wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 21:01
The following is a law of the "new physics".
It is irrefutable, and is now an unshakeable part of the new world order.
If one has been accused
One must have abused.
That's the new reality. Get used to it.
Let's not be confused by any set of alternative facts that may erroneously indicate otherwise.
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 21:01
The following is a law of the "new physics".
It is irrefutable, and is now an unshakeable part of the new world order.
If one has been accused
One must have abused.
That's the new reality. Get used to it.
Let's not be confused by any set of alternative facts that may erroneously indicate otherwise.
Are you a High Court Judge by any chance?
I suspect that BoxingBuzz is being a bit facetious here, complete with a lyrical homage to the late Johnny Cochran.
He believes the opposite of what he has
opined.
But if I'm incorrect, please set the record straight BB. I've always been big on the new world order.
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 21:01
The following is a law of the "new physics".
It is irrefutable, and is now an unshakeable part of the new world order.
If one has been accused
One must have abused.
That's the new reality. Get used to it.
Let's not be confused by any set of alternative facts that may erroneously indicate otherwise.
Are you a High Court Judge by any chance?
I suspect that BoxingBuzz is being a bit facetious here, complete with a lyrical homage to the late Johnny Cochran.
He believes the opposite of what he has
opined.
But if I'm incorrect, please set the record straight BB. I've always been big on the new world order.
All the same, I shall henceforth address him as 'Your Honour', just to be on the safe side
siablo14 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 09:48
Nah. Networks only do that when they know their viewers will be offended by such antics but we, boxing fans, don't care. We will still be tuning in. So I doubt Showtime will pull the fight.
I don't think it's quite that simple.
Sure the unenlightened public probably considers the average boxing fan a Neanderthal, whose only interest in life is the next big fight.
Boxing fans, as a whole aren't supposed to have a moral compass so they'll still eagerly tune to the next Broner fight regardless of what he does outside the ring.
But while SHOWTIME, a non-commercial premium cable network, may not be beholden to outside forces, it's parent company, CBS, certainly is. They crave sponsors. Sponsors pay the bills.
CBS is obliged to keep those sponsors happy. And once those sponsors catch wind that a prominent fighter charged with sexual assault is appearing on SHOWTIME, they'll want to bail. That's the nature of today.
Especially if the usual irate women's groups demand CBS pull Broner from the main event, under the threat of a sponsor boycott.
Once that tumult breaks out, you can damn well count on CBS ordering SHOWTIME sports honcho Stephen Espinoza to dump Broner.
Of course maybe Broner will be too busy with his criminal case and will pull himself from the fight on his own. That would easily solve CBS/SHOWTIME's conundrum.
But whether Broner decides to personally withdraw from the Figueroa bout or SHOWTIME makes the decision for him, rest assured that under our current climate, Adrien Broner will not appear on any boxing telecasts for the foreseeable future.
I see your CBS point but I doubt Broner's upcoming fight will be cancelled or taken off Showtime.
Showtime needs him. He was one of their top rated views-getter last year.
Broner will still be fighting on Showtime. Boxing fans are seen as crude. So nowadays sensitivities won't hamper a boxer.
Sure the unenlightened public probably considers the average boxing fan a Neanderthal, whose only interest in life is the next big fight.
Boxing fans, as a whole aren't supposed to have a moral compass so they'll still eagerly tune to the next Broner fight regardless of what he does outside the ring.
But while SHOWTIME, a non-commercial premium cable network, may not be beholden to outside forces, it's parent company, CBS, certainly is. They crave sponsors. Sponsors pay the bills.
CBS is obliged to keep those sponsors happy. And once those sponsors catch wind that a prominent fighter charged with sexual assault is appearing on SHOWTIME, they'll want to bail. That's the nature of today.
Especially if the usual irate women's groups demand CBS pull Broner from the main event, under the threat of a sponsor boycott.
Once that tumult breaks out, you can damn well count on CBS ordering SHOWTIME sports honcho Stephen Espinoza to dump Broner.
Of course maybe Broner will be too busy with his criminal case and will pull himself from the fight on his own. That would easily solve CBS/SHOWTIME's conundrum.
But whether Broner decides to personally withdraw from the Figueroa bout or SHOWTIME makes the decision for him, rest assured that under our current climate, Adrien Broner will not appear on any boxing telecasts for the foreseeable future.
I see your CBS point but I doubt Broner's upcoming fight will be cancelled or taken off Showtime.
Showtime needs him. He was one of their top rated views-getter last year.
Broner will still be fighting on Showtime. Boxing fans are seen as crude. So nowadays sensitivities won't hamper a boxer.
I suspect that Figueroa withdrawing (in truth, he probably is entering rehab) is just the start.
Prosecutors have dropped sexual and simple battery charges against boxer Adrien Broner, according to court records obtained by TMZ.
Per the report, the 29-year-old was accused of groping a woman outside a Louis Vuitton store in February 2018, but a lack of admissible evidence meant the case has now been dropped.
Broner was arrested for sexual battery and simple battery afterward, in which a woman said he had touched her "butt, thigh and 'private parts,'" according to TMZ.
But without enough evidence to "prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," the woman has consented to the court's decision.
Here are my thoughts about the allegation, submitted around the same time TMZ published the slanderous article, which now seem rather accurate:
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Feb 2018, 12:22
I can’t help thinking that Broner’s controversial money-spinning villainous persona, coupled with him committing a few misdemeanours, has led to a clamouring of multiple women seeking to exploit his situation for financial purposes.
Also, TMZ have a proven track record of publishing articles that contain unsubstantiated claims that are subsequently proven to be ficticious.
Perhaps I’m wrong, maybe Broner really is a pervert, but something doesn’t seem quite right about the nature of TMZ’s video and article.
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 10:35I also believe that people should be deemed as “innocent until proven guilty”. That is how the legal system works globally.
I flatly refuse to jump on the trendy and politically-correct “#MeToo” movement bandwagon, by automatically assuming guilt without possessing any evidence whatsoever, based on an accusation that has not yet been proven to be true by a courtroom.
In my opinion, the nature of the allegation itself seems rather odd given the celebrity status of the alleged guilty party, coupled with the environment the infraction supposedly occurred in.
Prosecutors have dropped sexual and simple battery charges against boxer Adrien Broner, according to court records obtained by TMZ.
Per the report, the 29-year-old was accused of groping a woman outside a Louis Vuitton store in February 2018, but a lack of admissible evidence meant the case has now been dropped.
Broner was arrested for sexual battery and simple battery afterward, in which a woman said he had touched her "butt, thigh and 'private parts,'" according to TMZ.
But without enough evidence to "prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," the woman has consented to the court's decision.
Here are my thoughts about the allegation, submitted around the same time TMZ published the slanderous article, which now seem rather accurate:
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Feb 2018, 12:22
I can’t help thinking that Broner’s controversial money-spinning villainous persona, coupled with him committing a few misdemeanours, has led to a clamouring of multiple women seeking to exploit his situation for financial purposes.
Also, TMZ have a proven track record of publishing articles that contain unsubstantiated claims that are subsequently proven to be ficticious.
Perhaps I’m wrong, maybe Broner really is a pervert, but something doesn’t seem quite right about the nature of TMZ’s video and article.
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 10:35I also believe that people should be deemed as “innocent until proven guilty”. That is how the legal system works globally.
I flatly refuse to jump on the trendy and politically-correct “#MeToo” movement bandwagon, by automatically assuming guilt without possessing any evidence whatsoever, based on an accusation that has not yet been proven to be true by a courtroom.
In my opinion, the nature of the allegation itself seems rather odd given the celebrity status of the alleged guilty party, coupled with the environment the infraction supposedly occurred in.
I wish more people would follow the belief of innocent until proven guilty.
