BoxRec

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-spor ... 8063/.html



US heavyweight boxer Deontay Wilder has won his latest fight in a unanimous decision.

A Manhattan federal jury deliberated for 30 minutes before finding in his favour in a civil action in which the World Boxing Council champion sought US$5 million (NZ$7m) for a fight that never happened against a Russian challenger.

The 31-year-old boxer was not in court when the nine-person jury returned its verdict after brief deliberations. Neither was the Russian boxer - Alexander Povetkin, 37.

The jury concluded Povetkin had used a performance-enhancing substance after it was banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency on January 1, 2016. He tested negative for meldonium three times but then tested positive in a surprise test before the scheduled May fight, which was cancelled.

Meldonium has been implicated in Russia's larger doping scandal and a 15-month ban on tennis star Maria Sharapova that is nearing its end.

Povetkin's lawyer, Kent Yalowitz, promised to appeal, calling the verdict "a true miscarriage of justice''.

Yalowitz said in an email that hundreds of athletes tested positive for it at trace levels early in 2016 because it stays in the body for many months.

"Povetkin did not receive a fair trial,'' he said.

Lawyer Judd Burstein, representing Wilder, said his client was flying from Alabama to New York on Monday (NZT Tuesday) to attend the trial when his plane was diverted because of high winds.

"He said that he was grateful for the victory,'' Burstein said.

Why was this a jury trial ? A bunch of brainwashed Americans deciding a dispute between an American and a Russian villain? And these "experts" make a conclusion on when Povetkin took meldonium ???

That's some interesting hair

Kind of like a dreadlock skullet

boxing_rocks wrote:Why was this a jury trial ? A bunch of brainwashed Americans deciding a dispute between an American and a Russian villain? And these "experts" make a conclusion on when Povetkin took meldonium ???

Does it really matter?
If it was a judge making the decision, you would call the judge a "brainwashed American".

Russian scum can't fathom the fact that their empire of lies, murder and deception is coming to an end. And nobody buys your "RT Truth" anymore.

klitoris wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:Why was this a jury trial ? A bunch of brainwashed Americans deciding a dispute between an American and a Russian villain? And these "experts" make a conclusion on when Povetkin took meldonium ???

Does it really matter?
If it was a judge making the decision, you would call the judge a "brainwashed American".

Russian scum can't fathom the fact that their empire of lies, murder and deception is coming to an end. And nobody buys your "RT Truth" anymore.

Your latest statement shows that you are full of hate. You don't buy RT, but you are clearly buying the opposite PROPAGANDA.

Kalan mad.

Sad to see how sad Americans really are.
They aren't fair to Russians, they are pretty racists in my opinion, the facts are clear, Povetkin is innocent in the meldonium case

asdfjkl sad.

boxing_rocks wrote:Why was this a jury trial ? A bunch of brainwashed Americans deciding a dispute between an American and a Russian villain? And these "experts" make a conclusion on when Povetkin took meldonium ???

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The case wasn't prepared well... You need to bring in a stream of expert witnesses when you're up against Judd Burstein... The facts are on Povetkin's side and all you have to do is present those facts over and over again through the voices of articulate experts.. Wilder had nobody but Burstein and phony experts who could easily be broken on cross examination..

All you have to say is "Let's forget your opinion Mr Catlin. You can have an opinion that the sky is usually orange or that pigs can get pilot's licenses. Has any relevant testing authority ruled on Povetkin's case as to his guilt or lack of guilt in the case of Meldonium???" ... "You don't know of any relevant authority and you're representing yourself as an expert???" ... "Have you heard of WADA?" ... "What was their final ruling in this case as to Mr Povetkin's guilt or lack of guilt?" ... "Have you heard of VADA?" ... "What was their final ruling in this case?" ... "What about the World Boxing Council who sanctioned Wilder-Povetkin? What was their final ruling on this case?" ... "Do you know of ANY testing authority or ANY Boxing regulator who's final ruling was that Povetkin failed to pass ANY of the many tests he took for Meldonium???" You have to ask very direct and pointed questions an be very hostile and combative about it because they don't want to answer in a direct yes or no and are hostile witnesses.. You're fighting for your client's career.

The problem is with lawyers who think they're case will be quickly dismissed and they rush through the case because they're already been paid. Then you have the defendants who don't speak English and really can't defend themselves well so he lawyer has to represent him very solidly.

Do we know if the judge will approve the jury's verdict and has he also agreed to the sum of compensation requested by Wilder's legal representatives?

We know the jury's verdict, but do we know the final outcome yet?

I haven't got a horse in this proverbial legal race, I'm merely curious about what has actually been confirmed.

Enlightened-One wrote:Do we know if the judge will approve the jury's verdict and has he also agreed to the sum of compensation requested by Wilder's legal representatives?

We know the jury's verdict, but do we know the final outcome yet?

...according to Ryabinski yesterday:

- the judge may or may not approve the jury's verdict and that he hasn't done it yet
- the sum of compenstaion hasn't been discussed yet
- no final verdict as yet

greg wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:Do we know if the judge will approve the jury's verdict and has he also agreed to the sum of compensation requested by Wilder's legal representatives?

We know the jury's verdict, but do we know the final outcome yet?

...according to Ryabinski yesterday:

- the judge may or may not approve the jury's verdict and that he hasn't done it yet
- the sum of compenstaion hasn't been discussed yet
- no final verdict as yet

Thank-you.

greg wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:Do we know if the judge will approve the jury's verdict and has he also agreed to the sum of compensation requested by Wilder's legal representatives?

We know the jury's verdict, but do we know the final outcome yet?

...according to Ryabinski yesterday:

- the judge may or may not approve the jury's verdict and that he hasn't done it yet
- the sum of compenstaion hasn't been discussed yet
- no final verdict as yet

So despite the Americans succesfully destroyed Povetkin his reputation and on top of that proved this overwelming by tipical American people who are to dumb to realise, there might still be some justice?

asdfjkl wrote:

greg wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:Do we know if the judge will approve the jury's verdict and has he also agreed to the sum of compensation requested by Wilder's legal representatives?

We know the jury's verdict, but do we know the final outcome yet?

...according to Ryabinski yesterday:

- the judge may or may not approve the jury's verdict and that he hasn't done it yet
- the sum of compenstaion hasn't been discussed yet
- no final verdict as yet

So despite the Americans succesfully destroyed Povetkin his reputation and on top of that proved this overwelming by tipical American people who are to dumb to realise, there might still be some justice?

All right asdfjkl... I'm letting you off with a warning for now. But, if you keep it up, you're going find yourself sitting next to Povetkin.

Kalan wrote:The case wasn't prepared well... You need to bring in a stream of expert witnesses when you're up against Judd Burstein... The facts are on Povetkin's side and all you have to do is present those facts over and over again through the voices of articulate experts.. Wilder had nobody but Burstein and phony experts who could easily be broken on cross examination..

All you have to say is "Let's forget your opinion Mr Catlin. You can have an opinion that the sky is usually orange or that pigs can get pilot's licenses. Has any relevant testing authority ruled on Povetkin's case as to his guilt or lack of guilt in the case of Meldonium???" ... "You don't know of any relevant authority and you're representing yourself as an expert???" ... "Have you heard of WADA?" ... "What was their final ruling in this case as to Mr Povetkin's guilt or lack of guilt?" ... "Have you heard of VADA?" ... "What was their final ruling in this case?" ... "What about the World Boxing Council who sanctioned Wilder-Povetkin? What was their final ruling on this case?" ... "Do you know of ANY testing authority or ANY Boxing regulator who's final ruling was that Povetkin failed to pass ANY of the many tests he took for Meldonium???" You have to ask very direct and pointed questions an be very hostile and combative about it because they don't want to answer in a direct yes or no and are hostile witnesses.. You're fighting for your client's career.

The problem is with lawyers who think they're case will be quickly dismissed and they rush through the case because they're already been paid. Then you have the defendants who don't speak English and really can't defend themselves well so he lawyer has to represent him very solidly.

You mean billionaire Ryabinski can't afford to hire a competent, english-speaking lawyer?

Face it, Wilder won thanks to the facts VADA provided