BoxRec

East End wrote: ↑13 Feb 2018, 11:18 This woman could just be some attention seeker who recognised him and thought hey, the media are always up for a good Broner story.

Yeah ok I know Broner is Broner and there's no smoke without fire but, as far as I can see, it is still only an allegation at this stage so let's not be so quick to judge.

chuck9788 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2018, 17:33 In 2018, who can honestly admit to being an Adrien Broner fan?!? It's basically like admitting that you are an @sshole!

Broner has a scheduled fight vs Omar Figueroa (27-0-1, 19 KO's) coming up in April, and this jerk is in shopping mall's getting into legal trouble?!?

Figueroa needs to rid us all of this "problem".

SenorPipino wrote: ↑13 Feb 2018, 12:54

East End wrote: ↑13 Feb 2018, 11:18 This woman could just be some attention seeker who recognised him and thought hey, the media are always up for a good Broner story.

Yeah ok I know Broner is Broner and there's no smoke without fire but, as far as I can see, it is still only an allegation at this stage so let's not be so quick to judge.

Committing a sex crime in a crowded public mall and then back and forth arguing between the two seems very odd.

Usually when a woman is assaulted, she'll scream and flee when she can.

Here the victim stayed and engaged in a "heated war of words" with Broner.

Something here doesn't add up.

chuck9788 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2018, 17:33 In 2018, who can honestly admit to being an Adrien Broner fan?!? It's basically like admitting that you are an @sshole!

Broner has a scheduled fight vs Omar Figueroa (27-0-1, 19 KO's) coming up in April, and this jerk is in shopping mall's getting into legal trouble?!?

Figueroa needs to rid us all of this "problem".

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.

SenorPipino wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 07:20 With the sexual assault climate being what it is in recent months (at least here in the US where you now stand to lose your job if you simply complimented a women on her looks ...20 years ago) I have a hunch that SHOWTIME will play the politically correct role and refuse Broner as an opponent for Omar Figueroa in April.

Broner has been charged with misdemeanor sexual battery and is free on $2000 bail..

SHOWTIME will grandstand and issue some statement proclaiming that it can't condone that type of behaviour aimed at women, and will not reward Broner with an opportunity while the case is pending.

Naturally the network will neglect to mention that it has conveniently overlooked Broner's prior criminal transgressions along with any and all crimes committed by other boxers who have appeared on it's telecast.

That's because those crimes weren't trendy like sexual harassment is these days.

If all this comes to pass, Broner will sue, I'm certain, unless SHOWTIME agrees to ample compensation.

caldo2025 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 08:54

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.

This is exactly the kind of opinion that needs to change. I'm no feminist but i happen to love women very much and respect and am completely behind the current movement that you apparently are oblivious to with this kind of comment. Of all people, EO demands proof and facts for any opinion under the sun, but he'll dare to make the dumbest post of his career without knowing one thing about the situation or the young lady involved. Broner has a history of disrespect to woman to figure into this equation while you know nothing about the woman but you somehow come to the opinion that the woman is on a money grab. it's 2018 EO, get your act together or you might stay single forever.

siablo14 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 09:48

SenorPipino wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 07:20 With the sexual assault climate being what it is in recent months (at least here in the US where you now stand to lose your job if you simply complimented a women on her looks ...20 years ago) I have a hunch that SHOWTIME will play the politically correct role and refuse Broner as an opponent for Omar Figueroa in April.

Broner has been charged with misdemeanor sexual battery and is free on $2000 bail..

SHOWTIME will grandstand and issue some statement proclaiming that it can't condone that type of behaviour aimed at women, and will not reward Broner with an opportunity while the case is pending.

Naturally the network will neglect to mention that it has conveniently overlooked Broner's prior criminal transgressions along with any and all crimes committed by other boxers who have appeared on it's telecast.

That's because those crimes weren't trendy like sexual harassment is these days.

If all this comes to pass, Broner will sue, I'm certain, unless SHOWTIME agrees to ample compensation.

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.

SenorPipino wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 15:47

siablo14 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 09:48

SenorPipino wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 07:20 With the sexual assault climate being what it is in recent months (at least here in the US where you now stand to lose your job if you simply complimented a women on her looks ...20 years ago) I have a hunch that SHOWTIME will play the politically correct role and refuse Broner as an opponent for Omar Figueroa in April.

Broner has been charged with misdemeanor sexual battery and is free on $2000 bail..

SHOWTIME will grandstand and issue some statement proclaiming that it can't condone that type of behaviour aimed at women, and will not reward Broner with an opportunity while the case is pending.

Naturally the network will neglect to mention that it has conveniently overlooked Broner's prior criminal transgressions along with any and all crimes committed by other boxers who have appeared on it's telecast.

That's because those crimes weren't trendy like sexual harassment is these days.

If all this comes to pass, Broner will sue, I'm certain, unless SHOWTIME agrees to ample compensation.

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.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 11:12 Absolute dumbass. I wonder how much money he's lost already to legal expenses? By the end of Broner's Boxing career his lawyer is going to have made more than he has

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 10:35

caldo2025 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2018, 08:54

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.

This is exactly the kind of opinion that needs to change. I'm no feminist but i happen to love women very much and respect and am completely behind the current movement that you apparently are oblivious to with this kind of comment. Of all people, EO demands proof and facts for any opinion under the sun, but he'll dare to make the dumbest post of his career without knowing one thing about the situation or the young lady involved. Broner has a history of disrespect to woman to figure into this equation while you know nothing about the woman but you somehow come to the opinion that the woman is on a money grab. it's 2018 EO, get your act together or you might stay single forever.

TMZ has a proven track-record of making unsubstantiated claims about certain boxers that are subsequently proven to be fictitious. That is in itself is an irrefutable fact and one that is exceptionally easy to prove.

I 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. There is nothing wrong with questioning the circumstances that TMZ described

There are people in this world, regardless of gender, that will exploit others for financial gain. That is a fact! I simply proposed the notion that this situation could possibly be another example of this.

It is not possible for you to quote any remarks that I have articulated to this forum that proves that I am disrespectful towards women and you should apologise for the nature of your fictional derogatory claims you’ve just made about me.