Eddie Hearn doesn't select judges. The sanctioning bodies do. And in the case of the Joshua and Usyk rematch, there were three sanctioning bodies involved. And Hearn's fighter was the challenger. Usyk represented the sanctioning bodies. He was their champ and still is. Joshua wasn't. If Hearn bribed the judges, they voted for the wrong guy. Paul is screwed. This will drag out for years. Paul will be broke when it's over. He has more social media followers than probably every boxing promoter combined, and now Paul is a direct competitor of Hearn. So he can't pretend he's just a fan expressing an opinion. He's literally "an influencer." Now Paul has to defend his statements in court. If he can't, and he doesn't have proof bribes were paid, he loses.
There's one good thing that Jake Paul, but no other boxer did - talking about the corruption in boxing. We've seen plenty of for the last few years.
I'm with Paul on this one. Feldman was either on hallucinogenic drugs or he was on the dazn/matchroom payroll.
Strange world we are living into. Saying the true, and you are getting sued for 100m. This is pathetic from Hearn to be fair. But i don't get why Jake Paul didn't just recall his claims and safe himself all the trouble going into this case. It's absolutely idiotic. We all know that the judge was paid to score the fight for AJ, but good luck proving it. Still i also don't see how Hearn can make a claim that this statement damage his company for 100m. or so.
Care to explain how it does then? https://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/compare-law-of-defamation-in-us-and-britain-media-essay.php (sub-section 'Burden of Proof')
What I have seen is that JP has been sued "for at least 75k" by EH EH has now clarified that he wants "at least 100M" I predict an undisclosed settlement prob in region of 500k-1m
in the US, I believe Hearn has to proven the accusations caused loss of income. If they didn't, no harm, no foul
Conversely, the libel laws in the UK are atrocious - basically a ring of protection which only surrounds the rich and famous. So-much-so if the Hearn vs Hipster Beard Boxer case was heard in this country, Jake Paul would have to prove what he said was true if the accusation was established to have lowered Hearn's reputation 'in the eyes of right thinking people', I understand. And I don't believe financial loss has to be a factor either; there's another law which covers that called Malicious Falsehood. On the flipside, the pay outs are paltry in comparison to the US. Like you say 'ridiculous' especially when you consider these laws are applied to journalists. It's a legal straightjacket which silences investigative journalism. Google Robert Maxwell and Jimmy Savile if you want to read about rich criminals who used our libel laws to hide their crimes...