Hopkins plans to file lawsuit on Pascal!!!!!!!!

do you think its going to get shot down in court?

 

I am the pinoy wonder in case you wuz curious. However, Lil Leon still a G.

 

You can't sue for "damaged you emotionally."

 

Only in the reception of the words. If you "feel" a certain way it is "valid" by your argument. It is silly. Especially in Boxing.

There are no "no-nos". You mean "no-nos" like saying you won't lose to a guy based on race? Or throwing and stomping a guys flag? How about saying you will **** a guy? How about eat his children?

You sound silly.

Because we have common sense and see that PEDs are common in sports today? I am a B-Hop supporter and wished he would have tested. I also understood why he didn't. Still, this lawsuit is stupid. Yes, it is just talk.

Your point is ignorant unless you don't believe in free speech.

ARe you kidding me right now? :blood:-(

I see you are not bright enough to understand it! Margarito, RJJ, James Toney, and SSM just to name a few. All BUSTED cheats who went on to make millions.

Um "a company" suggests that they have a unified hr policy. You can very well do it if your unified management doesn't give a damn. Damn you are dumb.

Fired by who? Who fires a Boxer? Promoters make fights. There is no "management". FMJ did nothing wrong especially seeing that Pac is ducking the testing. Pascal shouldn't have whined after signing the contract, but to sue him over it is silly.

I swear man you make the worst arguments on the planet.

 

hopkins should let this go, its bull**** hyping anyway.

 

its a cowardly thing to accuse a man of 'roids when u got no proof

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XPX4Se92dA[/ame]

 

Any "RECEPTION" of comments that have a negative tone or foundation will most likely be met with resistance. But the "RESISTANCE" is gonna vary based on the context of the words. Like saying "Im gonna kick your ass" to a person your gonna fight in a PRO boxing match vs saying that to someone a WAL MART. If you say that at WAL MART more than likely you are gonna get some assault charges.....during a press conference...it's expected and the reaction is typically some jawing back and froth.

Again....saying someone is a CHEAT in boxing taking aim to hurt their way of life! So of course when your actions have the potential to take food out of your own or your families mouths you will take action to protect your name.

Again....you can be a racist or someone crazy enough to threaten to eat anther mans "UNBORN" children and still fight...it's seen as POLITICALLY INCORRECT, but IF ANYONE'S name or reputation is hurt by it, it will be the one who is making those comments...NOT the person those comments are directed to.

If you think the lawsuit is stupid that's you.....but you have to understand Nard's position. He's towards the end of his career...he's gone through his career being seen and known as a person who cares for themselves and is supremely healthy...just like Floyd or Manny. Now there are questions about his entire career b/c of one man's comments that came out of FEAR. No matter why he made those comments, he'll have to answer to the consequences if Hopkins really wants him to be responsible for them. JP has no one to blame but himself.

If there's an HR division in your job then more than likely there are rules and regulations that prevent you from making outlandish comments about anther employee and certain protocols you must follow in making a complaint. Don't be a ****** man....if you have a job...A REAL job within Corporate america then you know the do's and dont's.

This isn't even an arguement bro....I'm simply giving you free education that you sorely need. You may be TRYING to argue, but you'd need something valid to help you in your efforts which you have nothing!

 

About time this PEDs insinuation be stopped.

 

A good many posters (not necessarily you) have trouble with paragraphs and find them too intimidating or long to get through. Scarcely matters though, as long as the points are clearly stated.

This should be interesting.

The first of these is not an accusation but rather a boast (and was completely true at the time of the statement.). Furthermore, nobody's reputation was hurt by the obvious boast.

The second was obviously a figure of speech, as Pascal had won fights and a belt over twelve rounds. Well within the normal banter that occurs in the lead-up to fights. Clearly, no one is going to accord much seriousness to such statements.

You lol too much here, Bald. Calling a boxer a chump is again clearly an expression of an opinion, just like calling him ugly or unskilled.

****in' terrible comparison.

Here, you are agreeing with me that slander is what we're discussing. So I'm with you. Slander, yes.

We weren't discussing a situation where you were considering intimate relations with the slanderer. I was citing a general example of someone (in your workplace, for example) slandering you with the AIDS tag. You could disprove the slander by 'taking the test.'

But why the hell should you ?

If someone slandered you in this fashion, your reputation would be damaged and they would be liable for damages.

This is a completely different question and way off the point.

To get your analogy to approach the point, you could consider the following:


If a woman told you she thought you were HIV positive, but that if you 'took the test' she would sleep with you; that's fine.


If a woman states publicly that you are HIV positive; that's NOT fine.

It's slander.

You would, or should.

If someone states that you have a grow-op in your basement, that is harmful to your reputation. And you should know that much.

There are a good number of people who believe that such an accusation should be met with a search.

But why the **** should it ? The accusation is slanderous and harmful, whether or not you choose to let them search.

Once again, slander.

Again, you are introducing an element that wasn't present. If there is no prestigious job at stake, is it okay to make the accusation ?

Fine. But this was a trust-but -verify situation. You were not accused of anything, they merely wanted to check you out. Not slander. (And not really relevant here.)

Good. We agree here.

Ah, NO. For all the reasons I've explained.

Yes. We can say that Bernard won the fight fair and square within the rules and protocols of the governing body.

Very simply.

You say (in this case) " Bernard has taken PEDs."

That's stating it as a fact. And that would be slander.


If you were to say, "I believe that Bernard must be on steroids to have such capabilities at his age" that would be expressing an opinion.


It would be up to the courts, based on the evidence, to determine what was said.

I'll take it that this statement falls into the category of "you're a chump" or "you're ugly." And I've already dealt with such statements earlier in the post.

So you can save a few buck on legal costs and sleep easy.

 

Well no **** you're going to call Bhops move BS , otherwise you'd just be exposing yourselves as the moronic sheep that you are. You're dumb, but not that dumb. This is just a convenient way for you to claim that you're not racially bias... but you're not fooling anyone.

 

Stop. Lawsuits on pre-fight hype are just dumb because it is all jawing and back and forth.

Mayweather never said that and you fools still support that lawsuit too. From my perspective it looks like you support lawsuits based on liking the guy not merit.

Dude the guy is 46 years old. That alone is amazing. Calling him a cheat was weak, but a lawsuit was weaker. How can you PROVE it will cost him? You can't.

What if you say it made you scared and unable to train properly? You can extrapolate all types of BS to where it "affects your reputation". It is silly.

That's me and I am making my case for it. I do understand Nard's position and it is weak. You are a 46 year old man kicking 20 year old's asses. It is suspicious. It lines up with your pedigree, but it is suspicious. I think Pascal went about it horribly, but I don't think he should be sued for it because it will cause Hopkins no harm.

Dudes are going to jump all over taking his belt. If they ask for FROSDT BEFORE fighting and Bernard doesn't do it then what?

Those rules come from a "unified management philosophy" you fool. You are being ******ed because you don't see the point. There are no "rules" in Boxing trash talk. Boxing isn't PC.

I have had several jobs in corporate America. IT companies where people followed rules. Sales jobs where it was as wild as a night club. The key here is that rules are a reflection of the organization not the other way around. Boxing has little to no organization and therefore NO RULES. Say whatever to hype a fight.

You are presenting a position and presenting it horribly. You just "FEEL" he should be able t sue because you "FEEL" it would hurt B-Hop. If that is the case why did none of the other fighter's earning power diminish when they were caught RED HANDED cheating?

 

owned!!!!

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V94s4-tOXA[/ame]

:rofl Take da tess! Da tess! Take da tess!

 

All you assholes saying "take the test" what is that gonna do right now?? He's not training for a fight and there for wouldnt be taking any PEDs and wont have any in his system so taking a test would be pointless.

And what every fighter should have to take a drug test whenever someone tells them to? I tell you what why dont one of you keyboard tough guys walk up to Hopkins or any other fighter and tell them to take a drug test cause you wanna know if they are on PEDs or not.

OK Hopkins takes the test and comes back clean but what stops his next opponent from saying to "take the test" or any other fighter saying that to there opponent. This **** needs to be put to a end quick and brutally and it starts with the Mayweather's and Pascal. The state tests for PEDs if thats not good enough for you or the pussies who think someone else is too good so they must be a drugs then **** you and **** them deal with it.