Sam Soliman

I thought I better get in before this thread ia deleted.

Booyah

 

What will eventually end up occuring is that they blank out his name with **** so if whoever it is keeps on going they will get more than they bargin for. I honestly dont think its spider, i think its someone from Team Soliman and they are making threats of legal action towards ESB if said threads are not deleted.

 

:|

 

I have requested threads be removed before, but NOT the one stiflers mum is moaning about :-(

But he can think what he wants to think

 

I have requested threads be removed before.atsch
But not this one even though I was complaining just last night that we shouldn't be talking about this subject.

 

>>>

When this thread gets removed, and all the other Soliman threads have, feel free to blame me again

 

If this is over a can of drink then it's rematch material. Frankly after all of the stalling, the only fight that anyone cares to see these two guys in is against each other.
How do you accurately gauge these two guys rankings when the division is moving on without them and leaving them for dust?

 

A rematch between Soliman and Sturm would be fascinating. But where could they possibly hold it?

Switzerland?

 

Rematch? he should fight GGG for the title he gave him, never mind Sturm.

Ill ask one of the mods why they keep getting deleted and see if i get a response.

 

Maybe it has something to do with you going around inaccurately claiming Sam admitted drinking Black Bombs TCBoxa?

Sam did not admit in Ron Reed's article that he consumed a Black Bomb. Sam is not quoted by Reed even once in the article. Read the article from the paper yourself and not regurgitated, rehashed versions of it before you jump to conclusions.

I've read the original article and Sam's tweet in which he says nothing at all. He simply tweeted an image of the Herald Sun article. This could be seen to be an endorsement of the conclusions Reed draws but it could also just be Sam tweeting an article about himself that he thinks is a big fat joke!

So stop going around claiming Sam admitted drinking Black Bombs as he hasn't and maybe the threads won't be deleted.

 

x2

The word of an alleged cheat has to be taken with a grain of salt. Be it black bombs, Red Bull or some other form of energy drink, the person consuming the stimulant has a responsbility to ensure they have not consumed a banned substance. I asked the question a while ago what he consumed and someone else pointed out that it was black bombs, if he didnt consume this then what exactly did he consume? Why has no one from the company from the drink he consumed been served with any civil papers as the camp claims they contacted the manafacture of said drink and were told nothing in the drink was banned? why hasnt the person who sold it to him been named or the company for that matter.

Fact remains he tested Positive in his A sample and tried to play games with his B sample by sending it to a bogus lab that didnt even test for what he was busted with in Germany. Soliman has admited straight out that he took the banned substance. I would expect the IBF to fine sam very soon and for him to be suspended by the IBF. Its an open and shut case that takes some time to process to which Sam and his team are trying to wriggle their way out of.

 

It's been reported by news sources though.

http://www.fightnews.com/Boxing/soliman-sturm-doping-update-186861

http://www.aus-boxing.com/2013/04/16/caffeine-beverage-the-source-of-sam-solimans-failed-drug-test/

Alot more people read these articles than this forum. Why doesn't he ask them to print a retraction?

 

Why is a retraction not requested? How do we know one hasn't been made? Papers are very careful in covering their arses and have very good lawyers at their disposal wuth near unlimited financial resources. It's a hard thing to get a paper to do but the main reason I'd suggest a retraction hasn't been demanded us that as I've said, the original article makes no statements that Sam admits to anything. The article is worded carefully and makes assertions but does not cross the line. There is no admission. Simple as that.

It even sounds like Sam probably spoke to Reed off the record. But in a court of law it's not an admission of guilt by Sam.

Furthermore, Ron Reed has his sources (such as in this case, the shop owner who supposedly sold Sam the Bombs who claims that a call was made to the manufacturer before the sale to verify it was safe for Sam to drink. Please note TCBoxa. Sam's camp did NOT make this claim!) and if a source lies to a journalist, the journalist and paper are indemnified against defamation as long as they believed in good faith the source was telling the truth when the article was printed and they took reasonable steps to verify the source's statements.

As for the Fight News article. It quotes Reed's article but it is not a quote of Sam.

And the other article quotes the Fight News article.

It's Chinese whispers and neither of the rehashed versions of the original article are doing anything wrong as they quote the previous articles which they take in good faith to be true but each rehash is worded in a way that makes it sound more and more like Sam went down to his local police station and wrote a written admission of him doing drugs!

 

Sorry for the typos. It's painful typing essays on an iphone.

But Rock, none of the articles say Sam is a cheat or even that he admits to drinking Black Bombs if you read them carefully. Where as, whack jobs shouting all over the forums "Sam is a cheat", is clear defamation that ESB is liable for. Huge difference there.