I'm haven't criticised you. I'm simply voicing my opinion and providing you with a rationale as to why it is not, as you responded to Joshua, "strange". From what I can see, there is certainly no attempt from Joshua, nor myself, to "look down our nose" at you or to slag you off. I can only speak for myself when I say that I enjoy your posts, and a semi-casual like me can learn quite a lot from reading them. Long may it continue. I have absolutely no interest into delving into his past. I'm at the limits of my knowledge, and only really know the bare minimum of what there is to know regarding his past. There are a plethora of criticisms that could be forged against the corporations you mentioned, but we were simply discussing what it would mean on the boxer's part to enter into such a relationship. Again, I don't think there's any issue with you suggesting that he would be a good fit for Kelly. I was addressing why I don't think Joshua's post is strange. I'm probably more invested into certain ethical debates than most, and alas, I question my own liking of Tyson Fury. Some would say that it's a stupid thing to think about, but everyone is wired differently. Some have argued that Tyson Fury has benefited from certain questionable activity, but I'd argue that is not his own doing. But it's his willingness to work alongside Daniel Kinahan recently that has made me think twice, as it has done for several other parties. But as you (or someone else) said, there's all sorts of seriously dodgy stuff going on throughout sport, so when I talk about ethics, where do I personally draw the line? It's almost an impossible equation and I generally take your approach and try my best to stay ignorant to it and just enjoy the sport for what it is. But at the same time, I won't fanboy anyone or elevate them into something I don't believe they are (not that anyone here is doing that). Sincerest apologies for the boring, messy ramble.