WBC breaking their own rules? Should strip Mayweather for title?

WBC don't have any rules, or any morals. They make decisions to suit their agendas. In the case of Floyd they've said they will allow him to keep his titles as he is not going away for a long time. There is too much for them to make from future Mayweather fights to strip him.

 

Possibly. A couple years ago on Baxingscene Sulaiman was on his knees like a dog pleading for Rocchigianni to forego his monthly compensation money because the WBC couldn't afford it and were in danger of folding. I wish he showed them no mercy and let them die. Boxing would be better with one less corrupt organisation, and they've become so much worse since.

 

It depends on what their interpretation of "moral turpitude" is. Floyd ain't coped no attitude regarding turpentine so what's the problem?

 

You expect the WBC to follow its own rules?












































:rofl

 

WBC doesn't want to lose those Maywather sanctioning fees.

 

Why would anyone want him to be stripped? What would be the benefit to us as fans?

 

Mayweather wont be stripped, why would you strip someone who makes you so much money? Jose suliman loves 2 things = Mexicans and Money

 

They should go ahead and follow their own rules. Everyone already knows Mayweather is the legit 2 time owner of the WBC belt at 147.

I doubt they'll take his belt though. It may make Floyd put the middle finger at the WBC meaning their won't be no sanctioning fees to leech off him.

 

oh i dont know...someone that fights more than 1 time a year

 

Would you ever believe an organization that has a president for life and his executive secretary is his son ?

 

Mayweather pleeded No Contest to the charges. In leagel terms No Contest is not an admission of guilt, nor is it an conviction. The WBC is not going against their rules in mantaing Mayweather as their welterweight champion.

 

nolo contendere is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes the charge, serving as an alternate to pleading guilty or not guilty.

While technically not a guilty plea, it has immediate effect as a guilty plea, and is often part of a plea bargain.

It's immediate effect is the same as guilty plea, meaning imprisonment or whatever is the punishment but the residual effect or future consequence is different. Since the defendant pleaded no contest in the criminal trial, this cannot be used later in a succeeding civil suit. Had he been convicted in the criminal trial, then the aggrieved party can use that proceeding in her civil lawsuit for compensation.


In Alaska a plea of no contest can be used against the defendant in future civil actions.


It is similar to gayweather's coming in at 146 against jmm. Although technically he was not overweight, he still paid jmm 600000 dollars for the opportunity to be 2 pounds above 144. Or the sucker punch of Ortiz. Although we can call it cheap shot it is still legal.

Or in other words, *****s choose to accept the "truth" that fits their agenda.

 

He pled guilty.

 

The most common elements involving moral turpitude are :

A. Fraud
B. larceny; and
C. Intent to harm persons or things

Crimes committed against governmental authority which fall within moral turpitude include :

7. Tax evasion

Crimes committed against a person, fame relationship, and sexual morality

C. Assault with intent to commit robbery

Cases in which conviction exists:

A. Formal judgment of guilt entered by a court; or

B. if adjudication has been withheld, either:

1. A finding of guilty by judge or jury; or

2. A plea of guilty or no contendere

C. The imposition of some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint of liberty by a judge


So, technically gayweather is convicted. He just did not admit guilt.

 

Court action following a plea of no contest "nolo contendere" constitutes a conviction.