Comments Thread For: Eddie Hearn believes Devin Haney's lawsuit against Ryan Garcia could be 'a pivotal moment for the sport'

[landotter]

How hard is it to write into a contract that irrespective of the result, any fighter testing positive after the match and without proof of accidental contamination forfeits all financial remuneration, plus 20% to the negative testing fighter and cops a standard 1 years suspension that includes posting on social media ?

Imagine Ryan knowing it was gonna cost him a fortune, his livelihood for a year and his fame from the outset.

Wow. A common sense, effective determent. And it is the fighter who is taking care of himself. Not to mention if a fighter does not sign with that in there, sooner or later he will start to lose opportunities. You sure you are a boxing fan? That might actually work and that is not what this sport does.

[Bob]

Haney should also be taking the governing body, belt & promoter's involved in the fight.
If those governing were punished it would soon stop.

[billeau2]

The probability that he ingested it by accident is extremely low.

It’s almost to the point one has to be an utter gullible fool to believe that.

It’s extremely low not only because, as we already established, because the ped directly aids the condition that he was struggling with, but this dude is even on tape saying he doesn’t even take supplements, but all of a sudden after getting caught with peds in his system, he blames a contaminated supplement.

So he’s also a liar then, because if he doesn’t take supplements, then how can a contaminated supplement be the cause of his positive ped test?

Legal proof works on a different principle because of reasonable doubt. You would need to establish to some point of satisfaction that an accidental ingestion is almost impossible. Even genetic evidence... in a court of law is not absolute lol, if it can be challenged by the most outrageous instance.

Think about that. All Ryan's team has to establish is the remote probability that Ryan could have ingested the supplement accidentally. I am just playing devil's advocate here... lol.

[LAchargers373]

Because of the astronomical legal fees involved and a difficult burden of proof, I think is is highly likely that Haney's will abandon this course of action. It might take them a little while until the first couple of legal bills arrive and then they will likely reconsider the situation.

There is another option. Perhaps Haney's don't really want to go to court but are fishing for a negotiated settlement. I have only sued two people in my life but in both cases I had a solid, virtually bullet proof case. However, all attempts at settlement failed until the other party realised that I was serious and pressed for legal action. Once the court documents were filed, we settled quickly and easily. The other party just needed to know I was serious and was not going to let them off the hook.

So in this case I believe it will depend on how strong the case is in the first place. I am Australian and don't know anything about the American legal system so I have no idea if this case is solid or flimsy.

The case is a joke there’s a reason no one tries these frivolous lawsuits and Haney is the first one to ever attempt it

[LAchargers373]

Your wife is the lawyer, you're just the dïck she married. Of course the contract would be enforceable if both parties agreed and signed beforehand.

Lmao who’s gonna sign some BS like that? Tainted supplements are a real thing.athletic commissions are in place for a reason. Haney is trying to circumvent the process. He thinks he’s above the system. That never ends well for people who think like that

[pollywog]

Lmao who’s gonna sign some BS like that? Tainted supplements are a real thing.athletic commissions are in place for a reason. Haney is trying to circumvent the process. He thinks he’s above the system. That never ends well for people who think like that

The fighters who have nothing to hide and nothing to fear will sign it.

[pollywog]

The case is a joke there’s a reason no one tries these frivolous lawsuits and Haney is the first one to ever attempt it

Mark Hunt did it and got nowhere. 7 years in the system, hundreds of thousands of dollars later and the judge throws it out.

That's the precedent Haney is following.

[Doubledagger]

Legal proof works on a different principle because of reasonable doubt. You would need to establish to some point of satisfaction that an accidental ingestion is almost impossible. Even genetic evidence... in a court of law is not absolute lol, if it can be challenged by the most outrageous instance.

Think about that. All Ryan's team has to establish is the remote probability that Ryan could have ingested the supplement accidentally. I am just playing devil's advocate here... lol.

We have already established that the reasonable doubt standard of proof is only for criminal cases.

In A criminal case, all your lawyer has to do is establish reasonable doubt and you’re off the hook.

That’s why the verdict is never “you have been found INNOCENT” but rather, you have been found “NOT GUILTY”

Because the lawyer didn’t prove your innocence in most cases, but only established reasonable doubt.

In a civil case, which this is, all that is needed is a balance of probabilities to establish your guilt.

Can we at least get that one down before we continue with the conversation?

That’s why in some civil cases you don’t even see a lawyer representing either of the parties and just see the two parties themselves representing themselves, because the burden of proof, compared to criminal cases, is not “beyond reasonable doubt”, but just a balance of probabllities.

The judge hears you both out, asks for certain pieces of evidence if neccesary, and then established that hell nah, the probability of that being true is way too low.

[billeau2]

We have already established that the reasonable doubt standard of proof is only for criminal cases.

In A criminal case, all your lawyer has to do is establish reasonable doubt and you’re off the hook.

That’s why the verdict is never “you have been found INNOCENT” but rather, you have been found “NOT GUILTY”

Because the lawyer didn’t prove your innocence in most cases, but only established reasonable doubt.

In a civil case, which this is, all that is needed is a balance of probabilities to establish your guilt.

Can we at least get that one down before we continue with the conversation?

That’s why in some civil cases you don’t even see a lawyer representing either of the parties and just see the two parties themselves representing themselves, because the burden of proof, compared to criminal cases, is not “beyond reasonable doubt”, but just a balance of probabllities.

The judge hears you both out, asks for certain pieces of evidence if neccesary, and then established that hell nah, the probability of that being true is way too low.

Yes I understand the burden of proof is different. You still have to have some factor that tips the scales. It's hard to prove certain things. For example, trying to prove how much of a substance actually was used. All one can know is what was found in the body at the time of the drug testing.

It's also hard to prove that there was a deliberate attempt to take the substance. It's not impossible but not easy. Even in a civil matter there has to be some preponderance of evidence.

Now there might be a way to prove that Ryan took the supplements when all the factors are looked at. I'm not saying that's impossible. I would be surprised though. The principal is the totality of circumstances.

So for example, Ryan was too heavy. You have witnesses who saw him trying to lose weight and discuss taking the alleged substance, a few more of those you might get somewhere.

[billeau2]

Lmao who’s gonna sign some BS like that? Tainted supplements are a real thing.athletic commissions are in place for a reason. Haney is trying to circumvent the process. He thinks he’s above the system. That never ends well for people who think like that

Yeah. Nobody is going to sign something that will jeopardize them if they do not have to in a contract. The real problem is something I have been trying to point out on this thread... One cannot account for accidental ingestion as a possibility.

At least not in a case where someone only has a bit in their body at the time of the test. You would have to pay a legal team gobs and gobs of money to try to prove a totality of circumstances leading to someone with a slightly tainted test being convicted of deliberately ingesting something.