Comments Thread For: An inconvenient take on the night Anthony Joshua was stopped by Daniel Dubois

[Smash]

You're a dumb child and a weirdo

here u go again, up pops the twat, on the juice?

[FaustoGeraci]

calling people dumb children and weirdos says more about u than them for your info

You're a dumb child and a weirdo

[M111]

Illegal? You do not understand UK law at all if you really believe that. It's perfectly legal to refuse accreditation to an oversubscribed event. Not only that but it has been confirmed today that things will remain the same in future, because it's perfectly legal



Promoters retain Wembley accreditation power despite barring reporter from fight | The Independent



This has happened in football many times before. Happened with Man Utd not long ago. The FA have taken an interest in this because it was at Wembley, which they own. They don't own any of the stadiums where the English clubs play. They don't own any of the other venues where boxing is held. So really it's not unprecedented, it's just that they aren't at all involved in all of the other events so have no say.

Here's an article from just 4 days ago on a reporter who had been highly critical of Labour being refused accreditation for Labour's conference: Investigative news outlet 'barred' from Labour conference in 'alarming' move (yahoo.com) this kind of thing happens all the time.

I think we’ll have to move this to a new thread now should we wish to continue. Perhaps my choice of words weren’t accurate but as FA was ‘considering options’ in the report I read so perhaps that was them exploring what the promoters agreement allowed. Illegal was clearly too strong. However, clearly these agreements are specific to the individual venue and promoter. I can imagine they’re fleecing the sheik rotten so most likely give them free rein in their agreement. Still sucks whichever way you look at it.

Interesting background though and certainly better informed on the matter now. It’s something that could become very political very quickly in the current climate.

[Slip jab]

yall need to do a piece on how annoying , incompetent, and pathetic that ref was.

Seriously. That was so biased and embarrassing. All the protection Aj has was delivered justice. Aj been found out.

[Slip jab]

Great piece, I appreciate the acknowledgement of the late journalist because I get the feeling that all the “Riyhad season “stuff is result from that: pouring millions into the economies.it’s the least they could do.
As for the attempted censorship is bs. GEA is dealing with the free world and the press caters to different demographics. Not a good look on their part. Seriously we’re not going to worship their money. We have our own lives.
Dubois walking first was extremely disrespectful being treated like the challenger I’m glad he smashed AJ to bits. Protected fraud. Look at his opponents leading up to this… truth came out in the ring. If aj wanted undisputed he would’ve fought Wilder.. AND he has a rematch clause!??! lol ugh
i enjoyed the article!

[letsgochump]

Lots of Turki fans on the board. No tegridy to be found in many folks.

Let’s face it: Saudi Arabia is a horror show where you get tortured and killed for wrong opinions or renouncing a religion. Calling this guy ”his excellency” is beyond embarrassing for anyone and everyone. They can keep making fights and losing money in the name of rebranding their country as a very modern dictatorship with very sustainable humane canings and beheadings. Sorry, not buying it - or your events.

Good work, Boxingscene.

[CPNUTKnockoutFreshMart]

so turki did what every promoter does since decades. i will give an advise to boxingscene - cry a bit louder because not everyone can hear you. the event was great and the saudi anthem is as useless as playing god save the king but it is what it is. when it comes to the whole sportswashing or women rights b.s i would say care about whats wrong in our western countries because there is a lot more wrong here than over there. I rather live in a country where they donīt respect women that choose to be wh.ores than in countries that tell our childrens that a girl can be a boy and a boy can be a girl and let drag queens brainwash childrens at the school, Can you PLEASE write an article about this?

Go then. You'll love it.

[Clegg]

The FA are considering action because a newspaper journalist was barred from attending. Nothing to do with boxing websites. That’s illegal in the uk plain and simple. TV companies have had deals with promoters for years, and boxing websites are invariably tied to one or the other.

Illegal? You do not understand UK law at all if you really believe that. It's perfectly legal to refuse accreditation to an oversubscribed event. Not only that but it has been confirmed today that things will remain the same in future, because it's perfectly legal

Promoters hiring Wembley will continue to have the last word on accreditation disputes after a Telegraph journalist was barred from the Anthony Joshua-Daniel Dubois fight at the weekend.

The Telegraph’s chief sports writer, Oliver Brown, says he was refused access to Saturday’s heavyweight world title bout after writing an opinion piece on Friday which was critical of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the sport.

The Football Association, which owns Wembley, is understood to be disappointed at the treatment Brown received. Reporters have been urged to contact the governing body should similar disputes arise in the future and it will endeavour to resolve them.

However, promoters will still continue to have the final say on the matter under the venue hire agreements they sign with the FA.

PA has been told that the event was oversubscribed, with 326 accreditation requests and only 186 spaces, but that all national news titles were represented.

Promoters retain Wembley accreditation power despite barring reporter from fight | The Independent

This is the press now in the uk. I’d say that’s relatively unprecedented which is clearly why the FA have taken offence.

This has happened in football many times before. Happened with Man Utd not long ago. The FA have taken an interest in this because it was at Wembley, which they own. They don't own any of the stadiums where the English clubs play. They don't own any of the other venues where boxing is held. So really it's not unprecedented, it's just that they aren't at all involved in all of the other events so have no say.

Here's an article from just 4 days ago on a reporter who had been highly critical of Labour being refused accreditation for Labour's conference: Investigative news outlet 'barred' from Labour conference in 'alarming' move (yahoo.com) this kind of thing happens all the time.

[M111]

Nothing against the writer, I've liked a lot of his work, but I disagree with the context he puts these events in. The article starts with the idea that we have a free, open, honest press but that it is under threat due to these Saudi tactics. The problem is that all these tactics are already in use. They were established by the Americans who have run the sport for the last 100+ years, and the more powerful UK promoters have followed the same formula. We also see it happening in other sports. Saudis aren't changing the rules, they're playing by the rules already established: the more favourable your coverage, the more access you get. Boxingscene has happily played by these rules for other promoters but wants to cry foul this time around.

Remember when Coppinger was banned by PBC from the Crawford-Spence fight? Cleggeridge Farm remembers. Also remembers how boxingscene didn't say a word about it. Where was the outrage? Why weren't you on that moral high ground then like you are now? You didn't care about a boxing journalist being denied access then. A typical case of somebody only caring about a problem when it impacts them, yet expecting the rest of us to support you? You didn't support the last guy it happened to.

Jake Donovan (formerly of this site) mentioned on twitter that when he started working for SecondsOut years ago, they forbid any criticism of Frank Warren. This is the way the boxing media has conducted itself for a long time, they are biased towards certain promoters. A lot of the time there isn't even any mystery to it, The Ring is owned by GBP, and boxingscene itself was for years owned by the parent company of Showtime. In the UK, Sky are owned by the same company that own the most popular UK newspaper, a top radio station and multiple websites, all of which give better coverage to Sky boxing events than those shown by other networks. But fans weren't supposed to care about any of that, presumably because no Saudis were involved it was OK for our media to be biased.

Boxingscene has pushed an anti-Saudi agenda, oftentimes the articles contain no new information, it's just one writer repeating what another said the day before. I'm not even saying that I disagree with all of the viewpoints, but it's repetitive seeing them re-published over and over. We've had about 20 articles that criticise the Saudis and 19 of them had nothing new to say. No doubt most of the articles on Beterbiev-Bivol will include the same 'ok this is one of the best fights of recent years but let's instead focus on Saudi politics because that's what boxing fans want' approach.

Compare this to the coverage for Canelo. This guy is damaging the sport with his cherry-picking, drug-using, rehydration-clauses, catchweights and corrupt scorecards. Only Canelo fans support this, regular boxing fans do not. But boxingscene is all in on supporting him, so we got daily articles praising him, his mismatch fight and the undercard. There was even an article suggesting that Caleb Plant might make the HOF. There was never a sticky made for the Dubois-AJ event, yet the Canelo-Berlanga thread is still stickied at the top despite that fight happening 10 days ago and nobody talking about it anymore.

You are not putting out fair or honest coverage, you are coming with an agenda, and the person you're biased against finally grew tired of it. I'm not supporting it, just saying it's nothing new, things have worked this way in boxing journalism and US/UK sports media for a long time.

This is what makes the boxingscene agenda so transparent. You want to keep trying to take the moral high ground but you've shown zero morality on any of these issues when Americans and Brits were doing the exact same thing. When the site was in the pocket of the more powerful promoters you had no objections to other members of the media being mistreated by them. Free speech hasn't been reduced, it's exactly as it was before. It's just that in the past, the 'favourable coverage gets you access' arrangement benefitted this site, but this time around it went against you. Considering that you're a key part of the corrupt system the complaints are hollow and hypocritical.

The FA are considering action because a newspaper journalist was barred from attending. Nothing to do with boxing websites. That’s illegal in the uk plain and simple. TV companies have had deals with promoters for years, and boxing websites are invariably tied to one or the other.

This is the press now in the uk. I’d say that’s relatively unprecedented which is clearly why the FA have taken offence.

It’s completely understandable why that and the misguided decision to play the Saudi national anthem in the current climate has swayed opinion about Turki. A lot of people commenting are agreeing with the sentiment of the article regardless of its motivation.

[Clegg]

Nothing against the writer, I've liked a lot of his work, but I disagree with the context he puts these events in. The article starts with the idea that we have a free, open, honest press but that it is under threat due to these Saudi tactics. The problem is that all these tactics are already in use. They were established by the Americans who have run the sport for the last 100+ years, and the more powerful UK promoters have followed the same formula. We also see it happening in other sports. Saudis aren't changing the rules, they're playing by the rules already established: the more favourable your coverage, the more access you get. Boxingscene has happily played by these rules for other promoters but wants to cry foul this time around.

Remember when Coppinger was banned by PBC from the Crawford-Spence fight? Cleggeridge Farm remembers. Also remembers how boxingscene didn't say a word about it. Where was the outrage? Why weren't you on that moral high ground then like you are now? You didn't care about a boxing journalist being denied access then. A typical case of somebody only caring about a problem when it impacts them, yet expecting the rest of us to support you? You didn't support the last guy it happened to.

Jake Donovan (formerly of this site) mentioned on twitter that when he started working for SecondsOut years ago, they forbid any criticism of Frank Warren. This is the way the boxing media has conducted itself for a long time, they are biased towards certain promoters. A lot of the time there isn't even any mystery to it, The Ring is owned by GBP, and boxingscene itself was for years owned by the parent company of Showtime. In the UK, Sky are owned by the same company that own the most popular UK newspaper, a top radio station and multiple websites, all of which give better coverage to Sky boxing events than those shown by other networks. But fans weren't supposed to care about any of that, presumably because no Saudis were involved it was OK for our media to be biased.

Boxingscene has pushed an anti-Saudi agenda, oftentimes the articles contain no new information, it's just one writer repeating what another said the day before. I'm not even saying that I disagree with all of the viewpoints, but it's repetitive seeing them re-published over and over. We've had about 20 articles that criticise the Saudis and 19 of them had nothing new to say. No doubt most of the articles on Beterbiev-Bivol will include the same 'ok this is one of the best fights of recent years but let's instead focus on Saudi politics because that's what boxing fans want' approach.

Compare this to the coverage for Canelo. This guy is damaging the sport with his cherry-picking, drug-using, rehydration-clauses, catchweights and corrupt scorecards. Only Canelo fans support this, regular boxing fans do not. But boxingscene is all in on supporting him, so we got daily articles praising him, his mismatch fight and the undercard. There was even an article suggesting that Caleb Plant might make the HOF. There was never a sticky made for the Dubois-AJ event, yet the Canelo-Berlanga thread is still stickied at the top despite that fight happening 10 days ago and nobody talking about it anymore.

You are not putting out fair or honest coverage, you are coming with an agenda, and the person you're biased against finally grew tired of it. I'm not supporting it, just saying it's nothing new, things have worked this way in boxing journalism and US/UK sports media for a long time.

This is what makes the boxingscene agenda so transparent. You want to keep trying to take the moral high ground but you've shown zero morality on any of these issues when Americans and Brits were doing the exact same thing. When the site was in the pocket of the more powerful promoters you had no objections to other members of the media being mistreated by them. Free speech hasn't been reduced, it's exactly as it was before. It's just that in the past, the 'favourable coverage gets you access' arrangement benefitted this site, but this time around it went against you. Considering that you're a key part of the corrupt system the complaints are hollow and hypocritical.