Comments Thread For: Ryan Garcia files counterclaim lawsuit on the Haneys

[IronDanHamza]

Not sure he’s got a leg it’s stand on with a failed drug test, and a ban for said failed drug test.

[JULESLUPOWITZ]

Of all this non-sensical legal jargon and back and forth accusations the only thing that will remain - regardless of the outcome - is the fact that Garcia beat Haney senseless, exposing him as the over-rated, path-of-least-resistance belt holder that he was.

OK, if you know specifically what this banned PED does. Be wonderful if they could have a rematch we’re both agreed to take the exact same PED and can be tested as such and then fight. Then it would be fair. Until then, unless you knew medically, what that particular drug can do, your opinion has no value. More real is a rematch where VADA checks both of them to be clean. I also agree that many times legal disputes, rules and regulations are overbearing. Abusive. However, there are reasons that laws and rules are in place. In this case, it does not seem unfair that Haney should defend himself legally notwithstanding have a rematch that is fair.

[dannnnn]

Of all this non-sensical legal jargon and back and forth accusations the only thing that will remain - regardless of the outcome - is the fact that Garcia beat Haney senseless, exposing him as the over-rated, path-of-least-resistance belt holder that he was.

But the forced touching was non-consensual!

[STREET CLEANER]

LOL, claiming battery in a boxing match. This lawsuit is as senseless as the Haney one. Haney had no guarantees that he was going to win the fight even if Ryan was not on PEDs. Haney got his "0" back but can't erase the memory of getting beaten up.

[rickJen]

Unbelievable the commission is getting away with this.
They knew Garcia tested positive, yet they let the fight happen.
Then they're putting it all on RG. Helllooooo! Sue the commission!

[landotter]

From the Britannica Dictionary, the legal definition of battery: "the crime of hitting or touching someone in a way that is meant to cause harm or injury." Hey, what is boxing if not hitting the opponent to cause harm or injury? The Haneys are delusional are bringing nothing but ridicule and scorn on themselves by this lawsuit.

Ok... as I found out recently (I was not in a legal set of problems, a friend and his family were), what the dictionary definition of a word is can have almost nothing in common with what a legal precedent in a court of law sets it as. When Haney's attorney states that by taking a substance that was banned before a combat sport falls under the legal umbrella of assault, I believe him. Depending on what state or even what jurisdiction of a state you are in, there are multiple ways you can be charged in civil suits for the same legal action. When I was growing up in Fort Myers Florida, I remember a fruit stand owner being found guilty of an assault on someone for throwing rotten g****fruits at a parked car the owner and his family were in at the time. That guy lost everything he owned over rotten fruit. My friend is finding out "trespass" has a dozen different definitions, even if you are on a public sidewalk in front of someone's house. Haney and his team probably have a solid case here, no matter how silly it sounds from a distance.

EDI:

Dear Boxing Scene: Seriously?? G-R-A-P-fruits is a banned word????? A sucker says WHAT???

Never change, oh Politically Correct Boxing Scene bot... never change.

[DClefthook]

This is gonna be bigger than the young thug trial

You know what's funny about what you said? I didn't even know that so many people were tuned into that trial. It's like the OJ 2.0 trial! Lol

[DClefthook]

Garcia using those Toadstool Donald tactics of filing a frivolous countersuit to create an alternative reality. And b4 long, half the dummies out there will be agreeing with him and his BS positions. Nice try, cryin lyin racist Ryan. But your suit will be tossed and u will lose in court and Devin will extract many, many more millions out of your bank account before it's all over. Sorry, peen breath, that's just how the cookie is gonna crumble. You shouldn't have cheated. It wasn't worth all the multi-millions you're going to lose. No one should ever fight Ryan Garcia again, he has zero integrity, zero honor, zero morals, zero honesty, and zero respect for the sport, the fans, or even for himself. A loser and a cheater.

*This* *This* *This*

[Verus]

Ok... as I found out recently (I was not in a legal set of problems, a friend and his family were), what the dictionary definition of a word is can have almost nothing in common with what a legal precedent in a court of law sets it as. When Haney's attorney states that by taking a substance that was banned before a combat sport falls under the legal umbrella of assault, I believe him. Depending on what state or even what jurisdiction of a state you are in, there are multiple ways you can be charged in civil suits for the same legal action. When I was growing up in Fort Myers Florida, I remember a fruit stand owner being found guilty of an assault on someone for throwing rotten g****fruits at a parked car the owner and his family were in at the time. That guy lost everything he owned over rotten fruit. My friend is finding out "trespass" has a dozen different definitions, even if you are on a public sidewalk in front of someone's house. Haney and his team probably have a solid case here, no matter how silly it sounds from a distance.

EDI:

Dear Boxing Scene: Seriously?? G-R-A-P-fruits is a banned word????? A sucker says WHAT???

Never change, oh Politically Correct Boxing Scene bot... never change.

I understand what you are saying and you might be right, but I still can't wrap my mind around the idea of someone being found guilty of battery because he or she hit sombody in a boxing match. If that does turn out to be the case, the concept could extend to all contact sports. Unfortunately I am s bit too old to go to law school and then case in on the lawsuits that will follow. If the Haneys win the case, it will be interesting to know what the statute of limitation is because a lot of lawsuits will follow for past misdeads. Thanks for your response...food for thought.

[DClefthook]

Ok... as I found out recently (I was not in a legal set of problems, a friend and his family were), what the dictionary definition of a word is can have almost nothing in common with what a legal precedent in a court of law sets it as. When Haney's attorney states that by taking a substance that was banned before a combat sport falls under the legal umbrella of assault, I believe him. Depending on what state or even what jurisdiction of a state you are in, there are multiple ways you can be charged in civil suits for the same legal action. When I was growing up in Fort Myers Florida, I remember a fruit stand owner being found guilty of an assault on someone for throwing rotten g****fruits at a parked car the owner and his family were in at the time. That guy lost everything he owned over rotten fruit. My friend is finding out "trespass" has a dozen different definitions, even if you are on a public sidewalk in front of someone's house. Haney and his team probably have a solid case here, no matter how silly it sounds from a distance.

EDI:

Dear Boxing Scene: Seriously?? G-R-A-P-fruits is a banned word????? A sucker says WHAT???

Never change, oh Politically Correct Boxing Scene bot... never change.

It's so funny how some idiots think they know the law and go to court trying to defend themselves and when they get there the judge starts using terms like "Prima facie" ... 'mens rea"..."Res Ipsa Loquitor" ... "Stare Desisis" ... "Caveat Emptor" .... "Qui Tam" amongst others. Dummies don't know that American law incorporates many Latin phrases because the foundation of the US legal system originates from ancient Roman law where Latin was the primary language. So when these idiots say "Devin has no case because Ryan beat him up in the ring and there wasn't enough steroids in his system" that just let's you know how stooped these clowns are!