While i do mostly blame Arum for this, i find it extremely weird that NYSAC pretty much ignored 2 of the best doctors who spoke on the eye and said it was good and also were present in much of the promotion's pressers
Dec. 3rd Undercard fighter: "Cotto-Margarito is going to Texas"
Collapse
-
-
they arent ******. im an aspiring lawyer. u get experts to say whatever it is u want them to. lol...i cant believe u guys are gullible. did u see his eye??? theres no way its ok. not to mention he has a lens in it...Comment
-
Chris Mannix and Dan Rafael have referenced the lawsuit as the driving force behind the reason they won't give Margo the license.I thought the UFC and MMA in general was just not sanctioned at all in NY State. Just found info on the lawsuit, and it's about allowing MMA in the state.
http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011...ation-attempt/Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Gullible about what? 2 of the worlds leader experts approved of it. Just because NYSAC thought it wasnt good, doesnt mean they should simply ignore expert's diagnoses. So on what basis is NYSAC denying him a licence? Because THEY think its bad? Who are they to judge the state of the eye. Then they call a "hearing", have experts and everybody testify, yet still deny him. So why have the hearing?
And i am no Ophthalmologist so i cant judge on the state of his eye and neither can you. I'd take the experts opinion rather then yoursComment
-
Me neither.
NY has a habit of screwing itself out of money, especially in recent times where there are deficits in the budget. They don't allow MMA, and the UFC would LOVE to stage a show here, especially MSG. They tax out the ass for Boxers, especially foreign fighters. And for a while all the TV shows and movies were abandoning NYC because they refused to give tax credits to productions (The entertainment industry floods the city with jobs and cash).
Add Cotto-Margarito to the list
Comment
-
two of the worlds leading experts. two. u think there arent plenty of other "leading" experts??? lol. u are gullible. and thats why it is a hearing. u have to decide whether to confirm or deny. ur not making any sense. i dont think u get how administrative hearings go at all. and ur rite, i cant judge, but my eyes tell me theres something wrong and even earner, whos an insider in margs came said he was only working with 20/40 vision.Gullible about what? 2 of the worlds leader experts approved of it. Just because NYSAC thought it wasnt good, doesnt mean they should simply ignore expert's diagnoses. So on what basis is NYSAC denying him a licence? Because THEY think its bad? Who are they to judge the state of the eye. Then they call a "hearing", have experts and everybody testify, yet still deny him. So why have the hearing?
And i am no Ophthalmologist so i cant judge on the state of his eye and neither can you. I'd take the experts opinion rather then yoursComment
Comment