Comments Thread For: Schaefer Talks Fox Deal, Golden Goals, Double Standards

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

Because he writes for both Maxboxing (which skews heavily towards TR) as well as TR itself.

Like I said, read those PEDs mess articles and ask yourself why Hauser names GBP and it's fighters constantly but when he brings up Chavez Jr. and his positive test for marijuana and furosemide, he conveniently forgets to inform readers that Chavez fights under TR/Arum. Not a single mention of Top Rank or Bob, but Hauser actually goes out of his way to sweep the marijuana use under the rug - also a coincidence huh?

What leads you to believe Hauser is a TR shill? Everything I've read from him is usually quite objective and written in a style and manner that is above most of his peers. I read those articles Rey is talking about and they had a lot of merit. HBO has been putting together better fights since Greenberg left and they did the right thing in trying to break up GBP's efforts to monopolize the sport.

[/QUOTE]

The bigger issue is Hauser used to blast HBO, but then after Greenburg gets fired and Hershman replaces him, HBO brings Hauser on board. Yes, Hauser is an HBO employee and that's why he no longer rips HBO so I don't want to hear anyone say he's objective or not easily moved by opportunity. He doesn't mention in these articles about being an HBO employee since last February.

http://www.boxingscene.com/thomas-hauser-joins-hbo-sports-consultant--50124

[liuj88]

Already done so in the past. Read the article yourself and ask why Hauser names GBP and it's fighters constantly throughout those articles.

But when he cites Chavez Jr. testing positive, he makes NO MENTION of Top Rank or Bob Arum.

I'm sure that's just a coincidence huh?

Open-minded. LMAO.

"Shill" is a very strong word. Did he unreasonably/unfairly praise TR? If so, please provide evidence.

Hauser didn't mention TR in the articles I referenced, but this, to me, doesn't rise to the level of being a shill.

He points out, among other things, that GBP presented itself as a big proponent of drug testing, when it seems that they use their favored drug-testing organization (USADA) to manipulate the whole process for their fighters' benefit. Did he make a good case, or not?

He also mentioned the legally baseless accusation thrown against Pacquiao about PED use, which ended with Schaefer's and delaHoya's apologies (and a legal settlement with the Mayweathers). True, or not?

He outlined how VADA was involved in the positive PED tests of fighters, and how Schaefer didn't like VADA, and how VADA defended its actions. Schaefer threatened to sue, but didn't. True, or not?

Margaret Goodman, who used to be the chief ringside physician of the NSAC, and now part of VADA, was prohibited from writing about insurance coverage for fighters in her Ring magazine column after delaHoya bought it (she started her column in 2004). Her column was cancelled after Peterson's positive test, administered by VADA. True, or not?

All this, just from part 1.

My overall impression about GBP after reading these articles is that its actions are not consistent with their proclaimed mission of cleaning up the sport, and working for the benefit of all boxers. Is this fair, or not?

Once again, I encourage open-minded people to read, and judge, for themselves. Agree, or disagree, with the points Hauser made. You can make your case, but name-calling will not help you.


http://www.maxboxing.com/news/max-bo...-mess-part-one

and

http://www.maxboxing.com/news/max-bo...-mess-part-two