Comments Thread For: What is Al Haymon Planning?

[mrpain81]

BTW is Hauser still working as a consultant to HBO?

[radioraheem]

New York Times has shareholders... it has accountability. If anything it prints is found to be false they have to retract it, depending on pressure put on them. Against a button up journalism outfit like NYT, a cease and desist letter castrates a potential article.. let's be real about that.

Hauser has no pressure on him like that. He's grass roots journalism. His opinion and speculation is in his pieces, and I'm fine with that. Anyone with their own head can form their own opinion based on the information given anyway.

Good luck in your journalism career though.

You may call that grass roots journalism, but I call that grass roots gossip rag writing. If there is anything that disgusts me in journalism, it's the presentation of information as if it's fact when it is indeed not true or unknown to be at that moment. What he's doing is not what journalism is about. It's more like propaganda, gossip, etc.

And the sad thing is, if he were truly doing journalism, like Warp said, it would be a great piece of work. NYT is old-school, they come from the days when you had to have your **** together. It wasn't so much about lawsuits, it was more about journalism and their reputation for stating the facts. Back in the day, once your reputation was tarnished as a newspaper, magazine, etc, you would lose a lot of readers. It was a BIG no-no.

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

I'm damn near standing up clapping at your posts! Hauser has made a habit out of fabricating all sorts of nonsense and running with it. And then his pieces are insanely long and drawn out. I blame at least half of all this crappy journalism on the internet because it has blurred the lines of what true journalism is all about. True journalism is about presentation of facts, and typically in the most unbiased manner as possible. And if it is biased, it is still based upon cold facts.

He can get away with this crap because it's the internet and not too many will call him out on it. Anyone can write crap like that these days and get away with it. The days of fact-checking are long gone unless it's from a still reputable organization like the NY Times. And speaking of the NYT, you are correct. The NY Times aren't likely to run with shaky crap that isn't solid or has weak sources. And in the few times in the past when they did -- they got called out on it.

I don't even trust half his 'sources.' He's like a Stephen Glass, but in professional boxing.

You're wrong. Everyone is held accountable. Over the years, we've received just as many legal threats to take stuff down as any other top news outlet. Sometimes the material goes down, if the complaint has merit, and most of the time the material in question stays up. Very few pieces have ever gone down. And 9 out of 10 times the legal threat was related to someone making a defamatory statement, on the record, within an article.

We know who some of the sources are for this piece. They are very solid. Hauser himself is a lawyer, he knows what he's doing, which is probably why nobody has ever sued him over an article that he's written. And years ago when he passed on a bad piece of information on this very website, he was man enough to come on here and publicly retract that info.

[warp1432]

You're wrong. Everyone is held accountable. Over the years, we've received just as many legal threats to take stuff down as any other top news outlet. Sometimes the material goes down, if the complaint has merit, and most of the time the material in question stays up. Very few pieces have ever gone down. And 9 out of 10 times the legal threat was related to someone making a defamatory statement, on the record, within an article.

We know who some of the sources are for this piece. They are very solid. Hauser himself is a lawyer, he knows what he's doing, which is probably why nobody has ever sued him over an article that he's written. And years ago when he passed on a bad piece of information on this very website, he was man enough to come on here and publicly retract that info.

Do you mind me asking on how Haymon possibly shifting money around made it into the article when there wasn't a source, even anonymously, saying that in the piece? It's just Hauser speculating and that's a pretty big speculation.

You can PM me it too if you'd rather.

[radioraheem]

You're wrong. Everyone is held accountable. Over the years, we've received just as many legal threats to take stuff down as any other top news outlet. Sometimes the material goes down, if the complaint has merit, and most of the time the material in question stays up. Very few pieces have ever gone down. And 9 out of 10 times the legal threat was related to someone making a defamatory statement, on the record, within an article.

We know who some of the sources are for this piece. They are very solid. Hauser himself is a lawyer, he knows what he's doing, which is probably why nobody has ever sued him over an article that he's written. And years ago when he passed on a bad piece of information on this very website, he was man enough to come on here and publicly retract that info.

BigPoppa, much respect.

But I literally just a few hours ago, I came across another article on BS that had some information that was incorrect! Again -- incorrect information. There are various writers on BS that have presented great stuff and were true to journalism. But then others were like ehhhh, you'd see all sorts of stuff that weren't correct and went unquestioned.

A lot of times it's not like someone is going to come after the writer or BS, because the fact(s) at hand may or may not have been worthy of going after legally. And Hauser's bias comes out in much of his pieces. Not really a fan. And knowing just some of his sources? I don't know... But much respect to you for the reply anyways though.

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

Do you mind me asking on how Haymon possibly shifting money around made it into the article when there wasn't a source, even anonymously, saying that in the piece? It's just Hauser speculating and that's a pretty big speculation.

You can PM me it too if you'd rather.

Maybe you should ask Hauser....

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

BigPoppa, much respect.

I can't even tell you how petty some of the legal threats are, over items like someone telling someone to go f*** themselves or writing about PPV numbers being fudged, etc.

[Snake4380]

Nice deal for Floyd. Floyd pays Haymon 15% (not the standard 10% for managers) for Haymon to come up with the brilliant idea of matching Floyd with opponents like Ortiz and the Ghost Guerrero. Floyd also has to pay Golden Boy Promotions and the rest of the team. LOL I love how the media always reports that Floyd made $40 million or $50 million, always the gross amount.

[radioraheem]

I can't even tell you how petty some of the legal threats are, over items like someone telling someone to go f*** themselves or writing about PPV numbers being fudged, etc.

I can believe that.

[The Tase]

this is one thing i know for sure about haymon,

he is a criminal. an underworld crime figure who used drug money to become legit.

dont ask me how i know but i have sources too.

this guy is a de****able criminal using boxing after gaining legitimacy with his promotional concert work.

there's a reason why he doesnt do interviews and dont want to be seen in television or have his picture taken.

what kind of people follow the same media blackout policy? drug lords, italian mafia, yakuza, triads and organized crime.

No Reputable Businessman Hides.

wolf in sheeps clothing.

make no mistake about it,

Haymon is gangster scum.