Comments Thread For: Ellerbe, Koncz Trade Verbal Shots Over $5 Million Fine

[turnedup]

It's funny watching people side with their preferred liar....show us some paperwork or STFU. As far as facts this is a non-story till they either show us some paperwork. So the pip-squeak knowitalls on this site down and stfu til we see proof from either side.

[Rath]

Koncz is an idiot and didnt read contract!

Thats all thats needs to be said.

read my post and you will see who are the "idiots" here

[SchoolTheseCats]

no reading comprehension you say!

I don't know what's hard to understand if you agree to the 5mil fine clause they wanted in contract you just tossed out your chance of suing for more when after all said is done manny will have 80+mil payday and floyd 120+mil why limit what you can gain by suing?

[Fetta]

read my post and you will see who are the "idiots" here

Oh theres a bunch of idiots here and you can throw koncz in there

[aboutfkntime]

Koncz said "Team Mayweather rejected Pac's request for a 5 mill dollar US penalty if either boxer comes up positive for a banned substance in USADA drug test.

What it meant:

this is an additional penalty request (besides those penalty under the WADA Code) in Floyd vs Pac contract.
it applies to both of them. But was rejected by Floyd's Team

where in the article does it says Koncz don't want the 4 yrs ban and replacing them with 5 mill dollar US penalty in stead?

Ellerbe said "USADA operates under WADA code and either fighter testing positive for PEDS would ban them from doing for 4 yrs."

What it meant:

Wada conde has a penalty in it's rule if one comes positive for banned substance and that is 4 yrs ban from boxing.

It is Wada Code and not on Floyd vs Pac contract agreement.

Questions:

Can WADA impose the 4 yrs ban on a professional boxer if Floyd or Pac use the loophole that says it is not in our contract?

Can the commission still allowed any of them to fight even if WADA banned them not to?

Is WADA code by default already included in the contract between Floyd vs Pac?

Ellerbe said " We have no plan in limiting the damages if Manny tested positive"

What it meant:

Ellerbe evaded what Koncz accused them off and that is they rejected the 5 million dollar penalty.

Note he said if Pac tested positive not if both of them tested positive.

since he said they have no plan in limiting the penalty to just 5 million, did they requested a bigger amount of penalty in the contract or not?

Ellerbe said "they must be worried if they are bringing this up.

what it meant:

planting the seed of su****ion, the people who demanded a penalty of 5 million dollar applicable to both fighters is being suspected by no other than the one who rejected it in the first place and did not make any attempt to counter the request with bigger amount.

Ellerbe said "Essentially what they are trying to do is put a 5 million price tag if Pac tested positive. It is awfully su****ious to me"

What it meant:

again planting su****ion by saying that the 5 million price tag is considered small for being caught with banned substance yet again did not offer any bigger amount of penalty than the 5 million Pac camp requested.

Present your case now Hanz

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your point is..... that Ellerbe is being dishonest, by rubbishing the $5mil penalty, and yet not replacing it with anything more stringent ?

If so, I think the point is this.....

Without the Pacquiao $5mil fine clause the potential litigation is unlimited, so either party can sue for whatever they feel is realistic.

So, by including The Team Pacquiao $5 mil penalty clause the potential litigation is limited..... and by removing it the potential litigation is umlimited..... not nonexistant, as you appear to think.

No ?

[Fetta]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your point is..... that Ellerbe is being dishonest, by rubbishing the $5mil penalty, and yet not replacing it with anything more stringent ?

If so, I think the point is this.....

Without the Pacquiao $5mil fine clause the potential litigation is unlimited, so either party can sue for whatever they feel is realistic.

So, by including The Team Pacquiao $5 mil penalty clause the potential litigation is limited..... and by removing it the potential litigation is umlimited..... not nonexistant, as you appear to think.

No ?

Yes. Simple to comprehend but since Koncz made mistake on Pacs behalf its being spun and hard as it can

[Rath]

Koncz said "Team Mayweather rejected Pac's request for a 5 mill dollar US penalty if either boxer comes up positive for a banned substance in USADA drug test.

What it meant:

this is an additional penalty request (besides those penalty under the WADA Code) in Floyd vs Pac contract.
it applies to both of them. But was rejected by Floyd's Team

where in the article does it says Koncz don't want the 4 yrs ban and replacing them with 5 mill dollar US penalty in stead?

Ellerbe said "USADA operates under WADA code and either fighter testing positive for PEDS would ban them from doing for 4 yrs."

What it meant:

Wada conde has a penalty in it's rule if one comes positive for banned substance and that is 4 yrs ban from boxing.

It is Wada Code and not on Floyd vs Pac contract agreement.

Questions:

Can WADA impose the 4 yrs ban on a professional boxer if Floyd or Pac use the loophole that says it is not in our contract?

Can the commission still allowed any of them to fight even if WADA banned them not to?

Is WADA code by default already included in the contract between Floyd vs Pac?

Ellerbe said " We have no plan in limiting the damages if Manny tested positive"

What it meant:

Ellerbe evaded what Koncz accused them off and that is they rejected the 5 million dollar penalty.

Note he said if Pac tested positive not if both of them tested positive.

since he said they have no plan in limiting the penalty to just 5 million, did they requested a bigger amount of penalty in the contract or not?

Ellerbe said "they must be worried if they are bringing this up.

what it meant:

planting the seed of su****ion, the people who demanded a penalty of 5 million dollar applicable to both fighters is being suspected by no other than the one who rejected it in the first place and did not make any attempt to counter the request with bigger amount.

Ellerbe said "Essentially what they are trying to do is put a 5 million price tag if Pac tested positive. It is awfully su****ious to me"

What it meant:

again planting su****ion by saying that the 5 million price tag is considered small for being caught with banned substance yet again did not offer any bigger amount of penalty than the 5 million Pac camp requested.

Present your case now Hanz

here it is FETA

[aboutfkntime]

Are you ****ers kidding me!?! How in the h*ll are you backing Ellerbe's bogus illogical claim over the fine being hurtful to only Pacquiao alone!?

TMT arguing logic number 1: When making a rebuttal to the other side of the argument, in no way, shape, or form leave any sense of doubt or blame on the side of Floyd Mayweather. Floyd's **** doesn't stink.....words to live by.

Everyone and their Grandma could have told you that when Pac's camp proposed the 5 million dollar penalty there was no way Floyd was going to accept it. From there you can believe what you want. Basically only two logical explanations is that Floyd doesn't want to take a chance of his test coming back positive, or he is so stubborn that he won't except anything that is not by his own doing. I'd say it is a little of both, but Ellerbe's smoke screen style argument to disassociate Floyd completely from this situation is very very telling you ****** m*ther****ers

Or, Mayweather does not want to risk losing $115mil+, by limiting the litigation to $5mil, should Pacquiao test positive.

Yep, its one of the two

[Fetta]

Both being tested and i dont think either will come up dirty.

May 2 its going down

[Rath]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your point is..... that Ellerbe is being dishonest, by rubbishing the $5mil penalty, and yet not replacing it with anything more stringent ?

If so, I think the point is this.....

Without the Pacquiao $5mil fine clause the potential litigation is unlimited, so either party can sue for whatever they feel is realistic.

So, by including The Team Pacquiao $5 mil penalty clause the potential litigation is limited..... and by removing it the potential litigation is umlimited..... not nonexistant, as you appear to think.

No ?

how could you sue someone that is not under the contract agreement?

WADA code already has the penalty for it and that is 4 yrs.