Tweet
"Strict Constructionist", looks like some1 has access to wikipedia. The term strict constructionist refers to the usually right wing or libertarianist legal view of US constitution. Strict constructionists believe in a narrow and literal reading of the constitution as opposed to those who believe the constitution is a living document that evolves over time. This suit regarding the Ali Act has nothing to do with this term. The Ali Act is a federal statute which when reading it is very clear. And if this case goes to court it will be up to the trier of fact to decide if there is a reasonable belief based on the evidence that Haymon violated the Ali Act and Sherman Act.
Regarding the discovery process, Haymon is the one getting sued he will be the one who is going to be exposed unless Haymon counter sues, based on what I have no idea. The only one that will be exposed is Al Haymon. As for loopholes in the act, I don't see any loopholes that allow Haymon to do what he is doing. He (wrongly) believes because he calls himself an advisor he is in the clear. Whatever he wants to call himself is irrelevant, because it is his actions that will prove what role he really plays. If his actions are the actions of a promoter or a manager then it is irrelevant if he calls himself an advisor or a ****** chaser. Actually, a judge will be able to see right thru this attempted deception by Haymon.
Haymon does play the role of a manager, but he thinks he is clever by calling himself an advisor. He does all the actions of a promoter but he has what are called front men, front groups, or front business men to play the promoter. By doing this he thinks is pulling the wool over the eyes of the boxing community, public and government. All it really took was someone with the guts to actually challenge him because his whole business is clearly shady as hell. It is just that he is so arrogant and narcissistic that he thinks he can get away with it. Guess what happens when some1 gets too big for their britches, they get smacked down to size. Just look at what happened to John Gotti.
Regarding the discovery process, Haymon is the one getting sued he will be the one who is going to be exposed unless Haymon counter sues, based on what I have no idea. The only one that will be exposed is Al Haymon. As for loopholes in the act, I don't see any loopholes that allow Haymon to do what he is doing. He (wrongly) believes because he calls himself an advisor he is in the clear. Whatever he wants to call himself is irrelevant, because it is his actions that will prove what role he really plays. If his actions are the actions of a promoter or a manager then it is irrelevant if he calls himself an advisor or a ****** chaser. Actually, a judge will be able to see right thru this attempted deception by Haymon.
Haymon does play the role of a manager, but he thinks he is clever by calling himself an advisor. He does all the actions of a promoter but he has what are called front men, front groups, or front business men to play the promoter. By doing this he thinks is pulling the wool over the eyes of the boxing community, public and government. All it really took was someone with the guts to actually challenge him because his whole business is clearly shady as hell. It is just that he is so arrogant and narcissistic that he thinks he can get away with it. Guess what happens when some1 gets too big for their britches, they get smacked down to size. Just look at what happened to John Gotti.
Comment