Comments Thread For: Frank Warren Reacts To Saunders Denied License, MSAC Lawsuit

[KnickTillDeaTh]

^This

Saunders isn't even an American. How is a foreign national going to sue an American entity for the *privilege* of being granted a license to box in a fight where he's in breach of contract? Is Warren smoking Crack?

You do not have to be a legal citizen to sue in a U.S. court. For the plaintiff, jurisdiction is established by consent: the plaintiff implicitly consents to the court’s jurisdiction by bringing the suit. The location of the suit is important as well. The question is did the acts which give rise to the lawsuit occur in the United States? Any foreigner can bring a lawsuit to U.S. courts under these and other guidelines.

[jglvz256]

Not at all chief, I just don't believe everything I read. I try to read between the lines. This is nothing more than spin coming from the WBO. You said there was going to be an investigation but that is not what they told the MSAC. I heard them loud and clear. They said "strip". I can repost the article if you like.

"Because of the mental anguish brought about by this case and out of respect for the WBO, Billy-Joe will with a heavy heart relinquish his world title, whilst this issue is in the process of being resolved."

- from Frank Warren's statement earlier.

[KnickTillDeaTh]

Not at all chief, I just don't believe everything I read. I try to read between the lines. This is nothing more than spin coming from the WBO. You said there was going to be an investigation but that is not what they told the MSAC. I heard them loud and clear. They said "strip". I can repost the article if you like.

Like two ships passing in the night. You are arguing what was said but didn't happen, which is conjecture. I am arguing what actually happened which is fact. It doesn't matter if the WBO said they were going to strip Saunders, because by their own by laws, they would HAVE to do an investigation before they can strip him, because again as I have been explaining on these forums, the sanctioning bodies have to answer to the Fed's and they HAVE to provide a clear and concise process as to why these things occur. The WBO has a process of investigation before they strip the fighter, and that was the route they would HAVE to take. No matter how hard you try, you can't argue away the facts. Choosing not to believe what happened is supposition, unless you have something to show the WBO president saying he's helping Warren save face, then you are being subjective, you are presenting an opinion based on incomplete information, which is the very definition of conjecture.

[RoyJonesJrp4pno1]

ummm..... Warren clearly explained that his legal team feel that Saunders did not breach his contract

he explained that in his view, MSAC failed to follow their own rules..... and he insinuated that they did that to benefit a local guy

not saying I think that, just saying that Warren said that

read the article again

In effect their defence is...We did break the rules we signed up for in a legally binding contract, however, that's ok because your rules are different.

I will be totally shocked if this gets to court.

[champion4ever]

"Because of the mental anguish brought about by this case and out of respect for the WBO, Billy-Joe will with a heavy heart relinquish his world title, whilst this issue is in the process of being resolved."

- from Frank Warren's statement earlier.

Which proves my point. It's spin control. This is nothing more than a face-saving P.R. move.

[champion4ever]

Like two ships passing in the night. You are arguing what was said but didn't happen, which is conjecture. I am arguing what actually happened which is fact. It doesn't matter if the WBO said they were going to strip Saunders, because by their own by laws, they would HAVE to do an investigation before they can strip him, because again as I have been explaining on these forums, the sanctioning bodies have to answer to the Fed's and they HAVE to provide a clear and concise process as to why these things occur. The WBO has a process of investigation before they strip the fighter, and that was the route they would HAVE to take. No matter how hard you try, you can't argue away the facts. Choosing not to believe what happened is supposition, unless you have something to show the WBO president saying he's helping Warren save face, then you are being subjective, you are presenting an opinion based on incomplete information, which is the very definition of conjecture.

WBO president Paco Valcarcel claims the sanctioning body will strip Saunders if the Massachusetts Commission refuse to let him face Andrade. You want more? Here it is; The facts that you claim that I don't have. Please tell me is there anything about an investigation there and again show me where is the conjecture?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/billy-joe-saunders-discover-lose-13325802

[Citizen Koba]

In effect their defence is...We did break the rules we signed up for in a legally binding contract, however, that's ok because your rules are different.

I will be totally shocked if this gets to court.

The issue here is that the contract they signed and subsequently breached was with Andrade / Matchroom not the MSAC. Andrade would be perfectly entitled to refuse to fight Saunders (and almost certainly to sue him or apply any such penalties as were in the contract). The WBO would then be completely within their rights to strip Saunders for fucking up a title fight as specified by their regulations. The MSAC however should abide by their existing rules and under those they have no justification for denying Saunders a license under their PED statutes.

[James Hunt]

The issue here is that the contract they signed and subsequently breached was with Andrade / Matchroom not the MSAC. Andrade would be perfectly entitled to refuse to fight Saunders (and almost certainly to sue him or apply any such penalties as were in the contract). The WBO would then be completely within their rights to strip Saunders for fucking up a title fight as specified by their regulations. The MSAC however should abide by their existing rules and under those they have no justification for denying Saunders a license under their PED statutes.

Depends how WADA defines "in competition"? If by WADA rules "in competition" is only on fight day (same as in the UK), then, I think, Warren has a case here.

[True That]

STFU Frank Warren you POS!

This is good and Karma coming back to you because of what you did to other fans and I when we went to greet you and shake your hand in Los Angeles and you told us to get back, get back. Then only seconds later you stop and took pictures with some folks who were from Britain. No fault of theirs but your act was disgusting. I'm glad this happened to you, you prick! When Eddie Hearn was here he was nice to us and joked with us. You on the other hand acted like a complete old prick!

[wileyhemi6]

****** fish eyes backing his protege, the cheating ***** punk