Whyte still has options, right?

[ShaneMosleySr]

I feel like he still has huge fights even if he’s banned in the UK and loses his mandatory status for Wilders title.

He can fight Manuel Charr in Germany, Alexander Povetkin in Russia and a bunch of Americans in the US.

I’m assuming this would be a situation like Mike Tyson before the Lewis fight. Nevada refused to license him but Tennessee wanted that fight badly.

[juggernaut666]

Yep, and he has passed every test everyone else on the WBC's CB program which will show that they are the weak link in testing if true tomorrow with Whytes statement and then down the line the result of the B sample . Whyte had a meeting/hearing prior to his bout so I really cant see how everyones so confident hes not going to be cleared despite the BBBBC rules which have confidentiality clauses in place to allow fighters to proceed ,I never heard anyone having a hearing before the fight allowing to go on and that has to mean something ?

One things for sure Hausers leak and article on here have him sweating bullets bc if it happens that no evidence is found hes going or should get sued.

Theres a thing called defamation of character and boxing scene themselves may come under fire ? I don't really care im for the fighter/fighters and don't want anyone banned unlike the cheerleaders on here . lol

[_Rexy_]

Two time steroid cheat and complaints about his gloves, of course ***** tit juggernaut is on the “conspiracy” bandwagon. Foil hat covers his bald spot better than his greasy combover does.

Whyte is finished in competitive boxing if these stories are proven accurate

[saintpat]

Dilly Dilly goes to Russia and he will find the dirty tricks table turned.

Whyte gets assigned 24-ounce pillows for gloves, meanwhile Povetkin roided to the gills is wrapping his hands in cloth then dipping them in tar and broken bits of glass.

[Oldpops]

Yep, and he has passed every test everyone else on the WBC's CB program which will show that they are the weak link in testing if true tomorrow with Whytes statement and then down the line the result of the B sample . Whyte had a meeting/hearing prior to his bout so I really cant see how everyones so confident hes not going to be cleared despite the BBBBC rules which have confidentiality clauses in place to allow fighters to proceed ,I never heard anyone having a hearing before the fight allowing to go on and that has to mean something ?

One things for sure Hausers leak and article on here have him sweating bullets bc if it happens that no evidence is found hes going or should get sued.

Theres a thing called defamation of character and boxing scene themselves may come under fire ? I don't really care im for the fighter/fighters and don't want anyone banned unlike the cheerleaders on here . lol

No sir it would not be defamation of character. That is the legal term for slandering a person verbally.
Lible is the term used for slandering a person in print.

[juggernaut666]

No sir it would not be defamation of character. That is the legal term for slandering a person verbally.
Liable is the term used for slandering a person in print.

Where did you come up with that one ? lol


Defamation of character CAN be a written statement like lawsuits involving newspapers that slander someone ,it doesn't have to be out of mouth. lol


To go after a false claim one has to prove the accusations are false that individual doesn't need to have an actual conversation with the [person making the claims,it can be written in newspapers or on social media LIKE this one. lol


You actually need proof of the defamation so how would one go about that if it was a verbal thing ? get out of here...……...pffft…….lol

[Oldpops]

Where did you come up with that one ? lol


Defamation of character CAN be a written statement like lawsuits involving newspapers that slander someone ,it doesn't have to be out of mouth. lol


To go after a false claim one has to prove the accusations are false that individual doesn't need to have an actual conversation with the [person making the claims,it can be written in newspapers or on social media LIKE this one. lol

A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation- a written defamation.

Sorry I studied law at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. Years and years ago.
Not trying to be a d1ck. Just stating what the lawsuit would be

[juggernaut666]

A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation- a written defamation.

Sorry I studied law at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. Years and years ago.
Not trying to be a d1ck. Just stating what the lawsuit would be

You didn't study anything you just told me defamation of character is a verbal thing ? lol

Then you just looked it up and now are reposting what I already told you it HAS to be written ...GTFOH kid. lol

[Oldpops]

You didn't study anything you just told me defamation of character is a verbal thing ? lol

Then you just looked it up and now are reposting what I already told you it HAS to be written ...GTFOH kid. lol

No sense in arguing with you on this.
Just like your comments on the Ruiz breach of contract. You have your opinion we will leave it as such.
Have a good night

[andocom]

Slander = verbal.
Libel = written.

At least historically and in my country, as per first year law.

Also generally you don't need to prove the accusations to be false for it to be libelous, just harmful to reputation and made with malice or negligence, although true is generally an absolute defense.