Oscar's cross dressing ways continue even w/o fishnets. GB planning on suing Al Haymon.

[MIAlien]

Long as there is paperwork that says otherwise then there is no case. The only smoking gun is a co-conspirator willing to throw themselves under the bus. Highly unlikely in the sport of boxing. This suit is just pure spite because golden boy is losing its flavor and even the top Latino fighters are riding with Haymon.

Have you read the Ali Act? Nearly every promoter and manager in the history of boxing has violated it at some point because some of the most basic business practices in boxing are so informal. There's just very little precedent because boxers don't have the $ to see these cases through and there's always settlements. And that's without going into the Anti Trust or Unfair Competition elements of the case, which sound strong too.

Al Haymon better hope Oscar just wants a check or a piece of PBC, because if not, then who knows how badly the judge could hurt him.

 

[CodeBlaMeVi]

Have you read the Ali Act? Nearly every promoter and manager in the history of boxing has violated it at some point because some of the most basic business practices in boxing are so informal. There's just very little precedent because boxers don't have the $ to see these cases through and there's always settlements. And that's without going into the Anti Trust or Unfair Competition elements of the case, which sound strong too.

Al Haymon better hope Oscar just wants a check or a piece of PBC, because if not, then who knows how badly the judge could hurt him.

You think that financial group $400M without cutting every corner to not get clipped. I am pro-black but definitely there isn't antitrust. We know what is going on but it is what you can prove in court.

 

[CodeBlaMeVi]

Have you read the Ali Act? Nearly every promoter and manager in the history of boxing has violated it at some point because some of the most basic business practices in boxing are so informal. There's just very little precedent because boxers don't have the $ to see these cases through and there's always settlements. And that's without going into the Anti Trust or Unfair Competition elements of the case, which sound strong too.

Al Haymon better hope Oscar just wants a check or a piece of PBC, because if not, then who knows how badly the judge could hurt him.

Another thing is a boxer has to prove that act and not another entity. It protects boxers not another promotional company against a manager.

 

[MIAlien]

You think that financial group $400M without cutting every corner to not get clipped. I am pro-black but definitely there isn't antitrust. We know what is going on but it is what you can prove in court.

Definitely? I don't know about that. I think De La Hoya has a good case here, especially on the state level in California.

Another thing is a boxer has to prove that act and not another entity. It protects boxers not another promotional company against a manager.

I'll ask again, have you read the Act? Where does it say the bolded in the Act itself? Where's the caselaw that states that only a boxer has standing under the Ali Act? There is none. A judge can decide he has standing because it promotes the purpose of the act, to protect boxers and help commissions provide oversight in boxing. Furthermore, De La Hoya can provide proof to the Attorney General of California or Loretta Lynch herself and ask them to enforce the Act.

And De La Hoya can use the section(s) Haymon has violated to bolster his argument Haymon has violated California Unfair Competition laws and Anti-Trust laws. If you read the Act, Haymon is violating the Firewall section of the Act with PBC. And De La Hoya has enough inside business history with Haymon to know all the things he's done. This isn't some frivolous lawsuit thats meant to drag Haymon's name through the mud. Haymon will have to cut a nice check if he wants it to go away...

 

[CodeBlaMeVi]

Definitely? I don't know about that. I think De La Hoya has a good case here, especially on the state level in California.


I'll ask again, have you read the Act? Where does it say the bolded in the Act itself? Where's the caselaw that states that only a boxer has standing under the Ali Act? There is none. A judge can decide he has standing because it promotes the purpose of the act, to protect boxers and help commissions provide oversight in boxing. Furthermore, De La Hoya can provide proof to the Attorney General of California or Loretta Lynch herself and ask them to enforce the Act.

And De La Hoya can use the section(s) Haymon has violated to bolster his argument Haymon has violated California Unfair Competition laws and Anti-Trust laws. If you read the Act, Haymon is violating the Firewall section of the Act with PBC. And De La Hoya has enough inside business history with Haymon to know all the things he's done. This isn't some frivolous lawsuit thats meant to drag Haymon's name through the mud. Haymon will have to cut a nice check if he wants it to go away...

I read what I need as a defense. Post the statue and I'll go through it.

So, DLH acted in collusion at a point in time with Haymon? All of a sudden since Haymon moved on made PBC, he had a change of heart to protect the "integrity" of boxers' interest as an inactive boxer?

Ball is in your court and show me those Firewall receipts, please.

 

[CodeBlaMeVi]

@MIAlien Section 1 through 3 is pretty concise and doesn't help whatever case you say DLH has.

• 
  The purposes of this Act are--
  
  • 
    (1) to protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis by preventing certain exploitive, oppressive, and unethical business practices;
    
    (2) to assist State boxing commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and
    
    (3) to promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry.

 

[CodeBlaMeVi]

@MIAlien long as there is not paperwork that proves this then it will get shut down. Haymon just has a series where boxers willingly fight on and is compensated from a promoter which can be themselves according to your precious law. So, again what is DLH have to even get a settlement? IN essence, Haymon is using the same arrangement he has had with Golden Boy but Schaeffer left so there's that.

b) FIREWALL BETWEEN PROMOTERS AND MANAGERS-

• 
  ‘(1) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for--
  
  • 
    ‘(A) a promoter to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the management of a boxer; or
    
    ‘(B) a manager--
    
    • 
      ‘(i) to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the promotion of a boxer; or
      
      ‘(ii) to be employed by or receive compensation or other benefits from a promoter, except for amounts received as consideration under the manager’s contract with the boxer.
      

 

[MIAlien]

I read what I need as a defense. Post the statue and I'll go through it.

So, DLH acted in collusion at a point in time with Haymon? All of a sudden since Haymon moved on made PBC, he had a change of heart to protect the "integrity" of boxers' interest as an inactive boxer?

Ball is in your court and show me those Firewall receipts, please.

@MIAlien Section 1 through 3 is pretty concise and doesn't help whatever case you say DLH has.

• 
  The purposes of this Act are--
  • 
    (1) to protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis by preventing certain exploitive, oppressive, and unethical business practices;
    
    (2) to assist State boxing commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and
    
    (3) to promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry.

@MIAlien long as there is not paperwork that proves this then it will get shut down. Haymon just has a series where boxers willingly fight on and is compensated from a promoter which can be themselves according to your precious law. So, again what is DLH have to even get a settlement? IN essence, Haymon is using the same arrangement he has had with Golden Boy but Schaeffer left so there's that.

b) FIREWALL BETWEEN PROMOTERS AND MANAGERS-

• 
  ‘(1) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for--
  • 
    ‘(A) a promoter to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the management of a boxer; or
    
    ‘(B) a manager--
    • 
      ‘(i) to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the promotion of a boxer; or
      
      ‘(ii) to be employed by or receive compensation or other benefits from a promoter, except for amounts received as consideration under the manager’s contract with the boxer.

First off, Haymon lives in this place in between promoter and manager in name only. His job description was that of a manager before PBC and now occupies both post-PBC. The organizational structure can't hide the fact that he is making the promotional and managerial decisions for his fighters. They'll go into his business practices as it relates to fighters, which De La Hoya has intimate knowledge about. That'll establish he's a manager. Then they'll go into who owns PBC and what it does, promote fights. That will tie Haymon to both and establish that he's violated the firewall. It's not that difficult to understand. And De Le Hoya can get all the "paperwork" he doesn't have through discovery. And like I mentioned, his business practices can substitute for any paperwork.

Schaefer and Golden Boy were important because they were a separate entity. They allowed him to control things through an autonomous company. Without Golden Boy, PBC doesn't provide him enough cover. We all know who runs it and who makes the decisions. Discovery and depositions will help De Le Hoya a lot too. And I'm not saying I know De La Hoya colluded to violate the Act, although maybe he did. I'm saying he has intimate knowledge of much power Haymon wielded at Golden Boy, with Schaefer, and how he managed to control the sport.

And since there's no specific provisions in the Act that lay out that ONLY boxers have Standing to Sue, the judge had a wide berth to decide who has standing. That means De Le Hoya can argue his suit helps to achieve all 3 of the purposes of the Ali Act and a judge can accept that. I can't express how important it is that the law itself is wide open to judicial interpretation and the suit is being filed in California. For instance, the judge in the Andre Ward Ali Act case vs. Goossen asked for the case specifically because he wanted to make the case law on it. De Le Hoya is in a good position of leverage here.

It's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

 

[CodeBlaMeVi]

First off, Haymon lives in this place in between promoter and manager in name only. His job description was that of a manager before PBC and now occupies both post-PBC. The organizational structure can't hide the fact that he is making the promotional and managerial decisions for his fighters. They'll go into his business practices as it relates to fighters, which De La Hoya has intimate knowledge about. That'll establish he's a manager. Then they'll go into who owns PBC and what it does, promote fights. That will tie Haymon to both and establish that he's violated the firewall. It's not that difficult to understand. And De Le Hoya can get all the "paperwork" he doesn't have through discovery. And like I mentioned, his business practices can substitute for any paperwork.

Schaefer and Golden Boy were important because they were a separate entity. They allowed him to control things through an autonomous company. Without Golden Boy, PBC doesn't provide him enough cover. We all know who runs it and who makes the decisions. Discovery and depositions will help De Le Hoya a lot too. And I'm not saying I know De La Hoya colluded to violate the Act, although maybe he did. I'm saying he has intimate knowledge of much power Haymon wielded at Golden Boy, with Schaefer, and how he managed to control the sport.

And since there's no specific provisions in the Act that lay out that ONLY boxers have Standing to Sue, the judge had a wide berth to decide who has standing. That means De Le Hoya can argue his suit helps to achieve all 3 of the purposes of the Ali Act and a judge can accept that. I can't express how important it is that the law itself is wide open to judicial interpretation and the suit is being filed in California. For instance, the judge in the Andre Ward Ali Act case vs. Goossen asked for the case specifically because he wanted to make the case law on it. De Le Hoya is in a good position of leverage here.

It's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Practicing Law is about making it simple to whoever you're swaying. The paperwork says for each event put on, has promoters in place. Plus, the boxers can be promoters themselves and simply say they promoted themselves and are simply being managed by Haymon. A testimony under oath is way more credible than an outsider. If DLH wants to sue for practices while he work with Golden Boy then so be it but it does not apply to right now or with PBC. Nor does DLH have any right to any documents in regards to PBC. This is pure animosity and to bring negativity towards the PBC. Something he learned from old friend, arum.

 

[MIAlien]

Practicing Law is about making it simple to whoever you're swaying. The paperwork says for each event put on, has promoters in place. Plus, the boxers can be promoters themselves and simply say they promoted themselves and are simply being managed by Haymon. A testimony under oath is way more credible than an outsider. If DLH wants to sue for practices while he work with Golden Boy then so be it but it does not apply to right now or with PBC. Nor does DLH have any right to any documents in regards to PBC. This is pure animosity and to bring negativity towards the PBC. Something he learned from old friend, arum.

This is so wrong. If he files a lawsuit, he is entitled to documents and depositions under California Rules of Civil Procedure. And practicing law is not about shutting out an entire case because you think it's a bad one. It's not about simplifying a case down to good or bad. There's genuine issues of material fact here. There are facts that point to possible unfair market power, unfair business practices, and violations of the federally mandated division of boxing promoters and managers. The paperwork can name one person as the promoter, but if the facts show someone is promoter in name only and Haymon was controlling that entities decision making, organization, and funding, than it can be shown he was the de facto promoter.


DLH has a strong enough case to survive any motions to dismiss, especially since the law is wide open in terms of precedent. So DLH has a strong enough case to see through and go to the judge to decide. It can be animosity and negativity, but the case itself is strong enough to move forward with and win. If you're arguing paperwork and who's promoting, that means we're arguing issues of fact, not law, and that is to be decided by a judge or a jury. This isn't some open and shut case. And no defendant wants to be on the wrong side of an activist judge looking to make case law using a federal act that has little to no precedent. And DLH has the $$$ for lawyers to see the case through. This can get real Shabba Ranks in a matter of seconds.

What's your angle? Are you just trying to paint DLH as a hater that's desperate to make Haymon look bad?

 

[Mowgli]

Just cacs Trying to rob another successful black enterprise

 

[CodeBlaMeVi]

This is so wrong. If he files a lawsuit, he is entitled to documents and depositions under California Rules of Civil Procedure. And practicing law is not about shutting out an entire case because you think it's a bad one. It's not about simplifying a case down to good or bad. There's genuine issues of material fact here. There are facts that point to possible unfair market power, unfair business practices, and violations of the federally mandated division of boxing promoters and managers. The paperwork can name one person as the promoter, but if the facts show someone is promoter in name only and Haymon was controlling that entities decision making, organization, and funding, than it can be shown he was the de facto promoter.


DLH has a strong enough case to survive any motions to dismiss, especially since the law is wide open in terms of precedent. So DLH has a strong enough case to see through and go to the judge to decide. It can be animosity and negativity, but the case itself is strong enough to move forward with and win. If you're arguing paperwork and who's promoting, that means we're arguing issues of fact, not law, and that is to be decided by a judge or a jury. This isn't some open and shut case. And no defendant wants to be on the wrong side of an activist judge looking to make case law using a federal act that has little to no precedent. And DLH has the $$$ for lawyers to see the case through. This can get real Shabba Ranks in a matter of seconds.

What's your angle? Are you just trying to paint DLH as a hater that's desperate to make Haymon look bad?

Yes, did is defamation. What are these facts DLH without throwing himself under the bus because where else can he draw these claims? From watching PBC on NBC? As far as we all know it is speculation. Mere slander. He's worked on this model for years now since he severe is relationship with Golden Boy and PBC is proving to be successful going forward, he is at a loss. DLH doesnt know how to run a business and Canelo isn't as big a star as he thought so he is shadow boxing with this frivolous suit. I offered solid counters and all you have done was offer vague instance in the essence of "an absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence." Show me the facts!

 

[MIAlien]

Yes, did is defamation. What are these facts DLH without throwing himself under the bus because where else can he draw these claims? From watching PBC on NBC? As far as we all know it is speculation. Mere slander. He's worked on this model for years now since he severe is relationship with Golden Boy and PBC is proving to be successful going forward, he is at a loss. DLH doesnt know how to run a business and Canelo isn't as big a star as he thought so he is shadow boxing with this frivolous suit. I offered solid counters and all you have done was offer vague instance in the essence of "an absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence." Show me the facts!

Defamation? How so? Explain it to me. Not only is Al Haymon a public figure, which makes it extremely difficult to prove defamation, you can't file a defamation suit for a previously filed lawsuit unless certain special exceptions exist. And what is DLH accusing Haymon of that he can prove untrue WITHOUT a trial? And even if he can prove any of it is untrue, is any of it causing real damage to him?Is there any monetary damage to his reputation in this suit? Nope. Don't just throw legal terms out there when they can't be proven. Haymon suing for defamation is only worth it to show he's ready to put up a fight. A judge would throw it out quickly and wait for the results of this suit.

Like I said before, DLH can establish that in his working relationship with Haymon that Haymon has taken on the role of a manager. That means negotiations about fight, contracts, locations, and fees. Furthermore, he can use statements from Ryan Caldwell and other PBC execs about PBC and Haymon to show that Haymon has taken on a promoter's role. That's explained in the article. He can also draw on the past to show times when Haymon has attempted to take on the role of a promoter with Golden Boy, HBO, and Showtime. He can call on people from HBO and Showtime, contracts with them negotiated by Haymon on behalf of fighters. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The lawsuit isn't frivolous. I've laid out the arguments he can make and they're good enough to survive any motions to dismiss.

And none of this is speculation. It's an open secret that Haymon created, funded, and controls PBC, a promotional entity. That makes him a promoter. On top of that, he "advises" 150 fighters on who to fight, when to fight, and negotiates how much they will make. That makes him a manager. Those two things create a possible violation of The Ali Act. There's enough facts to establish both of those things. And that small amount is enough to withstand any challenges to dismiss, and open Haymon and PBC up to the discovery process, where DLH can dig in and find a lot more damaging info. And I'm sure Haymon doesn't want to be dragged through a deposition. So he'll be looking to settle.

All you're doing is trying to explain his motives for suing, which are irrelevant if he has legal and factual grounds to sue, which he does. You haven't offered any solid counters about the Ali Act portion of the suit, which I'll remind you again, is only one portion of a larger lawsuit involving Anti-trust and unfair business competition laws in California.

 

[CodeBlaMeVi]

Defamation? How so? Explain it to me. Not only is Al Haymon a public figure, which makes it extremely difficult to prove defamation, you can't file a defamation suit for a previously filed lawsuit unless certain special exceptions exist. And what is DLH accusing Haymon of that he can prove untrue WITHOUT a trial? And even if he can prove any of it is untrue, is any of it causing real damage to him?Is there any monetary damage to his reputation in this suit? Nope. Don't just throw legal terms out there when they can't be proven. Haymon suing for defamation is only worth it to show he's ready to put up a fight. A judge would throw it out quickly and wait for the results of this suit.

Like I said before, DLH can establish that in his working relationship with Haymon that Haymon has taken on the role of a manager. That means negotiations about fight, contracts, locations, and fees. Furthermore, he can use statements from Ryan Caldwell and other PBC execs about PBC and Haymon to show that Haymon has taken on a promoter's role. That's explained in the article. He can also draw on the past to show times when Haymon has attempted to take on the role of a promoter with Golden Boy, HBO, and Showtime. He can call on people from HBO and Showtime, contracts with them negotiated by Haymon on behalf of fighters. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The lawsuit isn't frivolous. I've laid out the arguments he can make and they're good enough to survive any motions to dismiss.

And none of this is speculation. It's an open secret that Haymon created, funded, and controls PBC, a promotional entity. That makes him a promoter. On top of that, he "advises" 150 fighters on who to fight, when to fight, and negotiates how much they will make. That makes him a manager. Those two things create a possible violation of The Ali Act. There's enough facts to establish both of those things. And that small amount is enough to withstand any challenges to dismiss, and open Haymon and PBC up to the discovery process, where DLH can dig in and find a lot more damaging info. And I'm sure Haymon doesn't want to be dragged through a deposition. So he'll be looking to settle.

All you're doing is trying to explain his motives for suing, which are irrelevant if he has legal and factual grounds to sue, which he does. You haven't offered any solid counters about the Ali Act portion of the suit, which I'll remind you again, is only one portion of a larger lawsuit involving Anti-trust and unfair business competition laws in California.

All those people DLH could call out including himself would have to make their dealings public knowledge and no one would want that. It is defamation if you're suing someone portraying them as acting illegally and not at the interests of boxers who that act is PRIMARILY protecting not scorn bytches. Since the acts PRIMARY concern is boxers' interest, DLH will have to provide a boxer who was hurt in his practicing. He will have to. As a defense attorney, show me the boxer and not a scorned formal ally who was harmed in Haymon allegedly doing dual roles as manager and promoter. All Haymon have to do is not have fights in Cali and Vegas would gladly accept the business and publicity.

Most boxers aren't fans of the act. Probably because of shyt like this.

 

[George's Dilemma]

Heating up.

http://www.fightnews.com/Boxing/abc...eral-to-launch-investigation-of-haymon-288802

By Karl Freitag
The Association of Boxing Commissions has asked the Attorney General of the United States to investigate “Alvin Haymon and various companies associated with him” for allegedly breaking numerous provisions of the Muhammad Ali Act.
In a six page letter to the Attorney General Loretta Lynch, ABC President Tim Lueckenhoff wrote, “Haymon and related companies make no attempt to hide that they operate in the dual capacities of promoter and manager. It was the Vice President of Operations “Haymon Boxing” which sat on the dais and participated in the announcement of the PBC series on NBC. No other promoter was present. Frankly Haymon seems to be flouting this breach of the Firewall provision of the Muhammad Ali Act.”
Lueckenhoff also cited numerous other apparent Muhammad Ali Act violations made by Haymon/PBC and noted that PBC appears headed toward also becoming a sanctioning organization with their own “in house” champions and belts.
The letter concludes, “The ABC has no resources or authority to investigate further or to take action with respect to this. However, we can and do request that there is “reasonable cause to believe” that Haymon is “engaged in a violation of this chapter” [15 U.S.C. 6301 et. seq.] and that 15 U.S.C. 6309 gives express authority to the United States Attorney General’s Office to investigate and to take action. We ask that you do so.”