[rivethead]

Originally Posted by Sniggles

The career of teaching is different from that of an athlete. You'd think that the argument that there are impressionable kids watching the UFC so they should not have an individual with a past on the broadcast. I would disagree. It most certainly will not affect his opponent, as he knows what he is getting into from watching Stephens previous fights.

the fact that he's a fighter and the alleged crime is violent has more direct relevance in terms of crime-to-profession than teaching does to DUI, or to stealing paper from the copy room or whatever.

My point was that people get suspended all the time, until their case is resolved...you'd just get a huge # of hits with teachers, because they make news.

I've worked at universities where janitors were suspended for DUI's. Are they role models?

I think participation should be dependant on the severity of the conviction, in this case, he is innocent until proven guilty and that is how the country is run. Stephens should be allowed to participate and have gainful employment while his trial is ongoing.

If he is convicted, the potential blowback for FOX--who have a pretty conservative board in terms of politics--to host a fighter who is then not ony illustrated to be a vicious thug, but to have them aware of it before hand is a lot of negative publicity that they may not want to risk. That would be a pretty cut and dried risk/reward business decision for them, in my opinion, and certainly no different from dana counterprogramming, or the CU applying pressure wherever they can.

I don't think FOX taking him off the card is infringing on his rights. He'd have the right to seek gainful employment elsewhere, or dana would have the option of continuing to pay him till the case is resolved.

It's a privilege to be in the UFC, not a right. It's a privilege to be on a televised card.

rh