MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[mma #1 fan]

Originally Posted by Bearded Big Country

Its hard to agree with the points when we all know your just trying to fuck the UFC. You dont give two shits about standing against domestic violence or the other court case.

it's hard to aggree when we all know what kind of tv is on fox on sunday

[rivethead]

Originally Posted by Fe1

Fucking vendettas. It seems so transparent that they're just trying to fuck with the UFC. If I were a Fox executive and I was approached by then I would seriously just say "how is it any of your business?" And laugh in their faces.

That's probably one of the reasons you're not a FOX executive.

If Stephens fight and then gets convicted, the guy who laughed in the faces of the people who brought the concern to his attention while there was still time to do something about it--and didn't--is going to be looking for a job.

You'd essentially be gambling with the reputation of the network. If Stephens goes on to be utterly vindicated in his case, what has the network gained? But if he gets convicted, what has the network risked?

I have the impression that Fox wants executives who can execute fundamental risk/reward scenarios.




This is a case where the obvious bias of the source doesn't change the fact that the information is solid.




Again, I don't see why it's great when dana uses leverage to get what he wants, but it's totally shady when anyone else does it.

rh

[AnchorPunch]

Originally Posted by sonofsteven

I think you guys are missing the most important point -they may be d-bags who are anti-anything-UFC/Dana White -but they are RIGHT. Would you pass them off so easily if he had plead guilty to rape? These guys are highly trained and way more dangerous than your average Joe and should be held to very strict standards by the UFC when it comes to violent behavior outside the cage. So many people threw a fit (myself inclkuded and rightly so) about the Bellator guy but don't bat an eye when this fighter physically abused his baby momma? Cmon man.....

Not true. According to the article, TRUJILLO plead guilty, not Stephens.

The most fucked up thing here is that an American employer is living by the American justice system for his employee: innocent until proven guilty, and somehow people are upset by this. If he's found guilty, fine. But until then, this is not only reasonable, it's the foundation of America's justice system.

[0mega1]

Originally Posted by rivethead

That's probably one of the reasons you're not a FOX executive.

If Stephens fight and then gets convicted, the guy who laughed in the faces of the people who brought the concern to his attention while there was still time to do something about it--and didn't--is going to be looking for a job.

You'd essentially be gambling with the reputation of the network. If Stephens goes on to be utterly vindicated in his case, what has the network gained? But if he gets convicted, what has the network risked?

I have the impression that Fox wants executives who can execute fundamental risk/reward scenarios.




This is a case where the obvious bias of the source doesn't change the fact that the information is solid.




Again, I don't see why it's great when dana uses leverage to get what he wants, but it's totally shady when anyone else does it.

rh

So should Ben Rothelsburger or any other football player that has been accused of a crime not be able to play football on Sundays if the game is being shown on Fox?

So the guy shouldnt be able to make a living because he was allegedly involved in a fight where someone got their ass kicked?Innocent till proven guilty? Thats still the rule here, right?

When DW counter-programs it is a business move. Because he and his competition are actually involved in the MMA industry. While the CU has nothing to do with MMA and the only time they stick their noses into it is to try and piss on the UFC's parade.

Its not shady, its just petty...

[Sakara=Excitement]

A problem I have with situations like this, and just because I've lived with it for the past 6 years, is that when you are sentenced to a crime, the judge gives you the verdict (or the jury, or you cop a plea). Just for an example, the judge gives you 5 years. That time equates what you should 'give back' to society for the crime you commented. Well once those 5 years are up, or 10 or what have you, your debt to society has been paid off. It shouldn't be held over your head for the rest of your life unless you're a multiple time offender or any crime involving children or rape (which has a high rate of repeat offenders).

Take the Bellator guy, he committed a crime, was sentenced, and paid his debt to society. He shouldn't be not able to work because of his past.

Just my two cents.

[H0SS]

Originally Posted by rivethead

If Stephens fight and then gets convicted, the guy who laughed in the faces of the people who brought the concern to his attention while there was still time to do something about it--and didn't--is going to be looking for a job.

You'd essentially be gambling with the reputation of the network. rh

The reputation of the network that has brought us quality shows such as:

Man vs Beast (man lost hot dog eating contest to bear)

Who's Your Daddy? (If the contestant could pinpoint their biological father, they would win $100,000.)

Married by America (phone-in vote to marry to people who've never met before)

Alien Autopsy (documentary containing footage of a supposed real alien autopsy)

The Swan (women undergo major plastic surgery...)

Fox News (The most damning show on this list! Do I even have to give details...?)


lol, I'm just kidding Riv. I don't think Stephens should be allowed to fight either.

[Sakara=Excitement]

So if you're just a normal person, and are going to court, you shouldn't have the ability to work?

[H0SS]

Originally Posted by Sakara=Excitement

So if you're just a normal person, and are going to court, you shouldn't have the ability to work?

You could argue that until the matter is resolved, it is too risky to allow Jeremy Stephens fight. He is accused of severely beating someone to the point where they stopped breathing twice, kicking him in the head and body for a whole minute.

If he really is that reckless, why put him in a position where he could lose his cool, disregard the rules, and do some serious damage to another human being in the cage?

Would you let an accused pedophile continue working as a camp counselor until the case is resolved?

(^I know, extreme example, but you get the point.)

[rivethead]

Originally Posted by AnchorPunch

Not true. According to the article, TRUJILLO plead guilty, not Stephens.

The most fucked up thing here is that an American employer is living by the American justice system for his employee: innocent until proven guilty, and somehow people are upset by this. If he's found guilty, fine. But until then, this is not only reasonable, it's the foundation of America's justice system.

I see situations all the time where individuals in public positions are suspended from their positions while the case is resolved. It literally happens all the time.

Originally Posted by H0SS

lol, I'm just kidding Riv. I don't think Stephens should be allowed to fight either.

I'm not trying to defend Fox. I think it's a crap network--but I think 99% of television is crap, anyway [and 100% of reality television, for that matter].

But I can see where network brass would have a guy clean out his desk if he laughed in the face of people who gave him this info, and then Stephens was found guilty and a shitstorm ensued.

Originally Posted by 0mega1

So should Ben Rothelsburger or any other football player that has been accused of a crime not be able to play football on Sundays if the game is being shown on Fox?

How many players are suspended pending DUI's or weed possession?

It happens all the time.

So the guy shouldnt be able to make a living because he was allegedly involved in a fight where someone got their ass kicked?Innocent till proven guilty? Thats still the rule here, right?

that's not what they're alleging: This is:

According to police reports, Stephens and his friend, Dustin Bachman, savagely beat up an unnamed victim until he was unconscious in the parking lot of a Des Moines bar. The victim stopped breathing twice, the reports say, and medics performed a procedure en route to the hospital to help the man’s breathing. The victim’s wife was a witness to the incident.

A HUGE difference between your allegation and their allegation.

When DW counter-programs it is a business move. Because he and his competition are actually involved in the MMA industry. While the CU has nothing to do with MMA and the only time they stick their noses into it is to try and piss on the UFC's parade.

This is absolutely a business move by the CU. It's applying pressure to zuffa to allow the unions in, just as zuffa applied pressure to Affliction and SF to fold/sell.

Its not shady, its just petty...

Again, if it's good for zuffa, it should be good across the board, no?

What's the difference?

Originally Posted by Sakara=Excitement

So if you're just a normal person, and are going to court, you shouldn't have the ability to work?

...ahh...that's the sticking point.

According to social mores, normal people don't have to "go to court." Normal people aren't accused of crimes, particularly violent crimes.

But I can think of two teachers who are currently suspended in our vaguely local news, simply because they're "going to court." And by that, I mean, not just visiting, they're facing charges.

It's all well and good to say that everyone is innocent til proven guilty, and that's a cornerstone of our nations history. It's also well and good to have it say "give us your tired and meek" on the base of the statue of liberty, and we're kicking them out of Southern Florida every day and sending them back to Mexico. Nobody is saying that Stephens is guilty, and he's not being illegally detained pending trial. Removing him from a card isn't violating his civil rights, it would simply be denying him a privilege...and there is an enormous difference between rights and privileges.

Originally Posted by H0SS

Would you let an accused pedophile continue working as a camp counselor until the case is resolved?

(^I know, extreme example, but you get the point.)

It's not extreme. Google "teacher suspended" and nothing else and see how many teachers come up suspended for allegedly doing something, pending resolution of their respective cases.

rh

[Sniggles]

Originally Posted by rivethead

It's not extreme. Google "teacher suspended" and nothing else and see how many teachers come up suspended for allegedly doing something, pending resolution of their respective cases.

rh

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.

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.