Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > MMA Related > UFC

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-16-2009, 11:05 PM
StizzoFoShizzo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughes_GOAT
actually it was Hermes Franca but your point still stands.
Franca that's it, thnx!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-17-2009, 01:17 AM
Hughes_GOAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

so Sherk spent thousands for nothing? are you saying you know better than his attorney(s)? Sherk should have called you

George was caught on roids, i could call again about if it was the same ones?

CSAC is toughest on MMA because they're testing is fool proof, unlike Nevada.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-17-2009, 01:21 AM
Hughes_GOAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
no it doesnt. Hermes Franca pleaded Guilty.
yes it does. he was saying that both guys tested positive and was that a coincedence? the point is both failed. not whether it was challenged.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-17-2009, 02:32 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughes_GOAT
so Sherk spent thousands for nothing? are you saying you know better than his attorney(s)? Sherk should have called you

George was caught on roids, i could call again about if it was the same ones?

CSAC is toughest on MMA because they're testing is fool proof, unlike Nevada.
pretty much. Yes. Most people dont know about how CIVIL law is different to criminal Law.

For a start....to the best of my knowledge unless its a third party Civil...you dont use Lawyers Andreas...You represent yourself

next time you "call" the CSAC, ask them why Armando Garcia stept down Tell them "Tyburn wishes to know"
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-17-2009, 03:26 AM
Hughes_GOAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
pretty much. Yes. Most people dont know about how CIVIL law is different to criminal Law.

For a start....to the best of my knowledge unless its a third party Civil...you dont use Lawyers Andreas...You represent yourself

next time you "call" the CSAC, ask them why Armando Garcia stept down Tell them "Tyburn wishes to know"
"most people" aren't Sherk's lawyers.

Sherk sought counsel, Dave. are you saying you know better than what they advised?

i'll ask
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-17-2009, 11:03 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughes_GOAT
"most people" aren't Sherk's lawyers.

Sherk sought counsel, Dave. are you saying you know better than what they advised?

i'll ask
Counsel is a little bit different then being represented by a lawyer...they are just advisors...and what are the supposed to say to him??? "Your screwed, deal with it" ????

You cant say that even if its true...I'd have gone after undermining the credibility of Armando Garcia....but then...lawyers arent going to reccomend that because it makes them sound corrupt

But yes...I would have tried to show the CSAC was unrealiable and corrupt in its dealings...thus any civil court under their jurisdiction is open for question.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-17-2009, 11:23 AM
warriorlion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

on top of all this argueing, did anyone think that maybe Sherk would not have bothered with spending all that money trying to prove his innocence if he knows he was guilty???

and also then why did the CSAC decide that they should reduce the sentance, if the crime was so steadfast, then even through appeal should the punishment not have stood the same???

Any other type of case, you get convicted of a crime you get punishment set, if you appeal and the outcome is found to be the same the punishment stands, however if the outcome is viewed differently, ie a lesser crime, then the sentance is adjusted accordingly.

That to me says that the CSAC couldnt wholeheartedly stand by their inital assesment of Sherks case and so reduced the sentance.

I personally dont think Sherk would have gone through all that effort if he was guilty, unlike people like Royce, who claims he was innocent yet did nothing to fight the verdict, Franca, who admitted his guilt as did Bonner, not one of them fought as hard or spent so much time and money to prove innocence.

That being said, fighting for innocence doesnt mean you are. Look at OJ simpson. Guess the big difference there is taht SHerk was not facing Jail. Its just my opinion that sherk did not cheat intentionally, what would be the point in fighting the charge so fiercly when the punishment stopped him fighting in cali for a year.

If Sherk fails again, under different athletic commissions or even under CSAC again then its a different story.

Since the case has not reallyu shown any proof either way, I think there is a statuate that states innocent until PROVEN guilty. Since there is suspectability in the testing, there is not firm proof.

Therefore Innocent!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-17-2009, 11:40 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warriorlion
I think there is a statuate that states innocent until PROVEN guilty. Since there is suspectability in the testing, there is not firm proof.

Therefore Innocent!!!!
That Statute is for CRIMINAL law...NOT for CIVIL Law that is my whole point...thats why proof isnt really required. You dont end up in a civil case unless guilty is almost assured....even in a third party case..though the outcome is far more fair in that case
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-17-2009, 05:16 PM
Hughes_GOAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
Counsel is a little bit different then being represented by a lawyer...they are just advisors...and what are the supposed to say to him??? "Your screwed, deal with it" ????

You cant say that even if its true...I'd have gone after undermining the credibility of Armando Garcia....but then...lawyers arent going to reccomend that because it makes them sound corrupt
i'd want them to tell me i'm screwed no matter what i try, which is what you are saying essentially.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-17-2009, 05:23 PM
Hughes_GOAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

as for Sherk spending money, he did it so people like warriorlion would question his motives and thus, feel he had to be innocent. or he thought he could get reasonable doubt like George.

if Sherk truly felt he was innocent and the CSAC was corrupt, he would have already filed to take it to court.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.