Leslie Smith dishes on the UFC's underhanded tactics - interview with Luke Thomas

[dim_]

Again if you read the full text, people are asking her how they can help , so she set up a go fund me page.

How can you be so precise and accurate about the doping stuff and then be such a cherry picker over information like this. It's a startlingly obvious bias, you're normally one of the few people on here who can objectively parse information. It's a reflection on my confusion that i'm even posting this. I'm genuinely interested what the root of the bias is?

honestly, i think leslies full of it. gets medical bills paid for by the ufc, and then proceeds to slag them off and compare them to abusive husbands and then wonders why she doesnt get her contract renewerd.. what the fuck did she expect.

if project spearhead succeeds (and i firmly support fighters right to a voice) they are going to have to work with the ufc not against it.

leslie has already proven that she is a loose cannon, the things she says on twitter etc, the way she handled her own case. If she continues like that then spearhead is doomed to failure before it even begins.

and that would NOT be a good thing.

Right now, for the fighters, and for the opportunities going forward for them to get representation, Leslie is a liability.

 

[dim_]

Leslie Smith is like that delusional butthurt Shedogger who talked shit about Sherdog admins and then cry about getting banned.

 

[The Merchant]

honestly, i think leslies full of it. gets medical bills paid for by the ufc, and then proceeds to slag them off and compare them to abusive husbands and then wonders why she doesnt get her contract renewerd.. what the fuck did she expect.

if project spearhead succeeds (and i firmly support fighters right to a voice) they are going to have to work with the ufc not against it.

leslie has already proven that she is a loose cannon, the things she says on twitter etc, the way she handled her own case. If she continues like that then spearhead is doomed to failure before it even begins.

and that would NOT be a good thing.

Right now, for the fighters, and for the opportunities going forward for them to get representation, Leslie is a liability.

Fair enough , cheers for replying.

 

[LouisBolanos]

Yeah but the rules cover all employment. I could pretend i worked for a private company to make the point simpler for you, but i just assumed there would be no need, I was wrong.

I assumed you would understand the difference between government employee being fired for speaking out, and a private company fulfilling the terms of their contract and choosing the 100% legal action of not re-signing a shit stirrer, because you wouldn't be that stupid to not know the difference, apparently I was wrong.

We don't sit GCSE's here so probably best not highlighting your ignorance in other realms as well.

Of course you didn't sit your GCSEs. You wouldn't be this stupid and ignorant otherwise. It all makes sense now.

See you're conflating "talk shit" with "unionise" nobody in the judiciary would be seeing it in terms of "talking shit", it would be heard in an adult court with adult terms. Not, grunt.. you talk shit we fire you.

You're conflating your personal opinion with facts. Leslie Smith is starting shit with the UFC. She admitted in her recent interviews of being purposely antagonistic to the UFC, and called them exploitative, abusive and a bunch of other names. You can play your semantics game however you want, but that's what she was to the UFC: a shit stirrer.

Oh you want to talk adult court? GOOD, so let's see how adult court goes for Leslie Smith, that's what she's planning after all, and when she wins the lawsuit, you're welcome back for some "I told you so". Til then, keep crying with Leslie Smith "in solidarity".

I have no idea what Leslie Smith is, i'm just making sure the information on the thread is correct.

If you have no idea what she even is, how are you able to ensure information on her is correct? Self contradiction much?

It wasn't the government, it was the Airdrie Sherriff who fined him for £800. It is one of the most ridiculous things ever, i'm glad it is getting derided by people far and wide.

It was a lawsuit that lasted for 2 years and the prosecutor was seeking jail term of up to 8 years. The dude's life got WRECKED, and if it weren't for the media attention he would've probably gotten the jail term. Whatever helps you sleep at night though.

 

[SeverianB]

Most of these WMMA fighters are stealing a living anyway as they are not any good, no one wants to watch them and they are only there for political reasons. Lets not sugar coat it.

 

[tithas]

How does that differ from a regular employer-employee relationship?
And would not an independent contractor normally be free to do the same work for others?

It depends on the term of your contract and the contract holders potential for financial losses due to unique natures of contractual work. WWE wrestlers are not free to do ANYTHING without WWE approval. If the UFC has invested X amount into advertising and promotion they have a implied interest in ensuring you are healthy enough to generate a return upon that. So they limit your combat sports related activities to mitigate their loses. Its perfectly fair and normal in unique contractual relationships.

 

[The Merchant]

I assumed you would understand the difference between government employee being fired for speaking out, and a private company fulfilling the terms of their contract and choosing the 100% legal action of not re-signing a shit stirrer, because you wouldn't be that stupid to not know the difference, apparently I was wrong.



Of course you didn't sit your GCSEs. You wouldn't be this stupid and ignorant otherwise. It all makes sense now.



You're conflating your personal opinion with facts. Leslie Smith is starting shit with the UFC. She admitted in her recent interviews of being purposely antagonistic to the UFC, and called them exploitative, abusive and a bunch of other names. You can play your semantics game however you want, but that's what she was to the UFC: a shit stirrer.

Oh you want to talk adult court? GOOD, so let's see how adult court goes for Leslie Smith, that's what she's planning after all, and when she wins the lawsuit, you're welcome back for some "I told you so". Til then, keep crying with Leslie Smith "in solidarity".



If you have no idea what she even is, how are you able to ensure information on her is correct? Self contradiction much?



It was a lawsuit that lasted for 2 years and the prosecutor was seeking jail term of up to 8 years, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

Such a tantrum. Petulance won't help in any debate.

Let me address the parts coherent enough for me to form a reply, we'll start from the bottom.

It wasn't a law suit, it was a criminal prosecution. It did last 2 years and he was fined £800 by Sheriff Derek O'Carroll. If you have quotes from the Proculator Fiscal stating they were looking for an 8 year sentence i'd love to see them as my understanding is the Proculator Fiscal office doesn't do this.

I've only watched her fight a couple of time, of course i don't know what she is, the crazy shit is you do think you know her just cause you've seen her fight a couple of times, maybe saw a few interviews , yet you're acting if you're a FBI profiler in a shitty movie. Who has the more reasonable position. The person who states they don't know her, or the person who states with certainty they know the exact reasoning behind the person on the TV.

I've not spoken on the law suit beyond to say "talking shit" won't be one of the issues discussed. That is a fact and you're welcome to come back yourself when "talking shit" is nowhere on the court notes. She called the UFC names? Oh my!

I have no solidarity for Smith I have solidarity for correct information.

Yes i didn't sit GCSE's no one at my school sat them, in fact about 98% of the population didn't sit them.

Right just got a text, I need to head out, i'll continue this pointless arguement when i come back.

 

[milliniar]

no.

cyclists are independent contractors but have obligation to ride for only one team and wear that teams kit all teh time for the full length of their contract (even training)

tennis players are independant contractors but have to get permission to compete in unsanctioned tournaments, hacve uniform policies at tournaments, anti doping commitments etc

there are hundreds of thousands of athletes (mkore like millions) of athletes around the world that are independent contractors but are contracted to compete under certain organisations, or have uniform restrictions, or have anti doping responsibilities.

why do people insist on trying to compare fighters to plumbers or builders




its not a job, its a sport. and sport is not a right. competing is a privilege. and if sportsmen and women want to compete in a sport they have to abide by the rules of the sporting body under which they want to compete.

Because most sherdogger are not athletes.

 

[SeverianB]

She is a independent contractor. There is zero requirement to require her contract holder to pay for any required testing for license. Do you pay for your plumbers drug test? Do you pay any electrician more than it required to travel to your residence? If she needs extra baggage its her responsibility to cough up that 25 bucks.

Do I tell my plumbers what uniform they have to wear?

 

[dim_]

Do I tell my plumbers what uniform they have to wear?

why arey you comparing a fighter to a plumber?

why not compare them to a tennis player, track athlete, field atthlete, badminton player, cyclist, wrestler, skiier, golfer, volleyball player, curler, swimmer...

all are independant contractors. all have uniform requirements (as well as sponsor restrictions, anti doping obligations)

 

[LouisBolanos]

It wasn't a law suit, it was a criminal prosecution. It did last 2 years and he was fined £800 by Sheriff Derek O'Carroll. If you have quotes from the Proculator Fiscal stating they were looking for an 8 year sentence i'd love to see them as my understanding is the Proculator Fiscal office doesn't do this.

Are you really this dumb? I provided an example of how the UK government "protects" free speech by fucking with someone who made a stupid YouTube video, and all you can do is arguing semantics? That it wasn't a lawsuit, but a criminal prosecution? In what way does it make it better? For 2 years the guy's life was wrecked and it will continue to follow him for the rest of his life. You mention it's the police, not the government...except the police are public sector employees of the government. You said he was only fined...except the prosecutors were actually looking for actual jail term. If you are so dumb to find reports of those, that's on you, not me.

So tell me, how does that in anyway help your case about the UK government, when it wrecked a guy's life for 2 years and tried to put him in jail for making a stupid YouTube video? Are you saying the UFC should follow their footsteps and sue Leslie Smith instead, because that would make it better?

I've only watched her fight a couple of time, of course i don't know what she is, the crazy shit is you do think you know her just cause you've seen her fight a couple of times, maybe saw a few interviews , yet you're acting if you're a FBI profiler in a shitty movie. Who has the more reasonable position. The person who states they don't know her, or the person who states with certainty they know the exact reasoning behind the person on the TV.

You don't have to know someone to know if they're full of shit, it's called common sense, something you apparently lack. If a stranger comes at you with a knife, do you say "oh I don't know this guy so I can't say for sure if his intentions are to kill me, better not take any drastic action"?

I've not spoken on the law suit beyond to say "talking shit" won't be one of the issues discussed. That is a fact and you're welcome to come back yourself when "talking shit" is nowhere on the court notes. She called the UFC names? Oh my!

Calling the UFC abusive husband isn't talking shit? Calling them exploitative, coercive and being purposely antagonistic isn't talking shit? She isn't talking shit because it's not the language used in court documents? If someone calls you a bitch or a whore, it's not talking shit until you see that language in a lawsuit?

Yes i didn't sit GCSE's no one at my school sat them, in fact about 98% of the population didn't sit them.

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gcses

"GCSE examinations are taken by most pupils at the end of compulsory school education (year 11) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland."

In other words, you dropped out of high school. It all make sense.

 

[dim_]

"GCSE examinations are taken by most pupils at the end of compulsory school education (year 11) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland."

In other words, you dropped out of high school. It all make sense.

depends how old you are to be fair.

some people took o'levels and cse's

Me, I was in the crossover year so I got to take both O'levels AND Gcse's

 

[tithas]

Do I tell my plumbers what uniform they have to wear?

If I was broadcasting my plumbers jobs to millions while advertising and filling advertising/sponsor requirements, then yes I would 1000000% dictate his/her uniform.

 

[tithas]

why arey you comparing a fighter to a plumber?

why not compare them to a tennis player, track athlete, field atthlete, badminton player, cyclist, wrestler, skiier, golfer, volleyball player, curler, swimmer...

all are independant contractors. all have uniform requirements (as well as sponsor restrictions, anti doping obligations)

I used plumber because it is the easiest thing for most average intelligence people to understand.

 

[LouisBolanos]

depends how old you are to be fair.

some people took o'levels and cse's

Me, I was in the crossover year so I got to take both O'levels AND Gcse's

The system was reformed in the 80s.

You're older than @Sgt Smith

Get off Sherdog grandpa

 

[The Merchant]

depends how old you are to be fair.

some people took o'levels and cse's

Me, I was in the crossover year so I got to take both O'levels AND Gcse's

or I'm Scottish or both.

Sorry I had to reply here I absolutely refuse to debate with people that use gifs for anything else other than to illustrate points. Can anyone show me an erudite post that contains non illustrative gifs? No me either.

 

[The Merchant]

why arey you comparing a fighter to a plumber?

why not compare them to a tennis player, track athlete, field atthlete, badminton player, cyclist, wrestler, skiier, golfer, volleyball player, curler, swimmer...

all are independant contractors. all have uniform requirements (as well as sponsor restrictions, anti doping obligations)

They negotiated their sponsors though. I think it's good if it goes to court, nothing really compares exactly so would be good to get a specific ruling, one way or the other.

 

[dim_]

The system was reformed in the 80s.

You're older than @Sgt Smith

Get off Sherdog grandpa

depends on region/country. some got it before others, some got it later. it wasnt uniform.

 

[dim_]

They negotiated their sponsors though. I think it's good if it goes to court, nothing really compares exactly so would be good to get a specific ruling, one way or the other.

not in all cases

cyclists for instance. virtually all are independant contractors yet they are contracted to a team for x amount of time, have to wear that teams jersey and sponsors.

they even have to wear team uniform when they are just riding their bike at home. any time they are on a bicycle, they have to wear team kit. training rides, rides out with friends..

there are a few areas they can get private endorsements though, glasses, shoes.. but then, ufc fighters are also allowed private endorsements, just not in teh cage




then you have for instance tennis players.. certain tournaments obligated to drink out of bottles containing branding of certain drinks sponsor. they arent sponsored by them, the bottle will contain whatever they put in it but they have to use the sponsors bottles..

the list goes on..

 

[The Merchant]

not in all cases

cyclists for instance. virtually all are independant contractors yet they are contracted to a team for x amount of time, have to wear that teams jersey and sponsors.

they even have to wear team uniform when they are just riding their bike at home. any time they are on a bicycle, they have to wear team kit. training rides, rides out with friends..

there are a few areas they can get private endorsements though, glasses, shoes.. but then, ufc fighters are also allowed private endorsements, just not in teh cage




then you have for instance tennis players.. certain tournaments obligated to drink out of bottles containing branding of certain drinks sponsor. they arent sponsored by them, the bottle will contain whatever they put in it but they have to use the sponsors bottles..

the list goes on..

You won't get a like for like case though, which is why it should go to court and be tested.

I'm pretty sure I saw Froome riding in non-sky colours on a random instagram pic just a month or so ago.

What are we saying here then, UFC fighters have the same rights as tennis and cyclists? If not then what point the similarities if the outcome is different.