Media Aspinall Senior goes on a cope session and damage control for Tom

[TOMFDJYEDH]

What a Beast this man is.

 

[barillas]

If I die from proving Tom ain't blind it would be from fanboys like you freaking out that Tom lied

You’re exactly right to call that out. Medically it’s impossible for someone to claim total blindness for weeks without any exam showing it, unless we’re dealing with functional or psychogenic blindness, a psychological condition where the eyes and optic nerves are normal but the brain suppresses vision.


And that actually makes Aspinall look worse, not better. Because:

1. True blindness always leaves an objective trace on tests like OCT, ERG, or VEP. You can’t fake an injury that deep without it showing up.
2. Functional blindness is diagnosed only after every test comes back normal, which takes hours, not weeks.
3. If he were truly blind and doctors found nothing, they’d label it psychogenic. That means the problem is in the mind, not the eyes, loss of nerve control, stress response, or malingering.

So either there’s organic damage (and tests would prove it) or there’s none (and the blindness is either psychological or fake). There’s no third option. And if it’s psychological, that still says plenty about Tom’s mental state under pressure.

 

[barillas]

There are whole studies about people faking vision impairment


The Case of the “Blind Bus Driver” (UK, 1996)​

A 40-year-old man filed for full disability benefits after claiming total blindness from a workplace chemical accident. Multiple ophthalmologists reported normal eye anatomy and intact retinal reflexes, but he insisted he “saw only darkness.”


How he was caught:
Investigators filmed him at home walking around furniture, sorting colored laundry, and even watching television. During formal testing, doctors used the optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) test, a rotating striped drum that triggers involuntary eye movements. His eyes followed the stripes perfectly, proving functional vision.


To confirm, they ran visual evoked potentials (VEP). His brain activity lit up normally when exposed to light flashes.


When confronted, he changed his story to “I sometimes see a little,” then later admitted he’d exaggerated to receive compensation.


Reference:
– C. R. Kleiner, Malingering of Visual Loss: Diagnosis by Objective Tests, Archives of Ophthalmology, 1997.

 

[mkess101]

There actually are objective tests that measure varying degrees of visual impairment, I'm a doctor myself. OCT scans can quantify retinal or nerve damage in microns, electroretinograms show amplitude loss in response to light, and visual evoked potentials measure cortical response intensity. Those are literally used to grade partial impairment, not just total blindness.


If Aspinall had even moderate trauma, one of those tests would confirm it within hours. None have been shown or even mentioned. “No visible damage” isn’t just cosmetic, it means no structural reason for functional loss.


And let’s be honest, nobody’s saying he should fight half-blind. The issue is whether he was actually impaired or just said he was. Without physiological proof, the doctor stopped the fight purely on his word, not on evidence.


So yes, Gane caused the foul, but Aspinall exploited it. Responsibility isn’t the same as consequence.

The tests you're talking about aren't administered in the cage with a pen light I assume? So in the cage, at the time when it actually mattered, there was no way to test whether his vision was actually impaired at all. So yes you kinda have to take the fighter's word after he was poked in both eyes, correct?

If Aspinall is playing it up afterwards (and I've already said I think he likely is), that's not relevant to the actual decision in the cage. It just means he's trying to justify something with unnecessary antics.

 

[mkess101]

You’re confusing instinct with plausibility under pain.
Yes, people reflexively touch or rub their eyes, but that’s a quick defensive gesture, not calmly pressing a cloth over the eye for minutes. The rubbing instinct happens in milliseconds and stops because the pain response is immediate.


Putting a cloth over the eye is different. That’s not “instinct,” that’s a composed action that implies thinking “I need to show injury.” It’s not a reflexive reaction under pain; it’s a controlled, visible act.


Your nose analogy doesn’t hold either. Blowing the nose after a break is a subconscious reflex to clear an airway. Covering an eye like it’s bleeding is symbolic behavior, not physiological. People instinctively protect the eye by closing it and blinking, not by pressing a foreign object against it.


So yes, touching the eye is instinctive. Holding a towel over it like a stage prop is not.

Not sure what to tell you other than that I've seen people dab at an irritated eye with paper towels, kleenex, etc. And hold them on the eye. People who aren't trying to "sell" anything, they're just trying to get some relief and don't know that what they're doing won't be effective.

 

[shh]

Its very simple guys. Both Gane and Tom suck. And UFC sucks. Its time to go and watch soccer or tennis.

 

[usernamee]

Its very simple guys. Both Gane and Tom suck. And UFC sucks. Its time to go and watch soccer or tennis.

Nah I'm ok with the towel in the eye compared to this

 

[Jarilo]

Jones fans were siding with Gane because they wanted him to lose. They're quite fine with cheating

What you said is not a truth, now you may not like it, but it is what it is.
Its okay guys, everthing will be fine, tom will eventually see again, and i hope we will not have to wait for remach 1 year.

 

[Intermission]

I don't believe he was afraid, paranoid or blind. But his charade afterwards made him the bad guy which is quite a feat

 

[barillas]

The tests you're talking about aren't administered in the cage with a pen light I assume? So in the cage, at the time when it actually mattered, there was no way to test whether his vision was actually impaired at all. So yes you kinda have to take the fighter's word after he was poked in both eyes, correct?

If Aspinall is playing it up afterwards (and I've already said I think he likely is), that's not relevant to the actual decision in the cage. It just means he's trying to justify something with unnecessary antics.

What's the difference if no deep tests are possible during the fight? Later tests will still prove he was faking it.

 

[barillas]

Not sure what to tell you other than that I've seen people dab at an irritated eye with paper towels, kleenex, etc. And hold them on the eye. People who aren't trying to "sell" anything, they're just trying to get some relief and don't know that what they're doing won't be effective.

Touching or dabbing the eye isnt the same as pressing and holding a towel over it. When people reflexively touch an irritated eye, it’s a short, instinctive motion that stops because the pain reflex immediately kicks in. Holding a cloth on top of the eyeball for minutes requires deliberate control, not reflex. That’s a calm, purposeful action.


Medically, no protocol recommends covering the eye with an unsterile cloth. It doesn’t soothe, it worsens infection risk. If you’ve ever had debri or dryness, you blink, tear up, or rinse, you don’t clamp fabric against the cornea. So yes, the gesture looked staged. It wasn’t relief, it was theater.

 

[Cope123]

Optometrist here. A couple of points.
1. It's impossible for a cage side doctor to know whether an eye is compromised or not. Things like corneal abrasions can't be detected without NaFl staining and a slit lamp or direct opthalmoscope.
2. There are no known ocular conditions in which the posterior eye and visual pathway are OK, yet the patient can only 'see grey'. A corneal injury would create blur and possibly induce astigmatism, neither of which would make you 'only see grey'. Seeing grey can only be due to a retinal, macula, neurological or optic nerve problem, which the ophthalmologist ruled out.

I suspect Aspinall suffered a nasty corneal abrasion (which by itself is definitely grounds to stop the fight as it takes at least 24 hours to recover) and dramatized the severity of it under his dads guidance. Hence the weird forced 'so the fight should've been stopped right?' Dialogue with the ophthalmologist.

 

[mkess101]

What's the difference if no deep tests are possible during the fight? Later tests will still prove he was faking it.

Later tests will prove that IMMEDIATELY after being poked in both eyes, his vision was at 100%? I absolutely don't believe you. Helwani had a doctor on that literally said the exact opposite. Yoh claim to be a doctor (I'm not saying you aren't, but I know the guy Helwani had on is) and if so you absolutely know more about it than I do. But there's no way I'll believe there's a test that can be administered hours later that shows that seconds after someone was poked in the eyes, their vision was completely unaffected. Not after a doctor said otherwise in a recorded interview.

 

[mkess101]

Touching or dabbing the eye isnt the same as pressing and holding a towel over it. When people reflexively touch an irritated eye, it’s a short, instinctive motion that stops because the pain reflex immediately kicks in. Holding a cloth on top of the eyeball for minutes requires deliberate control, not reflex. That’s a calm, purposeful action.


Medically, no protocol recommends covering the eye with an unsterile cloth. It doesn’t soothe, it worsens infection risk. If you’ve ever had debri or dryness, you blink, tear up, or rinse, you don’t clamp fabric against the cornea. So yes, the gesture looked staged. It wasn’t relief, it was theater.

I'm not claiming what people do is the CORRECT thing to provide relief. They are ignorant of what they should do and want to do SOMETHING. A kleenex or towel or whatever is available, they hold it on the eye. It doesn't do any good, they do it anyway.

It's not like that is unique to eye trauma. People do things that don't offer real relief for all sorts of maladies because they are ignorant and figure "something is better than nothing". They're wrong, they still do it.

 

[barillas]

Later tests will prove that IMMEDIATELY after being poked in both eyes, his vision was at 100%? I absolutely don't believe you. Helwani had a doctor on that literally said the exact opposite. Yoh claim to be a doctor (I'm not saying you aren't, but I know the guy Helwani had on is) and if so you absolutely know more about it than I do. But there's no way I'll believe there's a test that can be administered hours later that shows that seconds after someone was poked in the eyes, their vision was completely unaffected. Not after a doctor said otherwise in a recorded interview.

The issue isn’t about "immediately" after the poke. Its about objective tests that can show the long-term functionality of the eyes, even if vision returns to 100% later on. If there was trauma, it would leave traces that can be detected in tests like OCT, VEP, or even visual field tests hours or days later. That’s basic ophthalmology.

Doctors are trained to recognize immediate trauma, but just because someone claims they can't see immediately doesn’t mean there’s permanent damage. Inconsistencies in behavior, like pressing a cloth on the eye or walking around without visible distress, don’t align with actual blindness.

As for the interview you mentioned, I agree with the doctor that vision may be temporarily impaired, but that’s not proof of permanent blindness or an ongoing impairment. The issue is the inconsistency between Aspinall's reaction and the lack of any structural damage in tests done afterward. So yes, if the tests later show that his vision was fine, it’s relevant to the decision, because it proves that the impairment was exaggerated for personal or strategic reasons.

Conclusion: Even if he couldn’t see right after, it’s not a clear sign of permanent damage. The tests done later would have shown structural or functional damage if it were real.

 

[barillas]

I'm not claiming what people do is the CORRECT thing to provide relief. They are ignorant of what they should do and want to do SOMETHING. A kleenex or towel or whatever is available, they hold it on the eye. It doesn't do any good, they do it anyway.

It's not like that is unique to eye trauma. People do things that don't offer real relief for all sorts of maladies because they are ignorant and figure "something is better than nothing". They're wrong, they still do it.

Just STFU:

According to the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the immediate reaction to eye trauma is not to cover the eye, but to protect it by blinking or tearing up.


"In cases of foreign body sensation or irritation, the reflex is to close the eye and activate the tearing process to wash the irritant away."

 

[barillas]

Optometrist here. A couple of points.
1. It's impossible for a cage side doctor to know whether an eye is compromised or not. Things like corneal abrasions can't be detected without NaFl staining and a slit lamp or direct opthalmoscope.
2. There are no known ocular conditions in which the posterior eye and visual pathway are OK, yet the patient can only 'see grey'. A corneal injury would create blur and possibly induce astigmatism, neither of which would make you 'only see grey'. Seeing grey can only be due to a retinal, macula, neurological or optic nerve problem, which the ophthalmologist ruled out.

I suspect Aspinall suffered a nasty corneal abrasion (which by itself is definitely grounds to stop the fight as it takes at least 24 hours to recover) and dramatized the severity of it under his dads guidance. Hence the weird forced 'so the fight should've been stopped right?' Dialogue with the ophthalmologist.

most corneal abrasions will show up in a test like NaFl staining. When fluorescein dye is applied to the eye, it highlights any damage to the corneal surface under a blue light, making even small abrasions visible. This is the standard procedure in diagnosing corneal injuries. We have seen none of those tests presented by the Aspinall team. 99.9% chance of a total lie by him and his control-freak dad.

 

[barillas]

It seems that Tom Aspinall was shaped to be a champion from a very young age by his father. This kind of pressure is immense, and it creates a dynamic where the athlete may feel compelled to fulfill expectations at any cost. If his father has been pushing him to be the best, its no surprise that Tom might feel trapped into living up to that vision, even if it means exaggerating or manipulating situations to protect his image as a champion.


When a parent imposes such rigid expectations, it can create a toxic relationship where the athlete doesn't have room to express their own desires or doubts. The focus becomes on success above everything else, which can lead to actions like fake injuries or fabricated narratives to maintain that image.


Fathers like this often project their own unfulfilled ambitions onto their children. Toms actions might not just be about protecting his career; he could be trying to live out the dreams and expectations of his father. This is why you see the constant defending of his title and the over-explanation of the incident, even when it feels forced. The pressure to meet those expectations distorts the perception of reality, and it makes questionable actions seem justifiable to both Tom and his father.

 

[BoomStronk]

This thread is crazy. Man, sherdog never ceases to disappoint.

The expectation you guysbhave for someone to carry on fighting a professional heavyweight killer with impaired vision, is just nuts.

Tom may be guilty of dramatizing his injuries, or ot holding onto resentment about this fight being ruined after the fact. That's a separate issue from the fact he was clearly incapacitated and unable to continue due to blatant fouls by Gane.

People here expect Tom to just totally ignore a loss of vision due to an unrealized foul. And then they expect him to be humble and understated in his speech afterwards.

 

[barillas]

This thread is crazy. Man, sherdog never ceases to disappoint.

The expectation you guysbhave for someone to carry on fighting a professional heavyweight killer with impaired vision, is just nuts.

Tom may be guilty of dramatizing his injuries, or ot holding onto resentment about this fight being ruined after the fact. That's a separate issue from the fact he was clearly incapacitated and unable to continue due to blatant fouls by Gane.

People here expect Tom to just totally ignore a loss of vision due to an unrealized foul. And then they expect him to be humble and understated in his speech afterwards.

Ok, and no medical exam show any trauma. How's that possible to have vision impairment and it don't show in any medical exam? Manipulation occurs because silly people like you fall for it.