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

[BoomStronk]

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.

You dont think you can be poked in the eye abs suffer a reduction in vision such thay your ability to stay competitive in thr fight is drastically impacted, without this resulting in proof via a medical exam?

I've had my eye scraped and dinged in judo and jui jitsu and just playing around with my friends, where my eyeball slammed shut and I couldn't effectively see properly. I doubt every such case would necessarily result in a medical proof of this impairment.

 

[barillas]

If this were a court case, those people would have no standing. In a court of law, you can’t just make a claim and expect it to be accepted without evidence. Emotion doesn’t hold up as proof, and hearsay doesn’t carry weight. If Tom Aspinall were trying to build a legal case based on his injury, the first thing he’d need is objective evidence, like medical exams and reports. Without that, it would be dismissed immediately.

 

[mkess101]

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.

Wait...who's claiming permanent damage??? Sure as hell not me. In fact I've said I think it's likely he's exaggerating or playing it up now because he feels he needs to justify it.

But (read this carefully)...that's a completely separate argument as to whether he had ANY visual impairment directly after the poke. And yes that IS the issue when we are talking about whether to continue a cage fight within 5 minutes or not. And it doesn't need to be "blindness". Fighting an elite HW with ANY amount of your vision being affected is a horrible idea. This isn't sitting on the couch watching an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm". I'm not a doctor, but I've been in cage fights. No way would I have even fought the bums I did with my vision affected AT ALL, let alone someone like Gane.

 

[mkess101]

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."

That's great. It's what he did IMMEDIATELY. Blinked. What most people do. Then some people do in fact cover the eye because they foolishly believe it helps. The key word is "immediate". A couple minutes after, it can change.

 

[BoomStronk]

If this were a court case, those people would have no standing. In a court of law, you can’t just make a claim and expect it to be accepted without evidence.

Did you miss the video of the fingers entering his eyeballs?

Emotion doesn’t hold up as proof,

Agreed. Whining wnd calling tom a jerk, theee are emotional responses.

and hearsay doesn’t carry weight.

Toms statements are not hearsay.

If Tom Aspinall were trying to build a legal case based on his injury, the first thing he’d need is objective evidence, like medical exams and reports. Without that, it would be dismissed immediately.

Nope. Video evidence and professional testimony about eyeballs being poked and losing vision temporarily, would more than suffice

 

[barillas]

You dont think you can be poked in the eye abs suffer a reduction in vision such thay your ability to stay competitive in thr fight is drastically impacted, without this resulting in proof via a medical exam?

I've had my eye scraped and dinged in judo and jui jitsu and just playing around with my friends, where my eyeball slammed shut and I couldn't effectively see properly. I doubt every such case would necessarily result in a medical proof of this impairment.

I’m a doctor myself, and I can tell you with certainty that even temporary visual impairment would show up in a medical exam. The idea that you can suffer significant vision loss from an eye poke, to the point where it affects your ability to continue a professional fight, without any objective proof is absurd.

If there’s any impairment, even if temporary, a simple NaFl test would immediately show it. A corneal abrasion or any form of damage would light up under fluorescein dye. If your vision is reduced, the doctor would also observe pupil response issues and visual field deficits.

The only way he could be blind and it not showing is if it’s psychogenic blindness, which is extremely fucking rare and only happens when the brain psychologically blocks vision. This isn't something that happens to healthy, normal people, it doesn't happen after an eye-poke in an UFC title fight.

So, let’s be clear: if someone claims vision loss after an eye poke, they cannot get away with faking it. The tests will always show objective results. That’s why no tests were presented, because there’s no real impairment, just an attempt to create a victim narrative.

Letting people get away with faking injuries without proof undermines medical integrity, and we can’t let that slide. It's not about discomfort from a poke, it’s about whether it was severe enough to stop the fight, and the evidence simply isn’t there.

There’s no room for manipulation when the facts are clear. The lack of any supporting medical findings shows this was more about drama than actual injury.

 

[barillas]

That's great. It's what he did IMMEDIATELY. Blinked. What most people do. Then some people do in fact cover the eye because they foolishly believe it helps. The key word is "immediate". A couple minutes after, it can change.

blocked from being too dumb

 

[barillas]

Did you miss the video of the fingers entering his eyeballs?


Agreed. Whining wnd calling tom a jerk, theee are emotional responses.


Toms statements are not hearsay.

Nope. Video evidence and professional testimony about eyeballs being poked and losing vision temporarily, would more than suffice

You clearly have no idea how legal or medical processes work, so let me break it down for you because you re a little retarded. Video of the poke doesnt prove anything. Medical evidence proves whether there was any real injury or impairment. Without objective tests, your “professional testimony” means absolutely nothing. Aspinalls word isn't proof, it's just a claim.

You can keep parroting about "temporary vision loss," but the reality is, without a slit lamp, NaFl test, or OCT showing damage, it’s bullshit. You're completely ignoring the real standard of evidence for injuries. You can whine all you want, but until you present actual, verifiable proof, you’re just wasting time.

Stop wasting my time with your dumb, emotional arguments and learn how evidence works.

I'm also blocking you from being too low-iq.

 

[mkess101]

blocked from being too dumb

Sure, buddy. Sure. Good riddance.

 

[mkess101]

"Derp, I'm a doctor. And while I admit that we can't actually know if vision was impaired at all directly after the eye poke, Im still going to type paragraphs explaining how that somehow isn't the point when anyone with a hint of common sense knows it's EXACTLY the point."

Fuck right off, "doctor" lmao.

 

[barillas]

"Derp, I'm a doctor. And while I admit that we can't actually know if vision was impaired at all directly after the eye poke, Im still going to type paragraphs explaining how that somehow isn't the point when anyone with a hint of common sense knows it's EXACTLY the point."

Fuck right off, "doctor" lmao.

You’re lying, and it’s obvious. I never said we can't know if vision was impaired, I said there was no evidence to show it. There’s a huge difference. You’re either incapable of reading what’s actually being said, or you’re deliberately twisting it because you don’t have a solid argument.

I’ve provided the facts, you’ve provided nothing but ignorance and mockery. If you can’t handle the truth, maybe it’s time to just admit that you’re out of your depth here. Keep going with the jokes, but they won’t change the reality of the situation.

 

[mkess101]

You’re lying, and it’s obvious. I never said we can't know if vision was impaired, I said there was no evidence to show it. There’s a huge difference. You’re either incapable of reading what’s actually being said, or you’re deliberately twisting it because you don’t have a solid argument.

I’ve provided the facts, you’ve provided nothing but ignorance and mockery. If you can’t handle the truth, maybe it’s time to just admit that you’re out of your depth here. Keep going with the jokes, but they won’t change the reality of the situation.

Bullshit. Yes or no "doctor", are there tests that can be administered hours later that show whether there was ANY impairment to someone's vision directly after an eye poke? Because according to the doctor interviewed by Helwani, there isn't. And he said SPECIFICALLY that while there may be no evidence of any long or even medium term damage, that does NOT mean that vision wasn't impaired in the minutes after the eye poke.

This isn't me talking, this is an MD interviewed publicly. You are free to watch it yourself. So no, I'm not going to accept your "facts" over his, clown.

 

[BoomStronk]

@barillas you're either full of shit, a terrible doctor, or both.

Yes,it absolutely is possible to lose eye function, or to have vision severely impaired in the eye from trauma such that there would be no clear indication in a medical exam done in the following days.

Having googled it for 5 minutes, I've learned about optic nerve and retinal concussion, and vascular or pressure-related functional impairment due to physical trauma.

All three of these categories clearly describe situations in which eye function, including the ability to see, are significantly impaired and it is absolutely not necessary for their to be physical evidence of this after the fact.

You are chatting absolute shit. Just like your take on legal issues. You don't know what hearsay means, nor what professional testimony entails.

It's almost like any shit-poster on sherdog can claim to be anything. I shouldn't have taken you at your word for more than the 3 minutes I did before googling these things myself. This doesn't make me a doctor, but it absolutely refutes your black and white claim that no significant impairment could have happened without their being strong evidence for it in the following days.

 

[BoomStronk]

Bullshit. Yes or no "doctor", are there tests that can be administered hours later that show whether there was ANY impairment to someone's vision directly after an eye poke? Because according to the doctor interviewed by Helwani, there isn't. And he said SPECIFICALLY that while there may be no evidence of any long or even medium term damage, that does NOT mean that vision wasn't impaired in the minutes after the eye poke.

This isn't me talking, this is an MD interviewed publicly. You are free to watch it yourself. So no, I'm not going to accept your "facts" over his, clown.

this guy either isnt a doctor, or is such a terrible doctor that he shouldn't be. In either case, he's totally full of shit. He's making completely unsubstantiated claims that aren't true.

It is absolutely not the case that if Tom's eyesight was impaired there would be hard and definitive proof of it. Eyesight can absolutely be impaired, or lost, without there being some kind of medical proof of this loss from a test after the fight, or the next day.

totally full of shit. He's as much a doctor as I am an astronaut.

 

[mkess101]

@barillas you're either full of shit, a terrible doctor, or both.

Yes,it absolutely is possible to lose eye function, or to have vision severely impaired in the eye from trauma such that there would be no clear indication in a medical exam done in the following days.

Having googled it for 5 minutes, I've learned about optic nerve and retinal concussion, and vascular or pressure-related functional impairment due to physical trauma.

All three of these categories clearly describe situations in which eye function, including the ability to see, are significantly impaired and it is absolutely not necessary for their to be physical evidence of this after the fact.

You are chatting absolute shit. Just like your take on legal issues. You don't know what hearsay means, nor what professional testimony entails.

It's almost like any shit-poster on sherdog can claim to be anything. I shouldn't have taken you at your word for more than the 3 minutes I did before googling these things myself. This doesn't make me a doctor, but it absolutely refutes your black and white claim that no significant impairment could have happened without their being strong evidence for it in the following days.

Haha fucking dunked on him

**claps**