• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

News *** Conor McGregor Found Civilly Liable for 2018 Sexual Assault MEGA THREAD ***

I tried to visit their web page to see if Conor was still on there, and the whole site seems to be down. Wonder if they are scrubbing him from everything on there right now.
They’re updating their website to 2FA
 
Anybody know if they're still selling McGregor label chicken in Dagestan or has he been cancelled there as well.
 
It'll be interesting to see if Conor can still come to the US and act like nothing happened considering how little coverage that trial got in the American media.

The dude is a public pariah in Ireland now.
 
Better yet, investigated! "Not enough enough evidence" they said? Bullshit!

I know its is not the same at all, but..
Some years ago some guys walked into a store that sells high end handwoven mats in my town.
They were caught on cam, not wearing any masks or anything, takes some mats and walks out.
The store filed with the police...
2 months later the police informs them they have closed down the investigation for lack of evidence..

So just because the police does not want to investigate, it does not mean the person did not do it.
To me in some cases its simply because they are overworked and others because they dont seem to be able to bother.
 
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Not sure if this has been posted yet in this thread

Conor McGregor loses over 100,000 followers after Nikita Hand case


 
"We dealt with these issues years ago"

Didn't Conor made a (deleted) twitter post about having sex with a midget at a biker bar?
"Amazing lay for the McDaddy"

As I suspected and now can say after her disgusting posts on social media, she is just as bad as him and they deserve each other

Their kids will no doubt turn out rotten too with their dna and parents lack of moral fibre
 
Oh, your logic is that a rich, famous person can't get criminally charged, which takes more substance, investigation, and burden of proof to prove they're guilty. But in a civil case, where all those things aren't in play, that famous person doesn't have that power. Sound logic? I bet your cat is a vegetarian (we know who made the choice).
I get the distinct impression that you don't understand the meaning of the word logic.
 
There are elements of truth, but not entirely.

Whether a company must pay out the full or partial value of a contract when invoking a morality clause depends heavily on the wording of the clause and the circumstances surrounding the termination. Some contracts stipulate that invoking the morality clause voids the company's obligation to pay further compensation.

Also, it is not a universal requirement for companies to pay or place funds in escrow when terminating a contract. Whether they must do so depends on the terms of the contract and applicable laws in the jurisdiction. In employment contexts, such as high-level executives or athletes, disputes about unpaid compensation (e.g., severance or bonuses) often hinge on the specifics of the contract.

In leagues like MLB and the NBA, many contracts are fully guaranteed. Even if a player is released or their contract terminated under a morality clause, the team may still owe the remaining salary unless they can prove the behavior violated the terms .

In the NFL, contracts often include non-guaranteed portions, meaning that invoking a morality clause can allow teams to cut a player without paying the remaining amount.
I generalize the law like this:

If you make $100k on a sponsorship deal, and that's a lot of money to you, then you had better damn well honor your morality clause. Because your sponsor can and will terminate your contract and refuse to pay you. And they will get away with it, because you simply won't be able to afford the legal battle to sue them in court.

But if you make $10 million on a sponsorship deal, and you're McGregor rich, then your sponsor will ultimately settle with you and pay out a % of the contract, because you can afford to sue them in court and you will likely win (in my opinion McGregor would win).

As for legal contracts voiding the obligation to pay in lieu of morality clause violations, you'd be surprised how often contract clauses don't matter in court. Just because you put something in a contract, doesn't mean it's legal. If you make a contract to loan someone $100k and say they legally become your slave if they fail to repay you, that's obviously not legally enforceable. And there is a whole spectrum of grey areas between legal and illegal that might not hold up in court, which ultimately depend on the judges you get (roll of the dice).
 
As I suspected and now can say after her disgusting posts on social media, she is just as bad as him and they deserve each other

Their kids will no doubt turn out rotten too with their dna and parents lack of moral fibre
Yeah the only way to save their children is to let Saint Jones adopt them, so he can bless them with his holy spirit and divine energy
 
Try naming some. Or do you just read the headlines and form your opinions off that

Good summary

Anyone who voices skepticism about the conviction and ruling should ask themselves a few questions.

- If Nikita Hand is lying, where did she get her severe injuries from, and the incrusted tampon that had to be surgically removed by a forcep?

She sent pictures of her injuries to a friend after the incident before returning home. The friend testified, and there are records of the message exchange.

- Had she been attacked by her boyfriend upon return, did he beat her up, and then rape her while using a condom? And then she decided it would be a good spin to blame Conor? That is not plausible either, because she sent messages distressed to her friend before returning home. The hours were exposed and verified.

They only found Conor's DNA in her. She was in her period. Not Lawrence, not anyone else's.

- So, the hypothesis that it was the boyfriend is ruled out.

-The injuries were severe that the doctors and those who saw them in court testified that they had not seen the likes of those.

- So, the hypothesis of "consensual but rough sex" is ridiculous. The woman was battered, in pain, and injured.

Yes, she was in CCTV shown interacting affectionately with Conor and Lawrence after having intercourse with Conor.

She went back and forth into the hotel. She has memory blanks. We know she was extremely drunk and had been taking tons of alcohol and drugs.

- If this was a money grab, why did she go to criminal court, and only decided to pursue civil reparations when that fell apart, while also refusing settlement, despite the enormous liability this would cause her and the massive interest in Conor's behalf to do so and avoid a public derail and exposition like this?

There are ample reports of this, but this should suffice:



Was she cunningly expecting that the criminal case would be turned down, despite time and financial resources, so as to increase her bluff?

This is preposterous, and anyone who claims that is disqualified from being taken seriously.

- We also know she was traumatized for years, impaired in several ways. Doctors, and specialists testified to this in court.

- We also know, from every study, that in fact the percentage of false accusations of sexual assault are extremely small.

- We also know that Conor is not only rich, but has deep connections with the Irish mafia and that he is a celebrity. Anyone who claims there is a possibility she is lying, ought to likewise admit that there is a possibility there was corruption, and this is why the criminal case was not opened. Many are of this opinion.

- We know Conor has a history of accusations of sexual assault and violent physical harm. We know he has injured civilians. We know he has issues with substance abuse, violent behavior, lack of self control. He injured a bunch of people in the dolly incident, jumped on a ref, an Italian DJ, assaulted an older man at a bar, smashed a fan's phone into the ground outside a club. A woman jumped from a yacht and was rescued by the Red Cross patrol with abdominal injuries saying she was kicked by Conor. Her car was set on fire. Nikita Hand's house was broken into and his BF stabbed.

- So, what are we to believe? That Nikita Hand self-inflicted her injuries after leaving the party, shoving a tampon up her vagina to the point of injury, battering her entire body, while she suddenly started her period. Faked her trauma story when messaging her friend to dupe her. Then duped the doctors, boyfriend, and trauma specialists, and finally the jury.

Or, that Nikita Hand was actually raped, she was intoxicated, traumatized, and didn't know how to process or react for things for hours, as is also not uncommon with victims of assault.



Seriously, to give Conor McGregor "the benefit of doubt" here takes a lot of malice, stupidity, and blindness.
 
Back
Top