Mark Hunt's argument missing a lot of facts

[grimballer]

The big difference between my example and the UFC is that one is a street fight...the other is not. The UFC isn't Pride where they didn't have drug tests and regulations. The Broncos can't say they won't play the Steelers because they suspect a few guys are juicing, and Mark can't say he won't take a fight because 'X' fighter is juicing, because it would make no sense. You're not supposed to be able to juice in the current UFC because there are tests amd penalties. Mark saying "ill fight a juicehead" is fucking meaningless, because it is 100% NOT up to him. It is completely out of his hands.

Well you chose street fight as an example...

N from one bad example you go to another comparing UFC to nfl.

Broncos are scheduled to play steelers in week x. They can't change the schedule.

Mark hunt is not scheduled to fight anybody. He has to accept a propsed fight, or his this case (more likley) volunteer for a short notice fight.

Again if his real concern were ped, he should've decline that lesnar fight.

He didn't not. He jumped on the opportunity cause he knew it's gonna be big $$$.

I don't blame him for that, but don't bitch about it afterwards. Especially with the comments he made before the fight

 

[J. Bernie Cunningham]

If you can't understand the difference the context of Brock actually being caught makes then there literally is no hope for you.

The difference is completely irrelevant to how his stance on the issue relates to his actions. Hence the point about the two statements. Tell me, why weren't you able to tell me which is which? Is it maybe because it's the assertion alone that's relevant? The only thing that got confirmed with Brock's bust is that Hunt's outrage is veeerrrryyy selective, and he's a hypocrite.

Dude says "he's on steroids but it doesn't matter" and "no excuses", then he's proven right and it's "steroids are the only reason he won, I could've died". You don't see how that's hypocritical and laughable?

 

[Kelman]

Ongoing saga I know, but found this interesting.

Article isn't condoning Brock's PED use but rather brings up a lot of facts which Hunt appears to have ignored or overlooked for the sake of his argument.

Interesting read.

https://www.the-newshub.com/combat/mark-hunt-missing-the-facts

Yeah but only one fact matters.

Brock cheated, Hunt didnt.

 

[ChefC]

The difference is completely irrelevant to how his stance on the issue relates to his actions. Hence the point about the two statements. Tell me, why weren't you able to tell me which is which? Is it maybe because it's the assertion alone that's relevant? The only thing that got confirmed with Brock's bust is that Hunt's outrage is veeerrrryyy selective, and he's a hypocrite.

Dude says "he's on steroids but it doesn't matter" and "no excuses", then he's proven right and it's "steroids are the only reason he won, I could've died". You don't see how that's hypocritical and laughable?

Of course, it would have been better if he'd kept quiet beforehand, sadly he didn't.

He's still right to be outraged though. He went from pretty sure Brock was juicing but confident he could win (what fighter thinks he'll lose, even to a juice head) to being locked in a cage and battered by a roided up manbeast. When was the last time he fought somebody natty.

He's embarrassed and angry, he's mouthing off like a deranged person and not always coming off well. He's still right.

 

[J. Bernie Cunningham]

Of course, it would have been better if he'd kept quiet beforehand, sadly he didn't.

He's still right to be outraged though. He went from pretty sure Brock was juicing but confident he could win (what fighter thinks he'll lose, even to a juice head) to being locked in a cage and battered by a roided up manbeast. When was the last time he fought somebody natty.

He's embarrassed and angry, he's mouthing off like a deranged person and not always coming off well. He's still right.

That right there is why he's not right. He didn't say "i think he might be" or "I'm pretty sure". He asserted that Brock was juicing and said it didn't matter. That disqualified him from ever using steroids as an excuse. His odd silence on PEDs during Pride or against any other fighter is a reason for him to shut up about it entirely.

 

[Shogun Stomp]

A LOT of opinion/hypothesis, not much "facts".

Facts are the precedent that has been set. Other fighters HAVE received four month waivers. USADA HAS a timescale in which results are received. I'd call those factual pieces of evidence.

 

[Shogun Stomp]

Pretty weak article.

For instance what someone thinks doesn't absolve you from responsibility

If Mark Hunt thinks Brock is juiced to the gills before the fight doesn't absolve the UFC from making sure all fighters are clean by either testing or deterrents for cheating (such as fines) which they did not impose on their PED users when busted

If Mark Hunt thinks someone is roiding or not is irrelevant from the fact the fighters are indeed roiding. Eg. In the past 2 year Hunt hasn't had a clean fighter to fight which is pretty terrible indication

Pretty sure that isn't the only point the article makes.