Score a KO, Get Yourself Suspended: The Charles Radtke Edition!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 585708
  • Start date Start date
Mohawk Banditó said:
You seem unable to read or absorb information

What aren't you understanding here? Besides everything
Click to expand...

Why don't you stick to posting about which porn(s) you find most wankable and leave the serious matters to others.

Mohawk Banditó said:
A clean 'scaping makes the porn wank more enjoyable, sir
Click to expand...

The OP made a misleading and salacious title and then in that OP linked a six month old article, that had nothing to do with Radtke, to give his fake post an heir of legitimacy when it was entirely irrelevant.

The guy clearly has an axe to grind with Radtke; likely lost money betting against him.
 
If they suspend someone for betting on himself winning they are probably the most greedy employer in sports.
So you get into a cage in your underwear with the risk of potential life altering damage but you can't bet on yourself winning. So basically the fighters should not have confidence in themselves winning when accepting a fight?
Just UFC things
 
UFCIsNOTRigged said:
The OP made a misleading and salacious title and then in that OP linked a six month old article, that had nothing to do with Radtke, to give his fake post an heir of legitimacy when it was entirely irrelevant.

The guy clearly has an axe to grind with Radtke; likely lost money betting against him.
Click to expand...

Go to bed, dimwit.

Look up the word salacious, too.
 
UFCIsNOTRigged said:
Why don't you stick to posting about which porn(s) you find most wankable and leave the serious matters to others.
Click to expand...
My joke post doesn't reference anything about what porn I find most wankable, so you just seem to be further proving you can't read or absorb information. It was also a response to another person talking about wanking to porn, so it's not like I just pulled it out of the blue. Also, fucking lol thinking you're a serious poster, compared to me

UFCIsNOTRigged said:
The OP made a misleading and salacious title and then in that OP linked a six month old article, that had nothing to do with Radtke, to give his fake post an heir of legitimacy when it was entirely irrelevant.

The guy clearly has an axe to grind with Radtke; likely lost money betting against him.
Click to expand...

The UFC had a pretty large controversy about betting that you're not allowed to do, then a guy publicly said that betting happened. 6 months is extremely recent when it comes to rules, ya shitbird, which is what the article was backing up, as an evidentiary claim. That's not misleading, nor malicious.

And the very fact you actually think you're making a point about the timing of what order of events happened in only further demonstrates how much you have no idea what the fuck is going on.

"Your honor, the defendant clearly confessed to breaking this law"
"Well that law was written an entire 6 months ago, way before the alleged crime happened. And he's not even convicted yet, so this is misleading."
".. yeah because the offense JUST happened, and breaking a rule usually comes AFTER the rule is made. Breaking rules BEFORE the rule is written is called... not rule breaking. Where did you get your law degree, you absolute dumbass"
"Sorry, I was too busy reading posts about wanking and taking them too seriously"
 
Last edited:
UFCIsNOTRigged said:
Thank you for conceding my point by using an ad-hom to attack me instead of addressing the points I made about your obsession with Radtke, Rong Zhu, and other fighters you clearly have an axe to grind with after you lose money betting on their fights?
Click to expand...
Ad-hom isn't just insulting people, ya doofus. It's an invalidation of someone's argument based on their character, which is  usually through insults. Like when you say, "your argument is wrong because you're an axe grinder"

It's just one kind of fallical argument where you don't actually address the person's points in a critical way. Others would be like when you call something "mental gymnastics" without actually describing why.

Ya know, all the logical fallacies that YOU'VE been using.


Just make sure your fallacies are cleanly 'scaped, I hear it makes the porn wank more enjoyable
 
Last edited:
This should only be an issue if he was injured and likely to lose, so his team bet on him to lose bc they knew. If he's healthy and didn't get an adamantium skeleton, who the fuck cares? If anyone gets in trouble for this, it only reveals a problem that hasn't been fixed.
 
Fact Checker said:
Charles The Rogue Radtke strikes again… dudes the next MMA meme.


Anyone remember him destroying the Aussie crowd after beating their boy?
Click to expand...
That was an epic post fight speech but I mean come on "our boy?"
 
Some extremely naive people in here. Not saying that is what happened here, but if you were going to fix a fight by agreeing to take a dive, how is your side going to make money? Obviously it has to come from people putting money on the other side. That is why it is quite simple to understand why it is not permitted for anyone involved in a sport to gamble in that sport in any way.
 
Mohawk Banditó said:
Ad-hom isn't just insulting people, ya doofus. It's an invalidation of someone's argument based on their character, which is  usually through insults. Like when you say, "your argument is wrong because you're an axe grinder"

It's just one kind of fallical argument where you don't actually address the person's points in a critical way. Others would be like when you call something "mental gymnastics" without actually describing why.

Ya know, all the logical fallacies that YOU'VE been using.


Just make sure your fallacies are cleanly 'shaped, I hear it makes the porn wank more enjoyable
Click to expand...

That dude will have no idea what he even wrote come morning, I wouldn't worry about him lmao
 
If I had to guess, someone from the commission might have a few questions for Radtke and his camp after that statement. I'd be surprised if any actual suspension came though.

I mean they'd need to determine who are the "boys in the back" Radtke was referring to and were any of them prohibited bettors (i.e., training partners in the gym, family members residing in Radtke's house, etc)?
Did any of the boys in the back actually place bets on Radtke or was Radtke just talking out of his ass from the emotion of winning?
Did any of them facilitate pñaci g bets on Radtke's behalf?

Seems unlikely he'll get in trouble unless somebody admits to doing something stupid.
 
Siver! said:
www.espn.co.uk

UFC expands push to prevent internal betting

If UFC fighters, coaches or others around the sport attempt to place a prohibited bet on a fight, it would be flagged through a new program that seeks to expand the MMA company's compliance with gambling regulations.
www.espn.co.uk www.espn.co.uk

UFC fighters also will be sent a compliance training video Wednesday regarding sports betting, presented by U.S. Integrity. The video states that prohibited bettors include "anyone with inside knowledge of participants in MMA matches."

"These prohibited insiders can be a coach, manager, handler, athletic trainer, medical professional staff, relative living in the same household as an athlete and/or any person with access to non-public information regarding participants in any match," the video says.

---

Charlie Radtke scores the KO, then instantly announces his whole team just made a bunch of money on the fight.

Suspension incoming.



All of this is now wasted.
Click to expand...



Lol that's not insider knowledge lmfao ... .


Thats literally just betting..


Also unless he lives with his coaches ...there not from the same household
 
Paolo Delutis said:
Lol that's not insider knowledge lmfao ... .


Thats literally just betting..


Also unless he lives with his coaches ...there not from the same household
Click to expand...
Good thing coach and household are two different things then, aren't they?
 
Mohawk Banditó said:
Good thing coach and household are two different things then, aren't they?
Click to expand...

All im saying.. literally nothing was wrong with what he did ...and none of the so called rules were actually broken

His boys betting on a K.O and it happens isnt inside information...

Its just winning a bet...
 
Paolo Delutis said:
All im saying.. literally nothing was wrong with what he did ...and none of the so called rules were actually broken

His boys betting on a K.O and it happens isnt inside information...

Its just winning a bet...
Click to expand...
"Prohibited bettors include anyone with inside knowledge of participants in MMA matches. These prohibited insiders can be a coach, manager, handler, athletic trainer, medical professional staff, relative living in the same household as an athlete and/or any person with access to non-public information regarding participants in any match"

It doesn't say coach and household though. It says anyone that has non-public information regarding participants and then lists all the different people those people can be. Any and all of those people should avoid betting.
 
DiddlyDoodly said:
I guess.

I mean if you know that your opponent is going to throw the fight, and you bet big bucks on your guy to win, I can see that maybe being an issue. Or of course if you bet against you own guy because you know that he is hurt.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't mind people being investigated for betting on their fights. Scenarios like you describe are unacceptable.

But if it turns out they were only betting on themselves, who cares? A fighter's entire life is about betting on themselves, literally and figuratively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,308
Messages
58,275,566
Members
175,990
Latest member
gorakk

Share this page

Back
Top