e doubt. But that collective sigh of relief breathe

The long and winding road to the mandatory and much-anticipated fight between unified middleweight titleholder Gennady Golovkin and secondary titlist Daniel Jacobs is coming to an end.The WBA on Wednesday sent a letter to both camps to tell them that they had seven more days to make a deal. If a deal is not reached, the WBA said it would call for a purse bid for the fight, meaning it would go to an auction. The promoter with the highest offer would gain promotional control of the bout.Im still in discussions with [Jacobs adviser] Al [Haymon] trying to finalize the details of the fight, but the WBA sent us a notice [on Wednesday] saying that the contracts have to be submitted within seven days or they will call the purse bid, Golovkin promoter Tom Loeffler of K2 Promotions told ESPN on Thursday.The WBA had held off on issuing a deadline before calling a purse bid, hoping the camps would iron out a deal. But the talks have dragged on for months, even before both fighters defended their belts in one day apart in September.In his fourth defense, Jacobs (32-1, 29 KOs) knocked out Sergio Mora in the seventh round of their rematch Sept. 9. Golovkin (36-0, 33 KOs) stopped Kell Brook in the fifth round Sept. 10 to retain his title for the 17th time. The knockout was Golovkins 23rd in a row.Loeffler declined to say why there was a delay in making a deal, but his reputation is as a deal-maker. For example, he and Brook promoter Eddie Hearn of Matchroom Boxing made the Golovkin-Brook deal in about two days.The talks for Golovkin-Jacobs have dragged on for three months, although Haymon typically goes to the bitter end to make a deal. Relative to major fights, though, this one is not complicated, given that it is a non-pay-per-view mandatory bout.Should they make a deal, Golovkin-Jacobs is ticketed for HBO on March 18 at Madison Square Garden in New York, provided the promoters can secure an insurance policy for the event in the wake of the states new and more stringent insurance laws covering boxing.Golovkin, 34, is a big draw in New York, having sold out Madison Square Garden for his October 2015 title unification fight against David Lemieux.Jacobs, 29, is from Brooklyn.If Loeffler and Haymon do not make a deal and the WBA orders the purse bid, Loeffler said it would probably come within two weeks of the order.Usually, they give you 10 days notice, he said. Thats the standard, but depending on everyones schedule it could be something like 12 days or 14 days.Loeffler said he remained confident he and Haymon would strike a deal. They were able to make a deal for Golovkins mandatory defense against Haymon client Dominic Wade, whom GGG knocked out in the second round on April 23.I think its always been likely well get a deal done, Loeffler said. Every discussion Ive had with Al has been that Jacobs wants the fight and that its a matter of finalizing the deal points, which is what were working on now.Should the fight go to a purse bid, Golovkin is entitled to 75 percent of the winning bid, with the remaining 25 percent going to Jacobs. Loeffler has said all along that their side is open to giving Jacobs more than 25 percent, but not the 40 percent he was seeking.The fight was originally penciled in for Dec. 10, but when Loeffler and Haymon were unable to make a timely deal they moved off the date and decided to aim for the first quarter of 2017. Bucks Jerseys China . -- Los Angeles Lakers guard Jordan Farmar will be out for roughly four weeks after tearing his left hamstring. Cameron Reynolds Jersey .ca looks back at the stories and moments that made the year memorable. https://www.cheapbucksonline.com/116t-oscar-robertson-jersey-bucks.html . PETERSBURG, Fla. Cheap Bucks Jerseys .25 million option on reliever Jose Veras. Milwaukee Bucks Shirts . -- Ty Montgomery had 290 all-purpose yards and two touchdowns, and fifth-ranked Stanford held on to beat No. The?New York Knicks?open their season Tuesday night, and all eyes will be on point guard?Derrick Rose. Less than a week after a jury in a civil suit found him and his friends not liable for gang rape, fans and media can now look upon the unfamiliar sight of Rose in a Knicks?jersey?free of guilt.That seems to be the biggest takeaway from the publics reaction to the verdict: relief that we can all go back to talking about basketball -- that we can go back to worrying about Roses health instead of his legal status.And as a lifelong Knicks fan, that just doesnt sit well with me.The first thing that always happens when an athlete is cleared of these types of accusations is for people to take a verdict as a definite statement on guilt or innocence. To be clear: The jurys decision simply means that its members found Rose to be more credible than his accuser. As rape cases tend to go, the truth of what happened on the night in question is likely murkier.Legal experts doubt that criminal charges will be brought against Rose. But without assigning him guilt -- or proclaiming him completely innocent -- the sheer glee with which many reacted to the decision is rather disturbing. The burden of a long rape case -- in which we learned some unsavory things about the accused -- has been lifted from Rose and many fans, but it still rests on his accuser and some of the more conflicted among the Knicks faithful.We dont know for sure what exactly happened on the night in question. But heres what we do know: This case played out as a textbook example of athlete privilege in the court of public opinion. Everyone seemed to forget about the charges when Rose was traded to the Knicks from the Chicago Bulls. Knicks president Phil Jackson insists he was aware of the case, but last month, he refused to answer questions about just how much the team investigated Rose. He said that he was not concerned with the then-pending trial and stated with erroneous optimism that he didnt anticipate Rose would miss any preseason games.As details of the case trickled out, so too did the proven strategy of discrediting an accuser by dredging up her sexual history. Fans came out in full support of Rose. They didnt want to believe a star player could commit such acts, but they were all too willing to believe the exaggerated notion that women are automatically out to get famous men, and that going to a civil trial -- which carries a lower burden of proof than a criminal one -- signaled a desire for money, not justice. That somehow a seven-figure payout can lift the burden of a rape accusation.Heres another thing we know: Derrick Rose does not understand the concept of consent. That seems to be particularly relevant in a case in which the judge deemed consent to be the central issue. It should be noted that Roses?accuser said?she was unconscious at the time, which would settle the consent question. According to Roses toxicology expert, she had a blood alcohol content level of 0.2, which is 2 1/2 times the legal driving limit. A motion filed by the accuser in August states that she was asleep, evidenced by her repeated failure to respond to texts and calls from Rose and another defendant.As ThinkProgress Lindsay Gibbs reported in September, depositions also show that Rose didnt seem particularly concerned with consent on the night in question. When asked whether he and the two other defendants had discussed sex as the purpose for going to the accusers home, Rose said, No, but we men. You can assume.He went on to clarify: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someones house at 1:00 [a.m.], theres nothing to talk about.And while Roses attorneys used transcripts of text messages in which the accuser invited Rose to her home that evening as evidennce that she ultimately consented to sex, the plain fact is that any inkling of consent is wholly absent from their conversation that night.ddddddddddddFrom the deposition:Q: All right. Is there ?--? within what you just reviewed in those text messages, is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on August 26th, 2013? ...Rose: No.?Furthermore, the accusers attorney read a portion of the deposition to reporters on a teleconference call in September in which Rose clearly states he does not understand consent:Q: Do you have an understanding as to the word consent? Rose: No but can you tell me? Q: I just wanted to know if you had any understanding. Rose: No.Its extremely telling that, despite heightened awareness on sexual violence in the past couple of years, especially in sports, a star athlete still has no idea what consent is -- nor does he seem particularly concerned with needing to know more. Like his fans, Rose just wants to get back to the basketball court.Roses case highlights the need to continue to have these conversations, to make sure men and women alike understand when it is and is not OK to have sex with someone. This isnt just to protect accusers: If athletes see themselves as such targets for gold-diggers and cleat chasers, you would think theyd want to learn more about consent in order to make sure they always have it.It also underscores the importance of continued educational programs for athletes at the high school, college and pro levels.?Detroit Lions?linebacker?DeAndre Levy, maybe the most socially aware athlete out there when it comes to gender issues, credits the NFLs often-mocked awareness program with helping him understand consent and assault. In an essay for the Players Tribune in April, Levy said he has learned so much after having been ignorant of such issues for so many of his formative years.My understanding is that most women have heard the talk about how to avoid becoming a victim, but growing up, I was never involved in a conversation about what consent is. I was never even flat-out told not to rape or sexually assault anyone, he wrote. An athletes sense of entitlement to a womans body is exacerbated because he has been idolized and put on a pedestal in a hyper-masculine culture. Not only am I a man, but I am also a strong and successful man. Why would someone say no? You should all want me.Unfortunately, its not just athletes who have absorbed this mentality -- its the fans, too, as weve seen in the reaction to Roses case. A womans sexuality seems to discredit her right to consent in the eyes of many, while an athletes status only raises his credibility, assigning him the automatic benefit of the doubt. But that collective sigh of relief breathed by Knicks fans after the jury cleared Rose wasnt just about the desire to get back to basketball. It was taken as an implicit affirmation that all these beliefs about athlete targets and women who lie must be true.Its fine to be excited about the NBAs return -- Im looking forward to this season myself. But if you celebrated the Rose decision, youre celebrating a system that you seem to think works in favor of accusers, which is contrary to all the evidence on reporting, prosecution and verdicts. Its also contrary to all the psycho-social implications of sympathy toward famous defendants versus Jane Doe plaintiffs. Thats how we get the utterly bizarre images of jurors posing with Rose and his attorneys after delivering their verdict. Though the trial played out in Los Angeles, they look just as excited as Knicks fans to move on. ' ' '