Caitlin Clark told to ABANDON the WNBA after she was punched in the throat in latest act of sickening on-court violence ⁠48%

By Max Winters⁠42%

6/25/2026, 5:59:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 40.3% saturation with 244 hits. Analysis detected 1,025 faulty-reasoning hits from 606 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠48% (11,060 of 21,169 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.20% of the article peer group.

Caitlin Clark has been urged to leave the WNBA behind after she was the victim of another sickening act of on-court violence. 
The Indiana Fever superstar, who has transformed the fortunes of the WNBA since entering the league in 2024, appeared to be punched in the throat by Alyssa Thomas of the Phoenix Mercury. 
It is the latest example of Clark falling victim to rough treatment from rivals, which also marred her rookie season in 2024. 
But the WNBA continues to overlook the physicality imposed on Clark and referees didn't even bother to call a foul for the incident involving Thomas. 
That has prompted Boomer Esiason, the 1988 NFL MVP who now works as a New York sports radio host, to tell Clark to quit the WNBA for good. 
He said on Thursday morning: 'If I were Caitlin Clark, I would seriously consider going to play overseas somewhere and get the royal treatment and get real money. 
'I know that Caitlin makes a tonne of money off the court in terms of endorsements and rightly so but there is some petty jealousy. 
'She's a straight white basketball player and she is not being treated with any sort of respect whatsoever.' 
The clash with Thomas sparked fury on social media, with Dave Portnoy among those to lash out at the Mercury player. 
The Barstool Sports chief posted on X: 'What are we even doing here? 
Brutal cheap shot. 
'These women would still be flying commercial without Caitlin and this is how she is treated. 
Insane.' 
Clark was driving to the hoop when she fell to the ground in the paint while under pressure from a number of Mercury defenders, who were battling to strip the ball away and succeeded in doing so. 
But, while Clark lay on the floor, Thomas charged in and put her closed fist into the Indiana Fever superstar's neck. 
She then appeared to put her weight through it and pushed off Clark's throat to get back to her feet before stepping over her to rejoin the game. 
A reverse angle showed Thomas, while jostling on their way down to the floor, also drove her left knee into Clark's exposed groin. 
Despite video replays showing the incident, referees did not call a foul even though there was an official just yards away. 
The WNBA could review it for a flagrant foul. 
'It was egregious and clearly disrespectful. 
The fact that it was a no-call ... 
You got to call it,' said Fever coach Stephanie White. 
'You're coming in here aware of what happened two nights ago and that f***ing still happens? 
Absolutely unacceptable.' 
To make things worse, Clark left the Fever's 111-109 loss to Phoenix with a back injury during the second half. 
The All-Star guard has been dealing with a back issue this season and left with 5:15 remaining in the third quarter. 
She went back to the locker room and didn't return. 
Clark appeared to tweak her back in the second quarter when she was fouled shooting a three-pointer. 
She fell to the ground and was rubbing her back as she stood up. 
After Clark suffered her back injury, Portnoy posted again. 
This time he wrote: 'Caitlin tweaked her back on this foul. 
Eventually checked out and didn't return. 
The @WNBA unfortunately reaps what it sows.' 
The two teams met Monday night and there were six technical fouls called and one ejection. 
Clark picked up her fifth technical in that game. 
The team is petitioning the league to have it rescinded. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.3%Max Winters: 2.1%Daily Mail: 3.7%Confirmation Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.5%Daily Mail: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Max Winters: 3.4%Daily Mail: 3.5%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.9%Daily Mail: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Max Winters: 3.9%Daily Mail: 9.1%Framing Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.6%Max Winters: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Status Quo Bias2.6%This article: 1.7%Max Winters: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect1.7%This article: 4.6%Max Winters: 1.1%Daily Mail: 2.3%Optimism Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.1%Daily Mail: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 40.3%Max Winters: 12.9%Daily Mail: 12.7%Negativity Bias40.3%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 5.0%Daily Mail: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Max Winters: 1.4%Daily Mail: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error7.6%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Max Winters: 1.7%Daily Mail: 1.2%In-Group Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Max Winters: 3.7%Daily Mail: 4.5%Halo Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.1%Max Winters: 2.2%Daily Mail: 1.6%Recency Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 1.1%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.3%Max Winters: 1.4%Daily Mail: 4.0%Appeal to Authority6.3%This article: 4.6%Max Winters: 0.4%Daily Mail: 1.2%False Dilemma4.6%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.3%Max Winters: 5.1%Daily Mail: 4.3%Hasty Generalization6.3%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.5%Max Winters: 1.2%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon3.5%This article: 9.7%Max Winters: 4.8%Daily Mail: 7.6%Appeal to Emotion9.7%This article: 4.0%Max Winters: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.6%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 11.4%Max Winters: 2.7%Daily Mail: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.4%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.1%Max Winters: 1.7%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal4.1%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.7%Max Winters: 1.1%Daily Mail: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.7%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Max Winters: 2.2%Daily Mail: 3.8%Unattributed Quote1.3%This article: 3.5%Max Winters: 1.7%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection3.5%This article: 12.9%Max Winters: 8.6%Daily Mail: 9.3%Biased Writer Voice12.9%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Winters: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

606 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers26%attributed speech450writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageBoomer Esiason • 28 words • 0.0% coverageBoomer Esiason • 25 words • 0.0% coverageBoomer Esiason • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDave Portnoy • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDave Portnoy • 3 words • 0.0% coverageDave Portnoy • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDave Portnoy • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageStephanie White • 10 words • 100.0% coverageStephanie White • 16 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie White • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDave Portnoy • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDave Portnoy • 6 words • 0.0% coverageDave Portnoy • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Stephanie White

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words18% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice+20.6 ptsWriter: 15.1%Stephanie White: 35.7%35.7%Quote-first Misdirection-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%Stephanie White: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Stephanie White: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.