Ric Flair, 77, reveals health issues as WWE legend is embroiled in bitter dispute with his SON: 'Stand on your own two feet' ⁠67%

By Daniel Matthews⁠0%

5/31/2026, 12:16:33 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Ad Hominem, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 39.1% saturation with 174 hits. Analysis detected 1,040 faulty-reasoning hits from 445 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (7,119 of 21,172 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.40% of the article peer group.

WWE legend Ric Flair revealed he is battling issues with his health following an apparent family feud that saw him tell his son: 'Stand on your own two feet' 
The 77-year-old, one of the most recognizable and iconic figures in wrestling history, took to social media to vent his 'frustration' with his son David Fliehr, 47. 
In a series of posts, which now appear to have been deleted, the 'Nature Boy' claimed there is 'someone that I'm very familiar with' who is using 'my own trademark, FLAIR.' 
He warned them that he is 'well represented by a reputable $1,000 per-hour attorney' who 'makes a living suing people that abuse my trademark.' 
At first, Flair did not name his son but that said he wanted the issue resolved by Monday, adding: 'You know who I am talking about.' 
According to Fightful, the WWE legend later confirmed he was referring to his son. 
Fliehr's LinkedIn profile claims he is part of the management team at Green Flair Recycling. 
In a follow-up post, Flair insisted he would not sue his son. 
But he said he was 'just reminding him that you can't have the best of both worlds,' adding: 'You're 47 years old… now stand on your own two feet please.' 
On Saturday, the WWE legend posted a picture of himself outside the hospital and revealed: 'If you understood the health issues that I deal with and am currently dealing with, you would understand why I get frustrated in life with a lot of people. 
'I'm sorry for the frustration. 
I am taking time to focus on my health.' 
Just minutes later, Flair uploaded a screenshot purporting to show his health data, including his - elevated - heart rate. 
In his social media rant, Flair - who suggested his relationship with David has been broken for nearly a decade - urged his son to use his 'god given name, Fliehr, which isn't worth a cup of coffee.' 
He also ordered David - who was briefly a wrestler, too - not to sell 'robes that I let you use during your career as you have already sold one.' 
He added: 'I'm sorry and sad that it has come to this. 
I've tried my best to fix things over the years, only to be rejected because your wife runs your life.' 
It is not the first time that Flair has battled health issues. 
Back in 2017, he flirted with death when he suffered multiple organ failure before being put on life support and in a medically-induced coma. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.7%Daniel Matthews: 3.0%Daily Mail: 2.7%Confirmation Bias2.7%This article: 5.8%Daniel Matthews: 0.8%Daily Mail: 0.7%Anchoring Bias5.8%This article: 13.0%Daniel Matthews: 4.1%Daily Mail: 2.8%Availability Heuristic13.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.8%Daily Mail: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 3.5%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.8%Daily Mail: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Daniel Matthews: 7.8%Daily Mail: 6.9%Framing Effect11.7%This article: 6.7%Daniel Matthews: 1.1%Daily Mail: 0.4%Loss Aversion6.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Daniel Matthews: 2.9%Daily Mail: 2.1%Optimism Bias2.0%This article: 12.6%Daniel Matthews: 1.1%Daily Mail: 1.1%Pessimism Bias12.6%This article: 26.3%Daniel Matthews: 13.5%Daily Mail: 10.9%Negativity Bias26.3%This article: 11.2%Daniel Matthews: 5.3%Daily Mail: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias11.2%This article: 4.5%Daniel Matthews: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error4.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.9%Daily Mail: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Daniel Matthews: 4.6%Daily Mail: 5.0%Halo Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Daniel Matthews: 1.7%Daily Mail: 1.7%Recency Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 1.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%Daniel Matthews: 2.0%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem15.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.5%Daniel Matthews: 3.7%Daily Mail: 3.0%Appeal to Authority8.5%This article: 6.7%Daniel Matthews: 1.3%Daily Mail: 0.9%False Dilemma6.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.5%Daniel Matthews: 4.3%Daily Mail: 3.9%Hasty Generalization4.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 32.4%Daniel Matthews: 7.8%Daily Mail: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion32.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.5%Daniel Matthews: 2.4%Daily Mail: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.4%Daniel Matthews: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.4%Burden of Proof3.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.4%Daniel Matthews: 1.9%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal5.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 39.1%Daniel Matthews: 2.5%Daily Mail: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)39.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 5.1%Daily Mail: 3.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.5%Daniel Matthews: 1.5%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection6.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 13.3%Daily Mail: 8.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.1%Daily Mail: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Matthews: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

445 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers54%attributed speech206writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageRic Flair • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageGreen Flair Recycling • 15 words • 0.0% coverageRic Flair • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRic Flair • 30 words • 0.0% coverageRic Flair • 44 words • 0.0% coverageRic Flair • 5 words • 0.0% coverageRic Flair • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageRic Flair • 38 words • 0.0% coverageRic Flair • 30 words • 0.0% coverageRic Flair • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRic Flair • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ric Flair

98%flagged-word coverage
224 attributed words94% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Quote-first Misdirection-14.1 ptsWriter: 14.1%Ric Flair: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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