So, please, educate us.
Go year by year for Haney's reign, and explain to us who was more deserving than Haney on that particular year, and the reasons why they "weren't allowed to win."
That's on you. Learn some history. Start with 1981 the year that befuddles ND, his weak excuses and any believable theory that the shows are legit. Then look at some of the decisions in the 70s and 90s involving Yates.
I'm not saying that Haney didn't deserve his wins, because the guys he beat in those years in weak fields relative to the 70s or 90s weren't great. But to then obsess on the number of his wins over weak competition as well as the fact that various great BBs were never allowed to win even once is a little much.
83 Olympia with really pronounced imbalances he did not deserve a placing above Bertil Fox. This was a good indication of the BS seen in some shows.