Could Pacquiao's Recent Choices Sink His Own Lawsuit Before It Gets Off The Ground?

A one time representative of the Commission has stated their test isn't the most comprehensive before. I don't think, unless there's some law that says otherwise.. that something like that couldn't be challenged. I don't mind being wrong, just show me the stuff. The NSAC drug tests for 40 different PEDs. Julio Cesar Chavez jr tested positive when tested for the Pacquiao-Cotto undercard. A card in which all other fighters including Pacquiao tested clean. Seriously. Im no steroid expert but I imagine out of all the different PEDs out there...there's only so many that would be able to help a fighter.

They can argue all they want that the commission they've never doubted before is untrustworthy but the assumption is that is reliable. They will have to prove that it isn't. Can they do that? This thread is dead. SCUD cleared everything up.

A one time representative of the Commission has stated their test isn't the most comprehensive before. I don't think, unless there's some law that says otherwise.. that something like that couldn't be challenged. I don't mind being wrong, just show me the stuff.They can argue all they want that the commission they've never doubted before is untrustworthy; but the assumption is that it is reliable. They will have to prove that it isn't. Can they do that?

a shame you all are debating a lawsuit instead of a fight. I personally see Pac's lawsuit being beaten fairly easily, its a diversion and a waste of time. Had Mayweather just follow the existing rules, regulations and by-laws of the NSAC, all these things wouldn't have happened. Mayweather is not bigger than boxing, Mayweather is not bigger than NSAC. All he can claim is he is bigger than Pacquiao.

There's a difference between Defamation, Slander and Libel case and a DEFAMATION PER SE case. In most cases the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff (Pacquiao), but on DEFAMATION PER SE the burden of proof is with the defendants. Defamation Per Se Most jurisdictions recognize "per se" defamation, in which the allegations made by the defendant are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Normally in personal injury litigation, including actions for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Within the context of defamation, that means that the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were false, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known them to be false at the time the statements were made. Defamation per se provides a significant exception to that rule: Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se: Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste; Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; Attacks on a person's professional character or standing; Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude; http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.html Why didn't you post this first? Sht, it probably needs its own thread. I wouldn't have bothered with this if I knew any of that.

It doesn't I agree, but for every point the plaintiff makes the defense counters. If Manny provides evidence he's clean, that evidence then comes under scrutiny ( the whole NSAC coming into question, etc.). That's usually how it goes in that good ol' courtroom back and forth. Kudos on posting the defamation per se. Looks like I still didn't have all the info here. I was under the impression Manny also had to prove malice and accusations being false at every turn. If that's all the above entails then it's an open and shut case for Pac all the way around. There's a difference between Defamation, Slander and Libel case and a DEFAMATION PER SE case. In most cases the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff (Pacquiao), but on DEFAMATION PER SE the burden of proof is with the defendants. Defamation Per Se Most jurisdictions recognize "per se" defamation, in which the allegations made by the defendant are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Normally in personal injury litigation, including actions for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Within the context of defamation, that means that the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were false, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known them to be false at the time the statements were made. Defamation per se provides a significant exception to that rule: Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se: Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste; Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; Attacks on a person's professional character or standing; Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude; http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.html

a shame you all are debating a lawsuit instead of a fight. I personally see Pac's lawsuit being beaten fairly easily, its a diversion and a waste of time.

The accusations are false because Manny is, by the commission's standard, clean. Jesus christ. A one time representative of the Commission has stated their test isn't the most comprehensive before. I don't think, unless there's some law that says otherwise.. that something like that couldn't be challenged. I don't mind being wrong, just show me the stuff.

It doesn't I agree, but for every point the plaintiff makes the defense counters. If Manny provides evidence he's clean, that evidence then comes under scrutiny ( the whole NSAC coming into question, etc.). That's usually how it goes in that good ol' courtroom back and forth. Kudos on posting the defamation per se. Looks like I still didn't have all the info here. I was under the impression Manny also had to prove malice and accusations being false at every turn. If that's all the above entails then it's an open and shut case all the way around.The accusations are false because Manny is, by the commission's standard, clean. Jesus christ.

The case is about DEFAMATION, it has nothing to do with Mayweather willing to subject himself to Olympic Style Testing which, in the first place, is not even under the regulation of the Nevada State Athletic Commision. I'll help you with your defamation per se categories. The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required. It doesn't I agree, but for every point the plaintiff makes the defense counters. If Manny provides evidence he's clean, that evidence then comes under scrutiny ( the whole NSAC coming into question, etc.). That's usually how it goes in that good ol' courtroom back and forth. Kudos on posting the defamation per se. Looks like I still didn't have all the info here. I was under the impression Manny also had to prove malice and accusations being false at every turn. If that's all the above entails then it's an open and shut case for Pac all the way around.

I agree, and the defense will bring forth that Mayweather was more than willing to subject himself to the OST that was written up. 3rd paragraph mixed up? You'll have to be clear here, I don't know what you're getting at. The case is about DEFAMATION, it has nothing to do with Mayweather willing to subject himself to Olympic Style Testing which, in the first place, is not even under the regulation of the Nevada State Athletic Commision. I'll help you with your defamation per se categories. The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required.

Integrity of NSAC? Is that the same NSAC that tested Mayweather negative of any drugs? To challenge the results of NSAC tests on Pacquiao is to challenge the results of NSAC tests on Mayweather. Do you agree? Can you look at the definition of DEFAMATION PER SE of the US Law first before you debate with me. You got all your third paragraph mixed up. I agree, and the defense will bring forth that Mayweather was more than willing to subject himself to the OST that was written up. 3rd paragraph mixed up? You'll have to be clear here, I don't know what you're getting at.

The fact is that Pac can prove he is clean (NSAC tests). Can the Mayweathers prove he is not to justify the lies they have been spreading? No. And please don't try to argue that the NSAC tests are unreliable because that would be challenging 40 year's worth of tradition and would be questioning every boxer's integrity.

By outlining the testing conditions and when he will and wont test, Pac has pretty much illustrated his preferred cheating method and current roid cycling program. Insinuations and product of imagination. Won't stand in the court of law.

Integrity of NSAC's testing then goes on trial here. The argument would be posed how easy it is to overcome it. I agree Pac doesn't have to take any test outside of what the Commission authorizes... but then there are the strange phobia statements regarding blood drawing, and then the refusal to be drawn from inside a 30 day window when he's had blood drawn inside that time frame and KO'd his opponent in 2. I don't think the defense might actually have to prove anything here, just cast enough doubt on the plaintiff to avoid judgment against them. Integrity of NSAC? Is that the same NSAC that tested Mayweather negative of any drugs? To challenge the results of NSAC tests on Pacquiao is to challenge the results of NSAC tests on Mayweather. Do you agree? Can you look at the definition of DEFAMATION PER SE of the US Law first before you debate with me. You got all your third paragraph mixed up.

By outlining the testing conditions and when he will and wont test, Pac has pretty much illustrated his preferred cheating method and current roid cycling program.

His freaking strength coach is on trial right now for dealing steroids to athletes. If he doesnt want to get dragged into that mess he better withdraw the suit. link or STFU Just to say that Arums legal team may be requesting IP addresses from boxing forums- this was posted in philiboxing

It's a civil case so arguments from either side do not have to be definitive. Just which proposed case is more likely. Given that Roger's statement fulfills the 1st query....the obvious question for team Pacquiao to ask would be....if he knew for a fact that his statement was false....what other motivation would roger have to repeat the same statement publicly??? Interesting. I think it'll be tough to get him on 2, but fair point.

Then their defense is weak and that's a sure loss if they do that. First, Pacquiao has test records to prove he's NEGATIVE of drugs. Second, GBP can not force Pacquiao to take the damn test as he is covered with the Right Against Self Incrimination. Yes, you can speculate all you want but that doesn't prove a thing in court. Integrity of NSAC's testing then goes on trial here. The argument would be posed how easy it is to overcome it. I agree Pac doesn't have to take any test outside of what the Commission authorizes... but then there are the strange phobia statements regarding blood drawing, and then the refusal to be drawn from inside a 30 day window when he's had blood drawn inside that time frame and KO'd his opponent in 2. I don't think the defense might actually have to prove anything here, just cast enough doubt on the plaintiff to avoid judgment against them.

That proves the first query, but does it also prove malice? You said you need both right? I guess I would need to know what qualifies as malice under the law. How can it be explained that Roger's motive was purely to harm Manny's reputation and not something as to say.. "I just wanted to get to the bottom of this (PED issue)." It's a civil case so arguments from either side do not have to be definitive. Just which proposed case is more likely. Given that Roger's statement fulfills the 1st query....the obvious question for team Pacquiao to ask would be....if he knew for a fact that his statement was false....what other motivation would roger have to repeat the same statement publicly???