Because it makes an alarming amount of sense but there's no way to prove it.
It'll go down as a VERY popular theory that many experts will disagree on because there is simply no way to know. Unless team Margarito admit to it, which is very doubful.
Ye but you're under the assumption that he's using them. You can't say "we'll only know if Margarito admits to it". Well what if he admits he didn't use it? Ultimately by saying he must admit to it or else we won't know ultimately argues from the point that he did use them and with a bias against him. The neutral answer should be, "there's no evidence that he used them, but it is quite possible." You don't go to trial as a prosecutor and say "Well we don't have any evidence your Honour, but if the defendant admits to it then his confession will count." The obvious question is "Well what if he didn't do it? Can you prove he did?" The benefit of the doubt is always to the defendant, in this case it's Margarito.
can u cotto diehards please just accept the fact your boy got thrashing? i picked cotto in that fight and he's one of my favorites today but he got ktfo. u can agrue a ud/sd but you cant argue a ko. stop searching for excuses. cotto already said they didnt find nothing wrong and they want a rematch.
with that being said there's no way to know if marg used the wrap against him. most lie detectors are false (if you nervous it will always say you lie). really thiers no reason for an investigation for the cotto fight.
Ye but you're under the assumption that he's using them. You can't say "we'll only know if Margarito admits to it". Well what if he admits he didn't use it? Ultimately by saying he must admit to it or else we won't know ultimately argues from the point that he did use them and with a bias against him. The neutral answer should be, "there's no evidence that he used them, but it is quite possible." You don't go to trial as a prosecutor and say "Well we don't have any evidence your Honour, but if the defendant admits to it then his confession will count." The obvious question is "Well what if he didn't do it? Can you prove he did?" The benefit of the doubt is always to the defendant, in this case it's Margarito.
You're reading into that wayy too much. It was implied in my statement that he's innocent until proven guilty. Hence, the only way we'll know if he did it is if he admits it....otherwise there's no way to tell and he must be assumed innocent. If he comes out and says he didn't do it, it's possible thats a lie. If he comes out and says he did do it, he's obviously telling the truth. Your trying wayyyyy too hard, what I said was simple and to the point.
If I had to guess I'd say he used it in previous fights. But I don't act as if it's fact, nor do I think it's a fact.
If a guy cheats you have to assume thats how he got his statis in the sport, right now its illegal to use steroids, or use a cast iron wraping. So , I assume if Shane took steroids to fight a pieace of **** like De La Hoya, he'd take a few to hang in there with Miguel Cotto. Its not just oh he was so in fear of Shane that he decided to cheat why not in fear of Miguel Cotto?
Comment