Did Margarito Cheat against Cotto? Official Poll!

[DrewWoodside]

You can't prove that margo loaded his gloves against cotto, but rashad has given testimony that margo loaded his gloves in sparring.

its possible that margo loaded his gloves against cotto, but there is no evidence or testimony to back that up.

its possible that margo loaded his gloves against rashad in sparring, and there is testimony to back that up.

All I'm saying is that there is atleast testimony (whether true or false) of loaded gloves in sparring against rashad, while there is no evidence or testimony of loaded gloves against cotto.

therefore the bloodstain could be from the sparring session and not the cotto fight.

Margo can say he didnt use loaded gloves against cotto because there is no evidence or testimony that he did.

It will be near impossible to convict him of anything legally regarding the Cotto fight. However, as per this poll and most of the boxing world he has been convincted in the court of public opinion. In boxing that means a lot since members of the boxing world so frequently have to work together and since a great deal of his body of work is now thrown into question. So, regardless of ever actually being held accountable for the Cotto fight he will suffer pretty brutal consequences b/c the great deal of doubt surrounding it.

[Left2body]

You can't prove that margo loaded his gloves against cotto, but rashad has given testimony that margo loaded his gloves in sparring.

its possible that margo loaded his gloves against cotto, but there is no evidence or testimony to back that up.

its possible that margo loaded his gloves against rashad in sparring, and there is testimony to back that up.

All I'm saying is that there is atleast testimony (whether true or false) of loaded gloves in sparring against rashad, while there is no evidence or testimony of loaded gloves against cotto.

therefore the bloodstain could be from the sparring session and not the cotto fight.

Margo can say he didnt use loaded gloves against cotto because there is no evidence or testimony that he did.

Your not using any logic your stating what is said.

Here is some logic for you. A priest gets caught ******ing a boy. Normal person logically thinks I wonder who he has done it to before. You say that this is the first time because there is NO evidence prior to this boy.

Again you don't acknowledge as to WHY he would do it in sparring and not in a prize fights.

Why against a 37year old 4-1 underdog and not younger Champions i.e. PWilliams, Cintron, Cotto, Clottey?

Logic dictates that some who is willing to cheat would cheat when feeling threatened.

So your telling me he felt threatened when SPARRING but not when in an actual fight?

[DrewWoodside]

Your not using any logic your stating what is said.

Here is some logic for you. A priest gets caught ******ing a boy. Normal person logically thinks I wonder who he has done it to before. You say that this is the first time because there is NO evidence prior to this boy.

Again you don't acknowledge as to WHY he would do it in sparring and not in a prize fights.

Why against a 37year old 4-1 underdog and not younger Champions i.e. PWilliams, Cintron, Cotto, Clottey?

Logic dictates that some who is willing to cheat would cheat when feeling threatened.

So your telling me he felt threatened when SPARRING but not when in an actual fight?

The idea is to employ the logic and information we have currently and infer if Loaded handwraps were used in the Cotto fight. The point is not to conclude if we have enough physical evidence to achieve a guilty verdict in court of law. The fact is unfortunately, Margarito will not even be prosecuted for the Cotto fight, so what I'm curious to know is what fans think actually ocurred given the situation.

[Alec900]

probably...

[Pullcounter]

Your not using any logic your stating what is said.

Here is some logic for you. A priest gets caught ******ing a boy. Normal person logically thinks I wonder who he has done it to before. You say that this is the first time because there is NO evidence prior to this boy.

Again you don't acknowledge as to WHY he would do it in sparring and not in a prize fights.

Why against a 37year old 4-1 underdog and not younger Champions i.e. PWilliams, Cintron, Cotto, Clottey?

Logic dictates that some who is willing to cheat would cheat when feeling threatened.

So your telling me he felt threatened when SPARRING but not when in an actual fight?

you are trying to use inductive logic to prove that margo cheated against cotto.

Inductive logic is taking specific cases and making a general statement.

your argument is: margarito cheated against mosley (a specific case), therefore he cheated in all his other fights (a general statement including the cotto bout).

the problem with your logic is that you only have one specific case in a failed attempt to make the general statement true. In inductive logic you need many specific cases. For you to make a strong case that margarito cheated against cotto, you would have to present a specific case before the cotto bout in which margarito cheated.f

since you cannot and do not have a specific case before the cotto bout that proves that margarito cheated, your inductive reason fails to prove that margarito cheated against cotto.

ergo: YOU FAIL!!!

[Pullcounter]

It will be near impossible to convict him of anything legally regarding the Cotto fight. However, as per this poll and most of the boxing world he has been convincted in the court of public opinion. In boxing that means a lot since members of the boxing world so frequently have to work together and since a great deal of his body of work is now thrown into question. So, regardless of ever actually being held accountable for the Cotto fight he will suffer pretty brutal consequences b/c the great deal of doubt surrounding it.

you are correct, in the court of public opinion (or the mob) margarito is thought to have cheated against cotto, but in truth it cannot be proven.

[DrewWoodside]

you are trying to use inductive logic to prove that margo cheated against cotto.

Inductive logic is taking specific cases and making a general statement.

your argument is: margarito cheated against mosley (a specific case), therefore he cheated in all his other fights (a general statement including the cotto bout).

the problem with your logic is that you only have one specific case in a failed attempt to make the general statement true. In inductive logic you need many specific cases. For you to make a strong case that margarito cheated against cotto, you would have to present a specific case before the cotto bout in which margarito cheated.f

since you cannot and do not have a specific case before the cotto bout that proves that margarito cheated, your inductive reason fails to prove that margarito cheated against cotto.

ergo: YOU FAIL!!!

The strength of the case with Mosley and the additional information surrounding the two respective situations(Cotto & Mosley) is more than enough to draw the conclusion that Margarito cheated. Specific cases does not exclusively mean instances in which Margarito was caught cheating. You can use all the clever logic in the world but everything points to YES he did cheat against Cotto. If you don't think that's the case that is also fair, but for you to say that it is impossible to believe Margarito cheated is incorrect. You have proven nothing. You have an elaborate post written under a poll in which 80% of voters completely disagree with you. I think you need to start from scratch and try again.

[Tony Mαrgαrito]

probably...

Creer es dudar.

[Left2body]

you are trying to use inductive logic to prove that margo cheated against cotto.

Inductive logic is taking specific cases and making a general statement.

your argument is: margarito cheated against mosley (a specific case), therefore he cheated in all his other fights (a general statement including the cotto bout).

the problem with your logic is that you only have one specific case in a failed attempt to make the general statement true. In inductive logic you need many specific cases. For you to make a strong case that margarito cheated against cotto, you would have to present a specific case before the cotto bout in which margarito cheated.f

since you cannot and do not have a specific case before the cotto bout that proves that margarito cheated, your inductive reason fails to prove that margarito cheated against cotto.

ergo: YOU FAIL!!!

First no one said he cheated in ALL his fights.

Secondly, YOU STATED and brought up the Sparring session and stated that he "...so it could be a pad from sparring with rashad..." The blood on the pad means that the pad WAS used before. Unless your saying the pad was his wifes Cotex pad.

Can anyone PROVE he used it in any other fights.....NO. Could anyone PROVE that Luis Resto loaded his gloves in previous fights....NO, but guess what he did.

[DrewWoodside]

Creer es dudar.

Excellent, the man himself is here. Now we can clear this up once and for all. Tony.. Did you use illegal handwraps against Cotto? Be honest dude.