Comments Thread For: Manny Pacquiao 'Ready to Go' for Conor Benn Fight in Saudi Arabia in May/June

[IronDanHamza]

I don't have an argument I have a statement backed up by what is legal definition.

Wtf are you on about address the post you quoted how can you say the legal definition is wrong, show me how it is not circumstantial evidence, Ive given you the official definition so you give me your definition? You say it isn't yet cannot say why.

I'm aware that you think you do, but in reality you don't.

Your basis for evidence is Pacquaio didn't want to undergo testing without a cut off date, then 3 years later underwent testing without a cut off date.

How, in any stretch of the imagination, is that any kind of evidence that Pacquaio was on PEDs?

[Roadblock]

I'm aware that you think you do, but in reality you don't.

Your basis for evidence is Pacquaio didn't want to undergo testing without a cut off date, then 3 years later underwent testing without a cut off date.

How, in any stretch of the imagination, is that any kind of evidence that Pacquaio was on PEDs?

You are avoiding a direct question like the plague, give me your definition of " circumstantial evidence" Ive given you the legal definition give me yours seeing as you say they are wrong. Dont avoid it.

For some reason chatting with you I get a vision of a big kid sitting in the corner sucking his thumb, mumbling, NO NO, I don't want to hear, NO NO, go away, I don't care about proof just NO, stomp stomp.

[IronDanHamza]

You are avoiding a direct question like the plague, give me your definition of " circumstantial evidence" Ive given you the legal definition give me yours seeing as you say they are wrong. Dont avoid it.

For some reason chatting with you I get a vision of a big kid sitting in the corner sucking his thumb, mumbling, NO NO, I don't want to hear, NO NO, go away, I don't care about proof just NO, stomp stomp.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence where you infer, connecting the dots essentially.

Why your example doesn't qualify as that is because the fact the Pacquaio didn't want to do a particular drug testing procedure in 2010 to then do that testing in 2013 has no bearing what so ever on PED use. There could be a plethora of legitimate, explainable reasons as to why he did that. Which is why, it's not evidence. It's not even close to evidence at all and at best it's so weak that it wouldn't be considered as such.

An example of circumstantial evidence would be something along the lines of someone got shot and 3 roads down 5 mins later you're caught holding a gun and signs of an altercation on your clothing or something like that, so there isn't physical evidence such as DNA but you can connect the dots as to how they could possibly be the person who did the attack.

Not turning down a drug testing procedure and 3 years later doing the drug testing procedure. That is not evidence in any way. I've already explained that multiple times.

In all honesty for things such as PED use I don't even know why circumstantial evidence is even being argued in the first place. It's next to impossible to prove outside the realms or if's but's and maybe's.

The last line is comical All I care about is proof. You are painting something that is not proof as some kind of proof. It's laughable.

[Roadblock]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence where you infer, connecting the dots essentially.

Why your example doesn't qualify as that is because the fact the Pacquaio didn't want to do a particular drug testing procedure in 2010 to then do that testing in 2013 has no bearing what so ever on PED use. There could be a plethora of legitimate, explainable reasons as to why he did that. Which is why, it's not evidence. It's not even close to evidence at all and at best it's so weak that it wouldn't be considered as such.

An example of circumstantial evidence would be something along the lines of someone got shot and 3 roads down 5 mins later you're caught holding a gun and signs of an altercation on your clothing or something like that, so there isn't physical evidence such as DNA but you can connect the dots as to how they could possibly be the person who did the attack.

Not turning down a drug testing procedure and 3 years later doing the drug testing procedure. That is not evidence in any way. I've already explained that multiple times.

In all honesty for things such as PED use I don't even know why circumstantial evidence is even being argued in the first place. It's next to impossible to prove outside the realms or if's but's and maybe's.

The last line is comical All I care about is proof. You are painting something that is not proof as some kind of proof. It's laughable.

Have you back up to your stance other than your opinion? Can you show a legal term that disqualifies these as being circumstantial evidence IF Manny was prosecuted for suspected PED use which is when it would apply?

Thats pretty clear on the situation it would come under.

And even stranger is your first comment: "circumstantial evidence is evidence where you infer, connecting the dots essentially." which is exactly what this is and you don't even understand what youre saying.

In that situation Im saying the fact he refused to be tested, gave documented reasons for refusing testing which he later condraticted are all circumstantial evidence as written by the official law definitions. here are a few. Take your pick, or show a legal quote that dismisses it as not being circumstantial evidence.

You are wrong its as plain as day and yes you are siting in the corner acting like snotty nose child refusing to accept what is a fact.

Legal definition
Circumstantial evidence, in law, is evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact

Also known as indirect evidence. Evidence that does not directly prove a fact in dispute, but allows the fact finder to draw a reasonable inference about the existence or non-existence of a fact based on the evidence. It is different from direct evidence, which establishes the existence or non-existence of a fact on its own. The law does not differentiate the weight a fact finder is to give to circumstantial or direct evidence; they are to be treated equally.

[IronDanHamza]

Have you back up to your stance other than your opinion? Can you show a legal term that disqualifies these as being circumstantial evidence IF Manny was prosecuted for suspected PED use which is when it would apply?

Again bringing up fantasy legal trials which is an ABSURD argument.

I've literally just explained to you why that would not qualify as evidence and have done numerous times.

Thats pretty clear on the situation it would come under.

And even stranger is your first comment: "circumstantial evidence is evidence where you infer, connecting the dots essentially." which is exactly what this is and you don't even understand what youre saying.

In that situation Im saying the fact he refused to be tested, gave documented reasons for refusing testing which he later condraticted are all circumstantial evidence as written by the official law definitions. here are a few. Take your pick, or show a legal quote that dismisses it as not being circumstantial evidence.

Except it's not a contradiction at all. Which I've also explained multiple times.

You are wrong its as plain as day and yes you are siting in the corner acting like snotty nose child refusing to accept what is a fact.

If that makes you feel better, buddy

Legal definition
Circumstantial evidence, in law, is evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact

Also known as indirect evidence. Evidence that does not directly prove a fact in dispute, but allows the fact finder to draw a reasonable inference about the existence or non-existence of a fact based on the evidence. It is different from direct evidence, which establishes the existence or non-existence of a fact on its own. The law does not differentiate the weight a fact finder is to give to circumstantial or direct evidence; they are to be treated equally.

Right, I know.

Pacquaio's situation isn't evidence for either.

So we again circle back to the evidence for Pacquaio using PEDs, which is exactly zero.

[Roadblock]

Again bringing up fantasy legal trials which is an ABSURD argument.

I've literally just explained to you why that would not qualify as evidence and have done numerous times.



Except it's not a contradiction at all. Which I've also explained multiple times.



If that makes you feel better, buddy



Right, I know.

Pacquaio's situation isn't evidence for either.

So we again circle back to the evidence for Pacquaio using PEDs, which is exactly zero.

God dam I cant believe how stonewall to a fact you are, how can you say it doesn't apply yet the law states it does, every definition applies to these circumstances even your own inference to connecting dots, these are dots for crying out loud what part of comprehension don't you understand.

You must have a trial to enter circumstantial evidence, wtf are you saying you don't want to know about a fantasy trial, a trial is where it applies, what you are saying is madness.

You can say it to the cows come home and it wont make it true lol.

I tell you what I will bet you a thousand dollars and even pay a solicitor fee to get his professional legal opinion and you can select the solicitor, if he says it would qualify as circumstantial evidence you lose and pay me 1k, if he says it is not circumstantial evidence I will pay you 1k.

Come on step up and lets finish it, and I know you wont do this because you are wrong and it would be easiest 1k Ive made, come on Im all in.

What does circumstantial mean
Here is what the dictionary says it is.
adjective

1. 1.
   pointing indirectly towards someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it.
   "the prosecution will have to rely on circumstantial evidence"
   Similar:
   indirect
   inferred
   inferential
   deduced
   presumed
   conjectural
   contingent
   inconclusive
   unprovable
   presumptive
   implicative
   Opposite:
   provable
2. 2.
   (of a description) containing full details.
   "the picture was so circumstantial that it began to be convincing"

[IronDanHamza]

God dam I cant believe how stonewall to a fact you are, how can you say it doesn't apply yet the law states it does, every definition applies to these circumstances even your own inference to connecting dots, these are dots for crying out loud what part of comprehension don't you understand.

Except they aren't the dots. You have this idea that your example can connect the dots between Pacquaio and PED use but it does not.

You must have a trial to enter circumstantial evidence, wtf are you saying you don't want to know about a fantasy trial, a trial is where it applies, what you are saying is madness.

You can say it to the cows come home and it wont make it true lol.

Right, which is the whole point as to why your argument is ridiculous and doesn't qualify as evidence in any way.

I tell you what I will bet you a thousand dollars and even pay a solicitor fee to get his professional legal opinion and you can select the solicitor, if he says it would qualify as circumstantial evidence you lose and pay me 1k, if he says it is not circumstantial evidence I will pay you 1k.

Come on step up and lets finish it, and I know you wont do this because you are wrong and it would be easiest 1k Ive made, come on Im all in.

You live in a fucking dream world if you actually believe that a solicitor would ever consider that evidence in any way, shape or form

Maybe you should contact Floyd and get him some come back for the defamation case. Hell, you have to wonder why Floyd didn't just press charges and take this whole thing to court and get Pacquaio done for PED use Absolute bizarro world stuff.

How about this, I'll counter your offer and raise the stakes, since you are the one asserting it's evidence and the burden lies with you. You go and find me a solicitor that WOULD qualify your example as evidence and I will transfer you ONE TRILLION DOLLARS via paypal THE SAME DAY. I'm good for the money. We don't even need to bet I will just pay it you when you provide it and if you can't I expect no money back. It'll be the easiest trillion you've ever made.

Then after you get that, we may as well go all the way and pursue the whole thing legally and get Pacquaio in court under oath for PED use. Who shall we use? I'm thinking Jim Carey and he can play his character from Liar Liar.

It's actually laughable that you can't even fathom how ridiculous you sound. I really have no interest in this nonsense. There's NO evidence Pacquaio has used PEDs. End of story.

[Roadblock]

Except they aren't the dots. You have this idea that your example can connect the dots between Pacquaio and PED use but it does not.



Right, which is the whole point as to why your argument is ridiculous and doesn't qualify as evidence in any way.



You live in a fucking dream world if you actually believe that a solicitor would ever consider that evidence in any way, shape or form

Maybe you should contact Floyd and get him some come back for the defamation case. Hell, you have to wonder why Floyd didn't just press charges and take this whole thing to court and get Pacquaio done for PED use Absolute bizarro world stuff.

How about this, I'll counter your offer and raise the stakes, since you are the one asserting it's evidence and the burden lies with you. You go and find me a solicitor that WOULD qualify your example as evidence and I will transfer you ONE TRILLION DOLLARS via paypal THE SAME DAY. I'm good for the money. We don't even need to bet I will just pay it you when you provide it and if you can't I expect no money back. It'll be the easiest trillion you've ever made.

Then after you get that, we may as well go all the way and pursue the whole thing legally and get Pacquaio in court under oath for PED use. Who shall we use? I'm thinking Jim Carey and he can play his character from Liar Liar.

It's actually laughable that you can't even fathom how ridiculous you sound. I really have no interest in this nonsense. There's NO evidence Pacquaio has used PEDs. End of story.

The bet is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. get it right idiot .Come on, find an online solicitor, and I will do it now.

A trillion aye and in big bold capitols lol, just shows your idea of reality, what a fkn jerk-off you turned out to be.

[IronDanHamza]

The bet is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. get it right idiot .Come on, find an online solicitor, and I will do it now.

A trillion aye and in big bold capitols lol, just shows your idea of reality, what a fkn jerk-off you turned out to be.

Yes, ONE TRILLION, paid in full. Proof of funds can be sent at any time.

Get me a solicitor that your example of Pacquaio not doing a drug testing procedure in 2010 then doing a similar one in 2013 as qualifying as ANY kind of legitimate evidence that he used PEDs and the moneys yours. Easy money.

[BodyBagz]

22 pages , PAC still got it ....................Call me crazy but I like PAC in this fight despite his age ..

20 of the pages is Dan ''There Is No Evidence'' Hazma defending Pac's refusal to roll up his sleeve vs PBF/May
Pac is, as far as I know, the only human being to ever turn down $100 mil because he couldn't control when the tests were taken

Took it to court as opposed to letting a medical lab back up his claim
It's amazing he has any fans at all after that stunt.

Pac is not about to fight a live body, not w/o a clause.