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

[BodyBagz]

Accelerated recovery is enhancement.

But you're not wrong in what you say in regards to most top tier athletes using them. Most people in the local gym use them let alone elite athletes.

The chances of Pacquao using PED's is extremely high. But still, there is no evidence that he did.

Without having evidence....you clicked enter on the bold
Yet, you say there is no proof with Pac
Just assumptions/accusations

Since you have no documented proof of ANYONE using (outside of those who were already busted), why not use the ''no proof'' term universally ?

[Roadblock]

Well, no it's not playing with words, it's what happened.

He refused random testing without a cut off of 14 days, that's what happened. He didn't refuse mandatory testing.

I lost how? Lost at what? Do you have a solicitor who has confirmed that your example is evidence in any way? If so I'll send the Trillion now.

You don't comprehend very well, do you, changing the random to a known date is refusing random testing.




In a suspected PED case, refusing a random blood test can be considered circumstantial evidence against the defendant. Here's why:

• Adverse Inference: Athletes are typically required to comply with anti-doping regulations, which often include mandatory testing. Refusing a test can be seen as an attempt to avoid detection of banned substances.
• Consciousness of Guilt: The prosecution might argue that the defendant refused the test because they feared a positive result, suggesting they had something to hide.

However, it's important to note that refusing a blood test is not conclusive evidence of PED use. Here are some factors the court might consider:

• Legitimate Reasons for Refusal: The defendant might have had a legitimate reason for refusing the test, such as fear of needles or a medical condition. They would need to provide evidence to support this claim.
• Testing Procedures: The defense might argue that the testing procedures weren't properly followed, raising doubts about the validity of any potential positive result.
• Alternative Explanations: Contradictions in the defendant's reasons for refusing the test could be interpreted in different ways. The defense might argue that the contradictions were due to stress or confusion, not an attempt to deceive.

Strength of Evidence:

The weight given to the refusal as evidence will depend on the specific circumstances of the case. Here's what strengthens the prosecution's case:

• Strength of Other Evidence: If there's other evidence suggesting PED use (e.g., possession of banned substances, unusual training patterns), refusing the test becomes more incriminating.
• Nature of Contradictions: If the defendant's reasons for refusing are demonstrably false or illogical, it strengthens the argument that they were trying to avoid detection.

Overall:

While refusing a blood test can be used as circumstantial evidence against the defendant, it's not enough to secure a conviction on its own. The prosecution will need to present a compelling case with additional evidence to convince the court of the defendant's guilt.

[IronDanHamza]

Without having evidence....you clicked enter on the bold
Yet, you say there is no proof with Pac
Just assumptions/accusations

Since you have no documented proof of ANYONE using (outside of those who were already busted), why not use the ''no proof'' term universally ?

Right, exactly. I do use that term universally, when there is no evidence.

Most elite athletes are using PED's in my opinion, Pacquaio included.

That doesn't change the fact that we have no evidence for the majority of them, Pacquaio included.

[IronDanHamza]

You don't comprehend very well, do you, changing the random to a known date is refusing random testing.

No it's not. It's refusing random testing...Without a cut off date. That is literally what it is. Let's stick to what it is and not what you want it to be in your head.

In a suspected PED case, refusing a random blood test can be considered circumstantial evidence against the defendant. Here's why:

• Adverse Inference: Athletes are typically required to comply with anti-doping regulations, which often include mandatory testing. Refusing a test can be seen as an attempt to avoid detection of banned substances.
• Consciousness of Guilt: The prosecution might argue that the defendant refused the test because they feared a positive result, suggesting they had something to hide.

However, it's important to note that refusing a blood test is not conclusive evidence of PED use. Here are some factors the court might consider:

• Legitimate Reasons for Refusal: The defendant might have had a legitimate reason for refusing the test, such as fear of needles or a medical condition. They would need to provide evidence to support this claim.
• Testing Procedures: The defense might argue that the testing procedures weren't properly followed, raising doubts about the validity of any potential positive result.
• Alternative Explanations: Contradictions in the defendant's reasons for refusing the test could be interpreted in different ways. The defense might argue that the contradictions were due to stress or confusion, not an attempt to deceive.

Strength of Evidence:

The weight given to the refusal as evidence will depend on the specific circumstances of the case. Here's what strengthens the prosecution's case:

• Strength of Other Evidence: If there's other evidence suggesting PED use (e.g., possession of banned substances, unusual training patterns), refusing the test becomes more incriminating.
• Nature of Contradictions: If the defendant's reasons for refusing are demonstrably false or illogical, it strengthens the argument that they were trying to avoid detection.

Overall:

While refusing a blood test can be used as circumstantial evidence against the defendant, it's not enough to secure a conviction on its own. The prosecution will need to present a compelling case with additional evidence to convince the court of the defendant's guilt.

What is this wall of text?

Did a Solicitor write this up for you?

[Roadblock]

No it's not. It's refusing random testing...Without a cut off date. That is literally what it is. Let's stick to what it is and not what you want it to be in your head.





What is this wall of text?

Did a Solicitor write this up for you?

Yes and it proves you are wrong so be a man and admit it instead of a child stomping the floor in denial, there was no need for all your BS it was no big deal until you made one.

By its own definition saying you will only accept known cut of dates is refusing random testing, you cant be this ****** .

[IronDanHamza]

Yes and it proves you are wrong so be a man and admit it instead of a child stomping the floor in denial, there was no need for all your BS it was no big deal until you made one.

Oh, I didn't know that. You got that in record time.

How do I know you got it from a solicitor and that you didn't just write it up yourself?

[Roadblock]

Oh, I didn't know that. You got that in record time.

How do I know you got it from a solicitor and that you didn't just write it up yourself?

If I were less intelligent I would be enjoying your dumbness, just man up you wet rag.

I suggest you comprehend what it says.

[IronDanHamza]

If I were less intelligent I would be enjoying your dumbness, just man up you wet rag.

I suggest you comprehend what it says.

You can't honestly expect me to part with a trillion dollars without you proving that that's come from a solicitor and that you didn't just write it up yourself?

[Roadblock]

You can't honestly expect me to part with a trillion dollars without you proving that that's come from a solicitor and that you didn't just write it up yourself?

All you got is a trillion lines of BS, your a loser.

[IronDanHamza]

All you got is a trillion lines of BS, your a loser.

Look, are you going to provide the source of the solicitor who wrote this out so I can confirm it, or not?

Because if not, there's nothing left to say here.

If so, I'll need your details to send the money.