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

[IronDanHamza]

But legally it is because it refers to the avoidance of the test which would prove guilt or innocence, that's how circumstantial evidence works in court, its circumstances that point towards guilt or innocence.

This from law books

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Circumstantial evidence requires drawing additional reasonable inferences in order to support the claim.

It's not though because he was willing to do the test itself just with a cut off date. Either way it's not evidence of Pacquaio using PEDs.

I'd say Mayweather's IV use is more su****ious than Pacquaio's testing issues persaonlly, especially considering he carried out those same tests eventually whilst still being a Top 2 P4P fighter in the world and didn't decline in muscle mass, cardio, etc.

[Roadblock]

It's not though because he was willing to do the test itself just with a cut off date. Either way it's not evidence of Pacquaio using PEDs.

I'd say Mayweather's IV use is more su****ious than Pacquaio's testing issues persaonlly, especially considering he carried out those same tests eventually whilst still being a Top 2 P4P fighter in the world and didn't decline in muscle mass, cardio, etc.

lol, its is my friend Ive gave you the legal definitions that fit the bill to the letter I don't know what you think circumstantial evidence is have you ever really looked at what is accepted in court, agreeing to a partial test is not agreeing to full random testing which is the point of issue, it left out a window where PEDS could be hidden, so legally he refused full random testing, and that action is inferring that he could have on PEDS.

If Manny was on the stand and questioned on all this from refusing, then changing, then adding it makes me weak, scared of needles etc etc he would be so tied in knots with contradictions and changed stories he wouldn't know what to say.

At the end of the day I don't see how you can dismiss the legal definition.
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists.

As for Mays IV I don't find that as PED evidence, only because of the volume 700ml and he was tested before and after and it was witnessed by USADA, but testing negative before and after is strong evidence as is the volume used a low dose, now say all this went on and we didn't know the volume of Fluids, and he wasn't tested before and after the fluids, then that would be entirely different, its no one thing unless caught with your hand in the cookie jar saying that's not my hand, its generally lots of things that add up to truth or a lie.

[IronDanHamza]

lol, its is my friend Ive gave you the legal definitions that fit the bill to the letter I don't know what you think circumstantial evidence is have you ever really looked at what is accepted in court, agreeing to a partial test is not agreeing to full random testing which is the point of issue, it left out a window where PEDS could be hidden, so legally he refused full random testing, and that action is inferring that he could have on PEDS.

If Manny was on the stand and questioned on all this from refusing, then changing, then adding it makes me weak, scared of needles etc etc he would be so tied in knots with contradictions and changed stories he wouldn't know what to say.

At the end of the day I don't see how you can dismiss the legal definition.
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists.

As for Mays IV I don't find that as PED evidence, only because of the volume 700ml and he was tested before and after and it was witnessed by USADA, but testing negative before and after is strong evidence as is the volume used a low dose, now say all this went on and we didn't know the volume of Fluids, and he wasn't tested before and after the fluids, then that would be entirely different, its no one thing unless caught with your hand in the cookie jar saying that's not my hand, its generally lots of things that add up to truth or a lie.

There's a number of reasons as to why he might have refused the test though. We can't assert it was due to PED use and it's why it's not evidence for PED use.

Pacquaio didn't say he was scared of needles for one but even if he did, maybe he is? That's not a crime. He's not lying either when saying blood tests make you feel weak, they objectively do. So that wouldn't stick either.

I don't dismiss the legal definition but I do dismiss that it's circumstantial evidence that Pacquaio used PED's because it's just not. It's evidence that he didn't want to do a drug test up to the day of the fight and that's all its evidence of.

It's not evidence for PED use for Floyd either no but it is very su****ious that a guy who doesn't cut weight is using an IV with that kind of volume that's way above the legal limit. It's no less su****ious than Pacquaio wanting a cut off date for drug testing, at least.

[BodyBagz]

Don't see how the above would be any kind of evidence toward Pacquaio using PEDs?

You wouldn't allow yourself to examine the possibility if your life depended on it

His mind tells him something that science tells him otherwise

[BodyBagz]

And that would prove what? What real boxing fan wants to see an ancient Pac fighting arguably the best P4P boxer in the world?

Im only sending out a reminder to Pac.
He's doing a lot of talking

[BodyBagz]

I hope we can finally stop with the PBF/May was responsible for the fight not happening sooner garbage

[IronDanHamza]

You wouldn't allow yourself to examine the possibility if your life depended on it

His mind tells him something that science tells him otherwise

How do you work that one out?

I am of the opinion that Manny Pacquaio was on PED's for the vast majority of his career. I'd go as far to say from my expert opinion that the chances are extremely likely. So your fallacy argument doesn't hold up there.

None of that changes the fact what you presented is not evidence for Pacquaio using PEDs and in reality there is no evidence that he used PEDs.

[BodyBagz]

How do you work that one out?

I am of the opinion that Manny Pacquaio was on PED's for the vast majority of his career. I'd go as far to say from my expert opinion that the chances are extremely likely. So your fallacy argument doesn't hold up there.

None of that changes the fact what you presented is not evidence for Pacquaio using PEDs and in reality there is no evidence that he used PEDs.

"His mind" could tell him he could jump off a skysc****r and fly like a bird.
Science would tell him otherwise.

"In my mind, it doesn't make sense to take blood out so close to fight night ."

[BodyBagz]

If a person acts like he/she has something to hide, chances are they do

[Roadblock]

There's a number of reasons as to why he might have refused the test though. We can't assert it was due to PED use and it's why it's not evidence for PED use.

Pacquaio didn't say he was scared of needles for one but even if he did, maybe he is? That's not a crime. He's not lying either when saying blood tests make you feel weak, they objectively do. So that wouldn't stick either.

I don't dismiss the legal definition but I do dismiss that it's circumstantial evidence that Pacquaio used PED's because it's just not. It's evidence that he didn't want to do a drug test up to the day of the fight and that's all its evidence of.

It's not evidence for PED use for Floyd either no but it is very su****ious that a guy who doesn't cut weight is using an IV with that kind of volume that's way above the legal limit. It's no less su****ious than Pacquaio wanting a cut off date for drug testing, at least.

The reason of refusal would be asked for under oath, the reason the question is circumstantial is because on face value his action of refusing infers guilt, it does not infer innocence especially when the rest of the circumstantial pieces come into play, his answers clarify or sink him as to why he refused. he has already offered reasons in videos and print and they contradict each other, I think Manny would be pulled to pieces in questioning under oath.

Circumstantial evidence doesn't prove guilt. Its a part of fact-finding to get to the truth; it is about an action that infers guilt; think on that for a bit, look up the definitions yourself every version fits the bill.

With May and the fluids there is factors such as the volume and that he gave negative tests before and after that actually rule out PED use, a heckler in the back of the court yelling out he paid off USADA and everybody else doesn't mean anything, only the known facts are questioned and judged.