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

[Roadblock]

Well, I'll say again that two negative tests absolutely does not prove that someone isn't taking PEDs.

If Floyd was using that very questionable IV to mask PEDs then the two negative drug tests are totally irrelevant and prove exactly zilch.

Right and him refusing a drug testing procedure is not proof of PED use. Thus the point.

Slow down Nellie, these tests were on either side of the Fluids supposedly used to mask PEDS, if they don't prove it what does, I guarantee you those two tests so close to the fight would be accepted as proof in court, the part you miss completely those two tests would stop the prosecution from taking it to court unless they had some very strong evidence to null and void them.

Refusing the test opens the door to prove whether he was using Peds or not, two very different scenarios, the point is Floyd was tested and passed Manny wasn't he refused.

[IronDanHamza]

In reference to the Manny is scared of needles remark in the press, by the look of it came from Arum.

“Four years ago, Manny's not afraid of needles. He's never been afraid of needles. Bob made that **** up to make sure that the first fight didn't happen, so write that,” Ariza told FightHype.com,
https://www.ibtimes.com.au/boxing-ne...trary-what-bob

Yeah, I'm aware where it came from.

Does Bob Arum speak for Manny Pacquaio? Is he his keeper? Not as far as I'm aware.

You said Pacquaio said he was scared of needles. That's not true, he didn't say that at any point. So let's stick to what's true and not make statements such as Pacquaio said he was scared of needles when at no point did he ever say that.

What someone else said in regards to that is irrelevant.

[IronDanHamza]

Slow down Nellie, these tests were on either side of the Fluids supposedly used to mask PEDS, if they don't prove it what does, I guarantee you those two tests so close to the fight would be accepted as proof in court, the part you miss completely those two tests would stop the prosecution from taking it to court unless they had some very strong evidence to null and void them.

Refusing the test opens the door to prove whether he was using Peds or not, two very different scenarios.

No, they wouldn't at all actually. So you'd be objectively wrong in making that guarantee there.

Athletes on PED's pass random drug testing procedures all the time. They aren't even overly difficult to beat to be honest and I know that first hand.

And on top of that, if he was using the IV to mask PED use then it makes the two negative tests even more irrelevant than they already are.

[Roadblock]

No, they wouldn't at all actually. So you'd be objectively wrong in making that guarantee there.

Athletes on PED's pass random drug testing procedures all the time. They aren't even overly difficult to beat to be honest and I know that first hand.

And on top of that, if he was using the IV to mask PED use then it makes the two negative tests even more irrelevant than they already are.

How can you say that, you have a judge impartial, you say this guy was on PEDS when given 700mls of IV, I offer the judge two official lab passed tests either side of the Fluids, what are you going to offer to convince my tests are invalid?

Your second comment makes no sense at all, its illogical, first if you are inferring the fluids was to mask peds he would have failed the test right before the fluids, because that passed and so did the other test after the fact would leave the judge no choice but to acknowledge the passed tests.

[IronDanHamza]

How can you say that, you have a judge impartial, you say this guy was on PEDS when given 700mls of IV, I offer the judge two official lab passed tests either side of the Fluids, what are you going to offer to convince my tests are invalid?



Your second comment makes no sense at all, its illogical, first if you are inferring the fluids was to mask peds he would have failed the test right before the fluids, because that passed and so did the other test after the fact would leave the judge no choice but to acknowledge the passed tests.

It makes perfect sense because passing a random drug testing procedure doesn't prove you aren't on PEDs first and foremost.

On top of that, if he was using the IV to mask PED use then the fact he passed a drug test after that is irrelevant, and if he was masking then he could have done the same to pass the one before for all we know.

Point is, passing a random drug test doesn't prove anything in regards to potential PED use.

[Roadblock]

Yeah, I'm aware where it came from.

Does Bob Arum speak for Manny Pacquaio? Is he his keeper? Not as far as I'm aware.

You said Pacquaio said he was scared of needles. That's not true, he didn't say that at any point. So let's stick to what's true and not make statements such as Pacquaio said he was scared of needles when at no point did he ever say that.

What someone else said in regards to that is irrelevant.

Dont hang of trivial phrasing, Manny didn't say it I thought he did, Arunm said it which I put up as proof.

It's like you are trying to find something to evade the rest of it. The fear of needles is only one part it's neither here nor there in the entirety. There are many more, and in our imaginary trial, Bob would have to explain why he said it, so it's all relevant towards innocence or guilt.

[IronDanHamza]

Dont hang of trivial phrasing, Manny didn't say it I thought he did, Arunm said it which I put up as proof.

It's like you are trying to find something to evade the rest of it. The fear of needles is only one part it's neither here nor there in the entirety. There are many more, and in our imaginary trial, Bob would have to explain why he said it, so it's all relevant towards innocence or guilt.

It's not trivial. It changes everything when it's one of the two things you said he said and thus the basis of your argument. When the fact of the matter is he didn't say it and never has. Bob Arum said it, but that's totally irrelevant.

Many more where? You've listed one at the moment which is blood tests make him feel weak which is objectively true in regards to what happens when you take a blood test. What else is there?

[Roadblock]

It makes perfect sense because passing a random drug testing procedure doesn't prove you aren't on PEDs first and foremost.

On top of that, if he was using the IV to mask PED use then the fact he passed a drug test after that is irrelevant, and if he was masking then he could have done the same to pass the one before for all we know.

Point is, passing a random drug test doesn't prove anything in regards to potential PED use.

I think the WADA-certified lab tests would have your reply thrown out of court. I've seen many statements dismissed because they were narratives with no proof, basically hearsay and innuendo; you would have to prove those 2 passed tests were wrong, altered, or tampered with to win this point, and on face value, you could not do that.

The second test is only icing on the cake as far as the judge would be concerned it would just drive home,e the first test was also passed, the first passed test right before the Fluids would seal the win, as I said I don't think you understand how the legal system works.

[IronDanHamza]

I think the WADA-certified lab tests would have your reply thrown out of court. I've seen many statements dismissed because they were narratives with no proof, basically hearsay and innuendo; you would have to prove those 2 passed tests were wrong, altered, or tampered with to win this point, and on face value, you could not do that.

The second test is only icing on the cake as far as the judge would be concerned it would just drive home,e the first test was also passed, the first passed test right before the Fluids would seal the win, as I said I don't think you understand how the legal system works.

I don't think you have any idea what would and wouldn't happen what so ever to be honest.

Your literal entire argument is hearsay How could you possibly use that as an argument here with a straight face?

We know for a fact that passing a random drug testing procedure does not necessarily prove someone isn't taking PEDs. We literally know that as a fact. So the fact Floyd passed a one doesn't prove anything at all.

I'm not really interested in all this imaginary trial stuff, you took it there for whatever reason, maybe in the imaginary trial Cousin Vinny is the lawyer and they all get off? And maybe a gun man walks in and shoots everyone so the trial ends up being pointless. It's all nonsensical stuff

None of it changes the the actual point here that the facts are there is zero evidence that Pacquaio used PEDs (nor Floyd).

[BodyBagz]

at·tri·tion
/əˈtriSHən/

noun

1. 1.
   the action or process of gradually reducing the strength or effectiveness of someone or something through sustained attack or pressure.
   "the council is trying to wear down the opposition by attrition"