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

[Roadblock]

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.

This what I will put to a solicitor , its about as clear as I can write it, both will place money with somebody on the forum, well that parts going to be hard and I don't trust you in any way or form, so lets make it easy to do, If I win you dump your account and leave, if you win I will close my account here.

Direct Accurate and to the point for a yes no answer,, you on?

Defendent is being prosecuted for suspected PED use.

Is the following "circumstantial evidence" in such a case.

He refuses random blood testing at the time of suspected PED use, written and video proof all dated can be submitted.
When questioned at the time of suspected PED use his reasons for refusing testing can be shown to be contradictive, written and video proof can be submitted.

[IronDanHamza]

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.

But you said yourself there's no evidence. Or are you now going back on that?

And at no point did I defend that decision, by the way. Actually the opposite, it's the sole reason for the fight not happening in 2010.

But that's not the discussion, is it? It's whether it's evidence or not, which, it's not. Which you yourself conceded but now seem to be implying the opposite. Why?

[Roadblock]

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.

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.

Additional Points:

• The specific laws and regulations regarding anti-doping testing can vary depending on the sport and governing body.
• It's important to consult with a lawyer specializing in sports law to understand the specific implications of refusing a test in a particular case.

[IronDanHamza]

This what I will put to a solicitor , its about as clear as I can write it, both will place money with somebody on the forum, well that parts going to be hard and I don't trust you in any way or form, so lets make it easy to do, If I win you dump your account and leave, if you win I will close my account here.

Direct Accurate and to the point for a yes no answer,, you on?

Defendent is being prosecuted for suspected PED use.

Is the following "circumstantial evidence" in such a case.

He refuses random blood testing at the time of suspected PED use, written and video proof all dated can be submitted.
When questioned at the time of suspected PED use his reasons for refusing testing can be shown to be contradictive, written and video proof can be submitted.

Well no that's not right because at no point did Pacquaio be show to be contradictive. As already explained. So no that part can't be included.

You can put across what actually happened;

Pacquaio was accused of suspected PED use, he refused to do random drug testing via USADA without a cut off date of 14 days in 2010, and then changed his mind on that and underwent random drug testing without a cut off date via VADA in 2013.

Does the above qualify as evidence in any way, shape or form?

If the answer is yes, you're a trillionaire. If it's not, no fee charged.

[IronDanHamza]

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.

Additional Points:

• The specific laws and regulations regarding anti-doping testing can vary depending on the sport and governing body.
• It's important to consult with a lawyer specializing in sports law to understand the specific implications of refusing a test in a particular case.

Great but that's all a moot point because at no point did Pacquaio refuse mandatory drug testing.

[Roadblock]

Great but that's all a moot point because at no point did Pacquaio refuse mandatory drug testing.

He refused random drug testing and we all know it, and you want to put out he didn't with a slimy play on words, what a douchbag.

You have dug a hole big enough to hide a horse in, as I said I thought you were a decent poster but one layer under the surface you are a terrible poster and the levels you went to here over a trivial thing only show just how little standup you have, you can hide behind a tag on the internet but it doesn't hide your weasel persona.

Well you lost so pay up or fck off, we had a bet to eliminate the ****man and you lost.

[Brother Mouzone]

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.

LOL , TBH the ped stuff is a non starter for me ..I assume all top tier athletes use , they fall into 2 categories those that get caught and those that do not .PEDS are not some magical substance , these athletes still put in the work .I also believe a lot of athletes do not even use them for "enhancement" (not denying it enhances performance)but more for recovery .

[BodyBagz]

LOL , TBH the ped stuff is a non starter for me ..I assume all top tier athletes use , they fall into 2 categories those that get caught and those that do not .PEDS are not some magical substance , these athletes still put in the work .I also believe a lot of athletes do not even use them for "enhancement" (not denying it enhances performance)but more for recovery .

Fan hypocrisy and whining nature is what make roids a bad thing.

[IronDanHamza]

He refused random drug testing and we all know it, and you want to put out he didn't with a slimy play on words, what a douchbag.

You have dug a hole big enough to hide a horse in, as I said I thought you were a decent poster but one layer under the surface you are a terrible poster and the levels you went to here over a trivial thing only show just how little standup you have, you can hide behind a tag on the internet but it doesn't hide your weasel persona.

Well you lost so pay up or fck off, we had a bet to eliminate the ****man and you lost.

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.

[IronDanHamza]

LOL , TBH the ped stuff is a non starter for me ..I assume all top tier athletes use , they fall into 2 categories those that get caught and those that do not .PEDS are not some magical substance , these athletes still put in the work .I also believe a lot of athletes do not even use them for "enhancement" (not denying it enhances performance)but more for recovery .

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.