Lawsuit? How ****** are they?? LOL

[OnePunch]

1 Mayweather sr. knew it was false since Pacman was never tested positive

2 The purpose is obvious to damage the credibility of Pacman and the boxing governing body that do the testing.

You have more excuse...
Im not a lawyer by the way just putting common sense......

1. "Never tested positive" doesnt mean anything. That's like saying "well since I've never failed a breathalyzer, therefore that means that I have never been drunk". The 2 things aren't related as it pertains to the law. And dont forget that Shane Mosley never tested positive either, yet he admitted to the Balco allegation.

2. The purpose could have been simply to offer his opinion. Pac would have to prove otherwise.


and "common sense" has nothing to do with the law. If it did, then OJ would have been convicted the first time around........lol

[PensionKiller]

Actually, I think it's just posturing on both sides. I can see where Floyd is coming from, when you look at the fact that Manny went from going life and death twice with Marquez to completely destroying Hatton, DLH, and Cotto. It does raise eyebrows.

On the other hand, Team Pac is well within their rights to say no.

For me, the irony here is that the undisputed KING of unreasonable demands (Pac), like making a defending champion come in 2 pounds under the weight limit, and limiting the amount of rehydration that DLH could do, is acting all offended that a potentially unreasonable request is being made of him. What goes around.........lol

Total fabrication of limiting oscars ring weight.

Are you paulie malliagi?

[Amazinger]

This is true.

The NSAC is quoted as saying that Pacquiao has never failed a drug test, ever.

Mayweather Sr's defamation of Pacquiao has been strong enough that other boxers have came out saying they won't fight him without olympic-style testing.

Will Pacquiao win the case if he goes through with it? We'll see.

It's only Floyd Mayweather sr. and Malignaggi....And Malignaggi will suffer for his libelious allegation....

And if it is really that strong then they should complain that the NSAC must be dismantled and replaced by another credible entity....

NSAC should get their Asses on this issue since their
own existense/credibility is in jeopardy.

[menoari]

Onepunch, you were impressive with the first post, mentioning necessary elements of slander, but you messed up by posting this ---

"For me, the irony here is that the undisputed KING of unreasonable demands (Pac), like making a defending champion come in 2 pounds under the weight limit, and limiting the amount of rehydration that DLH could do, is acting all offended that a potentially unreasonable request is being made of him. What goes around.........lol"

I doubt the bolded part to be true and at the very least that kind of provision would never become legal in a boxing contract.

Finally, it is also possible that the legal action to be pursued, if ever, may not even be slander or defamation, such as a tort case, where the burden of proof, required evidence, etc. would just be different.

[PensionKiller]

1. "Never tested positive" doesnt mean anything. That's like saying "well since I've never failed a breathalyzer, therefore that means that I have never been drunk". The 2 things aren't related as it pertains to the law. And dont forget that Shane Mosley never tested positive either, yet he admitted to the Balco allegation.

2. The purpose could have been simply to offer his opinion. Pac would have to prove otherwise.


and "common sense" has nothing to do with the law. If it did, then OJ would have been convicted the first time around........lol

Since he gets tested like every fighter, it is an indication that he is clean like every fighter. What has been said is that he is on it by Senior.

If the courts believe that he has been clean upon all his tests then Snr can get done for false accusations and damaging Pac's name.

Anyone can call anyone something otherwise. It doesn't work like that.

Innocent until proven guilty.

[OnePunch]

Onepunch, you were impressive with the first post, mentioning necessary elements of slander, but you messed up by posting this ---

"For me, the irony here is that the undisputed KING of unreasonable demands (Pac), like making a defending champion come in 2 pounds under the weight limit, and limiting the amount of rehydration that DLH could do, is acting all offended that a potentially unreasonable request is being made of him. What goes around.........lol"

I doubt the bolded part to be true and at the very least that kind of provision would never become legal in a boxing contract.

Obviously I cannot name my source, but I can tell you that it is someone who would know that information without question. But since I will not name the source, people are free to dismiss it. It really isn't relevant to this debate though........

[OnePunch]

Since he gets tested like every fighter, it is an indication that he is clean like every fighter. What has been said is that he is on it by Senior.

If the courts believe that he has been clean upon all his tests then Snr can get done for false accusations and damaging Pac's name.

Anyone can call anyone something otherwise. It doesn't work like that.

Innocent until proven guilty.

We're going around and around here. It's like this. There is NO BURDEN OF PROOF ON FLOYD SR. He's not suing anyone. If Pac sues Floyd Sr., the burden of proof is on PAC to prove that Floyd Sr. KNEW what he said was false. And nobody can prove what Floyd knew or didnt know.

"Public Figures" get very little protection from the courts in this area of the law.......

[menoari]

Obviously I cannot name my source, but I can tell you that it is someone who would know that information without question. But since I will not name the source, people are free to dismiss it. It really isn't relevant to this debate though........

It's cool bro. Legal knowledge and an unnameable source of inside info? Can't argue with that. I just want to see the fight TBH, not really interested in the finer legal aspects of this issue.

[OnePunch]

It's cool bro. Legal knowledge and an unnameable source of inside info? Can't argue with that. I just want to see the fight TBH, not really interested in the finer legal aspects of this issue.

True. As a fan I want to see the fight happen too. As for the legal stuff, had I not researched it all when it happened to Nate last year I probably wouldnt give a **** about it either.......lol

I still remember one of my attorneys telling me..... "Look, I'll file it if you want. But just know that they'll get it kicked on summary judgement and then they'll ask the court for you to pay their fees".

That was the end of our idea about suing Willie Savannah lol

[jrosales13]

True. As a fan I want to see the fight happen too. As for the legal stuff, had I not researched it all when it happened to Nate last year I probably wouldnt give a **** about it either.......lol

I still remember one of my attorneys telling me..... "Look, I'll file it if you want. But just know that they'll get it kicked on summary judgement and then they'll ask the court for you to pay their fees".

That was the end of our idea about suing Willie Savannah lol

This is off topic and you probably answered this already. But, I have a question.

Nate was so against GBP... And, now he signed with them why?

Why was he against GBP? And, what made him change his mind?