Hate to break it to the tards on this forum, but the general consensus is that Pac...

[Lead Cenobite]

I was unaware that the general public took a poll on this subject.

Please stop attempting to pass Boxingscene member opinions off as general public consensus.

I wasn't trying to. That was the point.

[S.G.]

You can say the same thing about every fighter that will participate and has participated in a fight without Olympic style blood testing. That's every fight in history.

Well, unfortunately no one has had the initiative to try to implement better testing previously.

And I voiced my su****ion that a lot of top level boxers are probably using PEDs long before the Pacquiao issue came to light.

Why the presumption of guilt for this one fighter? Where's the evidence?

Where exactly do you expect this evidence to come from? Do you need evidence before you're allowed to be su****ious now? I'll answer the question actually, no. No you don't. If you're familiar with the legal trialing process you'll know that evidence collection comes after su****ions are vocalised a lot of the time. Evidence collection is required of prosecution - which Pacquiao has not faced yet - but not necessarily accusations. And unfortunately in this case the evidence collection process is wholey subject to Pacquiao's submittance. Meaning we can't prove him guilty or innocent without his permission. And I've already explained what I think the logical conclusion of his refusal to allow the matter to be concluded is.

I'm starting to doubt that. Arguably, he can prove:

1. Defamatory statements

2. Publication

3. Actual Malice (statements were made with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not)

4. Damages (his public rep is in the toilet and still flushing)

I don't think the request of more thorough testing qualifies as character assassination frankly.

[MOREBASS]

My question is this:

Where were all of you supporters of additional testing, and NSAC naysayers before this whole ordeal?



Please, someone dig through the archives and fight a thread, hell...even a post where someone is recommending additional testing for fighters, because the NSAC's testing is archaic and needed to be revamped.

[Lead Cenobite]

Well, unfortunately no one has had the initiative to try to implement better testing previously.

And I voiced my su****ion that a lot of top level boxers are probably using PEDs long before the Pacquiao issue came to light.


Where exactly do you expect this evidence to come from? Do you need evidence before you're allowed to be su****ious now? I'll answer the question actually, no. No you don't. If you're familiar with the legal trialing process you'll know that evidence collection comes after su****ions are vocalised a lot of the time. Evidence collection is required of prosecution - which Pacquiao has not faced yet - but not necessarily accusations. And unfortunately in this case the evidence collection process is wholey subject to Pacquiao's submittance. Meaning we can't prove him guilty or innocent without his permission. And I've already explained what I think the logical conclusion of his refusal to allow the matter to be concluded is.


I don't think the request of more thorough testing qualifies as character assassination frankly.

Plus the fact that Floyd himself hasn't outright said anything. So sue the Crackhead all you want. Then fight Paulie a guy who said the same stuff but worse but dont sue him. To be a true hypocrite.

[Maidana vs Rios]

Are you really making this argument? Wow. The NSAC and most sporting commissions are far behind in drug testing and their drug tests are mostly a joke. They don't adopt it because they want to make money but also have plausible denial that they DID test and tried to test.

Look- personally I've always thought Manny is innocent. But even I am disturbed by his stance and how he's behaving.

I would think it's more complicated than you think. How do you ensure security? How do you prevent tampering? Who does the actual testing? How do you ensure security/tampering at that company's site? What exactly do you test for? How do we all agree on the answers to all this?

Devil is in the details.

[mellow_mood]

it would be funny and lovely to see both fighters going to other direction and both of them lose to lesser opponents

[Lead Cenobite]

I would think it's more complicated than you think. How do you ensure security? How do you prevent tampering? Who does the actual testing? How do you ensure security/tampering at that company's site? What exactly do you test for? How do we all agree on the answers to all this?

Devil is in the details.

That much I can agree with to a POINT. But seriously? It's not a tampering issue. It's simply an issue of blood testing > urine testing. For PEDs anyway.

But it's not perfect either. But better. As long as it was done independent of either camp (which shouldn't be so hard) there should be no problem.

[Maidana vs Rios]

Well, unfortunately no one has had the initiative to try to implement better testing previously.

And I voiced my su****ion that a lot of top level boxers are probably using PEDs long before the Pacquiao issue came to light.


Where exactly do you expect this evidence to come from? Do you need evidence before you're allowed to be su****ious now? I'll answer the question actually, no. No you don't. If you're familiar with the legal trialing process you'll know that evidence collection comes after su****ions are vocalised a lot of the time. Evidence collection is required of prosecution - which Pacquiao has not faced yet - but not necessarily accusations. And unfortunately in this case the evidence collection process is wholey subject to Pacquiao's submittance. Meaning we can't prove him guilty or innocent without his permission. And I've already explained what I think the logical conclusion of his refusal to allow the matter to be concluded is.


I don't think the request of more thorough testing qualifies as character assassination frankly.

I was talking more about Sr.'s statements, though Jr. has made statements full of innuendo in radio and video interviews.

[Lead Cenobite]

I was talking more about Sr.'s statements, though Jr. has made statements full of innuendo in radio and video interviews.

Innuendo != lawsuit. That's laughable.

And frankly a ***** move on Pac's part if he sues anyone but Floyd Sr.

And even then a ***** move. Pretty easy to prove you aren't on drugs. lol.

[S.G.]

I was talking more about Sr.'s statements, though Jr. has made statements full of innuendo in radio and video interviews.

Point still stands. They vocalised their su****ions, then attempted to prove their su****ions but Pacquiao wouldn't allow them to.