Pacquiao, Lil Floyd negative for drug use

[-The Glove-]

Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr., came out negative during the random-style urine testing procedure conducted on them, before negotiations for their projected 12-round mega-bout fell apart two weeks ago.

Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) executive director Keith Kizer announced that the urine samples taken from the two boxing icons “came back negative for all prohibited substances."

Pacquiao and Mayweather were ordered to undergo the procedure as part of a random out-of-competition drug-testing practice of the commission, since both fighters are licensed in Nevada.

The two provided samples last Dec. 28.

Pacquiao was tested in his hometown in General Santos City, the sample of which was taken in Malaysia, while Mayweather underwent the same process in his hometown in Las Vegas.

A disagreement in the drug-testing procedure to be conducted on Pacquiao and Mayweather Jr. hindered what many believe could have been the richest and biggest fight ever in the history of boxing.

That gave way to a Pacquiao-Joshua Clottey 12-round showdown on March 13 at the Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, where the Filipino’s World Boxing Organization (WBO) welterweight belt will be at stake. – GMANews.TV

[Random1]

Let me take care of the arguments in advance:

DUH! It was because they only tested the urine. Pac is on stuff anyway!

No you idiot, urine is good enough. Pac is clean!

[oc9979]

Im not going to make a thread so I'll post it here.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases—when they involve public figures—rarely prevail.

Before this decision there were nearly US$300 million in libel actions outstanding against news organizations from the Southern states and these had caused many publications to exercise great caution when reporting on civil rights, for fear that they might be held accountable for libel. After the New York Times prevailed in this case, news organizations were free to report the widespread disorder and civil rights infringements. The Times maintained that the case against it was brought to intimidate news organizations and prevent them from reporting illegal actions of public employees in the South as they attempted to continue to support segregation.

[General Zod]

Fights not going to happen

[MrEvol]

Fights not going to happen

Hope it happens sometime this year...

[-EX-]

As expected..........

[Toxic]

Hope it happens sometime this year...

fight will never happen

too much ego already on both sides