If you support Mayweather, or his drug testing "demands"...

[tesla_power]

I don't support Mayweather in a fight with Pac. I do however support better drug testing. The way it was asked though is too ****ty for me to support. It was not a closed session meeting (considering reputation's are involved) but flat out media murder. I sincerely believed that if it was asked nicely, Pac would have agreed on that 14 day cutoff or even less.

[IMDAZED]

I don't support Mayweather in a fight with Pac. I do however support better drug testing. The way it was asked though is too ****ty for me to support. It was not a closed session meeting (considering reputation's are involved) but flat out media murder. I sincerely believed that if it was asked nicely, Pac would have agreed on that 14 day cutoff or even less.

The way it was asked? WTF? It was not a closed session meeting? Umm..yes it was. Were you invited? What world do you live in? Is this how low some of you are going to go just to avoid the obvious?

[carts]

I swear P4P, it's like these mother fuckers didn't read this? Do I have to bump it?!

did mayweather didnt contradict himself many times?? sure ill bump this post until u realize how hypocrite floyd is the one u believe who wants to clean up boxing..

[tesla_power]

The way it was asked? WTF? It was not a closed session meeting? Umm..yes it was. Were you invited? What world do you live in? Is this how low some of you are going to go just to avoid the obvious?

I'm not specifically referring to a negotiations meeting. Sorry if I implied that. But before that, it did not gain much mileage until pac refused.

What is obvious here? That pac is on drugs? I have given Pac his due **** because of not accepting the test. How low am I? Care to explain that statement. I just don't like that way Floyd singled out Pac and the manner from his father to his uncle on which they will discredit his victories.

The questions are good ... the manner on which it was asked was not. That is my stand. If that is unacceptable for you, then it is what it is.

[IMDAZED]

I'm not specifically referring to a negotiations meeting. Sorry if I implied that. But before that, it did not gain much mileage until pac refused.

What is obvious here? That pac is on drugs? I have given Pac his due **** because of not accepting the test. How low am I? Care to explain that statement. I just don't like that way Floyd singled out Pac and the manner from his father to his uncle on which they will discredit his victories.

The questions are good ... the manner on which it was asked was not. That is my stand. If that is unacceptable for you, then it is what it is.

Do you see the obvious contradiction in those two bolded statements? The manner in which it was asked? Were you there when they asked Manny?

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

They asked Manny in the right way. So much so that he agreed to do it.

[tesla_power]

Do you see the obvious contradiction in those two bolded statements? The manner in which it was asked? Were you there when they asked Manny?

Ok then. I did say ... not the negotiations meeting. If you put it that way, then yes it is contradictory. I can accept that rebuke. Let me put it another way.

Before the actual negotiations for pac-pbf, were steroid's allegations being put forth by Sr just after the Cotto fight? This was the prelude for the actual drug testing demand. Was there basis except highly circumstantial evidences ( an exceptional performance being one)? It did not gain much attention though except after the actual negotiations and pac refused olympic style drug testing.

Questions: Is pac's performance drug induced? -- yes, it is proper
How it was asked: Sr to media: Pac is on steroid.
-- Jr. Let's put that in the contract.

* I just did not like the way that the allegations comes first before actual closed room negotiations. Fair enough for you?

What was the basis for Floyd's demand? Do you know?

[Mojita]

I'm sick of the Mayweather's and all of their brainless followers, though.

19 pages, TS is genius.

and I agree.

[IMDAZED]

Ok then. I did say ... not the negotiations meeting. If you put it that way, then yes it is contradictory. I can accept that rebuke. Let me put it another way.

Before the actual negotiations for pac-pbf, were steroid's allegations being put forth by Sr just after the Cotto fight? This was the prelude for the actual drug testing demand. Was there basis except highly circumstantial evidences ( an exceptional performance being one)? It did not gain much attention though except after the actual negotiations and pac refused olympic style drug testing.

Questions: Is pac's performance drug induced? -- yes, it is proper
How it was asked: Sr to media: Pac is on steroid.
-- Jr. Let's put that in the contract.

* I just did not like the way that the allegations comes first before actual closed room negotiations. Fair enough for you?

What was the basis for Floyd's demand? Do you know?

Yes, fair enough. And my point still stands that people will raise any issue just to avoid the obvious (which they later admit in secondary fashion, if ever). But ok, what was the basis for Floyd's demand? I'm going to go with the obvious answer...wait for it...because he thinks Manny Pacquiao is on steroids? Maybe it's just that simple?

[tesla_power]

Yes, fair enough. And my point still stands that people will raise any issue just to avoid the obvious (which they later admit in secondary fashion, if ever). But ok, what was the basis for Floyd's demand? I'm going to go with the obvious answer...wait for it...because he thinks Manny Pacquiao is on steroids? Maybe it's just that simple?

Yes that is obvious. And it could be that simple. But why?

IMO
1. threatened by pac's status as the face of boxing, he aimed at destroying pac's reputation. his father gave him the perfect premise
2. because it is inconceivable for him for a fighter to go up the weight classes and perform as pac did. koing out opponents while Floyd was able to UD most of them.
3. to gain a mental edge over pac
4. to level the playing field
5. to clean out boxing

I'm more inclined to believe the first 3 than the rest but I could understand Floyd's point. I just don't like the way he singled out pac from the rest of his opponents like dlh for example.