Manny Should Just............

[ronniejunior]

Mayweather demanding and accusing Pacquiao is a failure in the first place. UNLESS YOU'VE GOT PROOFS OR BASIS FOR YOUR ACCUSATIONS.

Sorry, NO. Good thing Pacquiao didn't relent to it. But despite of it, Pacquiao did agree up to 7 days before the fight (at least compromising). But Pacquiao doesn't need to compromise in the first place.

the 2nd time around of negotiations....when the 7 day was off the table?

****in' revisionists...

[IMDAZED]

Mayweather demanding and accusing Pacquiao is a failure in the first place. UNLESS YOU'VE GOT PROOFS OR BASIS FOR YOUR ACCUSATIONS.

Sorry, NO. Good thing Pacquiao didn't relent to it. But despite of it, Pacquiao did agree up to 7 days before the fight (at least compromising). But Pacquiao doesn't need to compromise in the first place.

How does one attain "proof", fabie? Isn't it done by testing? That circular argument makes no sense.

[Khalid X]

I really wish, come November, Manny and Top Rank approach Floyd with the mindset that this is the last time we will ever try to negotiate a fight with him.

Now I'm not gonna get into the blame game as far as who is at fault etc. but I will say that I think there needs to be closure with either them fighting, or both of them just giving up on this altogether.

I feel Manny isn't going to take huge risk prior to the Floyd fight....nor should he. So if they know once and for all that it wont happen, both sides can move on. If a fight happens...cool, but there needs to be closure as this is getting ridiculous.

[IMDAZED]

We had a ton of threads stating that Roach/Manny are liars because they said that they agreed to full testing but 24/7 found that to be untrue (agreed to 7 days not full random testing up to fight night).

You can't have it both ways.

Either
a) Roach/Manny stated it and Floyd fans called them liars or
b) Roach/Manny didn't say it and you called them liars.

The obvious one for me would be "a" or else you would have NO REASON to call them liars. Right?

Why don't you stop speaking in generalities about people saying this or that? You're going back and forth with me so hold me to MY words. And they never agreed. End of story.

[BoxingTech718]

Mayweather demanding and accusing Pacquiao is a failure in the first place. UNLESS YOU'VE GOT PROOFS OR BASIS FOR YOUR ACCUSATIONS.

Sorry, NO. Good thing Pacquiao didn't relent to it. But despite of it, Pacquiao did agree up to 7 days before the fight (at least compromising). But Pacquiao doesn't need to compromise in the first place.

I've never heard or read a quote where FMJ said that he knows for a fact Manny is on something. If you do please provide a link to a credible source. This ain't a court of law, so it's boxing, and you are allowed to request just about anything as a pre fight stipulation. So cool story bro.

[fabie]

How does one attain "proof", fabie? Isn't it done by testing? That circular argument makes no sense.

We've gone through this before and I've argued this previously. IN COURT, for example, one cannot cry and accuse someone of a crime unless there's PROOFS BEFORE there would be a formal charge and trial.

In Congress, no one can accuse and put a president on trial likewise. THere's a preliminary hearing to see if there's a case.

With Mayweather, there's no case. IT is based totally from PURE SPECULATION. Otherwise anybody can cry, ****, murder or any bloody crime to accuse and sling against the other.

I can't sling you: Hey my bike is missing can we search your house?

Unless I have beyond reasonable doubt and proof that you indeed stole my bike. Then I can bring you to court.

[IMDAZED]

We've gone through this before and I've argued this previously. IN COURT, for example, one cannot cry and accuse someone of a crime unless there's PROOFS BEFORE there would be a formal charge and trial.

In Congress, no one can accuse and put a president on trial likewise. THere's a preliminary hearing to see if there's a case.

With Mayweather, there's no case. IT is based totally from PURE SPECULATION. Otherwise anybody can cry, ****, murder or any bloody crime to accuse and sling against the other.

I can't sling you: Hey my bike is missing can we search your house?

Unless I have beyond reasonable doubt and proof that you indeed stole my bike. Then I can bring you to court.

Yeah, except there's a huge problem with this statement. And that problem is that, using that argument, the commissions shouldn't be testing anyone either then, right? I mean, what proof do they have to ask fighters to be tested?

[ADP02]

Why don't you stop speaking in generalities about people saying this or that? You're going back and forth with me so hold me to MY words. And they never agreed. End of story.

Ok, cool, so you are not one of those that called Manny/Roach liars when that 24/7 clip came out BUT those threads that were made had tons of Floyd fans that called them out as liars. They still continue to this day.

Hence my previous post to Squizz.

[BoxingTech718]

We've gone through this before and I've argued this previously. IN COURT, for example, one cannot cry and accuse someone of a crime unless there's PROOFS BEFORE there would be a formal charge and trial.

In Congress, no one can accuse and put a president on trial likewise. THere's a preliminary hearing to see if there's a case.

With Mayweather, there's no case. IT is based totally from PURE SPECULATION. Otherwise anybody can cry, ****, murder or any bloody crime to accuse and sling against the other.

I can't sling you: Hey my bike is missing can we search your house?

Unless I have beyond reasonable doubt and proof that you indeed stole my bike. Then I can bring you to court.

Actually you don't need absolute proof to file a case against somebody all you need is probable cause.The Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable su****ion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar–Spinelli test.

But like I said provide a link where FMJ said that he had evidence and knows for a fact that Manny Pacquiao is on something.

[IMDAZED]

Ok, cool, so you are not one of those that called Manny/Roach liars when that 24/7 clip came out BUT those threads that were made had tons of Floyd fans that called them out as liars. They still continue to this day.

Hence my previous post to Squizz.

OK. So regardless, they never agreed to full testing. Never have and, from the looks of it, never will. Period.