This " burden of proof " thing.....
Fk that.
Margarito has the right to fight again, because he has served his suspension.
The suspension was likely adequate, because he did not get caught cheating.
Margarito got caught " preparing " to cheat..... the inserts were found BEFORE the Mosley fight, not after..... so Margarito did not actually cheat according to the commission.
The issue is..... did he cheat in the Cotto fight ?
Well, fk the burden of proof..... those rules no longer apply to Margarito.
I have every right to assume he cheated, this is not a court-of-law, so fk the burden of proof.
Listen, in a jury trial, all a jury does is provide an opinion..... if they deem it "likely" that the offender committed the crime, they will find him guilty.
They do not actually need to provide proof, some cases are he-said she-said..... they just listen to the evidence and then provide their opinion.
Well..... my opinion is that he cheated, based on logic/common-sense.
Fk that.
Margarito has the right to fight again, because he has served his suspension.
The suspension was likely adequate, because he did not get caught cheating.
Margarito got caught " preparing " to cheat..... the inserts were found BEFORE the Mosley fight, not after..... so Margarito did not actually cheat according to the commission.
The issue is..... did he cheat in the Cotto fight ?
Well, fk the burden of proof..... those rules no longer apply to Margarito.
I have every right to assume he cheated, this is not a court-of-law, so fk the burden of proof.
Listen, in a jury trial, all a jury does is provide an opinion..... if they deem it "likely" that the offender committed the crime, they will find him guilty.
They do not actually need to provide proof, some cases are he-said she-said..... they just listen to the evidence and then provide their opinion.
Well..... my opinion is that he cheated, based on logic/common-sense.
Comment