Plaster Vs. Steriods

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Quote:

---

But you are clearly missing the point, that in that situation there is some thing to gain. Why else would you use the term 'gold digger'

---

I used that term for those girls who falsely accuse guys of rape to get some money. Just like Deseree Washington with Mike Tyson, that girl that accused Kobe Bryant, Bobby Bonilla, and bunch of other celebrities. These guys either go to jail like Mike Tyson or even though they may be found innocent, their reputation is ruined. A girl like that is a golddigger slut. Just used it as an example of someone who ruins someone's reputation regardless of them coming out innocent. What happens to the accuser? Nothing. What happens to the accused? A lot :(.

Quote:

---

Here's a thought. If it bothers you that others speculate, so much that you feel the need to call them 'similar to slutty golddigging whores' ...maybe don't fuel the fire by continuing on about it

---

Dude, you are not getting the example. Fine, let's erase the word "golddigger" and keep it down to "slutty accusing whore" if you want. When I said "goldigger" I was not directing that to ANYBODY in here or in boxing. I was just using that word to illustrate what a false accuser is. Is it clear now?

Quote:

---

And being a hypocrite in the process by telling others to wait and see, but yet keep piping up in threads with an opinion on it.

---

Go back to what I first posted mentioning BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN, sheesh! And now you call me a hypocrite:rolleyes:. I'll repeat it again: If Margarito comes out innocent, how bad, his reputation is ruined. It will be hard for the casual fan to not question Margarito's victories from here on. THEN AGAIN, Nazim has all the rights to ask what goes on in the opponent's corner...Do you understand now?

---

Hold on a minute where is the evidence that Mike Tyson didn't rape her ? thats just your opinion that she falsely accused him, but it certainly wouldn't suprise me if he did do it, considering he is an animal outside the ring.

I think its way out of order to label someone a "slut" when you don't even know the truth, and there is no real evidence stating that he didn't do it. More often than not celebrities get away with it, because they pay people out of court, because they don't want there rep ruined. Or they have the money for some of the best lawyers in the country.

Quote:

---

If calling someone 'like a goldigging slutty whore who falsely accuses rich men of rape' is not profane...I am not sure
what is

---

Did I attack SOMEONE who disagreed with me calling them a hypocrite or using profane language (against someone). You keep trying to look for ways around it, huh? You already saw that I am neutral on this whole case about Margarito's case and now you are trying to find other ways to get on my case. You can try looking for my spelling and grammar mistakes too (I am not 100% fluent in English yet) if you want to try something else on me.

Quote:

---

Hold on a minute where is the evidence that Mike Tyson didn't rape her ? thats just your opinion that she falsely accused him, but it certainly wouldn't suprise me if he did do it, considering he is an animal outside the ring

---

Let's see...a woman visiting a guy by herself to his hotel room in the late hours of the night, with sexy lingerie, champagne, they get all affectionate, etc. Why did she go? To play chess? She was pretty smart I guess to find a way to get into his wallet. It's hard to be on someone's side, in this case, Tyson, after their behavior in and out of the ring is just not something to admire.

Quote:

---

More often than not celebrities get away with it, because they pay people out of court, because they don't want there rep ruined. Or they have the money for some of the best lawyers in the country

---

I wouldn't doubt it but how about those who are really really really innocent and get falsely accused (fine, I won't use terms goldigger, slut, etc. if some people get totally offended here). Even if that person is found to be innocent, his reputation is ruined anyways while the accuser is just fine. Wouldn't it be nice to have the accuser shown all over the place for falsely accusing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Actually no...not clear at all. You can break it down 6 ways from Sunday, and it is what it is. Sounds like you have an issue with women and accusations of rape. :headscratch:

---

And now the topic is changing to rape? Oh man. I broke it down and you still didn't get it:rolleyes:.

1.Someone accuses a person of something.
2.It all comes out to be false.
3.The accuser prances his/her way to freedom. Nothing happens to him/her.
4.The accused has his reputation ruined regardless of being found innocent.

As easy as that.

---

Only because you are maybe assuming he is innocent in this scenario.

And for the record, you switched the topic to rape. Care to explain why?

---

Arent we supposed to assume someone is innocent until proven guilty?

Chino...i'm not looking for ways around anything. You are looking for ways around having to explain your fascination with hating women and rape.

Innocent till proven guilty. Onix? Seriously. After going after Mosely in defence of Margarito in multiple threads. Surely you jest. And watch too much tv.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Attacking someone who disagrees with me would be to call them hypocrite, use profanity, etc. .

---

If calling someone 'like a goldigging slutty whore who falsely accuses rich men of rape' is not profane...I am not sure what is.

Hypocrite.

---

It's also quite misogynistic.

That Miss Ogynistic is a right gold-digging whore.

Quote:

---

Chino...i'm not looking for ways around anything. You are looking for ways around having to explain your fascination with hating women and rape.

---

See what I mean? I used an example to follow the thread's topic and just to express how Margarito could end up, and how Nazim is not the villain either, and you twisted this to making me a woman hater or whatever. Then comes

Quote:

---

It's also quite misogynistic

---

So what's your opinion on this whole plaster vs steroids? :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Quote:

---

Chino...i'm not looking for ways around anything. You are looking for ways around having to explain your fascination with hating women and rape.

---

See what I mean? I used an example to follow the thread's topic and just to express how Margarito could end up, and how Nazim is not the villain either, and you twisted this to making me a woman hater or whatever. Then comes

Quote:

---

It's also quite misogynistic

---

So what's your opinion on this whole plaster vs steroids? :roll:

---

My opinion is that you are a misogynist, one that has not yet mastered the proper use of smilies. :)

The plaster is much more troubling than steroid use.

Quote:

---

My opinion is that you are a misogynist, one that has not yet mastered the proper use of smilies

---

I am surprised. Was not expecting that from you who were complaining before about people who don't stay on topic and all and now you are name calling, eh?...oooook, sure.

Quote:

---

The plaster is much more troubling than steroid use

---

Aaaaaaaaanyways, back on topic...both are wrong, both are cheating, but stuffing something in your gloves may even sound comical. Guilty or not, it will be hard for people to believe in him. Guilty or not, his image/credibility is damaged already. I can imagine people booing him on his next fight before and after the fight (win or lose).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Quote:

---

My opinion is that you are a misogynist, one that has not yet mastered the proper use of smilies

---

I am surprised. Was not expecting that from you who were complaining before about people who don't stay on topic and all and now you are name calling, eh?...oooook, sure.

Quote:

---

The plaster is much more troubling than steroid use

---

Aaaaaaaaanyways, back on topic...both are wrong, both are cheating, but stuffing something in your gloves may even sound comical. Guilty or not, it will be hard for people to believe in him. Guilty or not, his image/credibility is damaged already. I can imagine people booing him on his next fight before and after the fight (win or lose).

---

I've never complained about people not staying on topic. I have however complained numerous times about you repeating your little mantra's over and over again.

I wasn't calling you a name either, I just merely stating that your post(s) were misogynistic.

Both are cheating, but plastering the gloves is much more dangerous than steroids.

Quote:

---

I've never complained about people not staying on topic. I have however complained numerous times about you repeating your little mantra's over and over again.

---

Sure, when you see another thread or post talking about how Cotto is all that, you'll see me there just like you see the same people in any threads that talk about ODLH to throw crap at him. Some people are attracted to certain topics more than others, that's all.

Quote:

---

Both are cheating, but plastering the gloves is much more dangerous than steroids

---

Could be, could be. It sucks that Margarito's reputation is ruined no matter what, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Quote:

---

I've never complained about people not staying on topic. I have however complained numerous times about you repeating your little mantra's over and over again.

---

Sure, when you see another thread or post talking about how Cotto is all that, you'll see me there just like you see the same people in any threads that talk about ODLH to throw crap at him. Some people are attracted to certain topics more than others, that's all.

---

We've been over this many times, you know my opinion about it, so I'm not going to address it any further.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Both are cheating, but plastering the gloves is much more dangerous than steroids

---

Could be, could be. It sucks that Margarito's reputation is ruined no matter what, huh?

---

It's a shame that his rep is ruined if he and his team are innocent. I'm not convinced he's guilty yet, but things sure aren't looking to good for him at the moment. However, I'm sure he can dry his tears with the millions of dollars he has accumulated. Maybe a swim in his money bin will cheer him up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awdleyfuturehalloffamer

Lie detectors are very inaccurate, that's why they are inadmissable in court. Very unreliable.

---

Wrong!!! I know this isn't law school, but they are reliable and used in evidence in many federal and about 20 or so state courts.

In United States v. Scheffer 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies. In 2007, in Ohio v. Sharma, an Ohio trial court overruled the objections of a prosecutor and allowed a polygraph examiner to testify regarding a specific issue criminal examination. The court took the position that the prosecutors regularly used a polygraph examiner to conduct criminal tests against defendants, but only objected to the examiner's testimony when the results contradicted what they hoped to achieve

Anyhow, what guilty person ever agrees to take a polygraph? I sure wouldn't. Who lies and then sues someone for defamation to perpetuate that same lie? Who would pay for illegal drugs with a check? (other than Jerry Springer who was removed as Mayor for paying a hooker with a check). I'm not a Shane fanatic, but it just looks to me like he got caught up making some bad choices - but he wasn't complicit.

AND NO, I'M NOT A LAWYER. . .BUT I DIDN'T STAY AT A HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS ONCE.;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnixAA

Arent we supposed to assume someone is innocent until proven guilty?

---

Yes, but in this case he admitted he may have taken them, but he is saying he didn't do it knowingly. He can't really say what exactly he was taking, only what they told him - so he cannot say 100% that he didn't because they were giving him 'something'.

They are not admissible in court in Europe or the UK, Africa, the Middle east, India, Australia, New Zealand or most of Asia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnixAA

And if he had is found innocent? look at the black mark thats left on his record regardless.

---

Sad but true :( .
It's like those goldigging slutty whores who falsely accuse rich men of rape and when these men are found innocent. These guys' reputation is already damaged FOR EVER. They loose their jobs, friends, etc. While the false accusing bitch prances her way out of the court and looks for another victim to make her rich.

As for Nazim, he has every right to question what's going on in the other corner and if Margarito didn't have anything then let it be.

---

I'm sorry, but this is a fairly poor analysis IMO.

And this is the court of public opinion. And the point is simple, and especially in my reply. When people like Onix try to attack Mosely in defence of Margo, if causes people like myself to draw a line and make statements one way or another.

So basically, if you can't be objective and just quietly wait for the full truth to come out, then don't biatch about what those who may not feel the same as you...have to say.

In other words, you can't be walking around flapping your lips on the topic, and expect others to be quiet and not express opinion ...just because they don't agree with you.

---

Imagine prior to testing how many people would of fought on cocaine.They could kill you and themselves while they were at it, but I bet we'd all be shocked to find out all the world time greats in many sports as well as music who excelled in those times with that help.

Regarding plaster in wraps you could easily say it was talc powder that dried up and set.You would think if they were going to try and put plaster into layers of wraps they would mix talcum powder into it so if caught and tested they had a built in question mark to confuse the authorites.

Something weird is going on you would think they'd know exactly what was in them by now.

Polygraph evidence is presently inadmissible in Canada and many jurisdictions of the United States. One of the major reasons for its exclusion lies in the belief (held by members of the judiciary) that jurors would accept such evidence without question due to its technical/scientific nature. The question of such blind acceptance was examined in two experiments on the influence of polygraph evidence on people's judgements of guilt. A second question that was also raised was whether a caution on the limitations of the polygraph would be effective in reducing people's weighting of such evidence. Although polygraph evidence was expected to exert some influence over judgements of guilt, it was not expected to be so great as to result in http://www.springerlink.com/content/...xlarge8220.gifblind acceptancehttp://www.springerlink.com/content/...xlarge8221.gif

SpringerLink - Journal Article

Quote:

---

Imagine prior to testing how many people would of fought on cocaine.They could kill you and themselves while they were at it, but I bet we'd all be shocked to find out all the world time greats in many sports as well as music who excelled in those times with that help.

---

I know, it’s a bit sad. I was talking to a friend about how sports now are not so much about how fast I run against you but about how fast I run, how good my "enhancers" are vs yours, how fast my super sonic speed suit is vs yours, etc.

Quote:

---

Something weird is going on you would think they'd know exactly what was in them by now

---

Still waiting, still waiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awdleyfuturehalloffamer

Polygraph evidence is presently inadmissible in Canada and many jurisdictions of the United States. One of the major reasons for its exclusion lies in the belief (held by members of the judiciary) that jurors would accept such evidence without question due to its technical/scientific nature. The question of such blind acceptance was examined in two experiments on the influence of polygraph evidence on people's judgements of guilt. A second question that was also raised was whether a caution on the limitations of the polygraph would be effective in reducing people's weighting of such evidence. Although polygraph evidence was expected to exert some influence over judgements of guilt, it was not expected to be so great as to result in http://www.springerlink.com/content/...xlarge8220.gifblind acceptancehttp://www.springerlink.com/content/...xlarge8221.gif

SpringerLink - Journal Article

---

Don't really know what the point is here, but the fact remains that polygraphs have sent people back to jail and polygraphs have exonerated people in the United States and in other countries. You can't argue with facts, man. Fact: Man sex offenders in the US must take routine polygraph tests and some are violated and sent to prison for failing them.Law.com - 2nd Circuit Approves Post-Release Use of Polygraph In the UK, they are required in some cases too Offender Management Act 2007 (c. 21) BTW, your law journal link is research and an empirical (relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory) study of a hypothesis (assumption). It is NOT fact of law or the result of an actual adjudicated case - so it might as well be from something you saw in a movie. :) Plus you should probably read the full text and not just the abstract.

Overwhelming case law and the evidentiary rules excludes the use of polygraph tests because of the unreliablity they produce and the magic effect they have on a jury...

man margairito could have had concrete in his gloves but the sugar still would have knocked his arse out....sugar shane just destroyed the tornado and showed he was just a puff on harmless wind against him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deadlypete

man margairito could have had concrete in his gloves but the sugar still would have knocked his arse out....sugar shane just destroyed the tornado and showed he was just a puff on harmless wind against him

---

that's a sound post that :rolleyes:

Quite frankly I don't even know what help steroids would do for Mosley anyway. It sure as hell wasn't to bulk him up a whole lot. Hell he did what Duran did and skipped the junior welterweight division and landed in the welterweights. Except for an incursion into jubior middleweight he's pretty much stayed in the same spot for 9 years. Unless there is a muscle reducing steroid I don't know of allowing him to bounce back down to welter. Frankly I don't give shit if Mosley trained on beer as long as he was fighting some guy his own size. Now putting concrete in one's gloves, thats a whole other story. My best friend says I sugar coat everything. Hows this D:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuciferTheGreat

Quite frankly I don't even know what help steroids would do for Mosley anyway. It sure as hell wasn't to bulk him up a whole lot. Hell he did what Duran did and skipped the junior welterweight division and landed in the welterweights. Except for an incursion into jubior middleweight he's pretty much stayed in the same spot for 9 years. Unless there is a muscle reducing steroid I don't know of allowing him to bounce back down to welter. Frankly I don't give shit if Mosley trained on beer as long as he was fighting some guy his own size. Now putting concrete in one's gloves, thats a whole other story. My best friend says I sugar coat everything. Hows this D: Piss on that: Removed

---

Seriously?? you think that weight gain is the only 'benefit' of steroids??

I love Shane as a boxer, but any excuse like 'oh I didn't know it was a steroid' or 'I didn't know I was taking it' simply doesn't fly at all. You HAVE to know it was a steroid, and you HAVE to know HOW to use it, especially as a boxer due to consequences such as water retention in terms of making weight.

I don't think steroids are as big of a benefit as plaster or loading gloves.

You can be a HORRIBLE fighter and do 'roids and never hurt anyone but yourself but you can be a horrible fighter and KILL somebody using plaster or loading gloves.


They are both bad but I would rather fight a dude on roids as opposed to fighting someone with loaded gloves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

They are both bad but I would rather fight a dude on roids as opposed to fighting someone with loaded gloves

---

x2 Steriods can make you stronger but there is a limit. Loaded gloves is in a league of itself. It's plain dangerous. I'd much rather fight a super-strong guy than a guy with brick gloves... I don't know about you...