From InTheNeutralCorner
Quote:
With regards to the motive for Floyd's demand being suspicious, please read this link. Although it puts the blame on a lot of people, read the item with regards to Mayweather
.
This statement by the author of that article vitiate any evidence of his objectivity. He wrote,
Quote:
If I blame anyone above all others, it’s Mayweather. If he hadn’t introduced this blood-testing regime proposal, the fight happens. It was a wholly unreasonable request. Mayweather should know better than anyone that a 16-year-old fighter can rise from 106 pounds to 147 pounds by the time he gets into his 30s and still be great, because like Pacquiao, he did it, too. The only evidence Mayweather had was the suspicion of his shady dad, which isn’t worth a damn. Even if Mayweather truly thinks Pacquiao is on steroids – and Mayweather seems to think lots of people are on steroids now, like Mosley, for whom there also is zero evidence of ongoing PED abuse – I’m not sure what he’s so worried about. He’s said many times he can beat Pacquiao with ease, because Pacquiao sucks, basically. If you can make $40 million easily beating someone, steroids or no, why not just do it?
He is saying that Floyd Mayweather is wrong to seek a level playing field in this competition, and should just risk his health and livlihood to make forty million dollars. The anti-intellectualism that inundate this kind of reasoning is livid. Basic commonsense and objective reasoning would take examination of this point to a contemplation of the value of forty million dollars in exchange for ones mental equilibrium, or even one's life. This writer seem to be in a time warp extending back centuries, when slaves were put to fight each other and the concerns over their health was minimal to the concerns for the audience to enjoy the bloody and brutal show. This is how he comes off to me, and I am sure also to many others.
Floyd said that he could beat Manny. He did not say that he could beat Manny on steriods. What level of miscomprehension is so pervasive in the mindset of this analyst, that he is unable to parse the difference between these two things? Manny also said he could beat Floyd, so why should he blame Floyd more for introducing the condition, than Manny for not taking it? Either way the fight would have been made.
Nothing he puts out in that piece impeaches my argument that our experience with the deaths and permanent brain damage suffered by some fighters should have made us, logically, very receptive to the notion of olympic style drug testing. This writer, it would appear, belong to the group of people I identify as the Floyd Haters. Their visceral yearning to see him get beat down has conditioned a kind of madness in their cognitive output. I find it agonizingly incomprehensible that these people, who are probably paid to provide objective analysis on boxing and other sport related issues, and who are in effect opinion leaders of a sort, can be so concretely oriented in their reasonings. Floyd Mayweather's concern for his life and mental health after boxing supercedes his craving for money. I guess this sort of contributes cognitive dissonance to those who stereotype boxers as pugilist without a brain, and thus should have no concerns about their mental longevity. Please, I am not impressed by these kinds of experts.
So you won't be buying Pac - Clottey is Margarito is on the card? I won't be buying it anyways, but I hope a lot of people take the same position you are (though I doubt many will).Quote: