Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing experts out there?

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analists out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

What are "analists?" Does that have something to do with the internet meme a few years ago that was goatse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analists out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

What are "analists?" Does that have something to do with the internet meme a few years ago that was goatse?

---

I think I mispelled it. I am talking about those guys who comment before, during, or after the fights, write articles in well-known boxing publications, and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

Those 2 are not bias. Ive read many negative articles from those 2 about Pac specially Rafael.

If they are "Go Mayweather.. Pack is no good" columnist you would still brand them as bias?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

Those 2 are not bias. Ive read many negative articles from those 2 about Pac specially Rafael.

If they are "Go Mayweather.. Pack is no good" columnist you would still brand them as bias?

---

Yes, I would. That is why I somehow thought George Foreman was alright. I could hear him say good and bad things about one boxer and then go to the one he would face and express the same (positive and negative). At least the times I heard him comment.

I was surprised to read Bert Sugar's article and see how he mentioned that Floyd's request for blood test was wrong. I could understand if he said that and then continued saying something about raising suspicions on Pac's refusal to have his blood randomly tested. It would sound a bit more balanced I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

Those 2 are not bias. Ive read many negative articles from those 2 about Pac specially Rafael.

If they are "Go Mayweather.. Pack is no good" columnist you would still brand them as bias?

---

Yes, I would. That is why I somehow thought George Foreman was alright. I could hear him say good and bad things about one boxer and then go to the one he would face and express the same (positive and negative). At least the times I heard him comment.

I was surprised to read Bert Sugar's article and see how he mentioned that Floyd's request for blood test were wrong. I could understand if he said that and then continued saying something about raising suspicions on Pac's refusal to have his blood randomly tested. It would sound a bit more balanced I guess.

---

You have a point but these 2 guys have written negative things about pac on other matters. They're not bias imo.

The one i would say is really bias is that old guy Michael Marley Atlas's best friend.

Nobody can be 100% impartial, that's in the human nature. Also, I think that their inclination toward Manny doesn't that much come from a form of "unconditional" love for Manny rather than being jaded of Floyd for a couple of years of trash talking and often, cherry picking opponents. A bit more partiality would sure be welcome but I do not think that they are "that" biased in the end

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

Those 2 are not bias. Ive read many negative articles from those 2 about Pac specially Rafael.

If they are "Go Mayweather.. Pack is no good" columnist you would still brand them as bias?

---

Yes, I would. That is why I somehow thought George Foreman was alright. I could hear him say good and bad things about one boxer and then go to the one he would face and express the same (positive and negative). At least the times I heard him comment.

I was surprised to read Bert Sugar's article and see how he mentioned that Floyd's request for blood test were wrong. I could understand if he said that and then continued saying something about raising suspicions on Pac's refusal to have his blood randomly tested. It would sound a bit more balanced I guess.

---

rafael is the complete journalist if you ask me. Ive never seen an innacurate or unjustworthy article from him ever.

Sugar is very much a traditionalist and loves to over analyse fights from back and beyond. Ive seen him talk boxing a fair few times on modern day stuff and he does tend to be a tad too partial almost as if he doesnt wanna get off the fence

I would hardly consider Marley as being an expert; he's a total idiot and always was-now he's writing in a Filipino rag cause no one else wants him.

Michael Katz is still the most objective writer I've read. Raphael is probably next followed by Steve Kim for objectivity.

Interesting thread.

I don't think any journalist is unbiased; the very nature of thier position means they have to provide a wholly subjective viewpoint, often going against the grain simply to provoke a reaction and sell copy.

Furthermore, journo's and promoters spend years cultivating a relationship. The journos want access to the fighters; to get in early whilst they are on the way up, so as they can get into the 'inner circles' when said fighters make the big time. A sort of journalistic 'Train hard, fight easy', if you will.

Promoters equally want the journos involved, to build the interest and momentum around thier stable.

It's because of this mutually beneficial relationiship you find that not many journalists openly pan fighters, as it's biting the hand that feeds.

So, my take is ultimately that the likes of Rafael, Hauser, Rosenthal and Big H simply provide an opinion and that's all it is. It's no more or less valid than my own.

All journalists and analysts are biased in some way. The better ones just don't let their personal feelings and bias take over an article or piece and remain somewhat impartial. Its only natural that at times personal feelings will take over though and we get some relatively biased pieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steelie

Interesting thread.

I don't think any journalist is unbiased; the very nature of thier position means they have to provide a wholly subjective viewpoint, often going against the grain simply to provoke a reaction and sell copy.

Furthermore, journo's and promoters spend years cultivating a relationship. The journos want access to the fighters; to get in early whilst they are on the way up, so as they can get into the 'inner circles' when said fighters make the big time. A sort of journalistic 'Train hard, fight easy', if you will.

Promoters equally want the journos involved, to build the interest and momentum around thier stable.

It's because of this mutually beneficial relationiship you find that not many journalists openly pan fighters, as it's biting the hand that feeds.

So, my take is ultimately that the likes of Rafael, Hauser, Rosenthal and Big H simply provide an opinion and that's all it is. It's no more or less valid than my own.

---

It is widely known that many writers were "on the payrolls" of some managers and promoters in the past. I am certain that it still exists today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steelie

Interesting thread.

I don't think any journalist is unbiased; the very nature of thier position means they have to provide a wholly subjective viewpoint, often going against the grain simply to provoke a reaction and sell copy.

Furthermore, journo's and promoters spend years cultivating a relationship. The journos want access to the fighters; to get in early whilst they are on the way up, so as they can get into the 'inner circles' when said fighters make the big time. A sort of journalistic 'Train hard, fight easy', if you will.

Promoters equally want the journos involved, to build the interest and momentum around thier stable.

It's because of this mutually beneficial relationiship you find that not many journalists openly pan fighters, as it's biting the hand that feeds.

So, my take is ultimately that the likes of Rafael, Hauser, Rosenthal and Big H simply provide an opinion and that's all it is. It's no more or less valid than my own.

---

I agree with that to an extent. I don't look at these people as journalists in the traditional sense. They are fans of boxing who are in the position of being able to write about it and be read by more than most and use that to plant their own views about certain issues. In that respect of course they are inherently biased. I despise Mayweather as anyone can attest to, but even I find Rafael's attitude towards the Mayweather issue to be quite bizarre. There is no way on earth you could call that man a credible journalist when it comes to this issue. I wouldn't disagree with the view that he is a boxing fan with views of his own though. He just has more phone numbers and a ready made audience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

Just like anything a bit of personal feeling gets thrown in at times the trick is not to let it dominate your views....There has to be some of a personal opinion in the views or else the articles are not worth reading, If it was just pure facts then all you are reading is something you know already.

In the whole PBF/PAC nonsense...I will say I think Floyd while the whole testing for everyone every fight with those Olympic standards is something every fighter should be subjected to....I have to also say IMO it is an awful convenient time to decide this is a stand to take.....WTF Marquez was drinking his own urine on national TV....IMO that would have me wanting the guy tested before anyone else I ever faced....

Does that mean I think Floyd would lose, scared of Manny or any of the other bullshit things people claim is why?....No I don't think he is and I don;t have a true opp on who would win but on the other hand why now?

Why is it every time Floyd negotiates it is some big ass drawn out process, be it purse split, he decides the other guy is not PPV worthy etc....Always something with him...This is why he gets so much shit toward him....

Step in the ring and fight, if there is a real reason to worry then just don't fight why draw it out into some bullshit? Just to keep the spotlight on himself in any way possible.....That in itself is a reason to wish Floyd was away from the sport.....

If he could just negotiate and either sign or don't sign depending on what the opp agrees to and let it be....The fight is a no go?...OK have your moment in the press then move on...No need for a daily tirade on why this is effecting you, this is because of who you are blah blah blah blah....

Floyd is like a grouchy Mother In law....The second you see her walking up to the door you start counting the minutes till she leaves


Impossible not to have an opinion on it....He is here to fight not complain or make excuses....Not even the WBA hands out belts for being a crybaby and motor mouth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

There was one person Foreman was REALLLY biased towards and that was Oscar De La Hoya.
He seemingly couldn't remove his tongue from Oscar's backside for whatever reason! For example he thought Oscar won the Quartey fight "hands down!" which I found bizarre. Otherwise he generally called fights how he felt he saw them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

There was one person Foreman was REALLLY biased towards and that was Oscar De La Hoya.
He seemingly couldn't remove his tongue from Oscar's backside for whatever reason! For example he thought Oscar won the Quartey fight "hands down!" which I found bizarre. Otherwise he generally called fights how he felt he saw them.

---

I always thought Foreman a nice guy, but for an ex boxer I never found him paricularly insightful. He was not made for commentating really.

Thomas hauser is like the Queen Mother of boxing journalists. He's Ali's biographer and a friend of his, written a ton of other boxing books and you'd think he'd be as close to impartial about boxing as you can get. When there was the Mayweather steroids thing going on over Christmas he wrote an article where he listed a whole bunch of known steroid abusers, admitted PED abuse was endemic in boxing, then said anybody accusing Manny, especially the Mayweathers, was a scumbag because there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, then he accused De La Hoya of using steroids and challenged him to release all his previous test results. A whole smorgasbors of contradictions in one article. So if Hauser can't be impartial I don't think any of his younger colleagues can be.

Plus like has already been mentioned Manny is the story in boxing right now and for a wider audience and that insulates him from a lot of legitimate criticism. Mayweather may make great TV on 24-7 but the wider public don't exactly see him as a positive role model or somebody they can admire. With Manny it's different, so you have a bunch of guys desperate to have access/interviews with him and not lose out to their competitors as well as editorial pressure from the guys who employ them to be nice to the guy everybody wants to read about. So it's inevitable you're going to get the kind of biased coverage you do over Manny and the whole PED thing. Unless some actual evidence turns up that's the way it will stay too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

There was one person Foreman was REALLLY biased towards and that was Oscar De La Hoya.
He seemingly couldn't remove his tongue from Oscar's backside for whatever reason! For example he thought Oscar won the Quartey fight "hands down!" which I found bizarre. Otherwise he generally called fights how he felt he saw them.

---

Oh no doubt he was always praising Oscar to death. I remember in that fight with Quartey when Oscar was going for it in the last round, "He's a brave man, that De La Hoya!," yadda yadda yadda.

Even in the Trinidad and Vargas fights he got a lot of bias reporting from Foreman.

Oscar, great fighter, but please be objective! But in fairness he usually is.

Has any well-known journalist/commentator/analyst/expert/etc. has straight out thrown crap at Manny for refusing to have his blood tested Olympic style and raising suspicion for all of the excuses?

I am!

:lolololol:

Not really, as someone with a journalism degree, I have to say that 90% of boxing journalism would get you thrown out of the NUJ if it was investigated. Jeff Ryan, Bill Dettloff and David Mayo stand alone as ones who actually name their sources (there are a few decent ones here in the UK as well).

Hauser is a talented writer, but he frequently quotes accusations by unnamed sources, which is terrible practice. Part of the problem is that so much of reporting is web-based and very rarely held to account.

An example was last week when BoxingScene posted up an interview with 'Floyd Mayweather' regarding the Pacquiao-Clottey fight, taken from a Filipino newspaper, which itself had taken it from a site that only existed for that day. The following day they discovered that Mayweather hadn't even watched the fight because he and Mosley were filming a promo for their fight in LA at the time. Any decent journalist would have verified the sources before publishing the story. The fact a story someone just made up was actually published by a supposedly reputable newspaper and website is just embarassing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

There was one person Foreman was REALLLY biased towards and that was Oscar De La Hoya.
He seemingly couldn't remove his tongue from Oscar's backside for whatever reason! For example he thought Oscar won the Quartey fight "hands down!" which I found bizarre. Otherwise he generally called fights how he felt he saw them.

---

What about when George Foreman said he thought, Pernell Whitaker lost to Policarpo Diaz. I literally had my mouth open for atleast a minute. I couldn't believe it, Pernell Whitaker won atleast 10 rounds with 2 knockdowns as i remember, that was the most bizarre comment i've ever heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steelie

Interesting thread.

I don't think any journalist is unbiased; the very nature of thier position means they have to provide a wholly subjective viewpoint, often going against the grain simply to provoke a reaction and sell copy.

Furthermore, journo's and promoters spend years cultivating a relationship. The journos want access to the fighters; to get in early whilst they are on the way up, so as they can get into the 'inner circles' when said fighters make the big time. A sort of journalistic 'Train hard, fight easy', if you will.

Promoters equally want the journos involved, to build the interest and momentum around thier stable.

It's because of this mutually beneficial relationiship you find that not many journalists openly pan fighters, as it's biting the hand that feeds.

So, my take is ultimately that the likes of Rafael, Hauser, Rosenthal and Big H simply provide an opinion and that's all it is. It's no more or less valid than my own.

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Thomas hauser is like the Queen Mother of boxing journalists. He's Ali's biographer and a friend of his, written a ton of other boxing books and you'd think he'd be as close to impartial about boxing as you can get. When there was the Mayweather steroids thing going on over Christmas he wrote an article where he listed a whole bunch of known steroid abusers, admitted PED abuse was endemic in boxing, then said anybody accusing Manny, especially the Mayweathers, was a scumbag because there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, then he accused De La Hoya of using steroids and challenged him to release all his previous test results. A whole smorgasbors of contradictions in one article. So if Hauser can't be impartial I don't think any of his younger colleagues can be.

Plus like has already been mentioned Manny is the story in boxing right now and for a wider audience and that insulates him from a lot of legitimate criticism. Mayweather may make great TV on 24-7 but the wider public don't exactly see him as a positive role model or somebody they can admire. With Manny it's different, so you have a bunch of guys desperate to have access/interviews with him and not lose out to their competitors as well as editorial pressure from the guys who employ them to be nice to the guy everybody wants to read about. So it's inevitable you're going to get the kind of biased coverage you do over Manny and the whole PED thing. Unless some actual evidence turns up that's the way it will stay too.

---

The info in that article about the apparent common drug use in boxing was eye-opening though. If it's so widely known why did Team Floyd bring it up now? Personally I think Pac was in the wrong but it was interesting so many in the "know" thought Floyd was running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

NOPE...they're all biased towards thier favs..as is everyone on this forum. NO matter how objective we all might try to be..we lean towards our favs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

There was one person Foreman was REALLLY biased towards and that was Oscar De La Hoya.
He seemingly couldn't remove his tongue from Oscar's backside for whatever reason! For example he thought Oscar won the Quartey fight "hands down!" which I found bizarre. Otherwise he generally called fights how he felt he saw them.

---

What about when George Foreman said he thought, Pernell Whitaker lost to Policarpo Diaz. I literally had my mouth open for atleast a minute. I couldn't believe it, Pernell Whitaker won atleast 10 rounds with 2 knockdowns as i remember, that was the most bizarre comment i've ever heard.

---

Almost as famous as the Trinidad-Hopkins fight where I did frown on at least 20 occasions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Thomas hauser is like the Queen Mother of boxing journalists. He's Ali's biographer and a friend of his, written a ton of other boxing books and you'd think he'd be as close to impartial about boxing as you can get. When there was the Mayweather steroids thing going on over Christmas he wrote an article where he listed a whole bunch of known steroid abusers, admitted PED abuse was endemic in boxing, then said anybody accusing Manny, especially the Mayweathers, was a scumbag because there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, then he accused De La Hoya of using steroids and challenged him to release all his previous test results. A whole smorgasbors of contradictions in one article. So if Hauser can't be impartial I don't think any of his younger colleagues can be.

Plus like has already been mentioned Manny is the story in boxing right now and for a wider audience and that insulates him from a lot of legitimate criticism. Mayweather may make great TV on 24-7 but the wider public don't exactly see him as a positive role model or somebody they can admire. With Manny it's different, so you have a bunch of guys desperate to have access/interviews with him and not lose out to their competitors as well as editorial pressure from the guys who employ them to be nice to the guy everybody wants to read about. So it's inevitable you're going to get the kind of biased coverage you do over Manny and the whole PED thing. Unless some actual evidence turns up that's the way it will stay too.

---

The info in that article about the apparent common drug use in boxing was eye-opening though. If it's so widely known why did Team Floyd bring it up now? Personally I think Pac was in the wrong but it was interesting so many in the "know" thought Floyd was running.

---

I wouldn't say they're in the know, I'd say they're in the business. And their business is to sell papers or, increasingly, to get mouse clicks. They've got tons of commercial pressure from the top to be nice to the guy everybody wants to read about which skews their coverage and makes them all pro-Manny. The bottom line is that all Manny had to do to get the fight on was to accept the drug testing. It could have been done immediately and would have been lost in the overall coverage/hype of what would have been a mega event, Manny wouldn't have lost face over accepting, quite the reverse, he would have looked like he had nothing to hide.

They could even have negotiated a face-saving deal and before the fight was announced got the Nevada Athletic Commission to announce mandatory random drug testing for "megafights" with Floyd-Manny being the first if it got made. So there were ways to do it with no loss of face and/or to make it a non-issue but Manny refused and we got a bunch of ridiculous excuses instead. If a heavily-tatted Floyd had increased his power from 130 to 147 and turned random testing down saying he was scared of needles/superstitious/weakened by losing nine mils of blood etc. I don't think journalists would be blaming Manny for the fight falling through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Has any well-known journalist/commentator/analyst/expert/etc. has straight out thrown crap at Manny for refusing to have his blood tested Olympic style and raising suspicion for all of the excuses?

---

Teddy Atlas questioned Manny Pac, supposedly he has an unnamed source that saw Pacquiao email the Mayweathers asking what would happen if he failed the drug tests and if they can keep it a secret for his image.

There you have it.

Thats a crock of shit.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Has any well-known journalist/commentator/analyst/expert/etc. has straight out thrown crap at Manny for refusing to have his blood tested Olympic style and raising suspicion for all of the excuses?

---

Teddy Atlas questioned Manny Pac, supposedly he has an unnamed source that saw Pacquiao email the Mayweathers asking what would happen if he failed the drug tests and if they can keep it a secret for his image.

There you have it.

---

Is that a joke ?

Pedro Fernandez who runs the RingTalk site on the net has been very critical of Manny for not taking the blood test

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Has any well-known journalist/commentator/analyst/expert/etc. has straight out thrown crap at Manny for refusing to have his blood tested Olympic style and raising suspicion for all of the excuses?

---

Teddy Atlas questioned Manny Pac, supposedly he has an unnamed source that saw Pacquiao email the Mayweathers asking what would happen if he failed the drug tests and if they can keep it a secret for his image.

There you have it.

---

I remember hearing this, was this ever official or was it just a rumor?

Sure, many magazines, sports channels, radio, etc. have questioned Floyd's resume, say he's running away from Manny, etc. But I am not sure if there are equal amount of OFFICIAL sources that throw crap at Manny for refusing a blood test, talking about suspicion for cheating, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djcione

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Has any well-known journalist/commentator/analyst/expert/etc. has straight out thrown crap at Manny for refusing to have his blood tested Olympic style and raising suspicion for all of the excuses?

---

Teddy Atlas questioned Manny Pac, supposedly he has an unnamed source that saw Pacquiao email the Mayweathers asking what would happen if he failed the drug tests and if they can keep it a secret for his image.

There you have it.

---

Is that a joke ?

Pedro Fernandez who runs the RingTalk site on the net has been very critical of Manny for not taking the blood test

---

NO that's not a joke. Teddy Atlas went on ESPN Friday Night Fights to say he has a trusted unnamed source that saw the email that supposedly Manny sent asking these questions.

3 months later We've heard nothing about this email.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

Has any well-known journalist/commentator/analyst/expert/etc. has straight out thrown crap at Manny for refusing to have his blood tested Olympic style and raising suspicion for all of the excuses?

---

Teddy Atlas questioned Manny Pac, supposedly he has an unnamed source that saw Pacquiao email the Mayweathers asking what would happen if he failed the drug tests and if they can keep it a secret for his image.

There you have it.

---

I remember hearing this, was this ever official or was it just a rumor?

S

---

He went on air to say that his source is official and trusted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IXggInHDRs

wow-classic from Atlas. Many thanks for that video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude :-\ .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? :confused: In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

---

Those 2 are not bias. Ive read many negative articles from those 2 about Pac specially Rafael.

If they are "Go Mayweather.. Pack is no good" columnist you would still brand them as bias?

---

if something is written against their idol/s, most of them would react on this matter...and throw stones at you...:angryxo4:

Well I think it's human nature to favour certain people so to be honest no I don't think there is such a thing as an unbiased journalist. There are ones who try and put common sense and reasoning into there opinions though such as Colin Hart. He's my favourite I think.

Saw a journalist (Jim Rome) on ESPN challenge Roach/Pac excuses on the blood tests, interesting, not something we see often.

Video titled "Roach and Rome"
Boxing News, Rankings, Results, and History - Championship Boxing - ESPN

After the shite that was making my ears hurt last night, i have to say, it's unlikely.

I'm referring to the Abraham - Dirrell broadcast on Showtime.