The definitive Mayweather/Pac article

[fan johnny]

If someone won't take the test, how are you meant to prove they are cheating? Everyone agree that PED's are probably a problem in boxing. Where better to change the standard than in the biggest fight in history?
It is precisely because PBF is facing "a very live, very dangerous opponent" that he is demanding more stringent testing. What is wrong with that.
If you were going into this fight with your entire reputation and legacy on the line against someone you thought may be on PED's, you wouldn't want to use the test that would prevent him from using, or would you just go i there anyway?
As for the idea that Manny doesn't want to give him the upper hand! If I was going into a fight and my opponent said that I was so good that the only explanation was that I was on PEDs, that would be a huge boost to my confidence. I get the advantage by saying I'll test anytime any where, unless I was............
Hell I could have won the Nobel prize in Maths but I just didn't want to go that way. Because I didn't, you can't prove that I couldn't have.

Sorry the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. I can say that you like to touch little kids like Michael Jackson and Gary Glitter and that if you don't take this pedophile test then you are guilty is not proof especially if you weren't suspected of it before.

BTW I'm still waiting for emails that said Pacquiao tested dirty and wanted to cover it up. I'm still waiting for these so called hard evidence. So where is it? It's been practically a month already. Can you answer me?

For a while I thought maybe the guy is on something, then it dawn on me that most of this shit was hearsay rumors like the emails and Floyds dad starting the rumors because his fighter Hatton got sparked out in 2 rounds.

If your doing something extreme and arn't will to rule out the obvious then people will start talking. Using your very own example, if your child's baby sitter has been strongly accused of of being a paedo and everyone is talking about it. If there was a test that they could take, say a lie detector, that would show that they are innocent, and they refused for whatever reason, would you leave your kids with them?
I work in the ED, and if someone is accused of alcohol or drug taking and they refuse a test, then they are viewed to be guilty.
Anyone coming in following an MVA gets a blood alcohol level, even if they deny drinking or have never failed a alcohol test before

That is just like an educator to state the obvious. It's common sense and not the behavior of someone with something to hide. Not only that, it's not an accurate scenario. If my neighbor was shot to death, why the hell would I let the neighbor watch go through my house to look for a gun when I don't even fukn own one. Besides, as a boxer, I would have beat his ass to death rather than shoot him. I'd tell their dumb ass to go to the police and ask them to get a search warrant.

[JazMerkin]

That is just like an educator to state the obvious. It's common sense and not the behavior of someone with something to hide. Not only that, it's not an accurate scenario. If my neighbor was shot to death, why the hell would I let the neighbor watch go through my house to look for a gun when I don't even fukn own one. Besides, as a boxer, I would have beat his ass to death rather than shoot him. I'd tell their dumb ass to go to the police and ask them to get a search warrant.

You are a truly god-awful poster. So you attack his profession, even if his points are better than yours, particularly his 'inaccurate' scenario, which is far more feasible than the garbled one you put up.

I assume you mean the neighbourhood watch, but they generally don't take on investigations in instances of murder, the police do. Now if the police had truly inefficient methods of investigating, then would you object if the family of the victim hired a more effective private investigator and do you not think not allowing him into your home might make you look suspicious? Why would you not allow him to look for a gun that was not used in the murder if you were innocent?

Your sentence about you being a boxer indicates that you're someone who almost certainly doesn't box, because if you did you wouldn't feel the need to hype yourself as some kind of tough guy with it. You can tell most of the people who box on here because they don't feel the need to mention it to indicate what hard men or women they are. That or you are just a gigantic douche who likes picking on people less able to defend themselves.

[Hornfinger]

ouch!

[fan johnny]

That is just like an educator to state the obvious. It's common sense and not the behavior of someone with something to hide. Not only that, it's not an accurate scenario. If my neighbor was shot to death, why the hell would I let the neighbor watch go through my house to look for a gun when I don't even fukn own one. Besides, as a boxer, I would have beat his ass to death rather than shoot him. I'd tell their dumb ass to go to the police and ask them to get a search warrant.

You are a truly god-awful poster. So you attack his profession, even if his points are better than yours, particularly his 'inaccurate' scenario, which is far more feasible than the garbled one you put up.

I assume you mean the neighbourhood watch, but they generally don't take on investigations in instances of murder, the police do. Now if the police had truly inefficient methods of investigating, then would you object if the family of the victim hired a more effective private investigator and do you not think not allowing him into your home might make you look suspicious? Why would you not allow him to look for a gun that was not used in the murder if you were innocent?

Your sentence about you being a boxer indicates that you're someone who almost certainly doesn't box, because if you did you wouldn't feel the need to hype yourself as some kind of tough guy with it. You can tell most of the people who box on here because they don't feel the need to mention it to indicate what hard men or women they are. That or you are just a gigantic douche who likes picking on people less able to defend themselves.

If you weren't so busy looking for pactards to argue with, you might notice the correlation you so moronically point out. i.e. "Mayweather" and the "Neighborhood watch" yank spelling not Brit. and the "police" being the "commission". I was being contemptuous with the rest of it.

I take it your one of those fools that beleive guns kill people or that speed kills. Hell you might even blame the pen for failing those tests.

[JazMerkin]

That is just like an educator to state the obvious. It's common sense and not the behavior of someone with something to hide. Not only that, it's not an accurate scenario. If my neighbor was shot to death, why the hell would I let the neighbor watch go through my house to look for a gun when I don't even fukn own one. Besides, as a boxer, I would have beat his ass to death rather than shoot him. I'd tell their dumb ass to go to the police and ask them to get a search warrant.

You are a truly god-awful poster. So you attack his profession, even if his points are better than yours, particularly his 'inaccurate' scenario, which is far more feasible than the garbled one you put up.

I assume you mean the neighbourhood watch, but they generally don't take on investigations in instances of murder, the police do. Now if the police had truly inefficient methods of investigating, then would you object if the family of the victim hired a more effective private investigator and do you not think not allowing him into your home might make you look suspicious? Why would you not allow him to look for a gun that was not used in the murder if you were innocent?

Your sentence about you being a boxer indicates that you're someone who almost certainly doesn't box, because if you did you wouldn't feel the need to hype yourself as some kind of tough guy with it. You can tell most of the people who box on here because they don't feel the need to mention it to indicate what hard men or women they are. That or you are just a gigantic douche who likes picking on people less able to defend themselves.

If you weren't so busy looking for pactards to argue with, you might notice the correlation you so moronically point out. i.e. "Mayweather" and the "Neighborhood watch" yank spelling not Brit. and the "police" being the "commission". I was being contemptuous with the rest of it.

I take it your one of those fools that beleive guns kill people or that speed kills. Hell you might even blame the pen for failing those tests.

I don't need to look for Pactards to argue with, I was well aware of the analogy, hence why I drew it. You of course chose to completely ignore any questions raised by it, instead trying to divert the topic onto something else.

As for your last paragraph, yes guns clearly do kill people when in the hands of an idiot, as does speed when in a car driven by an incapable driver. Although none of that has anything to do with what we're talking about. Oh and I've never failed any tests, and unless you have a PhD (which I'm sure you now will ), I will have an education at least equal to yours if not better.

Again, none of that has anything to do with the topic, which seems to be your aim when you can't deal with difficult questions. Just try and slander them personally and see if you can change the issue, rather than deal with any difficult points raised.