WTF is PBF demanding w/ those Blood Tests???

[Hornfinger]

I WILL NEVER SAY CATAGORICALLY THAT SOMEONE IS CLEAN IF THEY HAVENT PASSED RANDOM BLOOD TESTING.

Give us some of the names of those who you think are categorically clean and what's your basis?

If Manny agreed to Floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, would that have been satisfactory to you? And if Manny tested negative in those, would you have categorically said that Manny is clean?

I haven't heard hornfinger's response to this but I would also like to hear the answers from mafiajoey and miles as well.

Yep I would have been satisfifed that Manny was clean for that fight.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

I WILL NEVER SAY CATAGORICALLY THAT SOMEONE IS CLEAN IF THEY HAVENT PASSED RANDOM BLOOD TESTING.

Give us some of the names of those who you think are categorically clean and what's your basis?

If Manny agreed to Floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, would that have been satisfactory to you? And if Manny tested negative in those, would you have categorically said that Manny is clean?

I haven't heard hornfinger's response to this but I would also like to hear the answers from mafiajoey and miles as well.

Yep I would have been satisfifed that Manny was clean for that fight.

Thanks for the reply. See ..... I can be civil if the person I'm communicating with is civil.

I would respond to this after I see the reply from mafiajoey and miles, that is if they intend to reply?

[InTheNeutralCorner]

I WILL NEVER SAY CATAGORICALLY THAT SOMEONE IS CLEAN IF THEY HAVENT PASSED RANDOM BLOOD TESTING.

Give us some of the names of those who you think are categorically clean and what's your basis?

If Manny agreed to Floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, would that have been satisfactory to you? And if Manny tested negative in those, would you have categorically said that Manny is clean?

I haven't heard hornfinger's response to this but I would also like to hear the answers from mafiajoey and miles as well.

Yep I would have been satisfifed that Manny was clean for that fight.

Thanks for the reply. See ..... I can be civil if the person I'm communicating with is civil.

I would respond to this after I see the reply from mafiajoey and miles, that is if they intend to reply?

I don't think the two are going to respond to my question so I might as well reply to hornfinger's response.

If you are satisfied with whatever the outcome would have been of Floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, then you should still be satisfied with it even if it's in the second, third or tenth negotiation. Manny would have fulfilled this requirement in the second negotiation and it was Floyd's action (not wanting to fight and going on vacation) that prevented this from happening. While the burden of proof was with Manny in the first negotiation, it has shifted in the second since Manny agreed to the test.

And you really don't care as to the randomness of the test because you will be satisfied with Floyd's demand that has a 14 day cut-of period. This makes marbleheadmaui's above post make sense.

[Hornfinger]

I WILL NEVER SAY CATAGORICALLY THAT SOMEONE IS CLEAN IF THEY HAVENT PASSED RANDOM BLOOD TESTING.

Give us some of the names of those who you think are categorically clean and what's your basis?

If Manny agreed to Floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, would that have been satisfactory to you? And if Manny tested negative in those, would you have categorically said that Manny is clean?

I haven't heard hornfinger's response to this but I would also like to hear the answers from mafiajoey and miles as well.

Yep I would have been satisfifed that Manny was clean for that fight.

Thanks for the reply. See ..... I can be civil if the person I'm communicating with is civil.

I would respond to this after I see the reply from mafiajoey and miles, that is if they intend to reply?

I don't think the two are going to respond to my question so I might as well reply to hornfinger's response.

If you are satisfied with whatever the outcome would have been of Floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, then you should still be satisfied with it even if it's in the second, third or tenth negotiation. Manny would have fulfilled this requirement in the second negotiation and it was Floyd's action (not wanting to fight and going on vacation) that prevented this from happening. While the burden of proof was with Manny in the first negotiation, it has shifted in the second since Manny agreed to the test.

And you really don't care as to the randomness of the test because you will be satisfied with Floyd's demand that has a 14 day cut-of period. This makes marbleheadmaui's above post make sense.

Not nessasarily. If he knows 2-3 months before a training camp that he could be tested within that period he can clean out his body. So yes I believe he'd be clean for that fight.

I still believe part of the negotiation break down the first time could have been because pac and his team didn't think they'd have enough time to clean the shit out of his system before the testing period commenced.

I wouldn't have catagorically said he was clean. I would have said he was clean for THAT fight.

Shane and floyd were clean for THAT fight.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

i will never say catagorically that someone is clean if they havent passed random blood testing.

give us some of the names of those who you think are categorically clean and what's your basis?

if manny agreed to floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, would that have been satisfactory to you? And if manny tested negative in those, would you have categorically said that manny is clean?

i haven't heard hornfinger's response to this but i would also like to hear the answers from mafiajoey and miles as well.

yep i would have been satisfifed that manny was clean for that fight.

thanks for the reply. See ..... I can be civil if the person i'm communicating with is civil.

I would respond to this after i see the reply from mafiajoey and miles, that is if they intend to reply?

i don't think the two are going to respond to my question so i might as well reply to hornfinger's response.

If you are satisfied with whatever the outcome would have been of floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, then you should still be satisfied with it even if it's in the second, third or tenth negotiation. Manny would have fulfilled this requirement in the second negotiation and it was floyd's action (not wanting to fight and going on vacation) that prevented this from happening. While the burden of proof was with manny in the first negotiation, it has shifted in the second since manny agreed to the test.

And you really don't care as to the randomness of the test because you will be satisfied with floyd's demand that has a 14 day cut-of period. This makes marbleheadmaui's above post make sense.

not nessasarily. If he knows 2-3 months before a training camp that he could be tested within that period he can clean out his body. So yes i believe he'd be clean for that fight.
but isn't that what matters so that floyd will not have an excuse not to fight manny?

i still believe part of the negotiation break down the first time could have been because pac and his team didn't think they'd have enough time to clean the shit out of his system before the testing period commenced.
maybe, and your doubt seems reasonable.

i wouldn't have catagorically said he was clean. I would have said he was clean for that fight.
agree. But the fact that that testing did not happen is because of floyd's actions hence the burden of proof does not lie with manny anymore.

shane and floyd were clean for that fight.
it's just unfortunate that you call yourself a boxing fan yet you think shane and floyd has the only clean fight.

[:::PSL:::]

Joeygotfingered,

I'm still waiting for that "Pac on PEDs" proof.

Where the fuck is it?

[Hornfinger]

Joeygotfingered,

I'm still waiting for that "Pac on PEDs" proof.

Where the fuck is it?

Yes lets only blood test athletes when we already have proof of them juicing. My God that is FUCKING genius that is. That is the cleverest idea ever! You know that's such an intelligent thing to say I'm sure the people over at MENSA will be beating down your door to get you on board. I mean shit. Let's bring that in at the olympics, the only athletes that will be tested will be the ones that we already have proof of using steroids. It's a good job Einstein is dead cuz he'd be shitting himself right now with boffins like you around. The brains at NASA pale in comparison to your superior logic.......


Sarcasm aside....

As I said in another thread. This argument is the silliest most retarded thing that you can grasp at. It dumb, stupid, idiotic, moronic.... I could go on all day...

Testing solves everything. It gives proof either way. Pacfans should be wanting their hero to take the tests so you can rub it in our faces that he's clean as a whistle. You don't want him taking the tests cuz you have your doubts. I find that funny.

[Hornfinger]

i will never say catagorically that someone is clean if they havent passed random blood testing.

give us some of the names of those who you think are categorically clean and what's your basis?

if manny agreed to floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, would that have been satisfactory to you? And if manny tested negative in those, would you have categorically said that manny is clean?

i haven't heard hornfinger's response to this but i would also like to hear the answers from mafiajoey and miles as well.

yep i would have been satisfifed that manny was clean for that fight.

thanks for the reply. See ..... I can be civil if the person i'm communicating with is civil.

I would respond to this after i see the reply from mafiajoey and miles, that is if they intend to reply?

i don't think the two are going to respond to my question so i might as well reply to hornfinger's response.

If you are satisfied with whatever the outcome would have been of floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, then you should still be satisfied with it even if it's in the second, third or tenth negotiation. Manny would have fulfilled this requirement in the second negotiation and it was floyd's action (not wanting to fight and going on vacation) that prevented this from happening. While the burden of proof was with manny in the first negotiation, it has shifted in the second since manny agreed to the test.

And you really don't care as to the randomness of the test because you will be satisfied with floyd's demand that has a 14 day cut-of period. This makes marbleheadmaui's above post make sense.

not nessasarily. If he knows 2-3 months before a training camp that he could be tested within that period he can clean out his body. So yes i believe he'd be clean for that fight.
but isn't that what matters so that floyd will not have an excuse not to fight manny?

i still believe part of the negotiation break down the first time could have been because pac and his team didn't think they'd have enough time to clean the shit out of his system before the testing period commenced.
maybe, and your doubt seems reasonable.

i wouldn't have catagorically said he was clean. I would have said he was clean for that fight.
agree. But the fact that that testing did not happen is because of floyd's actions hence the burden of proof does not lie with manny anymore.

shane and floyd were clean for that fight.
it's just unfortunate that you call yourself a boxing fan yet you think shane and floyd has the only clean fight.

All of your replies are irrelevent retarded shite, apart from the last part which just takes it to a new level because it makes no sence.

I am a boxing fan because I believe in fair and even contests. I believe that that is what is best for the sport. Tell me another contest that had olympic style random testing before it and I'll agree it was a clean fight.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

i will never say catagorically that someone is clean if they havent passed random blood testing.

give us some of the names of those who you think are categorically clean and what's your basis?

if manny agreed to floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, would that have been satisfactory to you? And if manny tested negative in those, would you have categorically said that manny is clean?

i haven't heard hornfinger's response to this but i would also like to hear the answers from mafiajoey and miles as well.

yep i would have been satisfifed that manny was clean for that fight.

thanks for the reply. See ..... I can be civil if the person i'm communicating with is civil.

I would respond to this after i see the reply from mafiajoey and miles, that is if they intend to reply?

i don't think the two are going to respond to my question so i might as well reply to hornfinger's response.

If you are satisfied with whatever the outcome would have been of floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, then you should still be satisfied with it even if it's in the second, third or tenth negotiation. Manny would have fulfilled this requirement in the second negotiation and it was floyd's action (not wanting to fight and going on vacation) that prevented this from happening. While the burden of proof was with manny in the first negotiation, it has shifted in the second since manny agreed to the test.

And you really don't care as to the randomness of the test because you will be satisfied with floyd's demand that has a 14 day cut-of period. This makes marbleheadmaui's above post make sense.

not nessasarily. If he knows 2-3 months before a training camp that he could be tested within that period he can clean out his body. So yes i believe he'd be clean for that fight.
but isn't that what matters so that floyd will not have an excuse not to fight manny?

i still believe part of the negotiation break down the first time could have been because pac and his team didn't think they'd have enough time to clean the shit out of his system before the testing period commenced.
maybe, and your doubt seems reasonable.

i wouldn't have catagorically said he was clean. I would have said he was clean for that fight.
agree. But the fact that that testing did not happen is because of floyd's actions hence the burden of proof does not lie with manny anymore.

shane and floyd were clean for that fight.
it's just unfortunate that you call yourself a boxing fan yet you think shane and floyd has the only clean fight.

All of your replies are irrelevent retarded shite, apart from the last part which just takes it to a new level because it makes no sence.

I am a boxing fan because I believe in fair and even contests. I believe that that is what is best for the sport. Tell me another contest that had olympic style random testing before it and I'll agree it was a clean fight.

Didn't you admit that you only think Floyd and Shane's fight is clean? So, you think the rest are dirty. And you call yourself an idiot ...... I mean a boxing fan.

Boxing could improve the way they test their athletes for drugs. But until then, if you are to remain a boxing fan you have to be satisfied with the regulation they have in place. Otherwise, you are just deluding yourself with a sport that you think is tainted.

[marbleheadmaui]

I WILL NEVER SAY CATAGORICALLY THAT SOMEONE IS CLEAN IF THEY HAVENT PASSED RANDOM BLOOD TESTING.

Give us some of the names of those who you think are categorically clean and what's your basis?

If Manny agreed to Floyd's drug test demand in the first negotiation, would that have been satisfactory to you? And if Manny tested negative in those, would you have categorically said that Manny is clean?

I haven't heard hornfinger's response to this but I would also like to hear the answers from mafiajoey and miles as well.

Yep I would have been satisfifed that Manny was clean for that fight.

And THAT answer demonstrates just how clueless you are about the ability of ther current testing regimes to actually catch the leading edge cheaters.