Quote Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner View Post
Quote Originally Posted by hornfinger View Post
Quote Originally Posted by intheneutralcorner View Post
Quote Originally Posted by intheneutralcorner View Post
Quote Originally Posted by hornfinger View Post
Quote Originally Posted by intheneutralcorner View Post
Quote Originally Posted by intheneutralcorner View Post
Quote Originally Posted by hornfinger View Post
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.