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

[InTheNeutralCorner]

Pacquiao's credibility was tarnished in his refusal to the demanded drug test in the first negotiation. I never said it hasn't. But he redeemed himself by agreeing to that same drug test in the second negotiation.

The difference between Pacquiao and you is that he had not admitted to it whereas YOU ADMITTED THAT YOU CAN NOT PROVE YOUR CREDIBILITY (only someone guilty or stupid would admit to this, so which one is it?) and that YOU HAVEN'T REDEEMED YOURSELF. So your credibility is still non-existent at this time.

You thought you can get one over me. Who's not intelligent now?

hornfinger's credibility is !!!!!

Are you still crying?

Good for you, good for you. I agree pacquiao has no credibility.

My credibility is shot because posts made 5+ years ago don't exist on this forum. That's great logic. Like I've said before, You're not very bright are you?

The more you bang on about 'my credibility' the more I'm convinced you know that you're beaten.

By all means carry on....

You claim to have advocated for a random blood test even before the Mayweather accusation. That accusation was made just less than 2 years ago so you still have more than 3 years of available old posts that you can sort through, something that I suspect you already did during your mini vacation but could not find anything.

Your credibility is shot because you made a statement and can't prove it. This is no different from you accusing Pacquiao of being on drugs because he can't prove it (based on your opinion) and him finally agreeing to the drug test is not good enough for you.

WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS ALSO GOOD FOR THE CHICKEN, I MEAN GANDER.

and

YOU HAVE TO SWALLOW YOUR OWN SHIT, I MEAN MEDICINE.

3 things

1) I don't feel my credibility is damaged so see no point in wasting time sifting through this forum to find posts I've made in the past. (No I haven't even bothered looking. I have too much of a life and I'm not enough of a geek) Of course, you haven't. I don't blame you. Who would bother looking for something to redeem a credibility knowing it isn't there?

2) You're not important enough for me top feel the need to waste time sifting through the forum to find posts I know are there. (To me you're a pactard who has no life and I don't rate you higher than shit on my shoe ) How could we believe this if there is no proof? This is according to your rule, I didn't make it. No proof means it's not true.

3) I've already won Goody, Goody. What did you win? Oh wait, you're not credible.

If you deemed someone is guilty after an accusation and that it's up to them to prove themselves, then this also applies to you. There is no way around this.

So which is it? Are they guilty until proven innocent or are they innocent until proven guilty?