Manny news

First topic message reminder :

Same as the Floyd thread any Manny news put on this thread to stop the board being cluttered.

Good job nobody tries to discredit Floyd's, isn't it ?

Don't you don't regard ' Ring ' magazine as impartial and authoritative?

D4thincarnation wrote:It clear that these rumours about Pacquiao have been fabricated to to smear him, so Mayweather can somehow has a valid reason for ducking and boost Floyd's standing too.

When you such stories that are flying around like they have been, it make it clear how desperate some people are to try and discredit Pacquiao's great achievements

We've been through this before. You cannot prove that Pacquiao is clean. He refused to take a simple blood test. You fail to see any logic in any of this though because you have your head rooted so far up Manny's bottom that you can count his fillings.

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:It clear that these rumours about Pacquiao have been fabricated to to smear him, so Mayweather can somehow has a valid reason for ducking and boost Floyd's standing too.

When you such stories that are flying around like they have been, it make it clear how desperate some people are to try and discredit Pacquiao's great achievements

We've been through this before. You cannot prove that Pacquiao is clean. He refused to take a simple blood test. You fail to see any logic in any of this though because you have your head rooted so far up Manny's bottom that you can count his fillings.

Can you prove that Floyd is clean?

Why didn't he submit to blood test in his 41 previous fights? Or during his 2 year break?

He did come back a lot bigger and refuse to get on the scales what was he hiding?

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:It clear that these rumours about Pacquiao have been fabricated to to smear him, so Mayweather can somehow has a valid reason for ducking and boost Floyd's standing too.

When you such stories that are flying around like they have been, it make it clear how desperate some people are to try and discredit Pacquiao's great achievements

We've been through this before. You cannot prove that Pacquiao is clean. He refused to take a simple blood test. You fail to see any logic in any of this though because you have your head rooted so far up Manny's bottom that you can count his fillings.

Can you prove that Floyd is clean?

Why didn't he submit to blood test in his 41 previous fights? Or during his 2 year break?

He did come back a lot bigger and refuse to get on the scales what was he hiding?

The fact he asked for the testing and used the testing prior to the Mosley fight would suggest he is clean.

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:It clear that these rumours about Pacquiao have been fabricated to to smear him, so Mayweather can somehow has a valid reason for ducking and boost Floyd's standing too.

When you such stories that are flying around like they have been, it make it clear how desperate some people are to try and discredit Pacquiao's great achievements

We've been through this before. You cannot prove that Pacquiao is clean. He refused to take a simple blood test. You fail to see any logic in any of this though because you have your head rooted so far up Manny's bottom that you can count his fillings.

Can you prove that Floyd is clean?

Why didn't he submit to blood test in his 41 previous fights? Or during his 2 year break?

He did come back a lot bigger and refuse to get on the scales what was he hiding?

The fact he asked for the testing and used the testing prior to the Mosley fight would suggest he is clean.

He could have been using in those 2 years out, he grew significantly in that time and was not subjected to the WADA testing program.

Can you prove he didn't use in this time?

Can you prove he did?

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

How can you prove Manny didn't have you got the results for his drug tests?

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

How can you prove Manny didn't have you got the results for his drug tests?

How can you prove that Floyd didn't in his 2 year break?

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

How can you prove Manny didn't have you got the results for his drug tests?

How can you prove that Floyd didn't in his 2 year break?

You don't need to prove innocence unless being charged. You need to prove guilt. I don't think either is guilty of it although I do think Manny brought the questions about it on himself by refusing the tests and then saying he is scared of needles. How many tattoes does he have?

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

How can you prove Manny didn't have you got the results for his drug tests?

How can you prove that Floyd didn't in his 2 year break?

You don't need to prove innocence unless being charged. You need to prove guilt. I don't think either is guilty of it although I do think Manny brought the questions about it on himself by refusing the tests and then saying he is scared of needles. How many tattoes does he have?

So you can't prove Manny's guilt and Floyd's.

And you shouldn't have to prove either one innocence.

Maybe you can tell Balti that one time.

You can't prove Mannys guilt but he brought question marks upon himself when he refused the tests and lied saying he was scared of needles.

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

I believe that this is a typo, D4, and that therein lies BALTI's confusion.

You meant " But because I can't prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did, " didn't you ?

prettyboykev wrote:You can't prove Mannys guilt but he brought question marks upon himself when he refused the tests and lied saying he was scared of needles.

Hopkins has done the same, if Pascal refuses to fight him now, who is to blame.

So has Wlad, question marks over him too?

Pacquiao has never said he is scared of needles.

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

I believe that this is a typo, D4, and that therein lies BALTI's confusion.

You meant " But because I can't prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did, " didn't you ?

Right you are.

D4

Without reading the replies i can only guess you're on about the whole "he doesn't have to prove anything" etc etc

Manny, under US law and being a public figure, has to basically prove they based their accusations with malice and without reason..... (and one other but that's gone for the minute on me).

The latter will be "why not take the test" from the courts and i'd imagine that is the smoke that bought about the fire. If Usain bolt refused a random test i'd imagine he'd have every media outlet throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at him.

coxy0001 wrote:D4

Without reading the replies i can only guess you're on about the whole "he doesn't have to prove anything" etc etc

Manny, under US law and being a public figure, has to basically prove they based their accusations with malice and without reason..... (and one other but that's gone for the minute on me).

The latter will be "why not take the test" from the courts and i'd imagine that is the smoke that bought about the fire. If Usain bolt refused a random test i'd imagine he'd have every media outlet throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at him.

It would depend if the test was ordered by IOC or by Tyson Gay.

D4thincarnation wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:D4

Without reading the replies i can only guess you're on about the whole "he doesn't have to prove anything" etc etc

Manny, under US law and being a public figure, has to basically prove they based their accusations with malice and without reason..... (and one other but that's gone for the minute on me).

The latter will be "why not take the test" from the courts and i'd imagine that is the smoke that bought about the fire. If Usain bolt refused a random test i'd imagine he'd have every media outlet throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at him.

It would depend if the test was ordered by IOC or by Tyson Gay.

An excellent point. To be honest it pretty much baffles me how people can take such definite sides in this debate. There are clearly two sides to the story. On one hand, yes Manny should probably just take the test and shut everyone up, but on the other you can't have your rival dictating what you should and shouldn't do before a fight (particularly as Manny believes that giving blood weakens him - it doesn't matter if it's true or not - he believes it and it affects his game - I don't remember him actually saying he's scared of needles)

It seems a shame that people can just build up a largely baseless accusation on a fighter simply because they've done well

I know that many of us have enjoyed the jousting and ribbing on what is, after all, designed to be a light hearted thread, but I certainly agree with the comments from Boxtthis, above.

Wish they'd sort it all out in the ring, once for all.

HumanWindmill wrote:I know that many of us have enjoyed the jousting and ribbing on what is, after all, designed to be a light hearted thread, but I certainly agree with the comments from Boxtthis, above.

Wish they'd sort it all out in the ring, once for all.

Windy I've never thought it will happen look at the money the 2 fighters can earn fighting has beens and blown up lightweights.

prettyboykev wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I know that many of us have enjoyed the jousting and ribbing on what is, after all, designed to be a light hearted thread, but I certainly agree with the comments from Boxtthis, above.

Wish they'd sort it all out in the ring, once for all.

Windy I've never thought it will happen look at the money the 2 fighters can earn fighting has beens and blown up lightweights.

I fear you're right, kev, but I'll keep hoping.

prettyboykev wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I know that many of us have enjoyed the jousting and ribbing on what is, after all, designed to be a light hearted thread, but I certainly agree with the comments from Boxtthis, above.

Wish they'd sort it all out in the ring, once for all.

Windy I've never thought it will happen look at the money the 2 fighters can earn fighting has beens and blown up lightweights.

I knew this fight would not happen straight after the Cotto v Pacquiao fight.

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I know that many of us have enjoyed the jousting and ribbing on what is, after all, designed to be a light hearted thread, but I certainly agree with the comments from Boxtthis, above.

Wish they'd sort it all out in the ring, once for all.

Windy I've never thought it will happen look at the money the 2 fighters can earn fighting has beens and blown up lightweights.

I knew this fight would not happen straight after the Cotto v Pacquiao fight.

Again, D4, I follow your reasoning, but I sure hope you are wrong and that they are playing a waiting game.

Ever the optimist, eh ? It's been fun today, mate, and you've been a great sport. Hats off to you.

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I know that many of us have enjoyed the jousting and ribbing on what is, after all, designed to be a light hearted thread, but I certainly agree with the comments from Boxtthis, above.

Wish they'd sort it all out in the ring, once for all.

Windy I've never thought it will happen look at the money the 2 fighters can earn fighting has beens and blown up lightweights.

I knew this fight would not happen straight after the Cotto v Pacquiao fight.

Again, D4, I follow your reasoning, but I sure hope you are wrong and that they are playing a waiting game.

Ever the optimist, eh ? It's been fun today, mate, and you've been a great sport. Hats off to you.

I hope I'm wrong too, but we have gone past the point for it to be the best fight it could be.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I know that many of us have enjoyed the jousting and ribbing on what is, after all, designed to be a light hearted thread, but I certainly agree with the comments from Boxtthis, above.

Wish they'd sort it all out in the ring, once for all.

Windy I've never thought it will happen look at the money the 2 fighters can earn fighting has beens and blown up lightweights.

I knew this fight would not happen straight after the Cotto v Pacquiao fight.

Again, D4, I follow your reasoning, but I sure hope you are wrong and that they are playing a waiting game.

Ever the optimist, eh ? It's been fun today, mate, and you've been a great sport. Hats off to you.

I hope I'm wrong too, but we have gone past the point for it to be the best fight it could be.

True, but still the best one out there, I would have thought, and still the biggest for many a year if it comes off. For my money, the winner of that one is pretty much nailed on for a top ten ATG spot.

Well believing everything I read I must conclude that Pacquiao is a PED user

Windy, could I have my own two threads where in on I say how brilliant old timers are and another claiming the new lot to be rubbish? Seems only fair.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Well believing everything I read I must conclude that Pacquiao is a PED user

Windy, could I have my own two threads where in on I say how brilliant old timers are and another claiming the new lot to be rubbish? Seems only fair.

Is someone stopping you writing this thread?

The Mighty Atom wrote:
Windy, could I have my own two threads where in on I say how brilliant old timers are and another claiming the new lot to be rubbish? Seems only fair.

Only if I can play on it, too, Ghosty.

Anyway, fellas, I'm going to be logging off, shortly. I'm sure we'll resume friendly hostilities and mickey taking tomorrow.

Have a great evening, one and all, and thanks for the fun, today.

Course you can play on it too Windy but I warn you all views that differ to mine will be ignored point blank

The Mighty Atom wrote:Course you can play on it too Windy but I warn you all views that differ to mine will be ignored point blank

Can I come on there ignore the topic and just take shots at you.

No it's not allowed, for you wont like the content and will be drawn to comment

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

I don't care about Floyd in this instance. He's not the one DUCKING blood testing...

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

I don't care about Floyd in this instance. He's not the one DUCKING blood testing...

So thats a no then, you can't prove Floyd was not using in his two years out of boxing or from any of his previous 41 fights.

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

I don't care about Floyd in this instance. He's not the one DUCKING blood testing...

So thats a no then, you can't prove Floyd was not using in his two years out of boxing or from any of his previous 41 fights.

You're so boring now D4. Can't you tell that people are just saying whatever it takes to push your buttons, just to see what crackpot nonsense you'll spout next? Why would Floyd be using during a two year break?!? Tsk! It's gonna break your heart when the truth comes out about Pacquiao. Good old fish and brown rice eh? Yeah, dream on..!!

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

I don't care about Floyd in this instance. He's not the one DUCKING blood testing...

So thats a no then, you can't prove Floyd was not using in his two years out of boxing or from any of his previous 41 fights.

It can be proved for the Mosley fight they both did random testing.

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

I don't care about Floyd in this instance. He's not the one DUCKING blood testing...

So thats a no then, you can't prove Floyd was not using in his two years out of boxing or from any of his previous 41 fights.

It can be proved for the Mosley fight they both did random testing.

It only proved that he never took any PEDs that are currently detectable by urine and blood tests, for that fight.


For two years out of the the game he was not even subjected to urine NSAC tests so in that time he could have taken anything.

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Can you prove he did?

Exactly can Balti prove but Manny did?

But because I can prove Manny didn't, he think that is proof that he did.

I don't care about Floyd in this instance. He's not the one DUCKING blood testing...

So thats a no then, you can't prove Floyd was not using in his two years out of boxing or from any of his previous 41 fights.

It can be proved for the Mosley fight they both did random testing.

It only proved that he never took any PEDs that are currently detectable by urine and blood tests, for that fight.


For two years out of the the game he was not even subjected to urine NSAC tests so in that time he could have taken anything.

The same logic says that Pacquiao's never been caught because he's only taken certain substances and has avoided more stringent tests. I don't know why you're bothered about what Mayweather might have taken during his layoff. Perhaps he went to Peru and sampled some coca leaves, or maybe he went to Amsterdam for a massive session on the green. Who knows? It doesn't matter though, because he wasn't trying to pass any tests related to an upcoming bout.

If Mayweather took HGH and other PEDs during his 2 years out, he would have benifed from those PEDs and changed his body size and capabilities unnaturally.

This is why WADA has out of competition testing, because of the long term benifits of PEDs can have in training not just before an event.

That is why it matters, or is this acceptable in your book?

D4thincarnation wrote:If Mayweather took HGH and other PEDs during his 2 years out he would have benifed from those PEDs and changed his body size and capabilities unnaturally.

This is why WADA has out of competition out of hit, because of the long term benifits of PEDs.

Thats why it matters or is this acceptable in your book?

In English, please.

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:If Mayweather took HGH and other PEDs during his 2 years out he would have benifed from those PEDs and changed his body size and capabilities unnaturally.

This is why WADA has out of competition out of hit, because of the long term benifits of PEDs.

Thats why it matters or is this acceptable in your book?

In English, please.

Don't hold your breath...

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:If Mayweather took HGH and other PEDs during his 2 years out he would have benifed from those PEDs and changed his body size and capabilities unnaturally.

This is why WADA has out of competition out of hit, because of the long term benifits of PEDs.

Thats why it matters or is this acceptable in your book?

In English, please.

Don't hold your breath...

I'm not. He's disappeared again, same as he always does either when he's lost an argument or when he's realised you really don't care what he says. If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck...

I think it is generally accepted the boxing has such poor testing for fighters. It is probably one of the worst testing methods across top level sports, especially given how dangerous the sport is.

Floyd asked for random testing for the biggest fight in history (financially anyway) and Manny rejected it. This is used by Manny fans to say Floyd is ducking him. What the ignore, however, is that Floyd agreed to all of Manny's demands. Glove size, ring size, weight penalties etc, all of which are not required by the governing bodies. Double standards and hypocrisy od the highest order.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I know that many of us have enjoyed the jousting and ribbing on what is, after all, designed to be a light hearted thread, but I certainly agree with the comments from Boxtthis, above.

Wish they'd sort it all out in the ring, once for all.

Windy I've never thought it will happen look at the money the 2 fighters can earn fighting has beens and blown up lightweights.

I knew this fight would not happen straight after the Cotto v Pacquiao fight.

Again, D4, I follow your reasoning, but I sure hope you are wrong and that they are playing a waiting game.

Ever the optimist, eh ? It's been fun today, mate, and you've been a great sport. Hats off to you.

I hope I'm wrong too, but we have gone past the point for it to be the best fight it could be.

What do you mean the "best fight it could be" - you've repeatedly told us that this fight would be 90/10 in mannys favour, surely that equates to a one sided beat down and not a competetive fight?

See, unlike D4 I'll happily admit that both of these guys-and all boxers-could easily be using banned substances but as you say, the testing is so inadequate it may as well not exist. Mosley proved how poor testing standards are. Mayweather could well be using, but he's not the one refusing better testing, so it's easy to see where the suspicion and accusations are going to fall.

Ah, 90/10. He's such an optimist.

BALTIMORA wrote:See, unlike D4 I'll happily admit that both of these guys-and all boxers-could easily be using banned substances but as you say, the testing is so inadequate it may as well not exist. Mosley proved how poor testing standards are. Mayweather could well be using, but he's not the one refusing better testing, so it's easy to see where the suspicion and accusations are going to fall.

Why do you think Mayweather has not signed up to out of competition testing.

He shows no reluctance to to break the rules of society does he.

Do you think the tests Mayweather had for Mosley was the same standard of other Olympic athletes have to follow?

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I know that many of us have enjoyed the jousting and ribbing on what is, after all, designed to be a light hearted thread, but I certainly agree with the comments from Boxtthis, above.

Wish they'd sort it all out in the ring, once for all.

Windy I've never thought it will happen look at the money the 2 fighters can earn fighting has beens and blown up lightweights.

I knew this fight would not happen straight after the Cotto v Pacquiao fight.

Again, D4, I follow your reasoning, but I sure hope you are wrong and that they are playing a waiting game.

Ever the optimist, eh ? It's been fun today, mate, and you've been a great sport. Hats off to you.

I hope I'm wrong too, but we have gone past the point for it to be the best fight it could be.

What do you mean the "best fight it could be" - you've repeatedly told us that this fight would be 90/10 in mannys favour, surely that equates to a obe sided beat down and not a competetive fight?

Both fighters will be on the decline now.

I really can't see how Floyd beats Manny, unless a lot of thing go wrong for Manny on the night and everything goes right for Floyd and even then he just scrapes a pts decision.

I still see this fight 90/10 in Pacquiao's favour.

90/10

D4, you're really such a pathetic joke aren't you? I really think your heart would stop and your head would explode if Floyd were to win a shutout or...heaven forbid...STOP Manny. Why do you have such an obsession over Floyd? I've already said it'd be very easy for Floyd or ANY other boxer to be using all kinds of PEDs. I'd have a bit of respect for you if even half of what you type made any kind of sense. It just doesn't.

For once; forget about Floyd. Yes, he COULD be using PEDs. Just accept that Pacquiao could equally be using anything and everything that Floyd could. Only one of head guys is even making the slightest noise about improving testing standards though, and it's not your Mr Pacquiao. I know you know I'm right, you're just scared to admit it.

90/10...

What an unobjective idiot...