Originally Posted by Twirdman
This line of reasoning is ridiculous. It has always been the case that the accuser has to prove the other persons guild not the accused has to prove his innocence. I mean does Mayweather have any indication that Pac is using PEDs, if not then why bother using more stringent testing. There isn't even really any type of evidence besides he has boxed well. So should we look with suspicion at every boxer who as ever fought well? Obviously not you use more stringent test if you have some credible reason to believe that he is cheating current testing practices.
Ok let me put it this way , With $40,000,000 at stake WHAT'S THE ****IN PROBLEM?
now is that better. is that a little less ridiculous?