Should Cotto's defeat be changed to a 'No Contest'

No. It should not be changed to a no contest at this point - that would mean changing every fight Margarito ever had to a no contest because there might have been a chance that he used loaded gloves.

 

agree. there is not enough evidence to suggest that margarito used plaster of paris(or whateve the hell that is..) in all his previous fights...

 

This is an opinion, not a fact.

Yes, it is up for debate.

 

That's not true at all.

 

If there is evidence to support the idea that Margarito cheated, yes.

If there isn't any evidence, no.

 

You're clearly wrong on both counts.

But don't worry.

It doesn't mean you're a bad person.

You just don't understand the meaning of the term 'circumstantial evidence.'



It's quite probable that you also have trouble with the distinction between what is fact, and what is opinion.

And what can be debated and what is conclusive.


But again, none of this makes you evil or bad.




But these would be nice subtleties to master when you post on a forum that is largely concerned with facts and opinions, and drawing distinctions between the two.




So to conclude, there is clear CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Margo cheated in his fight with Cotto.

IMO, the evidence is NOT CONCLUSIVE, and so the result of their fight should stand.

 

I would agree with you here.

"...everything seems to point in that direction."

is a gross exaggeration.

 

I've taken several law courses, I know what the hell circumstantial evidence is. Circumstantial evidence is used to prove motive. It's all geared towards formulating an intelligent opinion as to why a crime occured. There's good reason people aren't convicted on circumstantial evidence.

It's quite possible that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and that you're painting yourself in a corner by pretending you do.

No, but your incorrect assesment makes you ignorant.

You may want to make sure that you actually know what you're talking about before you question someone else's knowledge on a topic.

To conclude, that's an opinion, not a statement of fact. If there was clear circumstancial evidence, and investigation would've been launched. YOU ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS CLEAR CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE. Know your **** before you question others.

I'm not arguing to the contrary

 

You may have taken law course till the cows come home, Reg.

You could be a law professor, for all that matters.

You may even have a passing familiarity with what constitutes circumstantial evidence in your particular jurisdiction or corner of the world.

But that's not what I'm talking about when I say there is circumstantial evidence that Margo cheated.

As i already pointed out to you , circumstantial evidence can be considered a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown.

Again:
Marg was caught cheating in a big fight. He illegally enhanced the powere of his punches.

He prevailed in his previous fight, in good part due to his heavy punches.


That constitutes circumstantial evidence that he cheated in the Cotto fight.


How a court in your corner of the world would view such evidence, or how much weight they would put on that evidence does not alter the fact that it is evidence.

Your narrow, legal understanding of the term seems to be getting in your way here.

You're in the same kind of definitional quandry as you were a few weeks ago on the topic of paper champions.

Much of your argument there stemmed from a lack of agreement between the debaters on definitions.


Here, you're defining 'circumstantial evidence' based on your legal traiining.

It is much more than that. It can come into play in the complete absence of motive.

In much the same way, a physician might narrowly define 'hypertension' as being high blood pressure, when it is understood in many other senses outside of medicine.



Once more, to summarize (and to remove the contentious word from the debate):

There is evidence that Margo cheated in his fight with Cotto.

IMO, the evidence is NOT CONCLUSIVE, and so the result of their fight should stand.

 

Not at this point, no!

 

Anybodys stamina would be **** if they were hitting you with loaded gloves for 11 rounds

 

OMG..lol Do u honestly believe in what you're saying?

 

The verification process is done according to the same rules of the unified boxing commissions, and is very much the same either way. And while NV provides the gauze the issue in Margo's case was with what might have been added to those wraps. And, if Margo were to have cheated and gotten away with it against Cotto, I would find it highly unlikly that Ratner would be inclined to state anything other than a denial, given that this would refelct badly upon the commission itself.

Can it be proved? Probably Not. But there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that this might have happened before. And while I don't think the result will change, I think the question of whether Margo's victory over Cotto was legitimate will continue to be asked from this point going forward.

 

Precisely.

The result should stand, but a cloud hangs over Marg's erstwhile victories.

 

If someone hits you with loaded gloves for 11 rounds, chances are the increased power that's gained as a result is going to tell in the later rounds of the fight.

So...yeah...I can see a late-round fade resulting in that situation.