Article: "Mayweather Diminished By Avoiding Pacquiao"

He already took the tests. Many of them. Which is why trying to state as a fact that Pacquiao is a PED user is potentially defamatory. As in, the facts are not on the side of one making the accusation. Pacquiao can present any number of passed tests to defend himself on that count.

Pacquiao has agreed to take the OSDT tests, from all reliable information. The only issue is the cut-off date. Again, if there is a PED out there that can turn you into Super-Fighter in 7 days, I want to know about it. I'm sure many do.

 

The negotiations involved cut-off dates. Ergo, Pacquiao agreed to take the tests (you don't discuss cut-off dates unless you are going to actually take a test). The sticking point apparently was when would the cut-off date be. There seems little factual basis to dispute that Pacquiao did not agree to engage in OSDT.

Look, we've been down this road. When Team Mayweather said there were no second negotiations, I believe, Greenburg of HBO came out and said, yes, there were second negotiations. You don't have to believe me. Believe others who were reportedly involved in the negotiations. Or don't believe them, and believe whatever alternative version you wish to believe. That's your choice.

 

Right.

Now, someone can say "Mosley passed all his tests," or "Marion Jones passed all her tests." Ok, that's fair. But: You cant assert as a fact, continuously, that someone is a cheat when all available evidence says that they aren't a cheat. That gets into defamation lawsuit territory.

The "reasoning," as it were, gets even more tortured when the alleged cheat has agreed to testing, as Pacquiao apparently had done in negotiations.

 

I'd have to go and look up the information, honestly. I'm assuming the gag order was issued after the "medical expert" information was leaked. That's what I was referring to above -- someone tried to seal the leak, presumably because they didn't like the information coming out. I get that. Lance Armstrong would like to seal the grand jury testimony, I'm sure. So would have Barry Bonds. That doesn't mean that what gets out isn't true. Doesn't mean it IS true, either, but it doesn't mean it is not true.

The circumstantial evidence builds up here. Taken, of course, together with the fact of Pacquiao stating he would take the tests. So, I and others can draw our own conclusions. And you are free to draw a different conclusion, based upon the same or other facts and assertions.

 

I think that is about what Floyd, Sr. said.

 

Your defamation suit logic is flawed, IMO.

If I remember correctly, when the steroids stuff was going on in baseball, people would ask of McGwire and Clemens: Hey, if you're clean, why don't you sue for defamation. With the assumption being if they weren't suing for defamation, they weren't clean. This is the same reasoning, I think, that Hopkins is using in considering suing Pascal for defamation.

So, Pac is suing for defamation. That's about the only way to clear your name given this circumstance. As Hopkins showed, you can fight and beat a guy and still consider suing him for defamation. That is the remedy in this instance, even if you fight and beat a guy.