dumbasses??????? Some of them? What the hell?! I keep reading from various members that Mosley's use of steroids hasn't been proven therefore he is innocent! WTF! NUMBNUTS! He ADMITTED TO USING STEROIDS ALREADY!!!!!! OLD NEWS!
well, in legal technicalities, mosley hasn't been convicted yet of steroid use, so fans are correct saying he is innocent of such act. time and again, jurisprudence would say that a person suspected of committing a criminal act or acts punishable under the United States penal code or any special statute passed by the legislative branch, is innocent until he is proven guilty in court. that is, even if he has admitted to commit such act elsewhere, he is innocent until the court has taken notice and declared such admittance prima facie proof of his guilt. otherwise, in the eyes of the law, he has done nothing. but if we're speaking in layman-fanboys language, then yes, mosley is a steroid-pumping mother****er. those fans who would say otherwise are mosley cocksuckers, unless of course they are speaking from a legal point of view.:hat
The argument is more whether it was done intentionally ASSOL. atsch You're all up DLH's ass 24/7, so its obvious what you think. Besides, you were up on this board saying how good DLH looked against Forbes, and how the pics on DLH in fishnets were fake. You're obviously not one to talk.
No. It was just talk from one article. People jumping the gun w/ knee-jerk reaction posts are all too common.
On the contrary, if Mosley's guilt is our contention, intentional use of Steroid isn't an argument, technically. In a typical criminal prosecution, two elements are regarded as doctrinal requirements in order to prove guilt. First would be the Mens Rea or the intent of the doer of the prohibited act or ommision. Second would the Actus reus or the overt physical act which constitutes the felony. when these two elements combine then the liability of the respondent is established. for example, if the US penal code punishes the felony of arson, first thing that must be normally established is the overt act of the respondent such as the act of setting a house on fire e.g., by throwing a cigarette butt on any flammable material. second is the intent of the respondent to burn down the house or establishment. this intention can be discerned from other circumstantial evidence or the process itself by which the burning was done. if the overt act is present, but the intent is lacking, such as the overt act was done accidentally, then the act will not fall under the category of crime, but would be classified as a culpa aquiliana or what in layman's term is called torts. Imprisonment would not be metted, but instead civil damages such as monetary compensation. however, this intent-requirement does not apply when the act or ommision prohibited is not listed under the US Penal Code. from time to time, the legislature would pass special prohibitory laws such as what we have now, an anti-steroid use special law. in special laws, prohibition is absolute and whether the respondent acted out intentionally or not is irrelevant. as long as the overt act/Actus reus is committed, the legal sanctions would apply, for it is not the intent that is punished but the very result of such act, as stated in a recent Supreme court jurisprudence.:rasta
Speaking of De La Fishnet, remember the Oscarsexuals claiming he only ran against Trinidad because of the corner's advice, and not because of fatigue? That's almost as funny as them claiming he can make 147 without problem, and using his word as "proof". "I've been at 147 for a month and a half"- before the Forbes fight. Then he weighs in at 150.5 and says the PBF rematch is @ 150.
