Floyd Mayweather's Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Filed by Manny Pacquiao Denied

These are public figures and yes you can say **** like that, no different than you hear people all day long saying Charlie Sheen is ****ed up, on drugs etc. People can say Manny is on drugs if they want, up until the point that it costs Manny a job, impacts his ability to support himself, AND if done knowing Manny was innocent and with the intent of harming Manny on those levels. None of these things are going to be proven in a court of law, hence the reason Manny won't win the lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer, but it's not difficult to find this information and if you actually looked for yourself you would see this too.

 

it will be settled out of court. mayweathers will pay an undisclosed sum of to Manny Pacquiao. They won't open their mouths again about Pac taking steroids.

the tests will exxonerate him once and for all. Again, you don't need a blood test to prove what the Mayweathers said was malicious. the damage is done already.

So its a moot point whether you think he has or doesn't have a case.

 

it isn't good. they're just trying to put their filthy hands on boxing. There's too many boxing matches for them to govern. Nobody is going to enforce it unless the title companies pay for them.

 

Do you not realize that Manny brought the **** on himself? Get real man. First Mayweather asked for full random testing from the start that Team Pacquiao agreed with. Please see video as Roach says Floyd wanted OSDT and he said no problem.[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La7RAg1shM0&feature=channel_video_title[/ame]
After agreeing to the testing Team Pacquaio backed off and wanted a 30 day cut off. Floyd met them half way and offered 14 days. Team Pacquiao wanted 24 days. They also lied by the way and said they agreed to 14 days which wasn't true. Now just by the first couple of facts that I just gave proves that Manny brought the **** on himself. Get over it.

 

I don't know. You have the ability to limit someones ability to possibly cheat, and there is no "proven/factual" down side to it. Even if its only one fight its still better for boxing then without it. And based on the procedure that is explained in May vs Mosley 24/7, it really doesn't seem that bad.

 

I must have mixed you up with some other poster.

i had thought you to be a decent poster, here and in the lounge and that's why I took the time to place a reasoned response to your post.

Most *****s I just ignore and move on, but, as I say, I had you mixed up with someone who could actually think, and write.


And then I read your well reasoned response.

Not a ****ing word about the post. Just a bunch of juvenile vitriol attacking me personally.

Where did I call you a fggot ?

Where did I say you spent too much time suckin' your daddy's dick ?

Where did I say you were the result of an Ass-**** and spent nine months in your momma's bowels before she gave birth to a nine pound **** ?

I don't recall any of that. I argued the points. Showed that every point regarding Pac could cut both ways.


And this is the best you can come back with ?

Classy.

And and such a well reasoned argument.

 

yeah..try doing that procedure for ALL boxers in all parts of the world. not gonna work.

it might be better, but it sure as hell ain't cost effective. Too many politics even for the blood testing. Not gonna happen to see USADA or WADA in boxing.

 

dude, i'm over it. I don't care about a youtube video. what's that got to do with Manny Pacquiao?atsch

 

you are right. i didn't read the article carefully enough. apologies.

actually it was the anti-slapp motion...it is not just about free speech but also calling on the judge to decide if the case has any merits in points of law or if it is baseless. it is about preventing frivilous lawsuits...& if this one was as "bull****" as people say...an anti-slapp would have seen it thrown out & pac would have had to pay all the legal costs. :deal

he has a lifetime of clean drugtests. that will satisfy a civil court's definition of proof as he does not have to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt" but instead show a "preponderence of evidence" or that it is "more likely than not".

& anyway..."truth" is a defence & the burden of proof shifts depending on who is presenting the argument.

pac is suing two companies for defamation & coinspiracy. he is not suing a private individual for saying a bad thing. he isn't merely alleging actionable statements (if he was a lot of those in the claim would be out) but claiming an orchestrated campaign to undermine & discredit him.

the crux of his case is that during the first rd of negotiations with floyd; an orchestrated campaign by the presidents & employees of gbp & mayweather promotions emerged. if it gets past summary judgement that will mean that a judge has decided that because of their positions & closeness to the negotiations; their comments cannot be classified as pure opinions but would be interpreted as comments from people with "inside knowledge". (there is a lot of precedent for this...& a large part of the reason pac is suing the companies not the individuals is to take advantage of that).

even if your interpretation were true; he would have to prove that mayweather "more likely than not" didn't believe he was on steroids before the negotiations started (& he'd never mentioned it), that odlh "more likely than not" did not believe that he was on peds before negotiations started (he said after the fighting pac he could have "stood there and put my face in front of him and he couldn’t have hurt me" then after the negotiations started claimed he hit as hard as other fighters who were both known steroid users...why the total chenge in story?) & then show that these accusations did begin after those negotiations started (which they did). & given their positions in the negotiations & in the companies being sued it is actually their responsibility not to behave negligently (of which there are several precedents) by making irresponsible comments in public.

& again...he doesn't need to show it "beyond a reasonable doubt". he needs to build up a preponderence of evidence or show that it is more likely than not.

did you seriously thing the court case will just be:

"i didn't"
"you did"
"i didn't"
"prove it".
"can't"
"case dismissed".

yeah...pac is spending millions on a case that any moron with wikipedia could pick a hole in. of course he is. the actionable statements are the icing on the claim...not the whole basis.

if they get past summary judgement? you are wrong.

 

It proves that his ass along with his team flip flopped and played games which brought on all **** talking in the media.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCa1-X7ey5Y[/ame]

 

Floyd also gulity of flip-flopping.


Floyd: 14 days

Pac: 7 days

Floyd:

This content is protected

 

We will see then. I'm betting they will not make it far enough to prove one way or another. Remember, they're not even past summary judgement yet so don't jump ahead.

 

You do know that GBP motion to dismiss was denied and not Floyd's right?? atsch:hi:

 

:****off:bart You arguing about Floyd and his motion is not even the one dismissed you ******.

 

That argument is false. There was no "agreed upon" cut off with Shane.

OSDT means they could have randomly come in anytime up to the fight and taken blood. The people testing are not affiliated with either camp and although they didn't come in, they could have without question.