I couldn't care less which fighters take PEDs

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by john garfield, Aug 9, 2013.


  1. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    71,029
    27,658
    Jul 26, 2004
    :huh
     
  2. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    36,348
    11,386
    Jan 6, 2007



    First of all, there is no 'them.'

    We're talking about ONE individual.

    Secondly, as to Manny needing the fight more, I don't agree.

    Mayweather had a crack at making top 10 all-time, p4p.

    He needed a number of things for that to happen, principally, a victory over Pac.

    This would have been the career defining win for him on the heels of Pac-Cotto.
    The irony here is, had he not feared "the little midget" he probably would have beaten him, as Floyd is the superior boxer.

    So for legacy reasons, Floyd needed the fight more.

    Not only does the absence of Pac on Floyd's resume detract from his greatness, but the fairly obvious manner in which he showed his misgivings puts another hole in it.



    Money wise, Floyd needed it much more as well. Manny earns his money in the US and soon China, in US dollars, just like Floyd.


    But Manny spends most of his in the Philippines where its worth much more than in the US.

    Thus, he has way more spending power than Floyd.


    In short, Floyd's ducking of Pac will haunt his career and his legacy.
     
  3. TiltyNose

    TiltyNose Member Full Member

    338
    0
    Apr 3, 2013
    Clean boxing is impossible. Even more rigged and unfair one is right behind the door you're pointing at.
     
  4. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    71,029
    27,658
    Jul 26, 2004
    You are making this a Floyd ducking Pac issue. Im not going there with you.

    we were having a PED discussion here, and you are trying to drag it into something entirely different.

    * John said that if an opponent asked the other to take extra testing, that the other one had the right to say F off. That's true.

    the flip side to that is, they probably, and fairly, get skipped over in terms of being considered as an opponent.

    I am not talking about Pac, I am talking about any Floyd opponent, and also to add to that, any 'opponent' in boxing period that turns down extra testing that's being asked of them by the person they could be fighting, this applies especially if the fighter asking for the testing is a payday for the one getting asked.



    That's it.
     
  5. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    36,348
    11,386
    Jan 6, 2007
    Don't get your knickers in a knot here, Kirk.

    You sound ridiculous.

    Threads take aon a life of their own and rarely does one not diverge with digression.

    Besides, JG, the threadstarter in this instance, made an explicit reference to his take on the Pac-Floyd issue.

    I agreed with him as he said what I've been saying for years.

    And then you took issue with my post.

    And I explicated my position further.

    Why would that get you all out of sorts ?


    Yes, and that's what happened here.

    And my point is, most in the boxing business can draw their conclusions from that series of events.


    The size of the payday is totally irrelevant, a red herring constantly brought up by folks who miss the main point here. Both men would have made record paydays.

    Point is, one opponent should not , as JG stated, try to dictate to the other opponent regarding tests that the boxing authorities have not required and that hithertofore, have not been an issue.

    To all but a complete idiot, Floyd's timing with his effort to 'clean up the sport' is a clear indicator that he feared THIS opponent, not any other that he faced previously.




    Final point:




    Your sig ?

     
  6. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    71,029
    27,658
    Jul 26, 2004
    Im not going to touch on the rest of your post other then these two parts, because again, you are focusing on Mayweather vs Pac, when it should be about any fighter asking the other for more testing. You are dragging this into a 'Mayweather used testing to duck Pac'. As I said, Im not going there with you. So im leaving it alone.

    To address you above,

    If one opponent truly feels the other is doping, and also feels that the selected testing agency is insufficient, they have every right to ask for more testing of their opponent. Their opponent then has every right to deny the request (which imo, invites suspicion), and then finally the fighter asking for the extra testing can then say no fight then. Period.



    Im not sure what the point of this was.

    'Misplaced sense or notion of pride', means, when they involve pride into an issue that has nothing to do with it.

    Turning down extra steroid testing your opponent is requesting, for the biggest fight of your life, and then citing pride as the reason? :roll: Give me a break.

    That is a great example of misplaced, juvenile, pride.

    True Pride has nothing to do with this discussion, and true pride is what my quote is about.




    Finally, my knickers are not in a knot ;) Im just not going to be dragged into a pointless Mayweather vs Pac discussion.


    I am talking about any fighter, asking any other fighter, for more testing. And because Mayweather is the biggest star in the sport, we can use him vs every one of his recent opponents. That's who the 'them' is.

    So... when John says 'They can tell him to F.O', then hes right. My point was, then the fighter (in this case Mayweather) has every right to skip over him as an opponent.


    Sorry if Ive come off rude, not intending to. :good
     
  7. Kevin Willis

    Kevin Willis Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    9,692
    11,866
    Jan 16, 2013
    I do not give a damn who juices either. Any of you in the same situation would do the same thing. The only problem is that some fighters have access to better guru's that oversee the preparatory process. While some can take whatever they want, whenever they want and their test results will be ignored.....Erm Floyd!!!
     
  8. bandeedo

    bandeedo Loyal Member Full Member

    36,048
    24,027
    Feb 19, 2007
    i wouldnt. there may be other shameful things i would do that you may not, but cheating in a test of superiority is something that would make it meaningless for me. i may change my mind if that type of money was involved, but neither i nor you would really know until then.
     
  9. Kevin Willis

    Kevin Willis Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    9,692
    11,866
    Jan 16, 2013
    If the man across from you was doing it, so would you. Unless, of course, you are that RARE exception.

    I can speak for myself because I do know because I have.
     
  10. TiltyNose

    TiltyNose Member Full Member

    338
    0
    Apr 3, 2013
    You'd probably get ruined to retirement by better conditioned fighters before your first good payday. Then you'd get to do those other shameful things to feed your family before entering to prison system.
     
  11. lzolnier

    lzolnier Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,524
    34
    Jan 20, 2007
    Agreed. People are looking at this issue in a totally flawed way. They are simply parotting the talking points of the powers that be, like mindless sheep. In reality, PEDS are the great equalizer of the genetic lottery, which makes a few individuals better over others simply on the basis of inheritance and birth mutations. Peds are as democratic as the ingestion of quality proteins to make poorer children less malnourished and better prepared to learn and work. Why in the world should I care if athletes take what is readily available and within all their financial means. These superstars are well supervised medically and PEDS can be managed successfully under medical guidance for the long term, of that you can be certain. This is even more the case with the new breed of PEDS which put less strain on the organs. Only nosey celebrity gossip type fans care about PEDS. Enlightened people with some ability to reason could care less. But anyway, cue the predictable "oh my god, think of our children" response.
     
  12. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    71,029
    27,658
    Jul 26, 2004
    :lol:
     
  13. Ripper11

    Ripper11 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,475
    2
    Apr 21, 2011
    :yep nice word. I had to look it up, but it's perfect
     
  14. Ripper11

    Ripper11 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,475
    2
    Apr 21, 2011
    :lol:
    he gets his answer and responds with
     
  15. bandeedo

    bandeedo Loyal Member Full Member

    36,048
    24,027
    Feb 19, 2007
    :lol: a little short of choices in our life, have we?