Just rewatched Cotto vs. Margarito 2

opinions are like assholes everyone has one no any more important than the other

 

You guys are so quick to try and besmirch Tony Margarito based solely on accusations not facts yet youre the same people who endorse cheating juicers like Mosely, Jones jr Vitali etc as HOF shoo ins Talk about hypocrites

 

Yeah your right........opinions like yours are like assholes.......full of ****

 

:deal he had several first round kos too I doubt plaster had anything to do with it. Cotto did run most of the fight in the rematch he still didn't go toe to toe with Margarito for most of the fight. The ones saying he has no power you just as dumb.

 

:deal cotto was running from margo still in the second fight everytime he got hit he held on.........

 

CJ you keep saying the CSAC MISLAID the evidence, yet NO CREDIBLE BOXING/SPORTS Sites have any mention of it...!!!

Can you provide a credible link/source of this...???

Also, what is your pro record...???

 

Just look at the minutes of Tony hearing when he tried to get his license back I was there and witnessed the CSAC's embarrassment

45- 0 45 KO's lol Mind your own business

 

I bet you got brown eyes LOL Cause youre certainly full of it:nut

 

So you DON'T have any links/source, huh...???

 

C.J has no sources....he was not at the hearing...he's a janitor at the
gym who was hitting on Margarita's wife!!!

He's a FRAUD!!!!

Though he sounds like a 17 yr old ignoramous....he's actually in his 50's ....

 

If only you knew you clown :rofl
Keep posting lies about Tony and see where it gets you. You have no clue who you are dealing with do you Trolls like you who know nothing about the sport are mere playthings for us to tease

 

http://www.dca.ca.gov/csac/about_us/meetings/20100818_agenda.pdf


B. The Commission timely produced all available evidence. Petitioner contends the Commission withheld "three key pieces of evidence" from him 21 leading up to the hearing ofFebruary 10,2009. (Pet'r.'s Mem. P. & A. p. 14: 14-15.) The claim .22 is without merit because the Commission did not withhold any of the evidence in question, and 23 because two ofthe pieces of evidence are wholly irrelevant to the Commission's decision to 24 revoke Petitioner's license to box. First, Petitioner contends the Commission did not disclose that two inspectors disputed 26 "key factual statements" in the post-incident report of one ofthe Commission's inspectors.
27
28 12 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE (BS120436) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(Pet'r.'s Mem. P. & A. p. 14: 16-22, Exh. B, C, Dl Petitioner claims he was prejudiced because
without this information he could not adequately cross-examine that particular inspector about his
"truthfulness, biases, and motives." (Pet'r.'s Mem. P. & A. p. 15: 1-2.) However, all three of the
inspectors in question were made available and were cross examined by Petitioner's counsel at
the February 10, 2009, hearing. Moreover, Petitioner admits the disputes in question concerned
immaterial matters such as which inspector directed Capetillo to remove Petitioner's right hand-
wrap after an illegal insert was found in the left knuckle pad. (Pet'r.'s Mem. P. & A. p. 14: 19
22.) In any situation with a large number ofeyewitnesses, post-incident accounts are going to
have minor variances. Counsel for the Commission exercised her prosecutorial discretion by
deciding not to involve an immaterial personnel matter in the factual record of the case. The
material, undisputed facts remain that on January 24,2009, Commission inspectors removed an
illegal insert from Petitioner's left hand-wrap, and thereafter found a similarly illegal insert in the
wrappings on his right hand. (AR Exh. X, Factual Finding Nos. 3,4, and 6.)
Second, Petitioner contends the Commission violated his due process rights by failing to produce several magnified photographs ofone ofthe illegal knuckle pads until mid-hearing. (Pet'r.'s Mem. P. & A., p. 15: 3-10.) Petitioner ignores the fact, demonstrated both in the hearing
transcript and by the dates on the photographs themselves, that Department ofJustice forensic
analysts had only taken these pictures the day before the hearing and did not send them to the
Commission's representatives until that evening. (AR Exh. L, p. 38: 9-18.) The hearing began at
8:40 a.m., making production of the photographs prior to the hearing unfeasible. CAR Exh. L, p.
1: 12-22.) Petitioner provides no basis for his contention that the use ofthe photographs violated
his right to due process. Accordingly, the Court should discard Petitioner's argument. Lastly, Petitioner contends that because the Commission did not produce the laboratory
testing results for the right hand-wrap until months after the hearing, the Commission's
revocation ofhis license violated his due process rights. (Pet'r.'s Mem. P. & A., p. 11-18.)

 

As is plainly stated there Tony Margarito was RAILROADED. There was nothing in that wrap other than a used gauze pad. Which still hadn't gone hard months afterwards LOL so how could it have been plaster you clown

 

I know nobody can say for a fact but I'd be quite sure Margarito was fighting dirty in the first fight. :-(

 

I'm with CJ here. I've noticed people evade his points. Where are those plaster wraps? Seriously if he had gotten caught with that he should have absolutely gone to jail or been banned permanently, he could have killed Mosley.