PACQUIAO'S Lawsuit PROVED That PACQUIAO is CLEAN...

Not necessarily, no. The American Way is that each side pays their own way. Sometimes it's available and sometimes it's not.

I don't mean to be offensive, but you can't see how he could have lost the case because you probably don't know a lot about defamation. If you really care then I can point you in the right direction.

 

Exactly. The burden of proof on Pac's side was incredibly high. Better to just call it a day and go home.

 

See that's the thing, Mayweather doesn't have any endorsements. I really don't think he cares about anything other than his bottom line. Honestly, it's kinda bizzarre.

EDIT: oh you mean Pacquiao lol. Well if he can prove that. That would've been something.

 

It seems I've actually seen more Pac commercials in the last year or two; particularly the Hennessy ad. It even runs during NFL football. Pac is also on several billboards and bus stops in the Asian areas here in Orange County.

Nothing scientific, of course, just an impression. Then again, I have been dating an Asian girl for the last few years and am in that area much more than I have ever been.

 

OJ Simpson was innocent too! The courts are always right.

 

Defamation requires more than just that, at least when it comes to public figures. What you said above makes Mayweather sound like a shitty person, and it might even be true, but that's not enough to win a case. There wouldn't even be a battle over any of the things above.

In any event, none of this matters. It's over.

 

Pac do enough damage to himself with his compulsive gambling, cheating, and who knows what behind the curtains. Floyd did a lot of things that is bad for his image but Pac is no angel either.

 

Y you playing dumb.
You can accuse Floyd being scare despite what he has accomplished but you can't figure out what Pac has to prove? You sound like you are all about judging by actions but somehow you are completely convinced that Pac is not juicing? Really showed how bias you are.

 

He would have had to meet the 'actual malice' standard, which is a little different than it sounds. He would have to prove that Mayweather either knew for a fact that he wasn't taking steroids and said it anyway or that he said it with reckless disregard for the truth. That last part - reckless disregard for the truth - is a legal term, not something I'm paraphrasing.

As you might imagine, proving that someone knows something is nearly impossible. If Mayweather wrote an e-mail that said something like "haha, people believe this **** and Pacquiao isn't even on steroids!" then that would be a pretty sweet smoking gun, but do you really think there's some evidence out there like that? They would have just settled a long time ago if he was that stupid.

Reckless disregard for the truth goes beyond negligence - it means that the person may not know for certain, but he has a REALLY good idea that what he's about to say is not true.

So you see, even if Pacquiao never took steroids that's not really where the battle would have been. This would have been a fight over Mayweather's state of mind and that would have been an uphill battle.

What I said above applies to public figures. If someone accused YOU of taking steroids then it would be different, unless you just happen to be famous.

...and that's what I got out of my Torts class.

 

It isnt proven that hes clean till he takes a more thorough drug test like VADA w/ CIR testing.:deal