Watching Mosley knocking Wraparito out was the most satisfying win of all.

I didn't realize you subscried to the flowmos philosophy? Can't rebuttal, go ad hominem.

CSAC banned Capetillo because he admitted to the mistake of using the old gauze. But to the matter of actual plaster there was none. Thus Capetillo took it in the ass anyways. With Margarito, he was stuck in the middle.

Fact, why was he not lifetime banned if he was ACTUALLY GUILTY????

Why one year suspension ya ****ing numbnuts?

 

and the innocent fighters aren't willing to go to court to clear their name and get their career back, even when promoted by a Harvard-educated attorney.

 

lol

 

Still can't find an answer huh? Why was Margo not lifetime banned like his trainer if he knew...

 

Waiting...

 

I don't want to be rude but debating this subject with you would be a waste of time so I am going to let it go. I am convinced that Margarito is a cheating, mangy mongrel and you think he is a paragon of virtue. We just have to agree to disagree.:good

 

I don't think he's a saint. This isn't about ad hominem attacks, or lovey dovey **** about Margarito. But you still haven't answered why they did not lifetime ban him if he was guilty. Why only Capetillo? Why the **** not ban the actual guy using the so called bricks?


This must make sense if you're a flowmo I guess?

 

People are clueless. If Margarito was beating on ****ers with bricks he would have prosecuted and spent many years in prison.

He must be pretty savage if people thought he was using bricks for fists.

 

Probably because Margarito said he didn't know about the pads and they couldn't prove that he did but the circumstantial evidence was strong enough to suspend him for a year anyway. Why didn't Margarito appeal the suspension? You do know that he had that option don't you?

 

Waiting .... (lol)

 

Then you admit they could not put anything on him. I see you are somewhat capable of logic. But you still do a 180 with the ret arded flowmo logic, circumstantial evidence. Either he is guilty or he is not. He is either culpable or he is not. Law does not work with half right.

As for the appeals, from what I remember he took his chances with the one year suspension because he knew he would not win and the appeal would be longer than the suspension, not even accounting for the costs of such an appeal with a commission that would suspend him even though they could not prove a single thing.

 

Is that what you remember? lmao! I can't argue against logic like that.