BoxRec

Enlightened-One wrote:
I wholeheartedly appreciate the amount of effort that you've put into supplying your response.

It's a refreshing change to see someone make an effort to address each point I raised, even if I don't agree with most of what you've written.

cs: Thank you EO

That being said, the reasons that you've claimed for the existence of the facts I've cited are currently unknowable and clearly unsubstantiated, because your justification is based on your assumption of someone else's mindset, since Team Ortiz has disclosed minimal information to the media.

cs: Currently unknown if not unknowable - currently, not necessarily in perpetuity. I'm not presenting these as facts EO just considering a different take on the reality we are expected to swallow without question. I accept the point about my assumptions concerning Ortiz's mindset.

I'll concede that it is possible that some of your "excuses" that you've imagined may end up being accurate.

cs: That's progress. We should never shut our minds.

That being said, it is also possible that Luis Ortiz was advised by his team to consume diuretics, chlorothiazide and hydrochlorothiazide, in order to flush PED's like steroids out of his system.... then tried to hide the fact the Cuban was taking banned substances by not disclosing the medication or requesting an exemption...

cs: True but wouldn't any steroids have shown up in the year or so he has been signed up to the VADA programme?

and finally, Team Ortiz found an elderly corruptible doctor to rubber stamp their high blood pressure excuse that was only cited after VADA revealed that 'King Kong' had been caught "cheating" for a second time.

cs: That is entirely plausible.

That's not my take on things, by the way, I'm merely presenting a potential alternate version of reality that is just as feasible as the story you've told.

cs: Understood

I could probably creatively imagine other scenarios also, but I won't, because I feel that the only thing that matters is to formulate an educated opinion based on the irrefutable facts that you have access to... or to refrain from prematurely articulating a theory that cannot possibly be substantiated.

cs: That only goes so far. Forgive me for being melodramatic but imagine how many convicted murderers may have walked free if the investigator was content to formulate his opinion purely on the irrefutable facts he was presented with, and to leave it there? Sorry to get all Agatha Christie on you

Syntax Error wrote:

Grailer wrote:Wilder fights Bermane Stiverne again who only had 1 fight since that loss and is listed as inactive!

Bermane Stiverne Is probably the best fighter on Wilders list of opponents.

Wilder having had 38 bouts has never fought anyone in the box recs top 15 .

Is he really the worst heavyweight champion ever?

How can he be worse than Charles Martin?

There's half a dozen so-called HW champions who are worse than Wilder, although I do admit that his resume is disappointing considering the amount of time he's held the belt.