Counter-puncher wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 08:08
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 07:26
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 07:03
it's almost like a reverse rush-to-judgement, isn't it?
Is it really so unreasonable for the WBA to assume innocence until guilt has been proven? What are you talking about when you mention “a reverse rush-to-judgement”?
beause, they aren't merely saying 'innocent until proven guilty', are they?
they have already come out to say they are positive he is innocent, that they can tell already that contaminated meat is the problem, etc etc
thats why i call it a reverse rush-to-judgement. they are fvcking falling over themselves to label the guy innocent before the facts are fully established
do you not notice that distinction? that they aren't merely saying what you are, 'innocent until proven guilty', they're giving fvcking character references. jesus they couldn't be more fvcking obvious.
I can understand the angle the you’re coming from… and I cannot passionately argue against it, since it’s entirely feasible that what you’ve just said is true, but perhaps a few small quotes from an article published on a website isn’t enough to fairly formulate such suspicions yet. We need more info.
Personally-speaking, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Gilberto Mendoza or Mauricio Sulaiman to assume Canelo’s innocence, since that’s how the justice system usually operates throughout the globe. He has to be deemed innocent until the situation has been thoroughly investigated and guilt has been proven.
For all I know, Canelo might be a cheat, we simply don’t know yet, since only time will tell for sure… but the NSAC are performing their own investigation… and I’ll probably refrain from formulating an opinion about this matter until we know its outcome.
Like you though, I really hope that Canelo is treated like the rest of his peers rather than receiving favouritism due to the amount of revenue he generates. I’ll be disappointed if the rules aren’t being applied consistently.