QUOTE=mikE;247465]wtf are you talking about, Rebel? Concrete proof that others had speculated or concrete proof that Pacq juices? There doesn't have to be concrete proof of the latter to be guilty of it. Pacquiao's achievements are reason enough to be skeptical of him. Turning down $40 million for a few blood tests...in my mind that proves more than a positive test. At least with a positive test you have the chance of a false positive or tampering. Turning down $40 million is better than a confession, in my mind.[/QUOTE] A million drug tests will never clear Manny Pacquiao's name that is obvious from some of the responses listed above in various discussions throughout this board and I can assure you and many of you who frequent other sites can report the same thing. As always I like to look at the big picture. The big picture here is that in the minds of many a clean drug test for Manny Pacquiao will only prove one or two things in the minds of many, one, he was clean for the test but that doesn't prove he was clean for any other fight or, two, he is one step ahead of the testers which is why a million drug tests will never clear his name. While looking at the big picture another thought crossed my mind, here we have Manny Pacquiao, compared by many to one fo the greatest fighters of the past, Henry Armstrong, now in this debate in regards to Armstrong we are saying that there is no way Manny Pacquiao is as good Henry Armstrong and the only way he has accomplished Armstrongesque feats is by using Performance Enhancing Drugs. Fair enough if that is your position but in taking that position can you argue that fighters of today are better than the fighters of yeaterday for when one fighter approaches that accomplishment how he got there is bought into question, are you saying that there will never be a fighter who was able to do what Armstrong did or do something Armstrongesque. Are the Armstrongs and Louis' and the other authors of long held and seldom challenged fistical accomplishments are they the Supermen of our sport, their records never to be challenged by a mortal man. Were they of such pugilistic prowess that anyone who comes close just has to be using. That is what you are saying. A million drug tests will never clear his name. I applaud anyones effort to add integrity to a sport in which by all outward appearances is lacking the same. However you don't add integrity to the game by saying "we know he is using something, the real doctors will find it", you don't add integrity to the game by saying "I have to question my opponents fairness". You'll question it forever and if you beat him you'll say it was because he wasn't using and if you lose it will be because he didn't get caught. A million tests will never clear his name. A few other observations, a few people here have equated Mayweathers request for additional drug testing on the same level as Pacquiao negotiatiing for Cotto to make 145. I did some research on that throughout the history and found very few examples of that where the challenger asked the champion to make a certain weight. Lou Ambers and Tony Canzenori agreed on weight for their title fight but it was a vacant title. Andy Ganigan and Alexis Arguello allegedly agreed to come in a couple of pounds under the lightweight limit for their title fight however Ganigan showed up at the limit while Arguello weighed in at a light 133. Arguello stopped him in 5. I suppose you could include the Leonard-LaLonde agreement although that fight involved two weight classes, two belts, two headaches, anyway. I did find some other examples but that was way back at the beginning of weight classes where one jurisdiction would have a lightweight limit of 135 and the other 138 and especially in the bantamweight division as their was no flyweight division in it's early history.