So you'd agree that Floyd leaves America frequently also then?
Do you have an example of Ngannou leaving America for a training camp? I don't recall a single time that happened.
No actually, you brought it up.
Floyd doesn't and has never done USADA 365 testing (Unlike Ngannou who did it over over a decade) so I don't see the relevance as to why.
Is Floyd not likely clean, since he travels and doesn't do 365 USADA testing? We need to get these things clarified for you to justify your stances.
Well first things first using a banned IV is atypical by definition, not only atypical but prohibited. But USADA retroactively approved it which is their call, doesn't change the fact it's very su****ious but they approved it and deemed nothing wrong with it, so you deem that not su****ious due to their word.
VADA literally did the exact same thing with Beterbiev's atypical finding, yet you still deem it still su****ious? How can you possibly hold those two polar opposite positions?
You do understand these two instances are as good identical? Yet you deem one not su****ious because USADA said so and the opposite when VADA say the exact same thing. Why do you take USADA's word as authority and not VADA? I thought you said VADA were better than USADA?
Unless you're saying VADA are corrupt? Why won't you answer that?
Do you have an example of Ngannou leaving America for a training camp? I don't recall a single time that happened.
No actually, you brought it up.
Floyd doesn't and has never done USADA 365 testing (Unlike Ngannou who did it over over a decade) so I don't see the relevance as to why.
Is Floyd not likely clean, since he travels and doesn't do 365 USADA testing? We need to get these things clarified for you to justify your stances.
Well first things first using a banned IV is atypical by definition, not only atypical but prohibited. But USADA retroactively approved it which is their call, doesn't change the fact it's very su****ious but they approved it and deemed nothing wrong with it, so you deem that not su****ious due to their word.
VADA literally did the exact same thing with Beterbiev's atypical finding, yet you still deem it still su****ious? How can you possibly hold those two polar opposite positions?
You do understand these two instances are as good identical? Yet you deem one not su****ious because USADA said so and the opposite when VADA say the exact same thing. Why do you take USADA's word as authority and not VADA? I thought you said VADA were better than USADA?
Unless you're saying VADA are corrupt? Why won't you answer that?
Comment