-
-
Why are you asking me? That is what VADA said about it, as established. So that should be your answer to your question since you hold the same logic for when USADA say it.
Do you not take their word for it like you do USADA? Or are you saying that VADA are corrupt?
Well yes, it's different like each individual case is but regardless an illegal IV, for a fighter who doesn't cut any weight, is very su****ious. But you deem it not so because USADA said so.
Yet you don't when VADA say so in regards to Betebeiv.
So are you going to either retract your statement and apologize? Or, deem Floyd su****ious like you do Betebiev?
It's one or the other.Last edited by IronDanHamza; 02-11-2024, 02:42 PM.Comment
-
When it's a big name guy like Anthony Joshua running around the ring for 12 rounds "Boxing is the art of hitting without getting his back. The sweet science. The fight wasn't very good, but win today look good tomorrow is the name of the game."
When it's a guy that doesn't sell tickets: "This was an absolute disgrace. It was disgusting. Fighters like this are why boxing is in such a poor state."Comment
-
VADA said nothing about abnormally high levels of HGH and testosterone being common for 39-year-olds.
Floyd’s IV wasn’t illegal. I’ve explained that to you many times already.
That’s my position. If you disagree then just keep it moving. There’s no need to endlessly go back and forth over the same tired ground.Comment
-
VADA literally said this;
" Atypical findings are fairly common in PED testing and do not constitute an adverse test result. They can result from various causes. Atypical findings generally warrant the collection of further samples. But no negative inference should be drawn from an atypical finding in and of itself."
In direct response to Beterbiev's atypical finding. That above quote is referring to Beterbiev's test.
So VADA literally said that Beterbiev's atypical finding, at 39 years old, is common and not su****ious.
So are you going to take their word on that or not? You need to clarify this since you take USADA's word as gospel and not VADA's.
Yes it was. He used an IV that was prohibited.
Yes USADA then gave an TUE 2 weeks after it was taken, but that doesn't change the fact that the IV taken was illegal at the time it was taken. And even so, just the simple fact he used that IV alone with that amount of water is extremely su****ious, even more so from someone who doesn't cut weight.
That said, USADA dismissed it. You take that as reason to not be suscpscious.
Why do you not hold the same standard for VADA? Unless you're saying VADA are corrupt?
No I will keep pushing it until you answer the questions and justify your position.
You take USADA's word at face value when it comes to Mayweather not being su****ious despite overtly su****ious behaviour.
Why do you not hold the same standard for Beterbiev, who you deemed a "russian cheat", when VADA explicitly state that his findings were common and not su****ious?
Comment
-
I don't know, ask VADA, they are the one's that said it in regards to Beterbeiv's test.
Or are you saying they are lying?
Which part of the fact that that quote is a DIRECT response referring to Beterbiev's atypical finding are you not understanding?
That quote is referring to Beterbiev's test, meaning it is literally referring to a 39 year old's atypical finding being common and not su****ious.
Why aren't you answering why you aren't taking VADA's word for it like you do with USADA?
Unless you're saying VADA are lying and are corrupt?
It was LITERALLY a prohibited IV. How can that be explained you in any other way?
The amount that Floyd took was VASTLY higher than the maximum amount that you are allowed. That is a fact.
It was later granted a TUE, which is fine, that is USADA's prerogative and I'm sure they had their reasons.
But that does not change the fact it was #1, prohibited prior to the exemption I.e when it was taken and #2 Extremely su****ious behaviour.
Even if we are to say it wasn't illegal on the basis it was later dismissed by USADA, that STILL doesn't change the fact a man who doens't cut any weight taking that amount of fluids in an IV is very su****ious. You deem it not so on the sole basis USADA said so.
But, do the opposite when VADA come out and explicitly say that Beterbiev's finding is not only not su****ious, but common.
How do you justify that stance?
No I won't.
You need to address your double standard.
Why do you take USADA's word as gospel when it comes to su****ious behaviour but the opposite when VADA does it? Despite the fact you have stated that VADA is superior to USADA.
Answer the questions instead of avoiding them like a coward.
Last edited by IronDanHamza; 02-11-2024, 11:23 PM.Comment
-
Crawford himself said it's not combat/not a fight.
Comment
Tweet
Comment