Comments Thread For: Bob Arum: Jamaine Ortiz Was Running Around The Ring; That Isn't Boxing; This Was Disgraceful

[TheOneAboveAll]

Crawford himself said it's not combat/not a fight.

https://twitter.com/terencecrawford/...42283872899342

Hmm, well, I guess that settles it once and for all. Boxing is neither combat nor fighting. Jamaine Ortiz will be thrilled to hear this.

Teofimo Lopez vs Jamaine Ortiz

[SUBZER0ED]

“I just thought with Shakur, he didn’t engage very much,” said Arum, whose company also promotes Stevenson. “But he wasn’t running around the ring like a track star."
No, Shakur was jumping backwards like a scared jack rabbit.

[IronDanHamza]

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.

ShoulderRoll

Care to explain why you've not responded to this post, where you've said VADA didn't say this about a 39 year old figther when that quote from them is literally referring to a 39 year old fighter in regards to it being common and not suspscious?

Why do you not take VADA at their word like you do USADA?

[ShoulderRoll]

ShoulderRoll

Care to explain why you've not responded to this post, where you've said VADA didn't say this about a 39 year old figther when that quote from them is literally referring to a 39 year old fighter in regards to it being common and not suspscious?

Why do you not take VADA at their word like you do USADA?

I answered this already. See posts #115 and #117 in this thread.

[IronDanHamza]

I answered this already. See posts #115 and #117 in this thread.

No actually, you didn't.

You said that no where did VADA say that it's common and unsuscious for a 39 year old to have that atypical finding.

That is patently false as they LITERALLY said that Beterbiev's finding, a 39 year old fighter, is common, and unsuscious.

So would you like to try again?

Care to explain why you've not responded to this post, where you've said VADA didn't say this about a 39 year old fighter when that quote from them is literally referring to a 39 year old fighter in regards to it being common and not su****ious?

Why do you not take VADA at their word like you do USADA?

[ShoulderRoll]

No actually, you didn't.

You said that no where did VADA say that it's common and unsuscious for a 39 year old to have that atypical finding.

That is patently false as they LITERALLY said that Beterbiev's finding, a 39 year old fighter, is common, and unsuscious.

So would you like to try again?

Care to explain why you've not responded to this post, where you've said VADA didn't say this about a 39 year old fighter when that quote from them is literally referring to a 39 year old fighter in regards to it being common and not su****ious?

Why do you not take VADA at their word like you do USADA?

No, VADA said that it was common to have atypical results in PED testing. Not that it was common for 39-year-olds to have atypically high levels of HGH and testosterone.

So…I have answered this already. Go kick rocks now.

[IronDanHamza]

No, VADA said that it was common to have atypical results in PED testing. Not that it was common for 39-year-olds to have atypically high levels of HGH and testosterone.

So…I have answered this already. Go kick rocks now.

Are you aware that that quote is referring to BETERBIEV'S ATYPICAL FINDING?????? What part of that don't you understand?

“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."

This above statement made by Magaret Goodman is in direct response and referring to Beterbeiv's atypical finding.

Beterbeiv is 39 years old, therefore the above quote is referring to a 39 year old man.

So, no, you have not answered it. You have actually done the opposite of that and avoided it like a coward as you normally do.


So, let's try again;

Care to explain why you've not responded to this post, where you've said VADA didn't say this about a 39 year old fighter when that quote from them is literally referring to a 39 year old fighter in regards to it being common and not su****ious?

Why do you not take VADA at their word like you do USADA?

[MulaKO]

Lmfao

[ShoulderRoll]

Are you aware that that quote is referring to BETERBIEV'S ATYPICAL FINDING?????? What part of that don't you understand?

“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."

This above statement made by Magaret Goodman is in direct response and referring to Beterbeiv's atypical finding.

Beterbeiv is 39 years old, therefore the above quote is referring to a 39 year old man.

So, no, you have not answered it. You have actually done the opposite of that and avoided it like a coward as you normally do.


So, let's try again;

Care to explain why you've not responded to this post, where you've said VADA didn't say this about a 39 year old fighter when that quote from them is literally referring to a 39 year old fighter in regards to it being common and not su****ious?

Why do you not take VADA at their word like you do USADA?

Where in the quote does it say anything about Beterbiev’s age? Or about it being common for 39-year olds to have atypical findings?

I’ll wait.

[IronDanHamza]

Where in the quote does it say anything about Beterbiev’s age? Or about it being common for 39-year olds to have atypical findings?

I’ll wait.

How can I explain it any clearer that that quote is directly referring to and in response to being asked about Beterbeiv's atypical finding?

Why are you trying to paint that it's not referring to a 39 year old when this quote from VADA is literally referring to a 39 year old fighter in regards to it being common and not su****ious? They have flat out stated, explicitly, that Beterbiev's atypical finding is common, and not su****ious from their point of view.

Why are you not taking VADA at their word like you are USADA? Like you do when they said it with Mayweather?