Mayweather's IV injection (Master thread)

[Lester Tutor]

Significant dehydration = severe dehydration = dehydration requiring intravenous therapy. Perhaps.

Honestly, Hauser has caught up with the drama. If I were to say, ''split second is kind of cool.'' whereas, ''split second is cool.'' You know exactly what the difference is. The adjective is clear.

[12TRIBEsRiSe]

get over it? I'll get over it...
"to our knowledge none of them have failed a test or was caught cheating"?

... Well, Lance Armstrong also didn't fail testing for ten years... but, but, but...

but he eventually admitted and got caught??????

[SplitSecond]

Honestly, Hauser has caught up with the drama. If I were to say, ''split second is kind of cool.'' whereas, ''split second is cool.'' You know exactly what the difference is. The adjective is clear.

It could also be seen as a maybe. Because he's not an expert or one cannot say with certainty and just because someone doesn't look obviously dehydrated on the outside, doesn't mean they aren't. But his point still stands because to be severely dehydrated it's usually noticeable.

I don't think you're right because there's atleast an instance where he says "strong evidence suggests mayweather was not dehydrated at all."

[Lester Tutor]

Thanks, appreciate this. Respectfully, I didn't reach the same conclusion you did from reading this. I'm going to think about this some more.

No problem bro. Hauser never mentioned a variance about dehydration in his first article because he was trying to convince everyone, and as Floyd Haters have stated, that he wasn't dehydrated, and rather, that PEDs were the main reason.

Now he states, ''Floyd showed no signs of significant dehydration.'' He's already saying the possibility that Floyd could have been dehydrated, and he would only say that to now clear himself as sub textual apology but continuing with his malicious fiction.

Everybody's been trying to prove that Floyd wasn't dehydrated, and Hauser can't say ''Floyd showed no signs of dehydration.'' Hauser is a sneaky ass dude. The Law degree helps to some extent.. but he's no John Grisham.

[North Star]

LMFAO! Yeah, its tough to participate when you don't have facts and instead go with labeling those who don't agree with your position.

There is only one reason why a seasoned, experienced writer like Hauser doesn't flatly accuse Floyd of cheating and explicitly states he isn't accusing Floyd of cheating- the facts do not allow him to make the statement.

Now you're just posting to try and get a final word in. The facts are in the article.

Persistant ignorance. Go ahead and post again for another final word, that has no substance. It just keeps proving how foolish your defense of the matter is.

[The Big Dunn]

Now you're just posting to try and get a final word in. The facts are in the article.

Persistant ignorance. Go ahead and post again for another final word, that has no substance. It just keeps proving how foolish your defense of the matter is.

Yes the facts are in the article-which is why in the same article they are in he explicitly states he is not accusing Floyd of cheating. the facts do not allow him to.

You can keep avoiding that reality if you wish.

[Zaroku]

This guy is honestly one of the best poster on the board, keep it up man

Thank you. Glad a few guys get what I am trying to express.

[Zaroku]

No it's a metaphor for Floyd Haters and their inability to refute common sense, especially when it's present.

Oh no Sugarkaine didn't just drop the world metaphor on him.
Their idol got beat & they lost direction.
Even PAC heard it from God directly that he would lose. Their idol is following God, and it is great. They should follow PAC in the ways of the lord. Render unto Floyd what belongs to Floyd.

Marquez almost sinned, almost killed but PAC but Manny was brought back to life like Lazarus was in the bible.

[ADP02]

significant = adjective
sign = noun

''Floyd showed no signs of dehydration" = There were no signs of dehydration. Meaning Floyd was not dehydrated at all.

"Floyd showed no 'significant' signs of dehydration" = Hauser just admitted Floyd was dehydrated, whether it was mild or whatever. The proof is in the writing. And thus, Hauser didn't say this in his original article.

"KABOOM."

Its like the 4th or 5th time that I read Floyd fans not even understanding simple words. Maybe they should first understand the words before we can actually have a good discussion.

"contributed to"
"medical condition"
"no significant signs of"

[Lester Tutor]

Its like the 4th or 5th time that I read Floyd fans not even understanding simple words. Maybe they should first understand the words before we can actually have a good discussion.

"contributed to"
"medical condition"
"no significant signs of"

A good discussion? If it wasn't a good discussion in your eyes then why bother coming back into the thread?

Also, in ANY context when one states ''significant'' it should be an implication of an object, in this case the noun.

Here, I'll make it easier for you:

The bird showed significant signs of fear.
The bird showed signs of fear.

The dog showed significant signs of hunger.
The dog showed signs of hunger.

Is there an absolute or difference between the sentences?