Mayweather's IV injection (Master thread)

[Zaroku]

I knew that. That's why I called TravestyNY an idiot Lol His ******ity never ends lol

He has a comprehension disorder. I've been telling him to stop writing in NSB since he has been red since 2008. Shows how flawed his logic is. No one agrees with him. There should be a ruling not allowing red reps that lasted 8 years on wards. It's just cringe worthy to read.

Watch how he will try to talk to me again lol As I've told him several times I don't talk to dimwits who are in red. He is like a leech. He's got this mad crush on me.. The thing is I'll let him talk to the..

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk,

Burden of proof

Quote:

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) in the United States is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[1]

She or he who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning (s)he needs no evidence to support her or his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.

You have not passed on the burden to disprove your infinite theories..

Manny lying about when his injury took place is the reason why many fans are suing him..

What Japan, Thailand, South Africa, England and Ireland though about May vs PAC threads soon to be released.. You inspired me.. Thanks buddy!

Spoiler:: PAC the loser.

Lastly: please refrain from all encompassing statements. I will be paying attention.. I can't speak for all of Spain, Japan, or the world.. I will clearly state.. What the major news outlets say, and what Japanese boxers in the gym think.. I just hope you can be as strick in your threads..

[travestyny]

I knew that. That's why I called TravestyNY an idiot Lol His ******ity never ends lol

He has a comprehension disorder. I've been telling him to stop writing in NSB since he has been red since 2008. Shows how flawed his logic is. No one agrees with him. There should be a ruling not allowing red reps that lasted 8 years on wards. It's just cringe worthy to read.

Watch how he will try to talk to me again lol As I've told him several times I don't talk to dimwits who are in red. He is like a leech. He's got this mad crush on me.. The thing is I'll let him talk to the..

Yep. I won't miss an opportunity to make you feel like the coward you are.

Where is your proof? State it.

Instead, you bring up my name over and over, and then hide behind the karma system instead of talking about the merits of the subject.

Come on, try to stay on topic. I know it's hard for you when I've made you realize over and over that you have no idea what you are talking about.

It's easy to see that you avoid me because you have nothing intelligent to say. Carry on, mental midget.

[ADP02]

Provide proof please...
Links..
Slow motion videos
Interviews with homeless guys..

Wow, ...... that's a lot of work!

[Zaroku]

Wow, ...... that's a lot of work!

So shifting the burden of proof is easier.. Yes it is. All I ask is gather all your own evidence. Don't ask people to prove you wrong after making a statement. Prove yourselves correct with evidence. It really is that simple..

Burden of proof:

Quote:


The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) in the United States is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[1]

She or he who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning (s)he needs no evidence to support her or his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.

[ADP02]

If you could provide some proof, I'd admit that I'm wrong. Keep in mind that even the "Quik Flush" products that are sold at GNC, which is much more than saline, only provide masking for up to 4 hours. Obviously saline won't last for nearly as long, and it clearly won't provide masking for blood and urine tests taken the following day.

Well then, I presented you with 2 possible scenarios.
1) Floyd was concerned with the unexpected May 1st test not the expected May 2nd after the fight test. Perhaps they were not sure that they can pass the May 1st test but they could have ~30-36 hours later.
2) They have May 1st as proof that DCO was there to witness an IV. So they can now do another IV hidden and even if tests show concentrations of IV by-products, well, they can say its from May 1st IV.

Only Floyd can tell you exactly the scenarios .....



This study showed that all subjects had stable HT levels 8 hours after the 500 ml of saline infused.


"..... 500 ml of saline were infused around 8 am and Hb, Ht, and %retics were measured before and every hour thereafter until 7 hours after infusion. In addition Ht was measured on a hematological analyzer as well as with a centrifuge. In a separate experiment the effect of tourniquet duration on Hb and Ht was studied in 9 of the subjects. The results show that Hb, Ht, and %retics are stable from 8 am to 4 pm, but that infusion of 500 ml of saline induces an acute decrease in Hb and Ht within one hour (Hb decreased from 15.2+/-0.9 g/dl to 14.5+/-1.0 g/dl, and Ht from 45.6+/-2.8 % to 44.0+/-2.5 %).

The decline in Hb and Ht was maintained during the 7-hour observation period. Ht values of the same samples measured with a hematological analyzer and a centrifuge were not different."

[ADP02]

So shifting the burden of proof is easier.. Yes it is. All I ask is gather all your own evidence. Don't ask people to prove you wrong after making a statement. Prove yourselves correct with evidence. It really is that simple..

Burden of proof:

Quote:


The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) in the United States is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[1]

She or he who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning (s)he needs no evidence to support her or his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.

Nevada Commissions:
"The Commission need not follow the rules of evidence that a court must follow. All evidence that the Commission determines to be relevant and submitted in accordance with the requirements of this chapter is admissible. If the Commission determines that the evidence is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, the Commission may use that evidence alone to support a finding of fact."

[Zaroku]

[B]Nevada Commissions:[/B]
"The Commission need not follow the rules of evidence that a court must follow. All evidence that the Commission determines to be relevant and submitted in accordance with the requirements of this chapter is admissible. If the Commission determines that the evidence is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, the Commission may use that evidence alone to support a finding of fact."

Game, set & Match!!!

Thanks!!!

The NSAC laid it out perfectly.
The NSAC already decided Floyd did nothing wrong..

End of Story
End of this Thread

Bingo!! You really helped a lot!!
Thanks for that post!!! It sealed the deal for me, and many other boxing fans.. You proved that the NSAC can use any evidence or ignore any evidence it decides is irrelevant.
Great find

[original zero]

If only Floyd can tell us the real scenario, why should we believe Spoonrath when he invents these crazy conspiracy theory scenarios?

You can list any hypothetical you want, but the actual facts are that IV was a perfectly acceptable way to rehydrate in Nevada and 100% within the rules. If you think the rule should be changed, write a letter to the NSAC.

Because unrestricted IV use could be used to attempt some sort of masking, Floyd & Manny voluntarily agreed that even though IV rehydration was legal under NSAC for any reason whatsoever, that they would hire USADA to determine if any IV use was for legitimate medical reasons.

And they determined that there was no problem.

So there is no actual controversy here. You can create fantasy controversies if you want. You can concoct hypothetical controversies if you want. Lord knows Spoonrath has tried.

But if you're going to consider all of these complicated nonsense scenarios that people are inventing out of thin air (while lying about the rules and the facts in the process), you should also consider that the truth may be very simple and uncomplicated. Floyd may have had trouble keeping fluids down, may have had a stomach bug, may have had a lot of things. It's really none of our business. Every single televised boxing card in Nevada features fighters that rehydrated via IV after the weigh in. Very common and legal practice. If you don't like it, write a letter.

[ADP02]

[/B]

Game, set & Match!!!

Thanks!!!

The NSAC laid it out perfectly.
The NSAC already decided Floyd did nothing wrong..

End of Story
End of this Thread

Bingo!! You really helped a lot!!
Thanks for that post!!! It sealed the deal for me, and many other boxing fans.. You proved that the NSAC can use any evidence or ignore any evidence it decides is irrelevant.
Great find

Not really.

Floyd/USADA found a loop hole so they can hide all that .... either intentionally or not, the NSAC had that loop hole since the wording in their rules missed some of this, Floyd/USADA took advantage of it.

but it can also be that NSAC was waiting for Floyd to leave then close it up.

[Zaroku]

Not really.

Floyd/USADA found a loop hole so they can hide all that .... either intentionally or not, the NSAC had that loop hole since the wording in their rules missed some of this, Floyd/USADA took advantage of it.

but it can also be that NSAC was waiting for Floyd to leave then close it up.

So, it can accurately be stated that the NSAC can decide what constitutes actual evidence!! If that is true, they can also decide what isn't evidence..

Are you with me??
Do you agree??

That being said, no matter how sad certain "true boxing" fans are about their decisions... They do have authority to make decisions in the state of Nevada.

Now.. Maybe an appeal to the NSAC might be a better use of energies??