Mayweather's IV injection (Master thread)

[GTTofAK]

A retroactive TUE takes effect from a date in the past, making it "prior approval".

What's the definition of an appropriate "medical setting"? What prevents a home from being one, as long as it's administered by a medical professional? The WADA guidelines state that a TUE is required for infusions outside hospital admissions etc. He got one.

Do you have some evidence of his "scenario" that proves an IV wasn't warranted. I'd like to see it if you do.

Ultimately, you've made some assumptions, and arrived at a decision. Doesn't really sound like "justice" if you ask me.

3rd WADA requrirement for a TUE

. Medical best practice treatment Legitimate medical indications for IV infusions are well documented and are most commonly associated with either medical emergencies or in-patient care. When an IV infusion is administered to an athlete, the following criteria should be fulfilled:

1. A clearly defined diagnosis.

2. Supportive evidence that no permitted alternative treatment can be
used.

3. The treatment has been ordered by a physician and administered by
qualified medical personnel in an appropriate medical setting.

4. Adequate medical records of the treatment.
The use of IV infusions in sport is commonly linked with rehydration after exhaustive effort, and this situation is arguably the major cause of debate. It must be understood that the use of IV fluid replacement following exercise to correct mild to moderate dehydration is not clinically indicated nor substantiated by the medical literature. There is a well-established body of scientific evidence to confirm that oral rehydration is the preferred the****utic choice, potentially even more effective than IV infusion.
(Ref: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

USADA clearly violated WADA rules by granting the TUE.

[Robbie Barrett]

3rd WADA requrirement for a TUE



USADA clearly violated WADA rules by granting the TUE.

You don't know what his medical condition was.

[BrometheusBob.]

A retroactive TUE takes effect from a date in the past, making it "prior approval".

What's the definition of an appropriate "medical setting"? What prevents a home from being one, as long as it's administered by a medical professional? The WADA guidelines state that a TUE is required for infusions outside hospital admissions etc. He got one.

Do you have some evidence of his "scenario" that proves an IV wasn't warranted. I'd like to see it if you do.

Ultimately, you've made some assumptions, and arrived at a decision. Doesn't really sound like "justice" if you ask me.

A retroactive TUE counting as prior approval = a bunch of legal horse ****. The point of requiring prior approval is being circumvented. But let's suppose I accept that the timing was fine. There are STILL problems.

It sounds like you are missing the point of a TUE to some extent. It is to explain the circumstances of the use of a prohibited substance or method as something that was necessary and why a non-prohibited alternative was not acceptable. A TUE isn't something you get to explain an unacceptable use of something prohibited, it's what you submit to explain that there was an acceptable circumstance for the use of something prohibited.

The WADA guidelines state that a TUE is required for infusions at ALL times. Including those in medical situations and even in medical emergencies. Actually, like I said above that's the point of a TUE. To demonstrate that the treatment is being done for medical reasons. A TUE being written with an explanation that the fluids were received during a hospital admission is an example of a TUE you would expect to get approved, because of how their rules are written. A TUE being written with the explanation that the fluids are for rehydration is one you would expect NOT to get approved, again given how their rules are written.

It isn't up to USADA and NSAC to prove that the IV wasn't warranted. As per the USADA guidelines, it's up to Floyd to demonstrate that it was warranted. But the problem is that they accepted a reason that they state explicitly is not acceptable. Rehydration is written specifically as an unacceptable reason for IV fluids. But they are looking past that, because as I mentioned earlier, they are full of *****.

[GTTofAK]

You don't know what his medical condition was.

His camp has already stated he was dehydrated. Since severe dehydration is defined as a loss of 10% body weight and he weighed in well prior to the fight at about 150 we know he was not suffering from sever dehydration. As such the claimed level of dehydration can be at most mild to moderate for which treatment with an IV is banned by WADA and also bared from any TUE.

[b00g13man]

A retroactive TUE counting as prior approval = a bunch of legal horse ****. The point of requiring prior approval is being circumvented.

It sounds like you are missing the point of a TUE to some extent. It is to explain the circumstances of the use of a prohibited substance or method as something that was necessary and why a non-prohibited alternative was not acceptable. A TUE isn't something you get to explain an unacceptable use of something prohibited, it's what you submit to explain that there was an acceptable circumstance for the use of something prohibited.

The WADA guidelines state that a TUE is required for infusions at ALL times. Including those in medical situations and even in medical emergencies. Actually, like I said above that's the point of a TUE. To demonstrate that the treatment is being done for medical reasons. A TUE being written with an explanation that the fluids were received during a hospital admission is an example of a TUE you would expect to get approved, because of how their rules are written. A TUE being written with the explanation that the fluids are for rehydration is one you would expect NOT to get approved, again given how their rules are written.

It isn't up to USADA and NSAC to prove that the IV wasn't warranted. As per the USADA guidelines, it's up to Floyd to demonstrate that it was warranted. But the problem is that they accepted a reason that they state explicitly is not acceptable. Rehydration is written specifically as an unacceptable reason for IV fluids. But they are looking past that, because as I mentioned earlier, they are full of it.

That's the exact definition of "retroactive". I'm surprised so many people don't know that.

We can have a debate about whether or not retroactive TUEs should exist, but that's a story for another day. They do exist. He did get one. Case closed.

[BrometheusBob.]

That's the exact definition of "retroactive". I'm surprised so many people don't know that.

We can have a debate about whether or not retroactive TUEs should exist, but that's a story for another day. They do exist. He did get one. Case closed.

I edited my post. The point about retroactive or not was far from the bulk of my argument. Most of the argument had to do with the fact that the TUE was approved under circumstances that they explicitly say are unacceptable. The timing is not even the worst part.

[b00g13man]

I edited my post. The point about retroactive or not was far from the bulk of my argument. Most of the argument had to do with the fact that the TUE was approved under circumstances that they explicitly say are unacceptable. The timing is not even the worst part.

Where's the proof it wasn't warranted? What was Floyd's condition? Have you got the answers to these questions?

If you don't, you can't make blanket statements that "rules were broken".

[GTTofAK]

I edited my post. The point about retroactive or not was far from the bulk of my argument. Most of the argument had to do with the fact that the TUE was approved under circumstances that they explicitly say are unacceptable. The timing is not even the worst part.

Him not addressing it was no accident.

[mathed]

A retroactive TUE takes effect from a date in the past, making it "prior approval".

What's the definition of an appropriate "medical setting"? What prevents a home from being one, as long as it's administered by a medical professional? The WADA guidelines state that a TUE is required for infusions outside hospital admissions etc. He got one.

Do you have some evidence of his "scenario" that proves an IV wasn't warranted. I'd like to see it if you do.

Ultimately, you've made some assumptions, and arrived at a decision. Doesn't really sound like "justice" if you ask me.

"That's what these other fighters don't understand, I'm always around my fighting weight so the weight I train at is the weight I am in the ring. Some of these other guys have to cut weight and that's not good for the body, I don't need to do that." - Floyd Mayweather

[GTTofAK]

Where's the proof it wasn't warranted? What was Floyd's condition? Have you got the answers to these questions?

If you don't, you can't make blanket statements that "rules were broken".

The proof is that severe dehydration is defined as a loss of body weight greater than 10%. We know Floyd's weight 2 weeks before the fight we know his weight at weigh in. He was not suffering from severe dehydration.

You have already put your foot in your mouth when you agreed that if Floyd had loss more than 10% body weight he wouldn't have been able to fight.