Mayweather's IV injection (Master thread)

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ruedboy
    Undisputed Champion
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Jul 2015
    • 4164
    • 386
    • 381
    • 101,745

    #1201
    Boxing Media-USADA-Mayweather

    Do you think the lack of follow up on the USADA-Mayweather contraversy shows that there's no story there or that most boxing writers are fan boys, afraid to bite the hand that feeds them?

    Comment

    • GTTofAK
      Undisputed Champion
      Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
      • Jun 2008
      • 1144
      • 24
      • 1
      • 7,444

      #1202
      Originally posted by Johnny2x2x
      Mayweather had a United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) collection official summoned to his home to verify compliance before accepting the infusion, sources told MLive. He was drug tested before and after the IV was administered, with the USADA collector present. The TUE was granted retroactively, as allowed under WADA rules, on May 20, 18 days after the fight.
      An anonymous source said to some no name internet news company? So we have many credible news organizations that have said that a USADA official found evidence of an IV during the course of a random drug test yet we are to believe an anonymous source.

      You need to understand the difference between facts and statements. The only fact is that an anonymous source said X. X however is not a fact.
      Last edited by GTTofAK; 09-15-2015, 03:01 PM.

      Comment

      • GTTofAK
        Undisputed Champion
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • Jun 2008
        • 1144
        • 24
        • 1
        • 7,444

        #1203
        Originally posted by radioraheem
        No one said doping is a federal crime. There is no pretext for the contradictory statements you just made. You cannot say the Feds weren't investigating him for doping and then in the next sentence say they gave their doping evidence to USADA. Mind you, there is no evidence of that either other than your own words. You are just speculating.

        Again, please stop owning yourself. You just tried to say the civil suit didn't mean the Feds were back on Armstrong, not realizing that it's the Feds themselves filing the case.
        Like I said this is legal minutia that goes over your head because you are ******. The feds were interested in making a doping case, which they ultimately handed off to USADA, and they used a fraud investigation as a legal excuse. Its quite simple.

        Comment

        • bigfo0t
          rawr
          Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
          • Sep 2014
          • 1096
          • 94
          • 353
          • 8,643

          #1204
          Originally posted by b00g13man
          Looooool. You seem upset. I know it stings, but you might get over it one day.
          Upset? No. That's you and the fIomos projecting as usual. The caps were meant to emphasize a point.

          Comment

          • b00g13man
            Undisputed Champion
            Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
            • Dec 2012
            • 12197
            • 265
            • 51
            • 34,905

            #1205
            It was always a non-story. It was a Hauser article. That was all I needed to know.

            Comment

            • b00g13man
              Undisputed Champion
              Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
              • Dec 2012
              • 12197
              • 265
              • 51
              • 34,905

              #1206
              Originally posted by Roller Coaster
              Upset? No. That's you and the fIomos projecting as usual. The caps were meant to emphasize a point.
              Yep. Just as I suspected. The stench of butthurt.

              Comment

              • radioraheem
                Undisputed Champion
                Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
                • May 2010
                • 5915
                • 165
                • 200
                • 12,234

                #1207
                Originally posted by GTTofAK
                Like I said this is legal minutia that goes over your head because you are ******. The feds were interested in making a doping case, which they ultimately handed off to USADA, and they used a fraud investigation as a legal excuse. Its quite simple.
                First you say the Feds weren't investigating him for doping, then you now say the Feds were interested in making a doping case which they ultimately handed off to USADA. And that fraud was the legal excuse.

                It's either they were investigating him for doping or not. Now you want to come back and say they were indeed investigating him for doping. Backtracking at it's finest.

                Comment

                • radioraheem
                  Undisputed Champion
                  Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
                  • May 2010
                  • 5915
                  • 165
                  • 200
                  • 12,234

                  #1208
                  Originally posted by GTTofAK
                  An anonymous source said to some no name internet news company? So we have many credible news organizations that have said that a USADA official found evidence of an IV during the course of a random drug test yet we are to believe an anonymous source.

                  You need to understand the difference between facts and statements. The only fact is that an anonymous source said X. X however is not a fact.
                  And according to USADA (the direct source), they stated they didn't just 'find him with an IV', that they knew about it beforehand. That's the actual fact according to USADA.

                  Comment

                  • IR0NFIST
                    The Mata Lećo
                    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                    • Jul 2014
                    • 1634
                    • 91
                    • 26
                    • 9,062

                    #1209
                    USADA claims that both Mayweather and Pacquiao were tested a total of 19 times. Assuming that Floyd did give urine before and after the banned IVs were administered, wouldn't he have an additional 2 drug tests on the report? Unless they urine tested Pacquiao as well, which is unlikely, seeing as how he didn't require banned IVs to rehydrate.

                    Mayweather gave urine on March 13, 18, 19 and 28, April 2, 10, 15, 21 and 27 and May 1 and 2. He gave blood samples on March 13, 18 and 28, April 2, 10, 15 and 21 and May 2.

                    Paquiao gave urine on March 14, 17, 23 and 24, April 1, 9, 16, 22 and 27 and May 1 and 2. Pacquiao gave blood samples on March 14, 17 and 24, April 1, 9, 16 and 22 and May 2.

                    Comment

                    • radioraheem
                      Undisputed Champion
                      Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
                      • May 2010
                      • 5915
                      • 165
                      • 200
                      • 12,234

                      #1210
                      Originally posted by IR0NFIST
                      USADA claims that both Mayweather and Pacquiao were tested a total of 19 times. Assuming that Floyd did give urine before and after the banned IVs were administered, wouldn't he have an additional 2 drug tests on the report? Unless they urine tested Pacquiao as well, which is unlikely, seeing as how he didn't require banned IVs to rehydrate.

                      Mayweather gave urine on March 13, 18, 19 and 28, April 2, 10, 15, 21 and 27 and May 1 and 2. He gave blood samples on March 13, 18 and 28, April 2, 10, 15 and 21 and May 2.

                      Paquiao gave urine on March 14, 17, 23 and 24, April 1, 9, 16, 22 and 27 and May 1 and 2. Pacquiao gave blood samples on March 14, 17 and 24, April 1, 9, 16 and 22 and May 2.
                      That reporting doesn't say because it only specifies a number of times according to dates. Rather than a specific number of samples.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      TOP