Why did Manny oppose to WADA back in 2010 vs Floyd?

[jqSide]

That's it?

That's it what? You didn't even answer my question. Why did Mayweather settle the case when asked to provide his past test results? What is "settling a case" consists to you? Simple questions.

[GTTofAK]

So basically that article said a bunch of nothing. Their sources are undisclosed, with the exception of the NYSAC rep. But who was the rep at NYSAC that didn't know? Their secretary?

Meanwhile, USADA released a 25-page reporting referencing and picking apart inaccuracies found in that very article Halestormsports article. Additionally, picking apart inaccuracies reported by Dan Rafael via his anonymous sources.

Please show all the references USADA uses. Specifically who does USADA reference for when they told the NYSAC? And when did they tell the NYSAC? They give a vague statement of "afternoon" which could have been before or after it broke that both the A and B samples had tested positive twice.

There is a huge difference between informing and confessing.

[radioraheem]

Please show all the references USADA uses. Specifically who does USADA reference for when they told the NYSAC? And when did they tell the NYSAC? They give a vague statement of "afternoon" which could have been before or after it broke that both the A and B samples had tested positive twice.

There is a huge difference between informing and confessing.

USADA is the source since they are the testing agency genius. They don't need reference as does a reporter who does not do the testing and has no access to documentation.

USADA informed NYSAC Chairwoman Melvina Lathan of the A sample positive, by phone, on October 17, 2012, the day prior to the publication of the Halestorm Sports story. The timing of this conversation is supported by public comments made by Richard Schaefer on October 18, 2012

[radioraheem]

That's it what? You didn't even answer my question. Why did Mayweather settle the case when asked to provide his past test results? What is "settling a case" consists to you? Simple questions.

I answered you already. Settling a case can mean anything. Unless you know or have access to the details, then it can get specific. But without evidence, no one knows. The only thing you can do is use your imagination foolishly.

Again, no one knows which side approached who to even settle the case. None knows whether it was Team Pacquiao that approached Team Mayweather, or vice-versa. All we have is hearsay.

[Lester Tutor]

USADA didnt tell me. They told the NSAC and everyone else when they fabricated their TUE because they had to.

Sigh times mc squared.

[GTTofAK]

USADA is the source since they are the testing agency genius. They don't need reference as does a reporter who does not do the testing and has no access to documentation.

USADA is an interested party. There has to be another reference for credibility.

USADA informed NYSAC Chairwoman Melvina Lathan of the A sample positive, by phone, on October 17, 2012, the day prior to the publication of the Halestorm Sports story. The timing of this conversation is supported by public comments made by Richard Schaefer on October 18, 2012

Doesn't this prove that they hid the two positive A and B results from the NYSAC? The statement only says that they told the NYSAC about the positive A test prior to the news breaking about the two prior positive A and B tests.. This is consistent with Hausers chain of events.

[GTTofAK]

Sigh times mc squared.

From the contract

Mayweather and Pacquiao agree that USADA shall notify both athletes within 24 hours of any of the following occurrences: (1) the approval by USADA of a TUE application submitted by either athlete; and/or (2) the existence of and/or any modification to an existing approved TUE. Notification pursuant to this paragraph shall consist of and be limited to: (a) the date of the application; (b) the prohibited substance(s) or method(s) for which the TUE is sought; and (c) the manner of use for the prohibited substance(s) or method(s) for which the TUE is sought.

So the moment USADA approved its fabricated TUE to cover itself from a possible leak they had to inform the parties. This had nothing to do with being upfront and honest.

[radioraheem]

USADA is an interested party. There has to be another reference for credibility.

Doesn't this prove that they hid the two positive A and B results from the NYSAC? The statement only says that they told the NYSAC about the positive A test prior to the news breaking about the two prior positive A and B tests.. This is consistent with Hausers chain of events.

Incorrect, because in the same PDF they also state they reported the B sample.

USADA is the source of the reported testing results.

[radioraheem]

From the contract

So the moment USADA approved its fabricated TUE to cover itself from a possible leak they had to inform the parties. This had nothing to do with being upfront and honest.

Regardless, you only know because USADA told you.

[GTTofAK]

Incorrect, because in the same PDF they also state they reported the B sample.

They state that by the afternoon of October 19th they reported the failed A and B samples. This time frame is intentionally vague because it can fall both inside and outside of the news reports of the failed A and B samples.

USADA is the source of the reported testing results.

You dont know who leaked it to the press.