who among suspected PED user got away the most: Pacquaio, Mayweather or Marquez?

[travestyny]

Too much red! Underline is fine for me! Best regards, Zaroku!

Ah man, I kind of like the way that red looks. I'm willing to try out the underline method. Might be easier on the eyes!

[Zaroku]

Ah man, I kind of like the way that red looks. I'm willing to try out the underline method. Might be easier on the eyes!

Thanks buddy! My old eyes get more blood shot when they see red!!

[GTTofAK]

The objective is to guide and assist TUECs in the decision making process for TUE applications and are not mandatory documents.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-...use-exemptions

Of course they are not mandatory. If they were mandatory someone could have a rare genetic condition not covered by the medical literature review and be denied treatment. There is a difference between mandatory and controlling.

So what is the rare condition or circumstance that Froid claims trumps the medical literature?

[travestyny]

Of course they are not mandatory. If they were mandatory someone could have a rare genetic condition not covered by the medical literature review and be denied treatment. There is a difference between mandatory and controlling.

So what is the rare condition or circumstance that Froid claims trumps the medical literature?

LMAO. No ****, there is a difference between mandatory and controlling. How does that help you in the least bit? You better not answer that, because you know I'll destroy you over it yet again.

I could keep going and pounce all over the above bolded statement, but I'm going to take pity on your pathetic, brainless carcass. I just clowned the **** out of you, and your reply is this little whimper? This would be ****ing sad if you didn't claim to be so much more intelligent than everyone else. So where did all that tough talk go? Did you finally realize that you have major reading comprehension issues? How many times have I owned you now?

Is there any doubt that you are an absolute moron? You've embarrassed yourself over and over and over. Perhaps it's time for you to realize this...and shut the **** up. You can't back out of this now, you little b*tch. Maybe you should try to maintain some dignity by logging out and never returning. Yea, I think that's what you should do.

Thanks for the laughs, you blundering idiot.

[GTTofAK]

LMAO. No ****, there is a difference between mandatory and controlling. How does that help you in the least bit?

Controlling authorities are not mandatory. But you have to show some exceptional circumstances in specific cases to break from the controlling authority. You can show none in this case. Under what circumstances would the council be justified in ignoring WADA's review of the literature?

You are trying to seize on WADA giving some leeway in cases of exceptional circumstances with a blanket get out of jail free card. Sorry it doesn't work that way.

I agree that such literature reviews should not be mandatory. The literature is frequently changing and it is possible that specific cases fall threw the literature review. Good luck showing that in this case.

If we go back to your ******ed obsession with the ISTUE form. You argue that because ISTUE does not mention IV's then its anything goes. But if you read it, it only specifically mentions one prohibited substance or method, "steroids" in a comment example. So under your reasoning since ISTUE doesn't' specifically mention EPO, blood doping, clenbutral, diuretics, or any other other numerous of banned substance and methods that aren't steroids then they are all legal.

[GTTofAK]

Shifting the burden of proof.

Those claims are all claims made by USADA. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim not he who denies it. Its up to USADA to prove the claims it made.

In their entire response USADA made only one claim that could be independently verified, when they contacted the NYSAC. The NYSAC said their claim was bull****.

[Lester Tutor]

#48!

[Zaroku]

Those claims are all claims made by USADA. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim not he who denies it. Its up to USADA to prove the claims it made.

In their entire response USADA made only one claim that could be independently verified, when they contacted the NYSAC. The NYSAC said their claim was bull****.

They dismissed it as bull crap out of hand? Did they refute anything?

[GTTofAK]

They dismissed it as bull crap out of hand? Did they refute anything?

They made specific claims of fact. Its up to them to prove it.

Where is the DCO's statement confirming USADA statements of what happened with the IV? Who were the paramedics? What company were they from?

We will never hear from the DCO and I'll tell you why. He probably resigned, and got a nice fat severance check along with a nondisclosure agreement.

[Zaroku]

#48!

But Manny had a blister on his toe, and God made him lose!

Post PAC Losing Stress Disorder!

They also suffer from KTFO6 Shock & Denial! Foot stomp!!!

Hahahahahaha!

PAC really hurt his fans with his LGBT statements. I support him and his right to have his religious convictions! He KOed lots of his LGBT fans with one punch!!
WAR PAC!