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

[travestyny]

game set and match LOL

Here's a news flash for you buddy. No one has ever lost a debate to you here. In fact, most of the posters here believe you are a moron. I'm not stating that to be mean, but I'm being quite factual. I've witnessed many posters trying to get you to understand the most simple things, and you failed over and over. It's clear that you are just a waste of time.

For example, what part of confidential don't you understand?

Then, you ask me what it means when it says a woman bled out from her pelvis...because you think it means the IV caused it???

You say I can't prove your calculation is wrong, but you can't even verify essential information on which it is based. As a matter of fact, the person who provided you with the information explained to you that you misunderstood it, and you still are going along with it. The same reason that the red/blue corner conspiracy was proven to be idiotic to believe in, yet you still go along with it. This is truly embarrassing for you.

You claim you didn't mean that the first urine sample was given right before the IV.

where did you find the word "immediately" you inserting comments in my post LOL

my answer was before the IV was administered NOT after the weigh in

my answer was exactly your answer and you are dis*****g it LOL

But you wrote this:

7:45PM - 8:15PM is 30 minutes correct? (when did Floyd/USADA called the phantom confidential paramedic and when did he arrived arrived at Floyd's house?)

divide 30 minutes with all these stuffs:

1. Floyd peeing before the test

2. IV set-up

You clearly stated that he had 30 minutes to give the first urine sample and take the IV, yet you are now saying that you didn't say he gave the urine sample right before the IV?

So is 7:45pm after the weigh-in? How many times do I have to catch you in your inconsistencies before you realize that you are a moron?

Then there is this:

USADA notified Floyd that they were at Floyd's house 1:45PM (meaning USADA did not come at Floyd's house because he notified them of his IV use)

they came at Floyd's house to collect samples for the drug test.

it also means Floyd did not gave them his urine sample that time. but only after 6 hours like he did with mosley fight delaying USADA DCO.

supporting my statement that floyd did not give urine samples when they arrived at his house @1:45PM because that was what USADA DCO used as one of the reason Floyd was dehydrated - he can not pee.

How the hell does that show when he gave the first urine sample? Where is the DCO statement saying that Floyd was unable to provide a partial sample when he arrived? Furthermore, I already showed proof that Floyd gave a partial urine sample right away to USADA for the Mosley fight, but you can't comprehend it.




You're an absolute idiot. Go play in traffic.

[Dosumpthin]

Here's a news flash for you buddy. No one has ever lost a debate to you here. In fact, most of the posters here believe you are a moron. I'm not stating that to be mean, but I'm being quite factual. I've witnessed many posters trying to get you to understand the most simple things, and you failed over and over. It's clear that you are just a waste of time.

For example, what part of confidential don't you understand?

Then, you ask me what it means when it says a woman bled out from her pelvis...because you think it means the IV caused it???

You say I can't prove your calculation is wrong, but you can't even verify essential information on which it is based. As a matter of fact, the person who provided you with the information explained to you that you misunderstood it, and you still are going along with it. The same reason that the red/blue corner conspiracy was proven to be idiotic to believe in, yet you still go along with it. This is truly embarrassing for you.

You claim you didn't mean that the first urine sample was given right before the IV.


But you wrote this:


You clearly stated that he had 30 minutes to give the first urine sample and take the IV, yet you are now saying that you didn't say he gave the urine sample right before the IV?

So is 7:45pm after the weigh-in? How many times do I have to catch you in your inconsistencies before you realize that you are a moron?

Then there is this:





How the hell does that show when he gave the first urine sample? Where is the DCO statement saying that Floyd was unable to provide a partial sample when he arrived? Furthermore, I already showed proof that Floyd gave a partial urine sample right away to USADA for the Mosley fight, but you can't comprehend it.




You're an absolute idiot. Go play in traffic.

At least he's not asking you the difference between notification and application.


Each member of the SCHOLASTIC FOUR has their own archenemy and weakness



RATH vs. Adjectives/logic
SPOON vs. Adverbs/facts
GTTofAK vs. Definitions/knowledge
ADP02 vs. Conjunctions/reasoning


Sad. So sad.

[GTTofAK]

Um, no, the FACT is that the TUE was approved. This is a fact. What do you have?

What does the TUE being approved have to do have to do with the TUE not being rubber stamped? The accusation that the TUE was rubber stamped takes the TUE being approved as a given. So the existances of the TUE is proof of nothing.

It's ****** to you because you are an idiot. Did you or did you not say controlling authorities are not mandatory. Then we have WADA saying the ISTUE is mandatory. How do you reconcile that? You still haven't explained.

Mandatory - It must be done this way, no exceptions.

Controlling - It should be done this way except in exceptional circumstances.

The ISTUE is mandatory. The medical reviews are controlling. WADA actually states why the review is not mandatory in the next sentence which you omitted. The literature is always evolving and never fully comprehensive. As such can never be mandatory.

Now the onus is on team Froid to show why Froid's dehydration was an exceptional circumstance that put it beyond the scope of the medical review.

The question is if something is not mandatory, can it be controlling.

Asked and answered.

[GTTofAK]

I have no information about what tests he claims someone tipped him off about, nor is it relevant. He came clean about his illegal activity, yet he NEVER implicated USADA.

Yes we do. We have His testimony. During the random portion of their testing protocol team USA was getting tipped off. Do you have any other explanation on where that could have come from other than USADA? There is no possibility of a flying spaghetti monster here.

[ADP02]

You are saying the physician or the athlete should have to lie? Asthma Is a chronic medical condition. I gave an example of a very real scenario of such. You said the rules are if it is a chronic condition you can't get a retroactive tue. Your misinterpretation not mine.



One example was an athlete diagnosed with chronic asthma but has not had an attack 15 years later. That's chronic According to wada. No need for the physician to lie, just follow the rules and apply.



Nothing to do with Floyd. This is about you not understanding the word "or" where it appears throughout wada code - so you are confused.


Yes but if an athlete has a chronic medical condition that is in remission and do not currently take medication for it - then how can they apply for a the****utic use exemption if there is not current the****utic use? Can you answer that for me?




Wada provides the physician with guidelines on what the TUEC is looking for relating to a chronic condition such as asthma.


Medical history
- A history of asthma may include a family history of allergies, hay fever or
eczema. Individuals may also describe a personal history of childhood
respiratory problems, rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis or dermatitis. In these
cases, the development of asthma may be part of an atopic predisposition.
However asthma might also develop in otherwise healthy individuals at any age.


That's a description of something that's chronic. Right?
On the same document.......

XII. Special circumstances
Where circumstances are deemed to be exceptional and treatment must be initiated
before a TUE could be approved, reference should be made to WADA ISTUE article 4.3
concerning retroactive/emergency TUEs. Full and clear documentation of the medical
incident is required and the TUE application process must be initiated at the first
opportunity.

According to your interpretation, why would wada put a provision that explains how to obtain a retoactive tue for a CHRONIC condition?


Maybe you should start to rethink what the word "or" means?




Nope doesn't make sense to me because I know the meaning of the word "or" in the English language. So no they do not ONLY state acute emergency like you misinterpret. When you accept you were wrong about the word "or" - things will start to make sense.

Hint. Re read 4.2 over and over again. Or means pick one.



I'm not discussing Floyd's weight and urine color until you have demonstrated that you understand conjunctions. Specifically the word or.

The entire community has answered you on multiple occasions. Being severely dehydrated is not the only way you can obtain a retroactive tue for iv use. But you ignore the "or" in that section too.

The issue here is that you are mixing this all up. You are saying that the athlete has chronic medical condition but then you are also saying, its OK to apply after it occurs because it only happens once every 15 years and WADA will consider this a chronic case. Sorry but that is not written anywhere but of course its possible that I didn't see that because I didn't read it all. lol! So you would have to show me.

If you have a chronic medical condition they want you to get tested and/or provide them a medical history with relatively current data. So you are saying otherwise and the athlete does not have to do any of that. Again, show me where this is written because I'm not seeing it.

For asthma, what I am seeing is them stating that for certain treatments you do not even need a TUE and some you do.

When you do need a TUE, apply with the necessary documentation. If you get an episode of an asthma attack and its serious enough that the non-prohibited drugs do not work and so on then the athlete's health comes first and the TUE can be given as soon as possible after ..... but they do state that its when you get an asthma attack. This implies an acute asthma attack. BUT as stated, there are also cases where no TUE is required because they do allow some drugs for mild cases and certain thresholds.

Here is an example:
"The systemic use (e.g. oral or intravenous administration) of GCS is prohibited and requires a TUE. When systemic GCS are used for the treatment of an exacerbation of asthma, a retroactive/emergency TUE should be submitted as soon as possible to the appropriate anti-doping organization"

The above is as clear as day to me.

Here is what they want when the athlete says its chronic:
"TUE validity and recommended review process
The recommended validity of a TUE for an asthmatic athlete is 4 years with an annual review by a physician experienced in treating athletes. In some cases, an ADO may impose conditions such as a review by a specialist within a certain time frame."

Like I said, there are non-prohibited medication and or acceptable thresholds. To get access to the prohibited medication, there are hurdles such as specific tests, medical history and supporting diaries that are mentioned and needs to be considered. You are saying that none of that is required for chronic cases but it is. If its not, please show me!!!

The only time its not required .... it brings that up to.

Also, as I already mentioned, asthma is special type of medical condition. Its handled differently than most other medical conditions. Reason is that one's health can get seriously affected and one can also die from that. Some other medical conditions, treatment can wait even if it happens just before the event.

So to say, there is much more to this than what you keep on bringing up (OR and OR and OR. That is what I said initially and keep on telling you.

[GTTofAK]

Let's set the record straight.

Sure lets. You on 3/23/2016

No ****, there is a difference between mandatory and controlling.

Travesty reorganized that there is a difference between mandatory and contorting before he insisted that there wasn't.

[ADP02]

Deflections?
What do you call bringing up Lance Armstrong over and over again? I certainly call that a deflection.

We've already gone over the things you mentioned above over and over again. This isn't going to change that you can't prove anything without the medical records. The TUE application clearly states that a medical practitioner must justify the IV use. If you have a problem with USADA approving of what the medical practitioner pointed out, I suggest you contact Pacquaio's legal team and tell them to do something about it instead of just giving up.

Lance Armstrong's name is there to point out that, do not overestimate what Floyd's doctor writes on that medical form. Lance Armstrong got a doctor to write down whatever Lance wanted him to write down .... and it was approved many times but that did not mean that everything was OK. Right?

We have lots of evidence. NSAC, USADA, FLOYD, Ellerbe, Ariza all made statements. You take that plus all the other evidence that was provided.

If you have a relatively stable weight, you admit to making the weight EASILY, you train all year round and came into camp in already in very good condition, you are a very experienced athlete and you have experienced conditioning coaches, at that point in time, Floyd should not have been severely dehydrated and we both know that he was not.

Again, Floyd made a statement on what the issue was and what contributed to it and how severe his hydration was. If it was all wrong, they would have come back with a correction to the initial statement instead they doubled down and went with it.

We asked you how it can be possible. You cannot respond so you deflect ..... its obvious that you are stuck. If you were not, then you would be providing answers just like you do with all other aspects of this IV scandal.

[GTTofAK]

Lance Armstrong's name is there to point out that, do not overestimate what Floyd's doctor writes on that medical form. Lance Armstrong got a doctor to write down whatever Lance wanted him to write down ...

It goes way earlier than that. It was Dr. John Ziegler in the 1950s who introduced American athletics to steroids, serving as the steroid expert for the US Weightlifting team. It was Dr. Ziegler who invented the concept of the steroid stack stacking testosterone with d-bol.

[ADP02]

It goes way earlier than that. It was Dr. John Ziegler in the 1950s who introduced American athletics to steroids, serving as the steroid expert for the US Weightlifting team. It was Dr. Ziegler who invented the concept of the steroid stack stacking testosterone with d-bol.

Oh I know it goes earlier than that but most people know who Lance Armstrong is. I could have also brought Ben Johnson who some people may know about but not as many. Ben Johnson's doctor provided the "treatments" but as we all know, it was actually for performance reasons.

They have experts/doctors who monitor the athletes and give them the drugs and or help them mask the drugs. Floyd fans bringing up that Floyd's doctor said so, so it must be true .... its what one would call being deliberately naïve.

[Dosumpthin]

The issue here is that you are mixing this all up. You are saying that the athlete has chronic medical condition but then you are also saying, its OK to apply after it occurs because it only happens once every 15 years and WADA will consider this a chronic case.

Chronic illness that can be in remission for years and doesn't require medical treatment. Doesn't change the fact that you a susceptible to an EXERCISE INDUCED asthma attack.

I'll ask you to answer this question for the third time:

Why would an athlete request, or the the****utic use exemption comittee approve, a threaputic use exemption if there is no active "the****utic use"?

Sorry but that is not written anywhere

but of course its possible that I didn't see that because I didn't read it all. lol! So you would have to show me.

I have shown you on 4 different occasions. But you don't understand the word "or".

If you have a chronic medical condition they want you to get tested and/or provide them a medical history with relatively current data. So you are saying otherwise and the athlete does not have to do any of that. Again, show me where this is written because I'm not seeing it.

I have never said otherwise. Once again you misunderstood, because of your stubborness, wada guidelines and codes.

A retroactive tue is - the the****utic use committee (tuec) is allowing the athlete to apply for a normal tue retroactively - retroactive is the adjective meaning afterwards or after the deadline or after the sample is collected.

4.2 explains the different types of exceptional circumstances in which they will allow this to happen.

For asthma, what I am seeing is them stating that for certain treatments you do not even need a TUE and some you do.

When you do need a TUE, apply with the necessary documentation. If you get an episode of an asthma attack and its serious enough that the non-prohibited drugs do not work and so on then the athlete's health comes first and the TUE can be given as soon as possible after ..... but they do state that its when you get an asthma attack. This implies an acute asthma attack. BUT as stated, there are also cases where no TUE is required because they do allow some drugs for mild cases and certain thresholds.

Here is an example:
"The systemic use (e.g. oral or intravenous administration) of GCS is prohibited and requires a TUE. When systemic GCS are used for the treatment of an exacerbation of asthma, a retroactive/emergency TUE should be submitted as soon as possible to the appropriate anti-doping organization"

The above is as clear as day to me.

None of this changes the fact that asthma is a chronic illness. Your just pointing out the obvious. Nevertheless this contradicts your previous statement:

ADP02 WROTE:

They explained it to you that YOU MUST submit within 30 days for chronic medical conditions because their definition of chronic is that you have had it long enough and its too bad if you think that you can request a retroactive TUE for this because you will NOT get one. It is not an exceptional circumstance.

Here is what they want when the athlete says its chronic:
"TUE validity and recommended review process
The recommended validity of a TUE for an asthmatic athlete is 4 years with an annual review by a physician experienced in treating athletes. In some cases, an ADO may impose conditions such as a review by a specialist within a certain time frame."

Great. This is a reference to an athlete who is currently using banned medication to treat asthma.


What about if a chronic illness, like asthma, is in remission?

Like I said, there are non-prohibited medication and or acceptable thresholds. To get access to the prohibited medication, there are hurdles such as specific tests, medical history and supporting diaries that are mentioned and needs to be considered. You are saying that none of that is required for chronic cases but it is. If its not, please show me!!!

I have never said this. Your misinterpretation
of the word "or", and ultimately the entire wada code concerning tues, has led you believe something I never said.

The only time its not required .... it brings that up to.

Also, as I already mentioned, asthma is special type of medical condition. Its handled differently than most other medical conditions. Reason is that one's health can get seriously affected and one can also die from that. Some other medical conditions, treatment can wait even if it happens just before the event.

An athlete’s health should never be jeopardized by withholding medication
in an emergency.
they put that disclaimer there in the retroactive tue section for a reason.


Asthma. Next we can talk about irritable bowel syndrome. And another chronic illness after that.

So to say, there is much more to this than what you keep on bringing up (OR and OR and OR. That is what I said initially and keep on telling you.

Your still confused.




.

Lets review. This time read it. Read it slowly. Wada states :


4.2 Unless one of the exceptions set out in Article 4.3 applies, an Athlete who
needs to Use a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for The****utic reasons
must obtain a TUE prior to Using or Possessing the substance or method in
question.


4.3 An Athlete may only be granted retroactive approval for his/her The****utic
Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method (i.e., a retroactive TUE) if:

a. Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was
necessary; or

b. Due to other exceptional circumstances, there was insufficient time or
opportunity for the Athlete to submit, or for the TUEC to consider, an
application for the TUE prior to Sample collection; or

c. The applicable rules required the Athlete (see comment to Article 5.1) or
permitted the Athlete (see Code Article 4.4.5) to apply for a retroactive
TUE;
[Comment to 4.3(c): Such Athletes are strongly advised to have a medical file
prepared and ready to demonstrate their satisfaction of the TUE conditions set out
at Article 4.1, in case an application for a retroactive TUE is necessary following
Sample collection.]

or

d. It is agreed, by WADA and by the Anti-Doping Organization to whom the
application for a retroactive TUE is or would be made, that fairness
requires the grant of a retroactive TUE.
[Comment to 4.3(d): If WADA and/or the Anti-Doping Organization do not agree
to the application of Article 4.3(d), that may not be challenged either as a defense
to proceedings for an anti-doping rule violation, or by way of appeal, or otherwise.]


This is what it boils down to. You misinterpet the code and when someone doesn't agree with your assessment - you take it to mean they are taking an opposite stance.

No. We are telling you that you are reading it wrong and need to know how and why the word "or" affects the meaning of the code. This isn't being a fan, this is English 101. Until we are all on an adequate reading and comprhension level - we can not discuss a "theory" as it relates to the "facts".