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

[ADP02]

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"?



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



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.




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:






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?




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.



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.




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".

You are all mixed up.

If you have not had a medical condition in 15 years then it comes back all of a sudden a few days before the event that does NOT mean that its chronic!!! It means that you had an acute asthmatic attack. Why are you not getting this?????????????

How do I know all this? I actually experienced this!!!!

[Dosumpthin]

You are all mixed up.

If you have not had a medical condition in 15 years then it comes back all of a sudden a few days before the event that does NOT mean that its chronic!!! It means that you had an acute asthmatic attack. Why are you not getting this?????????????

How do I know all this? I actually experienced this!!!!

Did you apply for a retroactive tue? Dont answer that.


Do you know what remission means and how it may relate to a chronic illness?


A remission is a temporary end to the medical signs and symptoms of an incurable disease. A disease is said to be incurable if there is always a chance of the patient relapsing, no matter how long the patient has been in remission.

Dont answer that either.

But you adamantly claimed you can not get a retroactive tue if it is a chronic illness. Asthma, even in remission, is still a chronic illness. Period.


So i ask for the 4th 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"?

[travestyny]

Sure lets. You on 3/23/2016



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

You are an absolute moron, but I'm going to help you with your vocabulary list.

Mandatory: required by law or rules

Controlling: the power to direct, manage, oversee and/or restrict the affairs, business or assets of a person or entity.

Now put 1+1 together. Can something that is non-mandatory be controlling?

You stated that controlling documentation is not mandatory. In your logic, how can the ISTUE be controlling. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. Show your proof that something non-mandatory (which means you don't have to abide by it) can be controlling.

I didn't think so. You lose once again.

[travestyny]

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.

Accusations require proof. Thank you for helping to establish who has the burden of proof. WHERE YOUR PROOF OF ANY WRONGDOING? Yea, I thought so.

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.

YOU STATED THAT MANDATORY DOCUMENTATION IS NOT CONTROLLING. Does that mean the ISTUE is not controlling? Your English comprehension is far lacking. Because there is a semantic difference between the two words doesn't mean there is no relation, you idiot. The ISTUE IS CONTROLLING. In fact it is the only controlling documentation. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the medical reviews are controlling. Where did you ever get that information from??? It simply states they are there to "guide and assist TUECs in the decision making process for TUE applications and are not mandatory documents."

You are really trying to argue that the ISTUE is not controlling to fit your agenda? Really? How idiotic is that?

[travestyny]

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.

The question is can you prove where the information came from. Again, you can not answer why Landis has come clean about his wrongdoing, yet he never implicated USADA at all. Why wouldn't he go after USADA, even if it was just one rogue employee tipping them off.

Make any sense to you? Where is his statement showing USADA tipped him off. Where is the proof?

Didn't think so.

[travestyny]

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.

1. Lance has nothing to do with this and THAT is a deflection.

2. You are still bringing up severe dehydration. When I ask you to show me in the ISTUE where it states a TUE would be granted only for severe dehydration, you deflect. I've been waiting but you've shown no proof of that.

3. Your evidence? You did not disprove chronic dehydration. You didn't even disprove acute dehydration. You rely on NSAC who has NEVER found a fighter to be dehydrated before a fight, when you know for a fact that fighters have gone into fights under their jurisdiction dehydrated, so that wipes NSAC out. This is not about what is possible. This is about FACTS and PROOF and you have none. Over and over I have to tell you the same thing.

If you have something, Pacquaio's team would have done better, don't you think? What's your response to that?

Nothing.

[ADP02]

Did you apply for a retroactive tue? Dont answer that.


Do you know what remission means and how it may relate to a chronic illness?


A remission is a temporary end to the medical signs and symptoms of an incurable disease. A disease is said to be incurable if there is always a chance of the patient relapsing, no matter how long the patient has been in remission.

Dont answer that either.

But you adamantly claimed you can not get a retroactive tue if it is a chronic illness. Asthma, even in remission, is still a chronic illness. Period.


So i ask for the 4th 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"?

The issue that I have is that you are not understanding any of this.

You brought up the case that the athlete no longer required any use of medication for 15 years. Right? Then the athlete had an asthmatic attack a few days before the event. Right?

That is considered an acute asthmatic attack.


To answer your question on why if there is no active use.
The issue can be related to allergies which are seasonal, for example.
The issue may be related to cold weather and the event happens to be in an area of concern.
The athlete may have been told by his doctor that its necessary to apply and have the substance even if they are not going to use it, for precautionary reasons. If you do not understand, think of an athlete who has allergies and carries an EPI pen. They may never use it but should always carry one.
The athlete would be allowed based on their medical history .... or may not.

[ADP02]

1. Lance has nothing to do with this and THAT is a deflection.
Incorrect. You made an assumption that because Floyd's doctor made a statement that it must be true. I have used Lance as an example to not be naïve.

Go check out some trials.
You notice that defendants that are later found guilty can magically find a doctor to testify under oath?


2. You are still bringing up severe dehydration. When I ask you to show me in the ISTUE where it states a TUE would be granted only for severe dehydration, you deflect. I've been waiting but you've shown no proof of that.
Even USADA states on their website that all Floyd had to do to recuperate was drink some water. Drink a few cups for every pound lost. Floyd did.

The problem is that your interpretation is incorrect. Was there an alternative that Floyd could have used? Yes. Floyd was drinking so there you go.
Its written that Floyd and others should orally rehydrate as that is just as good and the way to go unless Floyd was severely dehydrated.
but I can provide you with more information. That is still to come.

3. Your evidence? You did not disprove chronic dehydration. You didn't even disprove acute dehydration. You rely on NSAC who has NEVER found a fighter to be dehydrated before a fight, when you know for a fact that fighters have gone into fights under their jurisdiction dehydrated, so that wipes NSAC out. This is not about what is possible. This is about FACTS and PROOF and you have none. Over and over I have to tell you the same thing.

If you have something, Pacquaio's team would have done better, don't you think? What's your response to that?

Nothing.

I did disprove but again, its your interpretation that is flawed.

Again, I will provide more information. That is still to come.

Again, I will provide more information. That is still to come.



.

[travestyny]

Incorrect. You made an assumption that because Floyd's doctor made a statement that it must be true. I have used Lance as an example to not be naïve. Go check out some trials for

To make it clear, the point I am making is that the burden of proof is on you to prove the doctor is lying. Have you proven that (mind you, without the doctor's records)?

Even USADA states on their website that all Floyd had to do to recuperate was drink some water. Drink a few cups for every pound lost. Floyd did.

The problem is that your interpretation is incorrect. Was there an alternative that Floyd could have used? Yes. Floyd was drinking so there you go.
Its written that Floyd and others should orally rehydrate as that is just as good and the way to go unless Floyd was severely dehydrated.
but I can provide you with more information. That is still to come.

The ISTUE clearly states that the prohibited method can be used if justified by a medical practitioner. This wipes out all of what you've written above. If you can prove that the doctor's justification was unworthy, have at it. Can you?

The simple answer is no.

I did disprove but again, its your interpretation that is flawed.

Again, I will provide more information. That is still to come.

I'm not interpreting anything, you are. I'm looking at the ISTUE. I hope your further information discusses Floyd's doctor's justification for the IV, because if not, it's a waste of my time to read.

[GTTofAK]

The question is can you prove where the information came from.

By what standard of proof? The strongest standard of proof we use in the real world is reasonable doubt. Can you come up with a reasonable source other than USADA? If you cant then it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.