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

[GTTofAK]

I'm not refusing to explain anything. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING OR ANYONE accuse USADA of being in cahoots with Landis and Armstrong. This is all your made up fantasy based on nothing. Your proof is that he said he was tipped off on when the DCO was coming? Did he have someone perched outside waiting where they must pass by? Did they then pretend to be sleeping for a period of time? Who the hell knows? You give zero proof that he implicated USADA, and you gave no logical reason that he would protect USADA.

Nothing you said lines up with Landis testimony so it is unreasonable. Try again.

[ADP02]

1. Can we agree to throw out NSAC? I've already gone over this. NSAC has never to my knowledge diagnosed someone as being dehydrated, but it's pretty clear that fighters have gone into fights dehydrated under their jurisdiction. This could mean a couple of things:

A) NSAC doesn't comment on dehydration.
B) NSAC doesn't care about dehydration.
C) NSAC sucks at diagnosing dehydration.

Choose your pic, but NSAC can't be relied on in this instance.

2. Floyd and Ellerbe's statements: Is it your point that they can't, should not, or would not use the term "extremely dehydrated" unless Mayweather does the diagnosis himself? He isn't a doctor. I'd love to see what the actual doctor that checked him for dehydration wrote, and that is the point.

3. Vital signs and weight: Not conclusive. We've gone over all of this already. Again, I'd love to see what the doctor that examined him and prepared the TUE application had to say.

You are allowed to be su****ious. Have at it. But you are getting nowhere without his medical records regarding his condition at the time.

1. Vital signs were all normal and Floyd's pre-fight form did not state that Floyd had an ongoing medical condition.

So Floyd not stating the truth on that form was OK with you? Once they found out about it (before the IV scandal) Floyd/Ariza were interviewed and said that Manny should have reported this information beforehand.

2. Floyd/Ellerbe do not have to be doctors. Floyd has enough experience to know how dehydrated he felt. Right? Floyd would be liable if found to be taking something that was prohibited. So he had to be exactly aware of his condition and what it meant in relation to taking an IV or not. WADA states that being dumb is not a good excuse.

Its not like the interviews happened BEFORE Floyd discussed it with Ariza and the supposed doctor that was there. Floyd's interviews happened after. I went to the doctor last week. I asked the doctor and the doctor responded. Not hard to do and again, we are just talking about dehydration not some crazy ailment that is complicated.


3. Vital signs alone, OK, but combined with weight? Sorry but how can someone be severely dehydrated if his weight is relatively stable? Maybe you responded but with what? Anything that made me say "He has a point"? NO!!!

You say that weight and vital signs are not conclusive but USADA, Nevada, studies and so on state that it does. Also, that all Floyd had to do was drink a few cups of water per pound lost. Was USADA not saying the truth?

In other words, your comebacks have been just like this response. Very vague. You hide behind a document that you know we will not see.

I asked you, with the available information, if you believe that Floyd was extremely dehydrated. You said that you do not hide but you did.


.

[Dosumpthin]

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

.

But it still is a chronic condition. Period. If you had to fill out a pre fight questionnaire - even though it is in remission - you still would list asthma. Because it is a chronic illness.

But you said wada does not allow a retroactive tue for a chronic condition.

So according to your interpretation the athlete and physician would have to fill out the application proving:

1. The acute medical emergency is not related to a chronic condition - despite all of the clinically accepted evidence that says asthma is a chronic illness, and this was an isolated incident.

And

2. The acute medical emergency is not related to a chronic medical condition despite medical records showing a previous diagnosis of asthma, a chronic illness, because it has been in remission up until now.

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.

[/QUOTE]

Well if you and your competent enough physician know damn well your allergic to ice and you are an NHL hockey player - it would make sense. But thank you for pointing that out. In that case the retroactive tue should be denied and the physician be barred from medical practice according to 4d without possible appeal.




You know it all makes sense if you acknowledge the word "or".

[ADP02]

.

But it still is a chronic condition. Period. If you had to fill out a pre fight questionnaire - even though it is in remission - you still would list asthma. Because it is a chronic illness.

But you said wada does not allow a retroactive tue for a chronic condition.

So according to your interpretation the athlete and physician would have to fill out the application proving:

1. The acute medical emergency is not related to a chronic condition - despite all of the clinically accepted evidence that says asthma is a chronic illness, and this was an isolated incident.

And

2. The acute medical emergency is not related to a chronic medical condition despite medical records showing a previous diagnosis of asthma, a chronic illness, because it has been in remission up until now.

Well if you and your competent enough physician know damn well your allergic to ice and you are an NHL hockey player - it would make sense. But thank you for pointing that out. In that case the retroactive tue should be denied and the physician be barred from medical practice according to 4d without possible appeal.




You know it all makes sense if you acknowledge the word "or".

Sorry but your logic is wrong. Its all there. The criteria included chronic medical conditions for TUEs and not considered a criteria for retroactive ones. Why? I explained it to you why. You cannot explain this simple question.

BTW - did Floyd consider dehydration as a chronic medical condition on the pre-fight form? So why are we bringing this up again?

Ice? Funny stuff. You do know that some athletes like to train at high altitudes where the weather can get relatively colder than their lungs are used to normally? Also, athletes train when the weather is cold as well. You never went out for a jog in the cold? Athletes do that.

[Dosumpthin]

Sorry but your logic is wrong. Its all there. The criteria included chronic medical conditions for TUEs and not considered a criteria for retroactive ones. Why? I explained it to you why. You cannot explain this simple question.

Your explaination is "or" doesnt mean "or". That is something a floyd fan wants you to believe. "Or" really means "and". Thats some remedial ****.



I explained my answer to your question and confusion by posting the official wada code along with the guidelines, examples, definitions of "or and prointing out your own contradictions.

BTW - did Floyd consider dehydration as a chronic medical condition on the pre-fight form? So why are we bringing this up again?

He did list allergies. Could be related to why he was dehydrated. But i wouldnt know because i havent read the tue application that has the medical condition that caused the dehydration. We talked about this remember?

Ice? Funny stuff. You do know that some athletes like to train at high altitudes where the weather can get relatively colder than their lungs are used to normally? Also, athletes train when the weather is cold as well. You never went out for a jog in the cold? Athletes do that.

This statement adds nothing to the topic. No need to respond to it.


In reality you havent posted anything of substance that deserves a response.

[ADP02]

Your explaination is "or" doesnt mean "or". That is something a floyd fan wants you to believe. "Or" really means "and". Thats some remedial ****.



I explained my answer to your question and confusion by posting the official wada code along with the guidelines, examples, definitions of "or and prointing out your own contradictions.


He did list allergies. Could be related to why he was dehydrated. But i wouldnt know because i havent read the tue application that has the medical condition that caused the dehydration. We talked about this remember?





This statement adds nothing to the topic. No need to respond to it.


In reality you havent posted anything of substance that deserves a response.

They removed chronic medical conditions as part of the equation. Start with that and it explains it clearly. Your explanation does not because you seem to think that removing it was just to confuse us all. Funny stuff!

But Floyd does not state dehydration anywhere on that form. How come? If its chronic, then it must have happened before. Right? So when was the last time? Did he require an IV back then too?

Funny that the documents and information that show that Floyd was not severely dehydrated enough to warrant an IV are not good enough for Floyd fans but they hug the ones that they cannot see because they are expecting ...... actually its so they can deflect the obvious.


QUESTION: With the current information that you have, do you think that Floyd was dehydrated to the point that an IV was a must?


.

[travestyny]

Nothing you said lines up with Landis testimony so it is unreasonable. Try again.

And nothing Landis said made anyone except you think USADA was in cahoots with him. I wonder why.


Keep making up fantasies, and keep ducking my other question, coward.

[travestyny]

1. Vital signs were all normal and Floyd's pre-fight form did not state that Floyd had an ongoing medical condition.

So Floyd not stating the truth on that form was OK with you? Once they found out about it (before the IV scandal) Floyd/Ariza were interviewed and said that Manny should have reported this information beforehand.

Do you think boxers voluntarily say they are dehydrated to the commissions? I already stated that it's clear NSAC doesn't care too much about dehydration. This is clear.

2. Floyd/Ellerbe do not have to be doctors. Floyd has enough experience to know how dehydrated he felt. Right? Floyd would be liable if found to be taking something that was prohibited. So he had to be exactly aware of his condition and what it meant in relation to taking an IV or not. WADA states that being dumb is not a good excuse.

Yes, he stated he was dehydrated. Again, what is your point? He took an IV for rehydration purposes. He was treated by a medical practitioner. Whether the physician showed that the condition was moderate or severe, we don't know. It can be assumed she/he provided information that would point to it being acute or chronic to the degree that Mayweather would experience a significant impairment to his health if not treated with the IV.

Its not like the interviews happened BEFORE Floyd discussed it with Ariza and the supposed doctor that was there. Floyd's interviews happened after. I went to the doctor last week. I asked the doctor and the doctor responded. Not hard to do and again, we are just talking about dehydration not some crazy ailment that is complicated.

Give it up. He said he was extremely dehydrated. In fact, I feel extremely dehydrated right now. But I'm not going to say I feel exactly like what a medical practitioner would label severe dehydration because I have this this and that which proves it. You are fishing and it just reeks of desperation.

3. Vital signs alone, OK, but combined with weight? Sorry but how can someone be severely dehydrated if his weight is relatively stable? Maybe you responded but with what? Anything that made me say "He has a point"? NO!!!

There you go again with severe dehydration. I'll answer the same way I always have. Show me in the ISTUE where it says severe dehydration is the standard for receiving a TUE. It says acute or chronic. The word severe does not exist even once in the ISTUE documentation.

You say that weight and vital signs are not conclusive but USADA, Nevada, studies and so on state that it does. Also, that all Floyd had to do was drink a few cups of water per pound lost. Was USADA not saying the truth?

The documentation allows for the use to be justified by a medical practitioner. This is what you wish to ignore because you know it means you have nothing.

In other words, your comebacks have been just like this response. Very vague. You hide behind a document that you know we will not see.

It's not hiding. It's going by what is certainly known. What you are doing is called drawing your own conclusions based on nothing more than a misreading of the essential documentation. If you don't have the proper facts to support your claim, you shouldn't pretend you have proof of anything.

I asked you, with the available information, if you believe that Floyd was extremely dehydrated. You said that you do not hide but you did.

What I told you is that I cannot know that without his medical records, so how is that hiding? The point is neither of us has the resources that would make the diagnosis abundantly clear.

Furthermore, when you go even further to PED use, you fall apart even more. It's like a broken record already.

[travestyny]

They removed chronic medical conditions as part of the equation. Start with that and it explains it clearly. Your explanation does not because you seem to think that removing it was just to confuse us all. Funny stuff!

But Floyd does not state dehydration anywhere on that form. How come? If its chronic, then it must have happened before. Right? So when was the last time? Did he require an IV back then too?

Funny that the documents and information that show that Floyd was not severely dehydrated enough to warrant an IV are not good enough for Floyd fans but they hug the ones that they cannot see because they are expecting ...... actually its so they can deflect the obvious.


QUESTION: With the current information that you have, do you think that Floyd was dehydrated to the point that an IV was a must?


.

Wow, you are still unable to understand the ISTUE? I'm pretty sure you know what OR means. So we have:

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

Let's pause there. Do you disagree that the OR means that (a) may not apply? I'm sure you realize that, right? Ok. So if (a) doesn't apply, then what would be the other criteria? Where would we find this information?

That's all I want to know. To make it clear:

IF EMERGENCY TREATMENT OR TREATMENT OF AN ACUTE MEDICAL CONDITION WAS NOT NECESSARY, WHAT IS THE OTHER CRITERIA WHICH WOULD ALLOW A TUE TO BE GRANTED RETROACTIVELY?

Is my question clear to you?

[GTTofAK]

And nothing Landis said made anyone except you think USADA was in cahoots with him.

Who was tipping off the US cycle team? I'm still waiting for a reasonable alternative. So far the best you can do is some lame excuse that landis had a look out.