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

[travestyny]

you quit, you lost, admit it.

you can never established floyd was dehydrated may 1st. because he was not.

spin deflection and diversion simply would not cut it.

I admit that you are an idiot. That's the only thing I admit.

How many times do I and every other poster here have to own you before you realize that you are quite an imbecile? This was clear when you ran with that red corner/blue corner conspiracy theory that you first wouldn't even admit was a conspiracy theory, then when I murdered you over it you shut up about it, only to later bring it up to other posters.

Then what was it? Oh yes, you couldn't understand USADA's quotation about random testing. How many posters explained it to you, but you still couldn't understand.

Seriously. you are not a smart man. You are in fact quite dumb. I've responded to very long posts by other posters here in this thread. Do you really think I'm avoiding you because of anything more than you being an idiot? Sorry, not going to happen. Your butt boy spoon got dealt with and banned. You are heading toward being the 2nd member here being banned for simple ******ity. Good luck.

[Rath]

I admit that you are an idiot. That's the only thing I admit.

How many times do I and every other poster here have to own you before you realize that you are quite an imbecile? This was clear when you ran with that red corner/blue corner conspiracy theory that you first wouldn't even admit was a conspiracy theory, then when I murdered you over it you shut up about it, only to later bring it up to other posters.

Then what was it? Oh yes, you couldn't understand USADA's quotation about random testing. How many posters explained it to you, but you still couldn't understand.

Seriously. you are not a smart man. You are in fact quite dumb. I've responded to very long posts by other posters here in this thread. Do you really think I'm avoiding you because of anything more than you being an idiot? Sorry, not going to happen. Your butt boy spoon got dealt with and banned. You are heading toward being the 2nd member here being banned for simple ******ity. Good luck.

kindergarten insult simply would not cut it either.

[Real King Kong]

you quit, you lost, admit it.

you can never established floyd was dehydrated may 1st. because he was not.

spin deflection and diversion simply would not cut it.

This is the exact type of **** that makes people think you're a joke and why they don't bother getting into any kind of serious discussion with you. How would anyone here be able to prove floyd was dehydrated, unless they were on the scene at the time? Furthermore, for the sake of this argument...why should they have to? He was granted the tue and cleared of any wrongdoing by the commission. If you wanna cling to speculation and accusations to ease your butthurt, then the burden of proof is on you to prove he wasn't. Instead you just keep parroting the same ****** question, and proclaim "victory" when it's rightfully ignored.

...and btw, this is coming from a person who doesn't even necessarily believe floyd was that dehydrated. IV rehydration has become the "in" thing in a lot of sports. While it may be little more than a placebo, many athletes swear by it because they feel it helps their bodies recover faster.

[travestyny]

kindergarten insult simply would not cut it either.

Ok, how's this. I'll make a deal with you.

I'll go back, read your post, and reply to all of it if you can prove that you are not an idiot. By that, what I mean is that if you can state that you now realize that your red corner/ blue corner conspiracy theory makes no damn sense (which we all know it doesn't) and you can admit that you were wrong to make a big deal about USADA saying they don't do random testing.

I think that's totally fair. No one with a brain believes in that corner conspiracy theory, and any rational person would understand USADA's assertion. If you can go on record and admit that you were wrong about those two things, I will gladly go back, read your post, and reply to it all.

Deal?

[Rath]

This is the exact type of **** that makes people think you're a joke and why they don't bother getting into any kind of serious discussion with you. How would anyone here be able to prove floyd was dehydrated, unless they were on the scene at the time? Furthermore, for the sake of this argument...why should they have to? He was granted the tue and cleared of any wrongdoing by the commission. If you wanna cling to speculation and accusations to ease your butthurt, then the burden of proof is on you to prove he wasn't. Instead you just keep parroting the same ****** question, and proclaim "victory" when it's rightfully ignored.

...and btw, this is coming from a person who doesn't even necessarily believe floyd was that dehydrated. IV rehydration has become the "in" thing in a lot of sports. While it may be little more than a placebo, many athletes swear by it because they feel it helps their bodies recover faster.

The discussion about TUE's etc.. will only begin after dehydration is established.

you don't have to be there to know if floyd was dehydrated or not, just the same as i don't have to be with neil and buzz to know they've really landed on the moon.

the only people who said Floyd was dehydrated were Floyd and Ellerbe.

nobody else.

NSAC was right (for the sake of argument i will agree) that Floyd did nothing wrong being dehydrated is not wrong on NSAC book.

NSAC was also right (again for the sake of argument i will agree) that floyd did nothing wrong about IV use because according to genius floyd fan it's allowed by NSAC, the problem is NSAC was not the testing agency but USADA.

whatever NSAC says about Floyd vs Pac drug testing does not matter and is invalid.

going back, discussion starts when genius floyd fans can established with certainty that Floyd was dehydrated may 1st. otherwise you will just be running around in circles.

[Real King Kong]

The discussion about TUE's etc.. will only begin after dehydration is established.

you don't have to be there to know if floyd was dehydrated or not, just the same as i don't have to be with neil and buzz to know they;ve really landed on the moon.

the only people who said Floyd was dehydrated were Floyd and Ellerbe.

nobody else.

NSAC was right (for the sake of argument i will agree) that Floyd did nothing wrong being dehydrated is now wrong on NSAC book.

NSAC was also right (again for the sake of argument i will agree) that floyd did nothing wrong about IV use because according to genius floyd fan it's allowed by NSAC, the problem is NSAC was not the testing agency but USADA.

whatever NSAC says about Floyd vs Pac drug testing does not matter and is invalid.

going back, discussion starts when genius floyd fans can established with certainty that Floyd was dehydrated may 1st. otherwise you will just be running around in circles.

Then you can see the futility in this then? You don't know that floyd wasn't dehydrated, nor can you prove it. Nobody here can prove that floyd was dehydrated. It's assumption or speculation either way. Some want to take his word at face value...others don't...but being hung up on the issue of dehydration is the catalyst to this whole circular argument. Same as how people want to accuse floyd of ped use because of the iv. The burden of proof lies with the accuser...but your kind want to come in here with some "prove he wasn't" type ****.

[Real King Kong]

Ok, how's this. I'll make a deal with you.

I'll go back, read your post, and reply to all of it if you can prove that you are not an idiot. By that, what I mean is that if you can state that you now realize that your red corner/ blue corner conspiracy theory makes no damn sense (which we all know it doesn't) and you can admit that you were wrong to make a big deal about USADA saying they don't do random testing.

I think that's totally fair. No one with a brain believes in that corner conspiracy theory, and any rational person would understand USADA's assertion. If you can go on record and admit that you were wrong about those two things, I will gladly go back, read your post, and reply to it all.

Deal?

[travestyny]

lol. You've already handled him with your posts. He doesn't have anything left to say.

[ADP02]

Are you slow or what? I gave you the direct link to the article. Why would I try to hide something from you? What was the main point of the article? The main point is that HAUSER HAS TO MAKE A GREAT LEAP TO GO FROM NOT SEVERELY HYDRATED TO ABUSING PED'S. Just like you.

You put that link to point out what you posted not to validate what I have been saying all along. Floyd was not dehydrated to the point that an IV would required. You have not said anything to the contrary except said things that YOU, me and the world have experienced multiple times. Thirsty and dark urine that Floyd the BS artist brought up.
Actually happened to me a few times this week.
Geeez, I should of had an IV!


There is no leap except from you Floyd fans.

Its simple, if Floyd was not severely dehydrated then why the IV? Taking that into account, the only obvious reason is to hide that he is on PEDs.
If you have a better explanation, lets here it but you have proven that you do not and deflect!!!

Here is the real leap.
Explain to us all how Floyd had to have an IV but nothing adds up? Floyd's weight is stable. The definition of someone dehydrated to the point that they must have an IV would mean that his weight would NOT be stable. This is SCIENCE! You only have Floyd's BS as your evidence!!!

The article also said "the evidence provided is of such questionable validity." Did you fail to see that, or are you again just trying to take what fits your agenda?

The article is telling people that Hauser's numbers are wrong but that does not equate to Hauser's point being wrong:
- that Floyd was not significantly dehydrated and
- the question about transparency and
- that there are a lot of red flags.
The article agrees on point 1, avoids point 2 and was wrong about point 3.

Article's point was also wrong. So if they are wrong and that is what the article is critiquing (numbers) then the article becomes a big joke. Its obvious to all except you who is desperate trying to cling onto....

So you proved that he didn't need an IV? Is that your stance? Don't think so. The article makes it clear that it's questionable how dehydrated he was, sure. But did he need to rehydrate? Did he receive any great benefit from saline and vitamin C that made the contest unfair? The answer is simply no."

Article
"there is little to suggest Mayweather was severely dehydrated , but it is entirely possible he felt he needed one, which prompted the requested. Of course, this does not justify its use and the grounds on which USADA granted that request is, by far, the most interesting aspect of this version of events. "


Article is not saying what you are saying. Its saying that Mayweather was not severely dehydrated and USADA should not have been granted the IV. So that means that Floyd used a prohibited method where he shouldn't have. So if someone uses a prohibited method illegally, what happens?

[travestyny]

You put that link to point out what you posted not to validate what I have been saying all along. Floyd was not dehydrated to the point that an IV would required. You have not said anything to the contrary except said things that YOU, me and the world have experienced multiple times. Thirsty and dark urine that Floyd the BS artist brought up.
Actually happened to me a few times this week.
Geeez, I should of had an IV!


There is no leap except from you Floyd fans.

Its simple, if Floyd was not severely dehydrated then why the IV? Taking that into account, the only obvious reason is to hide that he is on PEDs.
If you have a better explanation, lets here it but you have proven that you do not and deflect!!!

Here is the real leap.
Explain to us all how Floyd had to have an IV but nothing adds up? Floyd's weight is stable. The definition of someone dehydrated to the point that they must have an IV would mean that his weight would NOT be stable. This is SCIENCE! You only have Floyd's BS as your evidence!!!





The article is telling people that Hauser's numbers are wrong but that does not equate to Hauser's point being wrong:
- that Floyd was not significantly dehydrated and
- the question about transparency and
- that there are a lot of red flags.
The article agrees on point 1, avoids point 2 and was wrong about point 3.

Article's point was also wrong. So if they are wrong and that is what the article is critiquing (numbers) then the article becomes a big joke. Its obvious to all except you who is desperate trying to cling onto....





Article
"there is little to suggest Mayweather was severely dehydrated , but it is entirely possible he felt he needed one, which prompted the requested. Of course, this does not justify its use and the grounds on which USADA granted that request is, by far, the most interesting aspect of this version of events. "


Article is not saying what you are saying. Its saying that Mayweather was not severely dehydrated and USADA should not have been granted the IV. So that means that Floyd used a prohibited method where he shouldn't have. So if someone uses a prohibited method illegally, what happens?

Whoa, wait right there buddy. Once again I caught you here so if you got time, let's go thru it.

Point #1: Do you think the only reason people use IV's is to mask PED's? Let's start there.