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

[Lester Tutor]

No they weren't. You have proven that you are quite ******. You cant understand the rules you are reading. In our previous arguments you have interpreted the NSAC rules in such a way as for blood doping to be legal.

If IV re-hydration is legal so is blood doping.

What's the definition of blood doping?

Yeah man. Hauser hit the Nobel with all the May Pac results.

Inarritu be on PEDs too. Lineal Oscar champ atm

[GTTofAK]

What's the definition of blood doping?

Classic blood doping is either infusing blood with oxygen and injecting it back in, injecting extra blood extracted and stored previously, or most often both.

Under your interpenetration of the rules blood doping is legal because oxygen and/or your own blood are not drugs.

But we know you are wrong and ****** because IV re-hydration and blood doping are both cheating for the same reason. Its an artificial way to increase your body's capacity to hold an essential nutrient that improves performance. This is especially true in weight classification sports like boxing as the practice allows competitors to re-hydrate to a degree not physically possible in the time between weigh-in and competition.

[Lester Tutor]

Classic blood doping is either infusing blood with oxygen and injecting it back in, injecting extra blood extracted and stored previously, or most often both.

Under your interpenetration of the rules blood doping is legal because oxygen and/or your own blood are not drugs.

But we know you are wrong and ****** because IV re-hydration and blood doping are both cheating for the same reason. Its an artificial way to increase your body's capacity to hold an essential nutrient that improves performance.

You forgot vampire facials doe!

Seriously though, you can't win this. Ironically we already solved the Mayweather IV thread. Junk mail. It's nice to casually still pick on Floyd when the title lists 3 dudes, and Victor Conte himself saying Pac was rinsing da roids! It's ok. We lived in the time of #48.

[GTTofAK]

Seriously though, you can't win this.

You are right about that. You are arguing that artificially increasing the body's ability to re-hydrate in a weight classification sport is not cheating. That isn't an argument you can't win because its not true. It most certainly is cheating which is why the UFC has come down hard on the practice and the NSAC despite covering for Froid still hasn't added it to the approved list and never will.

Actioins speak lowder than words.

Has the NSAC added IV re-hydration to the approved list? No.

Will they ever add it to the list? No.

Why not? Because it is cheating.

[Lester Tutor]

You are right about that. You are arguing that artificially increasing the body's ability to re-hydrate in a weight classification sport is not cheating. That isn't an argument you can't win because its not true. It most certainly is cheating which is why the UFC has come down hard on the practice and the NSAC despite covering for Froid still hasn't added it to the approved list and never will.

Actioins speak lowder than words.

Has the NSAC added IV re-hydration to the approved list? No.

Will they ever add it to the list? No.

Why not? Because it is cheating.

Read the thread title. When you want to debate like an adult at least try to point or acknowledge real smoke.

Pacquiao? Noo! Heaven forbid. No WADA. Conte saying Pac juiced. The same Conte referenced by Hauser in "Can Boxing Trust USADA?"

Hauser on that crack! don't let him own you

[GTTofAK]

Read the thread title. When you want to debate like an adult at least try to point or acknowledge real smoke.

If you dont want to be treated like a child start posting intelligent post and quit using emotes. Calling you ****** is simply a factual observation.

[travestyny]

Sorry but its the other way around.

You guys just do not get it. Then I explain it to you then you say "I get that but .... your answer is pathetic"

but the truth is that due to your response, YOU JUST DO NOT GET IT!!!

THINK!!! If what little FLoyd gave was enough then the DCO would not have been waiting for 7 hours to get that second sample. That would mean that the first sample was enough to do all tests. It was NOT ....

Its actually self explained when one says "partial sample". Its not enough on its own to state if Floyd was positively on PEDs.


but you will not get it because you do not want to get it.

Just like you do not get that if Floyd came in at 146 + drinking water equates to previous weigh ins that he was not severely dehydrated enough to warrant an IV. You just will NEVER get it!!!

I'm noticing a pattern. Whenever you have nothing of substance to add, you revert back to your "you don't get it" scenario, which simply means you have nothing for anyone to "get." Did I ask you what a partial sample is? Nope. I asked for you to logically answer the question. This is very simple.

1. You believe that Mayweather used the IV to mask PED use.
2. Mayweather gave a partial sample of urine from before the IV use.
3. How do you think that would affect his ability to cheat the drug test? If he were masking PED's, would that make him more or less likely to pass the test?

The clear answer is that it would make him LESS LIKELY to pass the test.

Now let's talk about logic.
Why would Mayweather, who is planning on masking PED use with an IV, ever give a partial urine sample from before the IV? Wouldn't a cheater just claim not not be able to give urine and then give a full sample from after the IV?

Also, as you claim that USADA was bought out by Floyd, why would they take urine from before the IV? Wouldn't they simply wait? Furthermore, why would Floyd even have to mask PEDs if USADA is bought out? You try to fall back on your "some are paid off, some aren't, and he has to be cautious" scenario, yet you give no explanation for the need of paying off a corporation that you still have to trick. It's not logical.

These are questions that you have no logical answer to that will fit your agenda. You try to fall back on dehydration when you are clearly having a difficult time making the quantum leap to PED use.

[Lester Tutor]

If you dont want to be treated like a child start posting intelligent post and quit using emotes. Calling you ****** is simply a factual observation.

[fanofslug]

RIP Manny never saw Floyd potshot party with Pacquiao.

And if Floyd roided, he didn't and we don't know that.

I made that quote up when I was a Mayweather fan. Manny never said that. Sorry.

[Rath]

Maybe this will help clear up the confusion caused by hausers article........


As Mr. Bennett from the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) said on September 12th:

“Mr. Mayweather has done nothing wrong. The Nevada State Athletic Commission has no interest in any type of investigation regarding his IV. He did not violate the WADA Prohibited List for any type of drugs that are prohibited on that list, and we have no interest in it whatsoever." As per MR BENNETT

IV USE WAS NOT PROHIBITTED UNDER NSAC RULES.

Usada issued a response to hausers claims


http://www.usada.org/usada-response-...oxing-article/



Mr. Mayweather’s use of the IV was not prohibited under the NSAC rules at that time and would not be a violation of the NSAC rules today. In fact, it is a common practice among athletes licensed to fight in Nevada. As such, it is illogical to suggest that Mr. Mayweather had an obligation to apply to NSAC for a TUE for a procedure that is not prohibited or otherwise monitored by them. Nonetheless, because Mr. Mayweather was voluntarily taking part in a USADA program, and therefore subject to the rules of the World Anti-Doping Code, he took the additional step of applying for a TUE after the IV infusion was administered in order to remain in compliance with the USADA program.


NO WHERE DOES IT SAY IN NSAC GUIDELINES THAT IV METHOD IS PROHIBITTED AND ONLY REFERS TO WADAS LIST OF BANNED SUBSTANCES.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC-4...l#NAC467Sec850

NSAC is not the drug testing agency on Floyd vs Pac, so NSAC rule on drug testing was null and void.

USADA was not an extra drug testing but, the sole drug testing agency that conduct the test and therefore their rules should be followed and not NSAC drug testing rules and protocols.

saying NSAC allowed iv infusion is justified if it was NSAC who did the drug testing but since they did not that statement does not matter.