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

[ADP02]

Everything you just said is irrelevant because you are interpreting the documentation incorrectly!!!

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


This clearly shows that the condition need not be acute. It can also be chronic, as was stated in the ISTUE requirements for giving a TUE.

Furthermore, I already explained that the information you found is about the onset of chronic dehydration. Nothing about that information mentions what follows in the case that the chronic dehydration is not immediately treated, in the case of a boxer in a training camp that lasts months.

Furthermore, Mayweather did not state that Ariza kept him hydrated throughout the entire training camp. He stated that he made sure he wasn't dehydrated going into the fight. Review the video again.

That was funny. All you are doing is looking for a loop hole! Before you said that even kidney stones years later was a good reason. Now you are reading what is not even there.

Just like you saw it written where you got it for TUEs you would have seen it for retroactive ones BUT THEY DID NOT!!!


Years ago WADA made this ********* for IVs. They also made other *********s along the way and fined tuned .... it to include emergencies as well, which made sense

but they did not amend to include Chronic conditions for retroactive TUE'. So to say that if they wanted to, they would amend for retroactive TUEs and mention it specifically instead of being ambiguous ......

"The Executive Committee also approved amending the prohibition of intravenous infusions so that intravenous infusions are not permitted except in the treatment of acute medical conditions. "






"retroactive TUE
"•Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was necessary*"


*A medical emergency or acute medical situation occurs when the athlete's medical condition justifies immediate Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Method and failure to treat immediately could significantly put the athlete’s health at risk. It is always preferable to address a TUE application prospectively rather than retrospectively."




.

[Zaroku]

Who cost that injury?

Pac was slipping and sliding and creating a world of terror, twisting Bradley like a bradded snake lol

You have to know how that happened to enjoy why Bradley will always be inferior.

But now Pac is older and battle worn. This time will be more interesting fight.

He aged a lot beating the crap out of Marg.. Ref should have stopped it.

He aged again when Marquez put him to sleep for several minutes.. Ref was unneeded in that one.. Nope.. Mr. sandman!
But Bayless let sir hug a lot push the limits of man hugging.

[travestyny]

That was funny. All you are doing is looking for a loop hole! Before you said that even kidney stones years later was a good reason. Now you are reading what is not even there.

Just like you saw it written where you got it for TUEs you would have seen it for retroactive ones BUT THEY DID NOT!!!


Years ago WADA made this ********* for IVs. They also made other *********s along the way and fined tuned .... it to include emergencies as well, which made sense

but they did not amend to include Chronic conditions for retroactive TUE'. So to say that if they wanted to, they would amend for retroactive TUEs and mention it specifically instead of being ambiguous ......

"The Executive Committee also approved amending the prohibition of intravenous infusions so that intravenous infusions are not permitted except in the treatment of acute medical conditions. "






"retroactive TUE
"•Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was necessary*"


*A medical emergency or acute medical situation occurs when the athlete's medical condition justifies immediate Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Method and failure to treat immediately could significantly put the athlete’s health at risk. It is always preferable to address a TUE application prospectively rather than retrospectively."


.

What the hell are you talking about? Looking for a loophole???? I'M SIMPLY READING THE CODE! IT'S RIGHT THERE FOR YOU TO SEE!

No idea what you are talking about when you say kidney stones years later. I mentioned kidney stones because you did, but I never mentioned anything about years later. Don't know what you're on about, mate.

[ADP02]

What the hell are you talking about? Looking for a loophole???? I'M SIMPLY READING THE CODE! IT'S RIGHT THERE FOR YOU TO SEE!

No idea what you are talking about when you say kidney stones years later. I mentioned kidney stones because you did, but I never mentioned anything about years later. Don't know what you're on about, mate.

To even bring up chronic dehydration is a stretch but all you are trying to do is fit what Floyd has to the criteria of the rules.

You saw for yourself that when its for chronic medical condition, they clearly indicated it, but Floyd had a retroactive TUE. The criteria is different. Right? Did they mention chronic specifically or you just believe its there? Again, it is not even relevant since I pointed out that Floyd had nothing but perhaps mild dehydration but just trying to make a point.

The reason the criteria is different is that even though to give a TUE is meant for only certain circumstances, retroactive ones are extremely rare. Especially with 24 hours before the event.
Especially for a banned method that the athlete wants to use just before giving his urine sample. That is the reason its banned. Its just too funny.

See the wording used for retroactive. "Exceptional, significant, emergency, ...."

Floyd's form of dehydration was not significant, as has been already mentioned before.

Its simple to understand. Retroactive TUEs are very rare and should not be handed out easily.
If one would give Floyd an IV for maybe 1lb maximum after he rehydrated orally then every athlete in the world would be able to use that excuse. Do you realize that? Especially boxers who unlike Floyd, often rehydrate upwards of 10-15-20lbs.


but as you should know, USADA should not be allowing retroactive TUEs to use IVs for just rehydration. Only for severe dehydration such as may occur after an event like a marathon, .......



Oh, the reason I said years is to just say that kidney stones are not an immediate concern 24 hours before a fight. They develop over time.


.

[Dosumpthin]

To even bring up chronic dehydration is a stretch but all you are trying to do is fit what Floyd has to the criteria of the rules.

You saw for yourself that when its for chronic medical condition, they clearly indicated it, but Floyd had a retroactive TUE. The criteria is different. Right? Did they mention chronic specifically or you just believe its there? Again, it is not even relevant since I pointed out that Floyd had nothing but perhaps mild dehydration but just trying to make a point.

The reason the criteria is different is that even though to give a TUE is meant for only certain circumstances, retroactive ones are extremely rare. Especially with 24 hours before the event.
Especially for a banned method that the athlete wants to use just before giving his urine sample. That is the reason its banned. Its just too funny.

See the wording used for retroactive. "Exceptional, significant, emergency, ...."

Floyd's form of dehydration was not significant, as has been already mentioned before.

Its simple to understand. Retroactive TUEs are very rare and should not be handed out easily.
If one would give Floyd an IV for maybe 1lb maximum after he rehydrated orally then every athlete in the world would be able to use that excuse. Do you realize that? Especially boxers who unlike Floyd, often rehydrate upwards of 10-15-20lbs.


but as you should know, USADA should not be allowing retroactive TUEs to use IVs for just rehydration. Only for severe dehydration such as may occur after an event like a marathon, .......



Oh, the reason I said years is to just say that kidney stones are not an immediate concern 24 hours before a fight. They develop over time.


.

You and spoon/Rath should send a copy of the slomotion video, Thomas Hauser article and a link to this thread to WADA. They have the authority to review any tue at anytime.

[travestyny]

To even bring up chronic dehydration is a stretch but all you are trying to do is fit what Floyd has to the criteria of the rules.

How is it a stretch if it's part of the documentation? It's a stretch for you to ignore it when it's staring you right in the face. I don't know what his medical records state and I never pretended to. This isn't very much unlike you who repeatedly claims that it means something that Mayweather could have done this or that to cheat the drug test. You base it on no proof and somehow consider it a victory. When I mention he could have experienced chronic dehydration, you suddenly don't like it. At least I provided some supporting details like allergies and dark urine being a symptom of chronic dehydration. You provide no proof of your accusations, but I'll tackle that in the other thread. What you should be reminded of AGAIN is that his medical records are what is needed.

You saw for yourself that when its for chronic medical condition, they clearly indicated it, but Floyd had a retroactive TUE. The criteria is different. Right? Did they mention chronic specifically or you just believe its there? Again, it is not even relevant since I pointed out that Floyd had nothing but perhaps mild dehydration but just trying to make a point.

WRONG The criteria is not different. The retroactive TUE is allowing for the athlete to apply for the TUE when time constraints become an issue. This is clear. IT SAYS IT IN THE DOCUMENTATION. If it is only to be granted for acute conditions, it would say so. You can't spin this anyway you try. Read it again.

Retroactive approval of TUE
"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;"

And what is the criteria for a TUE????
"a. The Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question is needed to treat an acute or chronic medical condition, such that the Athlete would experience a significant impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be withheld."

This is absolutely clear and right in front of your face. There is no way you can dodge this. Sorry. And no matter how many times you want to say it, you didn't prove anything about his state of dehydration.

The reason the criteria is different is that even though to give a TUE is meant for only certain circumstances, retroactive ones are extremely rare. Especially with 24 hours before the event.
Especially for a banned method that the athlete wants to use just before giving his urine sample. That is the reason its banned. Its just too funny.

See the wording used for retroactive. "Exceptional, significant, emergency, ...."

Again, it's right in front of your face. The criteria is not different. It is being considerate to athletes who need an emergency treatment or have insufficient time to submit the application for a TUE. It is allowing for the normal TUE to be applied for after the fact. The requirements for the TUE must still be upheld. This is crystal clear! If not, then consider this:

Requirement for TUE
"b. The The****utic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is highly unlikely to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be anticipated by a return to the Athlete’s normal state of health following the treatment of the acute or chronic medical condition."

So what you are saying is that this does not apply to the retroactive TUE since this is not mentioned specifically in the code under retroactive TUE's? Spin that.

Floyd's form of dehydration was not significant, as has been already mentioned before.

You have no idea what you are talking about since you weren't there. You can not prove that he didn't have a chronic condition which is why you are accusing me of finding a "loophole." The truth is there is no loophole. You just refuse to admit that you are wrong.

Its simple to understand. Retroactive TUEs are very rare and should not be handed out easily.
If one would give Floyd an IV for maybe 1lb maximum after he rehydrated orally then every athlete in the world would be able to use that excuse. Do you realize that? Especially boxers who unlike Floyd, often rehydrate upwards of 10-15-20lbs.

Who said it was handed out easily? You? You sure do know a lot about information that you have no access to. You don't have any information about his condition that precipitated the use of the IV. Point blank, period. Am I right or wrong? Stop pretending to be privy to this information.

but as you should know, USADA should not be allowing retroactive TUEs to use IVs for just rehydration. Only for severe dehydration such as may occur after an event like a marathon, .......

Still ignoring the code, I see. It says acute or chronic condition such that the athlete would experience a significant impairment to his/her health. It never mentions severe at all.

Oh, the reason I said years is to just say that kidney stones are not an immediate concern 24 hours before a fight. They develop over time.
.

So what you are saying is that it was impossible for him to have developed kidney stones before the fight? I don't see the logic in that, but this discussion of kidney stones isn't important to me in the least.

The bottom line is that the code is there for all to see. You don't like what it says and you try to label what it says as a loophole. That tells me all I need to know. When it doesn't fit your agenda, you try to say there is a problem with the code. THAT is what is funny.

[Spoon23]

Dang! Froid still winning this poll by a landslide.

It only shows who really is the greatest cheater in boxing.

Froid roid.

[ADP02]

How is it a stretch if it's part of the documentation? It's a stretch for you to ignore it when it's staring you right in the face. I don't know what his medical records state and I never pretended to. This isn't very much unlike you who repeatedly claims that it means something that Mayweather could have done this or that to cheat the drug test. You base it on no proof and somehow consider it a victory. When I mention he could have experienced chronic dehydration, you suddenly don't like it. At least I provided some supporting details like allergies and dark urine being a symptom of chronic dehydration. You provide no proof of your accusations, but I'll tackle that in the other thread. What you should be reminded of AGAIN is that his medical records are what is needed.


WRONG The criteria is not different. The retroactive TUE is allowing for the athlete to apply for the TUE when time constraints become an issue. This is clear. IT SAYS IT IN THE DOCUMENTATION. If it is only to be granted for acute conditions, it would say so. You can't spin this anyway you try. Read it again.

Retroactive approval of TUE
"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;"

And what is the criteria for a TUE????
"a. The Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question is needed to treat an acute or chronic medical condition, such that the Athlete would experience a significant impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be withheld."

This is absolutely clear and right in front of your face. There is no way you can dodge this. Sorry. And no matter how many times you want to say it, you didn't prove anything about his state of dehydration.


Again, it's right in front of your face. The criteria is not different. It is being considerate to athletes who need an emergency treatment or have insufficient time to submit the application for a TUE. It is allowing for the normal TUE to be applied for after the fact. The requirements for the TUE must still be upheld. This is crystal clear! If not, then consider this:

Requirement for TUE
"b. The The****utic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is highly unlikely to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be anticipated by a return to the Athlete’s normal state of health following the treatment of the acute or chronic medical condition."

So what you are saying is that this does not apply to the retroactive TUE since this is not mentioned specifically in the code under retroactive TUE's? Spin that.


You have no idea what you are talking about since you weren't there. You can not prove that he didn't have a chronic condition which is why you are accusing me of finding a "loophole." The truth is there is no loophole. You just refuse to admit that you are wrong.


Who said it was handed out easily? You? You sure do know a lot about information that you have no access to. You don't have any information about his condition that precipitated the use of the IV. Point blank, period. Am I right or wrong? Stop pretending to be privy to this information.


Still ignoring the code, I see. It says acute or chronic condition such that the athlete would experience a significant impairment to his/her health. It never mentions severe at all.



So what you are saying is that it was impossible for him to have developed kidney stones before the fight? I don't see the logic in that, but this discussion of kidney stones isn't important to me in the least.

The bottom line is that the code is there for all to see. You don't like what it says and you try to label what it says as a loophole. That tells me all I need to know. When it doesn't fit your agenda, you try to say there is a problem with the code. THAT is what is funny.

The reason they do not include "chronic" is because of the definition of chronic which is something that occurs gradually. Emergencies and Acute both are the opposite. They are to mean something that just and so there was no time to get a TUE. Chronic tends to develop gradually over time.

Retro active TUE
"Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was
necessary;"

TUE
"The Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question is needed to
treat an acute or chronic medical condition, such that the Athlete would
experience a significant impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance
or Prohibited Method were to be withheld."

Why not include "chronic"? Again, its because of how they interpret it. If they found something that was not there before, it is interpreted as acute or an emergency.
If you want to confuse the matter and call it "chronic", be my guest but you are going nowhere fast!


Again, it is all irrelevant because your assessment of chronic condition for dehydration is flawed. We are just discussing but not because Floyd could have even possibly had this issue. NOT POSSIBLE!!!! Floyd's weigh was relatively stable!!! How can he have even got an IV is just crazy!!!



You say that I do not know what I'm talking about yet my points are based on studies on best ways to assess dehydration and what to do about it once you are.
Weigh yourself and DRINK FLUIDS. Who says this? USADA!!!!

Are you saying that USADA does not know what they are talking about?





Retroactive TUE, Yes, it was handed out easily?
This is rarer than finding a diamond outside your house!

You just check Floyd's weight and what they said in several interviews. IV was for being severely dehydrated. NOT POSSIBLE!!! I explained why. Floyd's weight was relatively the same for 30 freaking days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So yes, it was handed out way too easily. They do not hand it out for dehydration like that. NOT RETROACTIVE ONES! Its a joke and you shouldn't even go here!!!!!!!!

[travestyny]

Retro active TUE
"Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was
necessary;"

You forgot to mention that the next word is OR

That right away proves that you are wrong.

Furthermore, you blatantly ducked the part where the TUE language says the method should not give the athlete an unfair advantage, and this language was not mentioned under the retroactive TUE section. Does that mean a retroactive TUE can be used for a condition that gives an unfair advantage?

When you answer that honestly, then we can proceed. Don't duck this question.

[Zaroku]

Dang! Froid still winning this poll by a landslide.

It only shows who really is the greatest cheater in boxing.

Froid roid.

Manny way ahead of Marquez!!