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

[travestyny]

First of all its you that is ignoring not me. Its all there but you are misinterpreting the whole thing.

Floyd's Doctor: He can say that the sky is green.
Floyd fan: See, the sky is green.


Go watch any criminal case and you will see that both sides can come with their own doctors and give their opinion on the matter.


Its about science.
If fighter A says that he is severely dehydrated but his weight is relatively stable BUT his doctor says, "oh, yes he is severely dehydrated" are you just going to believe the fighter's doctor?

The question is, should we believe the fighter's doctor, or you?

But just for ****s and giggles, do you believe the doctor that claimed to perform surgery on Manny's shoulder? Mind you, this is after Manny was caught in lies about the injury (which I can post..two directly contradictory statements), and showed absolutely no signs of a rotator cuff injury. He also showed no sign of caring about rehabbing the injury since he was deep sea swimming, playing basketball, and admit that he never went to rehab.

I'd like to know what you think about that.

[ADP02]

Was this the groundbreaking post that you stated was coming? I don't see anything worthy here.

This is simply about the code.
.

Correct. This is simply about the code .... that you have misinterpreted time and time again.

PART 1:

Retroactive TUE:

There are substances and methods that fall out of what you are saying very quickly. The reasons can be different for any substance and or method. So this is why you do not read the criteria the way the Floyd fan has led us to believe..

Since you mentioned allergies in another post, lets use that medical condition as the example:
a

A person may have a "chronic" medical condition such as a nasty case of hay fever that requires a TUE.


Lets follow the steps:

A) Is it a medical condition? Yes.
Is it some kind of emergency treatment or an acute medical condition that was neccessary? No.

The above is there to state which medical conditions may warrant a retroactive TUE ..... but lets follow this exercise.

OR

B) Was this an exceptional circumstance since there just was not sufficient time or opportunity to submit an aplication prior to sample?

Wait, we have a winner according to FLoyd fans but do we really? Maybe we should be going back to question number one? No, why do that its an OR not an and says the FLoyd fan. OK, OK this must be the reason. You got me. Floyd is innocent.

OR

C) 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?

Wait a second, we have 2 winners!!!!
YES, 2 out of 3. In English an OR is an OR is an OR, right? This is an open and shut case.
Floyd fans got some kind of loop hole here, right? Or is it, says the fan that want to truly be objective?


So would the above way that a Floyd fan read it be right? WRONG!!!

An exceptional reason it may be for you and the athlete you are a fan of but this is just a "chronic" medical condition. In some cases, worse than dehydration in that there may be no alternative treatments but it is not some kind of emergency nor considered acute type medical condition. This "chronic" medical condition falls into the zone where you must submit a TUE in advance of treatment and be supported by medical evidence to justify the****utic use.

This is not hard to understand but continue thinking that this must be an exceptional case even though the literature says otherwise just like it does for dehydration.

[ADP02]

PART 2

So now how about Rehydration?

Some of the Floyd fans say that a TUE is a TUE is TUE and that a retroactive TUE is like a regular TUE. Of course, the rest of us know that they are different but that is what they want us to believe.

Well, one argument is that they use the same form so for a FLoyd fan that means, its the same thing. Well, they use their logic to reason why they are. Why? Just because they want as many loopholes for Floyd as possible because the current evidence points to Floyd being a cheat.

Now another hot topic That some Floyd fans will have you believe is the state of rehydration does not matter. Reason they want us going in that direction is that Floyd's weight is relatively stable so they know that even though Floyd says that he was extremely dehydrated, evidence points to the contrary.


You need a prior TUE approval!!!


USADA/WADA
"Some reports suggest that administration of IV infusions, including dietary supplement and vitamin Cokktails, are being provided to athletes for recuperation, recovery or lifestyle reasons.

This medical practice is prohibited at all times without prior TUE approval.

WADA has justified the inclusion of IV infusions on the Prohibited List given the intent of some athletes to manipulate their plasma volume levels in order to mask the use of a prohibited substance and/or to distort the values in the Athlete Biological Passport. Further, it must be clearly stated that the use of IV fluid replacement following exercise to correct mild rehydration or help speed recovery is not clinically indicated nor substantiated by the medical literature. There is a well-established body of scientific opinion to confirm that oral rehydration is the preferred the****utic choice.

Legitimate medical indications for IV infusions are well documented and are most commonly associated with medical emergencies (emergency TUE), in-patient care, surgery, or clinical investigations for diagnostic purposes."


So they said that a prior TUE is required and said why IVs are not allowed and so on. Its quite clear.


.

[travestyny]

Correct. This is simply about the code .... that you have misinterpreted time and time again.

PART 1:

Retroactive TUE:

There are substances and methods that fall out of what you are saying very quickly. The reasons can be different for any substance and or method. So this is why you do not read the criteria the way the Floyd fan has led us to believe..

Since you mentioned allergies in another post, lets use that medical condition as the example:
a

A person may have a "chronic" medical condition such as a nasty case of hay fever that requires a TUE.


Lets follow the steps:

A) Is it a medical condition? Yes.
Is it some kind of emergency treatment or an acute medical condition that was neccessary? No.

The above is there to state which medical conditions may warrant a retroactive TUE ..... but lets follow this exercise.

OR

B) Was this an exceptional circumstance since there just was not sufficient time or opportunity to submit an aplication prior to sample?

Wait, we have a winner according to FLoyd fans but do we really? Maybe we should be going back to question number one? No, why do that its an OR not an and says the FLoyd fan. OK, OK this must be the reason. You got me. Floyd is innocent.

OR

C) 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?

Wait a second, we have 2 winners!!!!
YES, 2 out of 3. In English an OR is an OR is an OR, right? This is an open and shut case.
Floyd fans got some kind of loop hole here, right? Or is it, says the fan that want to truly be objective?


So would the above way that a Floyd fan read it be right? WRONG!!!

An exceptional reason it may be for you and the athlete you are a fan of but this is just a "chronic" medical condition. In some cases, worse than dehydration in that there may be no alternative treatments but it is not some kind of emergency nor considered acute type medical condition. This "chronic" medical condition falls into the zone where you must submit a TUE in advance of treatment and be supported by medical evidence to justify the****utic use.

This is not hard to understand but continue thinking that this must be an exceptional case even though the literature says otherwise just like it does for dehydration.

Dude, what the actual **** are you talking about?

If, for some strange reason, the athlete had a chronic case of allergies that he would expect to be remedied before fight night, and then when fight night approaches, for whatever reason, this was not remedied and there was allergy medication that was prohibited by WADA but could be used to remedy the ailment, yes I believe USADA would be able to review the situation and possibly approve it based on the information that the medical practitioner provides.

I can't keep going back and forth with you about the code, which is absolutely clear. We aren't talking about a TUE for allergy medication.

This is quite simple. If you can't understand what the word "or" means, then I can't help you anymore.

There is ONLY ONE application for a TUE. There are not two. If they were two completely different criteria, there would be two applications. The OR makes it clear that the situation need not be acute.

You never explained why the Retroactive TUE section leaves out language that it would clearly have to include. This is clearly because it is in relation to the section on the TUE. Why haven't you discussed that? You once tried to remedy that by saying it can include things that are not explicitly in that section. So which is it???? Does it have to be mentioned in that section, or not? You can't have it both ways.

You are really fishing, and it's not fooling anyone. This is ridiculous at this point. Just stop and admit you are wrong.

[travestyny]

PART 2

So now how about Rehydration?

Some of the Floyd fans say that a TUE is a TUE is TUE and that a retroactive TUE is like a regular TUE. Of course, the rest of us know that they are different but that is what they want us to believe.

Well, one argument is that they use the same form so for a FLoyd fan that means, its the same thing. Well, they use their logic to reason why they are. Why? Just because they want as many loopholes for Floyd as possible because the current evidence points to Floyd being a cheat.

Now another hot topic That some Floyd fans will have you believe is the state of rehydration does not matter. Reason they want us going in that direction is that Floyd's weight is relatively stable so they know that even though Floyd says that he was extremely dehydrated, evidence points to the contrary.


You need an prior TUE approval!!!


USADA/WADA
"Some reports suggest that administration of IV infusions, including dietary supplement and vitamin Cokktails, are being provided to athletes for recuperation, recovery or lifestyle reasons.

This medical practice is prohibited at all times without prior TUE approval.

WADA has justified the inclusion of IV infusions on the Prohibited List given the intent of some athletes to manipulate their plasma volume levels in order to mask the use of a prohibited substance and/or to distort the values in the Athlete Biological Passport. Further, it must be clearly stated that the use of IV fluid replacement following exercise to correct mild rehydration or help speed recovery is not clinically indicated nor substantiated by the medical literature. There is a well-established body of scientific opinion to confirm that oral rehydration is the preferred the****utic choice.

Legitimate medical indications for IV infusions are well documented and are most commonly associated with medical emergencies (emergency TUE), in-patient care, surgery, or clinical investigations for diagnostic purposes."


So they said that a prior TUE is required and said why IVs are not allowed and so on. Its quite clear.

Dude, LOOK AT THE ISTUE. It explains this clearly. The application for the TUE may be considered retroactively. It does not state that this is not the case for IV's. It says it IS the case for prohibited substances AND METHODS.

Just stop already. Damn. You accuse me of wanting a loophole? I'm not creating loopholes. You just can't read the code properly, or you don't want to. The DCO was present, the IV was approved retroactively. This is directly contrary to what you are saying.

[Zaroku]

Correct. This is simply about the code .... that you have misinterpreted time and time again.

PART 1:

Retroactive TUE:

There are substances and methods that fall out of what you are saying very quickly. The reasons can be different for any substance and or method. So this is why you do not read the criteria the way the Floyd fan has led us to believe..

Since you mentioned allergies in another post, lets use that medical condition as the example:
a

A person may have a "chronic" medical condition such as a nasty case of hay fever that requires a TUE.


Lets follow the steps:

A) Is it a medical condition? Yes.
Is it some kind of emergency treatment or an acute medical condition that was neccessary? No.

The above is there to state which medical conditions may warrant a retroactive TUE ..... but lets follow this exercise.

OR

B) Was this an exceptional circumstance since there just was not sufficient time or opportunity to submit an aplication prior to sample?

Wait, we have a winner according to FLoyd fans but do we really? Maybe we should be going back to question number one? No, why do that its an OR not an and says the FLoyd fan. OK, OK this must be the reason. You got me. Floyd is innocent.

OR

C) 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?

Wait a second, we have 2 winners!!!!
YES, 2 out of 3. In English an OR is an OR is an OR, right? This is an open and shut case.
Floyd fans got some kind of loop hole here, right? Or is it, says the fan that want to truly be objective?


So would the above way that a Floyd fan read it be right? WRONG!!!

An exceptional reason it may be for you and the athlete you are a fan of but this is just a "chronic" medical condition. In some cases, worse than dehydration in that there may be no alternative treatments but it is not some kind of emergency nor considered acute type medical condition. This "chronic" medical condition falls into the zone where you must submit a TUE in advance of treatment and be supported by medical evidence to justify the****utic use.

This is not hard to understand but continue thinking that this must be an exceptional case even though the literature says otherwise just like it does for dehydration.

Great stuff!! But.... How do you undo his retro active TUE?
How do you undo his beating Manny in the ring?
This is not Lance Armstrong. By the way, I hate it when comparisons are made.
Why? Because boxing is different! Nevada State Athletic Comission does what it wants!!
End of Story!

[ADP02]

Dude, what the actual **** are you talking about?

If, for some strange reason, the athlete had a chronic case of allergies that he would expect to be remedied before fight night, and then when fight night approaches, for whatever reason, this was not remedied and there was allergy medication that was prohibited by WADA but could be used to remedy the ailment, yes I believe USADA would be able to review the situation and possibly approve it based on the information that the medical practitioner provides.

I can't keep going back and forth with you about the code, which is absolutely clear. We aren't talking about a TUE for allergy medication.

This is quite simple. If you can't understand what the word "or" means, then I can't help you anymore.

There is ONLY ONE application for a TUE. There are not two. If they were two completely different criteria, there would be two applications. The OR makes it clear that the situation need not be acute.

You never explained why the Retroactive TUE section leaves out language that it would clearly have to include. This is clearly because it is in relation to the section on the TUE. Why haven't you discussed that? You once tried to remedy that by saying it can include things that are not explicitly in that section. So which is it???? Does it have to be mentioned in that section, or not? You can't have it both ways.

You are really fishing, and it's not fooling anyone. This is ridiculous at this point. Just stop and admit you are wrong.

This was not my opinion, I used information provided to me by a WADA approved anti-doping agency.

I pretty much responded to your question about retroactive TUE.

Again, I based my response with information provided to me by a WADA approved anti-doping agency (USADA) and/or WADA .

[ADP02]

Dude, LOOK AT THE ISTUE. It explains this clearly. The application for the TUE may be considered retroactively. It does not state that this is not the case for IV's. It says it IS the case for prohibited substances AND METHODS.

Just stop already. Damn. You accuse me of wanting a loophole? I'm not creating loopholes. You just can't read the code properly, or you don't want to. The DCO was present, the IV was approved retroactively. This is directly contrary to what you are saying.

As I stated, this is not my opinion. I got this information from USADA/WADA.

Go complain to them why they approved the retroactive TUE and that it goes against what they wrote.


EDIT: Maybe you missed it but I did put quotes.



.

[Zaroku]

The question now is WHY are you so ******?



How do you read this to yourself and say "the dco diagnosed Floyd".




THE DCO OBSERVED - that's his ****ing job. To bring cups and a note pad.

The dco OBSERVED not DIAGNOSED Mr Mayweather's condition.

MR MAYWEATHERS CONDITION is what precipitated the need for an IV.



This isn't the first time, and probably won't be the last, you have demonstrated to the entire community your lack of reading and comprehension skills. This is 3rd grade **** we are talking about here.


If you can't understand this how the **** are you able to understand Wada code?


So again. The question is why and how have you become so ****ing ******?

Great stuff! But we all know Floyd won, and it is over!
Some people need time to process the pain.. Soon Spoon will take his shift!
More to come!

[travestyny]

This was not my opinion, I used information provided to me by a WADA approved anti-doping agency.

I pretty much responded to your question about retroactive TUE.

Again, I based my response with information provided to me by a WADA approved anti-doping agency (USADA) and/or WADA .

Did you use the ISTUE? I believe that is what is relevant, no?