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

[travestyny]

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.



.

There is nothing to complain about. Go read the ISTUE.

It does not state that IV's are prohibited without prior TUE approval. If that were the case, a medical emergency (which you like to bring up) that requires an IV would not be allowed. The ISTUE is clear.

[ADP02]

There is nothing to complain about. Go read the ISTUE.

It does not state that IV's are prohibited without prior TUE approval. If that were the case, a medical emergency (which you like to bring up) that requires an IV would not be allowed. The ISTUE is clear.

Emergencies are mentioned in what I gave .......

"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."

[Dosumpthin]

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.

I'm genuinely confused at what you are trying to say.

First let's establish the word OR


example - you must have an apple, an orange or a banana - to sit at the lunch table.

Meaning you need only one.

Vs the word AND....

example - you must have an apple, an orange and a banana - to sit at the lunch table.

Meaning you need all three.



Just making sure we are clear. There is no other way to interpret this. Agreed?? or are you challenging this.

If you agree let's continue....

Which leads to me being confused as to why you are saying b and c can not apply to the hypothetical medical condition you used.


I'm not even going into the semantics of the medical condition. Just explain more clearly why you are saying that

B. There was not enough time for the athlete to submit OR the tuec to process the application before sample

C. Wada and usada feels that it would be fair to allow the athlete to submit an application AFTER the sample.


Would not apply in this case.

[Zaroku]

Natural language Edit
In the grammar of natural languages two sentences may be joined by a grammatical conjunction to form a grammatically compound sentence. Some but not all such grammatical conjunctions are truth functions. For example, consider the following sentences:

A: Jack went up the hill.
B: Jill went up the hill.
C: Jack went up the hill and Jill went up the hill.
D: Jack went up the hill so Jill went up the hill.
The words and and so are grammatical conjunctions joining the sentences (A) and (B) to form the compound sentences (C) and (D). The and in (C) is a logical connective, since the truth of (C) is completely determined by (A) and (B): it would make no sense to affirm (A) and (B) but deny (C). However, so in (D) is not a logical connective, since it would be quite reasonable to affirm (A) and (B) but deny (D): perhaps, after all, Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water, not because Jack had gone up the hill at all.

Various English words and word pairs express logical connectives, and some of them are synonymous. Examples (with the name of the relationship in parentheses) are:

"and" (conjunction)
"and then" (conjunction with sequencing)
"and then within" (conjunction with sequencing and time window requirement)
"or" (disjunction)
"either...or" (exclusive disjunction)
"implies" (implication)
"if...then" (implication)
"if and only if" (equivalence)
"only if" (implication)
"just in case" (biconditional)
"but" (conjunction)
"however" (conjunction)
"not both" (alternative denial)
"neither...nor" (joint denial)
The word "not" (negation) and the phrases "it is false that" (negation) and "it is not the case that" (negation) also express a logical connective – even though they are applied to a single statement, and do not connect two statements.

[ADP02]

I'm genuinely confused at what you are trying to say.

First let's establish the word OR


example - you must have an apple, an orange or a banana - to sit at the lunch table.

Meaning you need only one.

Vs the word AND....

example - you must have an apple, an orange and a banana - to sit at the lunch table.

Meaning you need all three.



Just making sure we are clear. There is no other way to interpret this. Agreed?? or are you challenging this.

If you agree let's continue....

Which leads to me being confused as to why you are saying b and c can not apply to the hypothetical medical condition you used.


I'm not even going into the semantics of the medical condition. Just explain more clearly why you are saying that

B. There was not enough time for the athlete to submit OR the tuec to process the application before sample

C. Wada and usada feels that it would be fair to allow the athlete to submit an application AFTER the sample.


Would not apply in this case.

What they are saying in this case is that it needs an approved TUE in advance.
No exceptions, no fairness, .... you need to be aware of what you take and when you can take it.

[Rath]

I'm genuinely confused at what you are trying to say.

First let's establish the word OR


example - you must have an apple, an orange or a banana - to sit at the lunch table.

Meaning you need only one.

Vs the word AND....

example - you must have an apple, an orange and a banana - to sit at the lunch table.

Meaning you need all three.



Just making sure we are clear. There is no other way to interpret this. Agreed?? or are you challenging this.

If you agree let's continue....

Which leads to me being confused as to why you are saying b and c can not apply to the hypothetical medical condition you used.


I'm not even going into the semantics of the medical condition. Just explain more clearly why you are saying that

B. There was not enough time for the athlete to submit OR the tuec to process the application before sample

C. Wada and usada feels that it would be fair to allow the athlete to submit an application AFTER the sample.


Would not apply in this case.

you can conjunction this and conjunction that, adjective this and adjective that verb this and verb that. but what you can't do obviously is prove that floyd was dehydrated.

[Zaroku]

you can conjunction this and conjunction that, adjective this and adjective that verb this and verb that. but what you can't do obviously is prove that floyd was dehydrated.

Brother RATH!!

https://*************/watch?v=ODGA7ssL-6g

And
but
Or

But ex post facto and TUE don't go well together!

[GTTofAK]

So that's how you duck your ****** statements?

****** statement? You are the one who is arguing that its 'possible' that there was an unmentioned physician present. Its also possible that there is a flying spaghetti monster.

[GTTofAK]

WHERE IS YOUR EXPLICIT LANGUAGE PROHIBITING IV REHYDRATION IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES?

Its engilish you ****ing moron. A TUE requires that there be no acceptable medical alternative. WADA has found that for mild to moderate dehydration that drinking water is an acceptable and even morE effective alternative. Therefor no TUE.

Do you honestly think that WADA wrote that entire section complete 13 references to medical journals and it has absolutly zero significance on the granting of a TUE for IV re-hydration?

Your argument is that this entire section has no meaning. Then why did WADA research it and write it.

The more simple answer is that you are a moron who reads and writes at a 3rd grade level. And you cant understand it because you are ******. Its written for doctors. Not morons like you.

[Dosumpthin]

What they are saying in this case is that it needs an approved TUE in advance.

Do you realize according to WADA that EVERY banned substance or method needs a tue in advance by default? why are you saying "in this case"?


That's the whole point of Wada making a provision that allows an athlete to obtain a tue retroactively. That's not Floyd's rule. That's Wada. And they are clear the athlete must meet ONE out of three criteria for the retroactive tue application to even be considered. If the athlete is granted that provision, then the application is reviewed for tue approval by the tuec.

No exceptions, no fairness, .... you need to be aware of what you take and when you can take it.

That's not the point. We are talking about reading and understanding Wada code. You are dis*****g the meaning and context of the word "OR".

or
conj. either; in the alternative. It is often vital to distinguish between "or" and "and." Example: Title to the Cadillac written "Mary or Bill Davidson" means either one could transfer the car, but if written "Mary and Bill Davidson," both must sign to change title.

And for that, you've been officially demoted to pact@rd. You can't change to English language to suit your theory.


Unacceptable.