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

[Zaroku]

Karma has never struck a group of fans harder than it has Pacquiao fans tbh. For years they spam about "pay your taxes Floyd" and then Manny gets hit with multinational tax warrants for 5 times more what Floyd owed.

Spam for years about Floyd's a hypejob fraud and Manny proceeds to get KTFO by Marquez and lose wide to Floyd in the two most watched fights of his career against his two greatest rivals.

Awesome post!! Too factual for PAC only fans. They want PAC to be TBE, so badly.. I don't think Floyd is TBE by the way!!!

[travestyny]

Have you ever heard of the term "rubber stamp"? The original allegation against USADA is that USADA feared a leak so they had Froid apply for a TUE 3 weeks out and rubber stamped it. When the accusation is that USADA rubber stamped a TUE the existence of the TUE is not evidence of innocence.

You really suck at this.

hahahaha. Oh really? I suck at this...but you are the one relying on your own made up speculation. The FACT is that the IV was approved and a medical practitioner provided proof of its necessity. You are talking about what you believe, which means nothing to anyone with a brain because a)you've already been proven to have the mental capacity of a bag of dust, and b)you are just about as far removed from this incident as possible. No one cares about your speculation. Show proof, or stfu.

Empirical fact. Froid was 150 30 days out. He weighed in at 146. That is not severe dehydration as defined by WADA and the medical literature.

That is more evidence than you will ever have.

Once again, show me where it says that severe dehydration is necessary to receive a TUE. I've been waiting for this for a long time. When are you going to show the proof? Oh yea...you can't, chump. No one believes you!

Because controlling means it controls the process, things like legal precedence are controlling but not mandatory. Unless you can show some exceptional reason in the facts of the case why the controlling authority should be put aside you have no real case.

As I said the medical reviews should not be mandatory. There are possible exceptional circumstances where they should be put aside. Good luck showing such here.

Are you taking tally of how many times I've owned you? Etch out another tally, homey.

Legal precedence can be controlling or non-controlling, idiot. This will depend on if they are mandatory or not.

Mandatory vs. Persuasive Precedent
• Mandatory – BINDING / Must Follow
• Persuasive – NONBINDING / Can Follow

https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb5/FFA/KURSUNTERLAGEN/Anglo-Amerikanisches_Recht/Legal_Writing/Candler_SS_2015/Sources_of_Law.pdf

Am I going to have to add the word "binding" to your vocabulary list. Let's see, we have "OR, mandatory, potentially, diagnose, observe, binding..." am I missing anything? Go do your homework, son.

There is NO WAY that something that is not mandatory can be controlling, you idiot. Here's a news flash. If you don't have to do something, IT'S NOT CONTROLLING. WADA states that the medical papers can be used to GUIDE AND ASSIST, so get out of here with trying to make them seem controlling. THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT AND YOU CAN'T WIGGLE OUT OF THAT NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY. Furthermore, WADA states that they are non-mandatory medical papers, but at least they are medical papers. You are trying to prove that information in the "ASK A SCIENTIST" section of their website is controlling. lol. You are a ****ing idiot!

Let's take the statement "children need to go to school." When I was growing up, it was mandatory for children to go to school. We had truant officers in CONTROL to enforce this rule. Obviously, it was non-mandatory for you to go to school. If it were indeed non-mandatory for you, there would be no controlling force to enforce your education, which explains why you roamed the streets becoming dumb and dumber. Does this make it more clear to you?

Now please explain this:

Controlling authorities are not mandatory.

International Standard for The****utic Use Exemptions
The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for The****utic Use Exemptions (ISTUE) is a mandatory International Standard developed as part of the World Anti-Doping Program.

https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/WADA-2015-ISTUE.pdf

And you suck at it. Your attempted forays into semantics are laughable. You are obviously a millennial. Only menials are that ******.

Owned yet again. Just give up. YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE MORON!

[travestyny]

So you are arguing that USADA's internal controls are so lax that people outside of USADA were able to tip off the USA cycle team? You do realize that your argument is a lose lose.

I am arguing that you should show proof that Landis, WHO ALREADY ADMITTED ABUSING PED'S, is choosing to protect USADA by NEVER IMPLICATING THEM IN HELPING HIM TO CHEAT. NEVER ONCE DID HE MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT ANYONE FROM USADA HELPING HIM.

IT WAS USADA WHO BROUGHT HIM DOWN. DO YOU THINK HE WOULD HAVE MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PAY THEM BACK....ESPECIALLY IF IT ONLY MEANT TELLING THE TRUTH?


Use your brain you f@cking moron.

[travestyny]

and Floyd weighed 149 on fight night. He said "I ate a lot" then said "I was physically extremely strong"

Floyd weighed in at 146 + drank a lot right after. Even Floyd fans admit to that because they said something like "yes FLoyd drank a lot so see, its because he was really thirsty and so it proves he was dehydrated".
BTW, this includes "travestyny".

You are still talking about what he did after the weigh-in? Yes, drinking is what people do when they are dehydrated. That's common sense. Why don't you ever mention that he felt physically extremely strong ALSO AFTER HAVING THE IV. Hmm.

When are you going to admit you are wrong about the ISTUE? Been waiting for you to understand what the meaning of the word "or" is. So are you right, OR are you wrong?

[GTTofAK]

but you are the one relying on your own made up speculation. The FACT is that the IV was approved and a medical practitioner provided proof of its use.

Oh really? Where is it? Have you seen it? Who is the practitioner? What did the practitioner say?

Oh that's right. The only FACT is that USADA says it exists.

And its not speculation. USADA is in fact accused of rubber stamping the retroactive TUE. So the TUE itself is not prof of innocence.

Once again, show me where it says that severe dehydration is necessary to receive a TUE.

Its right there in the medical review of the literature which you chose to ignore because you think that something not being mandatory means you can simply ignore it whenever you want without any justification. That is a ****** argument.

Are you taking tally of how many times I've owned you? Etch out another tally, homey.

Still at 0.

Let's take the statement "children need to go to school." When I was growing up, it was mandatory for children to go to school. We had truant officers in CONTROL to enforce this rule.

So if a kid has cancer and is in chemo the kids parents get thrown in jail? Obviously isn't to mandatory. You can show exceptional circumstances why the rule should not be applied.

Just as the WADA reviews of the literature are not mandatory. It is possible that you can show exceptional circumstances why your case falls outside of the literature.

Congratulations you just owned yourself.

[GTTofAK]

I am arguing that you should show proof that Landis, WHO ALREADY ADMITTED ABUSING PED'S, is choosing to protect USADA by NEVER IMPLICATING THEM IN HELPING HIM TO CHEAT. NEVER ONCE DID HE MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT ANYONE FROM USADA HELPING HIM.

IT WAS USADA WHO BROUGHT HIM DOWN. DO YOU THINK HE WOULD HAVE MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PAY THEM BACK....ESPECIALLY IF IT ONLY MEANT TELLING THE TRUTH?


Use your brain you f@cking moron.

You can type all the red and bold you want. You cannot come up with any other source tipping off team USA other than USADA because you know its not possible.

While you are frequently in flying spaghetti monster land where your arguments high around an infinitesimally small probability that your explanation is possible. In this case you cant even make a flying spaghetti monster argument. You know it had to come from USADA.

And USADA didn't bring him down. The LA Federal Prosecutor brought him down. USADA had such a complete case thrown in their lap from the federal prosecutor that USADA was left with no other option.

[travestyny]

Oh really? Where is it? Have you seen it? Who is the practitioner? What did the practitioner say?

Oh that's right. The only FACT is that USADA says it exists.

And its not speculation. USADA is in fact accused of rubber stamping the retroactive TUE. So the TUE itself is not prof of innocence.

Um, no, the FACT is that the TUE was approved. This is a fact. What do you have?

Its right there in the medical review of the literature which you chose to ignore because you think that something not being mandatory means you can simply ignore it whenever you want without any justification. That is a ****** argument.

It's ****** to you because you are an idiot. Did you or did you not say controlling authorities are not mandatory. Then we have WADA saying the ISTUE is mandatory. How do you reconcile that? You still haven't explained.

Still at 0.

Look above and try to explain your statement.

So if a kid has cancer and is in chemo the kids parents get thrown in jail? Obviously isn't to mandatory. You can show exceptional circumstances why the rule should not be applied.

Just as the WADA reviews of the literature are not mandatory. It is possible that you can show exceptional circumstances why your case falls outside of the literature.

Congratulations you just owned yourself.

This is why you are an idiot. The question is if something is not mandatory, can it be controlling. How could you confuse this point when I tried to make it simple for your dumb ass. IF IT IS NOT MANDATORY FOR A CHILD TO GO TO SCHOOL, HOW CAN IT BE ENFORCED? You really are an absolute moron.

[travestyny]

You can type all the red and bold you want. You cannot come up with any other source tipping off team USA other than USADA because you know its not possible.

While you are frequently in flying spaghetti monster land where your arguments high around an infinitesimally small probability that your explanation is possible. In this case you cant even make a flying spaghetti monster argument. You know it had to come from USADA.

And USADA didn't bring him down. The LA Federal Prosecutor brought him down. USADA had such a complete case thrown in their lap from the federal prosecutor that USADA was left with no other option.

I have no information about what tests he claims someone tipped him off about, nor is it relevant. He came clean about his illegal activity, yet he NEVER implicated USADA.

You, on the other hand, jump to your own conclusions yet again. You've presented no proof of anything. You've been blatantly shown to misread information and to make claims that were proven to be false! You already admitted being wrong about one thing which you tried terribly hard to convince me of with no proof. You don't understand written English. You still can't explain what is meant by "or, controlling, and many other words in the English language." Do I need to say more?

[travestyny]

Let's set the record straight.

Controlling authorities are not mandatory.

International Standard for The****utic Use Exemptions
The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for The****utic Use Exemptions (ISTUE) is a mandatory International Standard developed as part of the World Anti-Doping Program.

https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/WADA-2015-ISTUE.pdf

So were you wrong about this? Yes or no?

[Spoon23]

We also have a video of Floyd saying this BS:
"Giving urine contributed to me being dehydrated"
"Giving blood (10 days before) contributed to me being dehydrated"
"Some people use pedialyte, I use an IV."


Lance Armstrong called me up in 2010ish and sent me this picture:



Lance Armstrong called me up today and sent me this picture (2016) :




.

GOLD! Hahaha

ADP02 can you send me the video of Floyd saying some people use pedialyte I use IV. That's incriminating in itself.