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

[GTTofAK]

YOU STATED THAT MANDATORY DOCUMENTATION IS NOT CONTROLLING.

No I stated that controlling does not mean mandatory.

Do we need to do this again

Mandatory - It must be done this way no exceptions.
Controlling - It should be done this way except in exceptional circumstances.

You are really trying to argue that the ISTUE is not controlling

ISTUE mandates the process because it is mandatory.

ISTUE mandates that there be no viable alternative. The supporting controlling review of the literature found that oral re-hydration is a viable alternative to IV re-hydration for mild to moderate dehydration citing 13 medical journals. Do you have any new supporting evidence as to why this controlling review of the literature is inaccurate and/or does not apply to Froids case?

[ADP02]

Do you think boxers voluntarily say they are dehydrated to the commissions? I already stated that it's clear NSAC doesn't care too much about dehydration. This is clear.

If Floyd was in so bad shape that he required an IV, well yes he is supposed to say it at that point. NSAC has drafted and placed some *********s that would put what Floyd did into question.

Now I see you are using the word chronic. If FLoyd can say that he has allergies then why did he forget to include dehydration? Its funny that only the documents and information that you do not see is important to you but not the ones that you can see with your own eyes!

After an examination, the NSAC doctor can note dehydration at weigh then go back on fight night to check the condition of the fighter. I have not verified this point but according to Hauser they do check. You wanted to see the doctor's form before judging but did you see this information? It appears that Hauser did and says that they check. What they do with this information is not applicable here. That is just a deflection on your part.

Yes, he stated he was dehydrated. Again, what is your point? He took an IV for rehydration purposes. He was treated by a medical practitioner. Whether the physician showed that the condition was moderate or severe, we don't know. It can be assumed she/he provided information that would point to it being acute or chronic to the degree that Mayweather would experience a significant impairment to his health if not treated with the IV.

You still have not explained properly how one can be moderately/severely dehydrated if his weight is relativley the same. Floyd weighed 148.5 a week before and weighed in at 146 + drank lots of fluids right after that as you admitted to as well. Remember? At 1 month out Floyd was only at 150.5. Do the math. Floyd said it was training related but the numbers do not add up. If you do not understand now, what does seeing more information make you get it after?

USADA, Nevada, studies state check your weight and drink a few cups of water per pound. Note that they didn't say per ounce they said per pound!!! DING DING DING! We already saw Floyd drinking close to that. Right? So he should have been close to the number where one can say that there is no longer any significant dehydration. Right? Floyd later said he drank and "ate a lot."

We do not need to know what you stated acute or chronic since the weight change was at most 4 pounds from even 30 days out. Right? Plus Floyd drank a lot. Remember? That is your own words.
It cannot be moderate or severe since the weight change was at most 4 pounds from even 30 days out. Right? Plus Floyd drank a lot. Remember? That is your own words.

Plus Floyd was being constantly monitored. Floyd had experts on his side. You do not think that they were monitoring his hydration? lol! That was one of the first things on their mind during the last few days!!!
Also, there was no extreme physical activity at that point. None of this adds up.

Floyd fans didn't even consider Canelo or Diego Corrales severely dehydrated yet now Floyd was? lol

Give it up. He said he was extremely dehydrated. In fact, I feel extremely dehydrated right now. But I'm not going to say I feel exactly like what a medical practitioner would label severe dehydration because I have this this and that which proves it. You are fishing and it just reeks of desperation.

There is a big difference between you saying it and him. We are questioning the reason for an IV. Floyd is telling you why. Floyd is telling you its because of his training and required an IV to recouperate. Its all there.

No you are deflecting. Floyd is the athlete in question. Besides the vital signs and weight, which you do not even care about because they are relatively normal, the doctor would go by what the patient in question, Floyd, tells the doctor.
Doctor: Please explain everything you did recently and any symptoms that you are experiencing.
Floyd: I was training. I gave blood. I vomited. I had diarrhea. I do not want to pee in the cup, I mean I cannot. I had a this. I had that.
Doctor: Oh, you know what I conclude? You are so severely dehydrated that you need an IV.

While there is more to it but I want to just point out that its the patient not the doctor that points out most of the symptoms that is related to dehydration. The ones that the doctor points out, you do not care about (weight stable, vital signs, skin texture normal). This is dehydration that we are talking about. Not cancer!!!

There you go again with severe dehydration. I'll answer the same way I always have. Show me in the ISTUE where it says severe dehydration is the standard for receiving a TUE. It says acute or chronic. The word severe does not exist even once in the ISTUE documentation.

Floyd could have been acute or chronic ..... There I go again because for each substance or methods there are factors that need to be taken into consideration. So severity needs to be factored in. Right?

If Floyd had a retroactive TUE but he only experienced mild dehydration, do you think that would be acceptable? I say no. What are you saying? 4-5 pounds is just mild dehydration. Floyd drank a lot. So its even less than that!!! I'm making this conservative figure because in reality Floyd came in at 149. So its not even 4-5 pounds. Again, factor in that he drank a lot and its down to 1 maybe 1.5lbs and still had to eat? You need a document to tell you that Floyd needed or not an IV for 1.5lbs????


That is why I say that it needs to be severe enough to warrant an IV. Nevada, Usada, studies say to just drink a few cups of water for mild to moderate dehydration. Only in severe cases do you start thinking about IVs.

The problem is your interpretation and for us USADA's interpretation is put into question. But you can clarify your views (not a document) if I have it wrong.

The documentation allows for the use to be justified by a medical practitioner. This is what you wish to ignore because you know it means you have nothing.

Floyd was not in the hospital. Who diagnosed him? It more than likely was Dr Ariza. I'm quite sure of that. Even Floyd brings up Ariza, the hydration wizard. Who filled out that form? Floyd's doctor who Floyd paid. I can show you plenty of athletes who were caught but they will have an expert at the witness stand even though the evidence is clear that they did it!!! Do not be naive. The doctor will naturally say, my client was dehydrated and required an IV.

It's not hiding. It's going by what is certainly known. What you are doing is called drawing your own conclusions based on nothing more than a misreading of the essential documentation. If you don't have the proper facts to support your claim, you shouldn't pretend you have proof of anything.

If there was no evidence, I would be understanding your position. There is a lot of information given by Floyd and company and we have lots of stats. Again, we are discussing dehydration not cancer. Most symptoms Floyd would be telling the doctor not the other way around. Vital signs, weight, skin texture was already assessed and you have that information. All were normal.

What I told you is that I cannot know that without his medical records, so how is that hiding? The point is neither of us has the resources that would make the diagnosis abundantly clear.

Furthermore, when you go even further to PED use, you fall apart even more. It's like a broken record already.

Like I said, we have lots of information. Its just dehydration not cancer. Experts (USADA, Nevada, studies) said weigh yourself and just drink a few cups of water per pound lost. Floyd was having no problem jugging it down. Remember you said thanks for agreeing with you that Floyd was really thirsty?




.

[ADP02]

Wow, you are still unable to understand the ISTUE? I'm pretty sure you know what OR means. So we have:

a. Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was necessary; or

Let's pause there. Do you disagree that the OR means that (a) may not apply? I'm sure you realize that, right? Ok. So if (a) doesn't apply, then what would be the other criteria? Where would we find this information?

That's all I want to know. To make it clear:

IF EMERGENCY TREATMENT OR TREATMENT OF AN ACUTE MEDICAL CONDITION WAS NOT NECESSARY, WHAT IS THE OTHER CRITERIA WHICH WOULD ALLOW A TUE TO BE GRANTED RETROACTIVELY?

Is my question clear to you?

Lets pause just before the OR. Why have chronic medical condition for TUE and remove it from retroactive TUEs? I would think its because its applicable for TUEs but NOT for retroactive ones. You give me your version.

They state that for chronic, the TUE should be given 30 days before the event. They also say to give TUEs 30 days before the event. DING DING DING!!!

So if something happens all of sudden prior to the event, that would qualify as acute or emergency. Its simple but for you an OR is an OR is an OR ....

[Dosumpthin]

QUESTION: With the current information that you have, do you think that Floyd was dehydrated to the point that an IV was a must?


.

Given the current facts I am aware of - I believe it was justifiably the preferred choice -* my opinion is based on the facts supported by wadas inaction against the tue.*

That's common sense.

[ADP02]

Given the current facts I am aware of - I believe it was justifiably the preferred choice -* my opinion is based on the facts supported by wadas inaction against the tue.*

That's common sense.

WADA looks at cases when they are rejected. Rarely when they are not. So you are basing it on an organization that more than likely did not even look at this. That's common sense? Nice!!!


You know what I mean.

Based on what YOU know about this do you believe that an IV was warranted? Weight was relatively stable. Vitals normal and Floyd's, Ellerbe's, NSAC, USADA's statements ....

Floyd said he was dehydrated and needed an IV to recoup from his training. Then why not just drink a few cups of water for each pound lost like USADA, NEVADA, studies recommend? He actually was doing that so again, why an IV?

[travestyny]

YOU STATED THAT MANDATORY DOCUMENTATION IS NOT CONTROLLING.

No I stated that controlling does not mean mandatory.

Do you know anything about logic? Let me teach your dumb ass something.

Here is your statement:

Controlling authorities are not mandatory.

Here is a logical rule for you:

In logic, contraposition is a law that says that a conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. The contrapositive of the statement has its antecedent and consequent inverted and flipped: the contrapositive of P -> Q is ~Q -> ~P

Let's take your statement:
P = The authority is controlling
Q = The authority is mandatory

Your statement is: If the authority is controlling, it is not mandatory
p -> ~Q

Let's look at the contrapositive of your statement:
If the authority is mandatory, it is not controlling; or
Q -> ~P

Well well well, schooled again.


So now let me ask you ONCE AGAIN, is the ISTUE controlling? Yes or no?

Mandatory - It must be done this way no exceptions.
Controlling - It should be done this way except in exceptional circumstances.

Do you have any new supporting evidence as to why this controlling review of the literature is inaccurate and/or does not apply to Froids case?

1. Please show me a definition of the word "controlling" that states it the way you express the meaning.

2. Please show me explicitly where it states the medical reviews are controlling.

But first, please answer the first part of my reply. I've been waiting for an adequate response to that for a long time now. Looks like you're going to have to admit you got schooled yet again. I'm tired of doing this to you, son.

[travestyny]

Who was tipping off the US cycle team? I'm still waiting for a reasonable alternative. So far the best you can do is some lame excuse that landis had a look out.

You say it's lame because it doesn't fit your agenda. However, you blatantly ignore that there was no logical reason for Landis to protect USADA if they were in on it. Second, you show no proof that USADA was helping Landis. You do realize where the burden of proof lies, right?

You lose again. Just accept it and go into hiding already.

[GTTofAK]

Your statement is: If the authority is controlling, it is not mandatory

My statement is that controlling does not mean mandatory.

Controlling - it should be done this way except in exceptional circumstances

Mandatory - it must be done this way no exceptions

Still trying to pretend that WADA spent all this time and money doing these medical reviews for absolutely no reason. Shut the **** up.

[travestyny]

Lets pause just before the OR. Why have chronic medical condition for TUE and remove it from retroactive TUEs? I would think its because its applicable for TUEs but NOT for retroactive ones. You give me your version.

First of all, there are not two TUEs. There are not two applications. A TUE can be retroactively accepted. I just want to make that clear. Nothing is being removed from the criteria necessary for the TUE, or like I said, you would have to remove other things like the "no reasonable alternative" language. Isn't that right?

This is very simple. The section on retroactive TUEs is attempting to clarify the situations that would, surprise surprise, necessitate and justify a TUE being accepted retroactively.

The first situation being that a medical emergency or treatment of an acute medical condition was necessary. Obviously this is because this condition may need to be treated before the paperwork can be either submitted or reviewed.

The second situation being that other circumstances don't allow the athlete to submit the TUE application on time, or for the application to be reviewed on time.

And I don't need to go further than that. Clearly the OR (which you are still avoiding) takes out the emergency and acute situation of the first scenario when assessing the other scenarios.

This is not difficult to understand, man. I would like to know your take on this. Be careful because you know if you try to say language is taken out, you are going to step in ****.

They state that for chronic, the TUE should be given 30 days before the event. They also say to give TUEs 30 days before the event. DING DING DING!!!

So if something happens all of sudden prior to the event, that would qualify as acute or emergency. Its simple but for you an OR is an OR is an OR ....

Is this a general guideline or part of the mandatory ISTUE documentation? Hopefully you are aware of my conversation with the village idiot above.

[travestyny]

My statement is that controlling does not mean mandatory.

Controlling - it should be done this way except in exceptional circumstances

Mandatory - it must be done this way no exceptions

Still trying to pretend that WADA spent all this time and money doing these medical reviews for absolutely no reason. Shut the **** up.

AHAHAHAHAHA. I POSTED YOUR STATEMENT!!!! YOU ARE BLATANTLY LYING!

Controlling authorities are not mandatory.

You ****ing clown. How many times do I have to own you. Get the **** out of here already. You've been embarrassed one too many times.