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

[Dosumpthin]

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 ****.



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

I tried to explain to RATH that retroactive was an adjective weeks ago and just said **** it.
I can't talk to people who don't understand English and are too stubborn to learn.

Adp02 is on probation because his pride won't accept the definition of the conjunction "or".

GTTofAK is just plain ******.

SPOON is slow.

Pact@rdism at its best. ****ing ******s.

The SCHOLASTIC FOUR
RATH
GTTofAK
SPOON
ADP02

[travestyny]

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.

You should delete any trace of this paragraph. Really? I'm not even going to respond to this other than saying this gave me a great laugh.

You still have not explained properly how one can be moderately/severely dehydrated if his weight is relativley the same.

We've gone through this already. When might the onset of chronic dehydration occurred?

"Symptoms of chronic dehydration will begin to appear when the body loses as little as two to three percent of total body water."

What is his natural weight? In the course of losing weight, did he become chronically dehydrated? Did it go untreated until the IV?

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."

He said he ate and drank a lot, and he also had an IV. So by looking at him drink water, you were able to analyze if that made him fit and ready to go? Are you sure your eye test is better than medical records?

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.

They were maintaining weight, which is obvious. A boxer, and yes, his S&C coach, worry about hydration AFTER the weigh in. You should know this.

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!!!

What did I just read? So are you saying that NSAC, who has never diagnosed anyone with dehydration as far as the both of us know, did a more thorough job of checking for it than the physician that had to fill out the TUE application? Really? Read this again and think about it.

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?

No one is stopping you from talking about severe dehydration, but I am pointing out that the word severe doesn't appear even once in the ISTUE documentation.

If Floyd had a retroactive TUE but he only experienced mild dehydration, do you think that would be acceptable? I say no.

And I say that USADA and WADA allows for the use of an IV to be justified by a medical practitioner. This is simple.

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.

I get it. You assume it was Ariza. You assume USADA is crooked. You assume WADA is crooked (?). Now where is the proof? Again, this is all speculation. Do you speculate about Manny's shoulder, which is far more shady. Never saw you criticize the doctor there. Don't be hypocritical.

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.

Oh really, Dr. ADP. Tell me more. I prefer to go to an authority.

Your doctor can often diagnose dehydration on the basis of physical signs and symptoms such as little or no urination, sunken eyes, and skin that lacks its normal elasticity and resilience when pinched. If you're dehydrated, you're also likely to have low blood pressure, especially when moving from a lying to a standing position, a faster than normal heart rate and reduced blood flow to your extremities.

To help confirm the diagnosis and pinpoint the degree of dehydration, you may have other tests, such as:

Blood tests. Blood samples may be used to check for a number of factors, such as the levels of your electrolytes — especially sodium and potassium — and how well your kidneys are working.
Urinalysis. Tests done on your urine can help show whether you're dehydrated and to what degree.

By the way, what was the result of the skin texture test that was done by NSAC that has never found an athlete to be dehydrated? I have to keep stressing that to you since you don't get it.

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?

No you don't! lol. If you did, Manny's team would have done something by now. You mention USADA as one of the experts, but they allowed the IV. You mention Nevada as one of the experts, but they never found an athlete to be dehydrated before a fight. You are not gaining any ground.

[GTTofAK]

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

Oh really

No ****, there is a difference between mandatory and controlling.

You seemed to get the difference then.

[travestyny]

Oh really



You seemed to get the difference then.

Once again, a semantic difference doesn't mean they are not related in this instance.

Why don't you answer the question? Don't want to admit that you ****ed up again, huh?

It's ok, man. You **** up quite often. To the point that you should be simply labeled a **** up.

When you admit that you made a mistake, and admit that the ISTUE is controlling, then we can move on about what the definition of controlling is, and why you believe the non-mandatory medical reviews are controlling. Man up, son. You've got more lessons to learn.

[GTTofAK]

Once again, a semantic difference doesn't mean they are not related in this instance.

The semantic difference is how they are different. One allows for exceptions the other does not. I agreed that the medical review should not be mandatory. In the part you omitted they state exactly why the review is not mandatory, the literature is always changing.

Now please show why Froids specific case fell outside of the review.

[travestyny]

The semantic difference is how they are different. One allows for exceptions the other does not. I agreed that the medical review should not be mandatory. In the part you omitted they state exactly why the review is not mandatory, the literature is always changing.

Now please show why Froids specific case fell outside of the review.

First of all, I didn't omit anything. I clearly added that they are NON-MANDATORY and I provided the link. Why would I hide something that proves my point, idiot?

What does non-mandatory mean? Does it not mean optional? Doesn't it say they are only to guide and assist?

Where does it ever say the medical reports are controlling? Post it!
Furthermore, where did you get your definition of controlling? Post it!

And you still have to admit the ISTUE is controlling. Is it or is it not?

[GTTofAK]

First of all, I didn't omit anything. I clearly added that they are NON-MANDATORY and I provided the link. Why would I hide something that proves my point, idiot?

The very next sentence beyond what you quoted says why. The medical literature is always evolving. Now can you please inform us what great discovery had been made that was missed in the literature review that would preclude Froid from being able to rehydrate orally?

[travestyny]

Actually, this is what I posted. Unedited. March 23rd:

This information should be read in conjunction with the principles set out in the ISTUEregarding the granting criteria for TUEs (Article 4.1 to 4.3).The objective is to guide and assist TUECs in the decision making process for TUE applications and are not mandatory documents.
These documents are "living documents” and will be updated as necessary based on the evolution of medical best practice. Pathologies covered at this stage are the most current ones encountered in the TUE field. This is not an exclusive list and TUEs for any other medical condition may be considered based on the principles of the ISTUE.

The very next sentence beyond what you quoted says why. The medical literature is always evolving. Now can you please inform us what great discovery had been made that was missed in the literature review that would preclude Froid from being able to rehydrate orally?

So what did I leave out? It doesn't make sense for me to leave out something that proves my point.

Now when are you going to stop ducking my questions?

1. Is the ISTUE controlling or not?
2. Where did you get your definition of controlling?
3. Where did you get any information stating that the medical reviews are controlling, since above all it says is that they are non-mandatory and should be used merely to guide and assist.

Man up, **** boy.

[ADP02]

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 ****.



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

Its because an acute/emergency situation is defined as something can occur all of a sudden at any time. Before or after.

Chronic by definition is not that. For example, if Floyd had a chronic medical condition, he would put it in his pre-fight form. He only did that for Allergies NOT for hydration. Right?

I have already discussed this quite a bit with various examples from Floyd fans.

The only example we really need to discuss and you want this for is for Floyd. So lets stick to that.

In that situation (May 1st), there is no way that that would be called a chronic medical condition. At best it would be called an acute medical condition BUT it still needs to meet the criteria for using an IV method and anything else that is associated with getting a TUE.

All other scenarios is irrelevant so lets keep it simple.



.

[travestyny]

Chronic by definition is not that. For example, if Floyd had a chronic medical condition, he would put it in his pre-fight form. He only did that for Allergies NOT for hydration. Right?

I have already discussed this quite a bit with various examples from Floyd fans.

The only example we really need to discuss and you want this for is for Floyd. So lets stick to that.

In that situation (May 1st), there is no way that that would be called a chronic medical condition. At best it would be called an acute medical condition BUT it still needs to meet the criteria for using an IV method and anything else that is associated with getting a TUE.

All other scenarios is irrelevant so lets keep it simple.
.

I have no problem with keeping it simple.

Once again, NSAC has **** all to do with dehydration. You and I know that, so we can keep it even more simple by leaving them out. Also, I already showed you that allergies is a side-effect of chronic dehydration, but I'll leave it at that.

I disagree that it could not be called chronic dehydration. It depends on when the condition was diagnosed. When did the chronic dehydration come about, and when was it treated. That is what is relevant.

Explained this many times. We need to hear from the medical practitioner. You don't want to hear that because you believe you have the answers. I disagree.

Very simple.