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

[Dosumpthin]

You go back to your posts. You bring it up like as if WADA reviewed it. That is called speculation. Sorry. If that is not what you mean, cool but then why even bring it up?

Because you have a problem with USADA issuing Floyd a tue.

being that USADA is a wada signatory they are required to adhere to the WADA code. WADA therefore has the authority to REVERSE the tue. I've always said this. I don't need to go back to my post.

You have "proven me wrong" about things I have never said before so this comes at no surprise.

The doctor may lie or may just write a note consistent with what Floyd said to him.

Like I said earlier today, my doctor was ready to give me 2 prescriptions a month ago for something that I didn't even have. I said no, I do not want to take drugs if you are not sure ..... You may think its BS but its the truth ..... yes it was me telling the doctor not the other way around. Imagine that? The doctor agreed with me and said lets monitor this until sometime in May .....

Its common knowledge that pharmaceutical companies provide financial incentives to doctors who issue prescriptions for their drugs. This doesn't prove Floyd is using peds, it proves how naive you really are.

d can say that he was wrong with his conclusion. That is not even my point. The point is that its not too hard to convince your doctor that you have something and need a note. Even more so if the Dr was not even there and it was Dr Ariza that prescribed the IV.

Floyd has been interviewed and said that Floyd thanked Dr Ariza for helping him get rehydrated in a professional matter. So that is why I call you and others waiting to see something on a doctor's note that was more than likely not even there a big joke.


Floyd admitted who told him how to rehydrate when he was extremely dehydrated. Dr Ariza!!!!

3:00 mark

"I have to thank Dr Alex Ariza. For the Manny fight he made sure that I ate the right food. He made sure that I was not dehydrated because I think the day before the fight I was extremely dehydrated because I really push myself to the limit. I always push myself. Dr Ariza made sure I was not dehydrated and showed me how to rehydrate myself like an athlete should in a professional matter.



T

Is ariza the physician that signed off on the tue application? This is new to me. What did the application say? What was the reasoning behind the USADA TUEC granting approval? Or are you speculating again?


Do you have any opinions based on facts?

[Dosumpthin]

If you read in one of my previous posts, I provided text given by WADA .....


Here is another

What if an emergency arises for which I do not have the time or ability to
verify that the medication required is free of banned substances?

In exceptional circumstances, when an acute life-threatening medical condition requires immediate intervention involving the use of a medication containing a prohibited substance, you and your physician must apply for a the****utic use exemption immediately after the treatment has been delivered.

However, it is expected that such cases will occur very rarely and the****utic use exemptions will therefore be granted in emergency situations under close scrutiny.


.

You keep saying the same thing.

You claim that
A. Acute emergency
And
B. Insuffecient time

Are the same. Despite the word "or"

But you never clarified how the other two exceptions are acute as well

C. Governing body of the event RULES permit
D. Fairness

Can you explain how those other exceptions are considered "acute emergencies"



So just to recap wada istue states about retroactive tues:


4.2 Unless one of the exceptions set out in Article 4.3 applies, an Athlete who
needs to Use a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for The****utic reasons
must obtain a TUE prior to Using or Possessing the substance or method in
question.

4.3 An Athlete may only be granted retroactive approval for his/her The****utic
Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method (i.e., a retroactive TUE) if:
a. Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was
necessary; or
b. Due to other exceptional circumstances, there was insufficient time or
opportunity for the Athlete to submit, or for the TUEC to consider, an
application for the TUE prior to Sample collection; or
c. The applicable rules required the Athlete (see comment to Article 5.1) or
permitted the Athlete (see Code Article 4.4.5) to apply for a retroactive
TUE; or
[Comment to 4.3(c): Such Athletes are strongly advised to have a medical file
prepared and ready to demonstrate their satisfaction of the TUE conditions set out
at Article 4.1, in case an application for a retroactive TUE is necessary following
Sample collection.]
d. 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.
[Comment to 4.3(d): If WADA and/or the Anti-Doping Organization do not agree
to the application of Article 4.3(d), that may not be challenged either as a defense
to proceedings for an anti-doping rule violation, or by way of appeal, or otherwise.]


Admit you are wrong. Be a man about it.

[travestyny]

Sorry but you do not need to be a doctor to explain to people that you were dehydrated.

Sorry but you do not need to be a doctor to understand and explain to people why you were dehydrated and say that it was because of his training.

The hell is the point of what you are saying here? YOU DO need to be a medical practitioner to justify IV use in this circumstance.

"It is the responsibility of the treating physician to evaluate the clinical indication for an IV infusion or injection and the subsequent need for a TUE application."

It doesn't say the athlete's word is needed. WADA specifically says it is the word of the physician that matters. And no one cares about your analysis while you're sitting at home in your pajamas.

1. NSAC has come up with evidence against athletes who over-hydrate and used that against the athlete. So its important to know ....
Secondly, NSAC is saying that they are the sole authority on TUEs. So why was USADA approving TUEs? That is a fake TUE approval!

hahahaha. So much deflecting here. What does over-hydrating when it comes to taking drug tests have to do with NSAC finding that a fighter is dehydrated? Once again, can you think of one time that NSAC has deemed a fighter to be dehydrated? No, you can't.

A TUE wasn't needed for an IV as per NSAC's rules. You already know this, so this reeks of desperation.

2. I did not have to be in his camp. The events that lead up to the IV were recorded. If it was brought to court, all that would be used and you know it.

So you actually think they wouldn't need medical records to truly understand what is really going on here? This is beyond idiotic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

4. "Ariza monitored so what" I love this line. Why? Remember the DCO that day? What was he doing? "The DCO who continued to monitor Mr. Mayweather throughout the administration of the IV." Like we kept on telling you, "SO WHAT that the DCo monitored!!!"

Again, this is not remotely related. We are talking about a strength a training coach getting him ready for a fight and a DCO monitoring him to see if he does anything illegal. Again, reeks of desperation.

5. Floyd was at worst, mildly dehydrated. Like I told you a million times, we know why because Floyd told us. You are using ignorance as a defense. even then, its still called very mild dehydration. WADA, USADA, studies all have proven you wrong time and time again that for mild dehydration and they even bring up moderate dehydration orally is very effective. On top of that, Floyd was not even training that day. ITs all a big joke!

You are speculating that you know about his condition. Sorry buddy, you have zero proof. Just stop already. You don't even know how to apply these studies to his condition since you are unaware of his condition.

STUDIES
"Participants went from mildly dehydrated to fully hydrated in 45 minutes by consuming 600mL of water."


USADA
•Monitor fluid losses: Weigh-in before and after training, especially during hot weather and conditioning phases of the season
•For each pound lost during exercise, drink three cups of fluid

WADA
It must be clearly stated that the use of IV fluid replacement following exercise to correct mild rehydration 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, deemed by some authorities as being even more effective than the parenteral option.


WADA
No permitted alternative treatment exists.

WADA
Other non-prohibited alternative treatments
Oral rehydration or oral delivery of medication

"Oral rehydration is usually highly effective, yet there may be cases such as documented hyponatremia where hypertonic saline by IV is more effective than oral treatments."

You conveniently refuse to acknowledge this. I wonder why.

You do not want to get it. The data is already there that shows that FLoyd was slightly dehydrated at worst. You said but we need to take into consideration that FLoyd's walking weight was much higher. Well I proved to you again using Floyd's own statements that it was about the same as his fight night weight if not less.

There is no indication of severe dehydration so you keep on hiding behind Lance's, I mean Dr Ariza's, I mean Floyd's paid doctor's note. lol!!!

Oh really? Have you disproven hyponatremia yet? YOU proved his walking weight was higher when you said that he was at 151 a month after training began. We've already talked about when symptoms of chronic dehydration begin. Again, you have nothing.

Embarrassing is trying to defend Floyd. He was not dehydrated to the point of requiring an IV. So you hide behind Floyd's paid doctor's note.

You check out any case and the defended can get you an expert or doctor to defend even though the guy is guilty. That is all that I'm saying and you know it!

So now you have proof that he has a fake doctor's note? Unbelievable desperation going on here. Go on believing that. It makes it more clear that your argument is a joke.

Chronic? Are you seriously bringing this up again? Floyd admitted that he weighed close to fight night weight if not lower!!!! Please stop defending this crime!!!

hahahaha. You don't like when I bring this up because you have nothing. I supported that he could have very well experienced chronic dehydration, and I used WADA to show I was right that a TUE can be granted when it is first diagnosed. You don't like this very much, do you?

When a potentially chronic medical condition is first diagnosed, it may be advisable to grant a TUE for a shorter period until the medical regime is stabilized.

You are still with this chronic condition!!!! Floyd didn't have that. So why are you still with this stuff? You guys just want to find loopholes.

This tells us everything. You think it's a loophole because you can't disprove it. You are falling apart.

WADA
Circumstances are considered to be exceptional when, for example, a TUE cannot be granted in time through no fault of the Athlete.
Thus, an Athlete with a chronic illness must request a TUE 30 days prior to an event. Nevertheless, the case of a normally healthy Athlete suddenly affected by a significant medical condition some days prior to an event, and unable to request a TUE within the allotted time to enable the TUEC to grant the TUE, may be considered as an “exceptional circumstance”.

Suddenly means acute ....

A chronic illness. It is clear that they mean an illness that the athlete should be aware of. It is not talking about a chronic medical condition. Once again:

"When a potentially chronic medical condition is first diagnosed, it may be advisable to grant a TUE for a shorter period until the medical regime is stabilized."

This rips into your argument. All from WADA.

Now when are you going to fess up to your misunderstanding of "OR"?

Are you going to acknowledge what WADA says about TUEs being granted for chronic medical conditions when they are first diagnosed?

Are you going to acknowledge that WADA makes it clear that there are circumstances where simply being able to drink water doesn't mean it is the most effective treatment in this matter?

All from WADA. YOU HAVE NOTHING.

[Dosumpthin]

The hell is the point of what you are saying here? YOU DO need to be a medical practitioner to justify IV use in this circumstance.

"It is the responsibility of the treating physician to evaluate the clinical indication for an IV infusion or injection and the subsequent need for a TUE application."

It doesn't say the athlete's word is needed. WADA specifically says it is the word of the physician that matters. And no one cares about your analysis while you're sitting at home in your pajamas.



hahahaha. So much deflecting here. What does over-hydrating when it comes to taking drug tests have to do with NSAC finding that a fighter is dehydrated? Once again, can you think of one time that NSAC has deemed a fighter to be dehydrated? No, you can't.

A TUE wasn't needed for an IV as per NSAC's rules. You already know this, so this reeks of desperation.


So you actually think they wouldn't need medical records to truly understand what is really going on here? This is beyond idiotic. You should be ashamed of yourself.


Again, this is not remotely related. We are talking about a strength a training coach getting him ready for a fight and a DCO monitoring him to see if he does anything illegal. Again, reeks of desperation.


You are speculating that you know about his condition. Sorry buddy, you have zero proof. Just stop already. You don't even know how to apply these studies to his condition since you are unaware of his condition.



"Oral rehydration is usually highly effective, yet there may be cases such as documented hyponatremia where hypertonic saline by IV is more effective than oral treatments."

You conveniently refuse to acknowledge this. I wonder why.


Oh really? Have you disproven hyponatremia yet? YOU proved his walking weight was higher when you said that he was at 151 a month after training began. We've already talked about when symptoms of chronic dehydration begin. Again, you have nothing.




So now you have proof that he has a fake doctor's note? Unbelievable desperation going on here. Go on believing that. It makes it more clear that your argument is a joke.



hahahaha. You don't like when I bring this up because you have nothing. I supported that he could have very well experienced chronic dehydration, and I used WADA to show I was right that a TUE can be granted when it is first diagnosed. You don't like this very much, do you?

When a potentially chronic medical condition is first diagnosed, it may be advisable to grant a TUE for a shorter period until the medical regime is stabilized.


This tells us everything. You think it's a loophole because you can't disprove it. You are falling apart.


A chronic illness. It is clear that they mean an illness that the athlete should be aware of. It is not talking about a chronic medical condition. Once again:

"When a potentially chronic medical condition is first diagnosed, it may be advisable to grant a TUE for a shorter period until the medical regime is stabilized."

This rips into your argument. All from WADA.

Now when are you going to fess up to your misunderstanding of "OR"?

Are you going to acknowledge what WADA says about TUEs being granted for chronic medical conditions when they are first diagnosed?

Are you going to acknowledge that WADA makes it clear that there are circumstances where simply being able to drink water doesn't mean it is the most effective treatment in this matter?

All from WADA. YOU HAVE NOTHING.

You must have smacked some sense into that pact@rd!

[Zaroku]

You must have smacked some sense into that pact@rd!

I wonder if Pact@rds are capable of learning or comprehending anything??

They tend to speculate without any foundation to support their wild theories.

[Spoon23]

Oh my, still a landslide victory for Froid.

He really is the ultimate cheater. That makes his win with Pac a fluke win.

He really needs to redeem himself tsk tsk tsk..

[ADP02]

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.

Because you have a problem with USADA issuing Floyd a tue.

being that USADA is a wada signatory they are required to adhere to the WADA code. WADA therefore has the authority to REVERSE the tue. I've always said this. I don't need to go back to my post.

You have "proven me wrong" about things I have never said before so this comes at no surprise.

Like I said, WADA has the option to look at TUEs but its not mandatory like when a request is on a rejected TUE (some exceptions here too)


So you believe that Floyd was dehydrated to the point that he required an IV and based all that on WADA not reversing the approved TUE when WADA more than likely did not even look at it? YIKES!!!!

Is ariza the physician that signed off on the tue application? This is new to me. What did the application say? What was the reasoning behind the USADA TUEC granting approval? Or are you speculating again?


Do you have any opinions based on facts?

No, Dr Ariza was the one who told Floyd how to rehydrate in a professional manner on that occasion where he said tha the was extremely dehydrated. That is why Floyd got an IV. That is what Floyd said. Right?

Who did Floyd thank for solving his extreme dehydration problem? .............. Dr ???? ........ Dr. Alex Ariza!!!!

The doctor who signed off afterwards is pointless! That is what you are basing all this on even though all we are talking about Floyd being dehydrated, as stated by Floyd and that we already know why he was dehydrated because Floyd said why on several interviews.



.

[ADP02]

You keep saying the same thing.

You claim that
A. Acute emergency
And
B. Insuffecient time

Are the same. Despite the word "or"

But you never clarified how the other two exceptions are acute as well

C. Governing body of the event RULES permit
D. Fairness

Can you explain how those other exceptions are considered "acute emergencies"



So just to recap wada istue states about retroactive tues:


4.2 Unless one of the exceptions set out in Article 4.3 applies, an Athlete who
needs to Use a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for The****utic reasons
must obtain a TUE prior to Using or Possessing the substance or method in
question.

4.3 An Athlete may only be granted retroactive approval for his/her The****utic
Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method (i.e., a retroactive TUE) if:
a. Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was
necessary; or
b. Due to other exceptional circumstances, there was insufficient time or
opportunity for the Athlete to submit, or for the TUEC to consider, an
application for the TUE prior to Sample collection; or
c. The applicable rules required the Athlete (see comment to Article 5.1) or
permitted the Athlete (see Code Article 4.4.5) to apply for a retroactive
TUE; or
[Comment to 4.3(c): Such Athletes are strongly advised to have a medical file
prepared and ready to demonstrate their satisfaction of the TUE conditions set out
at Article 4.1, in case an application for a retroactive TUE is necessary following
Sample collection.]
d. 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.
[Comment to 4.3(d): If WADA and/or the Anti-Doping Organization do not agree
to the application of Article 4.3(d), that may not be challenged either as a defense
to proceedings for an anti-doping rule violation, or by way of appeal, or otherwise.]


Admit you are wrong. Be a man about it.

I can admit that you are wrong ..... but its better if it comes from you!

I already stated from the start where I was coming from ..... I gave you a clear example where it does not matter if there was insufficient time. Now if its and acute or emergency type situation then there is a possibility. Still not a done deal but there is a possibility.

What I wrote in the previous post was not my words but from WADA.
"WADA
What if an emergency arises for which I do not have the time or ability to verify that the medication required is free of banned substances? ?

In exceptional circumstances, when an acute life-threatening medical condition requires immediate intervention involving the use of a medication containing a prohibited substance, you and your physician must apply for a TUE immediately after the treatment has been delivered.

However, it is expected that such cases will occur very rarely and TUEs will therefore be granted in emergency situations under close scrutiny. "


There are other exceptions but then we are moving even further away from our discussion. So what's the point?

Here is another example:
" fairness in the exceptional circumstances where a prohibited substance entered an athlete’s system through no fault or negligence on the athlete’s part."

and another example is when the athlete moves from one level of competition to another where before they were not required to required for a TUE and in a higher level of competition, as an example, the athlete was required but there was insufficient time to make the request.

But all those are not what we are talking about, are we?

We are talking about someone who all of a sudden something happens .... well, that is not a definition of chronic!!! That is a definition of acute or perhaps an emergency!!!

[travestyny]

We are talking about someone who all of a sudden something happens .... well, that is not a definition of chronic!!! That is a definition of acute or perhaps an emergency!!!

Explain this:

When a potentially chronic medical condition is first diagnosed, it may be advisable to grant a TUE for a shorter period until the medical regime is stabilized.

Also, WADA clarified this for you in their paper about IVs. Can you explain what this means?

"In situations of medical emergency or clinical time constraints, a retroactive TUE application is acceptable (ISTUE 2015 article 4.3)"

[ADP02]

The hell is the point of what you are saying here? YOU DO need to be a medical practitioner to justify IV use in this circumstance.

"It is the responsibility of the treating physician to evaluate the clinical indication for an IV infusion or injection and the subsequent need for a TUE application."

It doesn't say the athlete's word is needed. WADA specifically says it is the word of the physician that matters. And no one cares about your analysis while you're sitting at home in your pajamas.

This is a laugh!

In another thread you posted like as if you spoke to Manny's doctor and knew extensively about Manny's situations about his much more complicated injury.



You think that every doctor knows about TUE and prohibited substances? Sorry but they tell the athlete to not play dumb and that the athlete must understand.

WADA
"Remember, under the strict liability principle, it does not matter how or why a prohibited substance entered an athlete's body. Athletes are responsible for everything that goes into their body"

WADA
"Under the overarching principle of strict liability in effect under anti-doping regulations, as an athlete, you are ultimately responsible for everything that goes into your body, whether it was recommended, prescribed, or even provided by someone else. If an athlete tests positive, the result is a disqualification, and possible sanction or suspension."

WADA
"Before applying for a TUE, it is recommended that you consult your doctor to consider possible alternative treatments that do not involve the use of a prohibited substance or method. If such an alternative treatment exists, your TUE request will likely be denied and the whole process can only delay your recovery."

WADA
"What can I do to avoid a positive test from taking a medication?

There are two ways for you to obtain medication: either by prescription from your doctor or directly from the shelves of a drugstore or pharmacy.

Anytime you need a prescription, you must remind your doctor that you are an athlete and are subject to anti-doping regulations. Your doctor should ensure that the medication prescribed does not contain any banned substances. If your doctor is unable to determine this, then the decision should be taken in consultation with your National Anti-Doping Organization (NADO) or with a competent pharmacist.

If you need to take a medication that does not require a prescription (commonly referred to as "over-the-counter"), it is highly recommended that you consult your national NADO or that you show the Prohibited List to the pharmacist and ask for help before you decide on a product."

hahahaha. So much deflecting here. What does over-hydrating when it comes to taking drug tests have to do with NSAC finding that a fighter is dehydrated? Once again, can you think of one time that NSAC has deemed a fighter to be dehydrated? No, you can't.

A TUE wasn't needed for an IV as per NSAC's rules. You already know this, so this reeks of desperation.

You missed this part of my post when you responded!!!

"NSAC is saying that they are the sole authority on TUEs. So why was USADA approving TUEs? That is a fake TUE approval!"

So you actually think they wouldn't need medical records to truly understand what is really going on here? This is beyond idiotic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Hmmm, are you ashamed to be speculating like you did today about Manny's injury?

We have a lot more to go on with Floyd. In fact, even with Manny there is a lot but you are not interested in all that. You are the source of truth!


I presented the facts and my knowledge on dehydration. On this subject you do not need to be an expert compared to knowing about rotator cuff injuries. Yet you were able to solve the Manny riddle!!!

Again, this is not remotely related. We are talking about a strength a training coach getting him ready for a fight and a DCO monitoring him to see if he does anything illegal. Again, reeks of desperation.

DCO monitored for what? You keep on saying that only a qualified doctor can understand all this dehydration stuff and we both know that the DCO is not qualified.

You are speculating that you know about his condition. Sorry buddy, you have zero proof. Just stop already. You don't even know how to apply these studies to his condition since you are unaware of his condition.

Again, today you based your comments only on pictures of Manny. Yet with all the facts available on Floyd, you call that zero proof and just speculation. HA!


I'm unaware? Is that what you said when you quoted Manny? I quoted Floyd but now you want to say that is different? HA!!! So Manny is an expert in respect to rotator cuff injuries? Like I said, dehydration is much more known to an athlete as it is something that they think about constantly and how not to get dehydrated. Plus, Floyd had Dr Ariza that helped him on how to rehydrate with an IV professionally!!!

"Oral rehydration is usually highly effective, yet there may be cases such as documented hyponatremia where hypertonic saline by IV is more effective than oral treatments."

No, you refuse to bring up how that has anything to do with Floyd?

Oh really? Have you disproven hyponatremia yet? YOU proved his walking weight was higher when you said that he was at 151 a month after training began. We've already talked about when symptoms of chronic dehydration begin. Again, you have nothing.

No, you refuse to bring up how that has anything to do with Floyd?

No. Floyd said his walking weight is 147-150.

So now you have proof that he has a fake doctor's note? Unbelievable desperation going on here. Go on believing that. It makes it more clear that your argument is a joke.

As stated above, who did Floyd thank for his recovery from extreme dehydration? Did he name Dr X or Dr Ariza?

If your response was Dr Ariza, you win!!!

Floyd thanked Dr Ariza and you know it!

hahahaha. You don't like when I bring this up because you have nothing. I supported that he could have very well experienced chronic dehydration, and I used WADA to show I was right that a TUE can be granted when it is first diagnosed. You don't like this very much, do you?

When a potentially chronic medical condition is first diagnosed, it may be advisable to grant a TUE for a shorter period until the medical regime is stabilized.


This tells us everything. You think it's a loophole because you can't disprove it. You are falling apart.


A chronic illness. It is clear that they mean an illness that the athlete should be aware of. It is not talking about a chronic medical condition. Once again:

"When a potentially chronic medical condition is first diagnosed, it may be advisable to grant a TUE for a shorter period until the medical regime is stabilized."

This rips into your argument. All from WADA.

Now when are you going to fess up to your misunderstanding of "OR"?

Are you going to acknowledge what WADA says about TUEs being granted for chronic medical conditions when they are first diagnosed?

Are you going to acknowledge that WADA makes it clear that there are circumstances where simply being able to drink water doesn't mean it is the most effective treatment in this matter?

All from WADA. YOU HAVE NOTHING.

So you still want to bring up chronic? Why? This has nothing to do with Floyd!!!


Secondly, what does that statement you posted have to do with anything?

Third point is they even mention the word "POTENTIAL".

I do not want to insult you but just think of what that word means? It means that the athlete does NOT have currently a chronic medical condition but is capable of having!!!


.