Comments Thread For: Arum Reflects on Mayweather's IV, Pacquiao Shoulder Shot Scandal

[travestyny]

1. See other post ..... Lance/UCI You responded differently when UCI was lenient.

2. Why? What if they used something that cannot be traced with the current tests? perhaps as a masking agent. Go ask Memo Heredia, he has 20 ways to lead USADA in the wrong direction.

3. UCI did the same.

4. Nope. You just do not want to understand.

1. Lance blatantly broke UCI's rules. You can't show any precedence of Floyd breaking any rule for not declaring dehydration. It has never been done as far as we can both tell.

2. Complete speculation.

3. So Floyd paid off NSAC and USADA? lol. Riiight.

4. There is nothing to understand except that you are a butthurt fan making up speculation. No matter how much you try to attack the drug testing protocol, you aren't getting anywhere discussing Floyd. Your criticisms of drug testing would apply to anyone doing drug testing, and 5 fold to anyone not doing drug testing.

[travestyny]

1) That's lame. Lance still got caught but they got the RETRO this and that and all was good. Just like Floyd.
PLUS, Lance still did things to avoid being tested or tested positive.

Already showed you the rule that Lance broke. Show me the rule that Floyd broke. You can't, since WADA already stated quite clearly that no rule was broken. See their quotation.

2) Lance representatives paid off UCI by donating for PEDs testing. At the time, it didn't look like something bad perhaps but once everyone found out that Lance was using PEDs ...... well, USADA later called that unethical.

Others have reported that Lance paid them off directly or indirectly (athletes, organizers, doctors ......) you can check it out as well.

And what does this have to do with Floyd? Like I said, unless you believe he paid off NSAC, USADA, the TUEC, and WADA. That's a whole lot of people to try to keep quiet.

3) It does not matter who warned him. The point is that it happened and one cannot just say that "it makes no sense" like you do. It can and did happen.

So I can argue that Manny doped and cheated the system, right? How much weight do you give my speculation about Manny doping?

4) But why did Lance hide when he was still allowed to get out of trouble? I'm just asking you this type of weird questions because that is what you would say.

Again, how is this about Floyd? Last I checked, the UCI isn't an anti-doping agency. He obviously couldn't rely on them to always get him out of trouble.

The point is even if Lance pays off people, he cannot payoff everyone and the best thing for him is to NOT get caught. If he does, he needed to go threw more hoops and possibly the wrong guy would eventually find out. Someone he didn't payoff.

Yet you believe USADA would involve more people than necessary in this conspiracy to cheat. Makes no sense.

5) Its not important ..... EPO was not the only PED Lance used .... and they can still measure his blood levels. So that is why he would use an IV. To bring down his HT levels as an example.

Floyd didn't take a blood test. He took a urine test, with a partial sample given from before the IV. The urine was not diluted in accordance with the specific gravity test. Time for you to accept the facts.

6) There are examples of where there are rules but they are rarely applied. This was one of those cases where the UCI was lenient and as long as you can get yourself a medical form and send it to them whether it be before or after the race, its OK. You know, just like Floyd did 3 weeks after the fact!!!

Retroactive TUE is part of the ISTUE. I already showed you the rule that proved what Lance did was illegal. Show me the rule that states what Floyd did was illegal. Good luck when WADA agrees it wasn't illegal.

"But Lance should have notified ...."
Why did you NOT just say WRONG to yourself when you responded to me that Floyd broke the rules in that he should have notified NSAC and his medical condition too? Oh wait, that's different.

For me, Lance, Floyd and yes even Manny not checking the right box was wrong and so for me, all 3 should have been at the very least investigated. Lance was investigated, Manny was to be but then once Floyd and the IV scandal came out, the NSAC closed the door on all investigations.

Again, you obviously don't recognize what NSAC requires since no boxer in history as far as anyone can find has declared dehydration to NSAC. More speculation by you in saying they dropped the investigation because of Floyd.

7) You mentioned something about Floyd's name is not mentioned but his number only is ..... I'm just pointing out that it can still be identified if someone really wants to and that the system is NOT bullet proof. WADA was in hot water and knew it when they linked Lance even though Lance's name was not on the samples.

The samples that were identified were not conducted under official standards. Nice try.

In 2005, a French newspaper reported that Armstrong's 1999 urine samples had retroactively tested positive for the "blood booster" Erythropoietin (EPO), a banned substance that couldn't yet be detected in urine tests in 1999. But because the 2005 urine tests were not conducted according to official standards, the results had no effect on Armstrong's standing.

http://www.livescience.com/22684-lance-doping-science.html

I think that is the last of all of your bullshlt. Time to give it up? I think so.

[travestyny]

This never stopped you as far as what Manny had as an injury even though we both know that his doctor said it was a FULL THICKNESS TEAR and there was surgery and confirmation by other doctor many months later that it still was not fully healed.

Sorry for all of the messages. I realize you have a lot on your plate now. But speaking of the above, are you ever going to address this:

By the way, now that we know it was ElAttrache in the dressing room, the world-renown doctor, can we discuss WHY WOULD HE ATTEMPT TO SHOOT UP PACQUIAO WITH TORADOL IF ACCORDING TO HIM PACQUIAO WAS AT FULL STRENGTH, AND WHY TORADOL INSTEAD OF A LOCAL NUMBING AGENT??? I NEVER KNEW ELATTRACHE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. DOES YOUR GOOD DOCTOR STILL SEEM SO GOOD???

[travestyny]

I know that giving blood can affect some people. I have a friend that on a couple of occasions fainted. Once while giving blood and another was when he was injured and lost some blood. It affects him more than others. Still, it was more than 1 tablespoon + it happened soon after.

Floyd on the other hand gave < 1 tablespoon about 10 days before the IV scandal. Completely different scenario.


For Manny it was a concern because his only experience was against Morales where he felt that it affected him. So Manny did not want to give away such an advantage. Whether it was physical or psychological.

For Floyd, he said that it would not affect to give blood (in 2011). So did USADA say that on their website. Certainly not after 10 days. I can agree to that.
1) For Floyd, he did not have to worry. He could have used a loophole and got an IV if he felt weak!!!
2) USADA helped Floyd and threw Manny under the bus. Its not speculation. It actually happened. USADA knew that just like Manny's checkbox, Floyd did NOT notify NSAC at all. At least Manny's injury came up BEFORE, his meds were listed on the form and Manny didn't get his meds.

Floyd did get his meds and did NOT notify. Yet USADA only shot down Manny! Just crazy!
.

My apologies once again. I missed this one...so one more.

1. Ellerbe stated that giving blood contributed to Floyd's dehydration. Pacquiao stated that giving less than a tablespoon of blood 2 days before his fight caused him to feel week for the fight. Be honest. Which of these statements is more outrageous??? If you're going to harp on there being less than a tablespoon taken out, you damn well better admit Pacquiao was making up an excuse about why he lost to Morales. Seems to be his M.O. when losing...make up an excuse.

2. USADA did NOT throw Manny under the bus. How? According to Bob Arum, their lawyers sent over documents showing proof of the injury weeks before the fight. So what does USADA have to do with this? NSAC is the one who denied the shots based on factors such as:

A. No documents were sent to the NSAC. It was a lie.
B. Two NSAC doctors checked out Manny and found him to be fine.
C. The good Dr. Neal told the NSAC in the dressing room that Manny would be fine without the shots.
D. Manny himself, and his good doctor ElAttrache, said Manny was at normal strength before the fight.
E. NSAC wants fighters to go into a fight in their natural condition. A toradol shot would have meant he was not going into the fight in his normal condition. Toradol is also seen as a PED to some.
F. According to NSAC, numbing your whole body in this way before a fight can lead to more serious health concerns.

[ADP02]

I DO NOT KNOW THE OFFICIAL DIAGNOSIS OF FLOYDS MEDICAL CONDITION.


1. You are the one that claimed that it was a FACT that Floyd didn't mention any medical condition concerning dehydration to NSAC.

Admit you were wrong and attempted to pass along false information presented as a FACT.


Allergies are a medical condition that is directly related to dehydration.


2. You are the one that claimed Floyd did not have an emergency medical condition -therefore USADA should not have approved the TUE retroactively.

Despite 100s of posts proving you wrong by referencing the OFFICIAL WADA ISTUE code - you continue to pass along misinformed speculation as a FACT.


Actually WADA ISTUE allows for other circumstances
that are not considered an emergency in which an athlete can obtain a retro tue.


Once again you attempted to pass along false information by referencing UKAD (who has nothing to do with Floyd or Manny) statement about retro tues.


I proved that even your own pact@rd logic is false by pointing out an allergic reaction would be considered an emergency situation and Floyd informed NSAC doctors that he is suffering from allergies.



The severity of FLOYDS MEDICAL CONDITION, dehydration, allergies or diahrrea or whatever is not the point.



The issue with you had always been about how you routinely state OPINIONS based on rumors, speculation and misinformation - which is bad enough - and pass it along a FACTUAL INFORMATION.




I DO not know what the OFFICIAL DIAGNOSIS of FLOYDS MEDICAL CONDITION is. I said it again for you.



More importantly, neither do you.

My fact stands until you can show me otherwise!

The prefight form asked a direct question on whether Floyd has allergies. (OR ALLERGIES?) Floyd said that he did. That's it!

- Floyd was severely suffering from dehydration. Why was that not on the form?

- Floyd did NOT notify NSAC of any ongoing medical conditions then signed the form!

- What you linked to states that the issue is dehydration which then "may" trigger allergies in some people. Not the other way around. but read the next point BELOW!

- Notice how many of those sites that bring up this "hydrate to cure your allergies" and "hydrate to cure your chronic dehydration" are selling ........ WATER PRODUCTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


-----------------------------

Actually the severity of his medical condition is very important because if Floyd was NOT dehydrated or just mildly dehydrated, no way should he be allowed to get a RETRO TUE.

[ADP02]

Isn't this cute, TravestyNY Alt Dosumpthin has taken over His main. He must be doing this to create an illusion that ADP02 is talking to more than one person lol

Dang, even the writing style of TravestyNY is identical lmao

Next time, try to make it difficult for us to know you're just one of the same ****** hahaha Shyits too easy to decipher. It's ridiculous. SMDH

# HONORABLE MENTION, CONGRATULATIONS TO TRAVESTYNY I NEVER THOUGHT YOU'D MAKE IT TO GREENLAND. YOU MUST HAVE CREATED THOUSANDS OF ALTS TO GET TO GREEN LOL

You have a point here.

They both are trying to tell us that Floyd had a problem in which Floyd did NOT state was the reason for his dehydration.

[travestyny]

You have a point here.

They both are trying to tell us that Floyd had a problem in which Floyd did NOT state was the reason for his dehydration.

Now THIS is cute.

You know damn well we aren't the same person as we've been here at the same time. I've even challenged Spoon by saying I will give permission to the mods to reveal where I'm posting from and reveal if we are the same person. If I'm lying, I'll leave this site forever. If Spoon is wrong, he'll leave.

Guess who refused to take the challenge?

I'll gladly offer you the same deal.

I've already been owning you and your butt buddy, Spoon. I don't need to do it on two accounts. I have one account here and that's all I need. Unlike your boy, Spoon.

Really, I would have thought you could do better than stoop to the level of Spoon, the resident idiot. You are definitely approaching Spoon status, bro.

[ADP02]

You ****ed up again. NSAC is not a signatory to the WADA code. This we all know. NSAC can impose any penalty they want, or even refuse to impose a penalty...though it must be based on their rules. It does not concern WADA.

However, USADA, as a signatory to WADA, DOES have to follow WADA's rules. If USADA does not, WADA can and must impose sanctions on USADA, just as WADA imposed sanctions on RUSADA!

Now here's the kicker. You say "it was just 2 athletes and WADA's review was optional." You say the TUE wasn't given for the right reasons. You say that under WADA rules an IV can't be given to combat dehydration.

WADA was OF COURSE well aware of this issue. WADA did address this issue. WADA directly proves you are WRONG!

WADA confirmed that under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code and the International Standard for The****utic Use Exemptions (ISTUE), a retroactive TUE can be granted for an IV drip to combat dehydration “For a case that would be monitored by WADA, [COLOR="red"]yes the ISTUE could allow for intravenous infusions to be used in instances of dehydration” , a WADA spokesperson told the Sports Integrity Initiative. However, the spokesperson added: “This case is not one that is monitored by WADA because the World Boxing Council is not a signatory to the Code . We understand that USADA was contracted to conduct the anti-doping program for this fight, however


Are you ready to give up yet?

Show me where it says that WADA reviewed this case?

Someone asked and they responded by saying that they didn't monitor this case ...... but even then, monitoring does NOT mean reviewed the case!

Finally, what would they review? Documents that were well-prepared by Lance Armstrong and his doctor! Ooops, I mean, Floyd Mayeather and his doctor Alex Ariza!


WADA was pressured then acted as far as Russia case and even then, they received lots of criticism for not going further.

[ADP02]

Now THIS is cute.

You know damn well we aren't the same person as we've been here at the same time. I've even challenged Spoon by saying I will give permission to the mods to reveal where I'm posting from and reveal if we are the same person. If I'm lying, I'll leave this site forever. If Spoon is wrong, he'll leave.

Guess who refused to take the challenge?

I'll gladly offer you the same deal.

I've already been owning you and your butt buddy, Spoon. I don't need to do it on two accounts. I have one account here and that's all I need. Unlike your boy, Spoon.

Really, I would have thought you could do better than stoop to the level of Spoon, the resident idiot. You are definitely approaching Spoon status, bro.

Owning by bringing up points that Floyd never said? Got it?


Its OK, you do not need to be the same person. BUT you both continually bring up points that were not mentioned by Floyd.

[travestyny]

Show me where it says that WADA reviewed this case?

Someone asked and they responded by saying that they didn't monitor this case ...... but even then, monitoring does NOT mean reviewed the case!

Finally, what would they review? Documents that were well-prepared by Lance Armstrong and his doctor! Ooops, I mean, Floyd Mayeather and his doctor Alex Ariza!


WADA was pressured then acted as far as Russia case and even then, they received lots of criticism for not going further.

Dude, you said it yourself. They have the option to review the application for the TUE, as the application is sent to them as per their code.

The issue is obviously one they are well aware of, and that is clear because the WADA spokesperson comments on it!

If they found that USADA did not act appropriately, they would have to place sanctions on USADA, just as they did to other anti-doping agencies.

You were proven wrong by saying the IV can't be given to combat dehydration. The direct quote is there. Now man up and admit you are wrong.