Everyone Wants to Talk About Floyd's IV - What About Pac-Monster's Toradol Abuse???

[travestyny]

Thanks for helping my initial point in all this.

Do not trust no specific gravity (dilution) testing from any of these people!!!! WADA or no WADA protocol .... they cannot get it right.

You are going about this all wrong, bro. It's not that they are getting it wrong. NSAC is choosing what to accept in these cases, and it's not only about specific gravity. It's also about creatinine. However, with Floyd, it was not allowed to be diluted even with the IV. This is explicitly a part of WADA's rules that USADA had to follow!

[travestyny]

it is irrelevant for home iv

lmaoooooooo. The istue is the only relevant document in all of this you moron. Its the international standard for the****utic use exemptions!

Ahahahaha. Keep destroying yourself, clown!!!

[ADP02]

You actually believe that you can dilute 400ng down to 50ng with 1 liter of water. Unbelievable. You've seen the studies YOU posted. So....reconcile that please. I dare you.



What happened, ADP02. After a full gallon of water, I'm sure this dude could have gotten 53ng down to 0. What do you think went wrong? LMAOOOOOOOOO! By the way, 1 GALLON IS 3.79 LITERS! LMAOOOOOOOO!

You are still lost and did not learn. Not sure what's point anymore.

Do I have to explain to you everything? There are lots of variables. NOT every person will have the same results!!! If that was the case then there only needs to be one study and that's it but you know that is not the case. That is why the study tells you that some were able to dilute after 1.5 hours and some it took 2 hours!!! BUT did it take 48 hours as you thought
it would take? Nope! In fact he went from 53 to 10 only 30 minutes after drinking his 2nd liter of water and soon after 8 .... 53/8 = So this subject went more than 5X down after 1.5 hours and close to 7X after 2 hours.

The study is only drinking 1 liter per hour not 1 gallon at a time as you are making it seem. BTW - your logic is dumb. Nobody every said that they can dilute to 0. That is nonsense but you said it! Dilution is just to beat the threshold tests!!!

What was the specific gravity at, genius. LMAO. You are embarrassing yourself. Stop ducking.

You are the one that is ducking. Everything points to it being plausible to dilute. What your "expert" said was impossible but as pointed out even in the podcast, several studies, the article, its very possible. Start with answering that!!!

The bolded statement is correct. Are you the one smoking something? Again, how did he dilute when according to both of your studies his specific gravity would be lower than 1.009. I'm gonna keep hammering you with this until you are beaten to a pulp because I'm tired of you ducking it.

I see that you are deflecting or you finally understand that its now possible to dilute and not medically impossible?

I pointed out numerous points to back my statement while you pointed out nothing remotely close to say its impossible. So stick with this then we move on!!! STOP DUCKING ME!!! Just say that you are WROOONG!!!

Wrong. NSAC can choose not to follow WADA protocol because they are not a signatory of WADA protocol. However, test#3 followed WADA protocol. Right or wrong?

So you are in agreement that SMRTL was not consistent with WADA protocol. Got it! So where else did they go wrong and we do not know? Makes me wonder now!

Test #3 followed WADA protocol.

How do we know for sure? They screwed up with TEST #1. So who knows what's going on here!!! THey cannot even follow WADA protocol and you hate that but now that SMRTL did something that was not part of the WADA protocol you say that you are "cool" with that. Too funny!

WRONG. The DCO testified that he didn't mark off certain parts of the form correctly and would do it differently. Go review the video again.

Under oath the DCO said that even though the box was not checked he remembered that he still did it! That is all that we need to know.

Question: No check mark ... but if you had to do it again, would you or should you have checked it?
Witness: yes
Question: Was that Diaz's urine sample?
Witness: yes, no doubt.


BUT what is for sure is that SMRTL didn't follow WADA protocol!!! Yet you are "cool" with that. lol

And NSAC uses SMRTL too apparently, and sucks off WADA. And again, test #3 followed WADA protocol!

Again, SMRTL made one mistake that we know of. they screwed up by not following WADA protocol. Did they make more? Hmmmm .....

LMAOOOOOOOOO. That's hysterical. Test #3 followed WADA protocol. This is a WADA accredited lab. Test #1 was at normal specific gravity, but dilute for testing, and showed results consistent with test#3. Also consistent with the Labcorp test that you don't want to discuss.

I agree, its a WADA accredited lab but they screwed up by not following WADA protocol.

If you say that TEST #3 is consistent with TEST #1 and TEST #1 is certainly useless then we might as well throw BOTH test results out of the window! lol

You are still running with this statement and saying it means one can find marijuana metabolite of 733ng and the other can find a sample with 61ng and both are correct. LMAO. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, dude. Seriously. One is clearly wrong. If both were right, why did NSAC choose between them. They chose quest who's DCO admits ****ing up and who does not follow WADA protocol. And let me say it again. Test #3 followed WADA protocol.

You are still falling back to a unreliable number just like the so called expert did. YOU FAIL!!!

Even the "expert" witness said that its not surprising to have different results. Even the QUEST expert agreed when questioned. Only YOU do not agree. One of these things does not

belong, one of these things is not the same, ..... his name is Travestyny!

Screwing up?
1) If SMRTL screwed up with TEST #1 then there is more of a probability that they are the ones that keep on screwing up.
2) Question to the "expert" who has been involved with QUEST many times before:
Question:Have you ever heard of Quest being wrong on a Cannibas (marijuana) test?
Response from expert: No!

Yet you think that Quest is wrong and the admitted marijuana user that said that he still uses thought that he would pass the threshold test! lol

LMAO. Test #3 followed WADA protocol. By the way, which would you think would be more likely to be ****ed up. A test where the DCO admits to ****ing up chain of custody and one which had the donors name attached to it for anyone to see, or a WADA accredited lab which is widely known as the gold standard. LMAO. You're a fool for going with Quest and that's why you won't see me in the thunderdome and you know it.

Gold standard yet they screw up on their own protocol and Diaz's defense has numerous crack yet you believe? WOW! lol

Are you absolutely sure about that? Do you mean SMRTL and QUEST? Because the DCO testified that the way it works is that they take one urine sample and share it. He testified that if SMRTL doesn't have enough, they throw out their shared sample and start over. There was 1hour 15 minutes between so perhaps they had to throw theirs out and start over, but it was never stated that this exactly was the case. I know one thing is for sure. After all that time, he would be below 1.009 specific gravity.

perhaps that is where the original 1.003 and 1.006 specific gravity result came from! More differences! Yikes! This I would like to know for sure because all initial reports said 1.006

but then in court they just brought up the LAB results.

but if true its worse than I thought!

Or they didn't trust the lab and didn't want to have it done there again. Or they felt they already had a sample B with much better guidelines since Test#3 followed WADA guidelines.

Its a completely different sample of urine so its NOT like sample B!!! Like I said, they knew that it would come back positive. 2 tests QUEST did came back positive!!!

It's rare for a B sample to be negative .... like a hen having teeth lol

AHHAHAHAHAHAH. NOW THIS IS THE FUNNIES STATEMENT. I'M SO LOUSY AT THIS COMPARED TO YOU, BUT YOU ARE DUCKING ME LIKE A LITTLE *****. LMAOOOOOOOOOOO. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I CALLED YOU OUT AND YOU TUCK TAIL, BlTCH BOY. STILL WAITING ON YOU

Ducking?

I'm actually the only one that came back with stats to show that you and the so called expert have it all wrong! Even that podcast says it all.

Why do you not come up with something to show that its medically impossible? You cannot! Why? because its possible .....

There must be A LOT of people out there that are lousy according to you, because I haven't found 1 person on your side in this matter. Why do you think NSAC moved so quickly to settle? Why do you think a ****ing petition was sent to the White House on behalf of Nick Diaz which got enough signatures that ***** was required to comment on it. LMAO.

ot one? Did you check the podcast? lol Or are you talking about those who did not like that Diaz got 5 years for marijuana? Well, I think that is too much too. Where do I sign?

BUT

that is quite different than saying that Diaz, who has screwed up on multiple occasions is innocent this time!

LMAOOOOO. WAIT....WHO THE HELL IS THIS? AND WHY IS HE QUALIFIED TO TALK ABOUT THIS?


-----edit-------
Ohhhh. This is the referee. LMAO. I read this statement before. And I read how many posters called him an idiot for his dumb ass statements. So you take the word of an MMA referee over a 20 year Medical Review Officer. LMAOOOOOOOOOOO



YOU DUCKED THE ****ING QUESTION! YOU STATED ABOVE THAT AT 1 LITER YOU ARE DILUTED AT 1.5 HOURS. YOUR STUDY ALSO SAYS 1 LITER GETS YOU DOWN TO 1.003. AGAIN....HOW IS HIS SPECIFIC GRAVITY 1.009? HOW MUCH WATER DID HE DRINK? STOP DUCKING THE QUESTION! STILL WAITING.....

Lol ..... everyone that is stating an objective opinion you do not care about. Nor studies nor anything or anyone else. Actually others appreciate his opinion. Only Diaz fans do not like it ..... but most do not like the 5 year suspension which was reduced.

He told you that its possible! Studies state so too. The article agrees ..... comical. He knows you do not get!

Unless you really have something but I know you do not or else you would have shown me by now, YOU ARE WROOOONG!!!


I smashed your point that its medically impossible. Once you learn that, we can move on. if you cannot even understand that then its useless. Sorry!

[ADP02]

You are going about this all wrong, bro. It's not that they are getting it wrong. NSAC is choosing what to accept in these cases, and it's not only about specific gravity. It's also about creatinine. However, with Floyd, it was not allowed to be diluted even with the IV. This is explicitly a part of WADA's rules that USADA had to follow!

Oh so now its the NSAC but before it was about WADA protocol. Too funny!


They can screw up and as you saw they did!!! Diaz's team was boasting WADA this and WADA that .... now its because of NSAC?

[Shape up]

lmaoooooooo. The istue is the only relevant document in all of this you moron. Its the international standard for the****utic use exemptions!

Ahahahaha. Keep destroying yourself, clown!!!

Well then, if it's soooo good, SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE AN IV AT HOME AND GET A RETRO TUE nobjockey

[Shape up]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEWL...FsFHXqTl008oCR

Why not watch this, it was only rehydration, working out, having blood taken! So did pacquaio![COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY,How many times has he done the IV after the weigh in with no one knowing about it

[travestyny]

Oh so now its the NSAC but before it was about WADA protocol. Too funny!


They can screw up and as you saw they did!!! Diaz's team was boasting WADA this and WADA that .... now its because of NSAC?

I think you must be confused.

Now for the 60th time...

THE 2nd SMRTL test followed WADA protocol.

The 1st test followed protocol besides accepting the 1.002 specific gravity. Even the article that you were posting stated that NSAC accepts samples that are diluted as much are lower. But we know the 2nd SMRTL sample was not diluted lower than WADA standards.

Is that the reason Diaz was tested twice in the same day by SMRTL? Don't know. But at least they didn't **** up chain of custody and anonymity.

[travestyny]

Well then, if it's soooo good, SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE AN IV AT HOME AND GET A RETRO TUE nobjockey

When I showed you the last time, you became upset and said the ISTUE is irrelevant. LMAOOOOO.


Here you go again, **** face!

wada prohibited list: by method

2. Chemical and physical manipulation
intravenous infusions and/or injections of more than 50 ml per 6 hour period except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions, surgical procedures or clinical investigations.

*This means all IV's of this amount, NOT given in hospitals!




from the istue:


3.0 definitions and interpretation


prohibited method: any method so described on the prohibited list.

*Is an IV for over 50ml not given in hospitals described in the prohibited list? LMAO. YESSSSS BIOTCH!




part two: Standards and process for granting tues


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 Article5.1)or permitted the Athlete (see Code Article 4.4.5) to apply for a retroactive TUE; or
d. It is agreed, byWADA 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.

You GONNA CLAIM IT'S IRRELEVANT AGAIN? LMAOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

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.

For the 12,873,283,789,987 time--
R.I.P.

[Dosumpthin]

7.4.2 Testing Sample for Suitable Specific Gravity for Analysis
The DCO tests the residual volume of urine remaining in the Sample collection
vessel to determine if the Sample has a Suitable Specific Gravity for Analysis.
The specific gravity measurement must be greater than or equal to 1.005 if using a
refractometer, or greater than or equal to 1.010 with lab sticks.
The Athlete is given the option of witnessing the discarding of any residual urine
that will not be sent for analysis.
If the DCO’s specific gravity reading indicates that the Sample doesn’t have a
Suitable Specific Gravity for Analysis, then the DCO informs the Athlete that he/she
is required to provide a further Sample.
The DCO continues to collect additional Samples until the requirement for Suitable
Specific Gravity for Analysis is met, or until the DCO determines that there are
exceptional circumstances, i.e. for logistical reasons it’s impossible to continue with
the Sample Collection Session.
The Athlete’s responsible for providing a Sample with a Suitable Specific Gravity for
Analysis.
If his/her first Sample is too dilute, he/she doesn’t need further hydration and is to
avoid drinking until a Sample with a Suitable Specific Gravity for Analysis is
provided.
The DCO is to wait as long as necessary to collect such a Sample. The Testing
Authority may specify procedures to be followed by the DCO to determine if
exceptional circumstances exist that make it impossible to continue with the
Sample Collection Session.
While waiting to provide an a further Sample, the Athlete remains under continuous
observation by a DCO/Chaperone.
The Athlete is advised not to hydrate excessively, as this may delay the production
of a suitable Sample. In appropriate circumstances, excessive hydration may be
pursued as a violation of Code Article 2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with
any part of Doping Control.
When the Athlete can provide an additional Sample, the DCO repeats the
procedures for Sample collection, with the provision of additional Samples
observed by the same Witness as for the first, if possible. The Witness signs the
relevant documentation to verify that he/she witnessed Sample provision in
accordance with ISTI procedures. (Guidelines Sections 7.2).
The DCO records that the Samples collected belong to a single Athlete and the
order in which the Samples were provided. In conjuction with the Testing Authority,
the Laboratory determines which Samples shall be analyzed.
The DCO sends all Samples collected to the Laboratory for analysis, irrespective of
whether or not the Samples meet the requirement for Suitable Specific Gravity for
Analysis.
The DCO may end the Sample Collection Session if:
a. None of the Samples collected from the Athlete meet the requirement for
Suitable Specific Gravity for Analysis; and
b. The DCO determines that for logistical reasons it is impossible to continue.


If Diaz testing was performed by USADA an official Wada signatory that adheres to the ISTI UNLIKE NSACA then.......

1. The dco would not have accepted a dillute sample - and waited until specific gravity was met.

2. If no suitable specific gravity was met - Diaz would've been found in violation of tampering

It's simple. This is why WADA invested in the ABP system - to issue legally issue doping violations without finding any dope.

This is why IV for rehydration is banned.


The end.

[Shape up]

WHEN IS A TUE NOT REQUIRED FOR AN IV INFUSION?

If the athlete has an acute medical condition where an IV line was essential for treatment in a hospital admission, surgical procedure, or clinical investigation. Examples would be a severely dehydrated athlete with signs of circulatory compromise, the need for an IV line during a surgical procedure, and IV line in the antibiotic treatment of an acute infection, etc…
Clinical investigations to diagnosis medical conditions, such a medical imaging, may also require IV administration of non-prohibited medicine which is permitted.
In emergency circumstances, IVs may also be given by paramedical staff or physicians on the field of play, but an emergency TUE application is required as soon as reasonably possible after treatment has been received. Examples may include a semi- or unconscious athlete, an athlete who cannot tolerate oral fluids, or treatment of an acute injury.
IV infusions during home visits, urgent care or after-hours clinics, boutique IV and rehydration services, and doctor’s office visits are not hospital admissions and would require an approved TUE in advance.
What does this say NOBJOCKEY, does this say in advance, if they didn't mean " in advance", they wouldn't write it, BUT THEY DID WRITE IT, you need to do better ****LIPS, keep looking sac licker