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

[Dosumpthin]

NAC 467.885  Grounds for disciplinary action. (NRS 467.030)  The Commission may suspend or revoke the license of, otherwise discipline or take any combination of such actions against a licensee who has, in the judgment of the Commission:

.....

3.  Provided false or misleading information to the Commission or a representative of the Commission;

......

7.  Had personal knowledge that an unarmed combatant suffered a serious injury during training for a contest or exhibition and failed or refused to inform the Commission about that serious injury.
[Athletic Comm’n, § 152, eff. 4-25-78]—(NAC A 12-2-97; R083-00, 9-22-2000; R090-07, 12-4-2007)


If Manny had a "serious injury" why didn't NSAC sanction Manny after they performed an investigation?

It was serious enough to use as an "alibi" i mean excuse why he lost.

Serious enough to require torry doll.

Yet no penalties for manny?



Why is that?

[ADP02]

Wrong. I just showed you a specialist stated it is medically impossible for him to have diluted the sample in that period of time.

Go do some research and find out how many people railed NSAC over what happened and their kangaroo court. ,

You will find that what happened was due to a woman named Pat Lundvall who was on Diaz' ass because of him bragging that he could cheat tests. She obviously wanted him bad which is why there were 3 tests, 2 different labs, and a desire for a lifetime ban. Sorry, you failed again to link any of your bs to Floyd. Keep trying.

[COLOR="darkred"]Let's see what USADA and NSAC had to say about this[/COLOR]:


NSAC: Flat out not allowed without proof of an injury.


Your whole argument is centered on Pacquiao (CHANGE NAME TO DIAZ) being allowed to break NSAC's rules. That's pretty ****ing dumb. Stop crying, Z0MBIE boy. It's over.

[B]Nevada Athletic Commission executive director Bob Bennett said ......

There's nothing you can change about this being a NSAC issue, and it being against their rules.

Funny how you call NSAC a "kangaroo court" when they go against your point but then you go on to make other points by stating what NSAC said just to say that they must be right because its the NSAC that is saying it. . In other words, you are kinda saying, the NSAC have the final word no matter what you say, so too bad so sad. Its time you take some of that medicine!



Well, in the Diaz's case there were 2 point of views. Naturally Diaz's experts will give points to support Diaz not NSAC but as I pointed out, the other 2 urine samples had a negative result because they were just too diluted. The NSAC brought this up and makes lots of sense.



Diaz tried to dilute his urine samples which in itself is against the rules!!! So that is already 2 strikes(2 samples diluted) but then they caught Diaz with a positive test.

Sorry but if Diaz's experts would be on the NSAC they would be laughing their heads off and you know it! This is an open and shut case. Even Diaz admits to using and said that he believed that he was below the threshold not that he doesn't use! That in itself is incriminating!



Plus Diaz has been busted on another couple of occasions and I should you that Diaz even wanted to delayed getting tested recently with USADA. Another violation!



Back to Diaz's "expert" witness:
The word "impossible" does not fly with me. Like I said, if he was on NSAC's side, he would be talking differently.
How?
- Well, lets say that Diaz managed to have taken something to increase his levels of creatinine? Ooops!

- Impossible?
Diaz knew the test was coming up sooner or later. Right? So he must have started his routine of diluting before giving any samples after his match. So using the "experts" own words, it was not able to dilute sample #2 in time but certainly was effective for sample #3! Ooops!

- Impossible? Well that word means that there is no way in hell that it can be done. Right? Well, I just pointed out 2 possible ways. Can I think of other possibilities? Sure. Go ask Floyd Mayweather and Lance Armstrong who have used an IV to get the substance into the body at a much quicker rate.

So I came up with 3 possibilities to counter the so called "expert". I'm sure drug cheat experts can come up with other protocols.


Again, we are not talking about a saint when it comes to the substance that he tested positive for. So you have a tall hill to climb.




.

[ADP02]

NAC 467.885  Grounds for disciplinary action. (NRS 467.030)  The Commission may suspend or revoke the license of, otherwise discipline or take any combination of such actions against a licensee who has, in the judgment of the Commission:

.....

3.  Provided false or misleading information to the Commission or a representative of the Commission;

......

7.  Had personal knowledge that an unarmed combatant suffered a serious injury during training for a contest or exhibition and failed or refused to inform the Commission about that serious injury.
[Athletic Comm’n, § 152, eff. 4-25-78]—(NAC A 12-2-97; R083-00, 9-22-2000; R090-07, 12-4-2007)


If Manny had a "serious injury" why didn't NSAC sanction Manny after they performed an investigation?

It was serious enough to use as an "alibi" i mean excuse why he lost.

Serious enough to require torry doll.

Yet no penalties for manny?



Why is that?

Many reasons why but I will start with the most obvious one.

The NSAC was going to investigate and had the ball rolling.

Then the NSAC found out about this:
Floyd had a so called serious medical condition and had to report that to the NSAC prior to the start of the fight. The NEVADA SAC found out about this so called serious medical condition 3 weeks AFTER the fight.


So to let the Nevada athlete (Floyd) off the hook, the NEVADA SAC did this:
All investigations were halted on the spot!



.

[Zaroku]

Pac is a liar, a cheat & a crack head. Shabu!

I hope ADPO2 doesn't smoke Shabu with his God manny in the Philippines.

Marquez & Floyd are cheats too in my book. Just a gut feeling.

But, in the ring, Ployd beat PAC, and in the 4th fight, JMM destroyed the myth of the Manny.

[Zaroku]

Funny how you call NSAC a "kangaroo court" when they go against your point but then you go on to make other points by stating what NSAC said just to say that they must be right because its the NSAC that is saying it. . In other words, you are kinda saying, the NSAC have the final word no matter what you say, so too bad so sad. Its time you take some of that medicine!



Well, in the Diaz's case there were 2 point of views. Naturally Diaz's experts will give points to support Diaz not NSAC but as I pointed out, the other 2 urine samples had a negative result because they were just too diluted. The NSAC brought this up and makes lots of sense.



Diaz tried to dilute his urine samples which in itself is against the rules!!! So that is already 2 strikes(2 samples diluted) but then they caught Diaz with a positive test.

Sorry but if Diaz's experts would be on the NSAC they would be laughing their heads off and you know it! This is an open and shut case. Even Diaz admits to using and said that he believed that he was below the threshold not that he doesn't use! That in itself is incriminating!



Plus Diaz has been busted on another couple of occasions and I should you that Diaz even wanted to delayed getting tested recently with USADA. Another violation!



Back to Diaz's "expert" witness:
The word "impossible" does not fly with me. Like I said, if he was on NSAC's side, he would be talking differently.
How?
- Well, lets say that Diaz managed to have taken something to increase his levels of creatinine? Ooops!

- Impossible?
Diaz knew the test was coming up sooner or later. Right? So he must have started his routine of diluting before giving any samples after his match. So using the "experts" own words, it was not able to dilute sample #2 in time but certainly was effective for sample #3! Ooops!

- Impossible? Well that word means that there is no way in hell that it can be done. Right? Well, I just pointed out 2 possible ways. Can I think of other possibilities? Sure. Go ask Floyd Mayweather and Lance Armstrong who have used an IV to get the substance into the body at a much quicker rate.

So I came up with 3 possibilities to counter the so called "expert". I'm sure drug cheat experts can come up with other protocols.


Again, we are not talking about a saint when it comes to the substance that he tested positive for. So you have a tall hill to climb.




.

I just jump in from time to time to **** on t@rds & Floyd fanatics. Unlike you, it doesn't matter at all. Respect your passion, but not your cause.

[Shape up]

NAC 467.885  Grounds for disciplinary action. (NRS 467.030)  The Commission may suspend or revoke the license of, otherwise discipline or take any combination of such actions against a licensee who has, in the judgment of the Commission:

.....

3.  Provided false or misleading information to the Commission or a representative of the Commission;

......

7.  Had personal knowledge that an unarmed combatant suffered a serious injury during training for a contest or exhibition and failed or refused to inform the Commission about that serious injury.
[Athletic Comm’n, § 152, eff. 4-25-78]—(NAC A 12-2-97; R083-00, 9-22-2000; R090-07, 12-4-2007)


If Manny had a "serious injury" why didn't NSAC sanction Manny after they performed an investigation?

It was serious enough to use as an "alibi" i mean excuse why he lost.

Serious enough to require torry doll.

Yet no penalties for manny?



Why is that?

Why is it floyd didn't disclose his dehydration as that is a much more dangerous condition than an injured shoulder, I mean if he needed an IV then according to the rules it must have been an emergency so why no penalty for floyd

[travestyny]

Funny how you call NSAC a "kangaroo court" when they go against your point but then you go on to make other points by stating what NSAC said just to say that they must be right because its the NSAC that is saying it. . In other words, you are kinda saying, the NSAC have the final word no matter what you say, so too bad so sad. Its time you take some of that medicine!



Well, in the Diaz's case there were 2 point of views. Naturally Diaz's experts will give points to support Diaz not NSAC but as I pointed out, the other 2 urine samples had a negative result because they were just too diluted. The NSAC brought this up and makes lots of sense.



Diaz tried to dilute his urine samples which in itself is against the rules!!! So that is already 2 strikes(2 samples diluted) but then they caught Diaz with a positive test.

Sorry but if Diaz's experts would be on the NSAC they would be laughing their heads off and you know it! This is an open and shut case. Even Diaz admits to using and said that he believed that he was below the threshold not that he doesn't use! That in itself is incriminating!



Plus Diaz has been busted on another couple of occasions and I should you that Diaz even wanted to delayed getting tested recently with USADA. Another violation!



Back to Diaz's "expert" witness:
The word "impossible" does not fly with me. Like I said, if he was on NSAC's side, he would be talking differently.
How?
- Well, lets say that Diaz managed to have taken something to increase his levels of creatinine? Ooops!

- Impossible?
Diaz knew the test was coming up sooner or later. Right? So he must have started his routine of diluting before giving any samples after his match. So using the "experts" own words, it was not able to dilute sample #2 in time but certainly was effective for sample #3! Ooops!

- Impossible? Well that word means that there is no way in hell that it can be done. Right? Well, I just pointed out 2 possible ways. Can I think of other possibilities? Sure. Go ask Floyd Mayweather and Lance Armstrong who have used an IV to get the substance into the body at a much quicker rate.

So I came up with 3 possibilities to counter the so called "expert". I'm sure drug cheat experts can come up with other protocols.


Again, we are not talking about a saint when it comes to the substance that he tested positive for. So you have a tall hill to climb.




.

Actually he didn't say impossible. He said MEDICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

And if you can't see any difference between me quoting NSAC's rules and the way they treated Diaz, who passed two tests, you have some issues.

But...here is your chance. I challenged you to do this before, but you punked out. Lets see if you are up for it.

Post a thread criticizing the WADA accredited lab and the specific gravity test in favor of the Quest lab. I'll participate. Add a poll and let's see how much of NSB agrees with you.

What do you think? I'm down. Let's see if you will stand up for what you are saying here.

[travestyny]

I'll take "Things delusional Filipinos tell themselves" for $1000, Alex!

****ing hysterical!!!!!! I nearly busted a gut laughing at this!

[Dosumpthin]

Why is it floyd didn't disclose his dehydration as that is a much more dangerous condition than an injured shoulder, I mean if he needed an IV then according to the rules it must have been an emergency so why no penalty for floyd

1. NSAC doesn't ban IV use.

2. Floyd enetered the fight in his natural state.

3. Floyd may have been suffering from diarrhea (later officially diagnosed as irritable bowel syndrome) - that's not serious.

4. IRB syndrome would make rhydration by IV the PREFERRED choice. USADA/WADA rules agree.


5. You lose pact@rd. Your hero failed you. May 2nd ruined your life.

[Dosumpthin]

Many reasons why but I will start with the most obvious one.

The NSAC was going to investigate and had the ball rolling.

Then the NSAC found out about this:
Floyd had a so called serious medical condition and had to report that to the NSAC prior to the start of the fight. The NEVADA SAC found out about this so called serious medical condition 3 weeks AFTER the fight.


So to let the Nevada athlete (Floyd) off the hook, the NEVADA SAC did this:
All investigations were halted on the spot!



.

I'm having a hard time verifying these facts you've provided.

Can you provide sources that would substantiate your claims?

I am also waiting for the name of an athlete(s) where they provided a prior sample before using an IV - and USADA found them to be in violation.


Thanks.