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

[travestyny]

lets see then ******, was floyd admitted to hospital--- NO the IV was performed in his house, FAILED 1ST CRITERIA -------was he having a surgical procedure---NO, WHAT DOCTOR OPERATES IN A LOUNGEROOM AND IF HE WAS BEING OPERATED ON WHY WASNT THE NSAC NOTIFIED, FAILED 2ND CRITERIA, was he in a clinical investigation--- NO, IF HE WAS HED ALREADY HAVE A PRIOR TUE, FAILED 3RD AND LAST CRITERIA, ok ****head explain this, only explaination is that floyd is cosy with usada, you must be jealous of usada eh ****head

Do you know what without a TUE means?

Do you know that a retroactive TUE is a standard part of WADA's protocol!?

Destroyed you in two sentences. Now shut the **** up, bltch.

[Shape up]

Tampering or attempting to tamper with a collected sample in order to affect its integrity or validity is prohibited. This includes providing synthetic urine or urine that is not the athlete’s own, or any modification of the urine sample, such as addition of proteases.

Intravenous infusions and intravenous injections of any substance containing more than 50 milliliters given in less than a six-hour period are prohibited, unless it is administered legitimately during the course of hospital admissions, surgical procedures, or clinical investigations.



Advisory:

Even if the substance delivered by intravenous infusion is permitted (e.g., iron), the method is prohibited if given outside of a hospital/surgery/ admission/surgery/clinical investigation because it is diluted in more than 50 milliliters of fluid. Intravenous injections of less than 50mL are only prohibited if the substance is included on the prohibited list. ---------------- do you know what " not allowed " means ****head, smashed you like the slug you are nobjockey

[Shape up]

Some reports suggest that administration of IV infusions, including dietary supplement and vitamin ****tails, are being provided to athletes for recuperation, recovery or lifestyle reasons. This medical practice is prohibited at all times without prior TUE approval. WADA has justified the inclusion of IV infusions on the Prohibited List given the intent of some athletes to manipulate their plasma volume levels in order to mask the use of a prohibited substance and/or to distort the values in the Athlete Biological Passport. Further, it must be clearly stated that the use of IV fluid replacement following exercise to correct mild rehydration or help speed recovery 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. Legitimate medical indications for IV infusions are well documented and are most commonly associated with medical emergencies (emergency TUE), in-patient care, surgery, or clinical investigations for diagnostic purposes.----------- notice how this statement says PRIOR and doesn't mention anything about a retroactive TUE, nobjockey

[ADP02]

Once again, the expert witness is a MEDICAL REVIEW OFFICER and a physician. IT IS HIS JOB TO REVIEW DRUG TESTS IN THESE SITUATIONS. He has been doing that job for 20 years! He is testifying under oath (though this isn't a court of law, but he was sworn in). Furthermore, what he says makes sense when looking at the study that YOU brought up. He testified that the amount needed to do what you are claiming would be exorbitant...around 30 glasses of water. When the "judges" (commissioners) cross examined, seemingly angry (do you really want to discuss who was biased at this proceeding?) the only thing they tried to pin him on was a roundabout amount of water that Diaz would have to drink, and he refused to give an answer because he didn't want to be held to an exact amount. He would only say, over and over again, that it would be medically implausible.



Again, this has nothing to do with anything other than the NSAC would do what it wanted despite any testimony. The commissioners who acted as judges and called the attorney arguing on their side (yes, their side clearly....which is outrageous) by his first name repeatedly. Calling the witnesses that testified on their side by first name. This proceeding was a joke.



Wow. Just wow. First of all, yes, the fight ended an hour before the first sample was given. As I stated, I don't know how much more time after that Diaz stayed in the octatgon. I know he did stay for a little while longer to congratulate Silva and what not. Let's say he stayed 5 minutes. Then, you have the DCO for NSAC saying that he delayed because he had difficulty peeing. Let's say he delayed 15 minutes. So he had 40 minutes to drink tons of water before the first post fight test. He drank, and he drank and he drank...and you think his urine sample still comes back slightly dehydrated, as QUEST testified? IMPOSSIBLE! But conveniently for you, you speculate that it does, and that water only begins to effect him after this sample is given. So then he goes back to drinking and drinking and drinking, right in front of the SMRTL DCO. He drank so much water to drop his levels from 733ng to 61ng. Yet, when the specific gravity test is taken, it reports 1.009, which is not diluted by WADA or QUEST standards.

As you can see, YOUR SPECULATION MAKES NO SENSE. Either he began drinking as early as possible, which is caught on the first post-fight test. Or he began drinking much later, and clearly would not have enough time to drink that much water without risking water intoxication, falling into a coma, and dying. He was videotaped during an interview after this time and was found to have no signs of hyponatremia.

AND YOU ALSO GO THERE AND SPECULATE THAT HE COULD HAVE HAD AN IV WAITING FOR HIM IN THE BACK OF THE VENUE???? UNBELIEVABLE! YOU HAVE NOW REACHED THE POINT OF EMBARRASSING YOURSELF!



2 WADA lab tests showed him under the limit. 1 non-WADA lab showed him far over. That is the issue. We don't need to discuss what his coach said or what his mom said, or his brother Nate.



Oh, the woman who wanted a lifetime ban? The one who made him say "I plead the 5th" about over 20 times? The one who said:

"Quest does a rudimentary type of testing which is less refined than SMRTL."

I've clearly done more research on this topic than you have. What she is trying to skew about the methods to fit her agenda is that Quest does an EMIT test first, and if the sample fails this test, they then go to the GC/MS test.

WADA labs go straight to the GC/MS test. Now you explain to me, looking at the below information, why this would mean the WADA lab is less sophisticated.

The GC/MS is typically used to confirm "positive" EMIT test results. GC/MS will indicate precisely what chemical is present. This is necessary because the EMIT will only indicate whether something similar to what's being tested was found. The GC/MS is difficult and more costly, which is why the EMIT is given first. Abstinence and substitution are the only ways to defeat the GC/MS test. GC/MS is very precise when done right. However, it's still subject to human error. For example, if the equipment isn't cleaned well, the previous test sample could get mixed with the next sample.
http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/testing2.html#b

Now, which lab was more likely to have dirty GC/MS equipment? The WADA accredited lab that gave 2 tests and got similar results, or the Quest lab that gave a single test that was out in left field, and also had Nick Diaz name, and also can not be sure of the integrity of the sample based upon the DCO acting on their part ****ing up the chain of custody? You tell me.



Oh, you must know. I thought you don't like speculation. Problem is, the facts don't fit your agenda.

Man you are all over the place.

1) Are you saying that at TEST 2 the urine sample should have been fully diluted? Not slightly dehydrated? What are you saying?

2) Studies are controlled. Diaz was not in that type of setup. You have no idea what he did. You just got fooled by whatever Diaz's subjective "expert" had to say. He said impossible. I gave you several ways that make it possible! Sorry.

3) I keep on reading The SMRTL tests produced specific gravity readings of 1.003 and 1.006. So I'm not sure where you are getting 1.009 from.

4) Again, you have no idea what DIAZ did. It could have very well be a combination of things. Furthermore, it could have been a drink with lots of electrolytes so that the risk would be minimized. Diaz has done it before so he would know what he was doing. I understand the "expert" trying to give a subjective point of view so that Diaz wins his case but why are you going along with that? Again, Diaz is an admitted user and continues to state that he uses.

IV: If Floyd would not have said that he used an IV and I would have brought it up as a possibility how would your statement sound? Same with Lance Armstrong and many others. Diaz said that he tries to dilute his urine samples so that he does not get detected. The WADA LAB reported that Diaz's urine samples were diluted and one of them surpassed the threshold. You think its just a coincidence?

You have a mighty steep hill to climb and you are running around in circles!

[travestyny]

Man you are all over the place.

1) Are you saying that at TEST 2 the urine sample should have been fully diluted? Not slightly dehydrated? What are you saying?

2) Studies are controlled. Diaz was not in that type of setup. You have no idea what he did. You just got fooled by whatever Diaz's subjective "expert" had to say. He said impossible. I gave you several ways that make it possible! Sorry.

3) I keep on reading The SMRTL tests produced specific gravity readings of 1.003 and 1.006. So I'm not sure where you are getting 1.009 from.

4) Again, you have no idea what DIAZ did. It could have very well be a combination of things. Furthermore, it could have been a drink with lots of electrolytes so that the risk would be minimized. Diaz has done it before so he would know what he was doing. I understand the "expert" trying to give a subjective point of view so that Diaz wins his case but why are you going along with that? Again, Diaz is an admitted user and continues to state that he uses.

IV: If Floyd would not have said that he used an IV and I would have brought it up as a possibility how would your statement sound? Same with Lance Armstrong and many others. Diaz said that he tries to dilute his urine samples so that he does not get detected. The WADA LAB reported that Diaz's urine samples were diluted and one of them surpassed the threshold. You think its just a coincidence?

You have a mighty steep hill to climb and you are running around in circles!

Give up. You have not proven one single thing. You've been embarrassed, as usual. I'm really tired of kicking you around over these issues.

Your speculation is trash. You claim he diluted to that extent, but he was dehydrated for the first post fight test. That's idiotic.

Second you believe anything Manny's cheating doctor said not under oath, but won't believe this doctor under oath who had NO RELATIONSHIP with Diaz. Hypocrit.

Third, you don't even know what the right values are. It wasn't 1.006. It was 1.009. Maybe if you did some proper research you would know that.

My offer stands. I'll gladly debate this with you in a new thread with a poll. You'all get embarrassed. The study that you yourself quoted even kicked you in the ass. Everything you said is illogical, and you don't even know the values that are relevant. Your whole argument is a joke and I'm very willing to stomp you out in another poll over this. Will you find your balls or what? If not, maybe it's time for you to shut the **** up and realize you don't know shlt.

Sorry for the tone of this message, but it's annoying when you are clearly beaten to a pulp over this issue and still pretend you've said anything relevant. You haven't. Point blank period.

[travestyny]

Tampering or attempting to tamper with a collected sample in order to affect its integrity or validity is prohibited. This includes providing synthetic urine or urine that is not the athlete’s own, or any modification of the urine sample, such as addition of proteases.

Intravenous infusions and intravenous injections of any substance containing more than 50 milliliters given in less than a six-hour period are prohibited, unless it is administered legitimately during the course of hospital admissions, surgical procedures, or clinical investigations.



Advisory:

Even if the substance delivered by intravenous infusion is permitted (e.g., iron), the method is prohibited if given outside of a hospital/surgery/ admission/surgery/clinical investigation because it is diluted in more than 50 milliliters of fluid. Intravenous injections of less than 50mL are only prohibited if the substance is included on the prohibited list. ---------------- do you know what " not allowed " means ****head, smashed you like the slug you are nobjockey

As many times as other posters and I have showed you proof that none of this matters with a TUE, you have the nerve to keep posting the same ****?

You are a waste of bone marrow.

[travestyny]

notice how this statement says PRIOR and doesn't mention anything about a retroactive TUE, nobjockey

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.
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/usada-defends-its-action-over-mayweather-iv-tue/

R.I.P. BlTCH

[Shape up]

You really are illiterate, it clearly states that even if the solution is permissible, the method is prohibited outside of hospital, surgury, I have ****ted smarter crap than what you are nobjockey

[Shape up]

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, 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.”------------- under WADA they would monitor it yet they couldn't , very very suspect

[ADP02]

Give up. You have not proven one single thing. You've been embarrassed, as usual. I'm really tired of kicking you around over these issues.

Your speculation is trash. You claim he diluted to that extent, but he was dehydrated for the first post fight test. That's idiotic.

Second you believe anything Manny's cheating doctor said not under oath, but won't believe this doctor under oath who had NO RELATIONSHIP with Diaz. Hypocrit.

Third, you don't even know what the right values are. It wasn't 1.006. It was 1.009. Maybe if you did some proper research you would know that.

My offer stands. I'll gladly debate this with you in a new thread with a poll. You'all get embarrassed. The study that you yourself quoted even kicked you in the ass. Everything you said is illogical, and you don't even know the values that are relevant. Your whole argument is a joke and I'm very willing to stomp you out in another poll over this. Will you find your balls or what? If not, maybe it's time for you to shut the **** up and realize you don't know shlt.

Sorry for the tone of this message, but it's annoying when you are clearly beaten to a pulp over this issue and still pretend you've said anything relevant. You haven't. Point blank period.

Are you serious?

You answered maybe one question. Please provide the link. As I actually like that its 1.009 Go back and answer .... or were you just trying to spin your way out of this?


Sorry but its YOU that has not provided anything to counter the ruling. An admitted user gets caught cheating.

Expert under oath: You just do not get it. Sad stuff.
All you have is an "expert" defense witness. Go watch some cases. They always have at least 1 expert witness per side. Not that its not truthful .... They usually present evidence to support their side. I gave you an example of what I saw on 48 hours last night. That "expert" got trapped when cross examined and had to say the truth. BOOM!

Question to the "expert": You say its not possible but do you mean its not possible using the numbers and example that you stated or impossible using all avenues possible when it comes to trying to dilute the urine sample?"

Expert Witness: Drrrr .... can I do like Diaz and take the 5th?


Man, just admit that you are WROOOOOONG!!!






.