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

[ADP02]

So you now admit that the ISTUE is relevant?


But to reconcile admitting that you were wrong, you speculate that USADA was paid off?

Here's a question: If USADA was paid off to protect Floyd,

1. Why would he need an IV when they could tell him when the tests were coming and ensure that he has cycled through his PED's before any tests.

2. Why would they reveal his IV use to anyone? If they are so well paid off, they should keep their mouths shut, tell the labs that any finding of an IV is normal, and keep it moving.

3. Why would he have to apply for a TUE? I'm sure that for a hefty fee, they would work with him so that he would not create a paper trail of this alleged deceit. He would not have to involve 3 or more doctors on the TUEC in the process, as well as WADA.

What exactly did he pay for if he paid an extravagant amount to USADA, yet they couldn't hide any of his activity. In fact, because of the TUE, they even had to upload all of the information on a database and open it up to review by WADA. Does this make sense to you? A smart businessman paying for...absolutely nothing....EXCEPT DRUG TESTING.

Just like Lance Armstrong still had to go threw the process of getting tested and so on even though they were paying off the right people such as the UCI!!!

So now that we gave you a good example, you can now just say that you are WROOONG!!!!

Its possible for Floyd to have gotten a huge favor and that is why he got a RETRO TUE 3 weeks after the fight. That is a mighty rare thing for someone who was just fine at the weigh in and drank quite a bit of water!!!

Man you Floyd fans just talk nonsense!!!

LMAO. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN IDIOTIC ARGUMENT AND IT STILL IS! FOR SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS TO DISLIKE SPECULATION, YOU SURE DO A LOT OF IT!

Look. Proving that one organization could be paid off does not prove that another organization WAS paid off. That's ****ing dumb. Furthermore, if you want to speculate, I can speculate with a bit more common sense than you and say that USADA was not paid off BECAUSE USADA WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE LANCE ARMSTRONG DOPING SCANDAL AND NOT ONLY WERE THEY NOT PAID OFF, THEY WENT AFTER HIM AND ALSO SHED LIGHT ON THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE UCI WAS PAID OFF.

That's why it's ****ing ****** to keep bringing up Lance Armstrong. Don't you agree? This is ****ing common sense.

More deflections.

Go read what you said in that post. You make it seem like its not possible. Well sorry to burst your bubble but it is possible and I showed you a very good example of that!

[Shape up]

How does money change things in this particular case?

1. NSAC has a well documented history of allowing visibly severely dehydrated fighters at the weigh in compete.

2. NSAC has a well documented history of allowing fighters to rehydrate via after weigh in.

3. NSAC own rules do not require a TUE or to be informed of IV use.


If anything this quote proves how much influence the media has:

1. Bob Bennet was influenced by the reaction to Thomas Hauser fictional editorial/questionnaire victor Conte/VADA propaganda "can boxing trust USADA".

2. Bob Bennet was unaware of WADA policies for signatories and that USADA MUST adhere to them in addition to NSAC rules.

3. NSAC was informed of the approved TUE by USADA in MAY - became PUBLIC knowledge when reported by KEVIN IOLE - yet Bob Bennett quote was in Sept after the the media hoopla and seemed to be shocked.




Bob Bennet got caught up, like we all did by Conte/hauser, and apologized to Floyd publicly - like he should've for anyone.

Are you asking about Bob Bennett? The same Bob Bennett that said this:

Yep, what was his 1st comment about the situation numbnuts

[travestyny]

Wait a second!

While I'm happy that you put some thought into this but lets start with what Diaz's team said and you agreed.

TEST #2 to TEST #3
Diaz's team: "no medically plausible reason to have such a difference. severe water intoxication to drop if tried to drop so fast."

Diaz's lawyer: "can it be due to rehydrating that much? IS a swing that large medically plausible?

Diaz's MRO: "it would require massive consumption of fluids. We are talking in the order of several liters in a very short period of time. That has an affect on our body and causes hyponatremia. The sodium level drops too much or an electrolyte imbalance. Basically if not properly corrected it can lead to serious medical condition such as headaches, .....

If its from hydration alone its not medically plausible."


Too many "IFs" by this crack staff team.
They formulated this pathetic response and you agreed with it not being possible. THAT IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO ANSWER!!! GO!!!!

What would you like me to answer? I don't see a question.

You are very confused. He clearly says Diaz would have been afflicted with hyponatremia if he had done what they were claiming, and if that hyponatremia goes untreated, he would have serious consequences. I don't see what the issue is with this statement.

Second statement, he is saying it's not from rehydration because, as he said over and over, that would be medically implausible being that he would be afflicted with hyponatremia?

So where is the question? You ducked everything I wrote just for that?

[travestyny]

More deflections.

Go read what you said in that post. You make it seem like its not possible. Well sorry to burst your bubble but it is possible and I showed you a very good example of that!

You are being ******ed. Your whole argument is that because one organization a long time ago was paid off, another organization was indeed paid off.

That's like saying VADA is paid off because the UCI was once upon a time paid off.

Where is the logic in that?

[travestyny]

Yep, what was his 1st comment about the situation numbnuts

So you need to go back to his first statement? Look, everyone knows they said they were the only one who can give a TUE.

We've already pointed out to you that THERE IS NO RULE AGAINST IV'S IN THEIR RULE BOOK.

Also pointed out that he should have known USADA can grant tue's consistent with the WADA protocol.

Also pointed out that EVEN THE PERSON YOU ARE QUOTING SAID MAYWEATHER DID NOTHING WRONG.

You are all over the place. One minute the ISTUE is irrelevant, then it's wrong because NSAC said so. Now that you know NSAC said he did nothing wrong, what will be your next excuse?

[Shape up]

Yep, a complete 180 to what he said in his first statement, how much money do you think it cost for that turn around?

[travestyny]

More deflections.

Go read what you said in that post. You make it seem like its not possible. Well sorry to burst your bubble but it is possible and I showed you a very good example of that!

Better yet, a good example is:

Since you claim those at least 3 independent doctors in the TUEC were paid off, does that mean Manny's world famous doctor was paid off too? Please let me know.

The relationship between WADA and USADA is set up in a way so that these crooked interactions are not likely to happen. USADA first would have to take money, then convince the at least 3 doctors on the TUEC to also be a part of the issue. They would then have to pray that WADA doesn't review the paperwork that the TUEC approved of. So was WADA paid off too, or was USADA just ****** enough to submit all of the evidence that the TUEC approved of and hope WADA would stay ignorant to it.

Furthermore....THE URINE TEST CAME BACK NEGATIVE. And as we both should know by now because of your failure to prove anything about the specific gravity test, THE URINE WAS NOT DILUTED ACCORDING TO THE WADA PROTOCOL.

IV infusions before sample collection could actually prolong the doping control sample process because it has a greater potential to produce multiple dilute samples.

http://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/General-Information-on-IV-Infusions.pdf

You are left with nothing. Or will you say now that the WADA lab was also paid off?

[travestyny]

Yep, a complete 180 to what he said in his first statement, how much money do you think it cost for that turn around?

So to tidy up your failings, now the NSAC was paid off. LMAO


Anyone else you want to throw into Floyd's pocket, or are you ready to accept that you are nothing but a butthurt PacRoach who can't deal with the fact that he lost.

How did the urine come back negative if he was doping? Keep in mind, the labs test for dilution. So what do you think?

[Shape up]

Well I can't throw you in there, you do your favours for free

[travestyny]

Well I can't throw you in there, you do your favours for free

Sure. I give you knowledge for free. But you didn't answer the question.


If the urine was not diluted according to both the DCO and according to the laboratory, and the urine sample comes back negative, how do you think he is positive for PED's?

Let me know, bro.