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

[Dosumpthin]

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!!!

Well well well. What do we have here?

A NEW ADP02?????

What happened to all the masking ped talk like lance Armstrong???? This big conspiracy that Floyd was cheating?



Now your claim is Floyd received a fuvking favor????

That's what you're mad about? A favor for a retro tue?

Just admit it - now that facts have surfaced you have backed off your original stance on Floyd's IV use.


A NEW ADP02.



Now let's revisit what I told the OLD ADP02 months ago about the ISTUE retro TUES:

c. It is agreed, by WADA 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.

Do you have a better understanding now?

Emergency, acute vs chronic, at home, 30 day weight, severe mild, yellow brown - none of it matters.

Fairness. It is agreed by USADA AND WADA that it is fair to allow a retro tue application.


Now the facts the TUEC AND WADA would've reasoned to grant the retro TUE:

1. Prior sample given before the IV
2. Samples kept for 10 years
3. Performed by a paramedic
4. EXTENSIVE ABP from 50+ test (more than most athelete)
5. All samples CIR tested since Mosley fight
6. No adverse analytic findings
7. No previous failed test
8. Access to medical records and history
9. Paid for more expensive full menu testing by WADA labs
10. Verified to be dehydrated
11. DCO obsevered and was present
12. Victor Conte founded VADA and is attempting to land the UFC contract by slandering USADA through Thomas Hauser WITH PROVEN LIES, RUMORS, sPECULATION AND SELF ADMITTED INCORRECT STATEMENTS.
13. samples met SPG requirments
14. NSAC doesn't ban IV
15. USADA was informed in advance and notified of intended use
16. And most im****atly - high profile atheletes that are subject to the expesive target testing can't avoid a doping violation with IV use.



Its all fair. And well within the rules.


A favor? Lol.


Pact@rds.

[ADP02]

You completely missed the point. There is a big difference in going from 53ng to 10 and 400ng to 50. The point is, if 1 liter of water dilutes 400ng to 50, how the **** did over 3 liters only dilute 53ng to 10? LMAOOO. You're a clown.



So 1 liter per hour couldn't get 53ng to 0, but it can get 400ng to 50? LMAOOOOO. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. How idiotic are you? And actually, dilution to 0 can be done. Go look at YOUR studies, foolio. LMAO. How many times am I gonna prove you wrong? Do some ****ing research. And my main point was never about dilution to zero. It was about diluting well over 300ng to 61ng, which you still haven't proven at all. Not one of your studies shows how it is done. SHOW IT and the amount of time it takes!

Man I gave you close to a week and you still are completely lost in this! lol

One is a study while one is producing possible outcome. By looking at studies, you should have realized by now that no 2 subjects are identical nor will they have the same results, most of the time, due to many variables!!! Not everyone who has 400 ng will go down to 50. Its not that simple!!! Same with 53 to 10.

Secondly, the study and the article are talking about 2 different things. The article is a overall theoretical representation of what can occur while the studies are a factual representation for the given subjects and study ONLY. Nobody is saying that all individuals will have the same result every time. Your are too funny!



I had already seen values of 0. Its your point that I was laughing about!

LMAOOOO. Boy, you are a real piece of ****.

1. Only one of us is ducking. Posters in the Dome straight up called you a pvssy and you didn't respond.

2. You are still going on about impossible when the doctor said implausible. That's because you're an idiot.

3. Podcast? LMAO. A referee? You're kidding me right? That's your evidence? LMAOOOOOOOO

4. Studies???? LMAOO. YOUR STUDIES HELP ME YOU CLOWN.

A. First study you showed had subjects drinking 1 gallon and going not diluting 53ng to zero. How the **** do you dilute well over 300ng to 61?

B. Your second study had two guys that went from around 230ng to something low, yet that is nowhere near WELL ABOUT 300NG and it had nothing to do with specific gravity because the specific gravity wasn't measured.

C. Your last "study" showed no subjects, had a graph that you claim started in the beginning somewhere and didn't tell how long it takes to get a person from 400ng to 50ng, you also claimed it showed the time to get from 400ng within passing range naturally which is WRONG. And the kicker. The study says 1.003specific gravity is what happens when you drink 1 liter of water, which if true proves that Nick Diaz DIDN'T EVEN DRINK 1 LITER OF WATER AFTER THE FIGHT! LMAOOOOO!

1. Didn't look or care.

2. You are the idiot because Diaz's side clearly tried to formulate a specific scenario but falls apart if we take into consideration the other variables including that his statement was inaccurate.

When all 3 witnesses were asked about trying to correlate the different results, they all gave similar responses: Final results can be dramatically different due to different specimens, LABS, protocols. 2 witnesses even used the word that you like to use "nearly impossible"


BADABOOOM!!!! So that just kills anything you have to say!!!

3. That guy knows his stuff compared to you. He is in the business and has knowledge and shared it with us. Its up to you to discredit that and all the studies and articles that I presented to you .... you know better, right? YOU ARE WROOOONG!

4. OK show me how its "IMPOSSIBLE" when many websites all say that there numeroous ways.

Easy question: Is Diaz's witness saying that NOTHING is possible or only his specific scenario that he invented? lol! too funny .... you are lost and do not even realize it ..... funny for me, sad for you!


a)
SUMMARY (May not be same order as you)
A) Ingestion of 1 gal of fluids (divided into 1-qt aliquots administered hourly) on days 2 and 4 produced highly dilute urine specimens with specific gravities < 1.0030 and creatinines < 20 mg/dL starting approximately 1.5 to 2.0 h following commencement of drinking. Marijuana and ******* concentrations dropped rapidly below cutoff concentrations during and following excessive drinking. By the time subjects had ingested 2 qt of fluid, they were generally producing specimens that tested negative for drug metabolites.



B) Your math is bad. That is just part of your problem.
These 2 went down a lot. 4x to over 8x and they were not even trying to dilute their urine. Imagine that!

SUBJECT G
Time 20.5 to 23.0 to 24.0
THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1 to 13.7
Creatinine 184 to 39 to 23
Volume 320 to 195 to 260

SUBJECT H
Time 6.0 to 9.5
THCCOOH 234.2 to 59.6
Creatinine 174 to 45
Volume 116 to 390


Many places say similar stuff but you do not believe:

C)"Rapid ingestion (90 minutes) of 2-4 quarts of fluid will almost always produce low creatinines & negative urine drug tests within one hour."

BOOOOOOOOM!


D) "Scientific water loading studies in which participants used specified amounts of ******* and marijuana determined that subjects consistently produced dilute urine specimens upon drinking
large volumes of water (2-4 quarts) and corresponding urinary drug concentrations declined below cut-off concentrations. Dilute urines—generally observed at 2 hours and persisted for up to 5 hours after liquid consumption."


E) "Drinking large volumes of just about any non-toxic water-based liquid will dilute urine. Drinking two or three 12-ounce glasses of water at the same time can produce 10-fold diluted urine within only half an hour and the dilution effect may last for hours.

In most cases, this will successfully lower the concentration of some drugs (mainly marijuana) in the urine enough to produce a negative test result."


F) "What is Dilution (Water Loading / Flushing)?

• Water loading / flushing is the rapid consumption of a copious volume of fluid.
– Rapidconsumption=90minutes
– Copiousvolume=2-4quarts(about2-4liters)
• Water loading increases the volume of water relative to the volume of detectable
drugs, creatinine, and other solids for a period"

G) "Beginning two- to three-hours before your test, drink 12 – 16 ounces of water every 15 minutes. Don’t glug---too much water can lead to water intoxication. A diuretic, like cranberry juice, herbal tea, or caffeine can also increase urine production."


H) "The urine specimens were then tested by EMIT II assay for cannabinoids at a 50 ng / ml cutoff, and ******* at a 300 ng / ml cutoff. Specific gravity and creatinine content was measured for each sample, and the two indicators were found to co-vary almost identically. Just drinking 12 ounces of water was enough to cause a significant decrease in both specific gravity and creatinine, but not enough to cause a negative test response. For example, urine cannabinoids levels which were higher than 10,000 ng / ml dropped to the low 100's after drinking 12 ounces of water. After drinking a gallon of water, with or without one of the "cleansing agents" added, it only took an hour for the specific gravity to drop to less than 1.005.


When one gallon of water was drunk, not only did specific gravity fall to very low levels (creatinine<20, and specific gravity <1.003), but the marijuana assay turned negative and stayed that
way, even after specific gravity levels had returned to normal! "


I) "The most common technique employed to "beat" a drug test is "water-laoding" - consuming copious amounts of fluid in a short period of time within 30 minutes of a urine collection to achieve a state of polyuria. The state of polyuria typically lasts from 1-4 hours, and during that time the urine may be diluted by a factor of 5-10 or more.."

No you didn't point out shlt. You're just a buthurt loser and that's why you won't show up. I've been kicking your ass about this topic all over this thread. I'm gonna keep doing it because it's fun owning you. I'm gonna keep calling you out in the Dome because you are too pvssy to show up. You're a disgrace. You can't even admit that you are wrong. You are still claiming that the doctor said it's impossible. Oh it's possible. I admit that. Even within the time he had, which is the main point of the doctor that you keep ducking. It's possible to dilute from Nick's level in the time that he was given...but Nick might be dead from it, and in the least would be in danger of dying. How's that for you, asswipe?

In your imaginary world? lol

Yet the quotes that I just posted above says you are WROOOONG! As explained in that podcast, Diaz's witness is WROOONG! You are just too dense to understand all this or hate being WROOONG!

Take your pick!

LMAO. So you are in agreement that Quest also tests diluted specimens at the request of NSAC. I wonder where else the ****ed up. Oh...that's right. When the DCO wrote Diaz' name on the sample and didn't complete the chain of custody correctly. Yea, that's right. I don't have to wonder. I know!

lol, just deflections and loop holes instead of wanting to know the truth. That is how I define you Travsetyny. The QUEST witness stated under oath that it was Diaz's urine. Who else could it have been. Diaz's twin? lol Too funny! Back on topic, what did SMRTL say about the dilute samples that they had sent to the lab? Oh right, they didn't testify to that issue of it not being part of the WAADA protocol! lol! So it stands!!! Too funny!

3 tests with similar results. One test in left field. You aren't too bright are you?

Only one lost is you. All 3 witnesses state that its quite impossible to correlate the different tests but you think its possible because you know better? lol!

BTW - You can knock off TEST #1 before the fight because that was definitely too dilute. Right? So are you saying that TEST #3 from SMRTL is like the bad TEST #1? lol

See there is no consistency yet YOU believed Diaz's story that 2 were consistent? lol Talk about a fool! I have lots of Gold and I got an "expert" that agrees with me. You want to buy some? I will give it to you cheap! My expert will include a certificate! lol

LMAOOOOOOOOOO. WOW. LOOK AT YOU. OH, BECAUSE HE SAID SO AND WAS UNDER OATH, IT MEANS SOMETHING TO YOU NOW? HOW ABOUT THE MRO? YOU COME JUST SHORT OF SAYING HE IS FLAT OUT LYING FOR DIAZ, YET YOU BELIEVE THAT BUMBLING IDIOT THAT ****ED UP IN HIS DUTY AS A DCO AND HAD NEXT TO NO TRAINING DOING THE JOB. LMAOOOOOOOO! YOU ARE A CLOWN!

You are just too lost. Sad ... just sad.

DCO responded clearly to the question was it Diaz's urine. There was no counter argument from Diaz's side including Diaz! lol Its just too easy!

MRO gave a specific scenario. Most marijuana users who have tried to conceal know of MANY scenarios not just 1. Go check out several websites and you will know what I'm talking about. But when asked to give specifics to that one scenario, the MRO was the bumbling fool because he knows that they would show the MRO that he is wrong!!!

But the point is that there are many scenarios that Diaz could have done but we cannot know for sure what he did!

THANKS FOR ADMITTING THAT HE ADMIT HE ****ED UP. NOW DOES THAT MEAN HE FOLLOWED PROTOCL...OR DID HE **** UP. KINDA OF MAKES YOU WONDER...WHAT ELSE DID HE **** UP. LMAOOOOO.

Under oath he stated that it was Diaz's urine. That is all most people wanted to know.

As for SMRTL, TEST #1 was too dilute. Right? Yet you were trying to counter with a check box? WTF?

Like I said, you are just looking for damn LOOP HOLES! Just like you did with Floyd. Why don't want to get to the truth, Mr LOOP HOLE? lol

WRONG. NOT ONE PERSON HAS ARGUED THAT SMRTL DIDN'T FOLLOW WADA PROTOCOL FOR THE 3RD TEST. AS FOR THE 2ND, SMRTL ISN'T REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE PROTOCOL BECAUSE THE TEST IS FOR NSAC WHO IS NOT A WADA SIGNATORY. THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE. SMRTL TESTS ACCORDING TO WADA'S STANDARDS. THAT'S THEIR ****ING JOB. THERE IS NO RULE THAT SMRTL CAN'T ANALYZE A SAMPLE THAT IS DILUTED MORE THAN WADA'S STANDARDS, FOOL.

HOLY SH$T! Are you for real? All this time, WADA this, WADA that but now, it doesn't matter because of the NSAC? lol Man, I'm laughing too much here. Stop it! lol

So the NSAC is OK with TEST #1 being so diluted? lol that is why they freaked when they saw that Diaz was trying to dilute his urine on other occasions as well, remember? Even SMRTL will say that you are wrong when they said ideally not less than 1.008.

Quest has its own standards, protocols and accreditations. That too was acceptable for the NSAC every time they used QUEST. But that is different for you? lol!

GOT YOU .... AGAIN!!!

1. SMRTL didn't make a mistake. There is no rule that they can't analyze a sample with that specific gravity.

2. Quest, on the other hand, DID MAKE MISTAKES! VERIFIED. You just typed it out! So um...once again, you putting your foot in your mouth.

lol ... funny stuff.
a) What's the point if its too dilute!!!!
b) What's more important, being too dilute to find anything above the threshold or someone not checking a box? lol Too funny!
c) According to WADA protocol, they goofed! So its not WADA approved way of doing things!

They followed WADA protocol fool.

So the DCO bringing back to the lab a heavily diluted sample is part of the WADA protocol? lol .... talk about a fool!

LMAO. This is one of the most moronic things you've said! And trust me, you've said some moronic things.

1. It was a completely different sample.
2. It was collected properly.
3. It was within specific gravity guidelines.

But according to you, they should just shut down the lab. LMAOOOO

So What does that say about Quest?

So now you say it was a completely different sample? Hmmmm ... but you said TEST #1 and TEST #3 were consistent? lol Now all you have is TEST #2 vs TEST #3 plus the added bonus that SMRTL screwed up on TEST #1. So why again should we go with SMRTL? lol!

??? What? DIfferent results...BECAUSE ONE IS WRONG YOU MORON.

Deflections! All 3 witnesses stated that its nearly impossible to correlate the 3 tests. They said it can produce dramatically different results. WAKE UP!

Yea, they screwed up by coming back and getting a suitable sample later. Makes lots of sense.

How is it suitable when they couldn't get the positive result? lol! It was not the only positive result mind you. There were several other positive ones just before Diaz got his license days before the fight!!! You forgetting that? lol!

SMRTL screwed up TEST #1. That is a fact. According to Diaz's MRO expert witness, he said that he never found QUEST GIVING BAD RESULTS in all the years that he examined QUEST's work!!!

BADABOOOOM!!!

HAAHAHAHA. QUESTION TO ADP02: HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF SMRTL BEING WRONG ON A CANNIBIS TEST?

yes, they screwed up on DIAZ's TEST #1.



But there is more but please do not come back and deflect and say that its not about marijuana! lol!!! Unless you want to make me die of laughter! lol

"Russian breaststroke star Yuliya Efimova, who tested positive for meldonium back in March, has demanded that the laboratory in Salt Lake City be fully investigated after they reported a negative test that was later found to be positive........

Efimova was tested five times between February 15th and March 5th, with four of the five tests coming back positive. The test on February 15th (analyzed in Montreal), and the tests on February 24th, March 3rd, and March 5th (all analyzed in Los Angeles) all came back positive. The other test, taken on March 2nd and analyzed in Salt Lake City, surprisingly came back negative."

" The response from Eichner (Name ring a bell, ding ding ding) came on April 2nd: One of the samples (taken March 2, 2016 and analyzed in the laboratory in Salt Lake City) it was negative"

"On May 20th FINA unexpectedly lifted Efimova’s suspension after hearing that WADA had requested a re-analysis of samples from the Salt Lake City lab. On June 3rd WADA accredited the negative test that came out of the Salt Lake lab positive: “revised result of negative doping test and reported that” A “is your sample contains meldonium”.

So the test that was originally reported negative, coming out of Salt Lake City, was re-analyzed and found to be positive."

BADABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!! lol! Too funny!!!

HOW MANY TIMES HAS HE TESTED ABOVE THE THRESHOLD? PLEASE TELL ME. THEN THINK ABOUT HOW MANY TESTS HE TOOK...MOST BEING WITH YOUR BELOVED QUEST. BUT YEA, HOW MANY TIMES DID NICK THE ADMITTED POTHEAD TEST ABOVE 150NG?

Diaz had trouble getting a license and tested at least twice positive just before getting the license

" Nick Diaz did not receive his license until the week of the fight, due to an inability to provide a clean urine sample until mere "days before" the fight, according to Diaz's coach, Cesar Gracie."

"Bennett says the paperwork didn't even cross his desk until 3 days before the fight"


So at least 3 times!!! Plus a diluted sample which can be considered a fail but whatever! lol!

SCREWED UP BY COMING BACK TO GET A SUITABLE SAMPLE? SCREWED UP BY TESTING A SAMPLE FOR AN ENTITY THAT IS NOT A SIGNATORY TO WADA? LOL. UR A FOOL.

Lets face it. TEST #1 was dilute and so was TEST #3. Going by the numbers only, TEST #3 was less dilute than TEST #1. But the point is that if TEST #3 came back with a specific gravity of 1.002, its not like the DCO would have done anything to prevent that. Right? They just lucked out that it was 1.009. It was NOT because of SMRTL.

So like I said, that is NOT the GOLD standard!!!

IT WAS YOU RUNNING WITH THE 1.006 BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO RESEARCH. THE 1.009 IS THE KEY TO THIS WHOLE THING AND SHOWS DEFINITIVELY THAT YOU ARE WRONG. YOU WON'T GO NEAR IT THOUGH I'VE PRACTICALLY BEGGED YOU TO DISCUSS IT. YOU'RE A ****ING COWARD.

Lets start with COWARD: I'm still waiting for you to answer why every witness on the case said that
a) its not surprising that the tests can be dramatically different and
b) why they say that its nearly impossible to correlate different specimens from different labs using different equipment.
c) The proof that its medically impossible for Diaz to find a way to pass TEST #3 but not TEST #2.


1.006 was stated in many articles. Its not that I invented that number! lol!

Still reading minds I see.
Does rare mean impossible?

Quest didn't do 2 tests you ****ing moron. They tested the same sample that may have been ****ed up because of the bumbling idiot DCO and who knows what else.

Rare means once in a blue moon. So the blue moon in this case is SMRTL!!!

So to say, rare is not impossible when it comes to SMRTL.

SMRTL had a negative test for Diaz where QUEST had a positive test.

SMRTL had a negative test for the Russian woman but then WADA investigated and it turned up that it was actually positive!

You still believe SMRTL? Poor TravestyNY cannot win!

YESSS DUCKING!!! LMAOOOOO. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I CALLED YOU OUT. YOU'RE A COWARDLY BlTCH AND YOU KNOW IT!

Called me out like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail lol!

HAHAHAHAHAHA. YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN 1 STAT. AND A PODCAST FROM A REFEREE? DID HE EVEN GRADUATE HS? THE ****? HE'S NOW A TOXICOLOGIST? LMAO.

He does not need to be an MRO to understand the basics. He put the MRO in his place. It was possible and the MRO didn't dare say how much or even a range! So the MRO doesn't know! lol! So the ref knows and the MRO doesn't know. I verified the truth and its possible. You just do not want to be WROOONG .... AGAIN!

I showed you enough and there is more that you can google yourself!

Its points to the MRO's scenario crumbling to bits and pieces!

I did you clown. I showed you it was medically implausible. AND I USED YOUR OWN DAMN STUDIES TO SHOW YOU.

1. Your study says 1.003 is 1 liter of water. Nick Diaz was at 1.009. That means he drank less than 1 liter of water! lmaoooo.

2. Your other study shows people hydrating with 1 gallon of water. None of them got anywhere near 300ng down to 60, much less 733ng.

How is this. If it would help your case, I'm sure you would have had not one but several good answers as proof that there are possibilities for Diaz to fail one test and pass another. The

problem is that you are stuck and on the wrong side of this equation. That is why you have NOT answered properly.

and when you try, you fail since you are not reading and believing and you are using bad math. So you have several problems.

300 down to 60:
a) You cannot do that as there are many variables as pointed out by 3 experts!

b) IF you do that just for the fun of it, 300/60 is 5X difference only. That can be EASILY achieved!!!!!! It could have been even 10X or even more and still achievable as one can see in those studies but you cannot! Why are you not getting this simple math?

LMAOOOO. PLEASEEEEEE. LET'S GO TO THE THUNDERDOME AND POST UP YOUR REFEREE AGAINST MY MRO. DON'T BE A BlTCH. STEP UP! IF I LOSE, I'LL NEVER RETURN...IF YOU LOSE, NO PENALTY FOR YOU. YOU DOWN, BlTCH BOY? ANSWER THE QUESTION!



LMAOOOOO. WHY THE **** ARE YOU STILL DVCKING MY QUESTION!!!!!!!!! I'M GONNA POST IT ONE MORE TIME FOR YOU. MAKE IT REAL CRYSTAL CLEAR WHAT I WANT YOU TO ANSWER

YOU BETTER STOP DUCKING IT LIKE A BlTCH!

I was the only one putting an effort in posting tangible data. Except for perhaps yesterday's post (not quite what I asked though) You are doing nothing of the sort but I have to admit that its a tough one for you because

YOU ARE WROOOONG!!!! lol



You have been slam dunked on this one! Its gotta hurt!

[ADP02]

Well well well. What do we have here?

A NEW ADP02?????

What happened to all the masking ped talk like lance Armstrong???? This big conspiracy that Floyd was cheating?



Now your claim is Floyd received a fuvking favor????

That's what you're mad about? A favor for a retro tue?

Just admit it - now that facts have surfaced you have backed off your original stance on Floyd's IV use.


A NEW ADP02.



Now let's revisit what I told the OLD ADP02 months ago about the ISTUE retro TUES:



Do you have a better understanding now?

Emergency, acute vs chronic, at home, 30 day weight, severe mild, yellow brown - none of it matters.

Fairness. It is agreed by USADA AND WADA that it is fair to allow a retro tue application.


Now the facts the TUEC AND WADA would've reasoned to grant the retro TUE:

1. Prior sample given before the IV
2. Samples kept for 10 years
3. Performed by a paramedic
4. EXTENSIVE ABP from 50+ test (more than most athelete)
5. All samples CIR tested since Mosley fight
6. No adverse analytic findings
7. No previous failed test
8. Access to medical records and history
9. Paid for more expensive full menu testing by WADA labs
10. Verified to be dehydrated
11. DCO obsevered and was present
12. Victor Conte founded VADA and is attempting to land the UFC contract by slandering USADA through Thomas Hauser WITH PROVEN LIES, RUMORS, sPECULATION AND SELF ADMITTED INCORRECT STATEMENTS.
13. samples met SPG requirments
14. NSAC doesn't ban IV
15. USADA was informed in advance and notified of intended use
16. And most im****atly - high profile atheletes that are subject to the expesive target testing can't avoid a doping violation with IV use.



Its all fair. And well within the rules.


A favor? Lol.


Pact@rds.

What are you talking about?

Floyd did not even require an IV!!!!

Floyd was OK when we saw him at the weigh in and drank quite a bit. Studeis point to Floyd being able to rehydrate quickly by drinking fluids.

He was just examined by the NSAC and his vital signs were all good and Floyd didn't bring up any serious medical conditions.

The pre-fight form, Floyd didn't mention that he had a serious medical condition. The NSAC doesn't like that and starts an investigation and even suspends you for that alone!!!!!!!!!

Floyd's weight was relatively rock solid and when you check up studies you just need to drink a few cups of fluid for each pound lost. Floyd lost practically nothing and again, drank enough to recuperate!!!!!

Study says that in 45 after drinking about 600ml of just water, you will recover from mild dehydration. LESS if you are on an empty stomach!

WADA
It must be understood that the use of IV fluid replacement following exercise to correct mild to moderate dehydration is not clinically indicated nor substantiated by the medical literature. There is a well-established body of scientific evidence to confirm that oral rehydration is the preferred the****utic choice, potentially even more effective than IV infusion.

[IR0NFIST]

AHEMMM. WADA spokesman, in response to this specific case:

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.”



SO UM....DOES "MOST COMMONLY" MEAN NECESSARILY AND ALWAYS IN YOUR LITTLE MUSHED UP MIND? LET ME KNOW, BRO. I know you saw it there, but you're too much of a coward to admit you're wrong.

R.I.P.

ps. I don't even have to use photoshop, bltch.

Adding bold lettering to your text and typing in all caps isn't going to make your argument true. And I highly doubt you know how to use paint, let alone photoshop.

The issue surrounding Floyd's IV infusion is that neither he, nor USADA, can provide proof of an emergency to justify the use of WADA banned IVs.

At least in Pacquiao's case, there were sparring partners who can attest to the injury, and an actual doctor to explain the extent of his injury in detail along with the USADA approved meds to treat his injury. With Floyd, there's no doctor who can confirm his condition, and even USADA themselves have never publicly stated that Floyd was dehydrated. There isn't so much as a shred of evidence to justify Floyd's use of WADA banned IVs. Zero, zip, nada.

[Dosumpthin]

What are you talking about?

Floyd did not even require an IV!!!!

Floyd was OK when we saw him at the weigh in and drank quite a bit. Studeis point to Floyd being able to rehydrate quickly by drinking fluids.

He was just examined by the NSAC and his vital signs were all good and Floyd didn't bring up any serious medical conditions.

The pre-fight form, Floyd didn't mention that he had a serious medical condition. The NSAC doesn't like that and starts an investigation and even suspends you for that alone!!!!!!!!!

Floyd's weight was relatively rock solid and when you check up studies you just need to drink a few cups of fluid for each pound lost. Floyd lost practically nothing and again, drank enough to recuperate!!!!!

Study says that in 45 after drinking about 600ml of just water, you will recover from mild dehydration. LESS if you are on an empty stomach!

WADA
It must be understood that the use of IV fluid replacement following exercise to correct mild to moderate dehydration is not clinically indicated nor substantiated by the medical literature. There is a well-established body of scientific evidence to confirm that oral rehydration is the preferred the****utic choice, potentially even more effective than IV infusion.

Don't play dumb. I assume you are playing dumb. Arent you?




ISTUE on ACCEPTING A TUE APPLICATION RETROACTIVELY:

c. It is agreed, by WADA 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.

[travestyny]

Adding bold lettering to your text and typing in all caps isn't going to make your argument true. And I highly doubt you know how to use paint, let alone photoshop.

Photoshop isn't very hard to use. I actually use it regularly. That's why your little images are not only unimpressive, but just plain dumb.

The issue surrounding Floyd's IV infusion is that neither he, nor USADA, can provide proof of an emergency to justify the use of WADA banned IVs.

Asked you to show me where it was stated that it had to be an emergency. You made a bltch move and conveniently skipped over "most commonly" in the text. Now, did it have to be an emergency? Yes or no? Waitinggggg...

At least in Pacquiao's case, there were sparring partners who can attest to the injury, and an actual doctor to explain the extent of his injury in detail along with the USADA approved meds to treat his injury.

WHAT INJURY???

Oh, the doctor who said this:
"We treated the aggravation (with permission from U.S. Anti-Doping Agency) and he was back to his normal strength going into the fight.”

Same one who NSAC claims said this:
"We interviewed the physicians representing Manny, and they advised us his health and safety would not be at risk if he fought without the injection."

What did old Bob Say?
"Then he rested it for a couple of months and it went away," Arum said. "It's a recurring kind of injury. It can kick up again, which it did in sparring [2½ weeks before] this fight. They gave him a series of treatments that enabled the pain to go away and then when he went into the fight, he was feeling absolutely no pain and using his right arm."

What did Pacquaio say:
Pacquiao said, “No, I don’t have pain or injury before the fight. I just want to make sure that whatever happened, I’m still there. I’m not saying I’m not 100 percent condition.”

Need more?

With Floyd, there's no doctor who can confirm his condition, and even USADA themselves have never publicly stated that Floyd was dehydrated. There isn't so much as a shred of evidence to justify Floyd's use of WADA banned IVs. Zero, zip, nada.

Do some ****ing research:
9.3 The TUE application shall be dealt with in accordance with the principles of strict medical confidentiality. The members of the TUEC, independent experts and the relevant staff of the Anti-Doping Organization shall conduct all of their activities relating to the process in strict confidence and shall sign appropriate confidentiality agreements. In particular they shall keep the following information confidential:

a. All medical information and data provided by the Athlete and physician(s) involved in the Athlete’s care.

b. All details of the application, including the name of the physician(s) involved in the process.


Well well well. Look who got owned again. It's not a surprise by now, is it?

[travestyny]

Man I gave you close to a week and you still are completely lost in this! lol

Ohhhhhh boy. I'm gonna rip you a new one. You wrote all this irrelevant and idiotic shlt and contradicted yourself a billion times. This is precisely why you are afraid of seeing me in the thunderdome.

One is a study while one is producing possible outcome. By looking at studies, you should have realized by now that no 2 subjects are identical nor will they have the same results, most of the time, due to many variables!!! Not everyone who has 400 ng will go down to 50. Its not that simple!!! Same with 53 to 10.

What do you think the study is used for, ******. It's not used to say, "8 subjects respond this way." NOOOO! It's used to make a general statement about people. Don't just take subject D. TAKE ALL OF THE SUBJECTS AND FIND ONE THAT HAD THE SAME RESULTS AS NICK. YOU CAN'T FIND ONE!

Secondly, the study and the article are talking about 2 different things. The article is a overall theoretical representation of what can occur while the studies are a factual representation for the given subjects and study ONLY. Nobody is saying that all individuals will have the same result every time. Your are too funny!

So one is theoretical, one is factual, and neither support you because both have specific gravities lower than Nick. LMAO. BOOOM! Please....focus on specific gravity. That's what this is all about right? Why are you suddenly ducking it?

1. Didn't look or care.

We both know why. You'd get embarrassed!

3. That guy knows his stuff compared to you. He is in the business and has knowledge and shared it with us. Its up to you to discredit that and all the studies and articles that I presented to you .... you know better, right? YOU ARE WROOOONG!

LMAO. HE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF BEING A REFEREE. THE MRO IS IN THE BUSINESS OF........ANALYZING DRUG TESTS! LMAOOOOOOOOO. BOOOOOOOM!

Your guy is a referee who said that it would take 2 - 4 liters, I believe. Why was nick consistent with drinking less than 1 liter ACCORDING TO YOUR....INFORMATION I GUESS I'LL CALL IT. BOOM!

Your referee said that after drinking 2-4 liters, you would be pissing water. LMAOOOO. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY? BOOM!

YEA, HE SEEMS SO SMART THAT...HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT, AND PROBABLY NEVER HEARD OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY!

4. OK show me how its "IMPOSSIBLE" when many websites all say that there numeroous ways.

What websites. Post them. And keep in mind, I want information about TIME and SPECIFIC GRAVITY! DO IT!

Easy question: Is Diaz's witness saying that NOTHING is possible or only his specific scenario that he invented? lol! too funny .... you are lost and do not even realize it ..... funny for me, sad for you!

I don't understand your question. He never used the word possible or impossible. It's possible...if Nick wanted to risk being near death. I told you that already.

a)
SUMMARY (May not be same order as you)
A) Ingestion of 1 gal of fluids (divided into 1-qt aliquots administered hourly) on days 2 and 4 produced highly dilute urine specimens with specific gravities < 1.0030 and creatinines < 20 mg/dL starting approximately 1.5 to 2.0 h following commencement of drinking. Marijuana and ******* concentrations dropped rapidly below cutoff concentrations during and following excessive drinking. By the time subjects had ingested 2 qt of fluid, they were generally producing specimens that tested negative for drug metabolites.

Again, your studies say:
1. Drinking just 1 liter would give 1.003 specific gravity.
2. Above you say the specific gravity would be lower than 1,003

HOW THE **** WAS NICK AT 1.009????? BOOM!

B) Your math is bad. That is just part of your problem.
These 2 went down a lot. 4x to over 8x and they were not even trying to dilute their urine. Imagine that!


SUBJECT G
Time 20.5 to 23.0 to 24.0
THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1 to 13.7
Creatinine 184 to 39 to 23
Volume 320 to 195 to 260

SUBJECT H
Time 6.0 to 9.5
THCCOOH 234.2 to 59.6
Creatinine 174 to 45
Volume 116 to 390

Without even harping on the fact that Nick Diaz' metabolite level was CERTAINLY WELL ABOVE 300NG, i'd like to know how you are using this study to make an argument against specific gravity....WHEN SPECIFIC GRAVITY RESULTS WEREN'T USED. BOOM!

Many places say similar stuff but you do not believe:

Just because you keep writing this doesn't mean anything. Show proof. I already show you that your studies actually support me....and you deflected and then ignored that post.

C)"Rapid ingestion (90 minutes) of 2-4 quarts of fluid will almost always produce low creatinines & negative urine drug tests within one hour."

BOOOOOOOOM!

Where is there any mention of specific gravity? I'm noticing a trend. You are scared to discuss specific gravity now. BOOM!

D) "Scientific water loading studies in which participants used specified amounts of ******* and marijuana determined that subjects consistently produced dilute urine specimens upon drinking
large volumes of water (2-4 quarts) and corresponding urinary drug concentrations declined below cut-off concentrations. Dilute urines—generally observed at 2 hours and persisted for up to 5 hours after liquid consumption."

Again, your study said he should be at 1.003 after 1 liter. Now you're talking about 2-4 quarts.....ahhhh...but WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY? BOOM WHEN WILL YOU MENTION SPECIFIC GRAVITY????

E) "Drinking large volumes of just about any non-toxic water-based liquid will dilute urine. Drinking two or three 12-ounce glasses of water at the same time can produce 10-fold diluted urine within only half an hour and the dilution effect may last for hours.

In most cases, this will successfully lower the concentration of some drugs (mainly marijuana) in the urine enough to produce a negative test result."

Specific gravity here? Nope. BOOM! Still waiting. You are allergic to specific gravity now. What's up, bro?

F) "What is Dilution (Water Loading / Flushing)?

• Water loading / flushing is the rapid consumption of a copious volume of fluid.
– Rapidconsumption=90minutes
– Copiousvolume=2-4quarts(about2-4liters)
• Water loading increases the volume of water relative to the volume of detectable
drugs, creatinine, and other solids for a period"

Knock Knock? Who's there? NOT SPECIFIC GRAVITY. BOOOM!

G) "Beginning two- to three-hours before your test, drink 12 – 16 ounces of water every 15 minutes. Don’t glug---too much water can lead to water intoxication. A diuretic, like cranberry juice, herbal tea, or caffeine can also increase urine production."

Excuse me. Have you seen specific gravity. I mean, he said he would meet me here. BOOM!

H) "The urine specimens were then tested by EMIT II assay for cannabinoids at a 50 ng / ml cutoff, and ******* at a 300 ng / ml cutoff. Specific gravity and creatinine content was measured for each sample, and the two indicators were found to co-vary almost identically. Just drinking 12 ounces of water was enough to cause a significant decrease in both specific gravity and creatinine, but not enough to cause a negative test response. For example, urine cannabinoids levels which were higher than 10,000 ng / ml dropped to the low 100's after drinking 12 ounces of water. After drinking a gallon of water, with or without one of the "cleansing agents" added, it only took an hour for the specific gravity to drop to less than 1.005.

WoooHOOOO!!!! I found specific gravity!!!!!! And it's......1.005....not 1.009. lmaoooooooo. BOOM!

When one gallon of water was drunk, not only did specific gravity fall to very low levels (creatinine<20, and specific gravity <1.003), but the marijuana assay turned negative and stayed that
way, even after specific gravity levels had returned to normal! "

Yeaaaaaaa! That's what I'm talking about! Specific Gravity!!!!!.....<1.003. LMAOOOOOOOO. Nick's was 1.009. BOOOM!

I) "The most common technique employed to "beat" a drug test is "water-laoding" - consuming copious amounts of fluid in a short period of time within 30 minutes of a urine collection to achieve a state of polyuria. The state of polyuria typically lasts from 1-4 hours, and during that time the urine may be diluted by a factor of 5-10 or more.."

But you already showed us that dilution at 8X is due to drinking 1 liter and gives a specific gravity of 1.003. LMAO. Nick was at 1.009. BOOOM!

Yet the quotes that I just posted above says you are WROOOONG! As explained in that podcast, Diaz's witness is WROOONG! You are just too dense to understand all this or hate being WROOONG!

Take your pick!

Now tell me, did I chop through that bull**** for you well enough? LMAOOOOOO!

lol, just deflections and loop holes instead of wanting to know the truth. That is how I define you Travsetyny. The QUEST witness stated under oath that it was Diaz's urine. Who else could it have been. Diaz's twin? lol Too funny! Back on topic, what did SMRTL say about the dilute samples that they had sent to the lab? Oh right, they didn't testify to that issue of it not being part of the WAADA protocol! lol! So it stands!!! Too funny!

Who sealed the bottles? Was the sealing of the bottles witnessed by anyone? What happened to the bottles after they were sealed? Did they know who the sample belonged to? Could that mean someone could do something to Nick Diaz' sample since they knew it was his? Does Pat Lundvall hate Nick Diaz? Just some things to consider.

BTW - You can knock off TEST #1 before the fight because that was definitely too dilute. Right? So are you saying that TEST #3 from SMRTL is like the bad TEST #1? lol

The bad test? LMAO. No, you fool. Refer to your studies and find out what is a normal jump from a diluted sample to an undiluted sample. You can do it. Put those studies you brought into this to work! Besides, if you want another test, refer to the labCorp tests. Showed them to you, didn't I?

See there is no consistency yet YOU believed Diaz's story that 2 were consistent? lol Talk about a fool! I have lots of Gold and I got an "expert" that agrees with me. You want to buy some? I will give it to you cheap! My expert will include a certificate! lol

No consistency? 3 tests (including labcorp) were consistent. Don't know what YOU are smoking.

DCO responded clearly to the question was it Diaz's urine. There was no counter argument from Diaz's side including Diaz! lol Its just too easy!

You are too ****** to realize that no one is concerned about whether it is his urine. We want to know what happened to the urine while it was being sealed and after it was sealed. Understand?

MRO gave a specific scenario. Most marijuana users who have tried to conceal know of MANY scenarios not just 1. Go check out several websites and you will know what I'm talking about. But when asked to give specifics to that one scenario, the MRO was the bumbling fool because he knows that they would show the MRO that he is wrong!!!

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was about specific gravity Not about what other shyt Nick might have done (and there is NOTHING you've shown that he could have done. If he put a unicorn horn up his ass, show me the relevant website that says it will do what he had to do in the amount of time he had to do it.)

But the point is that there are many scenarios that Diaz could have done but we cannot know for sure what he did!

LMAO. Specific Gravity, homie. That's what this is about. You are losing focus!

As for SMRTL, TEST #1 was too dilute. Right? Yet you were trying to counter with a check box? WTF?

1.Labcorp test
2.Test 1
3.Test 3

Consistent.

What loophole is there to find about that?

HOLY SH$T! Are you for real? All this time, WADA this, WADA that but now, it doesn't matter because of the NSAC? lol Man, I'm laughing too much here. Stop it! lol

So the NSAC is OK with TEST #1 being so diluted? lol that is why they freaked when they saw that Diaz was trying to dilute his urine on other occasions as well, remember? Even SMRTL will say that you are wrong when they said ideally not less than 1.008.

Thank you. Nick was at 1.009. Is that less than 1.008. BOOM!

And I'd thought you would stop with your bullshlt when you found out NSAC also accepted QUEST'S DILUTED SAMPLE! BOOM!

Quest has its own standards, protocols and accreditations. That too was acceptable for the NSAC every time they used QUEST. But that is different for you? lol!

GOT YOU .... AGAIN!!!

YEP. EVEN WHEN IT IS DILUTED. BUT YOU'RE GONNA GET BURNED. KEEP READING!

lol ... funny stuff.
a) What's the point if its too dilute!!!!
b) What's more important, being too dilute to find anything above the threshold or someone not checking a box? lol Too funny!
c) According to WADA protocol, they goofed! So its not WADA approved way of doing things!

You really hate test #3, don't you? You don't even want to mention that it was NOT DILUTED.

So the DCO bringing back to the lab a heavily diluted sample is part of the WADA protocol? lol .... talk about a fool!

Find in the rules that the lab cannot analyze the sample being that NSAC is not a signatory to WADA? How about Quest's diluted sample? The WADA DCO came back the same day and got an undiluted sample...but you don't want to discuss that.

So now you say it was a completely different sample? Hmmmm ... but you said TEST #1 and TEST #3 were consistent? lol Now all you have is TEST #2 vs TEST #3 plus the added bonus that SMRTL screwed up on TEST #1. So why again should we go with SMRTL? lol!

You're a moron. Yes, they were 2 different samples. No, SMRTL did not "screw up" on anything, but QUEST did. Did the NSAC DCO **** up? YES. HE ADMIT IT!

SMRTL screwed up TEST #1. That is a fact. According to Diaz's MRO expert witness, he said that he never found QUEST GIVING BAD RESULTS in all the years that he examined QUEST's work!!!

BADABOOOOM!!!

Asked you about SMRTL giving a bad result for a marijuana test. Your response:

yes, they screwed up on DIAZ's TEST #1.

If that's true, then QUEST also screwed up!
"Although Diaz's post-fight drug test for an October show in Las Vegas came back negative, it was ruled to be "diluted" or "abnormal," testified Keith Kizer, executive director of the commission."

So, is Quest let off the hook for analyzing a dilute sample and NSAC for accepting it? LMAOOOOOOOOOO!

But there is more but please do not come back and deflect and say that its not about marijuana! lol!!! Unless you want to make me die of laughter! lol

"Russian breaststroke star Yuliya Efimova, who tested positive for meldonium back in March, has demanded that the laboratory in Salt Lake City be fully investigated after they reported a negative test that was later found to be positive........

BADABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!! lol! Too funny!!!

Oh, I'm so sorry that the MRO doesn't have google accessible from memory. Two can play this ******ed game.

Quest Diagnostics Admits Some Blood Tests Were Wrong
The nation's largest medical laboratory, Quest Diagnostics, says some of their blood test results were wrong.
Quest told doctors their Vitamin D tests performed over a two-year period were inaccurate and could have misled patients into thinking they were healthier than they are.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/life...sts-were-wrong

Vitamin D??? 2 years??? lol

Quest Diagnostics sued for reporting negative Cancer test.

http://louisianarecord.com/stories/5...se-test-result

Marijuana? Ok.
"I had a saliva drug test done where it was sent to Quest Diagnostics to be done. It came back positive for Marijuana even though I know for a 100% fact this is mistake. Guess what? You don't like their results and don't agree with it? Well guess what? You have to PAY THEM $150 to have them do further testing when it's CLEARLY THEIR MISTAKE. They messed up my results and I have to pay THEM? WHAT? How absurd is that? I'm lucky I'm only 20 years old and don't have a family to feed. Imagine being someone who has a low paying job, living paycheck to paycheck, and gets a false positive on a drug test. This person living paycheck to paycheck isn't able to shell out $150 to prove their innocence when this company messes up. Like how freaking absurd.

Honestly, this place is horrible. I hope this place gets put out of business one day."

Diaz had trouble getting a license and tested at least twice positive just before getting the license

" Nick Diaz did not receive his license until the week of the fight, due to an inability to provide a clean urine sample until mere "days before" the fight, according to Diaz's coach, Cesar Gracie."

"Bennett says the paperwork didn't even cross his desk until 3 days before the fight"


So at least 3 times!!! Plus a diluted sample which can be considered a fail but whatever! lol!

First of all, what you're referring to speaks against your agenda. Nick Diaz voluntarily tested himself until he was sure he could pass, then he sent in the paperwork. So then, how the **** did his marijuana metabolite suddenly jump up to 733ng? BOOM!

Second, you are wrong. One time he failed for something like 25ng. That is not above the threshold that is currently in place, obviously. The first time he failed was...and it was for about 175ng. So whatever he does before these tests....looks like he was NOWHERE NEAR 300NG, MUCH LESS 733NG. He states that he smokes...he also states that he stops at least 8 days before or some shyt like that. He stopped in enough time to begin passing voluntary tests...then failed with 733ng??? lol. BOOOOOOOOM!

Lets face it. TEST #1 was dilute and so was TEST #3. Going by the numbers only, TEST #3 was less dilute than TEST #1. But the point is that if TEST #3 came back with a specific gravity of 1.002, its not like the DCO would have done anything to prevent that. Right? They just lucked out that it was 1.009. It was NOT because of SMRTL.

So like I said, that is NOT the GOLD standard!!!

Wowww. So they got lucky with 1.009. Yet you don't want to accept it and say it is diluted when it is not diluted by ANY testing standard. lol.

Now you keep criticizing SMRTL, but you still refuse to accept that QUEST did the same. That's what you call a hypocrite.

Lets start with COWARD: I'm still waiting for you to answer why every witness on the case said that
a) its not surprising that the tests can be dramatically different and

You are misunderstanding. This is the 3rd time you mentioned this here:

2. You are the idiot because Diaz's side clearly tried to formulate a specific scenario but falls apart if we take into consideration the other variables including that his statement was inaccurate.

When all 3 witnesses were asked about trying to correlate the different results, they all gave similar responses: Final results can be dramatically different due to different specimens, LABS, protocols. 2 witnesses even used the word that you like to use "nearly impossible"


BADABOOOM!!!! So that just kills anything you have to say!!!

Only one lost is you. All 3 witnesses state that its quite impossible to correlate the different tests but you think its possible because you know better? lol!

Deflections! All 3 witnesses stated that its nearly impossible to correlate the 3 tests. They said it can produce dramatically different results. WAKE UP!

How is it suitable when they couldn't get the positive result? lol! It was not the only positive result mind you. There were several other positive ones just before Diaz got his license days before the fight!!! You forgetting that? lol!

EXACTLY! THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY ****ING POINT YOU ABSOLUTE MORON. YOU KEEP RAMBLING ABOUT HOW IT'S FAIR THAT THEY PRODUCE DIFFERENT RESULTS....NOW YOU'RE SAYING ONE IS WRONG. AHAHAHAHAHAHA. YOU STEPPED IN **** YOU BUMBLING IDIOT!

b) why they say that its nearly impossible to correlate different specimens from different labs using different equipment.

Misunderstood this too. That may be a fact, but here they were using the same equipment. GC/MS.

c) The proof that its medically impossible for Diaz to find a way to pass TEST #3 but not TEST #2.

Your language is changing. First, you are still using "impossible" which no one ever argued. Second, now you're saying "find a way to pass." No, buddy. You started this whole mess because of specific gravity. Try sticking to it! Was this possible based on dilution alone? THAT is the key concern. What do you think now?

Rare means once in a blue moon. So the blue moon in this case is SMRTL!!!

So to say, rare is not impossible when it comes to SMRTL.

SMRTL had a negative test for Diaz where QUEST had a positive test.

SMRTL had a negative test for the Russian woman but then WADA investigated and it turned up that it was actually positive!

You still believe SMRTL? Poor TravestyNY cannot win!

LMAO. Hysterical. The double standard. Quest can't get vitamin D testing right, can't get cancer testing right, can't get marijuana testing right...and again...look who is now looking into cross referencing the tests. I thought it couldn't be done? LMAOOOOOOOOOO! You're losing miserably

He does not need to be an MRO to understand the basics. He put the MRO in his place. It was possible and the MRO didn't dare say how much or even a range! So the MRO doesn't know! lol! So the ref knows and the MRO doesn't know. I verified the truth and its possible. You just do not want to be WROOONG .... AGAIN!

I showed you enough and there is more that you can google yourself!

Its points to the MRO's scenario crumbling to bits and pieces!

LMAO. I already ripped through this. Need I do it again?

1. He said 2-4 liters--against your study
2. He said he'd be pissing water--against what we know about specific gravity
3. HE IS A ****ING REFEREE. LMAOOO.
4. Your studies all back up ME! Foolio.

How is this. If it would help your case, I'm sure you would have had not one but several good answers as proof that there are possibilities for Diaz to fail one test and pass another. The

problem is that you are stuck and on the wrong side of this equation. That is why you have NOT answered properly.

and when you try, you fail since you are not reading and believing and you are using bad math. So you have several problems.

300 down to 60:
a) You cannot do that as there are many variables as pointed out by 3 experts!

b) IF you do that just for the fun of it, 300/60 is 5X difference only. That can be EASILY achieved!!!!!! It could have been even 10X or even more and still achievable as one can see in those studies but you cannot! Why are you not getting this simple math?

LMAO. VERIFY IT WITH YOUR STUDIES. OH...AND PLEASE MENTION SPECIFIC GRAVITY! LOL You can'tttttttttt. 1 liter = 1.003. LMAOOOOO.

I was the only one putting an effort in posting tangible data. Except for perhaps yesterday's post (not quite what I asked though) You are doing nothing of the sort but I have to admit that its a tough one for you because

YOU ARE WROOOONG!!!! lol

I appreciate your data. Now, as I showed you earlier, how does any of it prove your point? THEY ALL PROVE MY POINT! LMAOOO. AND THAT'S WHY YOU REFUSED TO ANSWER MY POST ABOUT SPECIFIC GRAVITY!!! SPECIFIC MUTHA****ING GRAVITY!

You have been slam dunked on this one! Its gotta hurt!

BlTCH PLEASE. I'M RIPPING YOU TO SHREDS AND YOU ARE AFRAID TO SEE ME IN THE THUNDERDOME. YOU AREN'T FOOLING ANYONE.

Now talk to me about his specific gravity! that's what this is all about. Stop ducking me, boy. Specific Gravity! How is he at 1.009 if he drank 2-4 liters and got the marijuana reading down from 733ng to 61ng. YOU CAN'T DO IT AND YOUR STUDIES PROVE YOU ARE WRONGGGGGGGG. LMAO!

[IR0NFIST]

Asked you to show me where it was stated that it had to be an emergency. You made a bltch move and conveniently skipped over "most commonly" in the text. Now, did it have to be an emergency? Yes or no? Waitinggggg...

Let's have a look at USADA's TUE policy shall we?

http://www.usada.org/substances/tue/policy/

An application for a TUE will only be considered for retroactive approval where:

a. Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was necessary;

That should answer your question, but I highly doubt it will. You've proven time and time again that you're far too ****** to realize when you've lost a debate.

[travestyny]

I'm going to make this real clear for you. Now see if you can follow along. I'm only going to use YOUR STUDIES.



1 liter of water is enough to dilute 8 fold, according to YOUR STUDY. Let's find out what that means for specific gravity.



So this same 8-fold dilution, which is achieved by drinking 1 liter of water, is what would bring down a person to a specific gravity of 1.003 according to YOUR STUDY. Ok. Got it? You following? Just for good measure:

[IMG]http://i62.***********.com/albums/h95/travestyny/Screen%20Shot%202016-11-12%20at%205.38.53%20PM.png[/IMG]

Ok, you sure you got it now? After 8-fold dilution, one liter of water, the subject is at 1.003 according to YOUR STUDY.

Nick Diaz:

9:36pm: Fight with Silva ends. He lingers in the ring. He does NOT drink while in the ring. Gives an interview. At some point he leaves. It's around 9:45 at least.

10:38pm: Slightly dehydrated at creatinine 168.4mg/dl. No conclusive evidence he was drinking water. Perhaps it didn't take effect yet? Ok.

11:55pm: Specific Gravity = 1.009

This means that he drank less than 1 liter of water? Correct? Correct? I mean, because 1.003 is 1 liter according to YOUR STUDY.

Now, you once tried to say that maybe in that short period of time, his specific gravity began to rise. Well according to YOUR STUDY:



So it takes about 8 - 10hours after fluid ingestion for hydration levels to begin returning to normal? Hmmm. Well, that's out the window.

Now let's look more closely at YOUR STUDY. You claim 400ng can be reduced to 50ng with just 1 liter, though you don't give a time. Ok. Let's cross reference this with an actual study to verify it. Again, this is from YOUR STUDY:

[IMG]http://i62.***********.com/albums/h95/travestyny/Screen%20Shot%202016-10-23%20at%206.18.34%20AM.png[/IMG]

Subject D began the study with 53ng of marijuana metabolite.

By the end of the study, subject D had drank 3.79liters of water and had a specific gravity that went as low as 1.001. This should have been enough to dilute from 400ng down to 50ng according to your study because it was A) More than 1 liter and B) more than 8-fold dilution.

However, Subject D only got the 53ng as low as 5ng. You can go look at any of the other subjects in the study as well. Let's take another one from YOUR STUDY just for the hell of it.

[IMG]http://i62.***********.com/albums/h95/travestyny/Screen%20Shot%202016-11-14%20at%2010.35.16%20PM.png[/IMG]

Subject G finally gets 53ng down to 0ng after over 2 hours and almost 2 liters of water. The specific gravity is at 1.003. I don't have to tell you that is diluted by WADA standards.

So in conclusion, if YOUR STUDIES are correct:

1. They prove Nick Diaz didn't even drink 1 full liter of water because 1 liter would cause a specific gravity of 1.003.

2. Your studies show plenty of subjects drinking over 1 liter and diluting more than 8-fold, yet not one gets a value of over 300ng down to 60ng.

3. After drinking just 2 quarts of water, all subjects in YOUR STUDY were at a specific gravity equal to or lower than 1.006.

YOUR STUDIES PROVE YOU ARE WRONG!

YOUR THEORY:

Nick Diaz began drinking at 9:45pm at least, yet he is somehow slightly dehydrated at 10:38pm. He then continues to drink for the next hour and 17 minutes in the presence of 2 DCO's and his specific gravity shows less than 1 liter of water was taken.

Yea. I think you're done.

Wait a second!

While I'm happy that you put some thought into this

Thank you for being happy I put some thought into my post, now are you going to address it, or will you keep ducking it? Your studies prove I'm right and you're wrong. Can you say otherwise? I'd love to hear your explanation. And don't give me that "it's different for everyone" crap. that clearly means you can't use these studies to support your agenda. One is theoretical, as you say, and the other is a study...and both go against you.

Explain this. Go!

[travestyny]

let's have a look at usada's tue policy shall we?

http://www.usada.org/substances/tue/policy/



that should answer your question, but i highly doubt it will. You've proven time and time again that you're far too ****** to realize when you've lost a debate.

ahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha

you are truly a pacroach. None of you can understand what the word or means! Lmaooooooooooooo!!!!!!

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 or permitted the athlete (see code article 4.4.5) to apply for a retroactive tue; or
d. It is agreed, by wada 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.

LMAOOOOOOOOO. LOOK WHO GOT OWNED YET AGAINNNNNNN. IT'S NOT A SURPRISE!!!!

So....tell me what OR means. LMAOOOOOO

R.I.P.