Comments Thread For: Pacquiao: In The Eyes of The People - I Beat Floyd Mayweather

[ADP02]

The purpose of the judges will be to weed out the deflections and bullshlt. Which means you won't have much of an argument.

Why are you "deflecting" from this challenge? There are some really solid posters here. I'm sure we can find 3 that will play this in an unbiased way. So do you agree?

Judges? I have never been to this thunder dome.

Who will be the judges? Larryxxx, Dosumptin and Dave Moretti?

Do we get to select our own equipment to beat each other? I know how you would come. With a Deflector shield!!!


Look bud, I know you inside out.

Travestyny
FLOYD: All you will do is DEFLECT/HIDE behind "we do not have the BS excuse that Floyd's doctor gave to their friend USADA."

DIAZ:
1) DEFLECT/HIDE behind what the MRO/Novitzky said and the people who didn't like that Diaz got 5 years.
2) Even though the burden of proof was always yours, YOU will come up with NOTHING and ask me to provide proof!


Did I miss anything?

[travestyny]

Judges? I have never been to this thunder dome.

Who will be the judges? Larryxxx, Dosumptin and Dave Moretti?

Do we get to select our own equipment to beat each other? I know how you would come. With a Deflector shield!!!


Look bud, I know you inside out.

Travestyny
FLOYD: All you will do is DEFLECT/HIDE behind "we do not have the BS excuse that Floyd's doctor gave to their friend USADA."

DIAZ:
1) DEFLECT/HIDE behind what the MRO/Novitzky said and the people who didn't like that Diaz got 5 years.
2) Even though the burden of proof was always yours, YOU will come up with NOTHING and ask me to provide proof!


Did I miss anything?

I've never participated in a Thunderdome thread, because everyone I've called out has ducked me.

As far as I know, it's a section of this website used to settle disputes.

I've said many times that we can agree on the judges. No PAC or Floyd fans, if that makes you feel better. We'd have time to look through potential judges' posts and see if there is any reason to deny them. I think plenty of posters here are unbiased.

Again, we would agree on judges. Don't worry about the content of the thread. That is what THEY will judge on. We only have to explain our side in this dispute and they can decide who they agree with. Then this feminine back and forth can be over.

What do you think?

[ADP02]

I've never participated in a Thunderdome thread, because everyone I've called out has ducked me.

As far as I know, it's a section of this website used to settle disputes.

I've said many times that we can agree on the judges. No PAC or Floyd fans, if that makes you feel better. We'd have time to look through potential judges' posts and see if there is any reason to deny them. I think plenty of posters here are unbiased.

Again, we would agree on judges. Don't worry about the content of the thread. That is what THEY will judge on. We only have to explain our side in this dispute and they can decide who they agree with. Then this feminine back and forth can be over.

What do you think?

I know that I'm right in both instances ... Floyd and Diaz but to have people I do not know judge while not knowing if they are objective? Not my kind of thing. Who would even care, is another question.

[travestyny]

I know that I'm right in both instances ... Floyd and Diaz but to have people I do not know judge while not knowing if they are objective? Not my kind of thing. Who would even care, is another question.

1. So you know you are right that Floyd used PED's? That's funny, because you already admit that it's possible that he wasn't.

2. With Diaz, you can "know" you are right all you want, but you have a hell of a mountain to climb being that the experts say you are wrong. That's what you are afraid of. I know. I know.

3. You need to listen to some other people. Someone who can tell you that saying two ped testing results are consistent does not mean that "if the values are different, that's not unexpected" (because obviously the values WERE different and the experts said it IS unexpected). Someone that can tell you that finding a quantitative result of marijuana metabolite is the same as....finding a quantitative result for marijuana metabolite. You know, simple things that are pretty much common sense, but you struggle with.

In any event, ,we would both be in the same boat. I don't have a personal relationship with anyone on this board. I already told you that we could set it up and agree on judges. We can look at post history to check on objectivity. I'm sure someone unbiased posters would bite because 1. They are sick of us cluttering this board about a fight that happened 2 years ago, and 2. perhaps we can make a points wager with all of the proceeds going to the judges. I'm not in it for points, to humiliate you and take your sig, or anything like that. I just think you need to shut the **** up already. You don't know what you are talking about and honestly I find your posts annoying because you somehow believe that you know more than experts in these fields. You are a projector being that it's YOU that is extremely biased. You treat a source as a messiah when they agree with you, and in the same sentence say they don't know what they are talking about when the disagree (see WADA TUEC Head), you refuse to admit when you are wrong (see plasticizers), and you duck questions in a very cowardly fashion. You go around the board calling everything biased if it disagrees with you, and every poster a deflector if they don't see things your away. Lots of your arguments make no sense what so ever, and a large part of what you do say is based on pure speculation.

The only reason you've been able to keep this up so long is because no one cares to call you out on this. You know that in a thunderdome setting when both of us have no ties to the judges, they will see through all of your bullshlt easily and you will be embarrassed. That's the real reason that you are unwilling.

If not...prove me wrong and accept the challenge. I'm willing. You're not, and that's where we're at. That shows who is really confident about what they've been posting, and nothing else is left to say. If you won't accept, just stop writing to me. The fact of the matter is you have no confidence in what you are writing. You're not stupid, because if you were, you would accept and get humiliated based upon your info. making no damn sense at all!

If you care to prove me wrong about any of that, I'm ready.

[ADP02]

1. So you know you are right that Floyd used PED's? That's funny, because you already admit that it's possible that he wasn't.

Floyd and his team lied. USADA assisted by not investigating and giving him a free pass called RETRO TUE.

The most obvious explanation for Floyd not saying the truth is because he was hiding that he used PEDs. The only other explanation is that they screwed up but that is very remote given that Floyd has been doing this for 6 years. Either way, he shouldn't have been allowed to get a TUE and should have been suspended like those other athletes.

They gave a RETRO TUE where the head of WADA TUE Committee says it smells. USADA's statements smell bad. Because of Floyd, they are stuck now whenever something like this happens again .... but as seen, USADA goes both ways.

Other athletes: You had to have a TUE ahead of time. We buy your excuse but you are still getting suspended even though you have a fight coming up in a few weeks.

Floyd: Floyd pays USADA for 6 years. This is just payback.

They were going to investigate Manny for way less. A missed check box on something that was not even banned!!! yet I'm wrong?

2. With Diaz, you can "know" you are right all you want, but you have a hell of a mountain to climb being that the experts say you are wrong. That's what you are afraid of. I know. I know.

Sorry but I have a positive result that was confirmed by way of GCMS. What you got? NOTHING!!!

3. You need to listen to some other people. Someone who can tell you that saying two ped testing results are consistent does not mean that "if the values are different, that's not unexpected" (because obviously the values WERE different and the experts said it IS unexpected). Someone that can tell you that finding a quantitative result of marijuana metabolite is the same as....finding a quantitative result for marijuana metabolite. You know, simple things that are pretty much common sense, but you struggle with.

What's wrong with you? They even clarified it to you! The point was just to say that the higher the SG, the higher the THC concentrations.

In any event, ,we would both be in the same boat. I don't have a personal relationship with anyone on this board. I already told you that we could set it up and agree on judges. We can look at post history to check on objectivity. I'm sure someone unbiased posters would bite because 1. They are sick of us cluttering this board about a fight that happened 2 years ago, and 2. perhaps we can make a points wager with all of the proceeds going to the judges. I'm not in it for points, to humiliate you and take your sig, or anything like that. I just think you need to shut the **** up already. You don't know what you are talking about and honestly I find your posts annoying because you somehow believe that you know more than experts in these fields. You are a projector being that it's YOU that is extremely biased. You treat a source as a messiah when they agree with you, and in the same sentence say they don't know what they are talking about when the disagree (see WADA TUEC Head), you refuse to admit when you are wrong (see plasticizers), and you duck questions in a very cowardly fashion. You go around the board calling everything biased if it disagrees with you, and every poster a deflector if they don't see things your away. Lots of your arguments make no sense what so ever, and a large part of what you do say is based on pure speculation.

The only reason you've been able to keep this up so long is because no one cares to call you out on this. You know that in a thunderdome setting when both of us have no ties to the judges, they will see through all of your bullshlt easily and you will be embarrassed. That's the real reason that you are unwilling.

If not...prove me wrong and accept the challenge. I'm willing. You're not, and that's where we're at. That shows who is really confident about what they've been posting, and nothing else is left to say. If you won't accept, just stop writing to me. The fact of the matter is you have no confidence in what you are writing. You're not stupid, because if you were, you would accept and get humiliated based upon your info. making no damn sense at all!

If you care to prove me wrong about any of that, I'm ready.

WADA TUEC Head: Was admitting that its possible to beat the system with micro-dosing but the gains are minimal so he is looking at it as glass half full.

Why are athletes doing it? Because it gives them an advantage.

Anyhoot, its illegal!!!

plasticizers: Unlike you, I do not deflect. I told you that it would be dumb for Floyd to not get the paper work. You said that it would have been better to not have the RETRO TUE.

DCO: Wrote down and is a witness to Floyd's IV use.

LAB: Can catch athletes who try to use an IV and I gave you an example. You showed me an article but have no idea if Floyd's IV bag was made out of what. Either way, USADA said that they have ways to catch people who are using IVs.

BTW - I knew way beforehand that athletes in the know, can used other ways because I follow cycling as well. BUT that does not mean that science will not catch up and get them. Like I keep telling you, its a cat and mouse game.

USADA/WADA have stated that they can come back to catch the athlete years later when they have new tools and retest samples a year, 2 or in some cases 10 years later.


Challenge?

I know I'm right. I know you are wrong. All you do is deflect and hide.

Just look at your dumb poll for example. You shoot off pages of nonsense like Manny waving a flag, fools believe (most were just Floyd fans) and you get votes. BUT the truth is that your so called "evidence" is not even true.

So what does that prove? NOTHING!!!

My point is that others know less than me and I would think even you since you have done more verification than anyone here. So unless its someone in the know or who works in the field, they would just believe who types the best info not what is the most valid info .... and that could very well be me. ooops, I think you would use this against me if I agree and win!


.

[travestyny]

Floyd and his team lied. USADA assisted by not investigating and giving him a free pass called RETRO TUE.

The most obvious explanation for Floyd not saying the truth is because he was hiding that he used PEDs. The only other explanation is that they screwed up but that is very remote given that Floyd has been doing this for 6 years. Either way, he shouldn't have been allowed to get a TUE and should have been suspended like those other athletes.

They gave a RETRO TUE where the head of WADA TUE Committee says it smells. USADA's statements smell bad. Because of Floyd, they are stuck now whenever something like this happens again .... but as seen, USADA goes both ways.

Other athletes: You had to have a TUE ahead of time. We buy your excuse but you are still getting suspended even though you have a fight coming up in a few weeks.

Floyd: Floyd pays USADA for 6 years. This is just payback.

They were going to investigate Manny for way less. A missed check box on something that was not even banned!!! yet I'm wrong?

If you still can't understand the difference between USADA being present at the time of the IV and USADA being told about the IV after the fact, I certainly can't help you.

And USADA was not going to investigate Pacquaio. NSAC was. They told you why they weren't going to investigate Mayweather. BECAUSE HE DID NOTHING WRONG. Oh yea, they were biased. lol

Sorry but I have a positive result that was confirmed by way of GCMS. What you got? NOTHING!!!

I have two negative tests from a WADA lab using GC/MS and experts that agree that you are wrong. Lol. You are losing.

What's wrong with you? They even clarified it to you! The point was just to say that the higher the SG, the higher the THC concentrations.

I can't believe you really can't understand the word consistent. This is an all time low for you. Let me ask you. Is a metabolite level of well over 300 consistent with one of 61ng 75 minutes apart with no proof of excessive dilution? I'd love to see you argue this and not appear to be a complete moron. You are smarter than that, aren't you?

WADA TUEC Head: Was admitting that its possible to beat the system with micro-dosing but the gains are minimal so he is looking at it as glass half full.

Why are athletes doing it? Because it gives them an advantage.

Anyhoot, its illegal!!!

So like I said, pick and choose what part of this guy's statements you like and which you don't.

plasticizers: Unlike you, I do not deflect. I told you that it would be dumb for Floyd to not get the paper work. You said that it would have been better to not have the RETRO TUE.

DCO: Wrote down and is a witness to Floyd's IV use.

Also, it is stated that the DCO witnessed his condition that made the IV necessary, but you don't like that little tidbit do ya? Nope. More picking and choosing what you like. It's boring already.

LAB: Can catch athletes who try to use an IV and I gave you an example. You showed me an article but have no idea if Floyd's IV bag was made out of what. Either way, USADA said that they have ways to catch people who are using IVs.

What example did you give. Show me an athlete that they caught taking an IV that was not a blood transfusion. You never ever showed that.

BTW - I knew way beforehand that athletes in the know, can used other ways because I follow cycling as well. BUT that does not mean that science will not catch up and get them. Like I keep telling you, its a cat and mouse game.

You seem to know a lot of things after the fact. I don't believe you. Sorry.

USADA/WADA have stated that they can come back to catch the athlete years later when they have new tools and retest samples a year, 2 or in some cases 10 years later.

Ohhhh, so now your viewpoint changes from they would have found him because of a plasticizer test...to they might find him later with whatever they develop. LMAOOOO. You squirm a whole lot buddy. You think they are going to go back and test samples for IV use? Negative. For drugs, perhaps. Just admit that you were wrong already.

Let me help you.

1. Plasticizers - you were wrong

2. Micro-dosing - pure speculation that can be used against anyone, even Manny Acne Back Pacquiao.

Challenge?

I know I'm right. I know you are wrong. All you do is deflect and hide.

Says the man who has been hiding from me since day 1 of this convo. Ducking questions and making any excuse to avoid the thunderdome. If you knew you were right, you wouldn't duck. Quack Quack Quack!

Just look at your dumb poll for example. You shoot off pages of nonsense like Manny waving a flag, fools believe (most were just Floyd fans) and you get votes. BUT the truth is that your so called "evidence" is not even true.

So what does that prove? NOTHING!!!

My point is that others know less than me and I would think even you since you have done more verification than anyone here. So unless its someone in the know or who works in the field, they would just believe who types the best info not what is the most valid info .... and that could very well be me. ooops, I think you would use this against me if I agree and win!
.

Yea, the poll was dumb because you lost. I get it. LOL. You're full of excuses like your idol. Truth of the matter is you got beat to a pulp in that thread and the only thing you had to fall back on was the reputation of Dr. ElAttrache, which was turned to shlt by him being in Pacquiao's dressing room trying to shoot him up for an injury that he admit he didn't have at the time. What excuses did you give? Oh yea....being back to full strength isn't the same as not having pain. lol. Then everyone comes out and says he had no pain at the time. Even Pacquaio said he had no pain. LMAO. You've embarrassed yourself a lot. I should have stopped talking to you when you tried to say that Manny meant he healed his scar with salt water, not his injury. Remember that? That still sound accurate to you, Mr. ADP02? lolllllllll. It's pathetic.

WE KNOW YOUR POINT IS THAT OTHERS KNOW LESS THAN YOU. BUT YOU ARE DELUSIONAL AND IN FACT DONT KNOW WHAT THE **** YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, as I've proven over and over and over.

Tell me, what are your credentials that make you know more than the MRO and Novitsky. I'd love to know.

Oh, they are biased. lol. Like Novitsky gives a **** if Nick Diaz gets popped for smoking marijuana.

You call everyone (and everything) biased yet you believe that Diaz got a fair trial. A proceeding that is known as Nick Diaz vs. NSAC, and the “judges” are NSAC commissioners. Yet it’s all fair to you, not biased at all.


Look, the only reason they got Diaz is because he lied about taking marijuana. I believe they even stated that if he mentioned on the questionnaire that he took marijuana, it could have been all good. Certainly, there would have been no settlement if this wasn’t an issue. Diaz’ team threatened to take it to trial, and NSAC very quickly moved to settle. They knew that they would be destroyed there based on EXACTLY WHAT WE’VE BEEN DISCUSSING. Diaz’ team would not have accepted any settlement if NSAC didn’t have that.

On everything that we have been discussing, NSAC was destroyed. No way they would have made it out of that court proceeding based upon the facts. If you don’t see that….

perhaps our debate in the thunderdome will convince you.

So now that you've insulted all of the posters here by calling them fools, yea, let's see your credentials.

And again, we would agree on judges. I'd rather spend my time looking for good judges than continuously proving you wrong like this. Shall we do that? I'm dying for you to attempt to win this challenge, but first you have to step up!

You're just a ducker. You can't even admit what the **** is meant by consistent because it wrecks your bullshlt theory. Accept or buzz off!

[ADP02]

If you still can't understand the difference between USADA being present at the time of the IV and USADA being told about the IV after the fact, I certainly can't help you.

And USADA was not going to investigate Pacquaio. NSAC was. They told you why they weren't going to investigate Mayweather. BECAUSE HE DID NOTHING WRONG. Oh yea, they were biased. lol

Nice joke.

Well, yes I said NSAC. You are just repeated what I said!

USADA: Not even close to being the same thing!!!
Manny asked USADA before using it and on top of that USADA confirmed that it was not even a banned substance.


USADA told me why? WADA told me and you that what USADA did STINKS!!!


Nope that does not even make any sense. WADA called it a red flag, right? So a red flag would automatically mean that at the very least, an investigation has to happen. Floyd got the special treatment.

USADA investigated those athletes, right? Why? To see if their stories made any sense NOT because the DCO wasn't present. Its not like the DCO is a doctor. USADA must have investigated their doctor to see if it was on the up and up. With Floyd, they rubber stamped it. Why? Because USADA didn't want to hear the other side of the story. Just Floyd's made up BS. In Floyd's case, there was tons of evidence against requiring an IV. Some on video taped, some documented (pre-fight forms, NSAC examination, vital signs), ....

I have two negative tests from a WADA lab using GC/MS and experts that agree that you are wrong. Lol. You are losing.

So if an athlete does 3 tests and 1 comes out positive, you would throw out the positive? WHich rules are you following? lol

a) TEST #1: 1 Negative, was extremely diluted. Specific gravity test came back that the urine sample was NOT suitable!!! INVALID!!! NEXT!
b) TEST #3: 1 Negative was diluted and the THC metabolite concentration was for some reason still very close to TEST #1. Something wrong here? Yup! Some factor caused this.
c) TEST #1 and #3, were a SCREENING test with no confirmation since the levels were below the threshold!

You have no B sample tested so A sample stands .... but in your world, no? lol


TESt #2: Screening was positive, confirmation was positive. Combination of 2 protocols. Confirmation was with GCMS. How can you beat that? With a B sample coming back negative but again, Diaz's team was too scared to have that tested!!!

Lets face it, you do not want to look at this objectively. If you did, you would have thrown out TEST #1 from DAY #1 but you have very little going for you so you are desperately clinging to an invalid test.

Furthermore, I see in your post that you are still clinging to UNRELIABLE DATA!!! lol

I can't believe you really can't understand the word consistent. This is an all time low for you. Let me ask you. Is a metabolite level of well over 300 consistent with one of 61ng 75 minutes apart with no proof of excessive dilution? I'd love to see you argue this and not appear to be a complete moron. You are smarter than that, aren't you?

Consistent? Taking things out of context are you?

Here was the point and it had nothing to do with QUEST's data being invalid. If Diaz's team thought that SMRTL would give them that golden egg of a response, do you not think they would have asked that type of direct question and received that response? BUT as you know, SMRTL was not defending DIAZ. Diaz had only 1 witness.


SMRTL TEST #1 and TEST #2
"nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly but it is definitely consistent (greater THC when specific gravity is greater)"

The next question was this (to clarify the point):
Question: So your point is that greater hydration creates lesser amount of THC?
RESPONSE: Yes that is the point



Why are you asking me a question using unreliable numbers???

From the time the fight finished to the time that TEST #3 took place, how much time had elapsed? About 2 hours 20 minutes NOT 1 hour 17 minutes!!!


Your responses are consistently using unreliable data!!! lol WHy? Without your unreliable data, you might as well just quit .... but keep on clinging to that!

So like I said, pick and choose what part of this guy's statements you like and which you don't.

Are you not picking and chosing on the bigger issue?


Sorry but he is the head of the TUE Committee so he should be the most reliable expert and the go to guy when it comes to discussing RETRO TUEs. While I think he is also knowledgeable about drugs I do not think its to the same degree. Even then, he too said that there are marginal gains and was looking at it with the glass half full.

Still, no matter what he says, its illegal to micro-dose and athletes are doing it!!! Why? because they are effective!!!

Your expert, Novitsky, was quite concerned about micro-dosing. Are you buying his concerns? Or are you picking and choosing what he says?


Anyways, you are too naïve in this field. Just read up and you will see that there are definite advantages. Especially in Floyd's case where all he does is get tested for a several weeks per fight per year. That article that I showed you stated that he gained quite a bit. Imagine someone who is an expert at cheating?

Also, with micro-dosing you can maintain the levels that you achieved!!!! Floyd comes in to those 8 weeks and relatively high levels and micro-doses to maintain! BOOOM!

Also, it is stated that the DCO witnessed his condition that made the IV necessary, but you don't like that little tidbit do ya? Nope. More picking and choosing what you like. It's boring already.

Little bit of tidbit .... Well, we have a lot more than a little bit of tidbit on Floyd!!!
Witnessed? If that is all it takes well, thousands of people witnessed Floyd from before the weigh-in, the weigh-in, after the weigh-in, while drinking adequately. How did Floyd look to you, Witness 1 of many thousands? Did he look severely dehydrated?


When you do not look severely dehydrated, the vitals signs do not concur, and you drink adequately, how can Floyd state that he was severely dehydrated? You do not even believe that!!!

Imagine an investigation occurred and they asked the NSAC doctor. "When you examined Floyd Mayweather did he look like he was severely dehydrated?" .... "No, Floyd looked good and said he was in good physical condition" ..... then an objective USADA would have said "That is all I wanted to know!!!" .... "NO RETRO TUE FOR FLOYD"

What example did you give. Show me an athlete that they caught taking an IV that was not a blood transfusion. You never ever showed that.

I already told you what Jeff Novitzky, your "expert" go to guy, said. What you do not believe him anymore? "but you don't like that little tidbit do ya? Nope. More picking and choosing what you like. It's boring already." lol

"Novitzky said there are two methods to test for IV use. One of them involves a fighter's biological passport, which USADA will accumulate over time and multiple tests. If the blood and urine are diluted, it will affect the biological passport and USADA will be able to tell the fighter used an IV. There is also a test for the plastics found in an IV, which USADA could also use."

"Interestingly, Novitzky also said that USADA will keep fighter samples long term and, as new screens and technology come about, can test them retroactively."

"Even if there wasn't a definitive test now, there could be two or three years from now," he said.

Man, the above statements are very similar to what I told you!!!

PLUS as I told you, the DCO was a witness and documented it all including the IV use. Funny that with this too, you bring up that the DCO monitored and played doctor (even in your above post you brought it up!!!) but then you pretend (DEFLECT) that he closed his eyes on the IV situation.

You seem to know a lot of things after the fact. I don't believe you. Sorry.

I never said it was a cat and mouse game? What do you think that means? Cheaters are ahead of the game. Once the testers find out a way to catch the cheaters, the first few get caught then they either tweak or if it becomes impossible to beat, many cheaters move on to a new technique . With every technique, trick, there is always a risk of getting caught.

BTW - I'm not even just talking about PVC vs non-PVC. Both are still (a form of) plasticizers and can contain one type or another type of residue including DEHP or metabolite. and even DEHP metabolite is not specific to PVC related plastics.

Ohhhh, so now your viewpoint changes from they would have found him because of a plasticizer test...to they might find him later with whatever they develop. LMAOOOO. You squirm a whole lot buddy. You think they are going to go back and test samples for IV use? Negative. For drugs, perhaps. Just admit that you were wrong already.

Let me help you.

1. Plasticizers - you were wrong

2. Micro-dosing - pure speculation that can be used against anyone, even Manny Acne Back Pacquiao.

1. Sorry but Novistsky is not on your side on this one!!! You said that he is the expert, not you. Listen to him!!! lol

2. Sorry ..... You made it sound like its not possible then changed it to its not even going to benefit Floyd to now going to your go to move, DEFLECTING!!!!

3. Just to make you remember, YOU said that USADA didn't have to give a RETRO TUE (no paper work required). That still stands as a very dumb alternative move. I presented to you the reasons why and now even Novitsky is stating something similar to what I said (See above). You want me to repeat them so YOU CAN SQUIRM SOME MORE? lol

Says the man who has been hiding from me since day 1 of this convo. Ducking questions and making any excuse to avoid the thunderdome. If you knew you were right, you wouldn't duck. Quack Quack Quack!

THUNDERDOME THIS:
- Should Floyd have been investigated? YES, Even the head of WADA TUE Committee agrees.


- USADA is supposed to be totally independent according to the head of WADA TUE Committee. Floyd got USADA into the pro-boxing world. Floyd's reps have been paying USADA for 6+ years. Even the head of WADA TUE Committee agrees that its "murky and Red Flag". Is USADA being totally independent body here in Floyd's case? NO

- With all the evidence plus statements made by Floyd, do you think that Floyd was severely dehydrated? NO

- With all the evidence plus statements made by Floyd, do you think that Floyd should have received an IV? NO

- RETRO TUEs are given in URGENT cases and when alternatives such as drinking orally is not possible. Floyd's case was not urgent and we saw Floyd drinking adequately both before and after getting the IV. So to say, if Floyd can drink, no IV is necessary. Even the head of WADA TUE Committee agrees that Floyd should have not received a RETRO TUE.

Question: Should USADA have given a RETRO TUE to Floyd Mayweather when the request was made 3 weeks after the fact? NO!!!!!!!!


What is your come back? Do not DEFLECT/HIDE/SQUIRM as I expect you too!!! Quack Quack Quack!

Yea, the poll was dumb because you lost. I get it. LOL. You're full of excuses like your idol. Truth of the matter is you got beat to a pulp in that thread and the only thing you had to fall back on was the reputation of Dr. ElAttrache, which was turned to shlt by him being in Pacquiao's dressing room trying to shoot him up for an injury that he admit he didn't have at the time. What excuses did you give? Oh yea....being back to full strength isn't the same as not having pain. lol. Then everyone comes out and says he had no pain at the time. Even Pacquaio said he had no pain. LMAO. You've embarrassed yourself a lot. I should have stopped talking to you when you tried to say that Manny meant he healed his scar with salt water, not his injury. Remember that? That still sound accurate to you, Mr. ADP02? lolllllllll. It's pathetic.

WE KNOW YOUR POINT IS THAT OTHERS KNOW LESS THAN YOU. BUT YOU ARE DELUSIONAL AND IN FACT DONT KNOW WHAT THE **** YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, as I've proven over and over and over.

Tell me, what are your credentials that make you know more than the MRO and Novitsky. I'd love to know.

Oh, they are biased. lol. Like Novitsky gives a **** if Nick Diaz gets popped for smoking marijuana.

You call everyone (and everything) biased yet you believe that Diaz got a fair trial. A proceeding that is known as Nick Diaz vs. NSAC, and the “judges” are NSAC commissioners. Yet it’s all fair to you, not biased at all.


Look, the only reason they got Diaz is because he lied about taking marijuana. I believe they even stated that if he mentioned on the questionnaire that he took marijuana, it could have been all good. Certainly, there would have been no settlement if this wasn’t an issue. Diaz’ team threatened to take it to trial, and NSAC very quickly moved to settle. They knew that they would be destroyed there based on EXACTLY WHAT WE’VE BEEN DISCUSSING. Diaz’ team would not have accepted any settlement if NSAC didn’t have that.

On everything that we have been discussing, NSAC was destroyed. No way they would have made it out of that court proceeding based upon the facts. If you don’t see that….

perhaps our debate in the thunderdome will convince you.

So now that you've insulted all of the posters here by calling them fools, yea, let's see your credentials.

And again, we would agree on judges. I'd rather spend my time looking for good judges than continuously proving you wrong like this. Shall we do that? I'm dying for you to attempt to win this challenge, but first you have to step up!

You're just a ducker. You can't even admit what the **** is meant by consistent because it wrecks your bullshlt theory. Accept or buzz off!

A poll? You got a few more Floyd fans to vote for you. Big deal. It means NOTHING!

As I told you, you gave as evidence that Manny was waving a flag 1 month after surgery. I showed you that it didn't happen. Those that voted with you believed that nonsense. So you were ALL WRONG!!!


"Tell me, what are your credentials that make you know more than the MRO and Novitsky. I'd love to know." - Travestyny


This line is funny .... Novitsky says YOU ARE WRONG!!!

[JakeTheBoxer]

No. And you lost all dignity.

[travestyny]

Nice joke.

Well, yes I said NSAC. You are just repeated what I said!

USADA: Not even close to being the same thing!!!
Manny asked USADA before using it and on top of that USADA confirmed that it was not even a banned substance.

How the **** are you even going to lie about this??? Your statement didn't have NSAC in it at all. You're a compulsive liar. The **** is wrong with you?

USADA told me why? WADA told me and you that what USADA did STINKS!!!


Nope that does not even make any sense. WADA called it a red flag, right? So a red flag would automatically mean that at the very least, an investigation has to happen. Floyd got the special treatment.

Your whole WADA bullshlt is just that. Bullshlt.

1. The guy said he doesn't know the details of this case.
2. IT'S WADA'S JOB TO INVESTIGATE IF THEY BELIEVE IT IS A RED FLAG. YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT IS LIKE A POLICE OFFICER BEING GIVEN DETAILS OF A BURGLARY, AND THEN COMPLAINING THAT THE SUSPECTED BURGLAR IS NOT BEING INVESTIGATED. YOU HAVE NO INFORMATION ON IF WADA REVIEWED THIS CASE AT ALL. SHUT THE **** UP ALREADY.

USADA investigated those athletes, right? Why? To see if their stories made any sense NOT because the DCO wasn't present. Its not like the DCO is a doctor. USADA must have investigated their doctor to see if it was on the up and up. With Floyd, they rubber stamped it. Why? Because USADA didn't want to hear the other side of the story. Just Floyd's made up BS. In Floyd's case, there was tons of evidence against requiring an IV. Some on video taped, some documented (pre-fight forms, NSAC examination, vital signs), ....

1. USADA FOLLOWED ALL RULES. YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY RULE THAT THEY BROKE.

2. You still refuse to acknowledge that there is a clear difference between what Floyd did and these other athletes did. That's because you are a butthurt ******. Seriously. Your butthurt makes you ******ed. The DCO doesn't have to be a doctor. He was present when the IV wad given and witnessed the need for it. Did he note the extremely dark urine? Was he made aware of diarrhea? Was he present for any type of test that was given? I don't have that information and neither do you.

3. The doctor was investigated fool. It's called the TUE application.

4. Rubber Stamped? USADA has gone on record saying that retroactive TUE's are a standard part of the ISTUE. You should "read up" on it.

5. Evidence is called his medical records. NSAC has never, ever, in its history found someone to be dehydrated. In boxing, don't you think that's a bit off? LMAO. Stop your crying.

So if an athlete does 3 tests and 1 comes out positive, you would throw out the positive? WHich rules are you following? lol

I'm following a 20 year MRO vet. That's what he told you that he would do. Now....what you got?

a) TEST #1: 1 Negative, was extremely diluted. Specific gravity test came back that the urine sample was NOT suitable!!! INVALID!!! NEXT!
b) TEST #3: 1 Negative was diluted and the THC metabolite concentration was for some reason still very close to TEST #1. Something wrong here? Yup! Some factor caused this.
c) TEST #1 and #3, were a SCREENING test with no confirmation since the levels were below the threshold!

You have no B sample tested so A sample stands .... but in your world, no? lol

Once again, a 20 year MRO vet is telling you why you are wrong. All of your mumbo jumbo about a confirmation test and "some other factor" is beyond stupid. It's really moronic. You need to use your brain, if you have one. Regarding the B sample being tested, we have 2 independent tests that are CONSISTENT. The MRO and EICHER testified to that. So that takes care of your B sample bullshlt and your confirmation testing bullshlt.

TESt #2: Screening was positive, confirmation was positive. Combination of 2 protocols. Confirmation was with GCMS. How can you beat that? With a B sample coming back negative but again, Diaz's team was too scared to have that tested!!!

Look up and re-read what I wrote. By the way, I would be afraid to have the B sample re-tested as well. This could very well be a contaminated sample since the chain of custody was not followed properly. Thankfully, NSAC tested him twice under the WADA protocol. Their dumb ass decision to have him tested 3 times is what ultimately was the reason that they had to let him go. LMAO. Think about that!

Lets face it, you do not want to look at this objectively. If you did, you would have thrown out TEST #1 from DAY #1 but you have very little going for you so you are desperately clinging to an invalid test.

Furthermore, I see in your post that you are still clinging to UNRELIABLE DATA!!! lol

MRO disagreeeeesssss with you. LMAOOOOOOOO. Let me remind you...pst......this is his job, ya big dummy!

Consistent? Taking things out of context are you?

Here was the point and it had nothing to do with QUEST's data being invalid. If Diaz's team thought that SMRTL would give them that golden egg of a response, do you not think they would have asked that type of direct question and received that response? BUT as you know, SMRTL was not defending DIAZ. Diaz had only 1 witness.


SMRTL TEST #1 and TEST #2
"nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly but it is definitely consistent (greater THC when specific gravity is greater)"

The next question was this (to clarify the point):
Question: So your point is that greater hydration creates lesser amount of THC?
RESPONSE: Yes that is the point

Wrong.
1. Eichner very clearly states that the GC/MS data that they do for the confirmation should be CONSISTENT with Quest's. I posed that part of the video for you.

2. 733ng and 61ng are not consistent. Look how you ducked that part of the post. Ducker!

3. The MRO clearly states exactly what he means by consistent. Clearly. States that it is the normal movement from a more diluted to less diluted sample. Eichner is saying the same thing. Normal movement. Now can you use your brain and understand what was truly being said here? Do you have a brain?

Why are you asking me a question using unreliable numbers???

From the time the fight finished to the time that TEST #3 took place, how much time had elapsed? About 2 hours 20 minutes NOT 1 hour 17 minutes!!!


Your responses are consistently using unreliable data!!! lol WHy? Without your unreliable data, you might as well just quit .... but keep on clinging to that!

You're a coward. How many times have you refused to acknowledge that what you are saying makes zero sense. How could he have been diluting an hour before the test when he was normal or slightly dehydrated at the time of the test. How many times have you ducked this. DUCKER!

Are you not picking and chosing on the bigger issue?


Sorry but he is the head of the TUE Committee so he should be the most reliable expert and the go to guy when it comes to discussing RETRO TUEs. While I think he is also knowledgeable about drugs I do not think its to the same degree. Even then, he too said that there are marginal gains and was looking at it with the glass half full.

Still, no matter what he says, its illegal to micro-dose and athletes are doing it!!! Why? because they are effective!!!

Your expert, Novitsky, was quite concerned about micro-dosing. Are you buying his concerns? Or are you picking and choosing what he says?

So you pick and choose what the WADA guy is knowledgeable about, huh? Good on ya! I don't mind what Novitzsky said one bit. The point was not to give my opinion on microdosing. The point was to expose you for picking and choosing what to believe. I don't give 2 ****s about microdosing because, once again, this is mere speculation by you with no proof what so ever. Care to discuss Manny AcneBack Pacquaio micro-dosing?

Anyways, you are too naïve in this field. Just read up and you will see that there are definite advantages. Especially in Floyd's case where all he does is get tested for a several weeks per fight per year. That article that I showed you stated that he gained quite a bit. Imagine someone who is an expert at cheating?

Also, with micro-dosing you can maintain the levels that you achieved!!!! Floyd comes in to those 8 weeks and relatively high levels and micro-doses to maintain! BOOOM!

Righttttt. So he has been tested from 6 years ago. He has taken over 130 blood and urine tests, and nothing ever comes up on his ABP.

You are a moron. I seriously mean that.

Little bit of tidbit .... Well, we have a lot more than a little bit of tidbit on Floyd!!!
Witnessed? If that is all it takes well, thousands of people witnessed Floyd from before the weigh-in, the weigh-in, after the weigh-in, while drinking adequately. How did Floyd look to you, Witness 1 of many thousands? Did he look severely dehydrated?


When you do not look severely dehydrated, the vitals signs do not concur, and you drink adequately, how can Floyd state that he was severely dehydrated? You do not even believe that!!!

Imagine an investigation occurred and they asked the NSAC doctor. "When you examined Floyd Mayweather did he look like he was severely dehydrated?" .... "No, Floyd looked good and said he was in good physical condition" ..... then an objective USADA would have said "That is all I wanted to know!!!" .... "NO RETRO TUE FOR FLOYD"

USADA did an investigation. It's called the TUE application. This application was then sent to WADA. You know that, don't you?

I already told you what Jeff Novitzky, your "expert" go to guy, said. What you do not believe him anymore? "but you don't like that little tidbit do ya? Nope. More picking and choosing what you like. It's boring already." lol

"Novitzky said there are two methods to test for IV use. One of them involves a fighter's biological passport, which USADA will accumulate over time and multiple tests. If the blood and urine are diluted, it will affect the biological passport and USADA will be able to tell the fighter used an IV. There is also a test for the plastics found in an IV, which USADA could also use."

"Interestingly, Novitzky also said that USADA will keep fighter samples long term and, as new screens and technology come about, can test them retroactively."

"Even if there wasn't a definitive test now, there could be two or three years from now," he said.

Man, the above statements are very similar to what I told you!!!

Squirminggggg. lmaoooo. Keep squirming. You said they would know from plasticizers. Just say you were wrong.

1. Saying they "could use" something is not the same as saying they will use it. Even if they do use it, I'VE SHOWN YOU THAT THIS WILL ONLY SHOW UP ON BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS. IV bags don't use plasticizers!!! All I had to show your dumb ass is that there exist IV bags without plasticizers and that wrecks your whole argument. But you couldn't admit that you were wrong. I have no problem with what Novitzsky says at all, though you would like to believe I do. LMAO. One final time: PLASTICIZERS WOULD BE FOUND FOR A BLOOD TRANSFUSION. You got that now?

2. If you think they are going to retroactively test people for plastics, you are far more stupid than I thought.

3. So now you bring up the ABP for fighters, but before you thought it would be useless in this case. LMAOOOOO. Which is it? Squirminggggggg! LMAOOOOOOOOO!

PLUS as I told you, the DCO was a witness and documented it all including the IV use. Funny that with this too, you bring up that the DCO monitored and played doctor (even in your above post you brought it up!!!) but then you pretend (DEFLECT) that he closed his eyes on the IV situation.

Are you ******ed? Why do you make up so much bullshlt. Of course the DCO monitored and was present. The point is you are trying to say USADA helped Floyd to cheat. Now what you are showing is that there was a DCO that was not helping him cheat present. Thanks for that. So when he witnessed that Floyd needed an IV, you should finally be willing to accept that. Thanks! See how easy that was. Rules were followed. The DCO witnessed his need for the IV, and the DCO stayed and witnessed the IV. The DCO also took urine from before the IV. "But but but.....USADA helped him to cheat." LMAOOOOO. Let's mix this dirty urine in with this clean urine, which certainly won't come out dirty when whatever bad things you took are certainly mixed in there. Oh, and if they are threshold substances that affect you, this won't come up on the ABP at all. Nope. Don't worry.

You gonna remind me how he cheated again? Do you finally realize why your whole bullshlt makes zero sense whatsover?

I never said it was a cat and mouse game? What do you think that means? Cheaters are ahead of the game. Once the testers find out a way to catch the cheaters, the first few get caught then they either tweak or if it becomes impossible to beat, many cheaters move on to a new technique . With every technique, trick, there is always a risk of getting caught.

BTW - I'm not even just talking about PVC vs non-PVC. Both are still (a form of) plasticizers and can contain one type or another type of residue including DEHP or metabolite. and even DEHP metabolite is not specific to PVC related plastics.

I don't even know or care what you are talking about here. I know that you were wrong about plasticizers. You just don't want to admit it.

1. Sorry but Novistsky is not on your side on this one!!! You said that he is the expert, not you. Listen to him!!! lol

Not on my side with regard to what exactly? Plasticizers. He said they could use that test. Sure, they can use it. They won't find anything. LMAOOOO. NEXT!

2. Sorry ..... You made it sound like its not possible then changed it to its not even going to benefit Floyd to now going to your go to move, DEFLECTING!!!!

Wrong. I, unlike you, am not an anti-doping expert. The point is you hail the WADA dude, then in the next sentence say he doesn't know what the **** he is talking about. Welcome to hypocrisy. You should try repairing your image as a poster. You're a shlt poster.

3. Just to make you remember, YOU said that USADA didn't have to give a RETRO TUE (no paper work required). That still stands as a very dumb alternative move. I presented to you the reasons why and now even Novitsky is stating something similar to what I said (See above). You want me to repeat them so YOU CAN SQUIRM SOME MORE? lol

Wrong. You said USADA was helping and that this is because they would find plasticizers. I've proven that you don't know what the **** you are talking about and you are WRONG. How can they find plasticizers in IV bags that don't have plasticizers. You were WRONG. Just admit it already you crying baffoon, or do I need to post up the information about IV bags without plasticizers again.

So now what do you have. USADA was helping...but they didn't help Floyd know when the DCO was coming...they didn't alert the DCO to them helping....urine samples from before and after the IV which makes passing if dirty more worrisome. TUE application uploaded to WADA....

So um....what exactly did he pay for? LMAO. This conspiracy theory was cute...but there's a reason that no one discusses it anymore.

pst....It's bullshlt and beyond ******ed!

THUNDERDOME THIS:
- Should Floyd have been investigated? YES, Even the head of WADA TUE Committee agrees.

Then why didn't WADA investigate? USADA did. Now it was their job. Maybe they did and thought the paperwork looked legit. You have any inside info on that?

- USADA is supposed to be totally independent according to the head of WADA TUE Committee. Floyd got USADA into the pro-boxing world. Floyd's reps have been paying USADA for 6+ years. Even the head of WADA TUE Committee agrees that its "murky and Red Flag". Is USADA being totally independent body here in Floyd's case? NO

So your argument is that they should do the testing for free? LMAO. Was VADA independent when they tested Manny Pac?

Oh, USADA is so heavy in boxing now. LMAOOOOO! That Floyd did great! LMAOOOO!

- With all the evidence plus statements made by Floyd, do you think that Floyd was severely dehydrated? NO

- With all the evidence plus statements made by Floyd, do you think that Floyd should have received an IV? NO

- RETRO TUEs are given in URGENT cases and when alternatives such as drinking orally is not possible. Floyd's case was not urgent and we saw Floyd drinking adequately both before and after getting the IV. So to say, if Floyd can drink, no IV is necessary. Even the head of WADA TUE Committee agrees that Floyd should have not received a RETRO TUE.

Question: Should USADA have given a RETRO TUE to Floyd Mayweather when the request was made 3 weeks after the fact? NO!!!!!!!!


What is your come back? Do not DEFLECT/HIDE/SQUIRM as I expect you too!!! Quack Quack Quack!

I never have any reason to deflect or squirm, unlike you, projector. I've answered all of your questions and I'll continue to do it just to watch you get stumped and come back with more bullshlt.

1. You don't have any medical records.

2. The medical records were uploaded to your WADA guy.

3. You don't know if the records were reviewed by WADA or not...but they are there. And they are still there.

4. You failed to point out any rule that was broken.

5. You continuously quote a man who admits to not knowing the details of this case.

Did I miss anything?

A poll? You got a few more Floyd fans to vote for you. Big deal. It means NOTHING!

LMAO. Oh it means something. It means people know your lord and savior was full of shlt. With all the Mayweather haters here, you'd think you could have pulled that one out. LMAOOO. There were far more Pacquiao supporters on your side of that thread. All of the names with Pacquiao in it...and with tagalog references. Even a confirmed alt. I know. Yet....you lost. You can make up all the excuses that you want. You lost. Take it like a man, you little bltch.

As I told you, you gave as evidence that Manny was waving a flag 1 month after surgery. I showed you that it didn't happen. Those that voted with you believed that nonsense. So you were ALL WRONG!!!

Your memory is off. That information was NOT in that thread. Sorry. What was in that thread was untouchable. Your only come back was the reputation of a doctor that tried to help Manny cheat. LMAOOOO.

"Tell me, what are your credentials that make you know more than the MRO and Novitsky. I'd love to know." - Travestyny


This line is funny .... Novitsky says YOU ARE WRONG!!!

Again, Novitzsky said I was wrong about what? Stop making up stuff. Is this about plasticizers again?

1. WADA does not use the urine test for plasticizers. They can check blood for it. They do this to check for BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS.

2. IV bags don't commonly have plasticizers.

Anything else? Oh...I have one more thing for you. But I'll drop it in the next post since this is getting long. Just wanted to take the time to respond to all of your bullshlt here.

[travestyny]

Challenge?

I know I'm right. I know you are wrong. All you do is deflect and hide.

I’ve been challenging you to a duel type setting for over a month now. That’s what you call deflecting and hiding? Let me show you what deflecting and hiding looks like:

My point is that others know less than me

LMAO. You have a very big ego for someone who has been proven wrong as much as you have.

So unless its someone in the know or who works in the field,

Wait….I tried that. You DEFLECTED to labeling them biased. LMAO.

Dr. Hani Khella: A certified medical review officer for 20 years.



Diaz’s medical expert, Dr. Hani Khella, testified that the variations in the test results were “not medically plausible.” Dr. Khella stated that the difference between concentrations in the two post-fight tests could not be attributed to simple rehydration and that Diaz would have had to endanger his life by drinking “30 glasses of water” in such a short timeframe. The doctor testified that the increase between Diaz’s first and third tests was “typical movement that you would expect to see in a more concentrated sample or more dehydrated sample.”

Jeff Novitzky: Anti-Doping Expert



"They got this one wrong, in my opinion. The Quest Labs sample was 733 ng/ml, one of the highest I’ve ever seen.

There are big issues in interpreting those results.

There’s no real scientific medical explanation for someone having a 40, then right after the fight a 733, and shortly after that back to 60."


Kevin Iole: Combat Sports Insider/Sports Writer



He was present at the Silva disciplinary hearing. Not sure if he was present at Diaz’ but he certainly reviewed it. He was one of the first to report on the failed drug tests of both Silva and Diaz.

"The members of the Nevada Athletic Commission who voted in September to suspend Nick Diaz for five years and fine him $165,000 for smoking marijuana looked like a gang of fools far more than a serious regulatory body.
It was an unconscionable overreach, particularly because the commission didn’t prove to any neutral observer’s satisfaction that Diaz had marijuana in his system when he fought Anderson Silva in Las Vegas on Jan. 31, 2015, at UFC 183.

…the commission utterly failed to prove [Diaz smoked marijuana before the fight]".



LMAO@ Kevin Iole calling you out as being non-neutral…and he doesn’t even know you. Wow. this guy must be a ****ing wizard!







So about this challenge….

they would just believe who types the best info….

That’s the ****in point! Do you have any idea how a court of law works. Of course this wouldn’t be a court of law, but you would have to prove your point. I would have to prove my point. Let the best poster win. What are you afraid of?

So are you down or what???