Why do the same posters who claim VADA is the best side with Wilders dirty foes?

[Kigali]

he hasnt had a ko since 2009. he didnt start testing until 2013. your time line is messed up brah LOL.

My point stands stumpy.

why did it take so long for him to start testing??

[WesternChamp]

My point stands stumpy.

why did it take so long for him to start testing??

no, your point got debunk. if he only started doing random testing in 2013, then what happen between late 2009-2012? LOL!! he didnt have any ko during that time frame.

[MurkaMan]

I think you're missing the point of what i was saying.

Say if VADA were catching people at a 30:1 ratio compared to USADA, then i'd have to say there's something quite a miss there. It could be that it was the truth, but it's very unlikely that VADA would end up with that many dirty tests compared to USADA. Very, very unlikely.

I don't know what the statistics are in reality, it was just making a point that if they are wildly different between the two organisations, then i'd have to assume something is not right.

But maybe you're more trusting/naive than i am.

Bro they are testing completely different people. Its simply impossible for me to let you talk me into going along with this narrative that they "are su****ious because they havent caught anyone" I dont care how you break it down, or type it up. They have to test someone who is DIRTY, in order for them to "catch him"

In other words, maybe everyone that Vada tested, broke the rules. Maybe everyone that USADA tested, stayed true to the rules.

You cant just make up su****ion out of thin air, because one agency caught people, and the other did not, because maybe the agency that caught people, tested dirty people. While the agency that DIDNT, tested clean people.

This entire conversation is pure silliness.

[Shape up]

In case of an Adverse Analytical Finding for hCG, a comment shall be added to the Test Report describing the hCG finding and recommending the ADO to advise the Athlete to undergo clinical investigations to exclude any pathological cause for the elevated urinary hCG (see Appendix 1);
----------- this is a WADA example of a clinical investigation ******NY, it doesn't mean a medical clinic

[travestyny]

In case of an Adverse Analytical Finding for hCG, a comment shall be added to the Test Report describing the hCG finding and recommending the ADO to advise the Athlete to undergo clinical investigations to exclude any pathological cause for the elevated urinary hCG (see Appendix 1);
----------- this is a WADA example of a clinical investigation ******NY, it doesn't mean a medical clinic

What do you think it is that you do at a clinic, you moron? You're still going on about this? You're ****ing wrong. I don't know how many ways to say this to your simple simon a$s. You're quoting from the MEDICAL BEST PRACTICES section.

3. Medical best practice treatment
Legitimate medical indications for IV infusions are well documented and are most commonly associated with either medical emergencies or in-patient care.
When an IV infusion is administered to an athlete, the following criteria should be fulfilled:
1. A clearly defined diagnosis.
2. Supportive evidence that no permitted alternative treatment can be
used.
3. The treatment has been ordered by a physician and administered by
qualified medical personnel in an appropriate medical setting. 4. Adequate medical records of the treatment.

THIS SECTION IS ABOUT TAKING CARE OF THE ATHLETE, AS MUCH OF THE DOCUMENT SAYS WHEN IT REPEATS OVER AND OVER:

the health and well-being of the athlete must always remain the priority.

OF COURSE THE IV SHOULD BE IN AN APPROPRIATE "MEDICAL SETTING." Isn't it up to the ****ing paramedic to decide what the appropriate medical setting would be? I assume so since they are allowed to GIVE AN IV ON A PLAYING FIELD.

Just shut the **** up, you nitwit. You already admit that you can have it on a ****in playing field. So what the **** is it that you don't understand? I already showed you that it does not have to be an emergency for the retro TUE.

You're far too ****** to understand any of this. Well, here is the most simple way I can explain it:

USADA IS THE ONE WHO LET THE WORLD KNOW ABOUT THE IV. IF THEY WERE PAID OFF, WHY THE **** WOULD THEY BE TELLING EVERYONE ABOUT THE IV WHEN ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS....STAY AWAY. IF THEY WANTED TO CHEAT, THEY WOULD TELL THE MUTHA****A WHEN THE TESTS ARE COMING YOU MORON.


USADA TOLD THE WORLD THE IV WAS AT HIS HOME. WADA WAS SENT THIS INFORMATION! WADA DOESN'T STEP UP AND SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE....YOU'RE WRONG!!!! IT CAN OBVIOUSLY BE HAD AT HIS HOME IF THERE IS A TUE. IT CAN BE HELD ON A PLAYING FIELD IF THERE IS A TUE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN EMERGENCY FOR A RETRO TUE. IS IT ALL CLEAR NOW?

Now shut the **** up and go back to school.

[travestyny]

And for the last time:

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.

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

Straight from WADA and referring to this fight. That should end this. If you have a problem with it, take it up with WADA. Maybe you can tell them that you know their rules better than they do.

[Kigali]

And for the last time:






Straight from WADA and referring to this fight. That should end this. If you have a problem with it, take it up with WADA. Maybe you can tell them that you know their rules better than they do.

He'll still find a problem with it...even though a problem is not there.

[Shape up]

WADA confirmed that under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code and the International Standard for The****utic Use Exemptions (ISTUE), a retroactive TUE can be granted for an IV drip to combat dehydration. “For a case that would be monitored by WADA, yes the ISTUE could allow for intravenous infusions to be used in instances of dehydration”, a WADA spokesperson told the Sports Integrity Initiative. However, the spokesperson added: “This case is not one that is monitored by WADA because the World Boxing Council is not a signatory to the Code. We understand that USADA was contracted to conduct the anti-doping program for this fight------------ look at that, usada are saying mayweathers case WASNT monitored by WADA, so usada could do want they want with no worry of critisizm, , can you show me where usada released the information of the IV first as you stated, the first I ever heard of it was from haulers article, source please,

[Shape up]

WADA rules strictly, prohibit IV outside of medical settings, on a playing field it has to be an emergency, a physician had to have ordered the IV, not a paramedic, it wasn't an emergency! Seeing it wasn't an emergency, why didn't he go to hospital for the IV, there was an alternative legal treatment available, WADA didn't monitor the process, your a fool

[travestyny]

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------------ look at that, usada are saying mayweathers case WASNT monitored by WADA, so usada could do want they want with no worry of critisizm, , can you show me where usada released the information of the IV first as you stated, the first I ever heard of it was from haulers article, source please,

WADA rules strictly, prohibit IV outside of medical settings, on a playing field it has to be an emergency, a physician had to have ordered the IV, not a paramedic, it wasn't an emergency! Seeing it wasn't an emergency, why didn't he go to hospital for the IV, there was an alternative legal treatment available, WADA didn't monitor the process, your a fool

Dude, you need to stop. Are you able of comprehending anything?

1. WADA didn't monitor it. But USADA is a WADA signatory. That's why the WADA spokesman said, "We understand that USADA was contracted to conduct the anti-doping program for this fight, however." USADA has to follow WADA's rules. It's NSAC that doesn't have to follow WADA's rules.

2. Hauser was NOT the first person to mention this. First, USADA revealed it to NSAC. Then, Kevin Iole mentioned it in his article on May 22nd. Hauser's article was in SEPTEMBER!!!

3. You obviously don't know WADA's rules. Now why the **** would a spokesperson say that a retro TUE for an IV would be allowed for dehydration IF IT IS MONITORED BY WADA, yet you are trying to convince us that a retro TUE for an IV to combat dehydration is against their rules. Does that make any sense, dumbass?

4. It doesn't have to be an emergency, dumbass. I already showed you that straight from WADA.

5. Give the **** up. Your dumb conspiracy theory makes no sense. How the **** does he microdose through 17 tests and then suddenly need an IV?

If USADA was helping him, HE WOULDN'T NEED A TUE! IF THEY WERE HELPING HIM, THEY WOULDN'T INVOLVE A DCO, A PARAMEDIC, A 3 PERSON TUE COMMITTEE, AND THEY WOULDN'T REVEAL IT TO NSAC, PACQUIAO, WADA, AND THE REST OF THE DAMN WORLD.