Here's Where All The Floyd Cheat Theories Fail

[Shape up]

Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shape up View Post
The attention of each Major Event Organization is drawn to the clauses which must in all circumstances be reproduced without substantive change in the Major Event Organization’s Anti-Doping Rules. Such clauses (specified in Article 23.2.2 of the Code) are highlighted in yellow in the text of the Model Rules.
Wow, that really seals the deal eh-----------------• Appendix 1 - Definitions-------------------------------------------------------------QUOTE=Shape up;18149217]From the contract----------- Rules 4 mayweather and pacquaio agree that articles 1 through 10 and 24.2 and the associated definitions, of the world anti doping code shall be the substantive anti doping rules for all purposes in relation to the competition and the period of pre and post competition testing provided for in this agreement----this sounds like substantive change to me, what do you think gimp
substantive change

[koolkc107]

Sounds like you are so confused you keep regurgitating the same crap.

One definition of insanity goes as follows..."repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time"

Guess that makes you THE BullGoose Looney of this entire thread...

[Shape up]

Sounds like you are so confused you keep regurgitating the same crap.

One definition of insanity goes as follows..."repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time"

Guess that makes you THE BullGoose Looney of this entire thread...

another post with no answer, I repost these questions because you 2 have a Method of operation,when you cannot answer a question you try to fill that page with garbage posts hoping no one will notice you didn't answer, there is method behind my madness, now did you read partial sample method collection process, can you explain the substantive changes usada wrote in the contract against specific wada rules

[travestyny]

Where did I say that was omitted, there is WADA code omitted, the PROTOCOLS have a loophole written into the USADA FIGHT CONTRACT, would you like me to post rule 5 again, for the 20th time gimp

[They changed WADA code wording, they omitted articles from the WADA code, THAT IS SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO WADA CODE

Ohhhh. They omitted WADA Code?


That's funny, because I see WADA Code below. Do you see where it says...WADA CODE?????



From the Contract:

Mayweather and Pacquiao agree that sections 5, 9-13, 16, 17(a), and 21 of the United States Anti-Doping Agency Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing shall constitute the procedural rules applicable to any Results Management Services provided hereunder.

From section 5 of the WADA Protocol:

5. Choice of Rules
In conducting Testing and results management under this Protocol, USADA will apply the following rules and principles:
a. Articles of the Code set forth in Annex A, which is incorporated by reference into the USADA Protocol, shall apply in all cases.


ANNEX A
WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE ARTICLES
Articles from the World Anti-Doping Code that are referenced in the USOC Anti-Doping Policies and incorporated verbatim into the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing:

• Article 1 (De nition of Doping)
• Article 2 (Anti-Doping Rule Violations)
• Article 3 (Proof of Doping)
• Article 4.2.2 (Speci ed Substances)
• Article 4.3.3 (Wada’s Determination of the Prohibited list)
• Article 7.11 (Retirement from Sport)
• Article 9 (Automatic disquali cation of individual Results)
• Article 10 (Sanctions on Individuals)
• Article 11 (Consequences to Teams)
• Article 13 (Appeals) with the exception of 13.2.2, 13.6, and 13.7
• Article 15.1 (Recognition of Decisions)
• Article 17 (Statute of Limitations)
• Article 24 (Interpretation of the Code)
• Appendix 1 - De

[travestyny]

another post with no answer, I repost these questions because you 2 have a Method of operation,when you cannot answer a question you try to fill that page with garbage posts hoping no one will notice you didn't answer, there is method behind my madness, now did you read partial sample method collection process, can you explain the substantive changes usada wrote in the contract against specific wada rules

If you don't think I've answered your question, then why won't you engage in the perma ban bet with me. What's up, little pvssy?

You know you're full of shlt. I know you're full of shlt. Everyone knows you're full of shlt.

Once again. THE CODE THAT YOU SAY WAS OMITTED IS NOT OMITTED. IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT VIA THE USADA PROTOCOL. WHY WON'T YOU GO TO THE USADA PROTOCOL AND POST WHAT IT SAYS????? THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE, YOU F@G. THE USADA PROTOCOL SAYS THE CODE MUST BE USED, AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONTRACT THAT SAYS THE CODE WILL NOT BE USED. IF YOU CAN FIND A CONFLICT IN THE CONTRACT, POST IT. IF NOT, SHUT THE **** UP.

AND ACCEPT THE PERMA-BAN BET OR ADMIT THAT YOU'RE A PVSSY! I'M WAITING.....

[Shape up]

Ohhhh. They omitted WADA Code?


That's funny, because I see WADA Code below. Do you see where it says...WADA CODE?????



From the Contract:

Mayweather and Pacquiao agree that sections 5, 9-13, 16, 17(a), and 21 of the United States Anti-Doping Agency Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing shall constitute the procedural rules applicable to any Results Management Services provided hereunder.

From section 5 of the WADA Protocol:

5. Choice of Rules
In conducting Testing and results management under this Protocol, USADA will apply the following rules and principles:
a. Articles of the Code set forth in Annex A, which is incorporated by reference into the USADA Protocol, shall apply in all cases.


ANNEX A
WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE ARTICLES
Articles from the World Anti-Doping Code that are referenced in the USOC Anti-Doping Policies and incorporated verbatim into the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing:

• Article 1 (De nition of Doping)
• Article 2 (Anti-Doping Rule Violations)
• Article 3 (Proof of Doping)
• Article 4.2.2 (Speci ed Substances)
• Article 4.3.3 (Wada’s Determination of the Prohibited list)
• Article 7.11 (Retirement from Sport)
• Article 9 (Automatic disquali cation of individual Results)
• Article 10 (Sanctions on Individuals)
• Article 11 (Consequences to Teams)
• Article 13 (Appeals) with the exception of 13.2.2, 13.6, and 13.7
• Article 15.1 (Recognition of Decisions)
• Article 17 (Statute of Limitations)
• Article 24 (Interpretation of the Code)
• Appendix 1 - De

Again, as I said they omitted code, again, they omitted code, code is not protocols, they built a loophole into the contract for protocols, try again ******

[travestyny]

again, as i said they omitted code, again, they omitted code,

how the **** is it omitted when it is right there in your ****ing face, moron????

code is not protocols,

now this ****ing moron doesn't know what protocol means. Jesus ****ing christ!!!!

protocol |ˈprōdəˌkôlˈprōdəˌkäl|
noun
1 the official procedure or system of rules governing affairs of state or diplomatic occasions: Protocol forbids the prince from making any public statement in his defense.
• the accepted or established code of procedure or behavior in any group, organization, or situation

what the **** are you talking about??? Code is not protocol??????

they built a loophole into the contract for protocols, try again ******

don't even call anyone ****** again. You have the intelligence of a bag of dust. There is no loophole you moron. The contract is what is binding, but there is nothing at all in the contract that says the wada code will not be used. In fact, there is only information in the contract that says it will be used. find any contradiction with any of the wada codes in the contract!

[travestyny]

code is not protocols

protocol |ˈprōdəˌkôlˈprōdəˌkäl|
noun
1 the official procedure or system of rules governing affairs of state or diplomatic occasions: Protocol forbids the prince from making any public statement in his defense.
• the accepted or established code of procedure or behavior in any group, organization, or situation

[img]https://media.*****.com/media/l3E6uhDAN3W7vylji/*****.gif[/img]

[travestyny]

Man, I gave you more than 24 hours

Guess what???? You come here every single day. Why haven't you answered yet? "I gave you more than 24 hours....and counting." Where is your answer. This is what I mean by you popping in, writing essays that say the same thing over and over and over again, and leaving without answering any questions. You come back everyday....duck...then when you reply you leave out any questions you were asked, call people deflector, write the same ****ing essay...rinse and repeat.


ANSWER THE ****ING QUESTIONS!

1. What logical reason would Floyd Mayweather have to cycle off of PED's before testing starts, but then cycle back onto PED's throughout training camp when testing is on, as you have suggested? Do you realize that you are suggesting that he is PERPETUALLY on PED's.

2. Option 1:
Floyd Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions, and USADA and all of the people behind it get together, decide that they will allow Mayweather to cheat, and say, "Hey, the best way to do this is to get a physician to tell an incredible lie that the 3 independent TUEC doctors can't see through (don't worry, it will work...if not, we will pay them off), and then we will get the DCO to witness the entire cheating scheme (we'll pay him off too), we'll document everything that happens (don't worry about the paramedic...we'll pay him off), and we'll fill out paperwork to be filed online. We'll send it to WADA as well. Hell, we'll tell Pacquiao about it according to the rules. We'll tell NSAC about it as well. Did I mention we will tell WADA about it. This is going to be great! Don't worry about a thing. Oh yea, we'll take some dirty piss before the IV and have that thrown in to be tested. Don't worryyyyyyy. This is great!

Option 2:
Instead the convo goes, "Hey, Floyd. We're on the way over. Oh, you need to finish up some (wink wink) things? Ok. See you after the weigh-in bud. TBE, Son!"

What logical reason would Mayweather and USADA have for choosing option 1 over option 2? DOES IT MAKE SENSE THAT ANY RATIONAL HUMAN BEING, MUCH LESS MANY INTELLIGENT EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELDS, WOULD CHOOSE OPTION 1 OVER OPTION 2 FOR ANY REASON??? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

Don't even think about DEFLECTING to Lance Armstrong who didn't have a TUE approved by 4 doctors, but only 1. Was not looked into by WADA. Did not have a DCO with him. Did not give a sample before the IV. Yea...you see the difference now?


3. Any proof of the DCO being bad at taking the specific gravity of a urine sample?

4:

A. Do you believe this shows a dehydrated Mayweather? If yes, you believe this because he was working out at the time of the DCO coming, correct?

B. Do you think it's possible that he went on a run or did some other type of work out before the weigh-in? Possibly the night before the weigh in (I think he usually goes running late..around 1am or something) and didn't rehydrate after (why would he rehydrated before a weigh-in)?

C. Do you believe that it's possible that he had become dehydrated in the course of training and because he had to maintain weight, never hydrated back to a normal level?

D. Do you agree that it makes sense that, just as in this example, he gave his partial sample IMMEDIATELY, which means there was no delay on the initial sample.

E. Don't you think the people at WADA are smart enough to know whether testing would be compromised when giving a partial sample immediately and then another sample sometime after?

Let's see if you can answer honestly.

[koolkc107]

I think you should take your own advice.

Just look at all of the factual errors you made here:



There are at least 7 factual errors in this statement.

Can you tell me what they are?

another post with no answer, I repost these questions because you 2 have a Method of operation,when you cannot answer a question you try to fill that page with garbage posts hoping no one will notice you didn't answer, there is method behind my madness, now did you read partial sample method collection process, can you explain the substantive changes usada wrote in the contract against specific wada rules

Why answer a question that has already been answered?

And not only answered, but completely rebutted and shown to be false?

You cannot keep suggesting folks do better when they are in fact doing incredibly well while it is you making factual error after factual error.

This has come to feel like I'm clubbing a baby seal...