I think a lot of people owe Canelo an apology

[Gigantes]

No desire to keep looking. Rather just expose you as being full of shlt...as usual.

lmao, no you're just my monkey. I make you do stuff. That's your new name, monkey. I told you to go look and what'd you do, you did it, if that wasn't enough, you looked again after I told you lmao. Good monkey, you listen good.

Hey spoon, the monkey learned some tricks

[travestyny]

lmao, no you're just my monkey. I make you do stuff. That's your new name, monkey. I told you to go look and what'd you do, you did it, if that wasn't enough, you looked again after I told you lmao. Good monkey, you listen good.

Hey spoon, the monkey learned some tricks

Shut your dumb ass up. You're just upset that you got owned twice in two different threads about 10 minute apart by the same person.


Maybe if you weren't so ******, you'd have been able to make some damn sense instead of getting caught out there, ya moron.

[Zaroku]

With his hair sample coming up negative it's clear that he wasn't doping or using clen as a masking agent for something worse.

The results are consistent with eating tainted meat.

The critics should now clear his name with the same publicity with which they besmirched it.

Agreed....
God father’s arrornet tom Hayden said the same thing in the God father part two.... classic...

[Gigantes]

Shut your dumb ass up. You're just upset that you got owned twice in two different threads about 10 minute apart by the same person.


Maybe if you weren't so ******, you'd have been able to make some damn sense instead of getting caught out there, ya moron.

you didn't prove shi&. All you do is search for quotes and flip it out of context to make it fit your agenda. You want to know what you proved, that you are a gullible sucka who will do as told, fu**in slave

[travestyny]

you didn't prove shi&. All you do is search for quotes and flip it out of context to make it fit your agenda. You want to know what you proved, that you are a gullible sucka who will do as told, fu**in slave

Oh really? Do I have to post the quotations from the people laughing at how you got owned again?????

[Gigantes]

Oh really? Do I have to post the quotations from the people laughing at how you got owned again?????

yea go for it, lmao, if that's your only pleasure in life, i'm glad i'm contributing to your happiness, lmao pathetic man, just pathetic

[travestyny]

yea go for it, lmao, if that's your only pleasure in life, i'm glad i'm contributing to your happiness, lmao pathetic man, just pathetic

And I'm glad that I could own you twice in two different threads and make you go off the hinges like this

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

[Elroy The Great]

lmao, no you're just my monkey. I make you do stuff. That's your new name, monkey. I told you to go look and what'd you do, you did it, if that wasn't enough, you looked again after I told you lmao. Good monkey, you listen good.

Hey spoon, the monkey learned some tricks

no matter how many votes against nelo this popularity contests gets, the only ''votes'' that matter are over at nsac !!!

no matter how many simpletons you try and rally, nsac did all the speaking necessary.

while you and your kind sulk and bltch and moan and cry and pout and deny...........everyone else is laughing at you

everyone laugh at flip flopping nonsensical hypocrites

lets break your kind down

what your kind has going for them -
that failed test. yes, NELO FAILED A TEST. that much is absolutely certain. and all it takes is A failed test.

HOWEVER.......

what your kind has going against them -
if a person wasnt caught up in emotions and too busy being BIASED FAF FIGHT FANS.....

theyd look further. as you once said...''PAST THE HEADLINES'' !

in this case, the headlines read ''nelo fails test for clenbuterol. blames it on mexi meat.''

intelligent, unbiased true fans of THE SPORT would read past that and gather as much UNBIASED, SCIENTIFIC info associated WITH THE HEADLINE! but your kind was satisfied with just the test result.

your kind mocked his explanation, even though there are many cases of tainted mexi meat. your kind claimed nelo would never submit hair samples. YOUR KINDS CHALLENGE TO NELO !!!!

youre the chump who said nelo REFUSED to give hair samples (without supplying PROOF of what YOU claimed) . that, according TO YOU, he would never give it because that test would IRREFUTABLY PROVE just how dirty he is.

youre kind was having quite the :wank: moment over this superior, nelo killing HAIR TEST !!!!!!!!!!!

lo and fncking behold........

NELO SUMBITS HAIR SAMPLES AND PASSES WITH FLYING COLORS !

NOW your kind has but 2 options; get on your grubby knees and beg for forgiveness for being caught up in EMOTIONS or be flip flopping hypocrites.....

your kind chose the latter !

and no one was surprised by that bltch move.

all of a sudden that test YOUR KIND DEMANDED is no longer reliable !!!!!!!

ONLY BECAUSE HE PASSED.

i went on and shared many links to support what his promoter said....nelo passed and didnt take clen OR ANY DRUG. you were stuck on ''of course dlh is gonna say that !'' !

in spite of the numerous links i posted.

had he failed THE HAIR TEST, your kind would have been wanking each other off and demanding nelo gets a lifetime ban and then forced to commit suicide.

your kind then backtracks to this LAME AS F U C K poll in an effort to denounce SCIENTIFIC, UNBIASED FACTS !!!!!!!!

''190 votes and the ronnie shields eye test, doe !''
~dumb fnck

bro, your kind is taking L's left, right and center and all you can do is beg for more links to prove just how wrong your kind is !

[maracho]

SMRTL is a WADA accredited lab. It is one of 2 in the US. So arguing for "WADA" to do the testing in the US would be arguing for samples to be analyzed by SMRTL or the UCLA lab. That's it.

Im glad you finally admit WADA labs

Now look up what the SMRTL lab in Salt Lake City did for Nick Diaz marijuana promotion etc..

I have already taught you that UCLA is the way to go

Did you read the article. His samples were retested in 2007.
Your article says it! At the bottom of the paragraph it says that USADA requested to have the B samples of about 4 other urine tests tested. Then it links to an article about it.

Here is what it says in the article:

The samples were from July 2006. The B samples were tested in APRIL 2007.

Your article says the "B" samples analyzed in April are not considered official positives because the "A" samples that would have confirmed them were destroyed by previous testing.

The French lab (LNDD) in your article is notorious for controversy, leaking false positives, destroying records etc.. This same French lab mislabeled Landis sample 995474 as 994474, casting doubt on whether the sample was even his (wrong id number applied to Landis seems to be that that of Sergi Honchar, the winner of stage 19). The French also misidentified their own Lab ID number 178/07 as 478/07. These numerical labels are supposed to make the athlete anonymous in order to make testing equal and unbiased but the French lab illegally made notes that effectively identified Landis. To prevent technicians from trying to validate their own finding, samples are not to be tested more than once by the same person. Athletes had been recently acquitted when it was found that the same WADA technician had worked on both A and B-samples but it was found that the same technician had worked on Landis’s samples, he remained found-guilty. They also broke there own rules in fixing the mistakes with whiteout, etc... The CIR test results are not given numerically but by wavy lines interpreted by lab technicians but there were indications that the French lab was using out of date software and without a manual. Your WADA/USADA hero Christianne Ayotte scoffed at this as “nothing, bad typographic boo boos happen.” According to WADA’s own stats, Landis's B samples showed stats that they had been contaminated by bacteria, which is actually a common cause all kinds of false readings. Christianne Ayotte responds: “We don’t actually hold fast to these numbers. We don’t have to be certain, just satisfied. We don’t do reasonable doubt like in an American Courtroom”. WADA/USADA also broke their own rule that that lab tests of the same sample should not differ by more than 30% for epitestosterone and 20% for testosterone but the difference in Landis’s samples ranged from 181 to 238%. Your girl Ayotte scoffs again: “at any rate, they are both above the limit and a sign of doping.” WADA/USADA is also very ambiguous about their criteria standards for detecting positive results. WADA labs don’t actually test for testosterone but metabolite byproducts (plural) according to their rule book code and WADA labs such as UCLA and Australia, etc.. test for four byproducts to indicate a positive test result but the French lab only tested for one metabolite. WADA’s rule book also states tests should have less than a 1% false positive rate but a new study showed that CIR that tests for only 1 metobolite like the French lab have a 30% false positive rate. Two positive metobolites has a 7% false positive rate. Three positive metobolites is 0.68% and four positive metobolities is really low at 0.07%.

Paul Scott of ACE (former director of client services at the UCLA Olympic Laboratory) said, In my years at the UCLA lab, Ive never seen anything like what I experienced at the LNDD yesterday. The limitation placed on me and Simon [Davis an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry expert also selected by Landis to observe the retesting] demonstrates the lack of objectivity in this process, USADAs interest in controlling and limiting our observation of the retesting is an example of one of the most egregious problems in the fundamental science of anti-doping that I have experienced. Scott added, Good science does not fear being an open book. Any science that is not neutral and objective is not science at all. Labs acting under the direction of prosecuting Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) are, by definition, not independent. As service providers hired by ADOs, they have a vested interest in the results desired by their client. In this case, the client is USADA and the lab is the LNDD. From what I have witnessed so far, I have significant concerns that their analysis will render results that are scientifically invalid.

Bottom line is that if Landis would have been tested at UCLA, he would have been considered clean and when your girl Ayotte was asked when WADA labs like the ones in France would become standardized toward UCLA’s, she smirked: “it might end up being the other way around” . WADA boss **** Strong basically said it was all just distractions from the dopers. Wait until I show you how bad his Olympic committee is

https://books.google.com/books?id=uMUDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=don+catlin+tygart&source=bl&ots=t4YpSzCA3O&sig=_Dux67vJYNExAos4DrJSkdSXDRM&hl=en&ei=5vRFS_H3C4nQM5amqOwC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q=don%20catlin%20tygart&f=false

http://ia802307.us.archive.org/23/items/floyd_landis_case_documents_10/InterlocutoryAward-final.pdf

And stop putting words in my mouth. All I said was that Conte said no one is going to be ****** enough to cheat immediately before an event. And he was talking about combat sports in the 2010's, I believe, not about Floyd Landis in 2006-2007.

What I've proven is you've been wrong about everything you've mentioned so far, the head of a WADA lab told you that the values were not abnormal, the guy that you interjected into this conversation said what needed to be done but suddenly you reject his statement and numerous other statements from him because they don't fit your agenda. Everything I've said has been verified, linked to, and is factual.

Give up.

I see why you love WADA’s Christianne Ayotte. She’s a 1% government yes-man like yourself. By the way, my earlier science articles disproved her uncited assertions

If you think my asking you to confirm a statement about CIR dismisses my or Conte's main premise (boxing and Olympic governing bodies like Wada/USADA are corrupt and protecting their favorite lobbies), then your high on straw man. The reason I disproved some of Conte's statements was because those happened to be the ones you kept cherry-picking and quote

[travestyny]

Im glad you finally admit WADA labs

Now look up what the SMRTL lab in Salt Lake City did for Nick Diaz marijuana promotion etc..

I have already taught you that UCLA is the way to go






Your article says the "B" samples analyzed in April are not considered official positives because the "A" samples that would have confirmed them were destroyed by previous testing.

The French lab (LNDD) in your article is notorious for controversy, leaking false positives, destroying records etc.. This same French lab mislabeled Landis sample 995474 as 994474, casting doubt on whether the sample was even his (wrong id number applied to Landis seems to be that that of Sergi Honchar, the winner of stage 19). The French also misidentified their own Lab ID number 178/07 as 478/07. These numerical labels are supposed to make the athlete anonymous in order to make testing equal and unbiased but the French lab illegally made notes that effectively identified Landis. To prevent technicians from trying to validate their own finding, samples are not to be tested more than once by the same person. Athletes had been recently acquitted when it was found that the same WADA technician had worked on both A and B-samples but it was found that the same technician had worked on Landis’s samples, he remained found-guilty. They also broke there own rules in fixing the mistakes with whiteout, etc... The CIR test results are not given numerically but by wavy lines interpreted by lab technicians but there were indications that the French lab was using out of date software and without a manual. Your WADA/USADA hero Christianne Ayotte scoffed at this as “nothing, bad typographic boo boos happen.” According to WADA’s own stats, Landis's B samples showed stats that they had been contaminated by bacteria, which is actually a common cause all kinds of false readings. Christianne Ayotte responds: “We don’t actually hold fast to these numbers. We don’t have to be certain, just satisfied. We don’t do reasonable doubt like in an American Courtroom”. WADA/USADA also broke their own rule that that lab tests of the same sample should not differ by more than 30% for epitestosterone and 20% for testosterone but the difference in Landis’s samples ranged from 181 to 238%. Your girl Ayotte scoffs again: “at any rate, they are both above the limit and a sign of doping.” WADA/USADA is also very ambiguous about their criteria standards for detecting positive results. WADA labs don’t actually test for testosterone but metabolite byproducts (plural) according to their rule book code and WADA labs such as UCLA and Australia, etc.. test for four byproducts to indicate a positive test result but the French lab only tested for one metabolite. WADA’s rule book also states tests should have less than a 1% false positive rate but a new study showed that CIR that tests for only 1 metobolite like the French lab have a 30% false positive rate. Two positive metobolites has a 7% false positive rate. Three positive metobolites is 0.68% and four positive metobolities is really low at 0.07%.

Paul Scott of ACE (former director of client services at the UCLA Olympic Laboratory) said, In my years at the UCLA lab, Ive never seen anything like what I experienced at the LNDD yesterday. The limitation placed on me and Simon [Davis an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry expert also selected by Landis to observe the retesting] demonstrates the lack of objectivity in this process, USADAs interest in controlling and limiting our observation of the retesting is an example of one of the most egregious problems in the fundamental science of anti-doping that I have experienced. Scott added, Good science does not fear being an open book. Any science that is not neutral and objective is not science at all. Labs acting under the direction of prosecuting Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) are, by definition, not independent. As service providers hired by ADOs, they have a vested interest in the results desired by their client. In this case, the client is USADA and the lab is the LNDD. From what I have witnessed so far, I have significant concerns that their analysis will render results that are scientifically invalid.

Bottom line is that if Landis would have been tested at UCLA, he would have been considered clean and when your girl Ayotte was asked when WADA labs like the ones in France would become standardized toward UCLA’s, she smirked: “it might end up being the other way around” . WADA boss **** Strong basically said it was all just distractions from the dopers. Wait until I show you how bad his Olympic committee is

https://books.google.com/books?id=uMUDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=don+catlin+tygart&source=bl&ots=t4YpSzCA3O&sig=_Dux67vJYNExAos4DrJSkdSXDRM&hl=en&ei=5vRFS_H3C4nQM5amqOwC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q=don%20catlin%20tygart&f=false

http://ia802307.us.archive.org/23/items/floyd_landis_case_documents_10/InterlocutoryAward-final.pdf

I see why you love WADA’s Christianne Ayotte. She’s a 1% government yes-man like yourself. By the way, my earlier science articles disproved her uncited assertions

If you think my asking you to confirm a statement about CIR dismisses my or Conte's main premise (boxing and Olympic governing bodies like Wada/USADA are corrupt and protecting their favorite lobbies), then your high on straw man. The reason I disproved some of Conte's statements was because those happened to be the ones you kept cherry-picking and quote

Dude, do you want to give me cliff's notes of all the BS you just typed. Because I fail to see what the hell you are talking about other than you claiming that WADA does drug testing, which is false, and WADA having labs in every athlete's country, which is false.

Then you said Clenbuterol permanently affects the user....?


Now you are talking about Nick Diaz, whose legal team embarrassed NSAC and SMRTL made Quest Diagnostics look like a kiddie lab.

And you give a long as paragraph that seems to be about a French Lab....? Seriously...are you on drugs right now????

So again...do you have any point???


By the way, great job thinking the UCLA lab is the way to go. I guess you didn't know they were not so long ago suspended, huh?

WADA suspends UCLA Laboratory accreditation for specific prohibited substances

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2017-06/wada-suspends-ucla-laboratory-accreditation-for-specific-prohibited-substances