Swimmer Ryan Lochte suspended 14 months for illegal IV by USADA (hypocrisy?)

[b00g13man]

So for the purposes of IV's, the WADA rules and regulation trump all, this by contractual obligation. It isn't even relevant to the conversation what the NSAC allowed or did not allow.

And he complied with those WADA rules, so...

[4truth]

And he complied with those WADA rules, so...

Because 750<50, got it, thanks for playing

[N/A]

So for the purposes of IV's, the WADA rules and regulation trump all, this by contractual obligation. It isn't even relevant to the conversation what the NSAC allowed or did not allow.

Correct. But also means NAC TUE wasn't needed. USADA TUE is what was needed, which Floyd received. So there's no issue. The "controversy" is invented.

[MONGOOSE66]

Probably ate tainted meat lol. Im sure it was on accident.

[4truth]

Correct. But also means NAC TUE wasn't needed. USADA TUE is what was needed, which Floyd received. So there's no issue. The "controversy" is invented.

[IMG]https://media.*****.com/media/joV1k1sNOT5xC/*****.gif[/IMG]

-sorry but it looks extremely crooked to me.

[N/A]

-sorry but it looks extremely crooked to me.

There's nothing crooked about it. TUEs are granted all the time. There's no evidence anything was crooked.

Hauser's article is the only reason anybody thinks there was controversy and that's only because his article was so misleading and designed to manipulate fans who don't know how these things normally work.

The paperwork for a retroactive TUE being submitted a couple weeks after the treatment is nothing out of the ordinary. USADA was notified a TUE was being requested and the paperwork was received in the allowable time. The TUE committee approved the TUE without knowing who the athlete was, as they do with all TUEs.

So to suggest Floyd was given special treatment is to suggest the entire system is a ruse and if the entire system is a ruse, he would have never even needed a TUE to begin with.

[CHOWWOKKA]

... Lance beat everybody too...
... get over it...

He actually lost in 2009 and 2010 tour de frances.

But I dont get your point.

[4truth]

There's nothing crooked about it. TUEs are granted all the time. There's no evidence anything was crooked.

Hauser's article is the only reason anybody thinks there was controversy and that's only because his article was so misleading and designed to manipulate fans who don't know how these things normally work.

The paperwork for a retroactive TUE being submitted a couple weeks after the treatment is nothing out of the ordinary. USADA was notified a TUE was being requested and the paperwork was received in the allowable time. The TUE committee approved the TUE without knowing who the athlete was, as they do with all TUEs.

So to suggest Floyd was given special treatment is to suggest the entire system is a ruse and if the entire system is a ruse, he would have never even needed a TUE to begin with.

I don't believe that being allowed a massive infusion of saline and vitamins before giving a urine sample is business as usual. Maybe it is but if it is then I do not see how that system could ever detect a fighter who is blood doping unless that fighter wasn't aware of his right to dilute his system.

[N/A]

I don't believe that being allowed a massive infusion of saline and vitamins before giving a urine sample is business as usual.

You keep saying "massive" infusion. It was 25 ounces of salt water. Hardly a massive amount for a 150 pound man. He gave a urine sample before the IV. He gave a sample after. Further, IV is most effective for diluting blood samples, not urine samples, and you'd take a lot more than 25 ounces to dilute your blood.

Most importantly, everything was done with USADA supervision and USADA determined everything was done for legitimate medical reasons. There is no evidence to the contrary.

[b00g13man]

Because 750<50, got it, thanks for playing

Why do I bother conversing with those who lack any knowledge about topics they feel they have to contribute loudly to?

Read the WADA IV rules here

I'll quote the relevant bits just in case you're still struggling...

An IV infusion or injection is the supply of fluid and/or prescribed medication by means of a syringe or “butterfly” needle, directly into a vein.

Infusions or injections of 50 mL or less per a 6-hour period are permitted unless the infused/injected substance is on the Prohibited List.

Infusions or injections of more than 50 mL per a 6-hour period are prohibitedunless the infused/injected substance is administered during a hospital admission, surgical procedure or clinical investigation. Please consult the tables figures in the Appendix for more details on the principles and examples of when IV infusion/injections of certain substances are permitted or prohibited.

If a non-prohibited substance is infused or injected without a concurrent hospital admission, surgical procedure or clinical investigation, a TUE must be submitted for this Prohibited Method if more than 50 mL of fluid per a 6-hour period is infused or injected.

If a Prohibited Substance is administered via IV infusion or injection a TUE application must be submitted for the Prohibited Substance regardless of whether the infusion is less than 50 mL or the setting/circumstances under which it is administered. In situations of medical emergency or clinical time constraints, a retroactive TUE application is acceptable (ISTUE article 4.3)

Assuming you've read and understood the above at this point, please point out exactly where a rule has been broken.