Here's Where All The Floyd Cheat Theories Fail

[Shape up]

Do you know what retroactive means?

Does it say "prior or retroactive" or does it say "prior"i know prior means the oppostite to retroactive when it comes to a TUE, when it says "prohibited at all times without a PRIOR TUE" does it mention anything at all about a retroactive TUE or another rule over riding this rule

[koolkc107]

There are people in this thread mentioning blood pressure and pulse rates as if they are some sort of indicator that a person is dehydrated.

THEY ARE NOT per se.

IT DOES NOT MATTER what someone's blood pressure is or what one's heart rate is.

Medical professionals diagnosing dehydration look for A CHANGE IN BLOOD PRESSURE as one of several indicators of dehydration.

But, the big one, the symptom they pay A LOT OF ATTENTION TO is urine color and urine output.

Dark yellow or amber urine and the inability to produce a normal amount of urine are red flags.

That is what prompted the medical professional to do the IVs.

That is what the DCO observed and reported to his superiors when there was a request to OK the procedures.

Floyd did have prior permission and was in compliance with the TUE protocol- in this case it was simply clear to all involved that it would be applied for retroactively.

And retroactive TUEs are reviewed and ruled upon. If they are granted then it is evident NOTHING IMPROPER took place.

Y'all need to stop hating.

It isnt Floyd's fault he has the best medical care and you don't have any.

He even has the best of the best in his corner during fights. See:

[koolkc107]

From WADA

9. WHAT IS A RETROACTIVE TUE?

There are situations for which TUEs may be granted retroactively. The evaluation process is identical to the standard TUE application procedure i.e. the TUEC evaluates the application and issues its decision. The ISTUE stipulates which situations may result in the granting of a retroactive TUE, as follows:

Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was necessary*; or

Due to other exceptional circumstances, there was insufficient time or opportunity for the athlete to submit, or the TUEC to consider, an application for the TUE prior to Sample collection; or

Applicable rules required the athlete or permitted the athlete to apply for a retroactive TUE. This is applicable to Persons who are not International-Level or National-Level athletes (Code Article 4.4.5) and (where the relevant NADO so chooses) to National-Level Athletes in sports specified by the relevant NADO (ISTUE Article 5.1 Comment); or
[Comment: Such athletes are strongly advised to have a medical file prepared and ready to demonstrate their satisfaction of the TUE conditions set out in ISTUE Article 4.1, should an application for a retroactive TUE be necessary following Sample collection.]

It is agreed, by WADA and by the ADO to whom the application for a retroactive TUE is or would be made, that fairness requires the grant of a retroactive TUE.

*A medical emergency or acute medical situation occurs when the athlete's medical condition justifies immediate Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Method and failure to treat immediately could significantly put the athlete’s health at risk. It is always preferable to address a TUE application prospectively rather than retrospectively. ADOs granting TUEs should have internal procedures to expedite the evaluation and granting of TUE for emergency situations, whenever possible, and without putting the athlete’s health at risk.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/question...n-tue#item-734

[travestyny]

Does it say "prior or retroactive" or does it say "prior"i know prior means the oppostite to retroactive when it comes to a TUE, when it says "prohibited at all times without a PRIOR TUE" does it mention anything at all about a retroactive TUE or another rule over riding this rule

Let's see. Do you know more about WADA's rules, or does WADA know more about WADA's rules?

WADA confirmed that under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code and the International Standard for Therapeutic 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, however.”

Now when you read this, your dumb ass is too stupid to comprehend what's being said and you get stuck at the "this case is not one that is monitored by WADA" part. So let me beat it into your dumb head one more time. WADA cannot force NSAC to do anything. They can't cancel the fight or tell them what sanctions to give to the athletes who would test positive. However, you see where it says "We understand that USADA was contracted to conduct the anti-doping program for this fight, however.” You dumb little shlt. What that means is that they understand USADA is doing the testing, and USADA has to follow WADA's rules as a signatory. Meaning.....USADA HAS TO FOLLOW WADA'S RULES....AND WADA'S RULES ARE THAT A RETROACTIVE TUE CAN BE GRANTED FOR AN IV TO COMBAT DEHYDRATION.

Do you think that USADA being in charge of anti-doping for UFC means that USADA doesn't have to follow WADA's rules, you idiot?


Do you understand now, shlt for brains?

[ADP02]

Nope .... YOU ARE DUMB!!!


Other athletes who do not have the luxury that Floyd has of when testing STARTs and ENDs can DO something similar to what I stated .... BUT it's HARDER for them for several reasons:

a) They may be tested any time any day for 365 days. So it's not an easy task because they are not going to be using PEDs every day including their off season at the same dose and so on ....

b) They need to be always in range. OFF/In Season.

c) They can be taking PEDs while training, while in competition and need to be sure that the ABP is OK. Yet you are laughing .... because you read a comment from someone and think that is how everyone does it?

d) You say what you say but even a guy (first timer) who did a study on himself was successful during his time doing it when he sent his sample to a WADA approved lab. ABP results .... passed. As I showed you in the past.

e) I'm just stating how much easier it is for Floyd.

There is NOT just one scenario for a guy who is tested when HE WANTs .... there are multiple scenarios. Well, there are multiple scenarios no matter what BUT for Floyd, it's much easier to fool the testers. Floyd can use different tactics where others cannot be as flexible as FLoyd!!!


f) Others have made a mistake in the past even though they knew what to do but admitted their mistake. Floyd was in that type of position that day. So he delayed and delayed some more by using BANNED IVs for no reason since Floyd's excuses are so BS that you need to bring up other BS excuses BUT Floyd/Ellerbe are not in agreement with your BS excuses!


g) As stated, there is a risk for all athletes who are using PEDs . You are too ignorant so you laugh but that is just because you are too ignorant and have not checked out athletes who get caught for numerous reasons.

h) Lance's ABP scores spiked while doing the Tour de France. That meant that Lance did it even while racing yet you laugh? And of course, others do too!!!


i) You are making it sound like Floyd wouldn't do a certain scenario BUT like Lance Armstrong, it wasn't that Lance wanted to be tested at that point in time. It was a surprise for him ... but Lance would often have advance notice of 20-30 minutes, as per reports.


J) Not all PEDs act and react the same way! Also, athletes may be micro dosing and at times on multiple drugs that are hard to catch due to the dose and time they do it in the day. Is there a risk? Of course but only someone who doesn't understand this, laughs like you do .... that is being ignorant!



K) Even though Lance had help from top officials, his doctor, teammates, yes, there was still a paper trail and yes you are a DEFLECTOR of the TRUTH!!! You cannot admit to that!


L) Other athletes who can be tested 365 days a year are using the PED at a time that they know that they can be tested, such as a race. They do it knowing full well that they need to have their ABP scores within the acceptable"threshold" for their drug(s) of choice. Go laugh with your Mayweather Mafia friends!!!!



DEFLECTOR!!!! All you do is laugh but lets face it, you come back with ..... NOTHING!!!

But at least I read that your Mayweather Mafia posters agree with you and you agree with them! How nice!!!


.

See .... DEFLECTOR, you are not making any sense.


Explain which part are you finding to be IMPOSSIBLE and prove this instead of laughing .... DEFLECTOR!!!

I went from A to L but I could have said more because unlike your ignorance, and what I stated and you ignored, I said that there are multiple possibilities.


Lets see you try to prove me wrong.


Even your quote on making a mistake is WRONG ... HAPPENED plenty of times!!!:
Cyclist admitted to getting caught because he "forgot" to drink enough fluids after using the PEDs. In his case EPO.

By mistake, I also meant, mistake in when they used and dose or the concern of potentially being caught due to their dose, hours elapsed.


Come on ... prove me wrong and that none of the points that I said are true and couldn't have happened.


DEFLECTOR ...... START NOW!!!!






.

See, you are WRONG!!!!

Go check out cyclists who cycle in multiple events and some events last close to a month then followed by other Tours and do this in season and training for their season and off season they do not ... so much harder.

They must maintain and by that, stay within a given "threshold".

Drugs will produce spikes.
They need to somehow use PEDs yet make sure that the spikes do not exceed a given "threshold" ..... for you, it's all IMPOSSIBLE .... the reality, it is occurring, Columbo!



Now lets see how you will be DEFLECTING!!!





.

Deflecting? Every single one of your posts is a deflection. And they are desperately trying to deflect from the fact that you have no ****ing idea what you are talking about?

He cycles off just to cycle back on and cheat during training camp and did that for over 5 years but needed to mask with an IV suddenly????

LMAOOOOO. YOU DUMMY! Tell us more!!!!
Log the **** off!

.

Keep typing. It’s not gonna change that you are a moron who makes no sense

He cycles off to cycle on and has been cheating since 2010 to pass the ABP but he needed an IV to mask and he travels around with an IV at all times and has one at the back of the MGM Grande after fights!

But um... how does he pass urine tests with undiluted urine if he is cheating throughout camp? Hmmmmm!!!


YOU ARE A MORON. LOG OFF!!!

THIS IS ALL I NEEDED TO KNOW!

Floyd cheats before training camp with no problem…


He cheats during training camp with no problem. Passed 16 random drug tests.


Suddenly he forgot how to pass a drug test.


THIS IS WHAT YOU CALL DESPERATION THAT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A STRAIGHT IDIOT!!!

The DEFLECTIONs continue!!!!


All of what I said can happen!







CALLED IT!!!! What a DEFLECTOR!!!



Is anyone surprised that Travestyny DEFLECTED AGAIN?

[ADP02]

Does it say "prior or retroactive" or does it say "prior"i know prior means the oppostite to retroactive when it comes to a TUE, when it says "prohibited at all times without a PRIOR TUE" does it mention anything at all about a retroactive TUE or another rule over riding this rule

There are people in this thread mentioning blood pressure and pulse rates as if they are some sort of indicator that a person is dehydrated.

THEY ARE NOT per se.

IT DOES NOT MATTER what someone's blood pressure is or what one's heart rate is.

Medical professionals diagnosing dehydration look for A CHANGE IN BLOOD PRESSURE as one of several indicators of dehydration.

But, the big one, the symptom they pay A LOT OF ATTENTION TO is urine color and urine output.

Dark yellow or amber urine and the inability to produce a normal amount of urine are red flags.

That is what prompted the medical professional to do the IVs.

That is what the DCO observed and reported to his superiors when there was a request to OK the procedures.

Floyd did have prior permission and was in compliance with the TUE protocol- in this case it was simply clear to all involved that it would be applied for retroactively.

And retroactive TUEs are reviewed and ruled upon. If they are granted then it is evident NOTHING IMPROPER took place.

Y'all need to stop hating.

It isnt Floyd's fault he has the best medical care and you don't have any.

He even has the best of the best in his corner during fights. See:

From WADA

9. WHAT IS A RETROACTIVE TUE?

There are situations for which TUEs may be granted retroactively. The evaluation process is identical to the standard TUE application procedure i.e. the TUEC evaluates the application and issues its decision. The ISTUE stipulates which situations may result in the granting of a retroactive TUE, as follows:

Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was necessary*; or

Due to other exceptional circumstances, there was insufficient time or opportunity for the athlete to submit, or the TUEC to consider, an application for the TUE prior to Sample collection; or

Applicable rules required the athlete or permitted the athlete to apply for a retroactive TUE. This is applicable to Persons who are not International-Level or National-Level athletes (Code Article 4.4.5) and (where the relevant NADO so chooses) to National-Level Athletes in sports specified by the relevant NADO (ISTUE Article 5.1 Comment); or
[Comment: Such athletes are strongly advised to have a medical file prepared and ready to demonstrate their satisfaction of the TUE conditions set out in ISTUE Article 4.1, should an application for a retroactive TUE be necessary following Sample collection.]

It is agreed, by WADA and by the ADO to whom the application for a retroactive TUE is or would be made, that fairness requires the grant of a retroactive TUE.

*A medical emergency or acute medical situation occurs when the athlete's medical condition justifies immediate Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Method and failure to treat immediately could significantly put the athlete’s health at risk. It is always preferable to address a TUE application prospectively rather than retrospectively. ADOs granting TUEs should have internal procedures to expedite the evaluation and granting of TUE for emergency situations, whenever possible, and without putting the athlete’s health at risk.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/question...n-tue#item-734

Let's see. Do you know more about WADA's rules, or does WADA know more about WADA's rules?

WADA confirmed that under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code and the International Standard for Therapeutic 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, however.”

Now when you read this, your dumb ass is too stupid to comprehend what's being said and you get stuck at the "this case is not one that is monitored by WADA" part. So let me beat it into your dumb head one more time. WADA cannot force NSAC to do anything. They can't cancel the fight or tell them what sanctions to give to the athletes who would test positive. However, you see where it says "We understand that USADA was contracted to conduct the anti-doping program for this fight, however.” You dumb little shlt. What that means is that they understand USADA is doing the testing, and USADA has to follow WADA's rules as a signatory. Meaning.....USADA HAS TO FOLLOW WADA'S RULES....AND WADA'S RULES ARE THAT A RETROACTIVE TUE CAN BE GRANTED FOR AN IV TO COMBAT DEHYDRATION.

Do you think that USADA being in charge of anti-doping for UFC means that USADA doesn't have to follow WADA's rules, you idiot?


Do you understand now, shlt for brains?

RETRO TUE:
Shape UP is quoting circumstances that are when one is recovering from training, workouts, lifestyle reasons (going by memory - SHape Up had the actual quote posted) and is dehydrated .... you know, like Floyd said and you Floyd fans said.


WADA/USADA has stricter idea of when one can use an IV ..... in URGENT cases. Not in mild/moderate dehydration cases.

* USADA exception is Floyd .... you know why! $$$


Floyd posters are confusing the 2


The head of WADA TUE Committee (also a physician)also brings up that there are alternatives that should be used except for URGENT cases and gives examples of when its URGENT and when it is NOT ....



Even small children who are more susceptible to severe dehydration are initially given Pedialyte or other alternatives ... Floyd, who weighed relatively the same, needs 2 BANNED IV bags! PLEASE!!!



.

[koolkc107]

What you are conveniently ignoring is that it wasn't Floyd who determined whether "an emergency situation" existed that would allow the IVs and make a retroactive TUE appropriate.

The paramedic and the DCO present (and the USADA higher ups consulted at the time) made those calls.

It's you and ShapeUp who are confused and that has been evident for quite some time now.

[travestyny]

RETRO TUE:
Shape UP is quoting circumstances that are when one is recovering from training, workouts, lifestyle reasons (going by memory - SHape Up had the actual quote posted) and is dehydrated .... you know, like Floyd said and you Floyd fans said.


WADA/USADA has stricter idea of when one can use an IV ..... in URGENT cases. Not in mild/moderate dehydration cases.

* USADA exception is Floyd .... you know why! $$$


Floyd posters are confusing the 2


The head of WADA TUE Committee (also a physician)also brings up that there are alternatives that should be used except for URGENT cases and gives examples of when its URGENT and when it is NOT ....



Even small children who are more susceptible to severe dehydration are initially given Pedialyte or other alternatives ... Floyd, who weighed relatively the same, needs 2 BANNED IV bags! PLEASE!!!



.

Go read my quote again that you just clicked on.


...or rather, explain to us why Floyd cycles off PED's and then cycles back on right in time for drug testing to begin

Oh, and while you're at it, explain how he passed over 100 urine tests with undiluted urine if he was using PED's even in training camp going all the way back to 2010. See how you stepped in shlt?

[DeadLikeMe]

There must not be equivalents for random or retroactive in tagalog.

[maracho]

ft

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 Dick 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=uM...tygart&f=false
http://ia802307.us.archive.org/23/it...ward-final.pdf

And stop putting words in my mouth. All I said was that Conte said no one is going to be stupid 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 mining