Mayweather's IV injection (Master thread)

[cortdawg25]

Memo and ariza didn't administer the IV, a nurse did.

Why did he move forward with the IV whebefore approval-he's Floyd and does what he wants. He shouldn't have done this and should be held accountable for getting an IV before it was approved.

what is the punishment for that?

The USADA rep probably told him it was go and would be approved. Based on the fact that they were notified before the fact and asked to witness the administering of the IV. And he was tested thoroughly thru camp and before and after the IV Was given. Looks like all basis covered.

[cortdawg25]

Actually we dont now who did. I know the the "online news" source Mlive that keeps referencing anonymous sources said a RN did but I have never once seen this RN in any 24/7. The story that a nurse gave him an IV is the first time there has ever been any claim of an RN being part of Floyd's team.

Maybe the nurse isn't apart of Floyd team but a nurse who works for medical home service. I believe they call it Home Health.

[The Big Dunn]

Guilt is actually having done what one is accused of. I didn't say he was guilty I said that his actions in the civil case are evidence of guilt.

I know, and my response is that is utterly preposterous. His lawyers may have suggested he do this for reasons we do not know that is why you have to be careful making an inference.

And the facts that look good for Froid are what. What is the exonerating evidence? The only evidence Froid can point to is a TUE that was granted by a questionable agency in USADA that was granted in violation of their own rules. WADA explicitly forbids TUEs to be granted for IVs used to treat moderate dehydration.

Your only exonerating evidence is easily refuted with even further evidence of guilt.

So now you are asking me what is the evidence that refutes your conclusion even though your conclusion hasn't been proved to be true or fact based.

Dude, seriously? The evidence you cite is circumstantial.

NSAC doesn't have a rule against IV's. The tests administered before and after the use of the IV came back negative. the arm of WADA overseeing this fight, USADA, granted the TUE retroactively 18 days laater when they shouldn't have.

Where does that show Floyd is guilty?

[The Big Dunn]

The USADA rep probably told him it was go and would be approved. Based on the fact that they were notified before the fact and asked to witness the administering of the IV. And he was tested thoroughly thru camp and before and after the IV Was given. Looks like all basis covered.

Possibly. My guess is Floyd, once he decided he was going to request an IV, figured there was no way he would be refused.

Its fair to ask why would he have such hubris and disregard for the rules when dealing with an independent gov't agency. Its also fair to point out that he pays them and its hard to see them saying no to him.

His actions make him look bad but do not establish guilt.

[GTTofAK]

1. I guess you would have to ask the doctor or nurse that administered the IV unless you think Floyd prescribes his own medicines as well.

Was it a doctor or an RN? Froid fans have having trouble keeping their stories straight. Fact of the matter is we dont know who administered it.

2. Because according to NSAC that is true. however and IV is not against NSAC rules and therefore a TUE would not be required for NSAC.

It is against NSAC rules.

"PROHIBITED ACTS;

NAC 467.850; Administration or use of alcohol, stimulants, drugs or injections; urinalysis or chemical tests; disciplinary action. (NRS 467.030)
1.The administration of or use of any:
(a)Alcohol
(b)Stimulant; or
(c)Drug or injection that has not been approved by the Commission"

Furthermore NSAC rules direct athletes to refer to WADA for further information meaning they follow claim to follow WADA.

3. Again, an 750ml IV for rehydration is NOT against NSAC rules. It' is against WADA rules which is why a TUE was requested and granted.

See avbove

4. Again you leave out that he was tested before the IV was administered and after and all test where passed. So this alleged flush is mute because he was tested before the IV. If you say he was flushing all along, then why request for USADA to witness the injection of the IV in the 1st place.

The only evidence for that claim is anonymous sources to some new site called Mlive. Every reputable news organization has said that the official discovered evidence of an IV during a random drug test.

5. Isn't Adderall against NSAC rules? I believe the answer is yes and the reason why the TUE was denied. however an IV injection is not against NSAC rules.

See above yes it is.

6. Because he believes it to be the best and it used in The Olympics with which he participated in previously.

USADA did not exist when Floyd was an Olympian.

7. Not true. USADA is WADA and they all use the same test.

I believe he simply confused WADA and VADA. But you make a good point if USADA is WADA why did USADA ignore WADAs prohibition on TUEs being granted for IV treatment of moderate dehydration. This isn't a gray area where wording can be interpreted. WADA explicitly forbids IVs the issuance of TUEs for IV treatment of moderate dehydration.

8. Because that is what they charge.

What do they charge for. They charge up 10 times as much for less stringent tests. What are you paying for?

9. Because he thinks USADA is the best - gold standard

Says who? They have "caught" one boxer. And that was because someone leaked the results to the press.

10. I believe the contract stated that they would report TUE granted in 24 hours not requested in 24 hours.

You are correct but is it right for USADA to abuse the loophole in the contract?

11. Because he is the man and in full control. A general in and out of the ring.

Or he wants to give himself as long as possible to cycle on his testosterone.

12. Get the hate out of your eyes! You can't see!

Get Floyds atrophied testicles out of your mouth! You cant see!

[GTTofAK]

Dude, seriously? The evidence you cite is circumstantial.

Now you are repeating stuff you heard on legal dramas. Circumstantial evidence convicts people all the time. A fingerprint is circumstantial evidence.

NSAC doesn't have a rule against IV's.?

Yes they do.

"PROHIBITED ACTS;

NAC 467.850; Administration or use of alcohol, stimulants, drugs or injections; urinalysis or chemical tests; disciplinary action. (NRS 467.030)
1.The administration of or use of any:
(a)Alcohol
(b)Stimulant; or
(c)Drug or injection that has not been approved by the Commission"

You cant inject yourself with anything without approval.

[GTTofAK]

I know, and my response is that is utterly preposterous. His lawyers may have suggested he do this for reasons we do not know that is why you have to be careful making an inference.

One is expected to make inferences from evidence. That is the very definition of circumstantial evidence. If the accused fingerprint is at the crime scene you infer that it got their during the crime and not some other time.

[GTTofAK]

His actions make him look bad but do not establish guilt.

And you keep accusing me of cherry picking. You keep pointing to each piece of evidence on its own and saying that alone does not establish guilt. It is the whole of the evidence that establishes guilt not each individual piece of evidence.

[The Big Dunn]

And you keep accusing me of cherry picking. You keep pointing to each piece of evidence on its own and saying that alone does not establish guilt. It is the whole of the evidence that establishes guilt not each individual piece of evidence.

No I do not, I ask that you consider everything equally, not just the facts you like.This isn't a criminal case dude, its not reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence. I am taking everything together (notice you parsed the part of the post that does this) and everything together:

nurse, IV, negative tests, request for TUE, granting it 18 days later, do not establish guilt.

What you are doing is saying WADA's rules prohibit IV (fact), USADA violated this (fact), USADA is not allowed to issue TUE's (fact), they did (fact), WADA allows only 50ml (fact), Floyd took 750 ml (fact) so Floyd is guilty because USADA didn't follow procedures and the amount he used exceeded WADA recommended protocols.

I am responding to this with- Floyd tested negative before and after nurse administered IV that wasn't allowed by WADA protocols (fact), they did grant the TUE retroactively even though they shouldn't have (fact) and as such is not guilty of PED use (fact) but his actions IMO make him look bad.

Your problem seems to be me not saying he is guilty. Where is your evidence he is?

[cortdawg25]

Possibly. My guess is Floyd, once he decided he was going to request an IV, figured there was no way he would be refused.

Its fair to ask why would he have such hubris and disregard for the rules when dealing with an independent gov't agency. Its also fair to point out that he pays them and its hard to see them saying no to him.

His actions make him look bad but do not establish guilt.

If I tell you I'm going to do something and for you to come witness me do it to make sure I adhere to your rules regardless if I pay or not...how is it that I look bad...if anything I look compliant and willing to cooperate.