Mayweather's IV injection (Master thread)

[The Big Dunn]

Hauser already admitted Floyd was dehydrated...

What more is there to discuss?

he did? I didn't see this. where?

[DeandreXI]

He's a pathological liar. After the Corley fight. after clearly/obviously being wobbled badly atleast twice in the post fight interview he says "He's a solid puncher but no, I wasn't hurt at all".

Not hurt at all, right.

Puhleez. boxers say that ish all the time. You gotta be kidding me man

[Lester Tutor]

he did? I didn't see this. where?

He stated, ''Floyd showed no signs of significant dehydration.'' Hauser's latest rebuttal is just redundancy to not look foolish, so everything he wrote was a summary of his previous article, however, he stated, that Floyd showed no signs of ''significant dehydration.'' With that statement itself has cleared himself and proof of his fiction. He is a boxing critic. He has the right to have an opinion, but he can't say Floyd showed ''no signs of dehydration'' because he can't prove it. Just speculation. So agrees that he could be wrong by stating, ''Floyd showed no signs of significant (or severe - or even mild) dehydration.'' He could've just said, to make his point more clear, ''I doubt Floyd Mayweather Jr. was dehydrated at all'' and continue with his normal out of context justifications.

[Rath]

he did? I didn't see this. where?

that genius came up with that conclusion by using noun and adjective

[soul_survivor]

Hauser already admitted Floyd was dehydrated...

What more is there to discuss?

I don't think he did. He actually states the opposite.

[Rath]

Puhleez. boxers say that ish all the time. You gotta be kidding me man

let me give you an infamous Floyd PC talk.

nope, i never said that, i never said that at all, don't put words into my mouth.

bet you know that one

[Lester Tutor]

I don't think he did. He actually states the opposite.

If you make a case or theory that Floyd wasn't dehydrated at all, you don't make a statement saying that ''Floyd showed no signs of significant dehydration.'' There is something Hauser doesn't want to disclose from his own knowledge and sources, perhaps there are some empirical evidences that he knows about... so if that's the case, Hauser would look totally foolish with the fiasco he started. Therefore, Plan B is to state, and keep in mind - all his original theory is his opinion and plausible IF Floyd were guilty, but since he isn't, the best Hauser can now approach is acknowledge and apologize sub textually that Floyd was not ''significantly dehydrated.''

The guy is a good writer. For those of us that can read, we know exactly what he's insinuating. He bargained with the fiction. He didn't win. He lost some respect in the circuit. He's no coming out saying that Floyd could've been dehydrated, BUT, perhaps still saying he put something in the IV, which Hauser has yet provided a plot nor the guidance from Conte to makeup some kind of fictional scenario to mask 750ml within a day's frame.

[REMOVE SHARK 55]

Can Tommy boy and all his minions let go? 49-0 & one of the best ever. Deal with it.

[The Big Dunn]

He stated, ''Floyd showed no signs of significant dehydration.'' Hauser's latest rebuttal is just redundancy to not look foolish, so everything he wrote was a summary of his previous article, however, he stated, that Floyd showed no signs of ''significant dehydration.'' With that statement itself has cleared himself and proof of his fiction. He is a boxing critic. He has the right to have an opinion, but he can't say Floyd showed ''no signs of dehydration'' because he can't prove it. Just speculation. So agrees that he could be wrong by stating, ''Floyd showed no signs of significant (or severe - or even mild) dehydration.'' He could've just said, to make his point more clear, ''I doubt Floyd Mayweather Jr. was dehydrated at all'' and continue with his normal out of context justifications.

Thanks, appreciate this. Respectfully, I didn't reach the same conclusion you did from reading this. I'm going to think about this some more.

[SplitSecond]

If you make a case or theory that Floyd wasn't dehydrated at all, you don't make a statement saying that ''Floyd showed no signs of significant dehydration.'' There is something Hauser doesn't want to disclose from his own knowledge and sources, perhaps there are some empirical evidences that he knows about... so if that's the case, Hauser would look totally foolish with the fiasco he started. Therefore, Plan B is to state, and keep in mind - all his original theory is his opinion and plausible IF Floyd were guilty, but since he isn't, the best Hauser can now approach is acknowledge and apologize sub textually that Floyd was not ''significantly dehydrated.''

The guy is a good writer. For those of us that can read, we know exactly what he's insinuating. He bargained with the fiction. He didn't win. He lost some respect in the circuit. He's no coming out saying that Floyd could've been dehydrated, BUT, perhaps still saying he put something in the IV, which Hauser has yet provided a plot nor the guidance from Conte to makeup some kind of fictional scenario to mask 750ml within a day's frame.

Significant dehydration = severe dehydration = dehydration requiring intravenous therapy. Perhaps.