Originally posted by AllEyesOpen
View Post
You are trying to defend USADA but not even the NSAC is doing that. FACT:
" my experiences to date with them have been less than acceptable and less than professional. He [Mayweather] cannot have it done at his house and USADA can’t authorize it. I have specifically articulated and memorialized to USADA that [the NSAC] is the sole authority that can authorize a the****utic use exemption for a fighter in the state of Nevada. USADA never told us prior to the IV that they had their own TUE, and they never kept us informed about it being administered. If they think they can do what they want, where and whenever they want in the State of Nevada, they are grossly mistaken.”
Again, its all there. Its a hard pill to swallow. Why don't you try an IV like Floyd did? :
"let’s keep in mind that the original draft of the USADA-Mayweather-Pacquiao drug-testing contract would have allowed USADA to grant a retroactive the****utic use exemption to either fighter without notifying the Nevada State Athletic Commission or the opposing fighter’s camp."
"In other words, if Pacquiao’s representatives hadn’t insisted upon notification, Mayweather’s retroactive the****utic use exemption would most likely have remained a secret between Mayweather and USADA."
EDIT: No, Floyd could not have been severely dehydrated.
If he was, why was he OK when the NSAC doctor examined him? He drank like a fish out of water. His weight was like usual and more importantly STABLE? If you are knowledgable on these points, you would realize that it is not just laughable, its a BIG LIE!!!
Answer this on this same subject:
- Giving urine contributed to severally dehydrating Floyd?
- Giving blood 10 days before contributed to severally dehydrating Floyd?
- Workout on May 1st contributed to severally dehydrating Floyd? Maybe 10 days earlier, OK but not on May 1st .... that would be very unprofessional and unnecessary.
If you are knowledgeable and not ignorant on this subject the answer would be NO! NO! NO!
So if the answer is NO then there is only one conclusion to this. It was all BS. A lie.
.
Comment