-
-
Rath -
Whatever Floyd's condition was (may or may not have been dehydration and may or may not have been dehydration AND another ailment), USADA determined that IV rehydration was appropriate.
USADA has ALL OF THE INFORMATION, and based on ALL OF THE INFORMATION, determined it was appropriate.
So, professionals, with all of the information, say the IV use was appropriate.
Meanwhile, you, with no experience, and with extreme bias, and with NONE OF THE INFORMATION, have "determined" IV was inappropriate.
USADA, with all of the information, and *actually being there*, says a paramedic was called. You, with none of the information, and NOT BEING THERE, say a paramedic wasn't called.
Why should we believe someone with extreme bias, no experience, none of the information and a long track record of posting false information?Comment
-
Hey bud who's asking you to cover this up? Who's your employer?Originally posted by original zero View PostComment
-
-
Fact: In an unannounced test, USADA, which was paid $150,000 to do drug testing for the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, caught Floyd Mayweather injecting himself with an IV the night before his fight with Pacquiao. They did nothing and then 18 days after the fight retroactively gave him a the****utic use exemption for a procedure that is on the WADA Prohibited Substances and Methods List.Comment
-
Allegation: For other fights, USADA allegedly busted Mayweather three times on an 'A' test for a prohibited substance. Instead of testing the B sample and possible reporting him as positive, the simply gave Floyd an inadvertent use waiver so they wouldn't have to test the B and report him to the Nevada State Athletic Commision. Details below.
Thomas Hauser wrote:
As reported by this writer on MaxBoxing in Dec. 2012, information filtered through the drug-testing community on May 20, 2012 to the effect that Mayweather had tested positive on three occasions for an illegal performance-enhancing drug. More specifically, it was rumored that Mayweathers A sample had tested positive three times and, after each positive test, USADA had given Floyd an inadvertent use waiver. These waivers, if they were in fact given, would have negated the need to test Floyds B samples. And because the B samples were never tested, a loophole in Mayweathers USADA contract would have allowed testing to continue without the positive A sample results being reported to Mayweathers opponent or the Nevada State Athletic Commission.Comment
-
The 2nd allegation but the circumstantial evidence from the Pacquiao lawsuit against Mayweather is pretty bad as explained below.
Thomas Hauser wrote:
Pacquiaos attorneys became aware of the rumor (fo the 3 positive tests) in late-May. On June 4, 2012, they served document demands and subpoenas on Mayweather, Mayweather Promotions, Golden Boy (Mayweathers co-promoter), and USADA demanding the production of all documents relating to PED testing of Mayweather in conjunction with his fights against Shane Mosley, Victor Ortiz, and Miguel Cotto. These were the three fights that Mayweather had been tested for by USADA up until that time....
A stipulation of settlement ending the defamation case was filed with the court on Sept. 25, 2012. The parties agreed to a confidentiality clause that kept the terms of settlement secret. However, prior to the agreement being signed, two sources with detailed knowledge of the proceedings told this writer that Mayweathers initial monetary settlement offer was substantially more than Pacquiaos attorneys had expected it would be. An agreement in principle was reached soon afterward. The settlement meant that the demand for documents relating to USADAs testing of Mayweather became moot.
If Mayweathers A sample tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug on one or more occasions and he was given a waiver by USADA that concealed this fact from the Nevada State Athletic Commission, his opponent, and the public, it could contribute to a scandal that undermines the already-shaky public confidence in boxing. At present, the relevant information is not a matter of public record.
USADA CEO Travis Tygart (through senior communications manager Annie Skinner) declined to state how many times the A sample of a professional boxer tested by USADA has come back positive for a prohibited substance.
These allegations are extremely serious. In these instances, USADA was paid directly by the promoters to do the testing. Was their independence and credibility jeopardized? What does this mean for the organization?
*** too many red flagsComment
-
What is USADA In a nut shell?
What I learned is that USADA is not even a federal agency. They are a private "not for profit" company that is funded by taxpayer dollars (think defense contractors...) Makes me wonder what jurisdiction they have on anything and why they have full credentials to launch investigations or hand down judgements.
During cases, Tygart takes an ends justifies the means approach. He will ignore WADA rules. He will bend rules. He will make up new rules or reinterpret existing ones. There is no such thing as precedence in the ADA system. There is no body of law. He tailors the interpretation for each case to benefit the prosecution, and the interpretation may be different for the next case. The system is a kangaroo court where Tygart has immense amount of power to corrupt the system to his own ends.
What is the point in USADA when they pretty much never catch anyone?Last edited by Spoon23; 03-13-2016, 08:33 PM.Comment
-
USADA wrote:
As was already publicly reported in May of this year by the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC), Mr. Mayweather applied for and was granted a The****utic Use Exemption (TUE) by USADA for an IV infusion of saline and vitamins that was administered prior to his May 2 fight against Manny Pacquiao. Mr. Mayweathers use of the IV was not prohibited under the NSAC rules at that time and would not be a violation of the NSAC rules today. Nonetheless, because Mr. Mayweather was voluntarily taking part in a USADA program, and therefore subject to the rules of the WADA Code, he took the additional step of applying for a TUE after the IV infusion was administered in order remain in compliance with the USADA program. It seems reasonable that USADA wouldn't be concerned he was getting an IV if it wasn't against the rules of the fight.
The rules regarding TUEs for IVs make it clear that Floyd should not have been allowed to have this infusion. Read the WADA Code below. It specifically talks about sports with weight classifications abusing IVs.
"Intravenous Infusions and/or Injections
1. Introduction
Intravenous (IV) infusions have been included on the WADA List of Prohibited
Substances and Methods under section M2. Prohibited Methods, Chemical and
Physical Manipulation since 2005. They are prohibited both in- and out-ofcompetition.
The current wording in the 2015 Prohibited List states that Intravenous infusions
and/or injections of more than 50 mL per 6 hour period are prohibited except for those
legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions, surgical procedures or clinical
investigations (1).
The wording in the Prohibited List for IV infusions is unique in that the method is
not prohibited under the three exceptions as stated above. However, even if
there may be no requirement for a TUE for the intravenous infusion as a
method, for any prohibited substance (whether in- or out-of-competition) that is
administered via IV infusion, a TUE must be requested for the Prohibited
Substance.
IV infusions are included on the Prohibited List mainly because some athletes
could use this Prohibited Method to:
a) increase their plasma volume levels;
b) mask the use of a Prohibited Substance;
c) distort the values of their Athlete Biological Passport.
In sports with weight classifications, athletes may be encouraged to undertake
significant, accelerated weight loss to qualify for a competition and then use IV
infusion to rapidly rehydrate. This practice invokes issues of athlete health and
safety.
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 prohibited
unless the infused/injected substance is administered during a hospital
admission, surgical procedure or clinical investigation. Please consult the tables/
TUE Physician Guidelines
Medical Information to Support the Decisions of TUECs
INTRAVENOUS INFUSIONS
WADA - World Anti-Doping Program
Version 4.0
February 2015
2
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 2015 article 4.3).
2. Diagnosis
A. Medical history
A summary of the athletes history and the findings of a physical
examination should confirm the diagnosis and establish the need for an IV
infusion. A precise description of the clinical situation and specific medical
indication for the IV infusion must be given in the TUE application.
Note that if an IV infusion or injection is part of a clinical investigation,
surgical procedure or hospital admission, there is no requirement for a
TUE. The athlete is nevertheless advised to obtain and keep a copy of the
medical records from the intervention or procedure.
B. Diagnostic criteria
A clearly defined diagnosis should be established in accordance with the
International Classification of Diseases standards of the World Health
Organization ICD-10).
C. Relevant medical information
A detailed description of the substance to be infused, the rate of infusion
and any other relevant clinical information from the treating physician
should be included. It must be demonstrated why an alternative permitted
therapy, for example oral rehydration in case of dehydration, is not a valid
option. Any existing co-morbidities that would influence the decision for
granting a TUE should also be included.
TUE Physician Guidelines
Medical Information to Support the Decisions of TUECs
INTRAVENOUS INFUSIONS
WADA - World Anti-Doping Program
Version 4.0
February 2015
3
3. Medical best practice treatment
Legitimate medical indications for IV infusions are well documented and are
most commonly associated with either medical emergencies or in-patient care.
When an IV infusion is administered to an athlete, the following criteria should
be fulfilled:
1. A clearly defined diagnosis.
2. Supportive evidence that no permitted alternative treatment can be
used.
3. The treatment has been ordered by a physician and administered by
qualified medical personnel in an appropriate medical setting.
4. Adequate medical records of the treatment.
The use of IV infusions in sport is commonly linked with rehydration after
exhaustive effort, and this situation is arguably the major cause of debate. It
must be understood that the use of IV fluid replacement following exercise to
correct mild to moderate dehydration is not clinically indicated nor substantiated
by the medical literature. There is a well-established body of scientific evidence
to confirm that oral rehydration is the preferred the****utic choice, potentially
even more effective than IV infusion.
(Ref: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
A. Name of Prohibited Method
IV infusion or injection of >50 mL per a 6 hour period unless legitimately
received in the course of hospital admissions, surgical procedures or
clinical investigations.
B. Recommended Duration
Dependent on diagnosis and on the particular clinical situation, but if the
infusion is a single intervention, the TUE should be valid for a relatively
short duration.
4. Other non-prohibited alternative treatments
Oral rehydration or oral delivery of medication.
5. Consequences to health if treatment withheld
These will be dependent on the clinical situation. However, in case of a medical
emergency, a possible consequence of withholding treatment could result in
serious harm to the health or even death. Therefore, the health and well-being
of the athlete must always remain the priority.
TUE Physician Guidelines
Medical Information to Support the Decisions of TUECs
INTRAVENOUS INFUSIONS
WADA - World Anti-Doping Program
Version 4.0
February 2015
4
6. Treatment monitoring
Continuous evaluation by treating physician or someone acting on his/her behalf
until the desired treatment effect has been achieved.
7. TUE validity and recommended review process
The duration of the TUE is usually for a short time period surrounding the initial
medical intervention. Longer usage of an IV infusion would typically occur in a
hospital setting and therefore does not require a TUE.
8. Any appropriate cautionary matters
It is the responsibility of the treating physician to evaluate the clinical indication
for an IV infusion or injection and the subsequent need for a TUE application.
At all times, the health and well-being of the athlete must remain the priority
during medical investigations and treatments. TUECs should apply sound clinical
judgment to their interpretation of the ISTUE, but be mindful of the
inappropriate use of IV infusion in non-emergency situations.Comment
Comment