Originally posted by aboutfkntime
View Post
Ummm..... well, if its a multi-choice question, I select option 2 
I am placing faith in the two organizations as having the final unimpeachable word on the issue.....
* those two organisations are the sole arbitrators
* those two organisations have the sole responsibility
* one of those organisations is regarded as the gold standard
* those two organisations have access to ALL of the information
..... and those two organisations have both stated that Mayweather did nothing wrong.
And, I actually think that means.....
/debate
because they are the sole arbitrators, and the bottom line rests with them.
All I ask for is consistency.
But I do agree that if they bent the rules for Mayweather then they have sold their integrity.
I am placing faith in the two organizations as having the final unimpeachable word on the issue.....
* those two organisations are the sole arbitrators
* those two organisations have the sole responsibility
* one of those organisations is regarded as the gold standard
* those two organisations have access to ALL of the information
..... and those two organisations have both stated that Mayweather did nothing wrong.
And, I actually think that means.....
/debate
because they are the sole arbitrators, and the bottom line rests with them.
All I ask for is consistency.
But I do agree that if they bent the rules for Mayweather then they have sold their integrity.
You can go on and pretend that you don't see that my red numbered replies are meant to cross-reference the relevant parts in your post, where I also put a matching red number, to make clear what parts of your post I'm rebutting. Or am I absolutely wrong in thinking such ignorance is merely being "pretended"? I'm sure Floyd doesn't know what footnotes and cross-referencing is when he reads, so we shouldn't be surprised to see the same of his minions. But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Since you have no further rebuttal on the other points I've made ("/debate"), we'll continue debating the only point that you have chosen to stand by & defend..."option 2" of my rebuttal.
So...just because the two sole organizations governing Floyd's testing protocol declared no wrongdoing in having the IV infusion, you consider their word unimpeachable, end of story, nothing to see here, it's a non-story, let's move on to something else? That's typical of team TMT minions...to hear only what they want to hear, then to plug their fingers in their ears and shout "la la la" out loud to tune out and ignore any further critical words or thinking...being "switched off" as you say. Willful denial & willful ignorance of truth has been one of the defining characteristics that I've observed in posts by the typical Floydiot (e.g.--DeadLikeMe, et al...as opposed to Floyd fans, who I can respect), and I wasn't sure if you're one of them.
Anyway, you're right and I will concede there's no denying that under the present circumstance the NSAC & USADA has the bottom line final word on the matter...and we won't expect to see any reversal or change in their ruling, or an admission of mistakes being made. Referees & judges make bad calls on fights all the time; same situation here. The past is in the past, what's done is done, it is what it is.
But their word is NOT unimpeachable. In the court of public opinion (the opinion of everyone else not "switched off" and still capable of logic & critical thinking) their words/actions are seen as biased and shady, and their integrity has been tainted.
You say, "All I ask for is consistency," but you don't clarify or elaborate on what you mean. So I'll assume you mean it in context to this subject of your rebuttal. And if that's the case, all I can say is... how ironic!
Where's the consistency in the NSAC criticizing the USADA for over-stepping their authority at granting a retroactive TUE, then flip-flopping on their final ruling? Where's the consistency in the USADA, the "gold standard" & best testing agency Money can buy, claiming to be signatory to the WADA code yet blatantly not enforcing it & allowing Floyd to break the code? I challenge you to go to my posts #1717 & #1718 in the IV Master Thread and give me a rebuttal to prove how the USADA is consistent & unimpeachable.
Okay, I'm done.
Comment