Statement of Thomas Hauser with Regard to the   September 17, 2015, Comments by USADA

USADA’s response is long on verbiage and short on documented facts. I intend to write another longform article on this subject at some point in the future. For now, I note the following:

(1) The USADA statement goes to great lengths to discredit Victor Conte, attacking him on three separate occasions for past misdeeds (which I referenced in “Can Boxing Trust USADA?”). USADA also states that I “cherry picked Jeff Novitzky’s response to questions posed to him by Mr. Rogan regarding Victor Conte.”

Mr. Novitzky’s remarks came in an interview conducted by Joe Rogan last month (The Joe Rogan Experience #685). In that interview, Mr. Rogan and Mr. Novitzky also discussed IVs. Let’s pick a whole barrel of cherries:

Joe Rogan: “What’s the reason why they can’t use an IV? Is it to mask possible performance enhancing drugs?”

Jeff Novitzsky: “That’s the primary reason. I saw it up front and center in cycling. They were using IVs of saline solution to manipulate their blood level readings, which were being used to determine if they were blood doping. It could also be used to flush a system. It dilutes blood and urine so that natural steroid profiles are very hard to read after you’ve taken an IV bag. That’s the primary reason. WADA also prohibits them for some health reasons. When an IV is administered, especially close to a competition, there’s a possibility of blowing out a vein or having clotting after the IV is taken out. There could be some issues with edema and swelling. If the idea is to rehydrate, it’s much safer to do it orally. Studies show that orally rehydrating is better for you if you’re mildly dehydrated. There’s two things that they show consistently. Number one, it’s obviously safer to put something through your mouth than put it in a needle in your vein. Number two, your perceived rate of exertion, how hard you feel you’re working after rehydrating orally, is less than if you rehydrate via IV. If you rehydrate orally properly, the next day you’re going to feel a whole lot better when you’re exerting yourself.”

“Now that’s mild dehydration,” Novitzky added. As for extreme dehydration, Novitzky suggested, “You probably should go to a hospital. [And] I think you need to notify the commission where you’re fighting.”

If Floyd Mayweather was dehydrated after the May 1 weigh-in, the USADA doping control officer could have given him several glasses of water. USADA has yet to explain the medical justification and supporting data that led it to grant a retroactive therapeutic use exemption nineteen days after the fact for a procedure that’s on the World Anti- Doping Agency’s “Prohibited Substances and Methods List”.

(2) Most of the public attention regarding “Can Boxing Trust USADA?” has focussed on the IV that was administered to Floyd Mayweather one day before his fight against Manny Pacquiao. However, the article also references the two testosterone-to- epitestosterone-ratio test results regarding Mr. Mayweather that were made available to this writer. It would be instructive if Mr. Mayweather granted a waiver to USADA allowing it to release the testosterone-to-epitestosterone-ratio test results for each urine test administered to him by USADA for each of his fights beginning with Mayweather vs. Shane Mosley up to and including Mayweather vs. Andre Berto.

(3) The issues involved here go far beyond Floyd Mayweather. In that regard, I note that USADA’s contention that it advised the New York State Athletic Commission on October 17, 2012, concerning Erik Morales testing positive for Clenbuterol is rebutted by the statement of Laz Benitez (a spokesperson for the New York State Department of State, which oversees the NYSAC). On August 10, 2015, Mr. Benitez advised in writing, “There is no indication in the Commission’s files that it was notified of this matter prior to October 18, 2012.”

WATCH RELATED VIDEOS ON BOXINGCHANNEL.TV

COMMENTS

-Radam G :

Money May is straight-up busted. And is not going to grant a waiver of anything. He is going to Bill Cosby this one. And has probably already advised his fanboys to come up with some journalistic escape plans. Holla!


-stormcentre :

Hmm looks like Hauser himself is avoiding many of the hard questions. Happy to see the IV matter and any of Floyd's previous test get properly scrutinised. Sad that all the related issues to this matter don't have the same treatment though. For instance why not focus on; 1) Both fighter's previous tests (including their testosterone-to-epitestosterone-ratio test results). 2) TR/Pac's previous familiarity with working with USADA and allowing IV infusions. 3) And also provide a good explanation as to why the WADA policies were agreed by USADA, Pac and Floyd to not apply; which effectively - right or wrong - seems to mean that the IV matter is, as far as the applicable rules/regulations are concerned, null. Then perhaps move here and look at all questions/considerations that many other's can't/won't.
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22608-Hauser-on-Mayweather-Berto&p=87889&viewfull=1#post87889
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22532-Hauser-Fires-At-USADA-and-Floyd-USADA-Then-Floyd-Respond&p=87731&viewfull=1#post87731
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22532-Hauser-Fires-At-USADA-and-Floyd-USADA-Then-Floyd-Respond&p=87555&viewfull=1#post87555
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22532-Hauser-Fires-At-USADA-and-Floyd-USADA-Then-Floyd-Respond&p=87564&viewfull=1#post87564 Still, whilst these hard questions and other matters are skipped over, there is (at least) one very happy puppy because of that. :) :)


-amayseng :

Seems like facts are here and yet to be rebutted, yet others just will NOT accept that Floyd broke the rules, a few ways and second looks very suspicious.


-stormcentre :

Seems like facts are here and yet to be rebutted,
yet others just will NOT accept that Floyd broke the rules, a few ways and second looks very suspicious.
What (meaningful) facts (that address all the outstanding issues, rather than just play to Queens interests and create more questions) are here? Far out; A) One Queen doesn't know his facts from fiction (or back from front), as he apes from the chandeliers and tells us - on the eve of the night before MayPAc and when he seemingly knew (due to his PacEntourage position) about the ready-made PacLoss"Shoulder"Excuse - not only that Floyd is getting KO'd by his PacFighter - but also that Pac (with Hatton) was going backwards, when Pac was really not going forward and not about to win. Talk about fact-denial. B) The other can't interpret, even, preliminary information well enough (before, again, responding/revealing that his claim that he ignores some posts is as reliable as the "facts" he accepts and acts on) to see that Hauser himself explicitly advises he's yet to deliver all facts that he considers relevant; despite the fact that Hauser himself openly warns people and all Queens and others that require gaps between sentences, numbering, and advance notice, that the piece he will drop may be (too) "long". Talk about fact-denial. Whoops forgot - despite above responding to them - you don't read my posts. :) Love it !!! Geez no wonder facts, truth, and a decent investigation into all the issues at hand and those on the periphery is actually unwanted by some. For you and the record Amayseng, and as I have stated previously please take the bolded above component of your post and place alongside the above and following (numbered) information and links, and see what new forms/examples of hypocrisy you get; that further substantiates these posts.
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22532-Hauser-Fires-At-USADA-and-Floyd-USADA-Then-Floyd-Respond&p=87807&viewfull=1#post87807
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22608-Hauser-on-Mayweather-Berto&p=87917&viewfull=1#post87917 1) I agree (and have said many times that) the IV matter and Floyd's involvement is suspicious and concerning. See how this (and almost all below) is in contrast to your opening/bolded line? :) 2) I don't know why Floyd used 750ml (if he did), but if he did, and then he still confirmed that, it then raises questions about what he was doing and why he would confirm the IV use and the (excessive in terms of WADA) amount; if he was doping. I have previously stated that the use of an IV fusion as Floyd seems to have used it can be used to flush PEDs, and again - just for your "forgetful", "I block and don't read posts that I respond to" and "unreliable" PacQueen heart and mind - the IV matter and Floyd's involvement is suspicious and concerning. 3)
Important point so please pay attention; To me, all the stuff about how the WADA policies are breached is all null; in terms of how it applies to MayPac. From this point and also those below you will hopefully (but only if you want to though) see how this (and almost all information below) draws a real contrast to your opening/bolded line in ways that you will not be able to (unless, that is, you turn your
Amayseng insight - that's normally reserved for knee jerk reactions and quick judgments without reading all information - across to Pac and the MayPac contract) meaningfully explain? And, I should imagine that this is why the questions/considerations about this that I detail here and also below are not being meaningfully addressed by most, including Queens that are overlooking the fact
that both Pac and Floyd didn't want the WADA policies to apply.. Well not until after the fight and when Pac lost anyway; as then Pac and PacQueens cried and overlooked the above details. 4) I am not saying that means it's all cool and Floyd did no wrong. Once again for you; I am not saying that means it's all cool and Floyd did no wrong. 5) But (besides what Roach and Arum say about Pac's juicing) one of the white elephants in the room that no writer, donkey, witchdoctor, Queen, you, or anyone else seems to want to meaningfully acknowledge is why did Pac/Arum, Floyd and USADA all agree that the WADA policies don't apply? To borrow a line Hauser uses; It would instructive to review all Top Rank and Pac's previous contracts - particularly those pertaining to Pac's fights where Arum and Pac played hard to have USAD on board - to see how familiar they were with (and whether they used) these types of contracts, clauses, and IV infusion related considerations. Who knows, there may be more opponents Pac has had, other than Oscar, where the IV infusion was OK. :) 6)
Important point so please pay attention; Since - by explicit agreement/design of Pac and Floyd - Pac/Arum, Floyd and USADA (in Pac's case and as Hauser confirms; rejected lesser clauses during negotiation, and) all agreed that the WADA policies didn't/don't apply - then
Amayseng hopefully you can apply yourself to see that - sadly or gladly (which may possibly be your situation if Floyd and Pac's circumstances were reversed; but only so long as then a subjective and un-evenhanded "enquiry" was still tolerated, as it is now - because it suits Queens and those that either don't know fact from fiction, or don't want to know) - and whether you accept it or not - the WADA policies didn't/don't apply. Unfortunately for anyone loving both fiction and also the risk associated with placing large bets on losing donkeys (whether they eat watermelon seeds or not); this shaky foundation is all you have. At best all Queens have on Floyd with this is breach of rules that both fighters - as strongly as any human can on the Earth today - agreed to reject. This has Amayseng implications for the very foundation that your opening lines and claims are rest upon - implications that are even far beyond that described here . . . . . "A brief history of TSS's forum's "uncontrolled PacQueenLossExcuseMovement" and its special breed of "neo-NostRADAMazz like Nazi tribalism". That not only features you - but is above linked for your ease of perusal. 7)
Important point so please pay attention; So, once again, the WADA policies didn't/don't apply. Not in a world where "DonkeyMagic" doesn't apply. Not in a world where that is not make beleive. And not in a world where truth matters.
Storm does appreciate that some don't always live in these worlds though. 8) Hauser (despite still pursuing the matter with a peppering of references to Pac and MayPac without so much as suggesting that Pac should be retrograde CIR and other tested) himself admits, within his initial IVgate or "Can We Trust USADA" piece that the WADA policies didn't/don't apply. Therefore - unless you are happy to continue PacQueening as your are, and releasing wild, embarrassing, and unproven claims, and dropping the panties over Floyd's infringement of rules that don't apply (whilst at the same time still ignoring all the other, far more solidly confirmed issues related to Pac) . . . then the IV matter is - in terms that matter, and those other than speculation and hype - null and ethereal. Much, much more null and ethereal than the below referenced and above-mentioned admissions of Roach and Arum in relation to Pac's juicing; that receives far less attention - even from those with YouTube video archives backing them up 100%. 9) So, Amayseng, all you can really do is - selectively - speculate about it. By selectively I mean - as you do know - without objectively and thoroughly looking at all the above/below points, including those related to why Pac agreed to and allowed such WADA nullifying clauses whilst rejecting far lesser ones, what Pac's familiarity is with such things/contracts, and also how he usually designs his USADA contracts that don't involve Floyd. By all means though, please feel free to (continue to) celebrate, PacQueen, and make thin claims about the WADA policies that don't apply that were obstructed; even if such actions are used as a means to make hollow/hypocritical claims (such as your above/bolded opening line) about others whom are supposedly (according to you) not accepting (what you have misinterpreted as) fact. If that does it for you; knock yourself out. More laughs for us. 10) What this all means is that, and as already stated here . . . .
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22532-Hauser-Fires-At-USADA-and-Floyd-USADA-Then-Floyd-Respond&p=87555&viewfull=1#post87555 Based on the contracts and relevant rules, I am not even sure that Floyd's team had to apply for the TUE - whether it be before or after the fact or not. Meaning Floyd's (Hauser claimed late and inappropriate) application for the IV infusion was merely a courtesy measure; which negates any concern about (supposed) lateness. Happy to get your views on this and the other points I make that are relevant to it. Only if you want to accept some facts though. 11) See, if you really want to nail Floyd on this (and I personally don't mind if people do that properly and evenhanded; so long as it's not agenda driven which - while all the outstanding issues remain ran from - Hauser's work on this to date has been in my opinion) you, we, Queens, and even donkeys need to show a clear obstruction to the rules that apply. Once again for you Amayseng;
the rules that apply. Or, conversely; you can - at risk of winding up being posed with considerations/questions such as those not only above/below that you have skipped over, but also those about Pac that are typically galloped from - ask why the rules that people want to apply, simply don't. It's that simple. Of course this leads to Pac and the above points
Storm makes; doesn't it? And, it seems to me that that those considerations/questions are not being asked by people, writers, Queens, puppies, and donkeys, for no other reason than because they place Pacquaio in some of the spotlight that Hauser, people, some other writers, Queens, puppies, and donkeys have reserved for Floyd; as then that takes a lot of heat off Pac. 12) From all this you can easily see - as I am sure you, me and many a PacQueen know - once you start to approach the matter objectively, professionally, and properly, you get to questions about both fighters; 1) Previous tests (including their testosterone-to-epitestosterone-ratio test results). 2) Previous familiarity with working with USADA and/or allowing IV infusions. 3) Familiarity with designing and signing contracts that negate WADA policies. 4) And, why there were happy for the the IV matter - as far as the applicable rules/regulations are concerned - to be allowed and therefore null. From there, it opens up a pandoras box of issues/questions such as those detailed here . . .
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22608-Hauser-on-Mayweather-Berto&p=87889&viewfull=1#post87889
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22532-Hauser-Fires-At-USADA-and-Floyd-USADA-Then-Floyd-Respond&p=87731&viewfull=1#post87731
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22532-Hauser-Fires-At-USADA-and-Floyd-USADA-Then-Floyd-Respond&p=87555&viewfull=1#post87555
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22532-Hauser-Fires-At-USADA-and-Floyd-USADA-Then-Floyd-Respond&p=87564&viewfull=1#post87564 Which is why we have the phenomena of FloydHate and PacQueening. As that defines and provides for - not only saving face with frenzied Pacquaio followers that may have been easily duped - but also the popular middle ground of not asking the hard questions and instead selectively looking at matters, interpreting them as it suits, and of course not addressing both fighter's claimed indiscretions evenhandedly. Where would we be without Queens, donkeys, NostRADAMazz, magic potions, and truth rejection? Perhaps - just maybe - we would be calling for Pac's testosterone-to-epitestosterone-ratios too; to complement Floyd's. Perhaps - just maybe - we would be asking Roach and Arum what they meant when they effectively told the media that Pac was on the PEDs when he was with Ariza. See the Hee Haw pattern? In closing . . . I hope and trust this resolves matters of fact and daydreaming for you about this issue. I am not saying you should not continue to pretend, but over here . . . . . .
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22608-Hauser-on-Mayweather-Berto&p=87917&highlight=Naughty+naughty#post87917 When I last caught you lying, and also referenced a previous instance of it, I did say . . "Challenge; try and tell the truth in this forum for a month - but if you can't and you get caught, please look in the mirror and stop blaming
Storm". So, you were warned. No surprises you couldn't stop though, after all that is why we have the (above linked) phenomena of . . . . "A brief history of TSS's forum's "uncontrolled PacQueenLossExcuseMovement" and its special breed of "neo-NostRADAMazz like Nazi tribalism". Anyway, whilst all these hard questions and other matters are skipped over and treated without both objectivity and an even hand, Hauser's "enquiry" into PEDs as they apply to Floyd and Pac will probably be as shambolic as both the PED scene itself and also how Queens approach the truth.
Once again, and just to make it crystal clear; I support - not only a fair PED enquiry into both fighters and how they have approached their fights/contracts - but also retrograde CIR testing and also the release of all previous testosterone-to-epitestosterone-ratios for Floyd and Pac. Thanks for your response
Amayseng. Finally, here's a little gift for you, for being so consistent and openminded on this issue.
The 3 minute and 50 second point onwards is where all the action is. Enjoy !!!
Storm. :)


-brownsugar :

Excellent points.


-stormcentre :

Excellent points.
Cheers. Let's see how ignored they get to facilitate more Queening. Lord knows (with how hard consistency & abstaining from fiction is round here for some) one thing is for certain and that's. ... reading all related posts and information (before posting), and not lying, will probably not happen this month. Same for/with those USADA contracts, retrograde CIR testing and also testosterone-epitestosterone ratios from Pacs previous fights. 😊


-deepwater2 :

Has Pac had any TUE's or abnormal Testosterone ratios? Questioning Pac's old strength and conditioning coach's shake ingredients doesn't measure up to Floyd's suspicious results and TUE's.


-amayseng :

Has Pac had any TUE's or abnormal Testosterone ratios? Questioning Pac's old strength and conditioning coach's shake ingredients doesn't measure up to Floyd's suspicious results and TUE's.
That is what I was asking, however when you do that you get bullied and called names on here by a grown adult. I don't know how the subject of Floyd breaking the rules in a way that speculates hiding PEDS has anything to do with Pac 5 years ago. Just a way to misdirect what is going on.


-deepwater2 :

That is what I was asking, however when you do that you get bullied and called names on here by a grown adult. I don't know how the subject of Floyd breaking the rules in a way that speculates hiding PEDS has anything to do with Pac 5 years ago. Just a way to misdirect what is going on.
I haven't heard of MP having abnormal tests or suspicious results. If there is something I would like to know. 750 ml via IV the day before the big fight is a big deal. Especially for a boxer that was only 3 lbs over the fighting weight 30 days before. I agree. There is no need for the name calling. As far as Arum not jumping up and down about it, he still has business to conduct with the NSAC, and unless something changes ,he can't really do much about it. Floyd might have an asterisk after his name in the eyes of some fans, and we know he could care less.


-Kid Blast :

test


-stormcentre :

Has Pac had any TUE's or abnormal Testosterone ratios? Questioning Pac's old strength and conditioning coach's shake ingredients doesn't measure up to Floyd's suspicious results and TUE's.
Can't believe you could be so short sighted. That statement is similar to Frank's piece where he justified slagging off Floyd on the basis that no fighter Floyd ever fought went on to monumental things after.
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22601-Mayweather-Is-49-0-Won-t-Go-and-We-Still-Don-t-Know!&p=87814&highlight=monumental+things#post87814 Anyway, here's 3 answers/considerations for you that have already been provided; :) 1) An admission from a fighters trainer - that is not rebutted in any way by the fighter himself and his promoter - that the fighter was given suspicious drinks (to such an extent Roach sacked him) that his Strength and Conditioning Coach (whom is known to be associated with PEDs) consistently refused to detail what the ingredients were, all at the same time when Pac was always Amayseng and inexhaustible. . . . . . . . completely unlike that when he was MayPac tested; warrants no enquiry at all? You sure about that? Not even considering this means Pac may have previously sued Floyd (for Floyd claiming Pac was on PEDs) on an utterly false basis; due to the fact that Floyd's claims were quite possibly - in direct contradiction with Pac's writ - actually accurate? Which, then probably both explains and forms one (more) reason why Hauser is not asking all the broader and objective questions, as he instead allows an agenda (and, of course, the unscrutinising cheers of Queens whom cherry pick information to suit - almost hypocritically in the same way as the same Queens say Floyd cheery picks with opponents; even though Pac will chose his own next according to Arum {talk about triple PacQueen backward standards :) } ) to drive his "work"; that is so easily, time and time again, swallowed up by some as if it's cheap PacPorn? Back to the ""An admission from a fighters trainer" . . . . . " paragraph near "point 1", as moving on with the discussion and referencing all above points - whilst all the previous information and also my responses/posts on it are still not properly read and comprehended - is obviously too much; that's basically saying that an admission (from a promoter {Arum}, trainer {Roach} and fighter {Pacquaio}) that applicable PED rules were very likely broken - is of less importance - than an admission (from the same promoter {Arum} about his charges' opponent {Floyd whom Queens are saying should be scrutinized, but only in isolation from Pac}) that openly says
the applicable rules (these are the ones that matter boys, and if you don't like it, then ask why Pac agreed to them and rejected others) related to MayPac were
not broken by Floyd with the - admittedly - suspicious IV fusion (that has, also, been of no issue to Pac in previous fights); within an article written by a guy - Hauser - whom has (as this forum has already openly acknowledged) had his nose put out of joint by Floyd and how Floyd denied Hauser access to MayPac pressers (which means he is compromised), almost as much as he wants to be the exclusive reporter on Pac. You're OK with that eh? You don't think your above sentence could have possibly been expanded to possibly read something like this; ""Questioning Pac's old strength and conditioning coach, Arum, Roach, and Kontz, on what they meant in the video that shows Arum, and especially Roach, openly and effectively admitting that Pacquaio was on the PEDs at a time when Ariza would not explain what the ingredients were in drinks (which is one very common method of introducing PEDs and/or PESs to athletes) Pac was given is a good way to ensure an even handed, fair, non-bias, objective and non-agenda driven journalistic investigation is conducted (by a writer that clearly has reasons to favour Pac over Floyd) into Floyd's IV and TUE matter? " Not in the least because, within his same work, the same writer (Hauser); 1) Makes references to Floyd's previous domestic abuse matters that have no bearing on PED related matters the same writer focusses on and ignores? 2) Overlooks some of the real reasons why the NSAC refused Pac his Toradol; fraud. 3) Fails to investigate Pac on the same issues as Floyd; despite referencing Pac and acknowledging that Pac is connected to Floyd for the purposes of and/or within his work. 4) Fails to call for Pac's past testosterone-epitestosterone ratios, as he calls for Floyd's; whom I admit look "curious". 5) Fails to ask why Pac rejected lesser clauses in the "Floyd, Manny and USADA contract" that effectively nullified WADA policies that some street walking PacQueens are risking sex without connies overs; because all the genital rubbing and puppy love over the FloydIVgate and "late TUE" approval only has utility within the WADA framework - which has no application. 6) As/when it suits, seems to have an obvious/alarming propensity to, as he progresses the (Floyd related) issues that appear to be most dear to him with respect to the entire story (titled "Can We Trust USADA") remember and "forget" (at will) the fact that - if WADA policies don't apply - then the TUE (late or otherwise) is absolutely meaningless, and therefore - as above stated and confirmed by Hauser himself - the "Floyd, Manny and USADA contract" effectively nullified WADA policies, and was agreed to by all parties and their legal teams.
In summary this means the TUE matter and also the WADA policies and/or any infringement of them, is all - wait for it - "meaningless" (as Arum admits), "hot air", "speculation", "vexatious", "vindictive", and at very best . . . nothing more than a breach of rules that don't apply (that could have been used to flush PED remnants from an athlete's blood) in the presence of official USADA/other staff that were all there when the IV fusion actually took place for no other reason than because TMT called and requested their presence. Even as Hauser does this little ""remember/forget"" and ""I'll just select what negative information I like and ignore the rest"" narrative dance (which coincidentally happens to also be a telltale PacQueening trademark move of whenever a Queen wants to conceal the hypocrisy associated with a post/claim - possibly explaining why Queens don't highlight {Hauser's or others} oversight that serve them, or like fact quite as much as focussing on Floyd breaking rules that simply don't apply, due to Pac's signature) as he moves; A) His chaptered "Can We Trust USADA" piece; which appears itself to be a front and/or vehicle for both a FloydHate piece and also an application for a permanent position in Pac's Entourage (just like NostRADAMazz). B) The issues most personal to him that he wishes to "vent". Forward, . . . . interesting it is that - despite Hauser's experience, and despite also his educated and qualified mind - he, somehow, always fails to arrive not only at the above points "4" and "5" - but also (Hauser almost always fails to arrive) at; (1) anything that will incriminate Pac, and also (2) any of other oversights, concerns, and questions that I highlight within his and also PacQueen's work, posts, and claims. That's "Amayseng".
And, sorry, but in my opinion only a true Queen (or someone "farm-animal naive") would consistently - time and time again - accept the written word on matters like these that themselves almost always overlook all this vital information. 7) Has yet - as Hauser does all this "magic" - to detail one negative aspect or concern related to Pacquaio; despite the fact - in addition to the many, many lawsuits (Hauser is a lawyer yet this subject still alludes him) Pacquaio is currently fielding in relation to false claims, poor/questionable performances (Berto did better), and, of course, fraud - that there clearly is more than a few of them with Pac's name on them. OK, those 7 (of about 20) important points are now out of the way and ready to be ignored when the next Queening session starts. Assuming you are unable to show where I am wrong with both them and also what I have fairly written on the facts (please - anyone - let me know if that is not the case); may I ask D2 . . . . is it the case that you, somehow, see no bias, issue, subjectivity, unreliability, vendetta, and close-mindedness with the above approach Hauser is adopting? :) If the answer is "yes", you're OK with it; as seems to be the case from your posts - then all I can say is . . . . "Good stuff D2". And . . . . "Wakey, Wakey, hand of snakey". 2) So, according to what you're saying this warrants no questions (even though Pac refused PED tests previously when he was having the drinks and had his 1st Mayweather fight offered to him) whilst - at the same time - a breach of non applicable WADA rules - rules that Pac both agreed didn't apply and himself rejected, and rules he has himself had used before in fights - does warrant questions? But only if those questions don't involve Pac, and only involve Floyd. I have one word for that; Pac Queening. Or maybe 2; Agenda. If this PED issue is to be properly investigated, Hauser should stop grandstanding and both fighters should have retrograde tests done on previous samples and also provide their past testosterone-epitestosterone related data; Pac included. That is the consideration, project, and challenge (like the truth) to sort the men from the boys, and the Queens from Kings. 3) As you and all Queens know and are happy about (wonder why); Hauser - concerningly - appears to not be looking/asking for Pac's testosterone-epitestosterone ratios - unlike how he is asking for Floyd's testosterone-epitestosterone ratios. Wonder why Hauser is not asking for Pac's testosterone-epitestosterone ratios? Does anyone not think that's an important question? The reality of the (PacActuality?) matter is that, until . . . . . A) Hauser shows he is not compromised/bias, and also asks for both fighters to provide retrograde tests done on previous samples and for them to also provide their past testosterone-epitestosterone related data. B) PacQueens, puppies, donkeys, sensible readers, and others, cease selectively looking at this in simple/convenient ways (not that the previously mentioned sensible readers and most others usually are that easily fooled) I guess we will not know what Pac's testosterone-epitestosterone ratios are. And I know yawl want not just, a fair enquiry that doesn't just let Pac off whilst nailing Floyd - but also for Hauser to call for Pac's testosterone-epitestosterone ratios, as well.
DeepBreath; Seriously though, I can't believe some of you guys have been following/watching this sport for as long as you have/say, but yet still continuously overlook all the relevant considerations. Are you deliberately trying to see how easily you can misinterpret claims and ignore relevant information? Do you not want to get it right? Or are you just happy when things are crooked so long as it both, rubbishes Floyd, and makes things look good for all previous claims and actions you and/or Queens may have been involved with? Aside from that all my "other detailed posts" on this (that are there to bring objectively minded souls up to speed on all considerations, including those Hauser is not addressing and also those Queens conveniently overlook) currently misconceived and agenda driven matter applies. Some of those "other detailed posts" . . . . .
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22532-Hauser-Fires-At-USADA-and-Floyd-USADA-Then-Floyd-Respond&p=87989&highlight=good+response#post87989 You yourself D2 still appear to still have not yet got across and/or looked at. And I do appreciate they're uncomfortable, hard, and could possibly incriminate both Pac and Floyd; the former (boxer/condition) usually being something PacQueens - which I know you're not - are extremely allergic to. What's more, you yourself also appear to have not yet got across and/or looked at them - despite them actually being older than this thread. This, in itself, may just explain why it's easy to make the above posts/claims - as much as it also possibly defines why such posts/claims are easily dealt with and/or rebutted by
Storm. Good stuff. Moving on . . . Can't wait for; A) Hauser's next piece. Not only to see all that's (again) skipped over - but, also to see all the same PacQueenPerpetual responses and mistakes made (all over) again. B) Both Lemieux V 3G and Canelo V Cotto. Thomas Hauser -
Storm usually loves your stuff - but if you're reading this (and I know you are :) ) please feel free to email me on . . [email]stormcentre@outlook.com[/email] so I can give you some tips on how to approach an article and investigation like this, evenhandedly, open-mindedly, objectively, and fairly. Just like they should do in law.
StormCentre.


-stormcentre :

That is what I was asking, however when you do that you get bullied and called names on here by a grown adult. I don't know how the subject of Floyd breaking the rules in a way that speculates hiding PEDS has anything to do with Pac 5 years ago. Just a way to misdirect what is going on.
My god this is child's play. So you don't know how the subject of Floyd breaking the rules in a way that speculates hiding PEDS has anything to do with Pac 5 years ago eh? Let me stop laughing at how wilfully naive and willfully gullible (2 surefire telltale signs of Pac Queening) that is before I say; 1) Once again; do you read all available information even in the thread you Queen in, before posting? 2) Would the answer to your question possibly be in there and/or related to how Hauser is calling for and looking at past testosterone-epitestosterone ratios. Perhaps you can see NostRADAMazz. ..... I hear he has not only some knowledge about brain feeding but also some magic vitamins and minerals to help comprehension and memory. However, as far as the willful naivety goes..... not sure there is a cure for that - aside from giving up the PacQueen skirt, and applying some common sense and objectivity. :) For all other possible/future gullibilities and QueenQuestions please see my response to D2 above and also read my above post to you again.. . . . . . Then try to stop Queening (already proven), lying (already proven), and "crying/complaining" (already proven). It's a boxing website for God's sake and you're a fine hypocrite to be upset about name calling, particularly given how often you have unnecessarily done both it and bullying, and then complained when it didn't work and someone fed you back some of your own medicine. At least when/if I humorously place names in posts it it is done with proof of the Pac Queening and/or other willful gullibility like "offence". This is just me talking now, but since Queening doesn't work and makes for tears, how about giving thought to growing up a little, the truth, and reading/comprehending all the considerations related to the complex matters you (quickly) make knee jerk comments on?? :) Remember as stated in above and other posts to you; It's not my fault you choose to pretend and get caught . . . . . . . and when you do look in the mirror as right there is the origin of the behavior. When I was 10 my Daddy once told me "1 lie always leads to another". Not sure if you can take something from that as you busily pretend to block posters, but get caught reading and responding to their posts. I know why don't you start a thread for yourself where you can trick, talk, post, and fool yourself as our resident magician does? I promise not to gate crash your party if you do. Love it!!!! :) :)


-stormcentre :

Can't believe you could be so short sighted. 3 answers/considerations for you that have already been provided in other threads/posts; ☺ ☺ 1) An admission from a fighters trainer that is not rebutted by both the fighter himself and the fighters promoter, that the fighter was given suspicious drinks that the Strength and Conditioning Coach (whom is known to be associated with PEDs) consistently refused to detail ingredients of at a time (to such an extent Roach sacked him) when Pac was always inexhaustible. ....... unlike when he was MayPac tested warrants no enquiry at all? You sure about that? An admission that applicable rules were possibly broken versus an admission rules were not; even by Arum. Wakey, Wakey, hand of snakey. 2) But according to what you're saying this warrants no questions (even though Pac refused PED tests previously when he was having the drinks and offered his 1st Mayweather fight) whilst a breach of no applicable rules - rules Pac both agreed didnt apply and rejected, and rules he has himself used before in fights - does warrant questions. .... questions that don't involve Pac and only Floyd. I have one word for that; Pac Queening. Or maybe 2; Agenda. 3) Hauser - concerningly - appears to not be looking/asking for Pac's testosterone-epitestosterone ratios; unlike Floyd's. Until that happens and Queens cease selectively looking at this in simple/convenient ways I guess we will not know what Pac's testosterone-epitestosterone ratios are..... and I know yawl want Hauser to call for Pac's testosterone-epitestosterone ratios. Seriously, I can't believe you guys have been watching this sport as long as you say, yet continuously overlook all the considerations. Aside from that all my other detailed posts on this (that are there to bring objectively minded souls up to speed on all considerations including those Hauser is not addressing and those Queens conveniently overlook) currently misconceived and agenda driven matter applies. Some of them, you yourself D2 still appear to still have not got across - despite them being older than this thread- which is probably why it's easy to make the above claims; that are easily dealt with and rebutted.


-stormcentre :

That is what I was asking, however when you do that you get bullied and called names on here by a grown adult. I don't know how the subject of Floyd breaking the rules in a way that speculates hiding PEDS has anything to do with Pac 5 years ago. Just a way to misdirect what is going on.
My god this is child's play. So you don't know how the subject of Floyd breaking the rules in a way that speculates hiding PEDS has anything to do with Pac 5 years ago eh? Let me stop laughing at how wilfully naive and willfully gullible (2 surefire telltale signs of Pac Queening) that is before I say; 1) Once again; do you read all available information even in the thread you Queen in, before posting? 2) Would the answer to your question possibly be in there and/or related to how Hauser is calling for and looking at past testosterone-epitestosterone ratios. Perhaps you can see NostRADAMazz. ..... I hear he has not only some knowledge about brain feeding but also some magic vitamins and minerals to help comprehension and memory. However, as far as the willful naivety goes..... not sure there is a cure for that - aside from giving up the PacQueen skirt, and applying some common sense and objectivity. :) For all other possible/future gullibilities and QueenQuestions please see my response to D2 above and also read my above post to you again.. . . . . . Then try to stop Queening (already proven), lying (already proven), and "crying/complaining" (already proven). It's a boxing website for God's sake and you're a fine hypocrite to be upset about name calling, particularly given how often you have unnecessarily done both it and bullying, and then complained when it didn't work and someone fed you back some of your own medicine. At least when/if I humorously place names in posts it it is done with proof of the Pac Queening and/or other willful gullibility like "offence". This is just me talking now, but since Queening doesn't work and makes for tears, how about giving thought to growing up a little, the truth, and reading/comprehending all the considerations related to the complex matters you (quickly) make knee jerk comments on?? :) Remember as stated in above and other posts to you; It's not my fault you choose to pretend and get caught . . . . . . . and when you do look in the mirror as right there is the origin of the behavior. When I was 10 my Daddy once told me "1 lie always leads to another". Not sure if you can take something from that as you busily pretend to block posters, but get caught reading and responding to their posts. I know, how about this? Why don't you start a thread for yourself where you can trick, talk to, post to, and fool, yourself; just as our resident magician has done? I promise not to gate crash your party if you do. Love it!!!! :) :)