USADA did CIR testing on all Floyd vs. Cotto samples!!

[Atlanta]

Originally Posted by Bazooka

Ummm VADA exposes GBP attempting to Obtain similar contracts with them as well
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

You didn't even read your source did you?

[PrinceN]

Originally Posted by Atlanta

Yeah, lets see:

VADA: $20K Fee(no Idea if this is correct)
Notable Clients:
Golden Boy Promotions

USADA: $100K Fee(Again, no idea if correct)
Notable Clients/Events:
The Olympics
The World Ams
The PanAms
And any major national tournaments/governing bodies.
...
...
...
GBP/Mayweather


So the USADA is so bad at math, they put higher value on the $100K they can make from Floyd over all the money they make from those events and national governing bodies and the Government Funding they receive.

one is been around longer and much more established the funny thing is pactards bobtards and mayweather haters used to attack even doing testing now they are attacking one place that test They keep trying to change the discussion

[Dillyyo]

Originally Posted by PrinceN

I talked to my father who has run labs for over 30 years he laughed when I told him USADA was charging 90k he said it could be done for much less. USADA has dropped there prices of late to compete with VADA as well

Of course it doesn't cost that much, but then a fvcking Ferrari doesn't cost 200K to build either. Yet, people still buy Ferraris, Bentleys, etc right

[Bazooka]

Originally Posted by Atlanta

You didn't even read your source did you?

Yes I did, the question is why do you need a contract in order to secure being notified at the earliest convenience?

[PrinceN]

Originally Posted by Bazooka

No I am not in favor of any contracts like this, as there are legal loop holes that can be thrown in there.

in other words DLHs attorneys could have easily thrown in or attempted to throw in other shit.

if a fighter test positive the agency should inform the commission release its findings to the proper sources and halt the fight. there is no contract needed for that.....

where is the loop hole? so now you are talking about "ifs"? I think you didnt read your source before you posted it. I hope you didnt read it or you are a bigger idiot than I thought

[turbotime]

I never thought I'd meet a dumber person by the name of Bazooka than the one at doghouse boxing.

I was wrong.

[Atlanta]

Originally Posted by Bazooka

No I am not in favor of any contracts like this, as there are legal loop holes that can be thrown in there.

in other words DLHs attorneys could have easily thrown in or attempted to throw in other shit.

if a fighter test positive the agency should inform the commission release its findings to the proper sources and halt the fight. there is no contract needed for that.....

So you have no idea why you are mad. GBP has a clear financial stake in the issue and them wanting to be notified is basic business procedure, just like if they decided to purchase an insurance policy on the event of a fighter getting hurt midway through their contract.

[turbotime]

Originally Posted by PrinceN

where is the loop hole? so now you are talking about "ifs"? I think you didnt read your source before you posted it. I hope you didnt read it or you are a bigger idiot than I thought

These last two pages are just....wow

[perspicacity]

Posters of a certain disposition fail to see the irony and suspicion in all of this, when the guy who today went to prison has been screaming from the rooftops about transparency, but all of a sudden gets defensive when someone asks him a transparency related question.

[Bazooka]

Originally Posted by Atlanta

So you have no idea why you are mad. GBP has a clear financial stake in the issue and them wanting to be notified is basic business procedure, just like if they decided to purchase an insurance policy on the event of a fighter getting hurt midway through their contract.

Thats not my problem they are the ones who pushed for this movement

[turbotime]

Originally Posted by perspicacity

Posters of a certain disposition fail to see the irony and suspicion in all of this, when the guy who today went to prison has been screaming from the rooftops about transparency, but all of a sudden gets defensive when someone asks him a transparency related question.

Who got defensive?

[PrinceN]

Originally Posted by perspicacity

Posters of a certain disposition fail to see the irony and suspicion in all of this, when the guy who today went to prison has been screaming from the rooftops about transparency, but all of a sudden gets defensive when someone asks him a transparency related question.

explain this please in detail

[Bladegunner]

Originally Posted by Atlanta

You didn't even read your source did you?

He didn't, this guy is a bigger idiot than I thought

[Bladegunner]

Originally Posted by Bazooka

Yes I did, the question is why do you need a contract i

• n order to secure being notified at the earliest convenience?

You never ran a business before have you?

[Atlanta]

Originally Posted by Bazooka

Yes I did, the question is why do you need a contract in order to secure being notified at the earliest convenience?

VADA was told that GBP also wanted a contract so that GBP would be authorized to receive the testing results, including the preliminary results from an "A" sample analysis. It is important to understand that "A" sample results are only preliminary, do not legally stand up by themselves, and under commonly accepted anti-doping procedures are typically released only to the athlete.

In order for VADA to release the preliminary "A" sample results to a third party such as GBP, VADA requires an executed authorization allowing us to do so. VADA sent GBP a draft contract for its signature which would have authorized the preliminary "A" sample results to be released to GBP. This initial draft (which was never signed) contained a clause pursuant to which GBP would have represented that it had obtained the necessary authorization from the fighters. GBP's legal team rejected this clause and instead suggested making the fighters signatories to the contract with their signatures being the necessary authorization. VADA's counsel made it clear to GBP that, if GBP wanted to handle it this way, GBP must take responsibility for obtaining the athlete's signatures. Unfortunately, and to VADA's dismay, GBP never obtained the signatures.
Various versions of a draft contract were sent back and forth between GBP and VADA. The contract was never finalized. Richard Schaefer may, or may not, have been aware of this situation. The bottom line is that VADA had no contract with GBP. This is not a mere technicality. It involves issues of medical ethics. VADA needed a signed contract in order to deviate from its Results Management Policy (posted on our website) and release the preliminary and personal medical information to a third party. VADA still has never received a signed contract or signed athlete authorization from GBP.
 VADA would have been happy to inform GBP of the preliminary "A" results. But we needed a signed authorization allowing us to do so, which we never received.

Like I said, read your own source.