Canelo popped for Clenbuterol

"You are quite stubborn I can tell."
Jeeez thats rich coming from you!
Your are trying to confuse & make an argument about the semantics ...the thing is Shadow-of-a-real-man is Clenbuterol is a illegal substance, whether ingested, intravenously given or even in pill form, a kilo to a milligram makes not one iota of difference .
Its a ban & so it should be, its also indefensible but fool of nature Shadow-of-a-real-man is doing his best to keep the title of pedantic Oik of this BB...a very lonely little man he is....

 

took shadow ages to create 9 alts

 

Do you not accept WADA's 2017 statement on how they handle clenbuterol? Trying to come at me, accusing me of lies, etc when I am quoting directly from the WADA release shows how desperate you are and how you like to ignore facts that don't support your agenda. Coming after me is not going to get you anywhere, I shared with you a very relavent statement from WADA showing how they handles cases of clenbuterol. There's no point in fighting it, it just makes you look more and more desperate and upset at how what you've been saying is contrary to how WADA has been handling clenbuterol cases.

 

You've yet to add an original thought /post in your entire wasted life ...just sayin...alt

 

I don't have a single alt. You just keep lying about me and making up stuff, since you can't compete on the issues, you resort to made up personal attacks. Sad!

 

ggg didnt land many clean shots on canelo, the only one i can remember is the one that hit his temple when he had canelo in the corner

ggg won the fight because he was the more aggressive fighter and landed more shots in general but canelo landed fewer but cleaner shots on ggg

 

You can run but can't hide you head in the Shadows by ignoring the glaringly obvious truth...Moronic one

 

Not semantics. Flat out facts and direct quotes from WADA's own 2017 release on clenbuterol. You trying to deflect and generalize won't get around that.

 

The crux of your beloved wada statement is that athletes don't have to prove what they ate 8 years ago becuase that case happened 8 years ago.

That obviously does not apply in the clenelo case as it happened like a month ago, the burden of proof is on him .

Anyone who doesn't have the i.q of a bruised turnip knows this and in no way shape of foam does the wada statement help clenelo.

But you have been eating meat tainted with lead since you were two years old and it has taken its toll on your brain function

 

It was a lot more than 30 seconds of each round. IIRC there was really only one round where you could argue that occurred. Canelo was outboxing Golovkin for the first 4 and a half rounds, until the final minute of the 5th where G started to mount some offense.

 

And add to that, Clenelo's first sample was in the 600-800 picograms amount, pushing him out of the omg, low levels meat taint excuse.

 

Nice try but this statement destroys your argument :

There have been hundreds of cases – limited to a number of countries where contamination is known to be an issue and where the athletes would have resided, trained and/or competed; and, these cases have been treated in the same way as those identified through the Beijing Re-Analysis Program.

“We acknowledge that the clenbuterol meat contamination issue is unsatisfactory,” said Olivier Niggli, Director General, WADA. “Accordingly, since 2011, the Agency has carried out several research studies aimed at providing analytical means to distinguish ingestion of clenbuterol by pharmacological origin versus that of meat contamination,”

So, as you can see, they have learned from the results of the Beijing program, and have applied it to how they handle cases of clenbuterol.

The fact that you need to resort to such a gutter debate approach shows how you lack credibility and have you conveniently try and twist statements from WADA to fit your agenda. This is getting real pathetic, but I'm happy to continue to school you and show you the light.

 

You haven't addressed anything i said ,you just do your usual handicapped fillibustering be act.

They should ban you for bringing down the standard of the forum

 

He must be a bitter ginger i think

 

thats fine, thanks.

you should remove that like - theres no way I could have meant that in a non-saracastic way. of course zero is the right level.