Do you rank Povetkin higher than Wilder now?

unfortunately for you, Sharapova, the case matter that Dino was quoting, was administered Meldonium by a doctor, which requires a prescription. Over the counter drugs can be provided by prescription too.

If you knew something even remotely about medicine then you would know that you can get, for example, ibruprofen across the counter AND from prescription via a doctor.

you fail, dumbovelvet koed you in 1.

 

limited means it has an effect.

Your own argument destroys you, don't bother replying. I'll ask other people on this forum why you chose to use a point that wrecks your own argument.

 

Can anyone on this forum explain why BCS I quoting the quote "meldoniums effects are limited" and then using this to prove its effect is non existent?

Why is he quoting something that proves himself wrong?

I'd be interested to know why someone would do that, cos its cfcuked in the hed.

 

here -

the effects you quoted from your study including expansion of capillary network around the heart, but you didn't read that bit. Yep your own evidence tripped you up.

you aren't, because such Nigerians would know that OTC drugs can be obtained by prescription too.[/QUOTE]

 

I still have Wilder ranked a big higher given his title, is still undefeated, and beat the undefeated Ortiz

That said, Povetkin absolutely thrashes Wilder, given the chance

 

That's a fair enough argument. I obviously can't say why there are conflicting statements, and this is reasonable conjecture.

Or, they think that there are performance benefits and because they think so, there are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

My point is clear. Povetkin used mildronat when it was not prohibited.

This being my point, as well. There is no actual, proper, double-blind study done of meldonium and its possible performance enhancing effects. All this conjecture is the result of extrapolation and assumption. There are also people that say it has little to no effect at all. So which is it?

It's been around since 1970 and only now is this - quote - "may be very effective ... PED" is coming to attention. I humbly submit that a "very effective" PED would not slip under the radar for almost half a century. I suspect (the same as every other guy extrapolating effects from rat studies) that any performance gains may be modest at best.

Certainly looking at Povetkin after he stopped taking mildronat, I see no major change in his athletic ability that could not be explained by being several years older. If meldonium was so effective, he might have been able to do something more against Wlad than get beaten from pillar to post.

Kudos for the studies, however.

You have certainly stated your case better than some other well known dimwits around here.

 

This is why you don't run with scissors, play with matches, or argue with morons like Herolgeeeeeeewotsdat, kids. He's managed to highlight MY point and claim "victory"

 

Why would you fight a person who was caught cheating twice??? Are you ******ed? Second: he koed Ortiz? Yes he did!

Juiceshua its fighting now a 39 years old ped king!

 

Why is Wilder not fighting this now 39 yo ped king?
Apparently 39 yo is a bad thing judging from your post, but it's admirable that Wilder finally manned up and beat a 60 yo Ortiz after realising heart medicine didn't make Ortiz a big threat? Yes Wilder is so brave fighting the best out there like fat Stiverne without a fight in 2 years and geriatric Ortiz.

 

Why would you fight a person who cheated twice? **** that! You and your double standards

 

bro, dont refer to me in the 3rd person, it doesnt save your fail.

 

Herolgee

 

That wasnt third person dingbat.

Go ask Dino for a example.

 

hahaha! when you are reduced to that old chestnut, you know you've failed bad.

but this was way worse - doesnt know that OTC drugs can be prescibed too. hahaha! where are you living??

 

u fail