If it's for the sake of "sportmanship"

Name them then.

 

Am I the doctor here? Why would I know about all the PEDs out there? I do not work for an anti-doping agency like the doctor I quoted.

That was the doctor that made that comment, not me. You know, somebody that is qualified in the field to speak on the issue??

 

Hahaha, really. If you are going to use this **** as your argument, then you had better be ready to back it up.

 

Are you slow?

I just quoted a PROFESSIONAL DOCTOR IN THE FIELD OF ANTI-DOPING, I don't need to back up anything.

Why do I need to back it up again when I just quoted a professional in the field?

For example: If I quoted a network engineer on a networking protocol that I was unfamiliar with, would I have to back it up? Wouldn't the CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL'S COMMENTS be enough? Yes, it would. It would even hold up in a court of law because the person is a PROFESSIONAL IN THE FIELD.

As would the doctor's comments.

 

And I showed proof that your doctor was wrong. This is getting really comical now.

 

No you did not.

Once again, please try to read and COMPREHEND WHAT YOU ARE READING.

The doctor sited HGH as ONE EXAMPLE, you get that? JUST ONE EXAMPLE and said that "That’s true of a number of prohibited substances, particularly those that would enhance and aid a boxer.”

Once again, IT IS NOT ONLY HGH WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. It is a number of PEDs that can't be detected by urine analysis alone. Just because HGH can be detected in urine, does not mean we do not need to test for OTHER PEDs through blood-testing.

What is comical is your lack of reading comprehension.

 

I ask then what is any number of prohibited substances?

You want to use that quote like some sort of super hall monitor pass w/o proving anything and exclaiming that you don't have to back **** up.

Seriously, come on man.

 

It is a doctor saying it. A PROFESSIONAL IN THE FIELD OF ANTI-DOPING.

So if I go and google a bunch of PEDs that can't be detected by urine alone that would satisfy you more than a doctor who works in the field of anti-doping commenting on the issue? That is simply, stupid...... atsch Yea, GOOGLE SEARCH > DOCTOR OPINION when it comes to PEDs by your logic. :think

The doctor was non-specific about which PEDs, and he did not need to be in this case. Listing all the PEDs out there would be a waste of time and was not important in his response. The doctor just made it clear that there are many (a number of) PEDs that can't be detected by urine analysis alone.

All you have sited was a new HGH detection method. Great. However, what about the other PEDs that can't be detected without a blood test?

 

Again, you are using your non-descriptive super hall monitor pass to shoot down any arguments you want w/o having to prove any of it.

Can't you see this? This isn't about me disliking Floyd. This is about logic and facts.

 

Logic would indicate that you would listen to a PROFESSIONAL IN THE FIELD OF ANTI-DOPING about the issue as they would know what they are talking about. Asking for a list of PEDs that can't be detected through urine is really a pointless exercise at this point. You already have a certified professional acknowledging that there are a number of PEDs that can't be detected without a blood test.

So you are saying the doctor is full of it then? What are YOUR CREDENTIALS again?

I don't pretend to know more than the doctors who ACTUALLY WORK IN THE FIELD. You on the other hand must have your PHD in microbiology and a masters degree in chemistry......

 

I don't have to list my credentials because I posted factful articles that counter your doctors broad sweeping, great sounding quote. ---Again it ain't about me or you, it's about proving what you are arguing.

You on the other hand cannot backup your doctor with other facts, articles or other and just hug onto the original quote.

I'm just playing you right now trying to see if you can be level headed enough to see what you're trying to pull, the wool see...?

 

What did you prove again? That HGH can be detected through urine analysis? Great.

What about the other PEDs like the doctor said? You've yet to prove the doctor wrong. I guess there is nothing out there that can fool a urine test right because you say so?

Seriously, listen to yourself. You literally have ZERO argument. You are so focused on HGH you are ignoring the concept that there are OTHER SUBSTANCES!!!!

 

No that is not true. It can't be done for every fight because it is too expensive. It should only be done for fights of a certain magnitude, upon request, and paid for by the fighters. The only reason it isn't done by the commission is because they do not have the resources to do so.

You guys are really reaching trying to twist this back on the Mayweather camp. It is starting to look like Manny is a cheat and a fraud. Just like Margarito. Hmm, there is starting to be a theme in the Arum Top Rank camp...:think

 

See you're arguing w/o laying out the facts. Show us what PEDS cannot be detected please?

 

http://mmajunkie.com/news/16045/ask-the-doc-with-steroid-and-hgh-testing-is-blood-or-urine-best.mma

by Dr. Johnny Benjamin on Sep 01, 2009 at 12:50 pm ET Spine Surgeon, orthopedic surgeon

Anyway, urine testing is cheaper, less invasive (no needle stick required) and has fewer potential complications (not unless peeing on your hand is considered a complication) than blood testing.

Blood screening is more sensitive (more likely to detect a banned substance), detects more banned substances, and is more difficult to beat through "masking" methods. Blood screening is the current standard for detecting abnormally elevated levels of synthetic human growth hormone (HGH).

There is a new and promising HGH urine test that was developed at George Mason University. The new test uses nanotechnology to bind and amplify HGH in urine so that it may be detectable for a longer period of time. Blood screening can only detect HGH taken within the previous 24 to 48 hours. Nanotechnology may allow urine detection out to that two-week range.

It will take forever (exaggeration) to get the test approved to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) standards. WADA must be sure that the test can withstand the legal assault that is certain to be waged with the first positive sample.

WADA has outlined six classes of prohibited substances: stimulants; narcotics; anabolic agents/steroids; diuretics; peptide hormones and related compounds; and other restricted drugs.

These classes include more than 400 substances and thousands of related compounds. These categories include active substances, precursors and masking agents. WADA randomly samples urine throughout the year (out-of-competition screening) and performs blood screening at events (in-competition screening). The sport of mixed martial arts does not use WADA screening for reasons that are unclear to me.

WADA is not perfect or foolproof, but it is pretty damn good. WADA tests are usually sensitive to parts per billion.

A bit of interesting info I ran cross:


"The International Olympic Committee (IOC) funded research at the drug surveillance lab in Cologne, Germany, in 2001 to independently analyze a number of supplements. Of the 634 products tested, 94 (15 percent) contained steroids or related compounds that were not declared on the label.

"Sixteen percent of the positive supplements showed concentrations of steroids at concentrations of 10 micrograms per gram (10ng/g) or higher – considerably greater than that required to give a positive test at the recommended daily intake." (Informed)


Let that sink in: "Of the 634 products tested, 94 (15 percent) contained steroids or related compounds that were not declared on the label."

Another quote by this same doctor:"Testing urine can find an illegal drop in a bucket. Testing blood can find an illegal drop in an Olympic-size swimming pool."

How many doctors do you want me to quote dude? You are just being a fool right now.