Pac/Floyd investigation, documented punches (disputed rounds) blow by blow

[ADP02]

Would you be willing to rematch Travestyny in the Thunderdome with regular posters as judges, though?

Unfortunately, I do not think that you can get any objective experts. So there is no point asking.

[travestyny]

I have already responded to this too!

The threshold test result indicates that there is synthetic EPO if it exceeds the threshold. If less, the indication is that there is only human EPO.

So what you're saying is that below the threshold, it's human EPO, and above the threshold, it is non-human EPO. Great!!!! Now explain this from the court!

there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance

You're done.

Of course, there are other tests and possibly a 2nd opinion and possibly ABP result involved as I told you that may indicate otherwise.
You know, just like the panel is telling YOU!!!! DING DING DING!!!!!






This is the dumbest question of yours. Especially after I explained it to you!!! Just give it up!!!


Since you do not understand, lets add some information. This is the BAP test:



So they explained it to YOU!!!! As you can see, they are using this test and it is a threshold type test!


Some LABs used the test with a threshold of 80% some with 85% and due to new data, they wanted to accept even a lower threshold .... BUT it is still a threshold test!!!!



So what exactly is a BAP threshold test? Similar to a threshold substance, it contains not just the threshold but also what they call uncertainty buffer and possibly other buffers just so there is less of a chance of getting a false positive.

Here it is described for you:


So due to studies the safety margin can be lowered so that what they used to call "suspect" samples, at least some would be called an abuse of rEPO.....

How did they do that? They used other criteria to either support this claim or not.

The other criteria supported their claim that the athlete was using rEPO.


As I said, even some threshold substances went thru this phase. Marijuana's threshold changed. Does this change make it any less of a threshold test? Meaning, if a case brings up that the new threshold should be lowered because of an upcoming change in WADA rules, should we stop calling it a threshold test? NO!!!! That is dumb if you do stop calling it a threshold test!!!!



Actually a more similar example of this is nandrolone.
They had different thresholds at one point or another because they didn't want to have no false positives. The number changed but the test in itself is a threshold test.





.

All of that, and not one answer. WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD OF THE BAP TEST, ADP?????

[ShoulderRoll]

Unfortunately, I do not think that you can get any objective experts. So there is no point asking.

You and Travestyny would select a jury of your BoxingScene peers, not me. Both of you would have to agree to all judges.

Are you up for a rematch?

[travestyny]

I responded to Shoulder Rolls post. Lets see if he can get the right people .... wink wink!


The case was due to the athlete's complaint that only the BAP threshold test should have been used to come up with the result. The panel disagreed since UCI says the LABs can use "by any means"

WRONG. The court said that there were two things to consider.

5.1.4.1 The agreed stipulations indicate that the testing procedure used by the Lab is not in dispute in this proceeding. The issue is the interpretation of the results of the test procedure as opposed to the procedure itself. Can the procedure results be interpreted as a positive analytical finding based on a criterion of a BAP that is below 80%? The subsidiary issue is whether the analytical result may be interpreted by other criteria such as the TBR, the Band Location or the 2005 WADA Standard.

Well well well. So you keep bringing up the issue in blue, but you only glance over the first issue. I wonder why.

You have been glancing over that first issue and trying to state that this case is only about the second issue. You are doing that either because you don't understand this, or because you're just trying to be deceitful.

This was NOT only about whether they can use other tests. THERE WERE TWO ISSUES. THE FIRST BEING AN EXAMINATION OF THE BAP TEST.

You have insinuated in the past that the threshold was 80%, but you now don't want to state that explicitly because you already know that the court brief stated plainly that there is NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. You know that smashes you. So what you are trying to say is that the only reason they say that is because they are saying other tests can be used. AGAIN, THAT WAS ONLY HALF THE ISSUE. THE COURT EXAMINED THE BAP SPECIFICALLY.

5.1.5. Risks of false positive with a BAP below 80%

5.1.5.2 Recent research now indicates that the risks of a false positive at 80% BAP are much lower than originally thought, In Sbeih, the Panel stated on p. 9 that the risk was actually 1 in 500,000. The same research shows that at a BAP of 74.86% the risk is 1 in 100,000. The Respondent's BAP values of 79.5% and 79.4% were only slightly below 80%. Given these new scientific findings, this Panel is confident in concluding that a BAP lower than 80% can still provide the assurance required to rule out a false positive. The Panel finds that it has been established to its comfortable satisfaction that the Respondent's analytical result can be interpreted as revealing the use of rEPO.

Well well well...so what is this telling us about the BAP. It can be lower than 80%. How much lower???? It doesn't say. It was never stated. But we do know what the court said. NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. Below 80%. Ok. 74.86%? Yea, that's seemingly gulity too. 73? 72? NO NUMERICAL LIMIT.

But the court says that, BECAUSE OF THE NEW RESEARCH...USING THE BAP WITH NO NUMERICAL LIMIT, THEY CAN STILL ANALYZE THE RESULTS AND FIND THAT IT CONCLUDES THERE WAS rEPO PRESENT. This section was ONLY concerned with the BAP. NOT using the other tests!

SO THE BAP, WITH NO THRESHOLD, BEING USED TO FIND ATHLETES GUILTY. WHAT DO YA KNOW


You keep trying to give half of the story. This proves that you were wrong!!!!

Now stop writing to me unless you are ready to lose your account.

R.I.P.

[Vadrigar.]

Did he just admit to pu$$ying out? LMFAO yes he did.

He pu$$ied out.

The biatch pu$$ied out.

It's over.

Flawless victory.





















[img]//media3.*****.com/media/oe33xf3B50fsc/200.gif[/img]

KABOOM!

[travestyny]

I hurt this dudes feelings so badly that he has been copying and pasting the same message since FEBRUARY!!!!

It's July!!!!

[img]//media.*****.com/media/l3E6uhDAN3W7vylji/*****.gif[/img]

[ADP02]

So what you're saying is that below the threshold, it's human EPO, and above the threshold, it is non-human EPO. Great!!!! Now explain this from the court!




You're done.






All of that, and not one answer. WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD OF THE BAP TEST, ADP?????

You keep on proving to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance

WTF!!!!

This is about threshold substances. The panel clearly says so and starts out that paragraph with that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

Right here they mention this right at the start:

Certain prohibited substances are produced naturally in small quan****** in the body.

They bring up nandrolone substance as an example of what they meant ... threshold substance ... a single susbtance.

There is no human production of synthetic EPO. So the statement from the panel is stating that you cannot say it is like nandrolone substance. Nondrolone is the same substance above or below the threshold.

EPO testing is a threshold test to determine the presence of synthetic EPO substance which is not the same as human EPO substance. HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!!





YOU ARE DONE by admitting that you didn't understand any of that!!!!

THAT TRAVESTYNY DOES NOT GET!!!!!!!!!!



.

[travestyny]

You keep on proving to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.



WTF!!!!

This is about threshold substances. The panel clearly says so and starts out that paragraph with that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

Right here they mention this right at the start:


They bring up nandrolone substance as an example of what they meant ... threshold substance ... a single susbtance.

There is no human production of synthetic EPO. So the statement from the panel is stating that you cannot say it is like nandrolone substance. Nondrolone is the same substance above or below the threshold.

EPO testing is a threshold test to determine the presence of synthetic EPO substance which is not the same as human EPO substance. HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!!





YOU ARE DONE by admitting that you didn't understand any of that!!!!

THAT TRAVESTYNY DOES NOT GET!!!!!!!!!!



.

Stop lying to yourself. If you need more judges to make it even more clear that you were/are wrong, you can get that rematch.

Otherwise, stop writing to me. What the court said was crystal clear and it’s obviously you that don’t understand it.

It’s over. Try to learn something from that 4-0 loss. Don’t live in ignorance.

Holy Contradiction:

EPO drug when it exceeds or
just human EPO if it does not exceed!

there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance

[ADP02]

Stop lying to yourself. If you need more judges to make it even more clear that you were/are wrong, you can get that rematch.

Otherwise, stop writing to me. What the court said was crystal clear and it’s obviously you that don’t understand it.

It’s over. Try to learn something from that 4-0 loss. Don’t live in ignorance.

Holy Contradiction:

Sorry but you are WRONG Travestyny!!!

1) You are WRONG when you say that because of those references to nandrolone that the BAP test cannot be a threshold test. Not only threshold substances have threshold tests! EPO testing can have them too!

2) and you stating that the rest of that paragraph from the panel proved that BAP test is not a threshold test. WRONG AGAIN Travestyny!

3) The UCI's rules didn't have a specific rule that the athlete had to be proved by way of BAP threshold test. Their rule states "by any means". So if there are other criteria that makes sense and is sound and reliable, those too would be valid, as per the panel's statements ..... but when testing for the BAP test, that was a threshold test! Even if the LAB had said, 78% is now the valid number instead of 80% that is still a threshold test .... If they could have convince with sound data to back that new threshold then perhaps the panel would have said OK .... but as I just stated, that new number is the threshold that the LAB would have ended up using ....


BUT again, what they (The lab) did is that they proved rEPO using other criteria. the panel found that to be reliable.

4) The BAP test and other criteria can be a threshold type test too .... You just say that they cannot but do not give any valid explanation except for you thinking that that is what the panel is stating!
WRONG!!! If the LAB had 5 threshold type tests then they were just that .... threshold type tests! For EPO, it is more of a qualitative test than a quantitative one. That is what they are trying to explain to that athlete and you ....


5) The panel was trying to explain to the athlete and you, ... look, unlike nandrolone, a threshold substance, EPO testing is different. We do not need to or the UCI is stating, they are not forcing the LABs to stick with 1 test criteria. There can be more than 1 test so do not think that there is a single numerical limit!

BUT UCI could have if they wanted to say that the BAP threshold test was the way to go. Nothing stopped them. The panel wouldn't have stopped them if that was sound and reliable test!!!


That is why I say that WADA EPO EXPERTs call it a threshold type test .... STOP thinking that only threshold substances can have a threshold test!

YOU ARE WRONG TRAVESTYNY!!!!!!


BUT YOU STILL Travestyny GOT MIXED UP!!!!



.

[Vadrigar.]

Did he just admit to pu$$ying out? LMFAO yes he did.

He pu$$ied out.

The biatch pu$$ied out.

It's over.

Flawless victory.





















[img]//media3.*****.com/media/oe33xf3B50fsc/200.gif[/img]

KABOOM!