Originally posted by ADP02
View Post
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!!!!
.
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!!!!
.
Stop writing to me and accept the challenge so you can lose 8-0
You have zero confidence in what you say because you know you’re WRONG!!!
Step up or accept your loss, tuck your tail, and die a coward.
Oh, and by the way:
Court of Arbitration for Sport!
- The criterion for EPO is not a measurement over the threshold that must occur
- The fact is that the BAP and the other interpretative criteria are used to declare not a threshold of human body production but rather an image from the electropherogram as indicating the presence of non-human EPO.
- there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance
Challenge me about it. I dare you!!!! LMAOOOOO!
Comment