Originally posted by travestyny
View Post
You think that the CAS panel is stating something BUT you misinterpreted what they are trying to tell the athlete!!!!! It is simple as that!
Sorry but you thought it went "smoothly" because of the score but the truth is that you kept on complaining from the start what we were arguing about .... Yes, even after you agreed to discuss something as simple as "Does EPO have threshold type tests" .... you then tried to limit the conversation even though there was never an agreement to limit the conversation .... and you said some things that were NOT true.
No ref and no judges to make sure that we didn't go off on a tangent!
It became a Kangaroo type court! Simple as that.
Examples:
- Judges were to provide a reason to why they thought the person should get the vote. Only 1 actually did that but they also used incorrect information to come to their conclusion!
- You took statements from WADA document that YOU thought meant something but I corrected YOU .... You know, similar to now!
- That judge didn't respond to my statement which corrected his analysis. Even though he even asked!
- At least 1 judge voted NOT on the discussion but on something else. That you were there 24/7 but I couldn't be.
- The last judge voted even though I specifically told him to not until I was satisfied that he understood the discussion. He went ahead and voted anyways .... after the fact, he just said, yup, I understood!
Then I find out that 3 of 4 judges are friends. The first vote came from a Mayweather Mafia groupie. You twisted it and said that I accepted them. Dumb of you since that is not the point. I said it from the start, that I didn't want those type of judges and I cannot know without them telling me. Yet, him and his friends were judges.
and that is about the judges.
Then there is YOU:
- You didn't even remember what you stated at the start. Initially you said that there are no threshold tests at all and ......
- You said, there are no thresholds, ratios, .... none of that! WRONG!!! I corrected you!
- You said, it's not about the intensity of the bands. I corrected you!
- You said, after you realized your mistake, well, if there is, it maybe not on the confirmation but perhaps the presumptive tests. So you tried to limit it to confirmation test. Even here, go check out what you said initially! You specifically said there is NOT for BOTH!!! LOL .... like I said, Kangaroo court!!!
- You deflected on ABP testing ... even though we both know that I brought up those examples such as HT thresholds and you said that was an old information. Man, I remember us even discussing studies on that!!!!
- ABP is referenced even in the EPO document.
EPO is tested both directly and indirectly. 1.5 years later, you finally admitted that there are thresholds! Case closed right there. Lets make sure that you tell that to the judges! Oooops!- You wanted to limit the discussion (after the fact) yet, you were trying to convince the judges based on a case from 2003-2004 period!!! Especially for 1 of the judges, he based it on that!
- You said there were no thresholds referred to but even in that document, they referred to it implicitly and explicitly. ABP thresholds and other threshold tests!
- I said to you at the start, I will be explaining everything as we go. I cannot do that in 1 or 2 posts. I even had a note stating so. Again, that didn't stop you from trying to limit it to a word that I said (Got you games brought to you by Travestyny!) .... instead of trying to understand where I was coming from.
- Your misunderstanding continues today.
- I even heard that you were DQd recently for not following rules. Is that true? So you lost, right? Or was this another Kanhgaroo type court? Just asking.
.
Comment