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

[ADP02]

If I remember correctly those statements were reworded by Billeau2 ..... when I saw your statements being totally in conflict with our discussion that we agreed on, I said, the initial statements really do not mean much.

and not interested in "Got you games" or you trying to weasel your way out of the discussion that we agree to.

What we agreed on last time was simple.

Does EPO have threshold type tests. Simple. Easy ....
You agreed with ABP having thresholds so we are good there, anyways!

but

As per our recent argument:
now it is can EPO testing have threshold type tests!!!! You are saying no because of what a CAS panel said, according to your interpretation ........ you said that non-threshold substances cannot have those type of tests. I am saying that they can have threshold type test.



.

WTF???? Did you not approve of the statements?????

Stop trying to squirm your way to a win. It's not going to work.

You agreed to the statements. Do you want a rematch based on them or not? End of story.

You can't have a problem with judges now, so what's the problem? You no longer believe in your statements?

If you decline, then you admit you lost. I'm waiting.

Our recent argument was on what?

That is what I am requesting the bet on. Are you no longer confident on your statements? You think that maybe you are WRONG??? Ooops!




.

[travestyny]

Our recent argument was on what?

OUR RECENT ARGUMENT WAS ON A REMATCH!

That is what I am requesting the bet on. Are you no longer confident on your statements? You think that maybe you are WRONG??? Ooops!
.

YOU ARE THE ONE THAT CRIED FOR OVER A YEAR AND NOW YOU DON'T WANT TO AGREE TO A REMATCH!!!! DUDE, DO YOU REALLY THINK I'M ******? YOU JUST EXPOSED YOURSELF BY OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO CHANGE UP THE CHALLENGE IN SOME WAY, AND YOU THINK I DON'T SEE THROUGH THE BULLSHlT. THAT YOU REFUSE TO REMATCH BUT YOU WANT SOME KIND OF TWIRK TO THE CHALLENGE IS NOT SU****IOUS AT ALL

So you decline the rematch because you know you lost. Thank you for finally admitting it. Don't write to me anymore. This is over.

[ADP02]

If I remember correctly those statements were reworded by Billeau2 ..... when I saw your statements being totally in conflict with our discussion that we agreed on, I said, the initial statements really do not mean much.

and not interested in "Got you games" or you trying to weasel your way out of the discussion that we agree to.

What we agreed on last time was simple.

Does EPO have threshold type tests. Simple. Easy ....
You agreed with ABP having thresholds so we are good there, anyways!

but

As per our recent argument:
now it is can EPO testing have threshold type tests!!!! You are saying no because of what a CAS panel said, according to your interpretation ........ you said that non-threshold substances cannot have those type of tests. I am saying that they can have threshold type test.



.

OUR RECENT ARGUMENT WAS ON A REMATCH!




YOU ARE THE ONE THAT CRIED FOR OVER A YEAR AND NOW YOU DON'T WANT TO AGREE TO A REMATCH!!!! DUDE, DO YOU REALLY THINK I'M ******? YOU JUST EXPOSED YOURSELF BY OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO CHANGE UP THE CHALLENGE IN SOME WAY, AND YOU THINK I DON'T SEE THROUGH THE BULLSHlT. THAT YOU REFUSE TO REMATCH BUT YOU WANT SOME KIND OF TWIRK TO THE CHALLENGE IS NOT SU****IOUS AT ALL

So you decline the rematch because you know you lost. Thank you for finally admitting it. Don't write to me anymore. This is over.

WOW!!!!

You have been calling me a moron because you think that non-threshold substances cannot have threshold type tests and told me, "good luck in proving that"!

You have been doing the same and showcasing that the CAS panel is stating the same.


I completely disagreed with you for at least 100 times now ....


So I started a thread and requested a bet with you on that.
Are you or are you not confident in your statements?



I started the thread.
It is up to you now to let me know if you are interested in the challenge.


If you are not .... no problem. Just let me know.



.

[travestyny]

WOW!!!!

You have been calling me a moron because you think that non-threshold substances cannot have threshold type tests and told me, "good luck in proving that"!

You have been doing the same and showcasing that the CAS panel is stating the same.


I completely disagreed with you for at least 100 times now ....


So I started a thread and requested a bet with you on that.
Are you or are you not confident in your statements?



I started the thread.
It is up to you now to let me know if you are interested in the challenge.


If you are not .... no problem. Just let me know.



.

Did you decline the rematch? Why? Problem with your statements, ADP?

1) EPO testing has thresholds for substances that vary depending on the action of the drug, and whether it occurs naturally, among other reasons. EPO occurs naturally in the body, in addition to when it is taken by an athlete. Threshold testing data must show artificial EPO specifically.

2) The resulting data is validated against specific threshold criteria, when artificial EPO, in relation to naturally occurring EPO, exceeds threshold limits.

3) With current testing, you cannot find out the concentration amount of synthetic EPO for a given urine sample. Due to that, they are relying on different types of testing that tries to distinguish between natural and synthetic EPO. If they can clearly make that distinction then its a positive for the synthetic EPO substance. Although even this currently existing testing protocol can sometimes be controversial. There is a CUT OFF LINE (threshold) where a BAND must cross over. Sometimes, the BAND crossed over this CUT OFF LINE ever so slightly. This usually occurs when there is very little distinction between the naturally occurring EPO vs the synthetic. WADA calls this a "mixed band".
.

Hmmm. That means you lost, doesn't it. Just admit you lost now. That's all the evidence I needed. I don't give 2 shlts about whatever new deflection you are trying. Better luck next time, chump.

[Zaroku]

Like usual, YOU DEFLECTED!!!!!!!!

All my comments were the TRUTH and I even called out how you respond and you did that AGAIN!!!!




Click here ..... lets get it on!!!!

//krikya360.com/forums/s...7#post18952147



.

I have no idea why you guys are still going on and on and on, it's over...

[Zaroku]

Did you decline the rematch? Why? Problem with your statements, ADP?





Hmmm. That means you lost, doesn't it. Just admit you lost now. That's all the evidence I needed. I don't give 2 shlts about whatever new deflection you are trying. Better luck next time, chump.

Look homie, you won, fact. Nothing to prove... We judges spoke like a year plus 4 months ago...
Correct me if I'm wrong....??

Better yet, call me out on something, u a man like me, gots facts to back up everything... We won't see eye to eye on everything... If hate you if you were a sycophant, you'd hate me Paul f I were a bish axx hoe..

I know it's fun ****ing with tarded ppl. I'm guilty of that. Hopefully, GOD, will have mercy on me,

I'm glad we never battled or have to battle. We will let the truth speak for itself.. That's good nuff for me...

[ADP02]

I have no idea why you guys are still going on and on and on, it's over...

Zaroku we have been recently arguing about a CAS statement made ..... and whether EPO and other non-threshold substances can have threshold tests.

Travestyny is saying no, I am saying yes.

travestyny said stop talking and lets bet.


So I requested that we bet on this topic ....

BUT

It appears that Travestyny is no longer confident in what he said.

When you define the topic so that Travestyny cannot weasel his way into saying anything (ie. Going off in a tangent), he is not so confident anymore.

That is something that I knew but you guys never realized. It's OK ....



.

[Zaroku]

Zaroku we have been recently arguing about a CAS statement made ..... and whether EPO and other non-threshold substances can have threshold tests.

Travestyny is saying no, I am saying yes.

travestyny said stop talking and lets bet.


So I requested that we bet on this topic ....

BUT

It appears that Travestyny is no longer confident in what he said.

When you define the topic so that Travestyny cannot weasel his way into saying anything (ie. Going off in a tangent), he is not so confident anymore.

That is something that I knew but you guys never realized. It's OK ....



.

I'll try to keep up,.

Thanks for the clarification.. Peace brither

[ADP02]

WOW!!!!

You have been calling me a moron because you think that non-threshold substances cannot have threshold type tests and told me, "good luck in proving that"!

You have been doing the same and showcasing that the CAS panel is stating the same.


I completely disagreed with you for at least 100 times now ....


So I started a thread and requested a bet with you on that.
Are you or are you not confident in your statements?



I started the thread.
It is up to you now to let me know if you are interested in the challenge.


If you are not .... no problem. Just let me know.



.

Did you decline the rematch? Why? Problem with your statements, ADP?





Hmmm. That means you lost, doesn't it. Just admit you lost now. That's all the evidence I needed. I don't give 2 shlts about whatever new deflection you are trying. Better luck next time, chump.

I cannot be the one declining since I started the thread on the topic that we have been recently arguing.

AGAIN, I made the request.

So it is up to you to either accept the challenge or decline it.


.

[ShoulderRoll]

Look homie, you won, fact. Nothing to prove... We judges spoke like a year plus 4 months ago...
Correct me if I'm wrong....??

That's the truth.

But ADP02 STILL hasn't paid up on the bet and given travestyny his points. Can you believe that?