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

[ADP02]

DID YOU JUST SAY THE JUDGES DESERVE A SPIT IN THE FACE!!!!!! DUDE, FOR WHAT WE DID ASKING JUDGES TO SORT THROUGH A CONVERSATION ON EPO TESTING THAT WENT ON OVER 90 PAGES TO RENDER A VERDICT OVER NERDY SHlT, AND YOU HAVE THE NEVER TO SAY THEY DESERVE A SPlT IN THE FACE.


YO, I'M DONE WITH YOU. THE NEXT TIME YOU CONTACT ME, I'M SENDING A MESSAGE TO ALL OF THE JUDGES INVOLVED AND LETTING THEM KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID. I'M GOING TO EXPOSE TO EVERYONE HOW BIG OF A PIECE OF SHlT YOU ARE.

See, you did it AGAIN!!!!

You misinterpreted what I said, so I should know, that you GOOFED!!!!


Who duped who?

You presented a judge with a case that was circa 2003/2004 that was based on UCI rules not WADA rules.

Secondly, the quotes you kept on blasting until today was on BAP test criteria for EPO testing. Here you admittedly said that you considered it to be irrelevant to the bet.

The problem is that you presented that to the judges as though it was 100% relevant. You didn't explain that it was irrelevant as you are stating now and had done so for 2 months to me!!!

I tried to explain, if I remember correctly but you just took the point and stayed mum!

So that spit in the face was for YOU, Travestyny!!!



.

[travestyny]

See, you did it AGAIN!!!!

You misinterpreted what I said, so I should know, that you GOOFED!!!!


Who duped who?

You presented a judge with a case that was circa 2003/2004 that was based on UCI rules not WADA rules.

Secondly, the quotes you kept on blasting until today was on BAP test criteria for EPO testing. Here you admittedly said that you considered it to be irrelevant to the bet.

The problem is that you presented that to the judges as though it was 100% relevant. You didn't explain that it was irrelevant as you are stating now and had done so for 2 months to me!!!

I tried to explain, if I remember correctly but you just took the point and stayed mum!

So that spit in the face was for YOU, Travestyny!!!



.

I am PEOPLE?

You must think I’m more than one person the way I kicked the shlt outta you.

The only thing you could do is suck my dlck bltch. Shut the fvvck up, you scumbag.

[ADP02]

I said the court case was irrelevant? Stop your lying. You're a fvvcking scumbag.


If you believe that, why not accept the rematch and show the judges where I supposedly said that. You down?


Of course not you lying deflecting bltch. Now shut the fvvck up. I've caught you in so many damn lies and squirming around. You truly have no honor. I hope you enjoyed that 4-0 asswhoopin, bltch.


IT WASN'T ABOUT WADA RULES??????? WHAT'S THIS, ADP???

Sorry but if you go back to my statement, I said all that you pointed out (ie. what was mentioned about WADA!!!). So knock it off!!!

While the Panel cannot rely upon this result to be comfortably satisfied that a doping offense occurred it can and does examine the criterion to collaborate the results derived by other criteria in use by accredited laboratories at the time of the giving of the urine sample.

STOP the DEFLECTIONS


The case was based on WADA rules? NO!!!!



DEFLECTO, let me know!!!!!


The main point of discussion was based on BAP test for EPO testing and if other criteria can be used.

As per UCI rules, other reliable test methods can also be used!



Was the WADA requirements relevant?


In other words,


Was the WADA requirements relevant in that that is what you wanted me to base my case on?


DEFLECTO, let me know!!!!!



Lets see you deflect, I mean, respond to these simple questions.

If you respond accurately, you have your answer as to who is the SCUM BAG!!!!



.

[ADP02]

I am PEOPLE?

You must think I’m more than one person the way I kicked the shlt outta you.

The only thing you could do is suck my dlck bltch. Shut the fvvck up, you scumbag.

"People" is referring to "people" who act as you did!

[travestyny]

"People" is referring to "people" who act as you did!

What do we call people who did what you did?

Pay your fvvcking debt you dirtbag.

[travestyny]

Sorry but if you go back to my statement, I said all that you pointed out (ie. what was mentioned about WADA!!!). So knock it off!!!







STOP the DEFLECTIONS


The case was based on WADA rules? NO!!!!



DEFLECTO, let me know!!!!!


The main point of discussion was based on BAP test for EPO testing and if other criteria can be used.

As per UCI rules, other reliable test methods can also be used!



Was the WADA requirements relevant?


In other words,


Was the WADA requirements relevant in that that is what you wanted me to base my case on?


DEFLECTO, let me know!!!!!



Lets see you deflect, I mean, respond to these simple questions.

If you respond accurately, you have your answer as to who is the SCUM BAG!!!!



.

Scroll back and find it in TWO different threads you brain dead idiot.

Pay your debt, bltch.

[ADP02]

Sorry but if you go back to my statement, I said all that you pointed out (ie. what was mentioned about WADA!!!). So knock it off!!!







STOP the DEFLECTIONS


The case was based on WADA rules? NO!!!!



DEFLECTO, let me know!!!!!


The main point of discussion was based on BAP test for EPO testing and if other criteria can be used.

As per UCI rules, other reliable test methods can also be used!



Was the WADA requirements relevant?


In other words,


Was the WADA requirements relevant in that that is what you wanted me to base my case on?


DEFLECTO, let me know!!!!!



Lets see you deflect, I mean, respond to these simple questions.

If you respond accurately, you have your answer as to who is the SCUM BAG!!!!



.

Scroll back and find it in TWO different threads you brain dead idiot.

Pay your debt, bltch.

Scum bag DEFLECTs AGAIN!!!!


What a surprise (not)!!!!



.

[travestyny]

Scum bag DEFLECTs AGAIN!!!!


What a surprise (not)!!!!



.

NOT ABOUT WADA, HUh?

5.1.6.5 The third additional criterion is the WADA Standard, effective 1 January 2005. This criterion has been set forth in a WADA Technical Document TD2004EPO and is entitled; Harmonization of the Method for the Identification of Epoetin Alfa and Bèta (EPO) and Darbepoietin Alfa (NESP) by lEF-Double Bhtting and Chemiluminescent Deteotion. The WADA Standard sets forth three criteria that must be met in order to find a sample positive for rEPO. The Respondent's samples satisfied these criteria. Thus, the WADA criteria for interpreting the resulting test procedure image would also indicate rEPO as the analytical result. Of course, the WADA Standard did not apply at the time of the urine sample being given and analyzed by the UCLA Laboratory. While the Panel cannot rely upon this result to be comfortably satisfied that a doping offense occurred it can and does examine the criterion to collaborate the results derived by other criteria in use by accredited laboratories at the time of the giving of the urine sample.

5.1.6.6 Although this WADA standard is by the time of writing these reasons the criterion to determine a positive test, its application in this case is merely collaborative or supportive of the Panel's findings but not determinative of them, The Technical Document states that it is "required for analyses performed after December 31, 2004." The Respondent's sample was on 6 April 2004. Although this Panel cannot solely rely upon this criterion, it can definitely refer to the standard to serve as confirmatory evidence to support its decision,

R.I.P. BlTCH

[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]

Not all.

Mayweather Mafia judge just gave him the points because Trav was there 24/7, I couldn't nor would.

It was not based on the evidence presented. So it showed bias or that he didn't care. Either way, not what we were looking for in a judge.

I noticed what part of ShoulderRoll's post you conveniently left out.

But if you feel like you can present your points more clearly and in a more organized fashion then you should ask for a rematch. Travestyny seems down for it.

What's up, pvssy? You going to answer? I mean, you keep claiming that you won and that I duped someone. But when I offered you a rematch, you renounced your statements!!!!!

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.

I guess this squirming bltch never approved of his statements..oh, that's right. He did. But seems he wants to distance himself from them as much as possible.

My official statement was confirmed. Your initial statement was destroyed. FACTS! Remember Billeau said specifically that you were forced off of your position.
We notice that big time now, don't we!?

That's called putting up the white flag, bltch You're done. Unless you want that rematch. Let me know, yea?