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

[travestyny]

Sure LIAR


Then respond to this.

Why are we in a thread that I created to CHALLENGE YOU and YOU have YET to ACCEPT?


You say YES, to some other topic
You say maybe, to the topic
You say YES you ACCEPT, if the Judges ACCEPT


The thread has a
NEW CHALLENGE
NEW TOPIC
1 DUCKER named Travesytny!!!!



So Travesytny, DO YOU ACCEPT the CHALLENGE?





travestyny's RESPONSE:

TELL US ABOUT THOSE LIES YOU GOT CAUGHT IN SON.


TELL US WHY YOU DIDN'T WANT JUDGES TO LOOK AT THE DEBATE AND PARTICULARLY AT THE SCOPE.


Come on son. It will be fun. It will make you a better person. Should I point out the lies you told one by one? That would be really funny, wouldn't it.

For example, tell us why you said the 2009 document was out of scope, yet you been arguing that all documents were in scope.

Do you want me to post the quotation from you saying that again, or is that alright. Bhahahahahahaha

YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT. YOU LIE MORE THAN ANYONE ON THIS SITE. And it's ALL BECAUSE YOU GOT DESTROYED IN THAT DEBATE. YOU LYING SCUMBAG. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


4-0 BABY. WHOOOOOO!

PS. I accepted your challenge and a rematch. You declined both. Now you just have to live with that defeat. You should have found your balls. bahahahahahahahaha.

I'm going to clown you FOREVER!

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/TUHInIQM4bXBS/*****.gif[/IMG]

[ADP02]

TELL US ABOUT THOSE LIES YOU GOT CAUGHT IN SON.


TELL US WHY YOU DIDN'T WANT JUDGES TO LOOK AT THE DEBATE AND PARTICULARLY AT THE SCOPE.


Come on son. It will be fun. It will make you a better person. Should I point out the lies you told one by one? That would be really funny, wouldn't it.

For example, tell us why you said the 2009 document was out of scope, yet you been arguing that all documents were in scope.

Do you want me to post the quotation from you saying that again, or is that alright. Bhahahahahahaha

YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT. YOU LIE MORE THAN ANYONE ON THIS SITE. And it's ALL BECAUSE YOU GOT DESTROYED IN THAT DEBATE. YOU LYING SCUMBAG. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


4-0 BABY. WHOOOOOO!

PS. I accepted your challenge and a rematch. You declined both. Now you just have to live with that defeat. You should have found your balls. bahahahahahahahaha.

I'm going to clown you FOREVER!

Yes, do not worry, I will be doing ONLY THIS WHENEVER WE BUMP INTO EACH OTHER.


NOTHING BUT THIS!!!!!





So Travesytny, DO YOU ACCEPT the CHALLENGE & SCOPE?



The WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE!!!!




travestyny's RESPONSE:

[travestyny]

This is for you, ADP.

WHY YOU ALWAYS LYING, SON? STOP FVVCKING LYINGGGGG!

4-0!!!!!!

//krikya360.com/forums/s...d.php?t=740888


[img]

[travestyny]

Yes, do not worry, I will be doing ONLY THIS WHENEVER WE BUMP INTO EACH OTHER.


NOTHING BUT THIS!!!!!





So Travesytny, DO YOU ACCEPT the CHALLENGE & SCOPE?



The WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE!!!!

OH...THE CHALLENGE THAT I ACCEPTED AND YOU DECLINED

[SIZE="4"]

THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE


Be a man, STOP the DUCKING!!!!

Let's make this even more clear for this ducking bltch.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE:

You prove that the information in the Bergman vs. USADA case proves that WADA Criteria have in place thresholds for EPO testing with respect to the scope of our past debate.

I prove that the information in the Berman vs. USADA case proves that WADA Criteria does not have in place threshold for EPO testing with respect to the Scope of our past debate.

If there is any disagreement about the scope of our last debate(which you have claimed plays a part in this debate), since you been lying about it over and over, and you got caught lying about it, we ask the judge to settle what was the scope of our past debate...because it damn sure wasn't 'can...' and you know I can prove that!

You already claimed that this 'WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE' is related to our past debate, so now it's time for you to step up and prove it.


1. Permanent Ban
2. All Points
3. As per your former request and so that I know you are not going to welch out, you are to pass all of your points to the judge for safe keeping until the challenge is complete.

'WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE' ACCEPTED. DO YOU WANT ME TO CREATE THE THREAD NOW OR NOT? WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY TO GET THIS OVER WITH.

AND DON'T YOU DARE THINK OF DUCKING OUT!

WHY YOU ALWAYS LYINGGGGGG. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. YOU CAN'T WIN BlTCH.

4-0!!!!!!

//krikya360.com/forums/s...d.php?t=740888

[img]//media.*****.com/media/hroV3K17Bodoc/source.gif[/img]

[ADP02]

So Travesytny, DO YOU ACCEPT the CHALLENGE & SCOPE?



The WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE!!!!

Originally Posted by travestyny
Let's make this even more clear for this ducking bltch.




CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

So is this true?

Travestyny ACCEPTED?



So you are ready that we go to the Thunderdome?


I want to be crystal CLEAR?

[travestyny]

YOU READY TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE LIES, SON?


LIE NUMBER ONE. THIS WAS NEVER ABOUT MAYWEATHER OR THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES.

In the case of Floyd, we aren't talking about threshold substances as far as I know.

You said thresholds are not a factor for Floyd but that is not an accurate statement.
EPO, testosterone (T/E) ratios are a few naturally produced substances in humans in which Floyd could have been trying to hide. We know of low T/E ratios, rumors of positive results and the IV scandal.

So if GC/MS or whatever measures EPO values below a threshold, as an example, due to a 6 hour delay and drinking fluids plus an IV that diluted the urine sample just enough.
Its NOT being biased. that is a big deal.


.

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/TUHInIQM4bXBS/*****.gif[/IMG]

[travestyny]

So Travesytny, DO YOU ACCEPT the CHALLENGE & SCOPE?



The WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE!!!!






So is this true?

Travestyny ACCEPTED?



So you are ready that we go to the Thunderdome?


I want to be crystal CLEAR?

I BEEN READY BlTCH. ARE YOU READY TO PROVE THE SCOPE. DON'T BACK OUT AGAIN


PROVE THAT I WAS LYING TO WIN THAT VOTE SON. PERMANENT BAN. I DARE YOU!!!!!

[travestyny]

LIE NUMBER 2. ALL DOCUMENTS AND THE BAP WERE IN SCOPE:

2) WHILE OUT OF SCOPE, this specific criteria had an "and/OR" in which the panel was describing. In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used.

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

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/TUHInIQM4bXBS/*****.gif[/IMG]

SHOULD I KEEP GOING, LIAR? DO YOU WANT MORE????

[travestyny]

WANT ANOTHER LIE????

THE SCOPE WAS "CAN....." WHICH WAS YOUR POST #80 SOMETHING.


HERE YOU'RE SAYING THE SCOPE CAME AFTER POST 130 SOMETHING.....

4) Billeau2 and Zaroku understood that after we made our statements that we were at that point in time establishing what was the scope and anything that we are disagreeing with.

We both said stuff BEFORE the initial statement. Was there an agreement at that point? NOT REALLY.

WHY YOU ALWAYS LYINGGGGGGG

LOOK AT ALL THESE LIES YOU GOT CAUGHT IN ADP. DEFEND YOURSELF. SAY IT AINT SOOOOOOO!

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/TUHInIQM4bXBS/*****.gif[/IMG]

[travestyny]

BUT SERIOUSLY, DOE. HOW MANY LIES DID YOU GET CAUGHT IN ABOUT THAT SCOPE, ADP02. HOW CAN ONE MAN LIE SO MUCH.


ARE YOU READY TO PROVE YOU AREN'T LYING ABOUT THAT SCOPE, SON. COME ON. FIND YOUR BALLS AND LET A JUDGE DECIDE.


OH...that's right. A JUDGE ALREADY MERKED YOU ABOUT THAT. BAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHA

Summing it up A might say "I am talking about threshold criteria objectively not threshold substances.... And T might say Ill follow you til the ends of the earth until you can show me a place where WADA documents verify any threshold criteria for EPO in recent adapted testing procedures.

SO IT WASN'T ABOUT RECENT ADAPTED TESTING? ARE YOU SAYING JUDGE BILLEAU IS A LIAR? HMMMMMMM.

BUSTEDDDDD!

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/TUHInIQM4bXBS/*****.gif[/IMG]