Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

IT'S OVERRRRR SON. YOUR CRYING HAS BEEN EPIC. NEVER DID I EVER THINK THAT 4-0 ASSWHOOPIN WOULD RUIN YOUR LIFE THIS MUCH. SEEK HELP!

Poor ADP!

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/l4Ki2obCyAQS5WhFe/*****.gif[/IMG]

[ADP02]

Don't you feel ****** as FCK typing that out to yourself, ALT DoNothing?



Hilarious! Anything to DUCK a challenge!!!




QUACK, QUACK, QUACK!!!!



.

[travestyny]

Don't you feel ****** as FCK typing that out to yourself, ALT DoNothing?



Hilarious! Anything to DUCK a challenge!!!







.

YOU SURE DO FEEL ****** ASS FVVCK BEING THAT YOU LOST 4-0 AND ARE STILL HAVING A MENTAL MELTDOWN 1.5 YEARS LATER AFTER DUCKING YOUR OWN CHALLENGE!

After 2 months, I decided to a DUEL. This was to prove that he CHEATED and LIED the first time around.

No posting about who really LIED/cheated. Any such posting will be an automatic DQ.
.

QUACK, QUACK, QUACK!!!!

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

[travestyny]

ADP IS MADDDD THAT DOSUMPTIN DESTROYED HIM! lmaooooo. TRY PROVING HIM WRONG ADP!

Short answer:

ADP02 keeps saying threshold "type" test because he can not actually refer to EPO testing simply as a "threshold". Therefore everything he says is bull****.



Brief history:

ADP02 claimed Floyd used EPO vs Manny but it went undetected because EPO is a threshold substance....

He was proven wrong.

Then ADP02 says he meant EPO isn't a threshold substance but instead WADA uses a threshold test to detect rEPO.

He was proven wrong again. Judges were involved and voted 4-0 in an e-debate for points.

That is when he went full ******....



Now ADP02 changes it to "EPO was once upon a time measured by threshold "type" test in 2002" and claims he doesn't have to pay up on his points.


Basicially ADP02 has given up completely on his " Floyd/EPO" theory and has resorted to trying to prove Travestny wrong at something. Doesn't matter what about, he just needs to prove Travestny is wrong at anything at all cost. Somehow this will prove he is right all along.

[IMG]//i284.***********.com/albums/ll36/Bigsteve87/Gifs/AtomicBomb.gif[/IMG]

R.I.P.


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

[travestyny]

IT'S OVERRRRRRR!

4-0!!!!!!

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

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/yBc4kbwyRwQrm/*****.gif[/IMG]

PAY UP, BlTCH!

[travestyny]

FINAL POST:

ADP, you got exposed. Once again, the bottom line here is that you got destroyed. Your Mayweather conspiracy theory was destroyed. You claimed EPO was a threshold substance, and you were proven wrong. You then claimed it was tested for via threshold criteria, and you lost a debate 4-0. Now you're stating that it 'can' have a threshold criteria at some point in the past, when you know the only time 'can' ever came up was in reference to the court stating this:

there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance

which is a direct contradiction of your post here:

The threshold test result indicates that there is synthetic EPO if it exceeds the threshold. If less, the indication is that there is only human EPO.

Not only was the BAP out of scope according to your own words:

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.

It was also stated by the court specifically twice that it is IN FACT not a threshold:

The relative amount (approximately 85%) of the basic band areas does not constitute the “threshold” past which an offense can be found: it only gives evidence of the presence in a sample of a prohibited substance, whose mere detection is considered an anti-doping rule violation

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.

and we know what they meant by the other threshold criteria, one of which being the WADA Standard Criteria, which was the focus of the debate:

the Two-Band Ratio ("TBR"), the Band Location and the new World Anti- Doping Agency ("WADA") Standard are ail reliable criteria

You undoubtedly lost. So when you are ready to use your 'can' statement to say that there is a threshold above which it CAN be said that there is rEPO, do let me know. Otherwise, this is OVER.

THAT'S THE END. PAY YOUR DEBT SCUMBAG. IT'S OVER! YOU'RE NOW FREE TO KEEP CRYING ALONE IN YOUR PADDED ROOM!

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/3o7qDSOvfaCO9b3MlO/*****.gif[/IMG]

R.I.P, MY BET WELCHING 4-0 LOSING BlTCH. I HOPE YOU LEARNED YOUR LESSON, BUT IF 6 PEOPLE (4 UNBIASED JUDGES, ME, AND YES, INCLUDING DOSUMPTHIN WHO OWNED YOU DEVASTATINGLY) COULDN'T TEACH YOU THIS, I DOUBT YOU HAVE THE APTITUDE TO COMPREHEND THIS, SON!

[ADP02]

BECAUSE THEY WERE...BECAUSE IT'S NOT A THRESHOLD YOU MORON. YOU WON'T CHALLENGE ME ON IT.

YOU WILL ONLY TRY TO INSERT 'CAN' FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF IT AND THEN STATE IT'S NOT ABOUT THE CASE IN PARTICULAR!!!! LMAOOOOOOOOOO.

So you never said "CAN" right? You actually dared me to bet you and in the same post you bring it up!




You got your wish, right after DUCKer!

Why you scared then, ADP. I’m giving you a chance to not go down as a 4-0 loser.

You’ll go down as a 8-0 loser instead

Still running scared? Yea, that’s what I thought. Now shut up and keep ducking the challenge. You know you’ll get bodied in 1 page. Go cry about your loss to someone who cares.


EPO testing can have thresholds? Can you read?

Quote:
Court of Arbitration for Sport!
Quote:
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.

KABADABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!








.

[travestyny]

TSK TSK TSK......LOOK HOW YOU TRIED TO CUT OFF THE QUOTATION. LMAOOOO. YOUR DESPERATION PLEASES ME. ALSO, look at page 8 of this thread moron. LMAOOOO. There was a whole conversation about this.

So you never said "CAN" right? You actually dared me to bet you and in the same post you bring it up! :




You got your wish, right after DUCKer!









KABADABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!





.

Look how you are trying to pretend you found something new. You dishonest twat. LMAOOOO. Read it and weep. UNEDITED SINCE JULY!. I GUESS YOU'RE GOING TO SAY YOU DON'T REMEMBER THIS? LOL

You know, I keep asking myself where this vague "can" shlt came from. I finally looked into it.

You said,
"a billion times" that the panel told the athlete that the test(s) for EPO cannot be a threshold test for EPO!!!!

Look this lying scumbag. You're a real piece of shlt

I've explained this to you a billion times. The court said specifically the criteria do not represent a threshold.

Look at you trying to hold onto your vague bullshlt. Where is the word can????

My position has NEVER changed.

7/16/2018--Unedited

You have insinuated in the past that the threshold was 80%, but you now don't want to state that explicitly because you already know that the court brief stated plainly that there is NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. You know that smashes you. So what you are trying to say is that the only reason they say that is because they are saying other tests can be used. AGAIN, THAT WAS ONLY HALF THE ISSUE. THE COURT EXAMINED THE BAP SPECIFICALLY.

Well well well...so what is this telling us about the BAP. It can be lower than 80%. How much lower???? It doesn't say. It was never stated. But we do know what the court said. NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. Below 80%. Ok. 74.86%? Yea, that's seemingly gulity too. 73? 72? NO NUMERICAL LIMIT.

But the court says that, BECAUSE OF THE NEW RESEARCH...USING THE BAP WITH NO NUMERICAL LIMIT, THEY CAN STILL ANALYZE THE RESULTS AND FIND THAT IT CONCLUDES THERE WAS rEPO PRESENT. This section was ONLY concerned with the BAP. NOT using the other tests!

SO THE BAP, WITH NO THRESHOLD, BEING USED TO FIND ATHLETES GUILTY. WHAT DO YA KNOW

CLEARLY I SAID THE BAP WITH NO THRESHOLD. BUT BUT BUT...I JUST READ THESE CASES AND JUST LEARNED ABOUT THAT. LMAOOOOO. DUDE. SHUT THE FVVCK UP. YOU'RE A LYING SCUMBAG.

All you do is try to be sneaky. What likely happened is you found that 2002 CAS case and then you suddenly tried to change the narrative to from whether the BAP is a threshold test to whether EPO CAN have a threshold test. You kept trying to goad me into using the word can, and I wasn't buying it. You tried a number of times. You began with the ABP and that shlt didn't work. Then you tried with the BAP because you found a court case. But you knew that I was referring to WADA so you fought tooth and nail for this to not be about WADA....even going so far as to say this should be about the UCI because it was their test in the court case. So I said we should focus on the court case, and even said you can use any case you want to support your position, and you are still trying to decline and go with your some organization some time in the past can have a threshold for some thing that may or may not have been a threshold or non-threshold substance according to their rules. GET THE FVVCK OUTTA HERE! BE A FVVCKING MAN. IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE COURT CASE, CHALLENGE ME ON IT. LOOK AT THIS ****:

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!

So there you go saying that I said the BAP cannot be a threshold test. Quote me USING THE WORD CANNOT BEFORE THAT TIME. I said it IS NOT. And I was basing it ON EXACTLY WHAT THE FVVCKING COURT SAID, since you were referring to THE INFORMATION THAT I PRESENTED FROM THE CASE.

THEY STATE IN PLAIN ENGLISH THAT THE TEST IS NOT A THRESHOLD.

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.

So it was YOU that began using the word CAN. I wonder why. I already stated above that the BAP was used WITHOUT any threshold. And I didn't use the word CAN that you are trying to hold so dearly to.

Then you went further with this "can" talk. You kept saying we had a long conversation about "can." You even had to goad me into responding to it because I was just ignoring all of your bullshlt.

EPO testing can have thresholds ..... you said they cannot. I didn't see anything about that

When did I use this word CANNOT before this point? Please quote me on that. I SAID IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST...BECAUSE IT IS NOT. YOU ARE WELCOME TO CHALLENGE ME ON THAT.

Once you said that, I finally responded BASED ON THE COURT CASE WHICH YOU SAID I WAS BASING THAT OFF OF. Do you need proof:

EPO testing can have thresholds? Can you read?

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

So yes, if you want to hold me to the CAN that you so desperately want, then hold me to it on the merits of what I posted about the court case, which is what we were discussing. IF YOU WANT TO SAY THE COURT CASE SAYS IT CANNOT HAVE A THRESHOLD BECAUSE THERE IS NO THRESHOLD FOR IT, THEN HAVE AT IT. IN THAT CASE, CLEARLY THERE CANNOT BE A THRESHOLD BECAUSE THE COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT A THRESHOLD DOES NOT EXIST, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID ABOVE. THE PROOF IS THERE. STOP YOUR BULLSHLT YOU SQUIRMING BlTCH! YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO DISCUSS THE COURT CASE NOW.

STOP WITH YOUR VAGUE BULLSHlT. YOU AREN'T IMPRESSING ME, SON. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS YOU SAID THIS:

TEST #1: BAP 80% threshold test
Results: 79.5 - Just under

With the BAP test alone the athlete is just below the threshold.

WRONG. THERE WAS NO FVVCKING THRESHOLD FOR THIS TEST. AND THAT'S WHAT I TOLD YOU OVER AND OVER A BILLION TIMES. YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT THE BAP IS A THRESHOLD AND IS ALWAYS A THRESHOLD. ISN'T THAT RIGHT??????

BUT what is the BAP test? It is a threshold type test. Says who? Everyone except for Travestyny!!!
.

SO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE BAP IS INHERENTLY A THRESHOLD TEST AND ALWAYS A THRESHOLD TEST. LET'S SEE IF YOU WANT TO STEP UP AND TAKE ON THAT CHALLENGE OR IF YOU TUCK TAIL AND RUN AWAY.

YOU BETTER NOT DUCK IT. DON'T YOU WANT TO GET THIS OVER WITH???? I'M READY!

TOPIC: THE BAP TEST IS INHERENTLY A THRESHOLD TEST, and had a threshold of 80% in the Bergman case!

Isn't that what you're saying????

WE HAVE A CLEAR DISAGREEMENT ON THIS AND THIS IS WHAT THE TOPIC SHOULD BE, AND ALSO IN RESPECT TO THE COURT CASE. NOW DO YOU ACCEPT OR DO YOU BACK DOWN FROM YOUR STATEMENT?

I WAS THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME I EVER SAID CAN...WAY BACK IN JULY. AND TOLD YOU EXACTLY WHY. SO WHERE WAS THAT 2 MONTH LONG CONVERSATION OVER IT. OH...I GUESS YOU FORGOT ABOUT THAT. OR ARE YOU TRYING TO PULL THE WOOL OVER THE EYES OF YOUR AUDIENCE WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE! YOU'RE TRULY PATHETIC. I EVEN CHALLENGED YOU ON IT, AND THEN YOU SHUT THE FVVCK UP AND DIDN'T MENTION IT AGAIN. NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO PRETEND THAT IT'S SOMETHING NEW!


Try again. READ ALL OF THE FVVCKING QUOTATION YOU DUMMY!!! YOU KNOW...THE PARTS THAT YOU DIDN'T DARE EVEN MENTION TO TRY TO KEEP YOUR LIES UP!

On top of that, why are you saying there is a threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance?????

there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance

SAME QUOTATION....OR DID I JUST GO BACK AND DOCTOR IT????

WHEN YOU LEARN TO READ, MAYBE YOU'LL HAVE A POINT!!!!!!

R.I.P. COME BACK WHEN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THERE IS A THRESHOLD ABOVE WHICH IT 'CAN' BE SAID THAT THERE IS rEPO, DUMMY!!!!!

IT'S OVER, SON. THOSE POINTS ARE DUE. PAY UP!

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

[travestyny]

POST #1076....UNDOCTORED....RIGHT ABOVE YOUR QUOTATION, DUMBASS!!!!

Now you're stating that it 'can' have a threshold criteria at some point in the past, when you know the only time 'can' ever came up was in reference to the court stating this:

there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance

MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THAT WORD FOR WORD AND YOU WOULD HAVE SAVED YOUR TIME SEARCHING, YOU BIG IDIOT!



ADP OWNS HIMSELF YET AGAIN. DID YOU REALLY THINK CUTTING OFF THE QUOTATION WAS GOING TO WORK. YOUR DESPERATION DOESN'T MAGICALLY CHANGE QUOTATIONS, FOOL! ALL MY POSTS...UNEDITED! READ THEM AND WEEP!

THAT'S THE END. PAY YOUR DEBT SCUMBAG. IT'S OVER! YOU'RE NOW FREE TO KEEP CRYING ALONE IN YOUR PADDED ROOM!

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/3o7qDSOvfaCO9b3MlO/*****.gif[/IMG]

R.I.P, MY BET WELCHING 4-0 LOSING BlTCH. I HOPE YOU LEARNED YOUR LESSON, BUT IF 6 PEOPLE (4 UNBIASED JUDGES, ME, AND YES, INCLUDING DOSUMPTHIN WHO OWNED YOU DEVASTATINGLY) COULDN'T TEACH YOU THIS, I DOUBT YOU HAVE THE APTITUDE TO COMPREHEND THIS, SON!

"KABOOOOOOOOM. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

[Spoon23]

So you never said "CAN" right? You actually dared me to bet you and in the same post you bring it up!




You got your wish, right after DUCKer!





KABADABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!








.

KABBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!



YES! YOU LOVE TO QUIT TRAVESTY. YOU ALWAYS CAN!