Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

I was thinking about that actually. Maybe we can give the points to a 3rd person? Well just me because like I said, I do not want your points!


I said be honest.
You just admitted that you said the BAP is irrelevant. Those statements that you keep on repeating had to do with BAP testing not WADA requirements!!!! This case didn't even need those requirements to state that the athlete was positive!!! It was just additional confirmation.

So yes, it was irrelevant and call for a DQ in my books. You would have been pulling a fit if I did what you did …. be honest!



a) Read above. How can statements that the panel was explaining to the athlete about BAP testing and comparing to threshold substances relavent?
b) Did you just use the word "CLEAR"? You alternate between clear and vague on your statements!


The quotes, I really not sure what you are getting at but we can discuss this and I am pretty sure that I did already at some point.



Looks like you are having a bad day or night! Relax, …. take a deep breathe!

I'm not having a bad day. And it's 3:51pm here. My girl is on her way over. I'm munching on a brownie, one of my favorite snacks. Everything is fine.


Ok. Now try to understand what I'm saying. YES, the BAP is irrelevant. If that case was only about the BAP, I wouldn't have been able to use it. It wouldn't have meant anything.

But the case wasn't only about the BAP, ADP02. I've told you this many times. Look at what was said:

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.

The other interpretive criteria were the two band ratio and the WADA standard.

It goes on to state this:

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

The first mentions the WADA standard specifically. The second is general. That's the key.

We've already gone through this. It's exhausting.

Let it go!!!!

--edit---

Let it go....BUT BE A MAN AND GIVE ME THE POINTS THAT YOU OWE. Points aren't even used for a damn thing here!!! But it's the goddamn principle of the thing. Don't be that dude!

[travestyny]

And by the way....

This case didn't even need those requirements to state that the athlete was positive!!! It was just additional confirmation.

NOW YOU ARE USING YOUR BRAIN! No, it didn't need the other criteria. The panel discussed the BAP and decided that based on the BAP alone, the athlete would still have been found guilty. That shows that this was NOT about there being other criteria, as you have continuously stated. It also shows that this was NOT an 80% "threshold", which I should really say "criteria" to use the words of the panel. If it were, being that the values were below 80%, the athlete would have gotten off! Or....the athlete could argue that he can't be sanctioned because he passed one test and failed another and therefore there is conflict.

Here, YOU are even saying that if it was below, it would be negative:

For a test criteria, if the intensity of the bands exceeds the threshold, it means that it is an identification of the presence of rEPO substance. As per the criteria, if it is below the threshold, they cannot state that there is rEPO substance. Hence, they will state as a test result, that there is only human EPO in the urine sample ..... but there are other possible criteria and tests that can differ with that single criteria that I mentioned as an example.

You can't have one test that says one thing, and another that says something different. If one test says there is only human EPO, and the other says rEPO, that is conflict. Which is right? That would be a mess! A threshold is strict! You exceed it...you're guilty. You don't, you're not. It is precisely BECAUSE the BAP is not a threshold that they are able to use the other criteria, as it stated in the 2010 case.

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. As a result, “Additional Evidence” can be adduced to confirm the presence of rEPO in a sample, even though, for instance, the condition concerning the relative amount of the basic band areas is not satisfied.

If it were a threshold, they couldn't use other criteria.

That's why it is certain that this wasn't a threshold. Do you get it? And no, I'm not trying to play a gotcha game or trying to show you up. I think we both have now come to terms with this dumb shlt being ****** to argue over, but I'm just trying to make this clear.

[Spoon23]

You guys need to settle first what premise is the foundation of your debate. You guys are going in circles. You can't even start a debate. You are pathetic Travesty. Can't you take a hint? At this point, you guys shoul be able to establish a premise that you have agreed upon. Or are you telling there was none before??

[Spoon23]

NO, you didn't try to work with me. You tried to make it so you can have it as confusing as possible.

I told you to be honest but you are not!!!

Read the below. Were you implying that this was about just this 1 case or for all cases?
It was NOT about just this case.


It just happens that the quotes are based on this case but several of your quotes that you provided were for all non-threshold substances


See the subject?


Work with you?

I said OK, not on every non-threshold substances, just EPO

Then you said, not blood sample testing just urine.

I said OK to that too!!!


So I can work with you and have. It is you that keeps on dumbing down so that the subject is no longer about can EPO have threshold type tests..
You know, just like the subject of this thread states!!!!


What you want is something entirely different and really not what we were arguing about.






You said this from the CASE, YES, BUT it was not a statement about the case was it?




YOU WERE TRYING TO PROVE TO ME AND THE JUDGES:

CAS panel is stating that EPO cannot have threshold type tests



This was NOT supposed to take this long but it so happens that YOU are NO LONGER confident in your statements and as you said, you said them CLEARLY a "BILLION" times now.

Why are you no longer confident in your "BILLION" statements???????????????????




CHALLENGE IS ON

OR DUCK

OMG, Travesty such a LOSER. This says it all. That biatch can't even agree to what's been agreed upon. WTF

[ADP02]

I'm not having a bad day. And it's 3:51pm here. My girl is on her way over. I'm munching on a brownie, one of my favorite snacks. Everything is fine.


Ok. Now try to understand what I'm saying. YES, the BAP is irrelevant. If that case was only about the BAP, I wouldn't have been able to use it. It wouldn't have meant anything.

But the case wasn't only about the BAP, ADP02. I've told you this many times. Look at what was said:



The other interpretive criteria were the two band ratio and the WADA standard.

It goes on to state this:



The first mentions the WADA standard specifically. The second is general. That's the key.

We've already gone through this. It's exhausting.

Let it go!!!!

--edit---

Let it go....BUT BE A MAN AND GIVE ME THE POINTS THAT YOU OWE. Points aren't even used for a damn thing here!!! But it's the goddamn principle of the thing. Don't be that dude!

Thanks ….. I explained this already but I will do it again!

1) The main focus was the BAP test in that case.
2) There were no agreed restrictions placed on which technical EPO document can be used and because you had said that WADA NEVER had any threshold tests in place, as I told you. (see 3)
3) YOU kept on confusing things and placing restrictions AFTER the fact and arguing that there was a restriction, right? You know, you kept on telling me that I cannot use that version and any of the other ones, except for a single document and therefore confusing matters (there were no restrictions).
4) Would it be OK if I used other documents and any cases too? Especially as my final statement for the judges, as you did?
5) Besides all that, I told you back then that your interpretation of this is wrong and you are confusing the judges as well by stating that. The rest was argued over the last 2 months!
6) 1.5 years later, you have doubled down on your interpretation, therefore the CHALLENGE IS ON!!!!


So as I was stating in this post, this is actually a challenge on what you stated all along and this is relevant to the previous debate.



Secondly, I stated you can double the amount (wager) this time around. If you win, you get double (or more) points.


.

[ADP02]

And by the way....



NOW YOU ARE USING YOUR BRAIN! No, it didn't need the other criteria. The panel discussed the BAP and decided that based on the BAP alone, the athlete would still have been found guilty. That shows that this was NOT about there being other criteria, as you have continuously stated. It also shows that this was NOT an 80% "threshold", which I should really say "criteria" to use the words of the panel. If it were, being that the values were below 80%, the athlete would have gotten off! Or....the athlete could argue that he can't be sanctioned because he passed one test and failed another and therefore there is conflict.

Here, YOU are even saying that if it was below, it would be negative:



You can't have one test that says one thing, and another that says something different. If one test says there is only human EPO, and the other says rEPO, that is conflict. Which is right? That would be a mess! A threshold is strict! You exceed it...you're guilty. You don't, you're not. It is precisely BECAUSE the BAP is not a threshold that they are able to use the other criteria, as it stated in the 2010 case.



If it were a threshold, they couldn't use other criteria.

That's why it is certain that this wasn't a threshold. Do you get it? And no, I'm not trying to play a gotcha game or trying to show you up. I think we both have now come to terms with this dumb shlt being ****** to argue over, but I'm just trying to make this clear.

Well, I tried to explain this to you multiple times. The panel is trying to explain it to you but you keep on falling into the same trap that the athlete was stating. You are explaining threshold substances. Well, at least partially doing that!

.

[travestyny]

You are a very, very dishonest person. And the tone of your messages has changed. I guess you didn't like my last few posts. Well, I'm not here to care about your feelings when it comes to facts.

Thanks ….. I explained this already but I will do it again!

1) The main focus was the BAP test in that case.

I SHOWED YOU THE QUOTATION THAT SAYS PLAINLY THAT THE WADA STANDARD IS NOT A THRESHOLD. Did you not see that? Dude, you didn't even respond to it. You do this ALL THE TIME. Things that you don't like, you blatantly don't reply to them. That's why a number of times I've had to write long lists of you ducking and deflecting. If you respond to it, you'll see the error of your ways.

2) There were no agreed restrictions placed on which technical EPO document can be used and because you had said that WADA NEVER had any threshold tests in place, as I told you. (see 3)

BULLSHlT. You are still trying to say that this wasn't about testing circa May 2, 2015. Dude, YOU ARE SO DISHONEST. But if you need some info. to back this up, no problem.

For EPO testing, please refer to the following WADA document:
"WADA Technical Document – TD2014EPO - HARMONIZATION OF ANALYSIS AND REPORTING OF ERYTHROPOIESIS STIMULATING AGENTS (ESAs) BY ELECTROPHORETIC TECHNIQUES."

SCOPE that YOU agreed on: Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria?

SCOPEoes the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria

I can go on and on about which particular document you meant, though I know and YOU know that you meant TD2014EPO. But hey, to kill all of that noise, here is you saying that the BAP from 2010 is NOT 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.

BOOM! But you later tried to say that it was in scope.

I could go on and on with this, but there is no need.

Question...if all EPO documents ever were in scope, then why didn't you try to hang your hat on another one of them in the beginning. You're full of absolute shlt. I have you above stating that one is out of scope, and I also have you statting exactly which one is in scope. YOU ARE SO fvvkING DISHONEST THAT IT'S DISGUSTING!

3) YOU kept on confusing things and placing restrictions AFTER the fact and arguing that there was a restriction, right? You know, you kept on telling me that I cannot use that version and any of the other ones, except for a single document and therefore confusing matters (there were no restrictions).

You could use whatever you want to back up your claims. In fact, you tried to claim that the other documents were similar to the 2014 document, and that was your main point for bringing them up. I don't mind that at all, and didn't mind that. But what you can't do is pretend that a criteria used in the past was in the 2014 document if it wasn't. Sure, the other criteria are there, and that's why it buries you that the CAS specifically stated that they are not threshold criteria. As you would say...BOOM!

4) Would it be OK if I used other documents and any cases too? Especially as my final statement for the judges, as you did?

YOU DID use other documents and cases. You just refuse to acknowledge what I just told you. The case referred to the WADA standard criteria and said they are NOT threshold criteria. YOU WON'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE IT. Can you respond to it? This is why you are a dishonest scumbag. Seriously, dude. You should be ashamed of yourself. You try to come across as a good dude, but YOU are the cheater. And YOU are the liar. And of course, YOU are the deflector. You can't handle that you're wrong. And you hate to lose. You're like a whiny 7 year old girl when it comes to this shlt. Just stop.

5) Besides all that, I told you back then that your interpretation of this is wrong and you are confusing the judges as well by stating that. The rest was argued over the last 2 months!

Because you tell me I'm wrong that means I'm wrong? Stop it . The reason we had the debate was because we wanted to get other people's opinions, so that it's not just, "You're wrong, no you're wrong." We did it and you lost 4-0. It's time you accept that and pay up.

6) 1.5 years later, you have doubled down on your interpretation, therefore the CHALLENGE IS ON!!!!

Yes, I did double down on my interpretation, which is the correct interpretation and it states that in clear English. Now apologize to everyone you've offended, admit you lost, and give me the points that you welched on.

So as I was stating in this post, this is actually a challenge on what you stated all along and this is relevant to the previous debate.

As I've stated, the BAP is not relevant to the previous debate. The relevant part of that case, you have conveniently ignored.

Secondly, I stated you can double the amount (wager) this time around. If you win, you get double (or more) points.
.

And I've stated that you need to give me the points that you owe from losing, apologize to the judges, and apologize to me. You're dishonest as FVVCK. Seriously. I don't know what turns a grown ass man into a little girl like this. You have some serious growing to do, and that's sad to say to a grown ass man.

Now if you want to respond to this:

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 this:

there isno threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance

which clearly contradict this:

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.

Then sure, let me know.

BY THE WAY, THANKS FOR LETTING ME KNOW THAT THIS WAS IN FACT ALL ABOUT THE DEBATE WE HAD. IT'S NOT LIKE I DIDN'T KNOW, BUT YOU ADMITTING IT HELPS. You're not crawling out of that without addressing your quotation above.

[travestyny]

Well, I tried to explain this to you multiple times. The panel is trying to explain it to you but you keep on falling into the same trap that the athlete was stating. You are explaining threshold substances. Well, at least partially doing that!

.

You refuse to accept why both times threshold substances have come up. If you can't understand it by now, then I can't help you anymore. I'm tired of telling you the same shlt over and over. Pay me the points that you owe. This debate was over a year and a half ago, and you still can't move on.

Pay me my points, apologize to the people that you've offended, and let it go.

[travestyny]

You guys need to settle first what premise is the foundation of your debate. You guys are going in circles. You can't even start a debate. You are pathetic Travesty. Can't you take a hint? At this point, you guys shoul be able to establish a premise that you have agreed upon. Or are you telling there was none before??

Your boy is pathetic for losing 4-0 and still not being able to come to terms with it. It's been 1.5 years. It's time he moves on.

[ADP02]

You are a very, very dishonest person. And the tone of your messages has changed. I guess you didn't like my last few posts. Well, I'm not here to care about your feelings when it comes to facts.



I SHOWED YOU THE QUOTATION THAT SAYS PLAINLY THAT THE WADA STANDARD IS NOT A THRESHOLD. Did you not see that? Dude, you didn't even respond to it. You do this ALL THE TIME. Things that you don't like, you blatantly don't reply to them. That's why a number of times I've had to write long lists of you ducking and deflecting. If you respond to it, you'll see the error of your ways.



BULLSHlT. You are still trying to say that this wasn't about testing circa May 2, 2015. Dude, YOU ARE SO DISHONEST. But if you need some info. to back this up, no problem.







I can go on and on about which particular document you meant, though I know and YOU know that you meant TD2014EPO. But hey, to kill all of that noise, here is you saying that the BAP from 2010 is NOT IN SCOPE.



BOOM! But you later tried to say that it was in scope.

I could go on and on with this, but there is no need.

Question...if all EPO documents ever were in scope, then why didn't you try to hang your hat on another one of them in the beginning. You're full of absolute shlt. I have you above stating that one is out of scope, and I also have you statting exactly which one is in scope. YOU ARE SO fvvkING DISHONEST THAT IT'S DISGUSTING!



You could use whatever you want to back up your claims. In fact, you tried to claim that the other documents were similar to the 2014 document, and that was your main point for bringing them up. I don't mind that at all, and didn't mind that. But what you can't do is pretend that a criteria used in the past was in the 2014 document if it wasn't. Sure, the other criteria are there, and that's why it buries you that the CAS specifically stated that they are not threshold criteria. As you would say...BOOM!



YOU DID use other documents and cases. You just refuse to acknowledge what I just told you. The case referred to the WADA standard criteria and said they are NOT threshold criteria. YOU WON'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE IT. Can you respond to it? This is why you are a dishonest scumbag. Seriously, dude. You should be ashamed of yourself. You try to come across as a good dude, but YOU are the cheater. And YOU are the liar. And of course, YOU are the deflector. You can't handle that you're wrong. And you hate to lose. You're like a whiny 7 year old girl when it comes to this shlt. Just stop.



Because you tell me I'm wrong that means I'm wrong? Stop it . The reason we had the debate was because we wanted to get other people's opinions, so that it's not just, "You're wrong, no you're wrong." We did it and you lost 4-0. It's time you accept that and pay up.



Yes, I did double down on my interpretation, which is the correct interpretation and it states that in clear English. Now apologize to everyone you've offended, admit you lost, and give me the points that you welched on.



As I've stated, the BAP is not relevant to the previous debate. The relevant part of that case, you have conveniently ignored.



And I've stated that you need to give me the points that you owe from losing, apologize to the judges, and apologize to me. You're dishonest as FVVCK. Seriously. I don't know what turns a grown ass man into a little girl like this. You have some serious growing to do, and that's sad to say to a grown ass man.

Now if you want to respond to this:



and this:



which clearly contradict this:



Then sure, let me know.

BY THE WAY, THANKS FOR LETTING ME KNOW THAT THIS WAS IN FACT ALL ABOUT THE DEBATE WE HAD. IT'S NOT LIKE I DIDN'T KNOW, BUT YOU ADMITTING IT HELPS. You're not crawling out of that without addressing your quotation above.

I do not want these DEFLECTIONs!

I will just say this:

We did NOT make any agreement initially to limit anything except that we were not discussing threshold substances!

For starters, you post what you like and omit the posts or part of the posts that does not fit your purpose.



Did you not say that there was never ever any threshold type tests by WADA? So then I would think that should include all WADA related cases, right? WADA came into existence in 1999.
So why are you NOT posting this comment of yours?



You said it there were no thresholds, ratios, scores, and so on.
So why are you NOT posting this comment of yours?



You said it was NOT about the intensity of the bands.
So why are you NOT posting this comment of yours?


You said there were no thresholds for the presumptive nor the confirmation tests.
So why are you NOT posting this comment of yours?

On some of these you doubled down on them until I provided to you proof!!! Then all you did when I provided evidence, is state that it was not applicable even though YOU stated most of those comments before we even started!!!! And so you WERE WRONG and intentionally CONFUSED the judges!!!



After I corrected you each time, did you clear it up for everyone or did you either ignore or continue the confusion???


Kangaroo court!


So now I wanted to clear all of that up now. Before we start.