Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

I responded to you in the other thread.

This is about the statements that you posted from a CAS panel that was circa 2003-2004. The argument has been going on for close to 2 months now.

You said that the panel is stating that there cannot be any threshold type tests for EPO and you are saying the same for non-threshold substances. You said the panel brought up threshold substances to point out that only threshold substances can have a threshold type test.

I am disagreeing with you on that. That is, EPO testing can have threshold type tests as part of its tests to try to identity synthetic EPO.


Are you up to the challenge?



.

Sure. now clarify your statements. The labs were accredited by whom in that case? Is this about WADA or some other organization.

When you get the balls to let me know, I'll be waiting, but seems you're ready to tuck tail now!

[ADP02]

Sure. now clarify your statements. The labs were accredited by whom in that case? Is this about WADA or some other organization.

When you get the balls to let me know, I'll be waiting, but seems you're ready to tuck tail now!

We have been arguing this for close to 2 months now. So you know which time period we are discussing.

That period was a transition period from IOC to WADA.
WADA had approved of the tests used for EPO but since the International federations had their own rules, they wanted to harmonize the rules so that they all follow the same set of tests but that would not take into affect until 2005.

The case was prior to that harmonized technical document.

The challenge:
You kept on stating that BAP test is not a threshold test and you used the CAS panel's statements to come to your conclusion. You said that the panel was indicating that only threshold substances can have threshold tests. I disagreed with you and stated that you misinterpreted what the panel was trying to explain to the athlete.


Basically, the question is, can EPO have a threshold test? You said that according to the CAS panel's statements, they cannot have a threshold test.



.

[travestyny]

We have been arguing this for close to 2 months now. So you know which time period we are discussing.

That period was a transition period from IOC to WADA.
WADA had approved of the tests used for EPO but since the International federations had their own rules, they wanted to harmonize the rules so that they all follow the same set of tests but that would not take into affect until 2005.

The case was prior to that harmonized technical document.

The challenge:
You kept on stating that BAP test is not a threshold test and you used the CAS panel's statements to come to your conclusion. You said that the panel was indicating that only threshold substances can have threshold tests. I disagreed with you and stated that you misinterpreted what the panel was trying to explain to the athlete.


Basically, the question is, can EPO have a threshold test? You said that according to the CAS panel's statements, they cannot have a threshold test.



.

Are you going to answer the question? Was the lab accredited by WADA, or is this about some other organization?

Are we talking about how WADA labs did the testing or not? This should be simple.

Whose testing are you referring to?

Quest Diagnostics?
UCI?
IOC?
WADA?
ADP02's Deflection Lab?


Who ran the labs. You can't expect me to accept some vague statement that you *****ed up to try to get one over.

Different labs do things different ways. For example, UCI testing might be different from IOC testing, right? Testing at a WADA lab, particularly after they made their first WADA International Standard for Laboratories and got their first labs accredited in 2004, would be different than what the labs would do in.. say 2002

But you know that I know exactly what you are talking about. You also know that my statement was specifically about WADA, don't you. You know that in that case, the lab was WADA certified. You also know the case was ruled on based on what the WADA lab did and does.


Dude, your deflection failed. This is the last time I'm going to ask you to clarify this statement. Are you talking about WADA or some other organization.

If you don't answer, I'm not playing your *****ed up butthurt game that you thought was going to catch me. I'm not ******, son. You aren't made for this. Trying to be sneaky really doesn't work when you have the intelligence of a bag of dust, and I can see you coming 4 miles away.

[travestyny]

Basically, the question is, can EPO have a threshold test?
.

Ok, I get it, ADP. Here is your revised scope:

Can Anyone at Any Lab test for EPO or Anything Anyway They Want to Test for it at Anytime in the Past?


That was brilliant! Next time try posting after your balls descend. Your desperation got the best of you. If you decide you want to tighten this up, let me know. I have some information regarding WADA testing that you might want to check out, you hear

[ADP02]

Are you going to answer the question? Was the lab accredited by WADA, or is this about some other organization?

Are we talking about how WADA labs did the testing or not? This should be simple.

Whose testing are you referring to?

Quest Diagnostics?
UCI?
IOC?
WADA?
ADP02's Deflection Lab?


Who ran the labs. You can't expect me to accept some vague statement that you *****ed up to try to get one over.

Different labs do things different ways. For example, UCI testing might be different from IOC testing, right? Testing at a WADA lab, particularly after they made their first WADA International Standard for Laboratories and got their first labs accredited in 2004, would be different than what the labs would do in.. say 2002

But you know that I know exactly what you are talking about. You also know that my statement was specifically about WADA, don't you. You know that in that case, the lab was WADA certified. You also know the case was ruled on based on what the WADA lab did and does.


Dude, your deflection failed. This is the last time I'm going to ask you to clarify this statement. Are you talking about WADA or some other organization.

If you don't answer, I'm not playing your *****ed up butthurt game that you thought was going to catch me. I'm not ******, son. You aren't made for this. Trying to be sneaky really doesn't work when you have the intelligence of a bag of dust, and I can see you coming 4 miles away.

Ok, I get it, ADP. Here is your revised scope:

Can Anyone at Any Lab test for EPO or Anything Anyway They Want to Test for it at Anytime in the Past?


That was brilliant! Next time try posting after your balls descend. Your desperation got the best of you. If you decide you want to tighten this up, let me know. I have some information regarding WADA testing that you might want to check out, you hear

As stated, the testing criteria was not harmonized during that period. That is, each International Federation had set its own rules. The LABs would be instructed to follow their (IF) rules. During that transition period the LABs were often IOC/WADA accredited BUT NOT all LABs were qualified to test for EPO.

So of course we are only including LABs that can test for EPO. And of course, the International Federations/IOC and CAS had to be in agreement with the LABs expertise in relation to EPO testing based on their rules.

At the time, there was a blood test and urine test for EPO. IOC was using both tests which WADA had approved but some federations such as UCI stated that the urine test was sufficient. At the time, the BAP test was the main test for ALL LABs but not the only test conducted by the LABs. Again, the LABs would be following the federation's rules.


So if an IOC lab was testing a urine sample that was under UCI rules for example, the LAB had to follow the UCI rules not the IOC rules.

Same would be the case for WADA LAB. Their tests would need to follow the IOC or UCI or other federation's rules.


We have a disagreement.
You are saying that for EPO the CAS panel is stating that there cannot be threshold type test. I am disagreeing with you. You misinterpreted their statements.


To be clear, there are no limitations to this. There are many International Federations and IOC. They cannot be all named for one. AGAIN, same goes for the LABs. As long as they were qualified to test for EPO.

You and I can use any EPO related information to determine who is correct. That is the main thing here. To find out if EPO can have a threshold type test or not.


So there is no reason to limit this and it will be easier to follow for everyone involved including you and I.





.

[travestyny]

As stated, the testing criteria was not harmonized during that period. That is, each International Federation had set its own rules. The LABs would be instructed to follow their (IF) rules. During that transition period the LABs were often IOC/WADA accredited BUT NOT all LABs were qualified to test for EPO.

So of course we are only including LABs that can test for EPO. And of course, the International Federations/IOC and CAS had to be in agreement with the LABs expertise in relation to EPO testing based on their rules.

At the time, there was a blood test and urine test for EPO. IOC was using both tests which WADA had approved but some federations such as UCI stated that the urine test was sufficient. At the time, the BAP test was the main test for ALL LABs but not the only test conducted by the LABs. Again, the LABs would be following the federation's rules.


So if an IOC lab was testing a urine sample that was under UCI rules for example, the LAB had to follow the UCI rules not the IOC rules.

Same would be the case for WADA LAB. Their tests would need to follow the IOC or UCI or other federation's rules.


We have a disagreement.
You are saying that for EPO the CAS panel is stating that there cannot be threshold type test. I am disagreeing with you. You misinterpreted their statements.


To be clear, there are no limitations to this. There are many International Federations and IOC. They cannot be all named for one. AGAIN, same goes for the LABs. As long as they were qualified to test for EPO.

You and I can use any EPO related information to determine who is correct. That is the main thing here. To find out if EPO can have a threshold type test or not.


So there is no reason to limit this and it will be easier to follow for everyone involved including you and I.





.

Oh, but there is a reason to limit it. And you just hit on it.

First of all, it does not matter when WADA made their EPO document because obviously the WADA labs were still testing for EPO before that document came along. The labs became WADA accredited in January 1st, 2004. They began operating under the WADA International Standard of Laboratories at that time.

Second, you already stated that there were different en****** involved here. UCI, IOC, etc. if you are discussing a specific case that I commented on, then all you need is information from that case. The fact of the matter is I know exactly what you are trying to do. Though you are well aware that I am only concerned with WADA, you are trying to squirm to the IOC circa 2002. I think that is clear. Are you upset that in that particular case they stated that the BAP is not a threshold and so you are trying to say well the IOC rules were different? It’s not going to work, son. The court case said specifically that the BAP is not a threshold, and yes, it also mentioned specifically about how the WADA Accredited lab would be involved in that decision. Furthermore, there were other CAS cases well after that time that stated your BAP criteria is not a threshold. And yes, that was when WADA was well in the swing of things.

So I know why you are trying to deflect. But YOU know that the conclversation was about WADA, which is the entire reason that court case was brought up. WADA does NOT test non-threshold substances with a threshold. Whenever an athlete has brought up any threshold regarding EPO, the very first thing the CAS states is that IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT EPO IS NOT A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE. That is clearly for people like you who try to keep bringing up thresholds that the CAS repeatedly has said do not exist circa the time WADA becomes involved by the labs switching over to their accreditation.

You tried your deflection. I’m not interested in the IOC. Sorry. It wouldn’t help you anyway because...

1. The challenge was about WADA.

2. As you already admit, the BAP was not a part of WADA TESTING AT THE TIME WE WERE CONCERNED WITH.

Time for you to let it go. It’s over.

[ADP02]

Oh, but there is a reason to limit it. And you just hit on it.

First of all, it does not matter when WADA made their EPO document because obviously the WADA labs were still testing for EPO before that document came along. The labs became WADA accredited in January 1st, 2004. They began operating under the WADA International Standard of Laboratories at that time.

Second, you already stated that there were different en****** involved here. UCI, IOC, etc. if you are discussing a specific case that I commented on, then all you need is information from that case. The fact of the matter is I know exactly what you are trying to do. Though you are well aware that I am only concerned with WADA, you are trying to squirm to the IOC circa 2002. I think that is clear. Are you upset that in that particular case they stated that the BAP is not a threshold and so you are trying to say well the IOC rules were different? It’s not going to work, son. The court case said specifically that the BAP is not a threshold, and yes, it also mentioned specifically about how the WADA Accredited lab would be involved in that decision. Furthermore, there were other CAS cases well after that time that stated your BAP criteria is not a threshold. And yes, that was when WADA was well in the swing of things.

So I know why you are trying to deflect. But YOU know that the conclversation was about WADA, which is the entire reason that court case was brought up. WADA does NOT test non-threshold substances with a threshold. Whenever an athlete has brought up any threshold regarding EPO, the very first thing the CAS states is that IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT EPO IS NOT A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE. That is clearly for people like you who try to keep bringing up thresholds that the CAS repeatedly has said do not exist circa the time WADA becomes involved by the labs switching over to their accreditation.

You tried your deflection. I’m not interested in the IOC. Sorry. It wouldn’t help you anyway because...

1. The challenge was about WADA.

2. As you already admit, the BAP was not a part of WADA TESTING AT THE TIME WE WERE CONCERNED WITH.

Time for you to let it go. It’s over.

Sorry but the discussion was about can EPO have threshold type tests. The panel's statements that you brought up was mainly about UCI rules not WADA rules!!!!!! The CAS can go back to a case in the 1990s if they want to, to reference or back up their statements .... but as far as EPO, they would go back to most probably early 2000s when they began applying their EPO rules.

IOC has their own rules. If it was the 2002 or 2004 Olympics or even out of competition testing, the IOC/WADA lab would be following the IOC rules for EPO. That is the way it worked!


So to repeat, for 2 months, the discussion was separate from our previous arguments. I even had clarified that it was separate about 1 month ago. You then went about and stating that you are discussing the BAP testing (a billion times).

Originally Posted by travestyny
I've told you this a billion times in this very thread.

The Panel stated clearly that the BAP is not a threshold test.

Now we both are stating that this is not part of WADA testing BUT YOU STILL SAID, that the EPO testing cannot have threshold type tests.

That is the challenge here. You used the CAS panel's statement that was not referencing WADA rules! You just want to DEFLECT to that because you are losing confidence, I see. The only reference to WADA rules was that they will become in effect in 2005 and if the LAB tested by using that criteria, that can be used as supporting evidence!

BUT we both know that is not what was our main discussion. It was about threshold type test. Possible?

You said no!!!



In fact, you are now clinging to WADA but for 2 months you were saying that the WADA EPO expert was wrong in calling it a threshold test!

Originally Posted by travestyny

I've answered this a million times. I told you that the WADA experts referred to the BAP as a threshold, but the CAS stated that it was in reality not a threshold. I can't say that any more clearly.

BTW - Why do you want to limit the discussion to a specific case?

That makes no sense. Do you or do you not want to know if EPO can have threshold tests or do you just want to win?


For me, I rather lose but play fair. You seem to want to just win!


CAS panel references other cases to support their statements. As I stated, they can go back as far back as makes sense!!!

and this was NOT about UCI or OIC or WADA. This was about the panel's statements on EPO testing. You and I are in disagreement. I said that there can be threshold type tests for EPO. You said the panel is saying no!


The tests for UCI or IOC or WADA were the same pretty much back then. The differences were some of the rules. They all were testing to verify if the testing gave indication of the presence of synthetic EPO.



To me, it just seems like you are trying to find any excuse to not take on the challenge!


You lost all confidence in what you were saying bravely for 2 months!


.

[travestyny]

Sorry but the discussion was about can EPO have threshold type tests. The panel's statements that you brought up was mainly about UCI rules not WADA rules!!!!!! The CAS can go back to a case in the 1990s if they want to, to reference or back up their statements .... but as far as EPO, they would go back to most probably early 2000s when they began applying their EPO rules.

IOC has their own rules. If it was the 2002 or 2004 Olympics or even out of competition testing, the IOC/WADA lab would be following the IOC rules for EPO. That is the way it worked!


So to repeat, for 2 months, the discussion was separate from our previous arguments. I even had clarified that it was separate about 1 month ago. You then went about and stating that you are discussing the BAP testing (a billion times).



Now we both are stating that this is not part of WADA testing BUT YOU STILL SAID, that the EPO testing cannot have threshold type tests.

That is the challenge here. You used the CAS panel's statement that was not referencing WADA rules! You just want to DEFLECT to that because you are losing confidence, I see. The only reference to WADA rules was that they will become in effect in 2005 and if the LAB tested by using that criteria, that can be used as supporting evidence!

BUT we both know that is not what was our main discussion. It was about threshold type test. Possible?

You said no!!!



In fact, you are now clinging to WADA but for 2 months you were saying that the WADA EPO expert was wrong in calling it a threshold test!





BTW - Why do you want to limit the discussion to a specific case?

That makes no sense. Do you or do you not want to know if EPO can have threshold tests or do you just want to win?


For me, I rather lose but play fair. You seem to want to just win!


CAS panel references other cases to support their statements. As I stated, they can go back as far back as makes sense!!!

and this was NOT about UCI or OIC or WADA. This was about the panel's statements on EPO testing. You and I are in disagreement. I said that there can be threshold type tests for EPO. You said the panel is saying no!


The tests for UCI or IOC or WADA were the same pretty much back then. The differences were some of the rules. They all were testing to verify if the testing gave indication of the presence of synthetic EPO.



To me, it just seems like you are trying to find any excuse to not take on the challenge!


You lost all confidence in what you were saying bravely for 2 months!


.

When are you going to stop? Keep it real.

The truth of the matter is you feel butthurt because you RIGHTFULLY lost in that debate 4-0, and now you’re trying to ride the coattails of the IOC in 2002. 2002!!!! Stop it.

Why limit it to the court case? BECAUSE THATS WHAT YOU SAID THIS WAS ABOUT AND IN THE COURT CASE IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY THAT THE BAP IS NOT A THRESHOLD. YOU HAVE EYES TO SEE, RIGHT?

The case makes it clear that it is not a threshold. But it’s not even important because ITS NOT A PART OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT. You then tried to say that makes the entire case irrelevant. Either this all went over your head or you really need to brighten up.

The case stated exactly the contrary of what you been arguing. My hunch is now you accepted your loss, and now you want to pivot to something else so you can try to eat that loss better? It’s not going to happen.

It was always about WADA, and the court said specifically that the BAP is not a threshold. Whose list of threshold and non-threshold substances have we looked at? WADA’S!!!! WADA’s non-threshold substances don’t use thresholds! I’ve stated this over and over. Do you think I really care what the IOC did in 2002, especially when you are now trying to make my statement into no one at any time ever could use a thereshold when what this really was about is whether EPO was a threshold substance. When you realized you were wrong, I ALLOWED YOU TO DEFLECT TO WHETHER WADA USES THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR EPO. And we both know we meant in testing samples circa May 2nd, 2015. And we both know it’s concerning TD2014EPO. And we both know now that you were wrong.

FO BACK TO THE COURT CASE. THEY GIVE A COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE BAP FROM THE IOC DAYS RIGHT UP TO WHY ITS IN REALITY NIT A THRESHOLD. ITS WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH.

Let it go. You lost and it’s over. Move on with your life.

[ADP02]

When are you going to stop? Keep it real.

The truth of the matter is you feel butthurt because you RIGHTFULLY lost in that debate 4-0, and now you’re trying to ride the coattails of the IOC in 2002. 2002!!!! Stop it.

Why limit it to the court case? BECAUSE THATS WHAT YOU SAID THIS WAS ABOUT AND IN THE COURT CASE IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY THAT THE BAP IS NOT A THRESHOLD. YOU HAVE EYES TO SEE, RIGHT?

The case makes it clear that it is not a threshold. But it’s not even important because ITS NOT A PART OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT. You then tried to say that makes the entire case irrelevant. Either this all went over your head or you really need to brighten up.

The case stated exactly the contrary of what you been arguing. My hunch is now you accepted your loss, and now you want to pivot to something else so you can try to eat that loss better? It’s not going to happen.

It was always about WADA, and the court said specifically that the BAP is not a threshold. Whose list of threshold and non-threshold substances have we looked at? WADA’S!!!! WADA’s non-threshold substances don’t use thresholds! I’ve stated this over and over. Do you think I really care what the IOC did in 2002, especially when you are now trying to make my statement into no one at any time ever could use a thereshold when what this really was about is whether EPO was a threshold substance. When you realized you were wrong, I ALLOWED YOU TO DEFLECT TO WHETHER WADA USES THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR EPO. And we both know we meant in testing samples circa May 2nd, 2015. And we both know it’s concerning TD2014EPO. And we both know now that you were wrong.

FO BACK TO THE COURT CASE. THEY GIVE A COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE BAP FROM THE IOC DAYS RIGHT UP TO WHY ITS IN REALITY NIT A THRESHOLD. ITS WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH.

Let it go. You lost and it’s over. Move on with your life.

Travestyny
FO BACK TO THE COURT CASE. THEY GIVE A COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE BAP FROM THE IOC DAYS RIGHT UP TO WHY ITS IN REALITY NIT A THRESHOLD. ITS WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH.

In plain English, they did like I told YOU! The UIC rules or IOC rules do not start or end with 1 case! You just want me to have as little wiggle room as possible to make my case!

If it made sense, sure why not but your explanation is way out and does NOT make any sense!!!!


You already tried to limit the discussion with no talk about ABP testing and other blood parameters. Right? Now you want it to be about just that case? WTF!!!




As stated and you even admitted to, the CAS panel refers to other cases and other points in time to make a point and to determine their judgement on the case.
yet you say that I cannot?

You said the CAS panel is pointing out that the BAP test is not a threshold. They had to base it on something. What they based it on was NOT about WADA LABs or WADA ... they based it on UCI rules!!!

What it appears to me is that you are backtracking because you were challenged and know that you are stuck in a corner!

Who cares about 1 case! EPO testing was in a transition period. BAP test was used for several years already and YOU now know that you cannot defend your claim that the CAS panel was trying to state that EPO testing cannot have a threshold type test.

SO now you are trying to squirm your way out of a challenge.


The challenge remains.
You do not have to accept it but that implies to me that you know the truth.

The panel was NOT trying to state that EPO cannot have thresholds .....

The WADA EPO expert was NOT WRONG , as you claimed, when he states that there are threshold tests for EPO

and since I agree with the WADA EPO Expert, then I am right and YOU ARE WRONG!!!


You cannot admit that you are wrong and that is why I challenged YOU .....

BUT it appears that you are PIUSSING YOUR WAY OUT OF A CHALLENGE!!!!


Please provide your final statement. Do you accept the challenge?




.

[travestyny]

In plain English, they did like I told YOU! The UIC rules or IOC rules do not start or end with 1 case! You just want me to have as little wiggle room as possible to make my case!

If it made sense, sure why not but your explanation is way out and does NOT make any sense!!!!


You already tried to limit the discussion with no talk about ABP testing and other blood parameters. Right? Now you want it to be about just that case? WTF!!!




As stated and you even admitted to, the CAS panel refers to other cases and other points in time to make a point and to determine their judgement on the case.
yet you say that I cannot?

You said the CAS panel is pointing out that the BAP test is not a threshold. They had to base it on something. What they based it on was NOT about WADA LABs or WADA ... they based it on UCI rules!!!

What it appears to me is that you are backtracking because you were challenged and know that you are stuck in a corner!

Who cares about 1 case! EPO testing was in a transition period. BAP test was used for several years already and YOU now know that you cannot defend your claim that the CAS panel was trying to state that EPO testing cannot have a threshold type test.

SO now you are trying to squirm your way out of a challenge.


The challenge remains.
You do not have to accept it but that implies to me that you know the truth.

The panel was NOT trying to state that EPO cannot have thresholds .....

The WADA EPO expert was NOT WRONG , as you claimed, when he states that there are threshold tests for EPO

and since I agree with the WADA EPO Expert, then I am right and YOU ARE WRONG!!!


You cannot admit that you are wrong and that is why I challenged YOU .....

BUT it appears that you are PIUSSING YOUR WAY OUT OF A CHALLENGE!!!!


Please provide your final statement. Do you accept the challenge?




.

I’ve already told you. Make it about WADA and I’m in.

The Gold Standard of Testing isn't good enough for you anymore?

Sorry that you got your feelings hurt so badly that you want to keep DEFLECTING.

And...pvssying out? Plz. More like not letting you DEFLECT anymore, like I did once when you went to the dome for saying EPO was a threshold substances, and now you try to play it off that because you never answered my questions about it, that means you weren't talking about it. BUT YOU ACCEPTED THE CHALLENGE PROPOSED THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT IF IT WAS A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE. BlTCH!

NOT TO MENTION ALL OF THE OTHER CHALLENGES FROM ME YOU DUCKED. NICK DIAZ COMES TO MIND. Hmmmm.

You're not built for this, son. Trying to get me to accept something so vague with NO DATES, NO TALK OF WHO IS DOING THE TESTING. DO YOU THINK I'M ******???? YOU MORON.

And if you believe that what you found is so great (some non-WADA bullshlt), then why not accept the rematch? Oh....that's right. Because you're pvssying out of a rematch, aintcha? YOU EVEN DISOWNED YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT. YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT WAS A ****** MOVE, YOU IDIOT. IT PROVES EVEN YOU KNOW I WON!!!!!

That 4-0 loss destroyed your soul. And the more you cry, the happier I am that you got your face kicked in


LET'S GET TO THE MEAT OF THE ISSUE. DOES ANYTHING YOU HAVE CHANGE THE RESULT OF OUR DEBATE? YES OR NO? SIMPLE QUESTION. DON'T DUCK IT!

ps. You know you're fvvked, right? You say yes, then the question is why you won't accept a rematch. You say no......and you're more transparent for being just a butthurt bltch who can't handle that he lost 4-0 and is now trying anything he can do, even some non-wada shlt from 2002 that is irrelevant, to try to get back. So which is it????

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