Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

Also find the other links that I told you to find.

What other link did you tell me to find? You know, you can find them yourself if you weren't too afraid to go into the thread that you lost 4-0. You can do this the same way I do it.


By the way, you mentioned the BAP being in the 2009 document before I did. Go look it up. So why are you now trying to say I reminded you of it being there?

So what else do you need? Are you ready to fess up yet?

[travestyny]

Still waiting for you to admit you are desperately trying to cheat, ADP. Still waiting.....

[travestyny]

Maybe this is what you wanted me to verify, too? Click the arrow:

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."

Did you verify whether these have been altered or not yet? I'm still waiting for you to admit to trying to cheat now.

[ADP02]

The link to what? The link to the court case or the link to the quotations?


As you wish. Here is the link to the quotation where you said it TWICE!!!!:





Click the arrow in the quotation to go see for yourself. So did you say that, or did I doctor your post?


And here is the link to the court case, if that's what you mean:





So again, is that your quotation or not? I'm waiting.

I found it.


Like I thought, you keep on bringing those cases up and when I prove you WRONG you did this:

ADP02

oh and here is TRAVESTNY SPINNING and CONTRADICTING himself ... and these were 2 posts discussing this case THAT HE just BROUGHT UP!!!

travestyny

THEY AREN'T THRESHOLD CRITERIA!!!!!

travestyny

DOES THE TD2014 EPO DOCUMENT HAVE THE 85% THRESHOLD CRITERIA PRESENT?????

You even wanted to bet that the cas panel's statements stated that EPO cannot have a threshold type test.


You were arguing there after as to why I wanted to include this in scope even though you brought up the case.



But I asked you to go to the start of the thread.

Did we actually make any agreement to any limits? I'm quite sure that you cannot find anything that says that we did except for it not being about threshold susbtances.



So if you are up to the same challenge with just the limit on threshold substances, I am in for it. Just as I posted.


But something tells me that you do not want to go by what we agreed to originally.



So are you then stating that you want a different challenge?


Well then, why would we want to do that?

PLUS, we have "another" challenge right here at the start of this thread!


So which one?

Lets do BOTH!!!!

Are you in?


.



.

[Spoon23]

I found it.


Like I thought, you keep on bringing those cases up and when I prove you WRONG you did this:












You even wanted to bet that the cas panel's statements stated that EPO cannot have a threshold type test.


You were arguing there after as to why I wanted to include this in scope even though you brought up the case.



But I asked you to go to the start of the thread.

Did we actually make any agreement to any limits? I'm quite sure that you cannot find anything that says that we did except for it not being about threshold susbtances.



So if you are up to the same challenge with just the limit on threshold substances, I am in for it. Just as I posted.


But something tells me that you do not want to go by what we agreed to originally.



So are you then stating that you want a different challenge?


Well then, why would we want to do that?

PLUS, we have "another" challenge right here at the start of this thread!


So which one?

Lets do BOTH!!!!

Are you in?


.



.

Boom!!

That was a 22 calibre rifle shot to the head. Down goes Travesty again hahahahaha!

[travestyny]

I found it.


Like I thought, you keep on bringing those cases up and when I prove you WRONG you did this:












You even wanted to bet that the cas panel's statements stated that EPO cannot have a threshold type test.


You were arguing there after as to why I wanted to include this in scope even though you brought up the case.



But I asked you to go to the start of the thread.

Did we actually make any agreement to any limits? I'm quite sure that you cannot find anything that says that we did except for it not being about threshold susbtances.



So if you are up to the same challenge with just the limit on threshold substances, I am in for it. Just as I posted.


But something tells me that you do not want to go by what we agreed to originally.



So are you then stating that you want a different challenge?


Well then, why would we want to do that?

PLUS, we have "another" challenge right here at the start of this thread!


So which one?

Lets do BOTH!!!!

Are you in?


.

I'm still waiting for you to stop deflecting and answer up. Did you say this:

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.

I never got an answer. Is that your quotation or not? Let's find out exactly what we agreed to originally, shall we? Because someone is lying

[travestyny]

Boom!!

That was a 22 calibre rifle shot to the head. Down goes Travesty again hahahahaha![/SIZE]

Take a read at what is happening here.


Your boy is getting exposed for lying


Much like you were recently exposed for saying Mayweather won, Buboy

[travestyny]

It's taking you a real long time to answer a simple yes or no question, ADP.

[ADP02]

I found it.


Like I thought, you keep on bringing those cases up and when I prove you WRONG you did this:


You even wanted to bet that the cas panel's statements stated that EPO cannot have a threshold type test.


You were arguing there after as to why I wanted to include this in scope even though you brought up the case.



But I asked you to go to the start of the thread.

Did we actually make any agreement to any limits? I'm quite sure that you cannot find anything that says that we did except for it not being about threshold susbtances.



So if you are up to the same challenge with just the limit on threshold substances, I am in for it. Just as I posted.


But something tells me that you do not want to go by what we agreed to originally.



So are you then stating that you want a different challenge?


Well then, why would we want to do that?

PLUS, we have "another" challenge right here at the start of this thread!


So which one?

Lets do BOTH!!!!

Are you in?


.



.

Take a read at what is happening here.


Your boy is getting exposed for lying


Much like you were recently exposed for saying Mayweather won, Buboy :

What was the original limit agreed? NONE except for threshold susbtances.


After we started the debate, you realized that YOU WERE WRONG when you said, "WADA never had threshold type tests".



So after that, you wanted to CHANGE it to limit this. BUT it is NOT agreed to. Travestyny kept on telling me to limit it to a document but you never followed that rule for yourself. You actually did this many times including getting a case from 2004.



Then when I caught your mistakes, I told you that you wanted this out of scope but here you are bringing it back in scope.


- At start of thread: In SCOPE as there are no limits.
- Travestyny: Wants it OUT OF SCOPE AFTER we start the discussions.
- Travesytny wants to bring it back in scope because he thinks he has me.
- ADP02: Laughs at him and tells him that it was "out of scope" as per travestyny previous begging but here you are ……...

travestyny

LMAOOOOO. EVEN IF I LET YOU CHANGE THE SCOPE A THIRD TIME, YOU'D STILL BE WRONG! THAT'S WHAT'S SO FUNNY ABOUT THIS SHlT!


STRAIGHT FROM THE SAME DOCUMENT THAT I SHOWED YOU:


COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT: The relative amount (approximately 85%) of the basic band areas does not constitute the “threshold” past which an offence can be found

You used very similar quotes as you have been using for 2 months NOW!!!!


You know, what I am currently challenging you on, you even wanted to bet that back then!!!!




BUT the above is all BS DEFLECTIONs. You cannot find any such agreement at the start of the debate. Can you? Simple question requires a simple response. Yes or no?


So which one?

Lets do BOTH CHALLENGES!!!!

Are you in?




.

[travestyny]

What was the original limit agreed? NONE except for threshold susbtances.


After we started the debate, you realized that YOU WERE WRONG when you said, "WADA never had threshold type tests".



So after that, you wanted to CHANGE it to limit this. BUT it is NOT agreed to. Travestyny kept on telling me to limit it to a document but you never followed that rule for yourself. You actually did this many times including getting a case from 2004.



Then when I caught your mistakes, I told you that you wanted this out of scope but here you are bringing it back in scope.


- At start of thread: In SCOPE as there are no limits.
- Travestyny: Wants it OUT OF SCOPE AFTER we start the discussions.
- Travesytny wants to bring it back in scope because he thinks he has me.
- ADP02: Laughs at him and tells him that it was "out of scope" as per travestyny previous begging but here you are ……...





You used very similar quotes as you have been using for 2 months NOW!!!!


You know, what I am currently challenging you on, you even wanted to bet that back then!!!!




BUT the above is all BS DEFLECTIONs. You cannot find any such agreement at the start of the debate. Can you? Simple question requires a simple response. Yes or no?


So which one?

Lets do BOTH CHALLENGES!!!!

Are you in?




.

Are you still ducking? Seriously. You can't be a man, can you.



IS THIS YOUR QUOTATION OR NOT? YES OR NO. IT'S VERY SIMPLE.

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.

YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE ORIGINAL DEBATE, RIGHT? WELL LET'S DISCUSS IT

Are you going to keep ducking or are you going to answer? I'm not letting you off the hook like I usually do. What is the answer. Is that your quotation or not?