Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[ADP02]

WHAT WAS THAT?????? REPEAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID!!!!!

REST IN MUTHAFVVCKING PEACE, BlTCH. BUT GIMME MY POINTS FIRST. MY WORK HERE IS DONE!

I'M OUT!

Are you serious? That post does NOT make your post right.


1) How did I respond?

ADP02
See we are talking about apples and oranges when it comes to EPO

2)
You said this

TrAVESTYNY
NOW TELL ME, DOES THE ABP MEASURE EPO?

While they wish they can do that, they cannot accurately do that(Measure EPO)! While they do use quantifiable data for EPO testing, they currently do not measure to quantify the EPO substance itself when they are testing to detect EPO. GET IT???





EPO testing is not based on measuring the amount of EPO itself. Although there are "measurements" that are used for testing purposes. Well, ABP as well has "measurements".

Initially, only the hematological biomarkers had been validated by WADA for the ABP. Hematological biomarkers that are measured and can be used for blood profiling include hemoglobin, hematocrit, red blood cell count, reticulocyte number, reticulocyte percentage, mean corpuscular volume, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration and OFF-score.

3) You freaking kept on posting about "threshold substance" remember? Does that mean that we agreed to that? NO!!!


4) WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE! You are trying to find any VAGUE way instead of doing what I told you to do!!!! You even omitted my response!!!






Now back to doing what I told you!


Go to the start of the thread and find out what we omitted. That is, what we BOTH agreed to exclude in our debate.


If my statement is "VAGUE", what I am telling you is like what I did in this thread for this other challenge.



Read below. Did you say this?:

GOOD LUCK PROVING THAT A NON-THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE RELIES ON THRESHOLD TESTS...YOU MORON!!!

Fair statement:
Even though you made the above statement, instead of me playing "GOT YOU GAMES", I told you that I will accept that you want to omit that from the debate.


Same goes with ABP testing. You asked if we can omit that and I agreed.

That way, it is NOT VAGUE. It is clear from BOTH parties what we AGREED to omit. Anything else that YOU or I wish to exclude after the fact or you or I said beforehand is too late!!! The time to agree is then and there only.



Is that FAIR and CLEAR???

So with that being said, AGAIN, go find what we BOTH agreed to exclude from the debate?



CAN YOU DO THAT SIMPLE TASK, TRAVESTYNY???



Is this CLEAR enough for you or are you still thinking that it is too VAGUE?





ARE YOU UP TO THE 2 CHALLENGES?


YES BOTH!!!!!


LETs GET IT ON!!!!!!






This is embarrassing Travestyny, we are on 34+ pages. It is time to be a man, son!!!!


STOP THE DEFLECTIONs, THE LIES, THE CHEATING and NOW THE FREAKING CRYING!!!!

from

.

[travestyny]

Are you serious? That post does NOT make your post right.


1) How did I respond?




2)
You said this


While they wish they can do that, they cannot accurately do that(Measure EPO)! While they do use quantifiable data for EPO testing, they currently do not measure to quantify the EPO substance itself when they are testing to detect EPO. GET IT???





EPO testing is not based on measuring the amount of EPO itself. Although there are "measurements" that are used for testing purposes. Well, ABP as well has "measurements".








3) You freaking kept on posting about "threshold substance" remember? Does that mean that we agreed to that? NO!!!


4) WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE! You are trying to find any VAGUE way instead of doing what I told you to do!!!! You even omitted my response!!!






Now back to doing what I told you!


Go to the start of the thread and find out what we omitted. That is, what we BOTH agreed to exclude in our debate.


If my statement is "VAGUE", what I am telling you is like what I did in this thread for this other challenge.



Read below. Did you say this?:


Fair statement:
Even though you made the above statement, instead of me playing "GOT YOU GAMES", I told you that I will accept that you want to omit that from the debate.


Same goes with ABP testing. You asked if we can omit that and I agreed.

That way, it is NOT VAGUE. It is clear from BOTH parties what we AGREED to omit. Anything else that YOU or I wish to exclude after the fact or you or I said beforehand is too late!!! The time to agree is then and there only.



Is that FAIR and CLEAR???

So with that being said, AGAIN, go find what we BOTH agreed to exclude from the debate?



CAN YOU DO THAT SIMPLE TASK, TRAVESTYNY???



Is this CLEAR enough for you or are you still thinking that it is too VAGUE?





ARE YOU UP TO THE 2 CHALLENGES?


YES BOTH!!!!!


LETs GET IT ON!!!!!!






This is embarrassing Travestyny, we are on 34+ pages. It is time to be a man, son!!!!


STOP THE DEFLECTIONs, THE LIES, THE CHEATING and NOW THE FREAKING CRYING!!!!


.

SHUT THE FVVCK UP ALREADY. YOU LOST. YOU KNOW YOU LOST. YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO LIE ABOUT GETTING YOUR ASS KICKED FROM A YEAR AGO. YOU HAVE NOWHERE TO TURN.

1. You made it clear that the scope was the TD2014EPO document.

A. You said so clearly here:

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."

AND HERE IN YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT, SON. LET'S SEE WHO TRIED TO BACK STEP!!!!!!

3) With current testing, you cannot find out the concentration amount of synthetic EPO for a given urine sample. Due to that, they are relying on different types of testing that tries to distinguish between natural and synthetic EPO. If they can clearly make that distinction then its a positive for the synthetic EPO substance. Although even this currently existing testing protocol can sometimes be controversial. There is a CUT OFF LINE (threshold) where a BAND must cross over. Sometimes, the BAND crossed over this CUT OFF LINE ever so slightly. This usually occurs when there is very little distinction between the naturally occurring EPO vs the synthetic. WADA calls this a "mixed band".
.

B. You stated that the TD2009EPO document was OUT OF 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.

LOOK AT YOU TRYING TO BACKTRACK. I LET YOU BACKTRACK OFF OF SAYING EPO IS A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE (SOMETHING THAT YOU STILL REFUSE TO ADMIT THAT YOU DID, BUT YOU WON'T ACCEPT A CHALLENGE ON THAT, WILL YOU????). SO SHUT THE FVVCK UP. I TOLD YOU. I'M NOT LETTING YOU OFF THE HOOK FROM YOUR DEBT, NOR AM I LETTING YOU TRY TO CHANGE THE SCOPE UP AGAIN, WHICH YOU ACCUSED ME OF TRYING TO DO. HOW DOES IT FEEL TO HAVE YOUR NECK IN THAT NOOSE????

2. NO, this was NOT about the athlete biological passport.

You are a desperate squirming piece of ****. It is already established that this is about target testing for EPO....WHICH IS WHY YOU STATED OVER AND OVER THAT THE DOCUMENT USED FOR TARGET TESTING EPO IS THE SCOPE!!!! AND IT'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED WHICH DOCUMENT YOU MEANT. SCROLL UP AND FIND TD2014 EPO AGAIN IN YOUR QUOTE!!!

A. THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT DOES NOT MENTION THE ABP THE WAY YOU STATED IT DOES!

AFTER YOU WERE DOWN 2-0, YOU TRIED TO DEFLECT AND SAY BUT BUT BUT...THE ATHLETE BIOLOGICAL PASSPORT HAS THRESHOLDS AND IS USED. That's when you started pushing this hard. Before that, the only thing you said was a FALSE statement.

EPO technical document states that even a negative direct test can still come back positive if the athletes Biological Passport shows a significant change as their haematological test results

A NEGATIVE DIRECT TEST DOES NOT MAGICALLY BECOME POSITIVE YOU MORON. HOW CAN A NEGATIVE DIRECT TEST BECOME POSITIVE BASED ON....AN INDIRECT TEST???????? YOU ARE AN IMBECILE. THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT NEVER SAYS THAT. THE ONLY THING IT SAYSS IS THAT THE DATA USED IN TESTING CAN BE ADDED TO THE ABP AND OTHER INFORMATION IN A GENERAL CONTEXT AS EVIDENCE OF A RULE VIOLATION.

PROOF THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT EVEN YOU POINTED OUT AS BEING THE ONLY RELEVANT ONE IN THE DEBATE DOES NOT SAY THE ABP CAN MAKE THE DIRECT TEST FOR EPO POSITIVE!

Provisions 3.2 and 6.2 of the Code allow the use of results to establish profile of doping by Athletes. Thus, even if the results of EPO analysis are reported as negative by a Laboratory on the basis of IEF and/or SDS/SAR-PAGE analysis, information contained in the analysis combined with other information (e.g. blood variables, longitudinal profiles, testimonies) may remain relevant in a more general context to establish anti-doping rule violations.

The only thing it's saying is even if the result is negative, the data from it can still be used in a general context in the future! Nothing about the ABP testing for EPO. Point out where there it says there that the direct test can also be positive if the ABP is used???? Your ABP bullshlt is DONE!

THE ABP DOES NOT FIND EPO, NOR DOES IT SEEK TO FIND IT. GIVE UP!

B. FINAL PROOF THAT THIS WAS NOT ABOUT THE ATHLETE BIOLOGICAL PASSPORT:

SQUIRM OUT OF THIS, BlTCH!

1) EPO testing has thresholds for substances that vary depending on the action of the drug, and whether it occurs naturally, among other reasons. EPO occurs naturally in the body, in addition to when it is taken by an athlete. Threshold testing data must show artificial EPO specifically.

YOU HAVE LIED, DEFLECTED, AND BULLSHlTTED YOUR BEST BUT IT DIDN'T WORK 1.5 YEARS AGO AND IT'S NOT WORKING NOW. PAY YOUR FUVVCKING DEBT. IF YOU WANT A REMATCH AFTER YOU PAY YOUR DEBT, NO PROBLEM. I'LL KICK YOUR ASS IN ONE POST AND YOU KNOW IT.

HERE IT IS AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE SO THAT YOU CAN STOP YOUR SQUIRMING. THE BELOW IS WHAT YOU AGREED TO AND I HAVE PROOF THAT YOU AGREED TO THIS, WHICH I'VE REVEALED ABOVE AND HERE:

• YOU STATED THE SCOPE IS THE 2014EPO DOCUMENT WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT TARGET TESTING FOR EPO (and does NOT say the test for EPO comes back positive based on the ABP at all!),
  
• you stated in your initial statement that the threshold criteria must show EPO specifically, revealing that you knew it was about target testing,
  
• AND YOU STATED THAT THE 2009 EPO DOCUMENT WAS OUT OF SCOPE.

THERE IS NO MORE EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO PROVE WHAT WAS THE AGREEMENT. IF YOU WANT A CHALLENGE ABOUT WHAT THE AGREEMENT WAS ON, WE CAN DO THAT, TOO. Billeau would be a perfect person for that debate. He can tell you about arguing in good faith. YOUR LISTS OF DUCKS IS ALREADY ASTRONOMICAL, SO WHO GIVES A FVVCK, RIGHT? ALL I HAVE TO DO IS SHOW PROOF OF HOW THIS STARTED (MAYWEATHER IV), SHOW YOUR DIRECT QUOTATIONS, AND THAT'S IT. YOU'RE DONE!

TOPIC: Did WADA labs circa May 2nd, 2015 target test for EPO using threshold criteria?

IF YOU DECLINE THIS, THEN BOOM! YOUR MAYWEATHER CONSPIRACY THEORY JUST WENT UP IN SMOKE!!!!!! WHICH WE KNOW IT DID ANYWAY, YOU FOOL. Don't let Pacquaio down, bro!!!!!!


THE WAGER:
1. PERMANENT BAN!
2. ALL POINTS!
3. PERMANENT SIG CONTROL!


YOU WANT IN OR NOT? EVERYTHING I'VE SAID HAS BEEN VERIFIED, INCLUDING INFORMATION DIRECTLY FROM YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT THAT YOU ARE BACKING DOWN FROM LIKE A BROKE DlCK DOG! LET'S SEE WHICH ONE OF US HAS TO STEP BACK FROM THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, WHICH BILLEAU CLEARY STATED, WAS PUT IN PLACE SO NO ONE CAN CHANGE MIDSTREAM:

I will look at what you both wrote and try to make it direct and what you intend... I will of course be asking each of you if I am correct about what you mean when I go through what you wrote.

The reason it is important to simplify things is because it makes it very clear what your position is so nobody can make changes midstream, or so there are no misunderstandings...you guys already had a misunderstanding about the topic yes? and thats cool...it happens that way for a reason, and its important to get past that with a good solid, clear understanding of each individual's point of view, and... not where you THINK the difference of opinion lays, but what the ACTUAL difference of opinion is, based on what you wrote, NOT on what you think the other person believes.

So let's see who got run off their position, shall we? IF YOU WANT IN, PASS ME THE POINTS THAT YOU OWE ALREADY FROM GETTING YOUR ASS KICKED 4-0 AND THEN WE GET THE JUDGES. IF YOU DON'T WANT IN, PASS ME THE POINTS YOU OWE FROM GETTING YOUR ASS KICKED 4-0 AND SHUT THE FVVCK UP.

ACCEPT OR DECLINE? I'LL WAIT.

[Spoon23]

Are you serious? That post does NOT make your post right.


1) How did I respond?




2)
You said this


While they wish they can do that, they cannot accurately do that(Measure EPO)! While they do use quantifiable data for EPO testing, they currently do not measure to quantify the EPO substance itself when they are testing to detect EPO. GET IT???





EPO testing is not based on measuring the amount of EPO itself. Although there are "measurements" that are used for testing purposes. Well, ABP as well has "measurements".








3) You freaking kept on posting about "threshold substance" remember? Does that mean that we agreed to that? NO!!!


4) WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE! You are trying to find any VAGUE way instead of doing what I told you to do!!!! You even omitted my response!!!






Now back to doing what I told you!


Go to the start of the thread and find out what we omitted. That is, what we BOTH agreed to exclude in our debate.


If my statement is "VAGUE", what I am telling you is like what I did in this thread for this other challenge.



Read below. Did you say this?:


Fair statement:
Even though you made the above statement, instead of me playing "GOT YOU GAMES", I told you that I will accept that you want to omit that from the debate.


Same goes with ABP testing. You asked if we can omit that and I agreed.

That way, it is NOT VAGUE. It is clear from BOTH parties what we AGREED to omit. Anything else that YOU or I wish to exclude after the fact or you or I said beforehand is too late!!! The time to agree is then and there only.



Is that FAIR and CLEAR???

So with that being said, AGAIN, go find what we BOTH agreed to exclude from the debate?



CAN YOU DO THAT SIMPLE TASK, TRAVESTYNY???



Is this CLEAR enough for you or are you still thinking that it is too VAGUE?





ARE YOU UP TO THE 2 CHALLENGES?


YES BOTH!!!!!


LETs GET IT ON!!!!!!






This is embarrassing Travestyny, we are on 34+ pages. It is time to be a man, son!!!!


STOP THE DEFLECTIONs, THE LIES, THE CHEATING and NOW THE FREAKING CRYING!!!!

from

.

lol

Travesty all bark no action lost her imaginary balls again.. Geez, can't even handle a premise that you had agreed a long time ago. Pathetic. Just pathetic.

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/MlbV8pZD1LyVO/*****.gif[/IMG]

[travestyny]

lol

Travesty all bark no action lost her imaginary balls again.. Geez, can't even handle a premise that you had agreed a long time ago. Pathetic. Just pathetic.

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/MlbV8pZD1LyVO/*****.gif[/IMG]

Oh really.


Let's see if your boy barks on that rematch that he been ducking


And let's see you defend yourself about Mayweather BEATING Pacquiao. LMAOOOOOOO!!!


Oops. He read it and logged out.

[Spoon23]

Oh really.


Let's see if your boy barks on that rematch that he been ducking


And let's see you defend yourself about Mayweather BEATING Pacquiao. LMAOOOOOOO!!!


Oops. He read it and logged out.

lmao

You can't even remembered how I fuvked you up so many times you lost your memory from post traumatic stress hahaha!! Try handling my gate keeper first, before talking big again. You have a long way to go. You are not even in ADP02s league. Take it easy chump.

ARE YOU UP TO THE 2 CHALLENGES?


YES BOTH!!!!!


LETs GET IT ON!!!!!!






This is embarrassing Travestyny, we are on 34+ pages. It is time to be a man, son!!!!


STOP THE DEFLECTIONs, THE LIES, THE CHEATING and NOW THE FREAKING CRYING!!!!

from

.

[ADP02]

Oh really.


Let's see if your boy barks on that rematch that he been ducking


And let's see you defend yourself about Mayweather BEATING Pacquiao. LMAOOOOOOO!!!


Oops. He read it and logged out.

So all you did was do the opposite of what I said. Do you misinterpret everything that you read?

I explained it so even a moron would be able to understand this.

Look at the subject of this thread. We would be debating that all non threshold substances cannot have thresholds. Only way out of that is by way of an agreement between the two of us.



You know you cannot come up with a statement of agreement between us that says what you said. So you need to make one up!

You did what you are trying to do now even once we had started that debate even when it conflicted with your original statements. So I am not surprised by you and your cheating ways. The best proof of that is when you tried to remove screening/presumptive testing from the equation. There were no agreements but we argued on that for a while. The cheat actually had said the opposite in his initial statements!!! That should have been a DQ right there!!!


As I said, go look at what you stated in your posts. Did you not state about epo and Wada documents? Meaning multiple documents where epo is mentioned? Well wada documents state that direct and indirect tests complement each other. This is mentioned in several wada documents!! But you already know that DEFLECTOR. Oops!

ABP indirect ePO test is often used to screen for epo direct test. And as stated, direct and indirect data can be used to build their case against the athlete. Or ABP on its own can prove by way of strong evidence that the athlete used EPO. Remember when you said that was not true? I showed you a case to prove that !!!

Even the technical document mentions ABP testing. Sorry.

Anyways the only thing that mattered is what we agreed to exclude. So as I said, go find what we agreed to exclude. You seem to be doing anything but that DEFLECTOR!!!!

Why is that agreement between us 2 important? So you cannot come back with these non-agreed BS EXCUSES. DUCKER!!!

[travestyny]

So all you did was do the opposite of what I said. Do you misinterpret everything that you read?

I explained it so even a moron would be able to understand this.

Look at the subject of this thread. We would be debating that all non threshold substances cannot have thresholds. Only way out of that is by way of an agreement between the two of us.



You know you cannot come up with a statement of agreement between us that says what you said. So you need to make one up!

You did what you are trying to do now even once we had started that debate even when it conflicted with your original statements. So I am not surprised by you and your cheating ways. The best proof of that is when you tried to remove screening/presumptive testing from the equation. There were no agreements but we argued on that for a while. The cheat actually had said the opposite in his initial statements!!! That should have been a DQ right there!!!


As I said, go look at what you stated in your posts. Did you not state about epo and Wada documents? Meaning multiple documents where epo is mentioned? Well wada documents state that direct and indirect tests complement each other. This is mentioned in several wada documents!! But you already know that DEFLECTOR. Oops!

ABP indirect ePO test is often used to screen for epo direct test. And as stated, direct and indirect data can be used to build their case against the athlete. Or ABP on its own can prove by way of strong evidence that the athlete used EPO. Remember when you said that was not true? I showed you a case to prove that !!!

Even the technical document mentions ABP testing. Sorry.

Anyways the only thing that mattered is what we agreed to exclude. So as I said, go find what we agreed to exclude. You seem to be doing anything but that DEFLECTOR!!!!

Why is that agreement between us 2 important? So you cannot come back with these non-agreed BS EXCUSES. DUCKER!!!

This destroys you.


Let’s see. Did you say this:

1. For EPO testing, please refer to the following WADA document:
"WADA Technical Document – TD2014EPO*-*

2. With current testing…..(in your initial statement)

3. WHILE OUT OF SCOPE (in reference to the 2009 document)

4. Threshold testing data must show artificial EPO specifically. (in your initial statement)


You can't fool me, son. In fact, you can't fool anyone else either. I told you we can call on Billeau to look at all of this shlt. I'm sure you dont' want that. We can call on Zaroku. We can call on Willy Wanker. Hell. We can even ask Montana but I guess you wouldn't like that. You got caught out there. You don't want to accept it because it hurts you to much to accept you legit lost. You're the only one who has to back off of his initial statement. You know it and I know it.

You lost 4-0. It's clear that you want to cheat, but you can't get out of it. You're a loser. That's the bottom line. You declined once again, and you have no comeback.


When you explain how "out of scope" means "not out of scope," then maybe I'll believe you're not a cheating scumbag.


And lastly.......your Mayweather EPO conspiracy theory has been demolished. Sorry, son. It's over.


We both know why you declined and can't even accept your own initial statement anymore.


So long chump. Give me my points and bow down. It's over.

4-0!!!!!!

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

ps. Don't write to me again unless you can explain how "not in scope" means "in scope"

[travestyny]

lmao

You can't even remembered how I fuvked you up so many times you lost your memory from post traumatic stress hahaha!! Try handling my gate keeper first, before talking big again. You have a long way to go. You are not even in ADP02s league. Take it easy chump.

I told you your boy would decline


Ask him if he still believes in his initial statement for that debate. When he squirms, you can get on your knees and suck him off until he stops crying

[ADP02]

This destroys you.


Let’s see. Did you say this:

1. For EPO testing, please refer to the following WADA document:
"WADA Technical Document – TD2014EPO*-*

2. With current testing…..(in your initial statement)

3. WHILE OUT OF SCOPE (in reference to the 2009 document)

4. Threshold testing data must show artificial EPO specifically. (in your initial statement)


You can't fool me, son. In fact, you can't fool anyone else either. I told you we can call on Billeau to look at all of this shlt. I'm sure you dont' want that. We can call on Zaroku. We can call on Willy Wanker. Hell. We can even ask Montana but I guess you wouldn't like that. You got caught out there. You don't want to accept it because it hurts you to much to accept you legit lost. You're the only one who has to back off of his initial statement. You know it and I know it.

You lost 4-0. It's clear that you want to cheat, but you can't get out of it. You're a loser. That's the bottom line. You declined once again, and you have no comeback.


When you explain how "out of scope" means "not out of scope," then maybe I'll believe you're not a cheating scumbag.


And lastly.......your Mayweather EPO conspiracy theory has been demolished. Sorry, son. It's over.


We both know why you declined and can't even accept your own initial statement anymore.


So long chump. Give me my points and bow down. It's over.

4-0!!!!!!

ps. Don't write to me again unless you can explain how "not in scope" means "in scope"

I was hoping that you would have finally gone and verified what you agreed to but as I thought, you instead DEFLECTED AGAIN!!!!


Look, YOU have done this before and you are doing the same now. I said this many times over. You are going thru a document of 100 pages to find anything that can stick BUT I explained it to you several posts ago that that is NOT the way it works nor should it work that way. We made a clear agreement. It was a simple agreement. We even defined what was out of scope even though you kept on muddying the waters and constantly making it seem that we were discussing "threshold susbtances" when we were NOT.


SO what was the SCOPE and agreed exclusions? By agreed, I mean a post where we both state that you and I agree to exclude an item. You cannot find that except for what I just said about "threshold susbtances"



SO THAT IS WHY YOU DEFLECT FROM MY SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!!





Here is what you and I agreed on:

ADP02

The test (T/E 4/1 RATIO) is a SCREENING test which is different than a CONFIRMATORY test and its NOT about a substance surpassing a given threshold .... but AGAIN, is that a threshold type test? YOU BET!



Its simple. Can or does EPO testing go thru threshold type tests?

It's up to you. No pressure.

You can either go ahead and start this or say that you didn't understand my point and have no beef with my statement .... I will not hold it against you either way. Its up to you.

ADP02
Are you fine with my post? Let me know ...

travestyny

Yes, I'm fine with it.

1) So what you agreed to was my post which said "Can" and "Does".


AND more importantly is that,


you, Travestyny, have been consistent with that or am I lying to you(read below)?


RESPOND DEFLECTOR!!!!



Even now, you still believe that WADA didn't ever have threshold type test because , ACCORDING TO YOU, a CAS panel said there never can be a threshold type test for anything related to EPO testing.

You even used the CAS Panel's statement in the first debate to get at least Willy Wanker to vote for you and possibly other judges.


Due to your consistent statements that you repeated to me a "million" then later a "billion" times, then you should have no problem with agreeing to this even today. Right?






2) Do you see my example? I stated T/E 4/1 RATIO is a SCREENING test.

You had no problem with any of that and agreed!!! On top of that, you have yet to find us agreeing to exclude this!

ABP has T/E RATIO threshold test criteria!!!!



3) Remember when you tried LIE and CHEAT by changing the scope to just the confirmatory test AFTER the fact?

I have pages and pages of your BS on that!

You said this BS LIE to the judges, me and also posters who had no idea what was going on when we were chatting about this.

What you did then you are doing now!!!!

That is, getting different quotes to make it appear that the scope was what you said. You made it appear as believable as possible to the judges in which you thought wouldn't bother even reading 100 pages anyways. So you constantly muddied the waters!!!!

I posted above what we agreed to. We also agreed to exclude "threshold susbtances" that is it!!! There was no other agreement between us two.




ARE YOU UP TO THE 2 CHALLENGES?


YES BOTH!!!!!


LETs GET IT ON!!!!!!






This is embarrassing Travestyny, we are on 34+ pages. It is time to be a man, son!!!!


STOP THE DEFLECTIONs, THE LIES, THE CHEATING and NOW THE FREAKING CRYING!!!!

from

.

[travestyny]

SO what was the SCOPE and agreed exclusions? By agreed, I mean a post where we both state that you and I agree to exclude an item. You cannot find that except for what I just said about "threshold susbtances"

You're still going?


Explain your understanding of the scope with regards to this:

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.

So did you believe it to be out of scope? Yes or no? Answer the question and stop ducking it.


IF YOU KEEP UP BLATANTLY LYING, I'M GOING TO TAG EVERY LAST ONE OF THE JUDGES TO COME IN HERE AND LAUGH AT YOU, YOU LITTLE BlTCH!