Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

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!

SINCE YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO CHANGE THE SCOPE. LET'S LET THE JUDGES LOOK AT OUR EVIDENCE ABOUT THE SCOPE AND SEE WHAT THE SCOPE WAS. AGREED???? LET'S SEE IF THEY AGREE WITH YOU THAT THOUGH YOU STATED WHAT WAS OUT OF SCOPE, YOU REALLY MEANT THAT IT WAS IN SCOPE. LET'S SEE IF THEY AGREE THAT YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT CAN BE THROWN AWAY AND THAT YOU CAN DEFLECT TO THE ABP. ARE YOU DOWN????


ACCEPT THIS CHALLENGE AND GET MURDERED AGAIN ABOUT THE SAME THING, BlTCH. I'M TIRED OF YOU RUNNING YOUR MOUTH ABOUT THIS SHlT. STOP DUCKING AND HIDING AND ACCEPT IT SO YOU CAN LOSE 8-0 INSTEAD OF 4-0. AND I SEE THAT THE MODS ARE NOW BANNING PEOPLE FOR WELCHING ON BETS. I'M GOING TO TAG EVERY LAST ONE OF THE MODS WHEN YOU LOSE AGAIN SO YOUR LOSS CAN BE ENFORCED YOU TWAT.

YOU BETTER NOT DUCK IT BlTCH. I TAUGHT YOU A LESSON BEFORE AND THIS TIME I'M GOING TO TEACH YOU A PERMANENT LESS.

IF YOU DECLINE, DON'T SAY SHlT TO ME AGAIN. IF YOU TALK ABOUT THE SCOPE THAT YOU ARE DUCKING, I'M GOING TO TAG ALL OF THE JUDGES AND EMBARRASS YOU.

ACCEPT OR DECLINE. I'M WAITING.

[travestyny]

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.

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

YOU'RE GONNA GET HUMILIATED WITH JUST ONE POST, YOU BlTCH. STEP THE FVVCK UP RIGHT NOW. I'M TAGGING ALL OF THE JUDGES TO EMBARRASS YOU AGAIN. I DARE YOU TO ACCEP THAT CHALLENGE. I'M GOING TO THROW UP YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT THAT YOU'RE DUCKING AND I'M GOING TO EMBARRASS YOU.

WHAT'S UP PVSSY. YOU WANT A 90 PAGE THREAD. IT'S NOT HAPPENING. I'M GOING TO BEHEAD YOU WITH ONE DAMN POST. STEP THE FVVCK UP RIGHT NOW OR FOREVER BE A BlTCH!

[travestyny]

I'm going to set up a thread for permanent ban right now. Tell me, are you ok with your initial statement or not??????

ok, i added more because you mentioned about giving a statement about wada. I removed that.

here is the updated version:

note that my argument involves more information and proof regarding the test and procedures related to epo testing.

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.

2) the resulting data is validated against specific threshold criteria, when artificial epo, in relation to naturally occurring epo, exceeds threshold limits.

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".


.

you still good with this???? Yes or no?

[travestyny]

LETs GET IT ON!!!!!![/SIZE][/B]

WHAT'S TAKING YOU SO LONG? LET'S LET THE JUDGES DECIDE BASED ON THE PROOF IF YOU MEANT TESTING FROM ANY YEAR SINCE WADA WAS ESTABLISHED OR IF YOU MEANT PRESENT DAY TESTING AND THAT IS JUST A DEFLECTION. Do you agree?



LET'S LET THE JUDGES DECIDE ON IF YOU MEANT THE ABP OR IF THAT IS A DEFLECTION. Agree??????


LET'S LET THE JUDGES DECIDE IF WE SHOULD USE THE SAME INTIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE REMATCH. DO YOU AGREE????

I'm sure they can shed some light on who is lying and squirming and who is telling the truth. What do you think? ARE YOU DOWN WITH LETTING THE JUDGES DECIDE THIS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE???? THEN WE PROCEED TO THE ALL POINTS PERMANENT BAN REMATCH. AGREED?

[ADP02]

You're still going?


Explain your understanding of the scope with regards to this:




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!

DEFLECTOR, see below what we agreed on. You didn't even respond. So what I said must be true!!!!! Well, because it is!!!!!


Yes, you were trying to make everything OUT OF SCOPE for me yet, you were OK with bringing up cases/documents and making it sound like the document/case was actually discussing something against me but in fact, it was the opposite. After I explained your mistakes, ONLY then you would turtle back in retreat and say, it is not in scope.



DEFLECTOR, below is what you and I agreed on!!!!


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]

deflector, see below what we agreed on. You didn't even respond. so what i said must be true!!!!! well, because it is!!!!!


yes, you were trying to make everything out of scope for me yet, you were ok with bringing up cases/documents and making it sound like the document/case was actually discussing something against me but in fact, it was the opposite. After i explained your mistakes, only then you would turtle back in retreat and say, it is not in scope.



deflector, below is what you and i agreed on!!!!


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:












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

.

what's taking you so long? let's let the judges decide based on the proof if you meant testing from any year since wada was established or if you meant present day testing and that is just a deflection. Do you agree?



let's let the judges decide on if you meant the abp or if that is a deflection. Agree??????


let's let the judges decide if we should use the same intial statements for the rematch. Do you agree????

i'm sure they can shed some light on who is lying and squirming and who is telling the truth. What do you think? are you down with letting the judges decide this based on the evidence???? Then we proceed to the all points permanent ban rematch. Agreed?

agree or not?

[travestyny]

stop the deflections, the lies, the cheating and now the freaking crying!!!![/b]
.

so you agree to let the judges decide which one of us is trying to cheat? Yes or no? I'm waiting, adp02. Let's have the judges look over the evidence and decide who is trying to cheat and who isn't.


Do you agree. Yes or no?

[travestyny]

Come on, pvssy. You been calling me a cheater for a year and a half. Let's see who the cheater is. Let's have the judges review the information. You show your information and i show mine.

Let's see if they believe you when you said there was no limitation, but also said 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.

what do you think? Do you think they will side with you that you believed this to be about wada from 1999 or did you mean present day testing. What do you think, adp.


And why didn't you accept the challenge. Is it you that couldn't find your balls? I'm still waiting.


Do you want the judges to decide who is lying and who isn't. I think it's fair. What about you? Are you actually going to answer or tuck your clit into your vagina??? We have a difference of opinion. Let's let the judges decide. Agree??????

[ADP02]

I'm going to set up a thread for permanent ban right now. Tell me, are you ok with your initial statement or not??????

you still good with this???? Yes or no?

Do you want me to or were you expecting me to include ALL of the information in that statement? Remember the NOTE!!!!

note that my argument involves more information and proof regarding the test and procedures related to epo testing.

BTW - I posted what you and I agreed to!!!! It had NOTHING to do with your statement!!!! You still posted that VAGUE statement.


The only thing that stood out is that you too agree that we can look at WADA documents to verify EPO threshold type tests!!! You said that you didn't see any. I will verify and post them for you, blind man!!!


Even funnier is this:
Your "statement" was 99% on threshold substances. Does that mean that the scope was on threshold susbtances? Those statements had nothing to do with what we agreed on!!!! WTF!!!!

Here is my statement submitted again.


WADA procedures and documents make it clear that threshold substances are identified and have a pre-determined, specific reading for all substances tested. A high reading for any of these determined substance constitutes an adverse analytical finding.

There is a specific category of substances identified as threshold substances with one of the qualifying characteristics being to have a pre-determined specific reading the test is looking for.

If a substance is not found in testing documents for these category of substances, then it is NOT a threshold substance with the converse being true.

The term “threshold” or “decision limit” are not mentioned at all regarding EPO in WADA documents, because EPO is NOT a threshold substance.

[travestyny]

do you want me to or were you expecting me to include all of the information in that statement? remember the note!!!!





Btw - i posted what you and i agreed to!!!! it had nothing to do with your statement!!!! you still posted that vague statement.


the only thing that stood out is that you too agree that we can look at wada documents to verify epo threshold type tests!!! You said that you didn't see any. I will verify and post them for you, blind man!!!


even funnier is this:
your "statement" was 99% on threshold substances. Does that mean that the scope was on threshold susbtances? Those statements had nothing to do with what we agreed on!!!! Wtf!!!!

you are not answering the question, adp. We have a difference of agreement. Do you to have the judges check over our proof to see who is trying to cheat now? Yes or no?



You know exactly what an initial statement is. Of course it doesn't give all of the information. It gives a summary of the information, which is why you included the details later.


But your problem is that your initial statement says this:

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.

so now are you trying to say that the threshold testing data mustn't show artificial epo specifically? Hmmmmmmm. That's two contradictions. You are fvvcking up, pvssy. Do you want the judges to review the information and decide who is cheating? Yes or no????

let's see who is doing all the backtracking, hmmmm!!!!!!