Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

so the question is simple.

Judges, please find where we agreed to the terms of this debate. Also where we specifically both agreed to exclude something from the scope.

explain something to me without deflecting.

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.

why did you post the above if it was understood that all wada documents were in scope?

Something doesn't add up. I'm sure zaroku can vouch that you wrote pages and pages of how we have to stay in scope....but here you say clearly what was out of scope, and i agree with you that it was. Suddenly toward the end of that debate, that seemed to change for you. And it certainly has changed for you now.

SO TELL ME...WAS THIS UNDERSTOOD BY BOTH OF US...BUT SUDDENLY AFTER FINDING YOURSELF IN A HOLE, YOU WANTED TO CHANGE IT UP? WOULDN'T THAT BE...ARGUING IN BAD FAITH.


so did you believe it was in scope or not? If you can't answer, let's let the judges decide. Do you agree?

[ADP02]

You can phrase it to them any way you like. What I want to know is who was backing off of their statements, who was debating in bad faith, who is outright lying.

THAT'S SOME PRETTY SERIOUS SHlT, DON'T YOU THINK. YOU'VE ACCUSED ME OF CHEATING, LYING, DEFLECTING. LET'S SEE WHO WAS THE CULPRIT. DO YOU AGREE TO THAT FOR A PERMANENT BAN AND ALL POINTS????

Nice try. Backing off of their statements? Which one? Your final statement had 99% BS!!! WTF!


This needs to be based on what we agreed to. Not a statement where you wrote 99% BS nothingness!

We didn't agree to the opposing persons statements.

BUT we did agree to the topic. Your statement was just you saying threshold susbtances!!!

[travestyny]

The only thing relevant is that Travestyny said "WADA DOCUMENTS" are in scope!!!
.

ARE YOU LYING AGAIN?????????? THIS IS GOING TO BE ADDED TO MY EVIDENCE, JUST SO YOU KNOW.

the scope will be just about whether the EPO document has threshold criteria in the document.

I DON'T SEE AN "S" THERE, ADP.


But I do see something interesting here.

Again, the only document that is relevant here is the 2014 document on testing for EPO. That's IT!!!!

Hmmmmm. SOMEONE IS LYING!

[travestyny]

Nice try. Backing off of their statements? Which one? Your final statement had 99% BS!!! WTF!


This needs to be based on what we agreed to. Not a statement where you wrote 99% BS nothingness!

We didn't agree to the opposing persons statements.

BUT we did agree to the topic. Your statement was just you saying threshold susbtances!!!

DID I BACK OFF OF MY STATEMENT OR DID YOU? MY STATEMENT WAS VERIFIED DURING THE DEBATE. Your statement WAS DESTROYED AND THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T WANT TO USE IT ANYMORE. IS THAT ARGUING IN GOOD FAITH?????

ARE YOU DENYING THIS. OR DO YOU NEED A JUDGE TO VERIFY?

[ADP02]

explain something to me without deflecting.




why did you post the above if it was understood that all wada documents were in scope?

Something doesn't add up. I'm sure zaroku can vouch that you wrote pages and pages of how we have to stay in scope....but here you say clearly what was out of scope, and i agree with you that it was. Suddenly toward the end of that debate, that seemed to change for you. And it certainly has changed for you now.

SO TELL ME...WAS THIS UNDERSTOOD BY BOTH OF US...BUT SUDDENLY AFTER FINDING YOURSELF IN A HOLE, YOU WANTED TO CHANGE IT UP? WOULDN'T THAT BE...ARGUING IN BAD FAITH.


so did you believe it was in scope or not? If you can't answer, let's let the judges decide. Do you agree?

I already told you a few posts ago!!!

You kept on saying that it was OUT OF SCOPE when it suited you, remember?

BUT you often started your comments like it was "IN SCOPE" during your posts. AFTER I correct you, then it is "OUT OF SCOPE".

You made BAP of 2003 and WADA 2004 in SCOPE ….. I didn't have time to convince WILLY WANKER so you were fine with that.

So now, we are supposed to not have that in scope? WTF!!!!! See the problem we have here?



You stayed consistently until now.



YET, you want judges to hope that we do not discuss that? WTF!!!!!

The more I think about it, no can do! You liked it then, you gotta like it now! and you did double down on that. So what gives?????


That is a huge roadblock!!!!!



.
.

.



.

.

[travestyny]

More proof, ADP. You're not going to do too well in this challenge!

I guess that I'm OK with statements 1 and 2. Statement #3 needs to be clarified.


3) With the currently WADA approved testing protocol,.......

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."


BUT the above should not be confused with my point. My point was about EPO testing includes specific threshold criteria that must be passed in order to conclude a positive result.
.

EPO TESTING HAS THRESHOLDS THAT MUST BE PASSED FOR A POSITIVE RESULT???? DOES THE ABP RETURN A POSITIVE RESULT FOR EPO TESTING? ATHLETES HAVE GET A NEGATIVE FROM EPO TESTING BUT CAN STILL HAVE AN ADVERSE PASSPORT FINDING. THE ABP DOESN'T SAY THAT THE TEST FOR EPO WAS POSITIVE.


ARE YOU GOING TO BACK OFF THIS STATEMENT TOO????

[travestyny]

I already told you a few posts ago!!!

You kept on saying that it was OUT OF SCOPE when it suited you, remember?

BUT you often started your comments like it was "IN SCOPE" during your posts. AFTER I correct you, then it is "OUT OF SCOPE".

You made BAP of 2003 and WADA 2004 in SCOPE ….. I didn't have time to convince WILLY WANKER so you were fine with that.

So now, we are supposed to not have that in scope? WTF!!!!! See the problem we have here?



You stayed consistently until now.



YET, you want judges to hope that we do not discuss that? WTF!!!!!

The more I think about it, no can do! You liked it then, you gotta like it now! and you did double down on that. So what gives?????


That is a huge roadblock!!!!!



.
.

.



.

.

WRONG. YOU ARE A LYING SCUMBAG. WHY ARE YOU DEFLECTING.


I ASKED YOU WHY YOU SAID IT WAS OUT OF SCOPE???? THAT'S ALL I WANT TO KNOW.



AS FOR THE 2004 DOCUMENT, READ IT AND WEEP!!!!!

If you look at that document from 2004 its similar to the recent one of 2014. At least in what I will bring up. They both bring up Isolectric Focusing (IEF).

1 - "In the basic area there must be at least 3 acceptable, consecutive bands assigned as 1, 2, 3 or 4 ...."
2 - "The 2 most intense bands either measured by densitometry or assessed visually in the basic area must be consecutive and the most intense band must be 1, 2 or 3"
3 - "The 2 most intense bands in the basic area must be MORE INTENSE than any other band in the endogenous area"

The above indicate thresholds that must be met ....... I will try to explain ....

DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT. THE EXACT CRITERIA THAT YOU WERE SAYING WERE THRESHOLDS STILL EXIST IN THE 2014 DOCUMENT. YOU STEPPED IN SHlT. YOU HAVE NO ESCAPE!!!!

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF WHY YOU LOST. IF YOU ARE ONLY JUST NOW UNDERSTANDING THAT, THEN YOU ARE FAR DUMBER THAN I THOUGHT. BUT YOUR'E NOT THAT DUMB. YOU KNEW THAT.

YOU WOULD RATHER PLAY ****** THAN ADMIT DEFEAT!

[travestyny]

FACE IT, ADP02, you have nowhere to turn. Every direction you go in, you get shut down.


It's time for you to admit that you lost, give over the points, and walk away. What you are doing is not respectable. You know you lost and it was legit. Even if you for some odd reason still don't believe you lost, you agreed to abide by the judges' decisions. But saying that I cheated, I manipulated, I did this and that. That's a bltch move.


Why can't you admit that you lost? The information is crystal clear. THIS SHOULD BE OVER. I'M TIRED OF YOU WRITING TO ME ABOUT THIS BULLSHlT. Look at all the shlt you lied about!

YOU EVEN CLAIMED THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MAYWEATHER'S IV. THAT'S SO OBVIOUSLY A LIE AND I WOULD LOVE TO BRING THAT UP TO JUDGES WHO WANT TO DECIDE WHO IS BEING DISHONEST HERE!


GIVE IT UP!!! Give up the points and walk away with an inch of dignity. This shlt was over NEARLY A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. STOP WELCHING, STOP LYING, STOP DEFLECTING, STOP BEING BUTTHURT, PAY YOUR DEBT AND WALK AWAY.

[ADP02]

ARE YOU LYING AGAIN?????????? THIS IS GOING TO BE ADDED TO MY EVIDENCE, JUST SO YOU KNOW.





I DON'T SEE AN "S" THERE, ADP.


But I do see something interesting here.





Hmmmmm. SOMEONE IS LYING!

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.

That last part of your statement is all we have about "threshold" but you do state WADA documents


While that statement of yours is false, you are stating that I can actually verify WADA documents with anything that is tested related to EPO. Whether it be direct or indirect. Furthermore, you are actually bringing up the other point of that only threshold susbtances CAN or DOES have threshold type criteria!!! Hmmm!


That is the way I am reading your statement.


Still, our statements are not an agreement. Its just a statement. There is a difference.

Example:
If in a statement, you or I just write "valid" information but it has nothing to do with our agreement then that is BS statement!






.

[ADP02]

ARE YOU LYING AGAIN?????????? THIS IS GOING TO BE ADDED TO MY EVIDENCE, JUST SO YOU KNOW.





I DON'T SEE AN "S" THERE, ADP.


But I do see something interesting here.





Hmmmmm. SOMEONE IS LYING!

WRONG. YOU ARE A LYING SCUMBAG. WHY ARE YOU DEFLECTING.


I ASKED YOU WHY YOU SAID IT WAS OUT OF SCOPE???? THAT'S ALL I WANT TO KNOW.



AS FOR THE 2004 DOCUMENT, READ IT AND WEEP!!!!!




DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT. THE EXACT CRITERIA THAT YOU WERE SAYING WERE THRESHOLDS STILL EXIST IN THE 2014 DOCUMENT. YOU STEPPED IN SHlT. YOU HAVE NO ESCAPE!!!!

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF WHY YOU LOST. IF YOU ARE ONLY JUST NOW UNDERSTANDING THAT, THEN YOU ARE FAR DUMBER THAN I THOUGHT. BUT YOUR'E NOT THAT DUMB. YOU KNEW THAT.

YOU WOULD RATHER PLAY ****** THAN ADMIT DEFEAT!

They are all similar documents if you put it that way. OK, we can use all WADA documents since they are all similar …. anyways, your BS "statement" says that too! So you are fine.


You are always fine, until you change your mind. Then it becomes, OUT OF SCOPE!!!!