Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

2. INITIAL STATEMENTS FROM THE FIRST DEBATE ARE TO BE UPHELD AND NOT BACKED AWAY FROM, AS PER THE ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS FROM BILLEAU.


WTF is this??

This is a new case. It's only the premise that is the same. All facts from the old kangaroo court is not admissible to court. You can present those facts again to the new judges, but is not accepted as truths. Only the new judges will decide if it is. Don't use the other court to save your sorry ass Travesty.

New Judges will look at facts presented in a new light. Previous banana court doesn't count.

Now quit biatchin' out Travesty. Accept the challenge. It's simple. ADP02 called you out in this thread. Call it biatch.

It's not a new case. IT'S A REMATCH, OR AN APPEAL. He is saying that the information he has affects the past debate, but he is unwilling to have a rematch because he knows it doesn't.


He was already caught in a lie.

So why don't you step into his place and accept the rematch that he won't, bltch.

Come on Spoon. Actually, you can join in on his side.


NEW CHALLENGE: SPOON AND ADP02 AGAINST. ME. PERMANENT BAN REMATCH OF ADP02 AND MY DEBATE!


YOU DOWN? DON'T BlTCH OUT, F@GGOT


BY THE WAY!!!!!

Only the new judges will decide if it is.

THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT YOU BUMBLING IDIOT. LMAOOOOOOO. ARE YOU TRYING TO HELP ADP02 OR HURT HIM. I WELCOME THIS. THE NEW JUDGES WILL DECIDE WHAT WAS THE SCOPE. RIGHT???? RIGHT?????

YOU DO REALIZE THAT YOUR BOY SAID THIS ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS THIS DEBATE TO BE ABOUT, RIGHT:

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. YOU ALWAYS TRY TO STICK YOUR NOSE INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S BUSINESS, AND YOU WIND UP GETTING THEM FUVVKED UP EVEN MORE. THANKS FOR SEEING IT MY WAY, SPOONY. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[travestyny]

You can present those facts again to the new judges, but is not accepted as truths. Only the new judges will decide if it is.

LOOK, ADP02, EVEN SPOON AGREES WITH ME.


NOW YOU HAVE NO REASON NOT TO ACCEPT THAT DEBATE REMATCH. YOUR LlTTLE BlTCH JUST CONFIRMED IT.


WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER?

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

[travestyny]

This will be my last post here unless you agree to the permanent ban/all points rematch that I proposed, which is BOTH FAIR and REASONABLE. IF NOT, PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT IS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE. I'LL BE WILLING TO LISTEN TO THAT CONVERSATION. The only thing it asks for is simply for judges to review the content of the debate and make decisions based on evidence. That you can't handle that makes it clear that you know you have no chance in a rematch. Now that that's out of the way.

Here's the only thing that's important for you to recognize.

THE REAL ISSUE AND WHY THIS IS OVER.

YOUR MAYWEATHER EPO CONSPIRACY THEORY: COMPLETE UTTER SHlT THAT WAS DESTROYED.

You said thresholds are not a factor for Floyd but that is not an accurate statement.
EPO, testosterone (T/E) ratios are a few naturally produced substances in humans in which Floyd could have been trying to hide. We know of low T/E ratios, rumors of positive results and the IV scandal.

So if GC/MS or whatever measures EPO values below a threshold[/COLOR], as an example, due to a 6 hour delay and drinking fluids plus an IV that diluted the urine sample just enough.
Its NOT being biased. that is a big deal.
.

JUST KEEP IT REAL, ADP. The debate destroyed your conspiracy theory. The urine is checked for dilution by the DCO AND by the WADA lab. The IV does not dilute EPO below a threshold value "just enough" because there is no threshold for EPO.

You now wanting to avoid talking about testing on May 2nd, 2015 makes it clear that the debate did exactly what it set out to do: destroy the bullshlt that you were trying to perpetuate!!!!

Your conspiracy theory went down the toilet.

But the problem is your pride won't let you accept that you lost, to the point that you'll even give up on your conspiracy theory just because you're so broken by the 4-0 loss.

Your conspiracy theory was dismantled, and so were you in that debate. There is nothing else to see here.

Give me the points that you owe. If not, don't contact me again, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY YOUR DEBT AND THEN FACE ME IN A REMATCH FOR PERMANENT BAN AND ALL POINTS ON THE LINE. I WILL ONLY RESPOND WHEN YOU MAN UP AND ACCEPT. OTHERWISE, CHOKE ON YOUR LOSS AND YOUR OBLITERATED CONSPIRACY THEORY YOU DISTRAUGHT, BUMBLING WENCH!

It's over.

NO MORE ATTENTION GIVEN TO A BET WELCHING, BUTTHURT, DESTROYED, LYING, DEFLECTING, WRETCHED BlTCH THAT CAN'T ACCEPT THAT 5 PEOPLE TOLD HIM HE IS WRONG AND ON ONE EVER TOLD HIM HE IS RIGHT, BUT HE CAN'T ACCEPT IT. HE WOULD RATHER SAY EVERYONE CHEATED AND WHEN ASKED TO PROVIDE PROOF, HE TUCKS HIS TAIL. WHEN ASKED IF HE WANTS A REMATCH, HE TUCKS HIS TAIL. GET THE FVVCK ON THEN, FELICIA. I WILL NOT GO 90 PAGES WITH YOU IN THIS THREAD.

4-0!!!!!!

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

SO IN YOUR NEXT RAMBLING RESPONSE (which hopefully says you will accept the permanent ban rematch), I SURE HOPE YOU CAN TELL ME: WAS YOUR MAYWEATHER EPO THEORY DESTROYED????

Prediction: You rot in here accusing everyone of cheating you in that debate while refusing to accept a fair rematch based on the contents of the debate.

This ends the same way it did 1.5 years ago!

R.I.P.

[ADP02]

This will be my last post here unless you agree to the permanent ban/all points rematch that I proposed, which is BOTH FAIR and REASONABLE. IF NOT, PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT IS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE. I'LL BE WILLING TO LISTEN TO THAT CONVERSATION. The only thing it asks for is simply for judges to review the content of the debate and make decisions based on evidence. That you can't handle that makes it clear that you know you have no chance in a rematch. Now that that's out of the way.

Here's the only thing that's important for you to recognize.

THE REAL ISSUE AND WHY THIS IS OVER.

YOUR MAYWEATHER EPO CONSPIRACY THEORY: COMPLETE UTTER SHlT THAT WAS DESTROYED.





JUST KEEP IT REAL, ADP. The debate destroyed your conspiracy theory. The urine is checked for dilution by the DCO AND by the WADA lab. The IV does not dilute EPO below a threshold value "just enough" because there is no threshold for EPO.

You now wanting to avoid talking about testing on May 2nd, 2015 makes it clear that the debate did exactly what it set out to do: destroy the bullshlt that you were trying to perpetuate!!!!

Your conspiracy theory went down the toilet.

But the problem is your pride won't let you accept that you lost, to the point that you'll even give up on your conspiracy theory just because you're so broken by the 4-0 loss.

Your conspiracy theory was dismantled, and so were you in that debate. There is nothing else to see here.

Give me the points that you owe. If not, don't contact me again, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY YOUR DEBT AND THEN FACE ME IN A REMATCH FOR PERMANENT BAN AND ALL POINTS ON THE LINE. I WILL ONLY RESPOND WHEN YOU MAN UP AND ACCEPT. OTHERWISE, CHOKE ON YOUR LOSS AND YOUR OBLITERATED CONSPIRACY THEORY YOU DISTRAUGHT, BUMBLING WENCH!

It's over.

NO MORE ATTENTION GIVEN TO A BET WELCHING, BUTTHURT, DESTROYED, LYING, DEFLECTING, WRETCHED BlTCH THAT CAN'T ACCEPT THAT 5 PEOPLE TOLD HIM HE IS WRONG AND ON ONE EVER TOLD HIM HE IS RIGHT, BUT HE CAN'T ACCEPT IT. HE WOULD RATHER SAY EVERYONE CHEATED AND WHEN ASKED TO PROVIDE PROOF, HE TUCKS HIS TAIL. WHEN ASKED IF HE WANTS A REMATCH, HE TUCKS HIS TAIL. GET THE FVVCK ON THEN, FELICIA. I WILL NOT GO 90 PAGES WITH YOU IN THIS THREAD.

4-0!!!!!!

SO IN YOUR NEXT RAMBLING RESPONSE (which hopefully says you will accept the permanent ban rematch), I SURE HOPE YOU CAN TELL ME: WAS YOUR MAYWEATHER EPO THEORY DESTROYED????

Prediction: You rot in here accusing everyone of cheating you in that debate while refusing to accept a fair rematch based on the contents of the debate.

1) Look bud, below I posted the quotes where you accepted and now you are DUCKING even a very simple question!!!


2) I looked up some of those points that you brought up.

You were often disagreeing with me. Now you want to agree with me about disagreeing with you???? WTF!!!


Other times you are either mistenterpreting or taking it out of context.

Finally, are you saying that you found comments that are off from what we agreed to as scope? Well, you are doing this even now, so what's new? LOL

OK, that is why this time I want us to be CLEAR and NOT VAGUE so we BOTH stick to the SCOPE that we AGREED to LAST TIME.



3) You yourself had in your statements and posts a lot of information. Then later on you said it wasn't about what you said!!! So let me know if we should or shouldn't use what you stated. You cannot have it both ways.



3) In your statement you said that there are no threshold type tests for EPO in WADA documentS


So we will be finding out if what you said is true in our next debate.





4) You specifically said a few posts into that thread that this is NOT about Floyd nor Manny but to see what WADA has to say about our debate.



5) Go read some of the comments in that thread. You were crying to stick to a document as soon as you saw my posts but then cried about changing the scope.

6) You brought up a case from 2003 that was mainly about pre-WADA. You got votes from the judges based on LIES and CHEATING from you and you know what I mean. I am still waiting for you to accept this challenge DUCKER!!!

7) Oh, and which WADA document was briefly mentioned in that case? WADA 2004 document!!!!

So do not even dare say that we can only use 2014 documents!!!!!

Do not dare say that we have to limit to a document after you did that!!!!

but as stating, there is something that *****s what you and I have to say anyways.



READ BELOW YOU AGREED TO THIS!!!!



This is my thread and I CHALLENGED YOU!!!!

So it is me that is waiting for you on the challenge.



OPTION 1: 1 CHALLENGE as I stated at the start of this thread.

OPTION 2: 2 CHALLENGES

- OLD CHALLENGE that based on the agreed SCOPE (stated below)
AND
- See OPTION 1 above



As for your question:
Well, I need to know your position because it is too VAGUE.



YOU ARE NOW DEFLECTING ON A QUESTION for at least the 4th TIME.



Simple question,
Did you take our agreement on the scope and agreement on the exclusion seriously when you were debating or were you basing it on something else?


Here is what you agreed to.

Originally Posted by ADP02

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.

.

[Spoon23]

1) Look bud, below I posted the quotes where you accepted and now you are DUCKING even a very simple question!!!


2) I looked up some of those points that you brought up.

You were often disagreeing with me. Now you want to agree with me about disagreeing with you???? WTF!!!


Other times you are either mistenterpreting or taking it out of context.

Finally, are you saying that you found comments that are off from what we agreed to as scope? Well, you are doing this even now, so what's new? LOL

OK, that is why this time I want us to be CLEAR and NOT VAGUE so we BOTH stick to the SCOPE that we AGREED to LAST TIME.



3) You yourself had in your statements and posts a lot of information. Then later on you said it wasn't about what you said!!! So let me know if we should or shouldn't use what you stated. You cannot have it both ways.



3) In your statement you said that there are no threshold type tests for EPO in WADA documentS


So we will be finding out if what you said is true in our next debate.





4) You specifically said a few posts into that thread that this is NOT about Floyd nor Manny but to see what WADA has to say about our debate.



5) Go read some of the comments in that thread. You were crying to stick to a document as soon as you saw my posts but then cried about changing the scope.

6) You brought up a case from 2003 that was mainly about pre-WADA. You got votes from the judges based on LIES and CHEATING from you and you know what I mean. I am still waiting for you to accept this challenge DUCKER!!!

7) Oh, and which WADA document was briefly mentioned in that case? WADA 2004 document!!!!

So do not even dare say that we can only use 2014 documents!!!!!

Do not dare say that we have to limit to a document after you did that!!!!

but as stating, there is something that *****s what you and I have to say anyways.



READ BELOW YOU AGREED TO THIS!!!!



This is my thread and I CHALLENGED YOU!!!!

So it is me that is waiting for you on the challenge.



OPTION 1: 1 CHALLENGE as I stated at the start of this thread.

OPTION 2: 2 CHALLENGES

- OLD CHALLENGE that based on the agreed SCOPE (stated below)
AND
- See OPTION 1 above



As for your question:
Well, I need to know your position because it is too VAGUE.



YOU ARE NOW DEFLECTING ON A QUESTION for at least the 4th TIME.



Simple question,
Did you take our agreement on the scope and agreement on the exclusion seriously when you were debating or were you basing it on something else?


Here is what you agreed to.











.

The line has been drawn for you TravestyNY. It's pretty clear. ADP02 challenges you. Remember this is his thread. He only needs a YES or a NO. Don't be like a whiny biatch. It's simple enough. Play or fuvk off.. So what would it be Travesty?

[travestyny]

1) Look bud, below I posted the quotes where you accepted and now you are DUCKING even a very simple question!!!


2) I looked up some of those points that you brought up.

You were often disagreeing with me. Now you want to agree with me about disagreeing with you???? WTF!!!


Other times you are either mistenterpreting or taking it out of context.

Finally, are you saying that you found comments that are off from what we agreed to as scope? Well, you are doing this even now, so what's new? LOL

OK, that is why this time I want us to be CLEAR and NOT VAGUE so we BOTH stick to the SCOPE that we AGREED to LAST TIME.



3) You yourself had in your statements and posts a lot of information. Then later on you said it wasn't about what you said!!! So let me know if we should or shouldn't use what you stated. You cannot have it both ways.



3) In your statement you said that there are no threshold type tests for EPO in WADA documentS


So we will be finding out if what you said is true in our next debate.





4) You specifically said a few posts into that thread that this is NOT about Floyd nor Manny but to see what WADA has to say about our debate.



5) Go read some of the comments in that thread. You were crying to stick to a document as soon as you saw my posts but then cried about changing the scope.

6) You brought up a case from 2003 that was mainly about pre-WADA. You got votes from the judges based on LIES and CHEATING from you and you know what I mean. I am still waiting for you to accept this challenge DUCKER!!!

7) Oh, and which WADA document was briefly mentioned in that case? WADA 2004 document!!!!

So do not even dare say that we can only use 2014 documents!!!!!

Do not dare say that we have to limit to a document after you did that!!!!

but as stating, there is something that *****s what you and I have to say anyways.



READ BELOW YOU AGREED TO THIS!!!!



This is my thread and I CHALLENGED YOU!!!!

So it is me that is waiting for you on the challenge.



OPTION 1: 1 CHALLENGE as I stated at the start of this thread.

OPTION 2: 2 CHALLENGES

- OLD CHALLENGE that based on the agreed SCOPE (stated below)
AND
- See OPTION 1 above



As for your question:
Well, I need to know your position because it is too VAGUE.



YOU ARE NOW DEFLECTING ON A QUESTION for at least the 4th TIME.



Simple question,
Did you take our agreement on the scope and agreement on the exclusion seriously when you were debating or were you basing it on something else?


Here is what you agreed to.


.

Ok, I’m going to set you straight about this one last time.

I clearly stated AND HE ACCEPTED that the scope will be just about whether the EPO document has threshold criteria in the document.

Explain.

What you keep trying to deflect to is me saying I’m fine with your post to Billeau. Again, I’m fine with it. Told you I’m fine with anything you want to post and that the judges would sort it out.

The judges them came up with our statements based on our information that we approved. Now you want to back out of your statements.

There are so many statements that you want to back out of. It’s not going to happen.

Second, as for your DEFLECTION here, it’s only about you deflecting. I told you many weeks ago. Your bullshlt about the BAP is destroyed on two levels.

1. Two court panels said it’s not a threshold.

2. It’s not in the relevant document (you are still trying to play ****** about the criteria in the 2004 document and that’s why you won’t accept the rematch.)

What you are trying to do is say, “Hey, forget that you got me two levels. Let’s forget it’s not in the relevant document. Give me a fighting chance to confuse people.”

It’s not going to happen. If you want to challenge me about the BAP, challenge me on both issues, in the rematch debate. Don’t try to say, “Please fight me, but only use your left hand.” I’m not letting you off the hook like I’ve done in the past. You talk too much and your messages destroy you!


Giving you a handicap just so you have a fighting chance.... It’s not going to happen. Be a man and step all the way up instead of asking me to forget about what destroys you definitively. You know this destroys you:

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.

Accept the rematch and let the judges decide who is lying about the scope, or just accept your fate. It’s over.

[ADP02]

Ok, I’m going to set you straight about this one last time.



Explain.

What you keep trying to deflect to is me saying I’m fine with your post to Billeau. Again, I’m fine with it. Told you I’m fine with anything you want to post and that the judges would sort it out.

The judges them came up with our statements based on our information that we approved. Now you want to back out of your statements.

There are so many statements that you want to back out of. It’s not going to happen.

Second, as for your DEFLECTION here, it’s only about you deflecting. I told you many weeks ago. Your bullshlt about the BAP is destroyed on two levels.

1. Two court panels said it’s not a threshold.

2. It’s not in the relevant document (you are still trying to play ****** about the criteria in the 2004 document and that’s why you won’t accept the rematch.)

What you are trying to do is say, “Hey, forget that you got me two levels. Let’s forget it’s not in the relevant document. Give me a fighting chance to confuse people.”

It’s not going to happen. If you want to challenge me about the BAP, challenge me on both issues, in the rematch debate. Don’t try to say, “Please fight me, but only use your left hand.” I’m not letting you off the hook like I’ve done in the past. You talk too much and your messages destroy you!


Giving you a handicap just so you have a fighting chance.... It’s not going to happen. Be a man and step all the way up instead of asking me to forget about what destroys you definitively. You know this destroys you:



Accept the rematch and let the judges decide who is lying about the scope, or just accept your fate. It’s over.

1) You are still not getting it? I challenge you on what we have been arguing for over 2 months now. I made this challenge as CLEAR as possible. There is no way that we will do 2 challenges in 1. You just finished saying that you do not want any confusion!!!

HENCE, CHALLENGE #2 will remain separate and can start right away because you are even OK with the scope and 2 exclusions that you wanted and I agreed even though I shouldn't as the Subject is about that too!




2) WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE!!!
The below posts were in order and on the same page in the thread. You said that you are fine with the scope and actually you stated if I was going to propose that to the judges!!!

3) Billeau2 did not post my statements until later on!!!



So now that we have YOUR BS LIE CLEARED UP, please respond to the below simple question!!!




YOU ARE NOW DEFLECTING and LIED ON A QUESTION for at least the 6th TIME.



Simple question,
Did you take our agreement on the scope and agreement on the exclusion seriously when you were debating or were you basing it on something else?


Here is what you agreed to.

Originally Posted by ADP02

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.

.

[ADP02]

Ok, I’m going to set you straight about this one last time.



Explain.


Second, as for your DEFLECTION here, it’s only about you deflecting. I told you many weeks ago. Your bullshlt about the BAP is destroyed on two levels.

1. Two court panels said it’s not a threshold.

2. It’s not in the relevant document (you are still trying to play ****** about the criteria in the 2004 document and that’s why you won’t accept the rematch.)

"Can or does …."

All WADA documents are valid. You just proved by confirming that you did!


- The case was based on 2003 EPO abuse.

- You used a case that briefly mentioned a WADA document in 2004


So you just confirmed that you used in the debate a WADA document that was from 2004. BUT now you are saying that it is not valid to use a WADA document from 2004?



You actually got at least 1 vote based solely on that case that was 14 years ago. How do I know? The judge actually said that!!!!


By the way, YOU ARE STILL DUCKING the MAIN CHALLENGE as stated in this thread!!!! You just confirmed right here that you are AGAIN confident about it!!!

Lets go, be a man!!!!




.


.

[travestyny]

1) You are still not getting it? I challenge you on what we have been arguing for over 2 months now. I made this challenge as CLEAR as possible. There is no way that we will do 2 challenges in 1. You just finished saying that you do not want any confusion!!!

We've been arguing about the rematch for 2 month now. If you want proof of that, then I'll be happy to provide it.

I've also told you the same damn thing I just told you less than 2 months ago. If you want proof of that, then ask me.

You can't win, son. You aren't fooling me. You're just being desperate and I told you, I'm not letting that noose go even the slight bit slack around your neck.

HENCE, CHALLENGE #2 will remain separate and can start right away because you are even OK with the scope and 2 exclusions that you wanted and I agreed even though I shouldn't as the Subject is about that too!

There is no need for challenge 2, 3, 4, 8. None of that. You've been accusing me of cheating you out of our debate for how long now? STEP UP AND PROVE IT. If you want to include information from what you have in mind from your "challenge 2, 3, 4, 8, or whatever," THEN DO IT! I WELCOME IT AND IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME. ONLY SEEMS TO BOTHER YOU FOR SOME REASON.

2) WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE!!!
The below posts were in order and on the same page in the thread. You said that you are fine with the scope and actually you stated if I was going to propose that to the judges!!!

3) Billeau2 did not post my statements until later on!!!

THEN PROVE IT. I ASKED IF THAT WAS YOUR PROPOSAL TO THE JUDGE, AS IN YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT YOU MORON. GO CHECK IT OUT AND SEE FOR YOURSELF. FURTHERMORE, WHEN YOU FIRST RESPONDED WITH IT, I IGNORED IT AND TOLD YOU THAT I WOULDN'T BE SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL THE JUDGE RESPONDS. THEN YOU ASKED IF I WAS OK WITH WHAT YOU SAID. YES. I'M OK WITH WHAT YOU SAID. WHY SHOULD I CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID? I KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO GET HANDLED.

IF I'M LYING ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE BATTLE, THEN WHY WON'T YOU GO NEAR YOU SAYING EXPLICITLY WHAT YOU CLAIM I ACCEPTED?

So now that we have YOUR BS LIE CLEARED UP, please respond to the below simple question!!!

SHOW IT TO THE JUDGE, BlTCH. WHY ARE YOU SO SCARED OF JUDGES SUDDENLY. WHY DO YOU KEEP BACKING DOWN, HMMMMMMM?

YOU ARE NOW DEFLECTING and LIED ON A QUESTION for at least the 6th TIME.

LIED? THEN SHOW IT TO A JUDGE. LET'S GET IT ON. WHY ARE YOU STILL CRYING ABOUT IT IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE SOMETHING. THE TRUTH IS YOU KNOW YOU HAVE NOTHING. I WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE THREAD AND I HAVE PROOF OF EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT THE SCOPE WAS. AND IT'S FAR MORE SPECIFIC THAN THE BULLSHlT YOU ARE TRYING TO PASS FOR THE SCOPE.

FURTHERMORE IF IT WAS ONLY "CAN" IT HAVE A THRESHOLD AT SOME TIME EVEN IN THE PAST, THEN WHY DID YOU SAY THE 2009 DOCUMENT WAS OUT OF SCOPE?


YOU WON'T EVEN GO NEAR IT. ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE AND CALL ON THE JUDGES. STOP BEING A BlTCH.

Simple question,
Did you take our agreement on the scope and agreement on the exclusion seriously when you were debating or were you basing it on something else?


Here is what you agreed to.

.

OH REALLY? EXPLAIN, ADP. STOP DUCKING IT!

PROOF OF WHAT I BELIEVED THE SCOPE TO BE:

JUDGE ZAROKU:

Restate what you both agreed upon. Be clear and concise.

As this thread proceeds, I don't want to keep going back a few pages to find it.

Unless I'm mistaken, the topic is now whether WADA labs have a threshold criteria that must be met for an adverse analytical finding of EPO.

FAR MORE SPECIFIC THAN WHAT YOU ARE NOW TRYING TO PASS OFF AS THE SCOPE, BUT YOU DIDN'T LIKE THAT BECAUSE, THOUGH YOU SAID "MUST" A BUNCH OF TIMES, YOU KNEW THAT YOU GOT CAUGHT OUT THERE ON THAT. OK...SO WHAT DID YOU SAY WAS THE SCOPE?

NOW, POSTS THAT MURDER YOU:

I clearly stated AND HE ACCEPTED that the scope will be just about whether the EPO document has threshold criteria in the document.

and again....

- Furthermore, your point is irrelevant since the scope that you accepted was whether there are threshold criteria in the EPO technical document!!!

AND

The scope was simple. Either there is or there is not threhsold criteria mentioned in the EPO technical document.

and

and I have posts that state that the scope of the discussion is that you will discuss why you do not believe there are threshold criteria in the EPO technical document while I believe there are ....

and....

Sorry but the scope was about threshold criteria in relation to EPO and the technical document.

and....

as this is NOT even part of the scope
but as stated, it is in the EPO technical document, correct?

and...

SCOPE that YOU agreed on: Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria?

and....

SCOPE: Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria

and

SHOWING PROOF THAT YOU DID NOT MEAN ALL EPO TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS!!!!

SAYING THE 2009 DOCUMENT IS 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.

AND...

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."

I SEE A WHOLE LOT TO BACK ME UP. AND I DON'T SEE ANY MENTION OF EPO TECHNICAL DOCUMENTSSSSSS.

YOU CAN'T WIN. STOP BEING A BlTCH. CALL ON THE JUDGES AND LET'S PRESENT OUR INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE SCOPE WAS. WHY ARE YOU SCARED??????

OH, BY THE WAY, I HAVE SOMETHING MORE THAT MURDERS YOU. I'LL POST IT UP NEXT.

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

[travestyny]

EXACTLY. LET'S GO. BE A MAN. BECAUSE I'M ABOUT TO MURDER YOU ONCE MORE!!!! LMAOOOOOOOOO!

All WADA documents are valid. You just proved by confirming that you did!


- The case was based on 2003 EPO abuse.

- You used a case that briefly mentioned a WADA document in 2004


So you just confirmed that you used in the debate a WADA document that was from 2004. BUT now you are saying that it is not valid to use a WADA document from 2004?



You actually got at least 1 vote based solely on that case that was 14 years ago. How do I know? The judge actually said that!!!!

I'VE ALREADY MURDERED YOU OVER THIS, CLOWN. YOU WANT TO PLAY ******, BUT YOU WON'T DARE TAKE THE REMATCH WILL YOU.

HERE IT IS AGAIN CLOWN:

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 in the corresponding reference preparation.
rEPO
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 two most intense bands in the basic area must be more intense than any other
band in the endogenous area either measured by densitometry or assessed visually.

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

CRITERIA FROM THE 2004 DOCUMENT THAT ADP02 SAID WERE THRESHOLD CRITERIA, BUT THE CAS PANEL SAID WERE NOT THRESHOLD CRITERIA:

1.- in the basic area there must be at least 3 acceptable, consecutive bands assigned as
1, 2, 3 or 4 in the corresponding reference preparation.
rEPO
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 two most intense bands in the basic area must be more intense than any other
band in the endogenous area either measured by densitometry or assessed visually.

CRITERIA FROM THE 2014 DOCUMENT THAT ADP02 SAID WERE THRESHOLD CRITERIA:

a) Urine Samples
In the basic area (Fig. 1) there must be at least 3 acceptable, consecutive
bands.
The 2 most intense bands measured by densitometry shall be in the basic area.

He tried to justify it.

In fractions, that is similar to stating calculate A value and B value then COMPARE 1/1 ratio to A/B.
If A < B then its below the 1/1 ratio.
If A > B then it is greater than 1/1 ratio and means that it exceeds the threshold!!!!

BUT UNFORTUNATELY FOR HIM, HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT A THRESHOLD IS, SO HE WAS SHUT DOWN BY THE CAS PANEL:

The criterion for EPO is not a measurement over the threshold that must occur



The fact is that the BAP and the other interpretative criteria are used to declare not a threshold of human body production but rather an image from the electropherogram as indicating the presence of non-human EPO.



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

By the way, YOU ARE STILL DUCKING the MAIN CHALLENGE as stated in this thread!!!! You just confirmed right here that you are AGAIN confident about it!!!

Lets go, be a man!!!!

.

NOT AT ALL. I'm telling you that your squirming isn't going to work, son. Wahhhhh....fight me with just your left....see if you can win then! Listen, little dude. The fact of the matter is my left is better than you using both of your hands, as the BAP was already declared not a threshold twice over. But as I told you already, you lose DOUBLY. That's because not only was it declared not a threshold, but it does not exist in the relevant document. This is why you won't accept the rematch. But wait....you are trying to squirm and say that all of the documents are in scope, though you were already BUSTED saying the 2009 document is out of scope. So that leads to this.

"Can or does …."

lmaooooo. Now this is going to be funny!


Here you are telling me where the scope came from. You said that after Billeau told us to ignore each other until after our initial statements were posted, then you made clear what the scope was. Here is the proof.

BILLEAU2 told us to knock it off (AVOID EACH OTHER) until after we post our intial statements. Then I told you NOT once but TWICE what was the scope . You did NOT object!!! Then you said OK, that I can start off the discussion!

HERE YOU ARE DOUBLING DOWN ON WHAT POSTS OF YOURS STATED THE SCOPE....COMING AFTER BILLEAU TOLD US TO IGNORE EACH OTHER.

3)*You said in your precious post when was the scope ever discussed? I have 2 posts that clearly state what was the scope and they both came after our official statements were posted and AFTER Billeau2 stated to discuss any disagreements that we had with our statements.

I CLEARLY stated NOT ONCE BUT TWICE the SCOPE!!!!
.

SO....WHEN DID BILLEAU TELL US TO IGNORE EACH OTHER?????

post #135

Ok its very simple:

You both have okayed statements, the next step is to post them. It may seem redundent but that will start the discussion and then you both can agree to the statements, start to submit proof.

You both have a statement that was visible and is acceptable. Ignore each other until that is posted.

SO WAS YOUR POST BEFORE THAT OR AFTER THAT?


OH, THAT'S RIGHT. IT WAS BEFORE.

POST #87

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

SO THEN WHAT WERE THE TWO POSTS THAT CAME AFTER BILLEAU TOLD US TO IGNORE EACH OTHER THAT YOU STATED OVER AND OVER GAVE THE SCOPE?????

POST #146

You keep on bringing up threshold substance when I told you that the discussion is on whether EPO testing includes threshold criteria.

AND

POST #157

We are discussing how EPO is tested. You said that you read the EPO document and you do not believe that the document discusses any type of threshold criteria test while I do.
.

IN FACT, YOU GAVE A WHOLE DAMN ROAD MAP OF WHERE TO FIND THE SCOPE. DIDN'T YOU???????

AGAIN:

1) BILLEAU2 (JUDGE) asked that we make our initial statements and to clarify any disagreements we have only after that point and to avoid each other BEFORE that point.

2) We both posted our statements

I also clearly stated several times that I will clarify my points as we go along.


3) Your statements was clearly out of scope and I brought that up

4) You asked me some questions

5) I responded by telling you to stop it with that GOT YOU GAME questions that are OUT OF SCOPE

6) You asked me a question ..... I stated NOT ONCE BUT TWICE THE SCOPE

7) YOU DID NOT OBJECT!!!!

8) You said that I can start my discussion

well, here you are .... playing the GOT YOU GAME instead of staying on scope!

ONE POST AFTER THE ABOVE POST, MAKING IT CLEAR WHAT YOU BELIEVED THE SCOPE WAS:

SCOPE that YOU agreed on: Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria?

SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YOU EXPLICITLY SAID THE SCOPE CAME AFTER BILLEAU TOLD US TO IGNORE EACH OTHER. YOUR POST THAT YOU NOW CLAIM TO BE THE SCOPE CAME WAY BEFORE THAT POINT. THE POSTS THAT YOU CLAIM CAME AFTER....ARE EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN POSTING THAT YOU SAID. SO WHO IS THE LIAR ADP? LMAOOOOOOOOOOO.

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/TUHInIQM4bXBS/*****.gif[/IMG]

MOVE TO GET THE JUDGES IN ON THIS. ARE YOU DOWN YET? LMAOOOOOOO!!!!!

YOU GAVE A WHOLE ROAD MAP ABOUT THE SCOPE THAT BODIES YOU!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE THE BIGGEST FVVVCK UP IN THE HISTORY OF DEBATING. LMAOOOOO

YOUR LATEST LIE AND DEFLECTION JUST WENT DOWN THE DRAINNNNN!

R.I.P.

[IMG]//i284.***********.com/albums/ll36/Bigsteve87/Gifs/AtomicBomb.gif[/IMG]