Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

THAT'S IT. THIS BlTCH WON'T ACCEPT THE REMATCH LIKE I THOUGHT. MAKING IT CLEAR THAT HE DOESN'T EVEN BELIEVE HE WAS CHEATED. HE KNOWS THE GOT DECAPITATED. IT'S OVERRRR!!!!! CRY ALL YOU WANT, BUT....

PAY THE POINTS YOU OWE, YOU DUCKING, LYING, COWARDLY, BET WELCHING BlTCH!!!!!!

4-0!!!!!!

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

[img]//media.*****.com/media/3o7qDSOvfaCO9b3MlO/*****.gif[/IMG]

....but ADP02 STILL LIKE....

[ADP02]

ANDDDDD HE BlTCHED OUT AGAIN. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'VE ALREADY DEMOLISHED ALL OF YOUR SHlT ABOUT THE SCOPE.

I EVEN HAVE A ROADMAP DIRECTLY FROM YOU STATING WHERE TO FIND THE SCOPE YOU IDIOT!!!!! YOU WON'T RESPOND TO IT AND THAT'S WHY YOU PVSSIED OUT FROM THE REMATCH!!!!

YOU LOSE SON. IT'S OVERRRRRRRR! DON'T CONTACT ME UNTIL YOU GROW A PAIR. YOU WILL FOREVER GO DOWN AS MY BlOTCH!!!! PAY ME THOSE POINTS, CHUMP!

4-0!!!!!!

KEEP CRYING IN YOUR LITTLE ROOM UNTIL YOU GROW A PAIR, YOU LYING PIECE OF SHlT.

[IMG] [/IMG]

[/CENTER]

1) What did TRAVESTYNY AGREE to?

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

Did Travestyny say no? LOL

Travestyny agreed to the SCOPE!!!

Travestyny

Yes, I'm fine with it.

Exclusions that were agreed to? This was NOT about EPO not being a threshold substance.




Example given: [COLOR="DarkRed"]Screening test by v way of T/E Ratio.



Travestyny said T/E Ratio test is part of ABP testing.

So Travesynty knows and AGREED to that!!!

Thank you very much!!! LOL







a) Did you take what you agreed to into account when you were debating?

b) What did we both agree to exclude?

c) Even my statement has a note to state that there is more to say on how EPO is tested!!!

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!


d) Even in the debate I stated that the methods to test EPO compliment each other .... and of course, from the start, I brought up T/E RATIO!!!!


e) EPO also is tested by way of ABP!!! How?

One way is ABP is a SCREENING test just like T/E RATIO test!!!

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!


f) Even in the debate, I stated that even though, we didn't exclude any documents, even ABP testing was mentioned in the document that you cried that we stick too!!!

Can you post where I said that too?

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!

g) In the debate, you couldn't even admit that ABP had threshold type tests!!! Ooops!


h) Your statement was 90% on Threshold substances. 10% was just to say, EPO is not a threshold substance. That 90% was OUT OF SCOPE. So why was that included?




h2) You response: But the judge made me include it!!! See, where I went there! 2 can play that game!!!

What you had to do is: I, Traevstyny, realized I didn't go by your agreement on the exclusion. and let the judge be aware!!! The judges were asking us questions!!! Who was more aware of the scope?


h3) BUT Travestyny was BS LYING because he continued in that thread to state that even though, it was excluded from scope!


h4) You are basically proving my point in your statement. You are stating that EPO cannot have a threshold since it is NOT a threshold susbtance!!! So while you do not want to go there, man, your statement is ONLY about that!!! In summary, you are saying EPO cannot have threshold type tests.





i) Even in your statement, you stated WADA documentS. So that meant that all WADA documents are game. Well, why shouldn't they be, we AGREED to exclude nothing .....
well, except for what you often mentioned to try to confuse and muddy the waters!!!






2) In scope and out of scope.
- You clearly were OK to use any and all WADA documents

but then cried when they didn't go your way!!! Then you reverted back to saying, "OUT OF SCOPE". The only time that you didn't do that is when WILLY WANKER was duped into believing your LIES and CHEATING ways on a case from 2003 that barely mentioned WADA document as it was not even in effect yet!!!

Now you want me to believe that you used it because it was "similar" to WADA 2014? It took you until now to say that Mr BS?

Secondly, you said the opposite when I said it and you actually called that point "OUT OF SCOPE" TOO and NOT SIMILAR!!!! LOL

- You are doing now what you did then. Muddying the waters. We are close to approaching 50 pages. You prefer those type of challenges! LOL

- I succeeded in making my CHALLENGE as CLEAR as possible.

YET,

I am still waiting on the DUCKER to accept the challenge.

AND

it is not because it is not CLEAR.

IT IS BECAUSE Travestyny KNOWs THAT HE IS WRONG and therefore HE IS A LIAR & CHEAT.



- You prefer to keep it VAGUE and so you can spin the old debate. Nope. It needs to be clear and on the same thing that we agreed to last time. Same SCOPE that we AGREED to. Same EXCLUSIONS that we AGREED to. After the fact, you or I cannot imply something by reading a statement and stating, oh, you meant something else was what you agreed to.

- Statement was meant to know which position you are taking. For or against what was AGREED to in SCOPE and the EXCLUSIONS. NOT the other way around. If there is any conflict, the AGREEMENT must always PREVAIL. For example, my statement or yours can be 100% accurate but if it is vague and has little to do with the AGREED SCOPE, then who cares!!! Plus all you said was ..... Threshold susbtances???? OUT OF SCOPE!!!!!


So at the end of the day, the only thing that can be in scope is what we agreed to. It makes sense!!!


3) Since you are agreeing with what I posted.
- I also posted that ABP testing is mentioned in that document!

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOM!


- I posted that everything should be included since you brought up a case in 2002!!! Are you in agreement? Even after my statement, it didn't stop you. At the end you got 1 or 2 votes on 2003 case!!! BUT now, you want everything to be OUT OF SCOPE?????

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

- I kept on referring you to what the SCOPE was. So how can you forget or not know? LOL


You must also include what you referenced.
- You said that there are no thresholds, no ratios, no scores, none of that.

Why include it? because that was your basis as what can be a threshold!!!!


KABOOOOOOOOOOOOM!


- You must also include your statement when you said: its not about the bands in the lane ....


- You must also include your statement when you said: CUT-OFF line is not calculated!


- You must also include your statement when you said: MRPL = parameter = EPO cannot have thresholds.

You duped a judge on that too!!! You got votes on DUPING the judges!!! Actually the judge even mentioned "threshold substances". LOL 2 issues right there!!!
-





Go check it out.
The last time you did this too once you didn't like the SCOPE that WE BOTH AGREED TO!!!! So this BS of yours is nothing new!!!



YOU ARE NOW DEFLECTING ON A QUESTION ON THAT.


For the 11th 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.


CHALLENGE #1

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.

CHALLENGE #2

The WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE"


Come on DUCKER!!!!!

[travestyny]

1) What did TRAVESTYNY AGREE to?



Did Travestyny say no? LOL

Travestyny agreed to the SCOPE!!!


Exclusions that were agreed to? This was NOT about EPO not being a threshold substance.




Example given: [COLOR="DarkRed"]Screening test by v way of T/E Ratio.



Travestyny said T/E Ratio test is part of ABP testing.

So Travesynty knows and AGREED to that!!!

Thank you very much!!! LOL







a) Did you take what you agreed to into account when you were debating?

b) What did we both agree to exclude?

c) Even my statement has a note to state that there is more to say on how EPO is tested!!!

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!


d) Even in the debate I stated that the methods to test EPO compliment each other .... and of course, from the start, I brought up T/E RATIO!!!!


e) EPO also is tested by way of ABP!!! How?

One way is ABP is a SCREENING test just like T/E RATIO test!!!

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!


f) Even in the debate, I stated that even though, we didn't exclude any documents, even ABP testing was mentioned in the document that you cried that we stick too!!!

Can you post where I said that too?

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!

g) In the debate, you couldn't even admit that ABP had threshold type tests!!! Ooops!


h) Your statement was 90% on Threshold substances. 10% was just to say, EPO is not a threshold substance. That 90% was OUT OF SCOPE. So why was that included?




h2) You response: But the judge made me include it!!! See, where I went there! 2 can play that game!!!

What you had to do is: I, Traevstyny, realized I didn't go by your agreement on the exclusion. and let the judge be aware!!! The judges were asking us questions!!! Who was more aware of the scope?


h3) BUT Travestyny was BS LYING because he continued in that thread to state that even though, it was excluded from scope!


h4) You are basically proving my point in your statement. You are stating that EPO cannot have a threshold since it is NOT a threshold susbtance!!! So while you do not want to go there, man, your statement is ONLY about that!!! In summary, you are saying EPO cannot have threshold type tests.





i) Even in your statement, you stated WADA documentS. So that meant that all WADA documents are game. Well, why shouldn't they be, we AGREED to exclude nothing .....
well, except for what you often mentioned to try to confuse and muddy the waters!!!






2) In scope and out of scope.
- You clearly were OK to use any and all WADA documents

but then cried when they didn't go your way!!! Then you reverted back to saying, "OUT OF SCOPE". The only time that you didn't do that is when WILLY WANKER was duped into believing your LIES and CHEATING ways on a case from 2003 that barely mentioned WADA document as it was not even in effect yet!!!

Now you want me to believe that you used it because it was "similar" to WADA 2014? It took you until now to say that Mr BS?

Secondly, you said the opposite when I said it and you actually called that point "OUT OF SCOPE" TOO and NOT SIMILAR!!!! LOL

- You are doing now what you did then. Muddying the waters. We are close to approaching 50 pages. You prefer those type of challenges! LOL

- I succeeded in making my CHALLENGE as CLEAR as possible.

YET,

I am still waiting on the DUCKER to accept the challenge.

AND

it is not because it is not CLEAR.

IT IS BECAUSE Travestyny KNOWs THAT HE IS WRONG and therefore HE IS A LIAR & CHEAT.



- You prefer to keep it VAGUE and so you can spin the old debate. Nope. It needs to be clear and on the same thing that we agreed to last time. Same SCOPE that we AGREED to. Same EXCLUSIONS that we AGREED to. After the fact, you or I cannot imply something by reading a statement and stating, oh, you meant something else was what you agreed to.

- Statement was meant to know which position you are taking. For or against what was AGREED to in SCOPE and the EXCLUSIONS. NOT the other way around. If there is any conflict, the AGREEMENT must always PREVAIL. For example, my statement or yours can be 100% accurate but if it is vague and has little to do with the AGREED SCOPE, then who cares!!! Plus all you said was ..... Threshold susbtances???? OUT OF SCOPE!!!!!


So at the end of the day, the only thing that can be in scope is what we agreed to. It makes sense!!!


3) Since you are agreeing with what I posted.
- I also posted that ABP testing is mentioned in that document!

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOM!


- I posted that everything should be included since you brought up a case in 2002!!! Are you in agreement? Even after my statement, it didn't stop you. At the end you got 1 or 2 votes on 2003 case!!! BUT now, you want everything to be OUT OF SCOPE?????

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

- I kept on referring you to what the SCOPE was. So how can you forget or not know? LOL


You must also include what you referenced.
- You said that there are no thresholds, no ratios, no scores, none of that.

Why include it? because that was your basis as what can be a threshold!!!!


KABOOOOOOOOOOOOM!


- You must also include your statement when you said: its not about the bands in the lane ....


- You must also include your statement when you said: CUT-OFF line is not calculated!


- You must also include your statement when you said: MRPL = parameter = EPO cannot have thresholds.

You duped a judge on that too!!! You got votes on DUPING the judges!!! Actually the judge even mentioned "threshold substances". LOL 2 issues right there!!!
-





Go check it out.
The last time you did this too once you didn't like the SCOPE that WE BOTH AGREED TO!!!! So this BS of yours is nothing new!!!



YOU ARE NOW DEFLECTING ON A QUESTION ON THAT.


For the 11th 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.


CHALLENGE #1











CHALLENGE #2

The WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE"


Come on DUCKER!!!!!

THEN ACCEPT THE REMATCH, SON. WHY ALL OF THIS CRYING. WAHHHHHHH WAHHHHHHHHH. THE SCOPEEEEEEEEE.


ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY, I ACCEPT, AND WE GET IT POPPING. TWO WORDS AND YOU WON'T DO IT! BUT YOU SCARED. LMAOOOOOOOOO


BY THE WAY, ANSWER SPOONS QUOTATION!

What did he say???????

If it's out of scope then it is inadmissible duh??

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.

AHAHAHAHAHA. IT'S OVER CRYBABY. YOU'RE FOREVER MY BlTCH UNTIL YOU ACCEPT THE REMATCH. REST IN PEACE!!!!!!!

PAY THE POINTS YOU OWE, YOU DUCKING, LYING, COWARDLY, BET WELCHING BlTCH!!!!!!

4-0!!!!!!

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

[img]//media.*****.com/media/3o7qDSOvfaCO9b3MlO/*****.gif[/IMG]

....but ADP02 STILL LIKE....

[travestyny]

ADP WON'T ACCEPT THE PERMANENT BAN CHALLENGE. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I GUESS IT'S OVER FOR YOU SON. DON'T CONTACT ME UNTIL YOU GET YOUR BALLS OUT OF YOUR LITTLE PINK PURSE. OH, AND PAY ME THE POINTS THAT YOU OWE. WHEN YOU RESPOND TO ME WITH JUST TWO WORDS...'I ACCEPT' THEN I'LL RETURN TO DECAPITATE YOU AGAIN YOU TWO FACED BlTCH. UNTIL THEN, ENJOY YOUR TEARS

4-0!!!!!!

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

[ADP02]

THEN WHY WON'T YOU TAKE THE REMATCH. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

4-0!!!!!!

ACCEPT THE REMATCH AND PAY THE POINTS YOU OWE OR FOREVER BE OWNED BY ME. BY THE WAY, DO YOU LIKE MY SIG WHERE YOU ASKED FOR A DRAW? LMAOOOOOOOO.. NOT ONLY DID YOU LOSE 4-0 BUT YOU ASKED FOR A FUVVCKING DRAW IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEBATE YOU LOSER. YOU GOT EMBARRASSED AND YOU'RE STILL GETTING EMBARRASSED, JUST LIKE I PREDICTED. AND YOUR MAYWEATHER CONSPIRACY THEORY WENT TO SHlT. BHAHAHAHA. TAKE THAT, BlTCH. WHEN YOU FIND YOUR BALLS, I'LL BE WAITING TO SHOVE THEM DOWN YOUR THROAT!

REMINDER:

We are close to 50 pages on a CHALLENGE made by ME.




I asked you, if you were confident to argue for 2 months and had no problem stating the same to dupe the judges in the other debate ……

…….THEN WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT the CHALLENGE? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA






The TRUTH!!!


YOU WANTED OUT!!!


OUT? To DUCK the CHALLENGE!!!!





WHY?



Because you know that you cannot win on a debate that you duped the judges with previously!!!!





BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS ALL A LIE & YOU CHEATED!!!!
Therefore, YOU DUCKED!!!!




DUCKER!!!!!!

[Spoon23]

I just want to take a moment to recognize Spoon for his attempt to turn over a new leaf.

Nope. No turning over. You are just too dumb realise how a court works hahaha!!

Originally Posted by ADP02
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.


Funny thing is that ADP recently has been saying this is suddenly in scope. Hmmmmm. Well it's hard to argue that, being that the quotation was confirmed to be legit, even by him. So I wondered what Spoon had to say about this. I thought he would find some way to be as dishonest as ADP. NOPE! Check it out!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoon23 View Post
If it's out of scope then it is inadmissible duh??



ADP02 CLEARLY mentions, however, In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used.


Thus I, Spoon23 also mentioned. Any scope outside the topic is inadmissible if the NEW JUDGES deem it to. And if the "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that ties the athlete was using EPO. Then it is relevant and very much admissable to court.

Why is it so hard to understand TravestyNY All you have to do is create a premise of the scope of your defence. You just choose your side. Simple. It's the Judges not you or ADP02 will decided if ADP02 or You Travesty have any relevant evidence to justify your argument. You just have to present your facts, In the end, since you don't get it. It's not ADP02 or you who will decide if your points have merit or not. Judges will decide that.

It's so simple, but it seems. All you do Travesty is biatch and move the goal post like your hero Froid Roid.

All you need to do is create the premise of the scope of your argument. IT IS THE JUDGES WHO WILL DECIDE IF IT IS OUT OF SCOPE OR NOT. NOT YOU! YOU NITWIT HAHAHAHAHA!!!


DUCKER!!!!!!

[ADP02]

It's so simple, but it seems. All you do Travesty is biatch and move the goal post like your hero Froid Roid.


All you need to do is create the premise of the scope of your argument. IT IS THE JUDGES WHO WILL DECIDE IF IT IS OUT OF SCOPE OR NOT. NOT YOU! YOU NITWIT HAHAHAHAHA!!!


DUCKER!!!!!!

Pretty much what I highlighted.

After my first posts, this guy was already complaining about the scope even though there was no agreement on what he was mentioning.

Then after he said there are no RATIOS (he used "ratios" as part of what WADA calls as a definition of threshold (substances)). We argued on this for pages and pages. Then once I came back with proof that EPO testing can and had RATIOs, then all he did was say, its not in scope!!!
- We had RATIOs right there on my agreement with him!!! Then I come back with Ratios and he said it is not in scope!!! What a clown!!!


Then he realized that there is a good chance that a judge may call a criteria a threshold type test, so AGAIN, Travestyny said it is OUT OF SCOPE!!!
- This is even though he AGREED to the SCOPE!
- Even WORSE. This was in the document that he is crying about!!!
- Even WORSE, in his initial statement, he clearly mentions that there are no thresholds for the screening nor confirmation!!!

He did the same crap as you are seeing here now. When he sees a sign of trouble, he tries to muddy the waters …...



BUT YOU CALLED IT RIGHT!
This guy moves the goal posts right out of the freaking field!!!


.



.

[travestyny]

SPOON STILL SHlTTING ALL OVER ADP02. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

All you need to do is create the premise of the scope of your argument. IT IS THE JUDGES WHO WILL DECIDE IF IT IS OUT OF SCOPE OR NOT.

ACCEPT THE REMATCH THAT YOU KEEP CRYING IVER AND STOP BEGGING FOR ME TO FORGET ABOUT IT BEING OUT OF SCOPE MORON. TELL THISE JUDGES IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR MAYWEATHER CONSPIRACY THORY THAT I DESTROYED. hahahahaha

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, 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.


.

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

[Spoon23]

EXACTLY. HAHAHAHAHA. YOU KEEP SHlTTING ALL OVER ADP02

lolololol

Exactly. You don't get it lmao


But since you agreed to what I've said Travesty, since you used that word "EXACTLY" to affirm what I said.


This is all you need to look at ADP02. Travesty just agreed to this premise below.

Thus I, Spoon23 also mentioned. Any scope outside the topic is inadmissible if the NEW JUDGES deem it to. And if the "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that ties the athlete was using EPO. Then it is relevant and very much admissable to court.

ADP02, here's all you need. Quote him on this. He just agreed to my affirmation. Add this to the scope rules when this court starts.

[Spoon23]

EXACTLY. HAHAHAHAHA. YOU KEEP SHlTTING ALL OVER ADP02


Thus I, Spoon23 also mentioned. Any scope outside the topic is inadmissible if the NEW JUDGES deem it to. And if the "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that ties the athlete was using EPO. Then it is relevant and very much admissable to court.

Yes EXACTLY! But I'm not ****ting on my main man ADP02. I'm actually ****ting on your dumbass arguments that you have no idea where you are at anymore from all that spinning of unnecessary nonsense after nonsense that seems to never end lolololol

Now its time to get on with this charade Travesty, unless. You are biatching out again hahaha!!


DUCKER IN THE HOUSE!!!!!! PUT UP OR SHUT UP BIATCH HAHAHAHA