Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[Spoon23]

I'll make it simple to get this show on the Road.

ADP02, Pls reply to my post and list down your agreed upon premise. So I can then feed it to Travesty. If he quacks. It's over.

So list it down ADP02. Itemise the premise if you have to. I want it as clear and concise as possible. I will help in the creation of the premise of the debate.

[travestyny]

I'll make it simple to get this show on the Road.

ADP02, Pls reply to my post and list down your agreed upon premise. So I can then feed it to Travesty. If he quacks. It's over.

So list it down ADP02. Itemise the premise if you have to. I want it as clear and concise as possible. I will help in the creation of the premise of the debate.

Here. Let me help you out. Ask your boy if this is his quotation or if he’d like to change it now. HAHAHAHAHHAHA

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

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

[Spoon23]

EXACTLY. HAHAHAHAHA.

This is what ADP02 Said that you quoted him on. I just reinforced it and you agreed buy saying exactly. So quit whining and step up!!

Originally Posted by ADP02 (That you Travesty quoted him on)
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 I, Spoon23 have said and you admittedly agreeing by saying EXACTLY. Sealing the deal.


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.



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

No where to RUN. You have agreed. EXACTLY!!! HAHAHAHA!!

STOP BIATCHIN' OUT.


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


EXACTLY!

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

[Spoon23]

ADP02, Since Travesty has agreed to this.

In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used.[/B]

Since Travesty agrees to what I reinforced to clear the way for this debate.


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.


Which subtopics TIES with the use of EPO. We will add this to the premise. So it will be clearer for the judges. Basically anything correlated to cheating that is linked to the question Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria? Will be included in the debate.


Anything to add ADP02?

[Spoon23]

Travesty and ADP02.

Write down in a paragraph what you are upholding. What you stand for. This has to be clearly defined.

ADP02 believes on what premise and Travesty believes what?

Make it short but complete.


Let's see if we can get a black and white case here. You can't be both in the same page. We need to define each sides argument. So it will be clear what each side is fighting for.

There can only be one of you who is right. Like I said. The Judges will decide on that.

[travestyny]

Travesty and ADP02.

Write down in a paragraph what you are upholding. What you stand for. This has to be clearly defined.

ADP02 believes on what premise and Travesty believes what?

Make it short but complete.


Let's see if we can get a black and white case here. You can't be both in the same page. We need to define each sides argument. So it will be clear what each side is fighting for.

There can only be one of you who is right. Like I said. The Judges will decide on that.

Lmaooooooo.

1. You are not a judge, son.

2. Still waiting for you to confirm whether your boy said this. Don’t duck it

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

I TOLD YOUR BOY HE CAN USE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HE WANTS. YOU ARE SO FUVVCKING ****** THAT YOU THINK YOU'RE HELPING HIM BUT YOU'RE ONLY DIGGING HIS GRAVE EVEN FURTHER.

AND NO, WE DON'T NEED NEW INITIAL STATEMENTS. HE CLAIMED THAT HIS WAS SO STRONG BEFORE.....AND THEY WERE THE OFFICIAL INITIAL STATEMENTS SO THERE IS NO REASON TO CHANGE THEM, RIGHT? I MEAN.......UNLESS SOMEONE DOESN'T FEEL CONFIDENT IN THEIR SIDE ANYMORE. LMAOOOOOO!

FOR SOME REASON, YOUR BOY HAS BEEN TRYING TO BACKTRACK OFF OF THOSE INITIAL STATEMENTS. I WONDER WHY. BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


HERE'S WHAT HE SAID ABOUT HIS INITIAL STATEMENT DURING THE DEBATE: SO STRONG THAT I COULDN'T COUNTER THEM!

I was basically done after my initial posts and do not believe that you said anything to counter me on this subject

CONTRAST THAT TO WHAT HE SAID ABOUT IT A WEEK AGO: SO WEAK BECAUSE THEY WERE REWORDED BY A JUDGE, AND REALLY DIDN'T MEAN MUCH!

If I remember correctly those statements were reworded by Billeau2 ..... when I saw your statements being totally in conflict with our discussion that we agreed on, I said, the initial statements really do not mean much.

EXPLAIN, ADP02

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

[travestyny]

YO, ADP02, EVEN YOUR BOY SPOON SAID....

1. ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE AND LET THE JUDGES DECIDE WHAT WAS THE SCOPE.

2. HE SAID OUT OF SCOPE MEANS INADMISSIBLE.

3. HE SAID USE ANY INFORMATION YOU WANT AFTER THAT.



I ACCEPT. DO YOU ACCEPT? YES OR NO? DON'T LET Spoon23 DOWN!!!!!

Just pay the points that you owe me, and we do it for....

PERMANENT BAN.
ALL POINTS.

ACCEPT OR DECLINE? WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER????

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

[Spoon23]

YO, ADP02, EVEN YOUR BOY SPOON SAID....

1. ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE AND LET THE JUDGES DECIDE WHAT WAS THE SCOPE.

2. HE SAID OUT OF SCOPE MEANS INADMISSIBLE.

3. HE SAID USE ANY INFORMATION YOU WANT AFTER THAT.



I ACCEPT. DO YOU ACCEPT? YES OR NO? DON'T LET Spoon23 DOWN!!!!!

Just pay the points that you owe me, and we do it for....

PERMANENT BAN.
ALL POINTS.

ACCEPT OR DECLINE? WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER????

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

Don't forget the most important part that you agreed on Travesty.



In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used.[/B]

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.


Which subtopics TIES with the use of EPO. We will add this to the premise as supporting documents. So it will be clearer for the judges that it is part of it. Basically anything correlated to cheating that is linked to the question Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria? Will be included in the debate.

As long as it is tied to EPO topics, meaning it is derived from the history of how EPO is developed or is correlated to other sub topics in relation to EPO. It will be included as supporting documents to your argument and is definitely admissible.


Anything to add ADP02?

Let me know. I'll make the thread header for the premise of your debate.

[Spoon23]

Lmaooooooo.



AND NO, WE DON'T NEED NEW INITIAL STATEMENTS. HE CLAIMED THAT HIS WAS SO STRONG BEFORE.....AND THEY WERE THE OFFICIAL INITIAL STATEMENTS SO THERE IS NO REASON TO CHANGE THEM, RIGHT? I MEAN.......UNLESS SOMEONE DOESN'T FEEL CONFIDENT IN THEIR SIDE ANYMORE. LMAOOOOOO!

lolololololol

Are you dumb?

It's a fresh court.

All it is to prove your point. Pick a side. And try to defend it.

Have you been in a court?

You can use all your factual evidence as you wish it to defend your point. There is no initial point. You have your cards he has his. It's up to you guys how you use it. It's about defending your point. Judges will decide who has a stronger point. That's how easy it is. Don't complicate. This is a fresh court. Draw your position. There are different ways of using an argument. Past is past. New court. Defend your side with facts.

It's time to dance.

Now for clarity. What is your position Travesty. Define it in a paragraph. I will let ADP02 look at it visa-vis, if everyone is okay with the premise. It's time to play.

[travestyny]

Don't forget the most important part that you agreed on Travesty.



In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used.[/B]

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.


Which subtopics TIES with the use of EPO. We will add this to the premise as supporting documents. So it will be clearer for the judges that it is part of it. Basically anything correlated to cheating that is linked to the question Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria? Will be included in the debate.

As long as it is tied to EPO topics, meaning it is derived from the history of how EPO is developed or is correlated to other sub topics in relation to EPO. It will be included as supporting documents to your argument and is definitely admissible.


Anything to add ADP02?

Let me know. I'll make the thread header for the premise of your debate.

You idiot, you don’t even realize that what you are quoting about additional evidence is from the document that your boy says was out of scope.

But of course I have no problem with additional evidence as long as it’s used to back up the scope and the initial statements.

Let’s do it!