Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[ShoulderRoll]

So ADP02 didn't accept the new debate proposal?

And he still hasn't paid up the points he owes from losing 4-0 in the last debate?

And Spoon admitted that Floyd won?

Does that summarize this thread correctly?

[ADP02]

So ADP02 didn't accept the new debate proposal?

And he still hasn't paid up the points he owes from losing 4-0 in the last debate?

And Spoon admitted that Floyd won?

Does that summarize this thread correctly?

See, this is what Travestyny wants. A Kangaroo style court case where nobody knows what is going on!!!

Even his own "friends" are confused.






Read below. Your "friend" Travestyny has now DUCKED 2 Challenges .


On CHALLENGE #2:
Travestyny has tried his best to "hope" that we forget about this challenge.

This thread is on CHALLENGE #2!!!

So go ask Travestyny, WHY oh WHY is he so SCARED to ACCEPT a CHALLENGE that now has a CLEAR SCOPE that even Travestyny is OK with?
and this CHALLENGE is actually based on what Travestyny used in debate #1 to dupe the judges into giving him a vote?







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

So it is me that is waiting for you, Travestyny, to ACCEPT on the CHALLENGEs.



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 12th 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, Travestyny, 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.

.

[travestyny]

So ADP02 didn't accept the new debate proposal?

And he still hasn't paid up the points he owes from losing 4-0 in the last debate?

And Spoon admitted that Floyd won?

Does that summarize this thread correctly?

Yep. That’s exactly what happened. ADP realized he couldn’t accept the proposal because all of the lies he got caught in would be exposed. Spoon even tried to get him to accept and he still declined. An offer for Spoon to take his place was declined.

Of course, Spoon has bigger problems being that dosumpthin exposed that he destroyed his “epic thread” with one post.

And yep, ADP still refuses to pay his debt. You would think if he truly believes I “cheated” he’d want to expose this to the judges. Turns out that everything he said here was the same bullshlt he had been saying at the end of our original debate. It didn’t work then, and I think he realized it wouldn’t work now. He needs to be a man and pay his damn debt!!!!

[travestyny]

See, this is what Travestyny wants. A Kangaroo style court case where nobody knows what is going on!!!

Even his own "friends" are confused.






Read below. Your "friend" Travestyny has now DUCKED 2 Challenges .


On CHALLENGE #2:
Travestyny has tried his best to "hope" that we forget about this challenge.

This thread is on CHALLENGE #2!!!

So go ask Travestyny, WHY oh WHY is he so SCARED to ACCEPT a CHALLENGE that now has a CLEAR SCOPE that even Travestyny is OK with?
and this CHALLENGE is actually based on what Travestyny used in debate #1 to dupe the judges into giving him a vote?







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

So it is me that is waiting for you, Travestyny, to ACCEPT on the CHALLENGEs.



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 12th 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, Travestyny, agreed to.




.

All you have to do is accept the rematch, little man. I've already exposed you for all the lying you've been doing. We both know why you won't accept. You cried about the scope a billion times in the debate thread, and that makes it crystal clear for any judge to see what happened. Remember, YOU EVEN GAVE A ROADMAP TO FINDING THE SCOPE IN THE THREAD. BUT AS PER USUAL, WHEN I BROUGHT THAT UP TO YOU, YOU WON'T EVEN ADDRESS IT. YOU PRETEND I NEVER EVEN POSTED IT!!!!

1. Your challenge here was purposely vague because you didn't want to reveal in the beginning that it was about a criteria that I have you cooked on in TWO ways. 1. Two court panels said it doesn't represent a threshold. 2. It is an old criteria that doesn't even exist in the relevant document. I been telling you that since the end of the last debate when you tried this deflection. It's not going to work.

EVEN YOU ADMIT IN THE DEBATE THAT IT IS OUT OF SCOPE AND IRRELEVANT. YOU WON'T EVEN GO NEAR THAT QUOTATION OF YOURS, PRETENDING THAT YOU DIDN'T SAY IT BUT IT'S RIGHT THERE IN PLAIN ENGLISH.

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.

You asked me to provide the exact link to your quotation, I guess claiming that I doctored it. When I provided it to you, you tried to make up other excuses. LMAO!

2. Spoon blundered big time here, but that's because he wasn't smart enough to understand that you were telling lie after lie after lie here. I give him credit since obviously he must have thought you were telling the truth, and he offered fair terms for a rematch. Unfortunately for you, I accepted and you declined! You are aware of the significance of our initial statements, as you've stated that YOURSELF. And you know your initial statement was demolished. A year ago you said it was super strong, but a few weeks ago you implied it wasn't really your statement and you said that you realized immediately that it didn't matter. BUSTED. Then you tried desperately to change the scope. This after you got caught saying your main point was that threshold criteria MUST be passed. In the original debate I exposed you for saying that and told you 1. There are no threshold criteria. 2. The criteria that you were saying were thresholds were not required and therefore your whole "must be passed" shlt was incorrect, thus having you in TWO ways AGAIN (seems a common theme here). You cried and cried claiming that I was just using the 2nd noose I had around your neck because I knew there were threshold criteria, though I told you over and over that they weren't threshold criteria. You started deflecting your points, saying exactly what the scope was according to you and exactly where it was to be found. In the end I found solid evidence that even that scope was demolished, making the "there are no threshold criteria" noose I had on you even stronger than the "it is not true that the criteria that you falsely say are thresholds must be passed" noose I had around your neck. That's when you began to try to change the scope AGAIN, which is simply the same as what you've been trying here.


You tried all this shlt in the past. It didn't work, and it's not going to work now. Pay your debt. Be a man and admit that you lost. How can you be such a butthurt bltch that you can't accept you lost, especially when you got ZERO votes. It's not like it was even close


OH, AND YOU ARE SUCH A LYING F@G THAT YOU WON'T EVEN ADMIT THAT THIS ALL STARTED BECAUSE OF FLOYD MAYWEATHER'S IV. SUDDENLY MAYWEATHER'S IV IS WHAT WRECKS YOUR ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT REVEALS EVEN MORE OF THE TRUTH. THAT'S FUNNY AS FVVCK!!!

PAY UP AND SHUT THE FVVCK UP. IT'S OVER.

[ADP02]

Yep. That’s exactly what happened. ADP realized he couldn’t accept the proposal because all of the lies he got caught in would be exposed. Spoon even tried to get him to accept and he still declined. An offer for Spoon to take his place was declined.

Of course, Spoon has bigger problems being that dosumpthin exposed that he destroyed his “epic thread” with one post.

And yep, ADP still refuses to pay his debt. You would think if he truly believes I “cheated” he’d want to expose this to the judges. Turns out that everything he said here was the same bullshlt he had been saying at the end of our original debate. It didn’t work then, and I think he realized it wouldn’t work now. He needs to be a man and pay his damn debt!!!!

You and Spoon were discussing something but I'm not even sure 100% what but to me, as I said from the start,

I do not want a Kangaroo style court again.


Just like in this thread, I didn't want that and wanted to be sure that you are OK and SUPER CLEAR with what the SCOPE and EXCLUSIONs are.


You proposal is to do another Kangaroo style court



BUT



As you can see from my post, there are 2 OPTIONs that I GAVE YOU.



Either ACCEPT CHALLENGE from this thread


or


ACCEPT 2 CHALLENGEs based on the SCOPE.




You DUCKED that and went off on a tangent.

[ADP02]

All you have to do is accept the rematch, little man. I've already exposed you for all the lying you've been doing. We both know why you won't accept. You cried about the scope a billion times in the debate thread, and that makes it crystal clear for any judge to see what happened. Remember, YOU EVEN GAVE A ROADMAP TO FINDING THE SCOPE IN THE THREAD. BUT AS PER USUAL, WHEN I BROUGHT THAT UP TO YOU, YOU WON'T EVEN ADDRESS IT. YOU PRETEND I NEVER EVEN POSTED IT!!!!

1. Your challenge here was purposely vague because you didn't want to reveal in the beginning that it was about a criteria that I have you cooked on in TWO ways. 1. Two court panels said it doesn't represent a threshold. 2. It is an old criteria that doesn't even exist in the relevant document. I been telling you that since the end of the last debate when you tried this deflection. It's not going to work.

EVEN YOU ADMIT IN THE DEBATE THAT IT IS OUT OF SCOPE AND IRRELEVANT. YOU WON'T EVEN GO NEAR THAT QUOTATION OF YOURS, PRETENDING THAT YOU DIDN'T SAY IT BUT IT'S RIGHT THERE IN PLAIN ENGLISH.



You asked me to provide the exact link to your quotation, I guess claiming that I doctored it. When I provided it to you, you tried to make up other excuses. LMAO!

2. Spoon blundered big time here, but that's because he wasn't smart enough to understand that you were telling lie after lie after lie here. I give him credit since obviously he must have thought you were telling the truth, and he offered fair terms for a rematch. Unfortunately for you, I accepted and you declined! You are aware of the significance of our initial statements, as you've stated that YOURSELF. And you know your initial statement was demolished. A year ago you said it was super strong, but a few weeks ago you implied it wasn't really your statement and you said that you realized immediately that it didn't matter. BUSTED. Then you tried desperately to change the scope. This after you got caught saying your main point was that threshold criteria MUST be passed. In the original debate I exposed you for saying that and told you 1. There are no threshold criteria. 2. The criteria that you were saying were thresholds were not required and therefore your whole "must be passed" shlt was incorrect, thus having you in TWO ways AGAIN (seems a common theme here). You cried and cried claiming that I was just using the 2nd noose I had around your neck because I knew there were threshold criteria, though I told you over and over that they weren't threshold criteria. You started deflecting your points, saying exactly what the scope was according to you and exactly where it was to be found. In the end I found solid evidence that even that scope was demolished, making the "there are no threshold criteria" noose I had on you even stronger than the "it is not true that the criteria that you falsely say are thresholds must be passed" noose I had around your neck. That's when you began to try to change the scope AGAIN, which is simply the same as what you've been trying here.


You tried all this shlt in the past. It didn't work, and it's not going to work now. Pay your debt. Be a man and admit that you lost. How can you be such a butthurt bltch that you can't accept you lost, especially when you got ZERO votes. It's not like it was even close


OH, AND YOU ARE SUCH A LYING F@G THAT YOU WON'T EVEN ADMIT THAT THIS ALL STARTED BECAUSE OF FLOYD MAYWEATHER'S IV. SUDDENLY MAYWEATHER'S IV IS WHAT WRECKS YOUR ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT REVEALS EVEN MORE OF THE TRUTH. THAT'S FUNNY AS FVVCK!!!

PAY UP AND SHUT THE FVVCK UP. IT'S OVER.

What are you talking about roadmap?





Here is what you, Travestyny, 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.

.

[travestyny]

You and Spoon were discussing something but I'm not even sure 100% what but to me, as I said from the start,

I do not want a Kangaroo style court again.


Just like in this thread, I didn't want that and wanted to be sure that you are OK and SUPER CLEAR with what the SCOPE and EXCLUSIONs are.


You proposal is to do another Kangaroo style court



BUT



As you can see from my post, there are 2 OPTIONs that I GAVE YOU.



Either ACCEPT CHALLENGE from this thread


or


ACCEPT 2 CHALLENGEs based on the SCOPE.




You DUCKED that and went off on a tangent.

DUDE. THERE IS NO KANGAROO COURT. YOU ARE FULL OF SHlT. YOU GAVE CLEAR INFORMATION IN THE THREAD ABOUT WHERE THE SCOPE CAN BE FOUND, SO WHY ARE YOU CALLING IT A KANGAROO COURT? YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT DURING THE DEBATE UNTIL YOU LOST! WHY ARE YOU PRETENDING NOW THAT IT'S SO HARD TO FIND THE SCOPE.

Check out your roadmap:

1) Billeau2 stated right after your posted to avoid each other until we provide our statements again.

2) We posted our statements

3) We discussed our possible disagreements.

4) Billeau2 and Zaroku understood that after we made our statements that we were at that point in time establishing what was the scope and anything that we are disagreeing with.

5) You asked me questions and told you that what you are discussing was out of scope and I told you the scope that we agreed on.

6) YOU didn't object and later you said that you were OK and can start the discussion.

IS THIS YOUR QUOTATION OR IS IT A DOCTORED POST? BECAUSE YOU STATED THIS TWICE AND YOU THEN STATED EXACTLY WHAT THE SCOPE WAS TO YOU. DON'T DUCK THIS. ANSWER!

[travestyny]

What are you talking about roadmap?





here is what you, travestyny, agreed to.





.

just posted the "roadmap" which you actually posted twice!

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!

is this your quotation or is it doctored? Please answer!

[ADP02]

DUDE. THERE IS NO KANGAROO COURT. YOU ARE FULL OF SHlT. YOU GAVE CLEAR INFORMATION IN THE THREAD ABOUT WHERE THE SCOPE CAN BE FOUND, SO WHY ARE YOU CALLING IT A KANGAROO COURT? YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT DURING THE DEBATE UNTIL YOU LOST! WHY ARE YOU PRETENDING NOW THAT IT'S SO HARD TO FIND THE SCOPE.

Check out your roadmap:





IS THIS YOUR QUOTATION OR IS IT A DOCTORED POST? BECAUSE YOU STATED THIS TWICE AND YOU THEN STATED EXACTLY WHAT THE SCOPE WAS TO YOU. DON'T DUCK THIS. ANSWER!

1) You were arguing with me and YOU didn't even agree with me!!! SO STOP IT!!! WHAT A FOOL!!!!

2) The statements were NOT the SCOPE and EXCLUSIONs. They were there to establish our positions on the SCOPE.

3) You said WADA documentS

4) There is NOTHING WRONG with my statement. I even have a "NOTE" stating that for EPO that there are other tests and procedures.

5) Like I said before, you prefer to play the "Got YOU Game" even though before you started, you said you wouldn't …. well, soon after you did!!!

Man, I just read it …. I had that as POINT #8 … GOT YOU GAMES!!!



I asked you about the above and MORE in my previous post but you do like usual and DEFLECT.



Do you want me to go back and repost it?


.

[ADP02]

just posted the "roadmap" which you actually posted twice!





is this your quotation or is it doctored? Please answer!

I do not remember every post made but if true

1) I even said that I would clarify my points as we go along!!!!


2) You disagreed with me!!!!!!!




.