Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

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

THE POINT IS, DID YOU SAY THAT?????? YOU WERE SQUIRMING. I DIDN'T AGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT USED THE WORD "MUST" AND I WAS SHOWING YOU THAT THE CRITERIA THAT YOU FALSELY STATED WAS A THRESHOLD WAS NOT EVEN REQUIRED. YOU WERE CAUGHT OUT THERE IN TWO WAYS. So WHO IS THE FOOL. And I had information that said EXACTLY WHAT I SAID THE SCOPE WAS!

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.

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.

IF YOU WANT TO TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR POINT AND WHAT I BELIEVED THE SCOPE TO BE, PLEASE BE MY GUEST.

BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN THE POINT. YOU CAN'T STATE OVER AND OVER THAT YOU BELIEVED THAT WAS THE SCOPE, AND THEN SUDDENLY TRY TO CHANGE IT....A THIRD TIME!

1. The debate was about threshold substances. You wanted to change it to "threshold criteria.

2. Then your statement used the term must, you wanted to change that.

3. NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE IT TO CAN...AT ANYTIME, WITH ANY TESTING ENTITY.

JUST FVVCKING STOP AND ANSWER THE QUESTION. IS THAT YOUR ROADMAP TO THE SCOPE THAT YOU POSTED? YES OR NO?

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

WHATTTTT? WHAT THE ACTUAL FVVCK ARE YOU SAYING. THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID DURING THE DEBATE.

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.

WHAT DOES THAT SAY RIGHT THERE??????? DO YOU EVEN RE-READ WHAT YOU TYPE AND THINK....YEA, THAT LIE WILL GO OVER WELL.

YOU ARE A PERPETUAL LIAR AND YOU HAVE A SERIOUS FVVCKING ISSUE!!!!!


------EDIT-----

OH, YOU MEAN THE INITIAL STATEMENTS????? YOU STATED YOURSELF CLEARLY THAT THE INITIAL STATEMENTS WOULD BE WHAT SETS ABOUT OUR DIFFERENCES AND WOULD DEVELOP THE SCOPE.

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.

EXACTLY. AND YOU HAVE NOTHING ABOUT THE ABP IN THERE TO EXPAND UPON LATER BECAUSE IT WAS A DEFLECTION. IN FACT, IF YOU WISHED TO BRING UP THE ABP FROM THE BEGINNING, WHY WOULD YOU WRECK YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT BY SAYING "THRESHOLD TESTING CRITERIA MUST SHOW RECOMBINANT EPO SPECIFICALLY." THAT MEANS YOUR STATEMENT, THAT SETS UP THE DISAGREEMENT....THAT I DISAGREE WITH....IS CLEARLY FALSE AND YOU ARE FORCED TO BACK OFF OF YOUR STATEMENT...WHICH YOU PREVIOUSLY STATED WAS SO STRONG...BUT LATER BECAME SO WEAK....BECAUSE ABP DOESN'T REVEAL EPO SPECIFICALLY! THAT IS CLEARLY FALSE!!!!!

3) You said WADA documentS

POINT TO WHERE I SAID IN THE PAST. IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE THAT, PRESENT IT TO THE JUDGES. I HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH PROOF OF WHAT THE TOPIC IS. WADA DOCUMENTS IN THAT THERE IS ONE ABOUT THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES AND A DIFFERENT ONE ABOUT EPO. I DIDN'T SAY THE SAME FVVCKING DOCUMENT GOING BACK IN TO THE PAST. I ALSO HAVE CLEAR POSTS THAT STATE YOUR INFORMATION WOULD BE OUTDATED, I HAVE POSTS STATING I'M WAITING FOR YOU TO GET TO 2015, I HAVE POSTS STATING THIS IS REALLY ABOUT MAY 2ND, 2015, I HAVE POSTS FROM YOU STATING THIS IS ABOUT CURRENT TESTING, THE EPO DOCUMENT....NO S. DUDE. YOUR LIESS WILL NOT HOLD UP, BUT I DARE YOU TO TRY!!!!

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

YOU ALREADY STATED THAT IT WAS ABOUT THE EPO DOCUMENT ALONE. NOTHING ABOUT THE ABP BEING USED TO FIND A POSITIVE READING FOR EPO IN THAT DOCUMENT.

SECOND, WE BOTH KNOW WHAT THE INITIAL STATEMENT WAS TO BE AND EVEN YOU AGREED THAT THE DISAGREEMENT WOULD ARISE FROM IT. YOU CLEARLY STATE THAT THE THRESHOLD MUST SHOW RECOMBINANT EPO SPECIFICALLY. THAT WRECKS YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT.

THE ABP WAS YOUR DEFLECTION AFTER YOU REALIZED YOU WOULD LOSE AND IT'S EASILY PROVABLE.

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!!!


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



Do you want me to go back and repost it?

NO IDEA WHAT THIS IS ABOUT? ASKED ME ABOUT A GOTCHA GAME?


WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO IS TELL ME DID YOU POST THOSE "ROADMAPS" TO THE SCOPE TWICE. ARE THEY YOUR POSTS????? YES OR NO? IF SO, HOW CAN YOU TRY TO CHANGE UP THE SCOPE YET AGAIN!!!!!!! ANSWER STRAIGHT UP.
ARE THEY YOUR POSTS. YES OR NO?

[travestyny]

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!!!!!!!

.

YOU FOUGHT ME TOOTH AND NAIL TO SAY THAT WAS YOUR SCOPE, DID YOU NOT?


ANSWER THE QUESTION! I TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE WRONG IN TWO WAYS. YOU WERE SAYING THERE WERE THRESHOLD CRITERIA. I SAID FALSE. YOU SAID THE CRITERIA THAT YOU FALSELY SAID WERE THRESHOLDS MUST BE PASSED...I SAID FALSE.

BY THE END OF THE DEBATE I DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO FIGHT YOU ON THE SCOPE ANYMORE BECAUSE CLEAR EVIDENCE CAME OUT THAT YOU WERE WRONG. THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU WERE CRYING ABOUT THE SCOPE TO WILLY WANKER, I TOLD YOU THAT HE BASED IT ON EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIMED THE SCOPE WAS.

SO WAS THAT YOUR ROADMAP TO THE SCOPE? ARE YOU TRYING TO CHANGE IT NOW? LET ME KNOW, BRO.


I think you realize right now that you are FUVVCKED! JUST ADMIT IT AND HAND ME OVER THE POINTS.
BE A FVVCKING MAN, ADP!

[ADP02]

THE POINT IS, DID YOU SAY THAT?????? YOU WERE SQUIRMING. I DIDN'T AGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT USED THE WORD "MUST" AND I WAS SHOWING YOU THAT THE CRITERIA THAT YOU FALSELY STATED WAS A THRESHOLD WAS NOT EVEN REQUIRED. YOU WERE CAUGHT OUT THERE IN TWO WAYS. So WHO IS THE FOOL. And I had information that said EXACTLY WHAT I SAID THE SCOPE WAS!






IF YOU WANT TO TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR POINT AND WHAT I BELIEVED THE SCOPE TO BE, PLEASE BE MY GUEST.

BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN THE POINT. YOU CAN'T STATE OVER AND OVER THAT YOU BELIEVED THAT WAS THE SCOPE, AND THEN SUDDENLY TRY TO CHANGE IT....A THIRD TIME!

1. The debate was about threshold substances. You wanted to change it to "threshold criteria.

2. Then your statement used the term must, you wanted to change that.

3. NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE IT TO CAN...AT ANYTIME, WITH ANY TESTING ENTITY.

JUST FVVCKING STOP AND ANSWER THE QUESTION. IS THAT YOUR ROADMAP TO THE SCOPE THAT YOU POSTED? YES OR NO?



WHATTTTT? WHAT THE ACTUAL FVVCK ARE YOU SAYING. THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID DURING THE DEBATE.



WHAT DOES THAT SAY RIGHT THERE??????? DO YOU EVEN RE-READ WHAT YOU TYPE AND THINK....YEA, THAT LIE WILL GO OVER WELL.

YOU ARE A PERPETUAL LIAR AND YOU HAVE A SERIOUS FVVCKING ISSUE!!!!!


------EDIT-----

OH, YOU MEAN THE INITIAL STATEMENTS????? YOU STATED YOURSELF CLEARLY THAT THE INITIAL STATEMENTS WOULD BE WHAT SETS ABOUT OUR DIFFERENCES AND WOULD DEVELOP THE SCOPE.



EXACTLY. AND YOU HAVE NOTHING ABOUT THE ABP IN THERE TO EXPAND UPON LATER BECAUSE IT WAS A DEFLECTION. IN FACT, IF YOU WISHED TO BRING UP THE ABP FROM THE BEGINNING, WHY WOULD YOU WRECK YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT BY SAYING "THRESHOLD TESTING CRITERIA MUST SHOW RECOMBINANT EPO SPECIFICALLY." THAT MEANS YOUR STATEMENT, THAT SETS UP THE DISAGREEMENT....THAT I DISAGREE WITH....IS CLEARLY FALSE AND YOU ARE FORCED TO BACK OFF OF YOUR STATEMENT...WHICH YOU PREVIOUSLY STATED WAS SO STRONG...BUT LATER BECAME SO WEAK....BECAUSE ABP DOESN'T REVEAL EPO SPECIFICALLY! THAT IS CLEARLY FALSE!!!!!



POINT TO WHERE I SAID IN THE PAST. IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE THAT, PRESENT IT TO THE JUDGES. I HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH PROOF OF WHAT THE TOPIC IS. WADA DOCUMENTS IN THAT THERE IS ONE ABOUT THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES AND A DIFFERENT ONE ABOUT EPO. I DIDN'T SAY THE SAME FVVCKING DOCUMENT GOING BACK IN TO THE PAST. I ALSO HAVE CLEAR POSTS THAT STATE YOUR INFORMATION WOULD BE OUTDATED, I HAVE POSTS STATING I'M WAITING FOR YOU TO GET TO 2015, I HAVE POSTS STATING THIS IS REALLY ABOUT MAY 2ND, 2015, I HAVE POSTS FROM YOU STATING THIS IS ABOUT CURRENT TESTING, THE EPO DOCUMENT....NO S. DUDE. YOUR LIESS WILL NOT HOLD UP, BUT I DARE YOU TO TRY!!!!




YOU ALREADY STATED THAT IT WAS ABOUT THE EPO DOCUMENT ALONE. NOTHING ABOUT THE ABP BEING USED TO FIND A POSITIVE READING FOR EPO IN THAT DOCUMENT.

SECOND, WE BOTH KNOW WHAT THE INITIAL STATEMENT WAS TO BE AND EVEN YOU AGREED THAT THE DISAGREEMENT WOULD ARISE FROM IT. YOU CLEARLY STATE THAT THE THRESHOLD MUST SHOW RECOMBINANT EPO SPECIFICALLY. THAT WRECKS YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT.

THE ABP WAS YOUR DEFLECTION AFTER YOU REALIZED YOU WOULD LOSE AND IT'S EASILY PROVABLE.




NO IDEA WHAT THIS IS ABOUT? ASKED ME ABOUT A GOTCHA GAME?


WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO IS TELL ME DID YOU POST THOSE "ROADMAPS" TO THE SCOPE TWICE. ARE THEY YOUR POSTS????? YES OR NO? IF SO, HOW CAN YOU TRY TO CHANGE UP THE SCOPE YET AGAIN!!!!!!! ANSWER STRAIGHT UP.
ARE THEY YOUR POSTS. YES OR NO?

Roadmap? You are trying to squirm because you are regretting that you ACCEPTED the AGREEMENT!!!




I already explained this all to Mr Misinterpretation/DEFLECTOR!!!

1) There is only 1 place that we AGREED to the SCOPE.




2) I have not been going back to check all of YOUR HALF TRUTHs or OUT OF CONTEXT statements but this one I remember YOUR "Unless I'm mistaken" made by YOU.

a) You said "unless you are mistaken", well you were mistaken!!!! LOL

b) The truth is that those 2 posts were NOT back to back reply/response between us two. Your post was to someone else who didn't know ...... NOT TO ME!!!
c) Like I keep on telling you, there is only 1 place that we AGREED to the SCOPE. Go FIND IT!!! LOL Mr CONFUSED!!!

d) You do not state why were were arguing. You wanted to confuse and remove even statements that were in the document that you are now crying that was in SCOPE. WTF!!! LOL

e) "d" Well, this is even though initially, you included and said in your statement that there is no thresholds, ratios, scores not in the screening nor confirmation testing for EPO. You were trying to CHANGE THE SCOPE!!!!

ADMIT TO THAT MR DEFLECTOR!!!!



3) You are trying to play GOT YOU GAMEs here. I keep on telling you that there is ONE PLACE where we BOTH AGREED. That is it!!!


4) "My point". Like I said, this is just pure "GOT YOU GAMEs" but in reality it seems to be your poor comprehension AGAIN!!!

Yes, WADA has different criteria. Going by the scope, there can be a criteria that is a threshold type test. If that criteria that has threshold type test is used it needs to be over a certain threshold (MUST BE PASSED) to state that there is an indication of synthetic EPO. ELSE the indication is that there is no EPO.

BUT lets all go back to the SCOPE. "Can or does EPO have threshold type tests" ..... YOU AGREED TO THAT Mr Got You Games!!!!



5) RIGHT, the POINT IS THAT IN ALL YOUR QUOTEs, YOU ARE DISAGREEING WITH ME!!!! So WTF!!!!



6) Like I said, There is only 1 place that we AGREED to the SCOPE. So what is your problem?

If I said something AFTER that, that went against what you agreed with, I get it. Then you have a point. All of the posts that you posted and I made, they are NOT in conflict with what we AGREED to!!!!

or are you saying that they are in conflict with our agreement? LOL




7) In fact, the only EXCLUSION that we AGREED to, you had no problem in BREAKING that AGREEMENT!!!!





That's that!!! LOL








NOW:

So, Mr Misinterpretation/DEFLECTOR/CONFUSED!!! [/B]

so go answer my question. You AGREED to the SCOPE. So did you take you ACCEPTING that AGREEMENT seriously when you were debating?



.

[travestyny]

Roadmap? You are trying to squirm because you are regretting that you ACCEPTED the AGREEMENT!!!




I already explained this all to Mr Misinterpretation/DEFLECTOR!!!

1) There is only 1 place that we AGREED to the SCOPE.




2) I have not been going back to check all of YOUR HALF TRUTHs or OUT OF CONTEXT statements but this one I remember YOUR "Unless I'm mistaken" made by YOU.

a) You said "unless you are mistaken", well you were mistaken!!!! LOL

b) The truth is that those 2 posts were NOT back to back reply/response between us two. Your post was to someone else who didn't know ...... NOT TO ME!!!
c) Like I keep on telling you, there is only 1 place that we AGREED to the SCOPE. Go FIND IT!!! LOL Mr CONFUSED!!!

d) You do not state why were were arguing. You wanted to confuse and remove even statements that were in the document that you are now crying that was in SCOPE. WTF!!! LOL

e) "d" Well, this is even though initially, you included and said in your statement that there is no thresholds, ratios, scores not in the screening nor confirmation testing for EPO. You were trying to CHANGE THE SCOPE!!!!

ADMIT TO THAT MR DEFLECTOR!!!!



3) You are trying to play GOT YOU GAMEs here. I keep on telling you that there is ONE PLACE where we BOTH AGREED. That is it!!!


4) "My point". Like I said, this is just pure "GOT YOU GAMEs" but in reality it seems to be your poor comprehension AGAIN!!!

Yes, WADA has different criteria. Going by the scope, there can be a criteria that is a threshold type test. If that criteria that has threshold type test is used it needs to be over a certain threshold (MUST BE PASSED) to state that there is an indication of synthetic EPO. ELSE the indication is that there is no EPO.

BUT lets all go back to the SCOPE. "Can or does EPO have threshold type tests" ..... YOU AGREED TO THAT Mr Got You Games!!!!



5) RIGHT, the POINT IS THAT IN ALL YOUR QUOTEs, YOU ARE DISAGREEING WITH ME!!!! So WTF!!!!



6) Like I said, There is only 1 place that we AGREED to the SCOPE. So what is your problem?

If I said something AFTER that, that went against what you agreed with, I get it. Then you have a point. All of the posts that you posted and I made, they are NOT in conflict with what we AGREED to!!!!

or are you saying that they are in conflict with our agreement? LOL




7) In fact, the only EXCLUSION that we AGREED to, you had no problem in BREAKING that AGREEMENT!!!!





That's that!!! LOL








NOW:

So, Mr Misinterpretation/DEFLECTOR/CONFUSED!!! [/B]

so go answer my question. You AGREED to the SCOPE. So did you take you ACCEPTING that AGREEMENT seriously when you were debating?



.

READ THE FIRST SENTENCE...THEN STOPPED.


WAS THAT YOUR ROAD MAP TO THE SCOPE OR NOT????


You can't state:

1. EPO is a threshold substance.....

2. Oh, nevermind since you disproved that. Now It's EPO has threshold criteria that must be met....

3. Oh nevermind, since you disproved that. EPO has threshold criteria in the EPO document.

4. Oh nevermind...since you disproved that. EPO can have threshold criteria at some point in the past from some testing entity.


AGAIN, YOU GAVE A CLEAR ROAD MAP TO THE SCOPE. YOU CAN'T BACK OUT OF IT NOW. THE REASON THAT YOU WON'T GO FOR THE REMATCH IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU ARE FVVCKED. YOU ARE THE BIGGEST LYING SCUMBAG IN THE HISTORY OF THIS SITE.

TIME FOR YOU TO PAY UP!!!!

[ADP02]

READ THE FIRST SENTENCE...THEN STOPPED.


WAS THAT YOUR ROAD MAP TO THE SCOPE OR NOT????


You can't state:

1. EPO is a threshold substance.....

2. Oh, nevermind since you disproved that. Now It's EPO has threshold criteria that must be met....

3. Oh nevermind, since you disproved that. EPO has threshold criteria in the EPO document.

4. Oh nevermind...since you disproved that. EPO can have threshold criteria at some point in the past from some testing entity.


AGAIN, YOU GAVE A CLEAR ROAD MAP TO THE SCOPE. YOU CAN'T BACK OUT OF IT NOW. THE REASON THAT YOU WON'T GO FOR THE REMATCH IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU ARE FVVCKED. YOU ARE THE BIGGEST LYING SCUMBAG IN THE HISTORY OF THIS SITE.

TIME FOR YOU TO PAY UP!!!!

That was NOT a roadmap MR DEFLECTOR. There were lots of points made while ARGUING the SCOPE AFTER THE FACT.


That was ME telling you that YOU WERE WRONG and that YOU were intentionally trying to CHANGE THE SCOPE!!!!

You were playing DUMB to CHANGE THE SCOPE. You were trying to state that "Unless I'm mistaken" became the scope that we agreed to. I corrected you, that is all.


Am I right?


Only later did I see other points that SHOT DOWN your BS "CHANGE THE SCOPE"

I saw that you ACTUALLY USED the statement that was in conflict with you trying to CHANGE THE SCOPE!!!


and the courage for you to post above "SCUMBAG" Are you looking in the mirror?


Like I said and you know now, I went back at one point to verify if my point was correct or was it your BS posts.
1) Again, your initial statement was in conflict with what you were trying to do. That is, you TRYING TO CHANGE THE SCOPE.

2) I found later, where we made the AGREEMENT on the SCOPE!!!



Now, you are trying to find any post that may help you CHANGE THE SCOPE ….. AGAIN!!! BUT that is a CHANGE IN SCOPE.


and I think that is not what you wanted to do!!!
You wanted to go by the ORIGINAL SCOPE that WE AGREED TO!!!!



EDIT: Your "got you games" made YOU think this was about threshold substances. I would think that by now and after reading the WADA documents, that you would understand where I was coming from. Yet, you still talk and post the way you do! Freaking unbelievable!!!




.



.
.

[travestyny]

Roadmap? You are trying to squirm because you are regretting that you ACCEPTED the AGREEMENT!!!




I already explained this all to Mr Misinterpretation/DEFLECTOR!!!

1) There is only 1 place that we AGREED to the SCOPE.

WRONG. AND I'M GOING TO WRECK YOU ABOUT THIS IN A SUBSEQUENT POST JUST TO NAIL YOUR COFFIN, CLOWN.

2) I have not been going back to check all of YOUR HALF TRUTHs or OUT OF CONTEXT statements but this one I remember YOUR "Unless I'm mistaken" made by YOU.

a) You said "unless you are mistaken", well you were mistaken!!!! LOL

The only reason I said "unless I'm mistaken" was because you had already tried to change the scope so I wouldn't be surprised if you tried to change it again.

and surprise surprise. You tried to change it again. And now AGAIN!!!!!! Unbelievable. YOU ARE A LYING SCUMBAG. A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHlT. THE BEAUTY OF IT IS YOUR OWN POSTS WRECK YOU AND YOU HAVE NOWHERE TO RUN TO YOU HALFWIT BlTCH!

b) The truth is that those 2 posts were NOT back to back reply/response between us two. Your post was to someone else who didn't know ...... NOT TO ME!!!
c) Like I keep on telling you, there is only 1 place that we AGREED to the SCOPE. Go FIND IT!!! LOL Mr CONFUSED!!!

THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE BACK TO BACK. DID YOU SAY IT???????? YES YOU DID. SO WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO PRETEND YOU DIDN'T SAY IT. LMAOOOOOOO. SQUIRM SQUIRM SQUIRMMMMMM. "MY POINT WAS....NOT REALLY MY POINT. WAHHHH." LMAOOOOOO. YOU ARE MAKING A COMPLETE FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF.

d) You do not state why were were arguing. You wanted to confuse and remove even statements that were in the document that you are now crying that was in SCOPE. WTF!!! LOL

Say what? The document speaks for itself. I OFFERED YOU A REMATCH AND YOU DECLINED. YOU KNOW WHAT'S UP!

e) "d" Well, this is even though initially, you included and said in your statement that there is no thresholds, ratios, scores not in the screening nor confirmation testing for EPO. You were trying to CHANGE THE SCOPE!!!!

ADMIT TO THAT MR DEFLECTOR!!!!

HERE IS MY OFFICIAL STATEMENT!!!!!!

here is the statement I came up with for travestyny:

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.

#

Ok Travestyny...Again this is just to clarify the debate, so any information proving a point, or about the other individual's perspective will come when you guys do battle lol.

Important: IS this an accurate statement of your position? Feel free to maKe changes, just remember to keep it simple in this phase so people can know what the debate is about.

MY INITIAL STATEMENT WAS PROVEN CORRECT. YOURS WAS DESTROYED. FACT!

YOU KEEP HARPING ON RATIOS. IF THERE ARE RATIOS, IT STILL DOES NOT PROVE YOUR CASE. YOU CLEARLY LOST YOUR CASE BECAUSE THERE IS NO THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR EPO TESTING IN THAT DOCUMENT. THAT IS CLEAR. YOU LOST AND YOU NEED TO PAY UP!

3) You are trying to play GOT YOU GAMEs here. I keep on telling you that there is ONE PLACE where we BOTH AGREED. That is it!!!

AND AGAIN, I'LL OWN YOU ON THIS LATER. LMAOOOOO.

4) "My point". Like I said, this is just pure "GOT YOU GAMEs" but in reality it seems to be your poor comprehension AGAIN!!!

Yes, WADA has different criteria. Going by the scope, there can be a criteria that is a threshold type test. If that criteria that has threshold type test is used it needs to be over a certain threshold (MUST BE PASSED) to state that there is an indication of synthetic EPO. ELSE the indication is that there is no EPO.

DUDE, YOU ALREADY SAID THIS. IT WAS PROVEN FALSE. GET OVER IT.

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

BUT lets all go back to the SCOPE. "Can or does EPO have threshold type tests" ..... YOU AGREED TO THAT Mr Got You Games!!!!

WRONG. I asked you over and over if that was your proposal to the judge when he asked for your initial statement. I said I'm fine with it. Why would I not be fine with what you want to post to the judge. I can't control what the fvvck you post to him. I know that either way you are WRONG and you're still wrong to this day. YOU LOST AND IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO PAY UP!

5) RIGHT, the POINT IS THAT IN ALL YOUR QUOTEs, YOU ARE DISAGREEING WITH ME!!!! So WTF!!!!

IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU STATED CLEARLY WHAT YOU BELIEVED THE SCOPE WAS. SO YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT NOW. WHAT'S NEXT....YOU GET PROVEN WRONG AND WANT TO CHANGE IT TO SOMETHING ELSE. YOU CRIED PAGE AFTER PAGE AFTER PAGE ABOUT THE SCOPE AND NOW YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT AGAIN. I TOLD YOU THAT EITHER WAY YOU WERE WRONG. YOU KEPT GOING WITH THAT BEING THE SCOPE, AND YOU WERE WRONG ANYWAY. YOU HAVE NO WIGGLE ROOM. YOU LOST. IT'S OVER.

6) Like I said, There is only 1 place that we AGREED to the SCOPE. So what is your problem?

If I said something AFTER that, that went against what you agreed with, I get it. Then you have a point. All of the posts that you posted and I made, they are NOT in conflict with what we AGREED to!!!!

or are you saying that they are in conflict with our agreement? LOL

YOU ARE GOING TO BE SURPRISED IN JUST A MINUTE. LMAOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! THIS IS GOING TO COME BACK TO BITE YOU IN THE ASS!

7) In fact, the only EXCLUSION that we AGREED to, you had no problem in BREAKING that AGREEMENT!!!!

NO IDEA WHAT THE FVVCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. MY INITIAL STATEMENT WAS AGREED TO BY THE JUDGE AND WE SEE THAT EVERY TIME A THRESHOLD WAS BROUGHT UP BY AN ATHLETE, THE COURT SAID FIRST IT NEEDS TO BE MADE CLEAR THAT EPO IS NOT A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE. YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY ****** WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT. LMAOOOOO!

That's that!!! LOL








NOW:

So, Mr Misinterpretation/DEFLECTOR/CONFUSED!!! [/B]

so go answer my question. You AGREED to the SCOPE. So did you take you ACCEPTING that AGREEMENT seriously when you were debating?

.

SO AFTER ALL OF THAT YOU ARE STILL GOING TO IGNORE WHAT YOU POSTED ABOUT THE SCOPE. LMAOOOOOO.

YOU ARE GOING TO READ THE NEXT POST, CHOKE ON IT, AND DIE!

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

[travestyny]

that was not a roadmap mr deflector. There were lots of points made while arguing the scope after the fact.


That was me telling you that you were wrong and that you were intentionally trying to change the scope!!!!

You were playing dumb to change the scope. You were trying to state that "unless i'm mistaken" became the scope that we agreed to. I corrected you, that is all.


Am i right?

wait...hold up....hold up......

So you're saying this post:

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.

and this post:

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!

are not saying what the scope was? It is not a roadmap to the scope?????


HOW ABOUT HERE? ANOTHER ROADMAP THAT IS IDENTICAL:

NOPE, you are FULL OF IT!!!


1) YOU are DEFLECTING .... GO ANSWER MY POST ........

2) READ the posts instead of DEFLECTING!!!
We made our statements then Billeau2 stated what we needed to do next ... verify if we have any differences and we did .... The scope was CLEARLY DISCUSSED


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!!!!



.

THE BIG BLUE TEXT IS YOURS, NOT MINE.

How about here which was right after it where you clarified yet again!!!!!

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

DESTROYED. BUT I'M NOT DONE WITH YOU YET!

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

[travestyny]

you are regretting that you ACCEPTED the AGREEMENT!!!

1) There is only 1 place that we AGREED to the SCOPE.

c) Like I keep on telling you, there is only 1 place that we AGREED to the SCOPE. Go FIND IT!!! LOL Mr CONFUSED!!!

You are trying to play GOT YOU GAMEs here. I keep on telling you that there is ONE PLACE where we BOTH AGREED. That is it!!!

BUT lets all go back to the SCOPE. "Can or does EPO have threshold type tests" ..... YOU AGREED TO THAT Mr Got You Games!!!!

6) Like I said, There is only 1 place that we AGREED to the SCOPE. So what is your problem?

If I said something AFTER that, that went against what you agreed with, I get it.Then you have a point. All of the posts that you posted and I made, they are NOT in conflict with what we AGREED to!!!!

or are you saying that they are in conflict with our agreement? LOL

so go answer my question. You AGREED to the SCOPE. So did you take you ACCEPTING that AGREEMENT seriously when you were debating?
.

WELL WELL WELL. WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE? ONE PLACE WHERE WE AGREED TO THE SCOPE, HUH? AND WHERE DO YOU SAY THAT SCOPE WAS. BEFORE WE SET DOWN THE OFFICIAL INITIAL STATEMENTS, RIGHT. BEFORE BILLEAU'S DIRECTIONS, WHICH YOU KEPT CLAIMING IS THE REASON THAT THE SCOPE CAME AFTER THAT POINT.

YOU STATE ABOVE THAT IF YOU SAID SOMETHING TO GO AGAINST WHAT YOU ARE NOW CALLING THE SCOPE LATER, THEN I'D HAVE A POINT, right????? RIGHT?????

WELL...HERE IT IS. READ IT AND WEEP!

WHEN DISCUSSING WHY YOUR ROADMAPS STATE THE TRUE SCOPE, YOU SAID THIS!!!!!!!

We both said stuff BEFORE the initial statement. Was there an agreement at that point? NOT REALLY.

GIVE ME THE POINTS THAT YOU OWE. IT'S OVERRRRRR

4-0!!!!!!

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

[img]//media.*****.com/media/hroV3K17Bodoc/source.gif[/img]

WHAT'S GOING TO BE YOUR CRYING EXCUSE NOW? YOU NEED TO BE MEDICATED AGAIN????

[ADP02]

WRONG. AND I'M GOING TO WRECK YOU ABOUT THIS IN A SUBSEQUENT POST JUST TO NAIL YOUR COFFIN, CLOWN.




The only reason I said "unless I'm mistaken" was because you had already tried to change the scope so I wouldn't be surprised if you tried to change it again.

and surprise surprise. You tried to change it again. And now AGAIN!!!!!! Unbelievable. YOU ARE A LYING SCUMBAG. A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHlT. THE BEAUTY OF IT IS YOUR OWN POSTS WRECK YOU AND YOU HAVE NOWHERE TO RUN TO YOU HALFWIT BlTCH!



THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE BACK TO BACK. DID YOU SAY IT???????? YES YOU DID. SO WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO PRETEND YOU DIDN'T SAY IT. LMAOOOOOOO. SQUIRM SQUIRM SQUIRMMMMMM. "MY POINT WAS....NOT REALLY MY POINT. WAHHHH." LMAOOOOOO. YOU ARE MAKING A COMPLETE FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF.




Say what? The document speaks for itself. I OFFERED YOU A REMATCH AND YOU DECLINED. YOU KNOW WHAT'S UP!




HERE IS MY OFFICIAL STATEMENT!!!!!!




MY INITIAL STATEMENT WAS PROVEN CORRECT. YOURS WAS DESTROYED. FACT!

YOU KEEP HARPING ON RATIOS. IF THERE ARE RATIOS, IT STILL DOES NOT PROVE YOUR CASE. YOU CLEARLY LOST YOUR CASE BECAUSE THERE IS NO THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR EPO TESTING IN THAT DOCUMENT. THAT IS CLEAR. YOU LOST AND YOU NEED TO PAY UP!




AND AGAIN, I'LL OWN YOU ON THIS LATER. LMAOOOOO.



DUDE, YOU ALREADY SAID THIS. IT WAS PROVEN FALSE. GET OVER IT.






WRONG. I asked you over and over if that was your proposal to the judge when he asked for your initial statement. I said I'm fine with it. Why would I not be fine with what you want to post to the judge. I can't control what the fvvck you post to him. I know that either way you are WRONG and you're still wrong to this day. YOU LOST AND IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO PAY UP!



IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU STATED CLEARLY WHAT YOU BELIEVED THE SCOPE WAS. SO YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT NOW. WHAT'S NEXT....YOU GET PROVEN WRONG AND WANT TO CHANGE IT TO SOMETHING ELSE. YOU CRIED PAGE AFTER PAGE AFTER PAGE ABOUT THE SCOPE AND NOW YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT AGAIN. I TOLD YOU THAT EITHER WAY YOU WERE WRONG. YOU KEPT GOING WITH THAT BEING THE SCOPE, AND YOU WERE WRONG ANYWAY. YOU HAVE NO WIGGLE ROOM. YOU LOST. IT'S OVER.




YOU ARE GOING TO BE SURPRISED IN JUST A MINUTE. LMAOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! THIS IS GOING TO COME BACK TO BITE YOU IN THE ASS!




NO IDEA WHAT THE FVVCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. MY INITIAL STATEMENT WAS AGREED TO BY THE JUDGE AND WE SEE THAT EVERY TIME A THRESHOLD WAS BROUGHT UP BY AN ATHLETE, THE COURT SAID FIRST IT NEEDS TO BE MADE CLEAR THAT EPO IS NOT A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE. YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY ****** WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT. LMAOOOOO!







SO AFTER ALL OF THAT YOU ARE STILL GOING TO IGNORE WHAT YOU POSTED ABOUT THE SCOPE. LMAOOOOOO.

YOU ARE GOING TO READ THE NEXT POST, CHOKE ON IT, AND DIE!

1) Proven by who? People you DUPED and are unfortunately not experts!!! Some did what they can by reading some of the posts.

Just by this constant bickering, it proves that meant it was just a Kangaroo type court. Anything can be said even if it went against our AGREEMENT


2) Yes, a CHALLENGE from this THREAD THAT YOU ARE TOO SCARED TO ACCEPT!!!



I'm STILL WAITING DUCKER!!!!



3)

WRONG. I asked you over and over if that was your proposal to the judge when he asked for your initial statement. I said I'm fine with it. Why would I not be fine with what you want to post to the judge. I can't control what the fvvck you post to him.

I have plenty of pages in this thread that PROVES that what you just stated was PURE BS!!!

What did you say when I tried to come up with a SCOPE in this thread?

"It's too VAGUE .... how can I accept a VAGUE..... make it CLEARER"

4)

IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU STATED CLEARLY WHAT YOU BELIEVED THE SCOPE WAS. SO YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT NOW.

I have been posting what was the SCOPE. Yet you want to change the scope BUT now you are saying that you and I cannot change the scope!!!

Poor Travestyny. It's time to apply to yourself your own medicine!!!


5)

"NO IDEA WHAT THE FVVCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. MY INITIAL STATEMENT WAS AGREED TO BY THE JUDGE AND WE SEE THAT EVERY TIME A THRESHOLD WAS BROUGHT UP BY AN ATHLETE, THE COURT SAID FIRST IT NEEDS TO BE MADE CLEAR THAT EPO IS NOT A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE. YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY ****** WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT. LMAOOOOO!"

a) The CAS Panel is allowed to use all statements. They do NOT need to exclude anything. You on the other hand had but 1 EXCLUSION that you AGREED to!!! You couldn't let it go just so you can confuse the judges!

b)
The judges saw my NOTE and accepted that there is more info to come.
They accepted you stating that there are no threshold in WADA documentS



The statements was to verify where we stood on the SCOPE. For or against!!! We couldn't wiggle from being for or AGAINST the AGREED TO SCOPE!!!



c) Like usual, you have no idea when it goes against what we agreed to!!!

"UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN" Now that was the SCOPE!!! (ooops, I better state that Travestyny said this or else, he will try to use this against me later)



GO READ AT THE START. That is the ONLY place that we AGREED to the SCOPE and EXCLUSION!!!!

[travestyny]

1) Proven by who? People you DUPED and are unfortunately not experts!!! Some did what they can by reading some of the posts.

Just by this constant bickering, it proves that meant it was just a Kangaroo type court. Anything can be said even if it went against our AGREEMENT


2) Yes, a CHALLENGE from this THREAD THAT YOU ARE TOO SCARED TO ACCEPT!!!



I'm STILL WAITING DUCKER!!!!



3)


I have plenty of pages in this thread that PROVES that what you just stated was PURE BS!!!

What did you say when I tried to come up with a SCOPE in this thread?





4)

I have been posting what was the SCOPE. Yet you want to change the scope BUT now you are saying that you and I cannot change the scope!!!

Poor Travestyny. It's time to apply to yourself your own medicine!!!


5)


a) The CAS Panel is allowed to use all statements. They do NOT need to exclude anything. You on the other hand had but 1 EXCLUSION that you AGREED to!!! You couldn't let it go just so you can confuse the judges!

b)
The judges saw my NOTE and accepted that there is more info to come.
They accepted you stating that there are no threshold in WADA documentS



The statements was to verify where we stood on the SCOPE. For or against!!! We couldn't wiggle from being for or AGAINST the AGREED TO SCOPE!!!



c) Like usual, you have no idea when it goes against what we agreed to!!!

"UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN" Now that was the SCOPE!!! (ooops, I better state that Travestyny said this or else, he will try to use this against me later)



GO READ AT THE START. That is the ONLY place that we AGREED to the SCOPE and EXCLUSION!!!!

SCROLL UP, REALIZE THAT YOU GOT CAUGHT IN ANOTHER LIE AND ARE COMPLETELY EMBARRASSING YOURSELF, THEN PASS ME THOSE POINTS AND LOG OUT.

or ACCEPT A REMATCH AND GET EMBARRASSED.

OH, THAT'S RIGHT. YOU ALREADY DECLINED:

DO YOU ACCEPT OR NOT???????? FVVCKING ACCEPT AND LET'S GET IT OVER WITH!

NO!!!

IT'S OVER, SON. PAY THE POINTS THAT YOU OWE. ALL THE INFORMATION I HAVE GIVEN CAME STRAIGHT FROM YOU! YOU, IN FACT, BODIED YOURSELF!

4-0!!!!!!

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