Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

Taking you a real long time to answer a simple question, ADP02


Is "your point" the same as I stated was the topic a year ago? I'm curious what you have to say.

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.

Are you going to answer?

[ADP02]

DUDE, I ALEADY POSTED THIS TO SHOULDEROLL. So I really don't know what you're trying to prove



Are you asking me if that was the scope of our debate. YES.

It's called consistency. I said the same thing one year ago when you wanted to deflect away from it. You said the scope had to come after the initial statements were posted. Fine. After they were posted, you said what you stated the scope was.


But fast foward to today, and you're saying it's a completely different scope. Isn't that right? HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, ADP?



I answered. Now stop deflecting.


Do you believe that this is different or not?









Waiting.....


YOU SAID ANSWER WITH A YES OR NO. I ANSWERED. NOW IT'S YOUR TURN. ANSWER UP AND EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER!

I already answered this but will do this again but a different way since you got confused with the first way that I explained it.

T/E 4/1 threshold TEST ..... It is definitely a WADA approved and required test and it is a definition of a threshold test for me BUT that "TEST" is not stated in that document that you are referring to even though the T/E TEST even meets the document's definition in that its a ratio test.....

You would have said its not a valid definition of threshold because the substance is not in that document but that does not mean that the test is not a threshold type test.

Why its NOT in that particular document?
The test is a SCREENING test which is different that a CONFIRMATORY test and its NOT about a substance surpassing a given threshold .... but AGAIN, is that a threshold type test? YOU BET!


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.

Since you Travestyny were fine back then and now you are saying, "Hell yes" so then maybe, just maybe, you finally AGREEING with what YOU ORIGINALLY AGREED too!!!!


So are we good?


look bud. I stated it right there above in that post that YOU AGREED to.

My other statement, I explained it too and it is also similar to what I just posted above.


You have a test. If for that test it is a threshold type test then for the result of that test to be positive indication then it is when it meets the threshold criteria. If it is below then it doesn't meet that criteria.

BUT you saw with your own eyes, there are multiple tests that can be done for EPO testing. I also stated that. I also gave an example of T/E RATIO SCREENING test.


I'm good with all of that. The problem is YOU cannot handle that AGREEMENT that we made!!!!

Initial statements were not even an agreement between us. The AGREED SCOPE was in that post above that you said "I'm fine with that".


.

.

[travestyny]

I already answered this but will do this again but a different way since you got confused with the first way that I explained it.












Since you Travestyny were fine back then and now you are saying, "Hell yes" so then maybe, just maybe, you finally AGREEING with what YOU ORIGINALLY AGREED too!!!!


So are we good?


look bud. I stated it right there above in that post that YOU AGREED to.

My other statement, I explained it too and it is also similar to what I just posted above.


You have a test. If for that test it is a threshold type test then for the result of that test to be positive indication then it is when it meets the threshold criteria. If it is below then it doesn't meet that criteria.

BUT you saw with your own eyes, there are multiple tests that can be done for EPO testing. I also stated that. I also gave an example of T/E RATIO SCREENING test.


I'm good with all of that. The problem is YOU cannot handle that AGREEMENT that we made!!!!

Initial statements were not even an agreement between us. The AGREED SCOPE was in that post above that you said "I'm fine with that".

.

WHAT THE FVVCK


1. You completely avoided the question.

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.

Are they different? yes or no?


2. If you still want to go with the "the true scope was can..."

Explain why in the debate you stated that there was no agreement before the initial statements were posted. I know the answer. Because you didn't like what I posted above, so you said...nah, the true scope was after the initial statement.

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT WHEN I POINTED OUT WHAT I SPECIFICALLY STATED TO A JUDGE WAS THE SCOPE, AND IT MATCHED EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, YOU KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO LOSE, SO YOU ARGUED TOOTH AND NAIL THAT THE SCOPE COULD NOT COME FROM BEFORE THE INITIAL STATEMENT WAS POSTED. IN THE END, YOU GOT BEAT ON THAT SCOPE AS WELL. NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE TO A DIFFERENT SCOPE...JUST LIKE YOU DID AT THE END OF THE DEBATE.

HERE IS THE PROOF OF YOU DOING THAT:

Explain how your "can" statement came before the initial statement but you are saying the scope came after.


DID YOU NOT SAY THIS:


YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THIS WAS THE TRUE SCOPE OF THE DEBATE:

POST #87

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

HERE IS WHERE WE POSTED OUR INITIAL STATEMENTS.

POST #137 AND #138

//krikya360.com/forums/s...740888&page=14







HERE YOU ARE SAYING THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BEFORE POSTS #137 AND #138, THE INITIAL STATEMENTS, WERE OFFICIALLY POSTED:

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

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.

AND HERE YOU SAY THIS IS THE SCOPE:

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

HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE SCOPE, ADP? DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT???

EXPLAIN!!!!!!!

Stop ducking and deflecting. I'll wait.

[ADP02]

WHAT THE FVVCK


1. You completely avoided the question.







Are they different? yes or no?


2. If you still want to go with the "the true scope was can..."

Explain why in the debate you stated that there was no agreement before the initial statements were posted. I know the answer. Because you didn't like what I posted above, so you said...nah, the true scope was after the initial statement.

Ok hen fine. Explain how your "can" statement came before the initial statement but you are saying the scope came after.


Stop ducking and deflecting. I'll wait.

Which initial statement?

Go back several posts ago where I posted the same thing!!!

In that thread, I said that I found where we BOTH AGREED to the SCOPE. Sorry!

[travestyny]

Which initial statement?

Go back several posts ago where I posted the same thing!!!

In that thread, I said that I found where we BOTH AGREED to the SCOPE. Sorry!

WHAT INITIAL STATEMENT??????? ARE YOU SERIOUS????? YOU GAVE A FVVCKING ROAD MAP. YOU ARE THE MOST DISHONEST PIECE OF SHlT. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF FOR WHAT YOU ARE TRYING. LOOK AT YOUR ROADMAP TO THE SCOPE AGAIN!

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!

and....

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 you stated the scope, which came AFTER, NOT BEFORE THE INITIAL STATEMENTS WERE POSTED....WAS THIS

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

HE ASKED US TO AVOID EACH OTHER ON POST 135. OUR STATEMENTS WERE RESUBMITTED ON POST 137 AND 138. SO HOW ARE YOU NOW TRYING TO SAY YOUR SCOPE CAME FROM POST 87????


STOP LYING AND TELL THE TRUTH, ADP. IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED OR NOT???

[ADP02]

WHAT INITIAL STATEMENT??????? ARE YOU SERIOUS????? YOU GAVE A FVVCKING ROAD MAP. YOU ARE THE MOST DISHONEST PIECE OF SHlT. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF FOR WHAT YOU ARE TRYING. LOOK AT YOUR ROADMAP TO THE SCOPE AGAIN!





and....




and you stated the scope, which came AFTER, NOT BEFORE THE INITIAL STATEMENTS WERE POSTED....WAS THIS





HE ASKED US TO AVOID EACH OTHER ON POST 135. OUR STATEMENTS WERE RESUBMITTED ON POST 137 AND 138. SO HOW ARE YOU NOW TRYING TO SAY YOUR SCOPE CAME FROM POST 87????


STOP LYING AND TELL THE TRUTH, ADP. IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED OR NOT???

.

roadmap? LOL I went back and took some notes and posted it.

Then you AGREED with my "roadmap", right?

YOU ARE A JOKE!!!! Throughout this time, you have been posting my posts of mine where you actually were DISAGREEING with me!!!!


Now, 1.5 years later, you are saying that you are agreeing with me? Nice one!!!



I checked a few days back. No need to do it again. After arguing with you, I checked and I saw where we actually made the AGREEMENT. Further, I saw that you actually said a lot of things that were in SCOPE and you said that you saw none of that!!!!

Picking and choosing Travestyny anything and everything to make a point except for where we made our AGREEMENT.


Did I bring up T/E RATIO SCREENING TEST?

You even agree that T/E test is also an ABP type test?

So you knew that and you knew from my statements that that was part of the SCOPE



.

[travestyny]

roadmap? LOL I went back and took some notes and posted it.

Then you AGREED with my "roadmap", right?

YOU ARE A JOKE!!!! Throughout this time, you have been posting my posts of mine where you actually were DISAGREEING with me!!!!


Now, 1.5 years later, you are saying that you are agreeing with me? Nice one!!!



I checked a few days back. No need to do it again. After arguing with you, I checked and I saw where we actually made the AGREEMENT. Further, I saw that you actually said a lot of things that were in SCOPE and you said that you saw none of that!!!!

Picking and choosing Travestyny anything and everything to make a point except for where we made our AGREEMENT.


Did I bring up T/E RATIO SCREENING TEST?

You even agree that T/E test is also an ABP type test?

So you knew that and you knew from my statements that that was part of the SCOPE



.

You are blatantly lying. Why won't you answer?


Did you say the scope came after the initial statements were posted? yes or no?


Why can't you give a straight answer?

I'm not saying that I agree with you. I told you what I thought the scope was and I backed it up..... IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING THAT YOU STATED. BUT YOU SAID THAT WAS NOT THE SCOPE.


you said..NO. It couldn't have been that because the scope came after the initial statement.


THIS CAN ALL BE VERIFIED. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO DENY IT WHEN IT IS WRITTEN AND I CAN PROVE IT. YOU ARE BLATANTLY LYING!


YOU FOUGHT ME ON THE SCOPE OVER MANY MANY PAGES...SAYING THAT IT WAS WHAT CAME AFTER THE INITIAL STATEMENTS. YOU EVEN SAID SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BEFORE THE INITIAL STATEMENTS WERE POSTED.

BUT NOW YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE STATEMENT WAS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. WHO IS LYING? IS IT YOU OR ME?

TELL THE TRUTH!

[travestyny]

ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU DIDN'T TYPE THIS:

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.

ANSWR THE QUESTION. Who is LYING? DID YOU TYPE THIS OR NOT, AND IF SO, WHAT DOES IT MEAN????

[travestyny]

the bottom line is that when i show proof that makes sense about the scope, being that our statements were almost identical, and then you say, "no, that couldn't have been the scope because this other thing is the scope." and then when you get beat on that scope too, you aren't then allowed to say, "actually, that wasn't the scope either. You didn't agree with me, so that wasn't what I meant. It was actually this third thing that was the scope."


WHAT KIND OF JUVENILE 3RD GRADE SHlT IS THAT. BE A MAN!!!! YOU'RE ACTING LIKE A FVVCKING CHILD FOR REAL!

stop with your lying. Is that what happened or not. #tell the truth!!!!

[ADP02]

roadmap? LOL I went back and took some notes and posted it.

Then you AGREED with my "roadmap", right?

YOU ARE A JOKE!!!! Throughout this time, you have been posting my posts of mine where you actually were DISAGREEING with me!!!!


Now, 1.5 years later, you are saying that you are agreeing with me? Nice one!!!



I checked a few days back. No need to do it again. After arguing with you, I checked and I saw where we actually made the AGREEMENT. Further, I saw that you actually said a lot of things that were in SCOPE and you said that you saw none of that!!!!

Picking and choosing Travestyny anything and everything to make a point except for where we made our AGREEMENT.


Did I bring up T/E RATIO SCREENING TEST?

You even agree that T/E test is also an ABP type test?

So you knew that and you knew from my statements that that was part of the SCOPE



.

You are blatantly lying. Why won't you answer?


Did you say the scope came after the initial statements were posted? yes or no?


Why can't you give a straight answer?

I'm not saying that I agree with you. I told you what I thought the scope was and I backed it up..... IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING THAT YOU STATED. BUT YOU SAID THAT WAS NOT THE SCOPE.


you said..NO. It couldn't have been that because the scope came after the initial statement.


THIS CAN ALL BE VERIFIED. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO DENY IT WHEN IT IS WRITTEN AND I CAN PROVE IT. YOU ARE BLATANTLY LYING!


YOU FOUGHT ME ON THE SCOPE OVER MANY MANY PAGES...SAYING THAT IT WAS WHAT CAME AFTER THE INITIAL STATEMENTS. YOU EVEN SAID SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BEFORE THE INITIAL STATEMENTS WERE POSTED.

BUT NOW YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE STATEMENT WAS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. WHO IS LYING? IS IT YOU OR ME?

TELL THE TRUTH!

I explained it all above and in the previous posts too. You just do not want to read it the way it can be read. Just like the other posts BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE YOU AGREED TO THAT!!!.



You are looking at the WRONG posts. Go check out MY POSTs where I said that I FOUND the AGREEMENT!!!! LOL

Once you find that one, that one confirms the AGREEMENT between us. BUT let me know if you are having difficulty with that searching!!!



AGAIN, the AGREEMENT is made at the start of the thread NOT after we started. I posted it enough times that you cannot miss where you said that YOU ARE FINE WITH THAT!!!!




.