Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[ADP02]

Billeau's opinion reveals that you were lyingggggg!!!! Lmaooooooooooo

ooops. You fvvked up and got exposedddddddd!

You must include it all of his points including that.

T then shows that the reason the tolerance of EPO has been debated (80, 85%) is not because of levels but because of complications…

T provides good information that threshold testing may not be suitable for detecting EPO.

He does this by showing that EPO levels according to WADA documents, are parameters. This does not mean they cannot be thresholds absolutely, but shows, in much the same way someone might question ratio versus absolute amounts of a substance, that an absolute level of a substance and the procedures for threshold testing might be different. See post #187 for T argument a parameter versus a threshold.

Then we have a huge back and fourth about Parameter versus Threshold substance categories.

WHAT a CONFUSION!!!!

Parameters vs Threshold susbtances!!!!

T wants to say "There is definite criteria for a threshold substance and EPO is not in that category. Not only that but there are problems with this type of testing! in fact WADA uses different terms, and makes a distinction between threshold and parameter with respect to EPO.

Also there does not appear to be any acknowledgement of WADA regarding the classification of EPO as a threshold substance.

Travesty did the right thing waiting it out and sticking to the premise that WADA never de facto says EPO is a substance that has a threshold as opposed to a parameter.

Summing it up A might say "I am talking about threshold criteria objectively not threshold substances.... And T might say Ill follow you til the ends of the earth until you can show me a place where WADA documentS verify any threshold criteria for EPO in recent adapted testing procedures.

And T might say Ill follow you til the ends of the earth until you can show me a place where WADA documentS verify any threshold criteria for EPO in recent adapted testing procedures.

NICE FIND!!!!






1) Well, are you OK with that,Travestyny?


2) BUT later in the debate did you not go to 2003 to DUPE the judges?




.

[ADP02]

"CAN" is BS, Travestyny says?


REALLY?


Well, that is the

WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE!!!!!






You freaking brought up those statements from a case to state that EPO testing CANNOT have threshold type tests!!!!







You said the supreme court CAS panel said that I and WADA EXPERTs are WRONG and YOU are RIGHT!!!







DUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!
.




.

DO YOU ACCEPT THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE? I ACCEPTED. WHY HAVEN'T YOU? YOU SAID YOU WILL SHOW HOW I DUPED THE JUDGES AND CHEATED. LET'S GO.


IT'S ABOUT TO BE CHECKMATE, BlTCH. SAY YES AND GET DESTROYED!!!!!!!!!


"BE A MAN. STOP DUCKING. WHAT'S WRONG, ADP? LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE BACKED INTO A CORNER AND YOU'RE BOWING OUT!!!!!!"

So you are ready to do this? No more DUCKING?

Based on those statements, you are stating that CAS Panel said that EPO CANNOT have threshold type test and those who did state it as a threshold type test was WRONG?


I'm just trying to make this CLEAR for the BOTH of us.

[travestyny]

You must include it all of his points including that.






WHAT a CONFUSION!!!!

Parameters vs Threshold susbtances!!!!



















NICE FIND!!!!






1) Well, are you OK with that,Travestyny?


2) BUT later in the debate did you not go to 2003 to DUPE the judges?




.

GREAT. THEN BRING UP THE 'S' SON. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. CHECK OUT THE LAST PART OF THE QUOTATION.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, SO YOU AGREE? YES OR NO?

Summing it up A might say "I am talking about threshold criteria objectively not threshold substances.... And T might say Ill follow you til the ends of the earth until you can show me a place where WADA documents verify any threshold criteria for EPO in recent adapted testing procedures.

LET'S USE THIS QUOTATION TO PROVE OUR POINT. DEAL. DEAL. YOU JUST TRIED TO USE IT, SO LET'S GO FOR IT. DON'T DUCK OUT SON, OR IT'S......

CHECKMATE

[ADP02]

GREAT. THEN BRING UP THE 'S' SON. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. CHECK OUT THE LAST PART OF THE QUOTATION.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, SO YOU AGREE? YES OR NO?





LET'S USE THIS QUOTATION TO PROVE OUR POINT. DEAL. DEAL. YOU JUST TRIED TO USE IT, SO LET'S GO FOR IT. DON'T DUCK OUT SON, OR IT'S......

CHECKMATE

1) RATIOs

2) ABP testing

3) Apparent Molecular weight

4) IEF testing

and more

ALL recent, all related to EPO testing and all in SCOPE!

[travestyny]

So you are ready to do this? No more DUCKING?

Based on those statements, you are stating that CAS Panel said that EPO CANNOT have threshold type test and those who did state it as a threshold type test was WRONG?


I'm just trying to make this CLEAR for the BOTH of us.

ARE YOU ****** BlTCH. STOP PLAYING PVSSY. I JUST SAID I ACCEPTED. STOP LYING ABOUT THE SCOPE. WE GET A JUDGE TO LOOK AT OUR EVIDENCE, WHERE THEY WILL FIND THAT YOU ARE A LYING SCUMBAG. DIDN'T YOU SAY THIS IS RELATED TO OUR DEBATE. LET'S LOOK AT EVIDENCE OF WHAT THAT SCOPE WAS, SON. WHY DOES THAT FRIGHTEN YOU???????


WILL YOU AGREE TO HAVE AN UNBIASED JUDGE TO HEAR EVIDENCE OF THE SCOPE OR NOT? IF THAT FRIGHTENS YOU, THEN IT'S CLEAR WHICH ONE OF US HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE. ANSWER THE FVVCKING QUESTION! YOU GOT CAUGHT WITH SO MANY LIES THAT YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T WIN AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE BEING A PVSSY. STEP UP LITTLE PVSS. DON'T MAKE ME ASK YOU AGAIN. I ACCEPTED. YOU'RE DUCKING. YES OR FVVCKING NO?????

[travestyny]

1) RATIOs

2) ABP testing

3) Apparent Molecular weight

4) IEF testing

and more

ALL recent, all related to EPO testing and all in SCOPE!

THEN BRING IT UP TO THE JUDGES!!!!!!!! YES or NO? STOP BEING A BlTCH AND GIVE A YES OR NO ANSWER. ARE YOU READY? YES OR NO??? YOU ARE SQUIRMING LIKE A LITTLE PVSSY! ANSWER THE FVVCKING QUESTION!

[travestyny]

What the fvvck is the hold up? Don't write me no damn essay. YES OR NO???? STOP SQUIRMING AND DUCKING!

[ADP02]

1) RATIOs

2) ABP testing

3) Apparent Molecular weight

4) IEF testing

and more

ALL recent, all related to EPO testing and all in SCOPE!

ARE YOU ****** BlTCH. STOP PLAYING PVSSY. I JUST SAID I ACCEPTED. STOP LYING ABOUT THE SCOPE. WE GET A JUDGE TO LOOK AT OUR EVIDENCE, WHERE THEY WILL FIND THAT YOU ARE A LYING SCUMBAG. DIDN'T YOU SAY THIS IS RELATED TO OUR DEBATE. LET'S LOOK AT EVIDENCE OF WHAT THAT SCOPE WAS, SON. WHY DOES THAT FRIGHTEN YOU???????


WILL YOU AGREE TO HAVE AN UNBIASED JUDGE TO HEAR EVIDENCE OF THE SCOPE OR NOT? IF THAT FRIGHTENS YOU, THEN IT'S CLEAR WHICH ONE OF US HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE. ANSWER THE FVVCKING QUESTION! YOU GOT CAUGHT WITH SO MANY LIES THAT YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T WIN AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE BEING A PVSSY. STEP UP LITTLE PVSS. DON'T MAKE ME ASK YOU AGAIN. I ACCEPTED. YOU'RE DUCKING. YES OR FVVCKING NO?????

THEN BRING IT UP TO THE JUDGES!!!!!!!! YES or NO? STOP BEING A BlTCH AND GIVE A YES OR NO ANSWER. ARE YOU READY? YES OR NO??? YOU ARE SQUIRMING LIKE A LITTLE PVSSY! ANSWER THE FVVCKING QUESTION!

DEFLECTOR and SQUIRMER!!!

YOU SAY YOU ARE

BUT

YOU ARE NOT ACCEPTING the SCOPE!!!!





You are trying to keep this as VAGUE as possible and then hopefully the judges can be CONFUSED ENOUGH to get DUPED AGAIN!!!!


Did you ACTUALLY look at Billeau2's response? Most of it made no sense and was WRONG!!!!

Parameters vs threshold susbtances? WTF!!!!



Like I said from the start, no more of that.


CHALLENGE #1 and
CHALLENGE #2



or any other CHALLENGE needs to be CLEAR from the START.


I did that for BOTH CHALLENGES!!!!!

YOU ARE NOT ACCEPTING THAT!!!!!




So are you ready for the CHALLENGE of this thread?



That one is CLEAR and you were about to ACCEPT until you SQUIRMED into your DEFLECTIONs.


NO PRESSURE ….. but like I said, you will NOT ACCEPT it even when you are saying that you are ACCEPTING!!!!


YOU ARE NOT







DUCKER!!!!!




.

[travestyny]

STILL NO ANSWER??????? THAT'S IT, YOU'RE DONE!!!!!

AND THAT'S HOW YOU DEAL WITH A LYING, DEJECTED, BET WELCHING PVSSY! THIS BlTCH JUST DECLINED HIS OWN CHALLENGE.

HE DOESN'T WANT IT BEING EXPOSED TO THE JUDGES WHAT THE SCOPE WAS...BUT ONE JUDGE ALREADY LEFT PROOF THAT I AM RIGHT ABOUT THE SCOPE! BAHAHAHAHAHA

Summing it up A might say "I am talking about threshold criteria objectively not threshold substances.... And T might say Ill follow you til the ends of the earth until you can show me a place where WADA documents verify any threshold criteria for EPO in recent adapted testing procedures.

YOU GOT EXPOSED YOU LYING BlTCH AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE DUCKING!!!!! IT'S OVERRRRRRRRRR. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. YOU DUCKING BlTCH. YOU WILL FOREVER GO DOWN AS A 4-0 LOSER. CHOKE ON THAT LOSS AND DIEEEEEE! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE


Be a man, STOP the DUCKING!!!!

Let's make this even more clear for this ducking bltch.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE:

You prove that the information in the Bergman vs. USADA case proves that WADA Criteria have in place thresholds for EPO testing with respect to the scope of our past debate.

I prove that the information in the Berman vs. USADA case proves that WADA Criteria does not have in place threshold for EPO testing with respect to the Scope of our past debate.

If there is any disagreement about the scope of our last debate(which you have claimed plays a part in this debate), since you been lying about it over and over, and you got caught lying about it, we ask the judge to settle what was the scope of our past debate...because it damn sure wasn't 'can...' and you know I can prove that!

You already claimed that this 'WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE' is related to our past debate, so now it's time for you to step up and prove it.


1. Permanent Ban
2. All Points
3. As per your former request and so that I know you are not going to welch out, you are to pass all of your points to the judge for safe keeping until the challenge is complete.

'WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE' ACCEPTED. DO YOU WANT ME TO CREATE THE THREAD NOW OR NOT? WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY TO GET THIS OVER WITH.

AND DON'T YOU DARE THINK OF DUCKING OUT!

THIS DUDE HAS COMPLETELY EMBARRASSED HIMSELF. THAT'S IT. IT'S OVER!

4-0!!!!!!

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


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

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

YOU'RE A PVSSY AND I OWN YOU. YOU PROVED THAT YOU'RE AFRAID TO HAVE UNBIASED JUDGES LOOK OVER THAT DEBATE THAT YOU KEEP CRYING ABOUT. YOU SHOWED NO EVIDENCE IN YOUR NEW INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN'T STEP UP WHEN I ONLY ASKED YOU TO PROVE THAT I DUPED THE JUDGES AND THAT YOU WERE THE RIGHTFUL WINNER. YOU BACKED DOWN. YOU KNOW YOU HAVE NOTHING. YOU WILL ALWAYS BE MY 4-0 LOSER BlTCH. SO LONG, F@GGOT. REMEMBER THAT 4-0 ASSWHOOPIN FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!!!!

[ADP02]

REMINDER: I started this thread and the CHALLENGE.




Travestyny has tried anything and everything to try to DUCK this CHALLENGE. His latest JOKE is that he was "ACCEPTING" but with Travestyny, you always need to read the fine print.


HE was NOT ACCEPTING ANY CHALLENGE BECAUSE HE DOES NOT LIKE THE SCOPE!!!!


This thread is on a NEW CHALLENGE.
Why do you even comically come up with saying that YOU ACCEPT the WILLY WANKER Challenge

BUT DEPENDs on the JUDGES ACCEPTance of the SCOPE? :lo1: WTF What a CLOWN!!!




CLOWN, YOU NEED TO ACCEPT, NOT THE JUDGES!!!!






2 CHALLENGES
2 DUCKs by Travestyny!!!!






Only 1 guy wants no part of this challenge.

Only 1 guy wants to squirm to another challenge on a different topic. Does it even make any sense?







70+ pages and waiting for the

DUCKER

TO

ACCEPT

MY

CHALLENGE

Travestyny?

Yes or NO?