Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

I got part of my answer already from you!!!!


1) I told you that you just realized that you were WRONG!!!!


You went from there cannot be a threshold test to there can, sometimes!!!! Hilarious!

See you were WRONG!!!!

I just read it all and you added this so to say, I have to prove that each time they do a test that it is a threshold test? Nice spin AGAIN!!!

Spin? Yup.
the reason is that you said that the panel told the athlete that the test(s) for EPO cannot be a threshold test for EPO!!!!
a) They had new evidence to prove that the BAP threshold should be lower that 80% now! The what? The threshold!
and I even said this a long time ago!


This even has happened with threshold substances!!! Guess what? After, they still call it a threshold substance! They just updated the threshold!

Secondly, even a threshold substance limit is made up of several variables.


b) They used other criteria results to verify and prove their claim. Similar to what they do today! Test #1 results do not indicate EPO, how about Test #2? this doesn't mean that Test #1 was not valid test or means something else (eg. no longer a threshold test)







2) Man, I cannot believe that you are talking like this now!

You showed me those quotes and even said this. Does what you said below sound like what you said meant, sometimes there can be and sometimes there cannot?

BEFORE when you posted the quote:





3)
Be honest.
You didn't bring up those statements (see below) to tell me that I am right, sometimes.

You brought up those statements to prove that EPO testing does not have threshold type tests!!!! but NICE TRY SPINNING IT!!!!







4) Now you are reading the other cases and finding out that not only OIC but even with UCI, who tries to detect EPO by any means, tested by way of BAP test and that the threshold they used was 80%! No limit?

So the more you read, the more you are coming to saying that there can be threshold type tests for BAP!!!! WOW the contradiction!!!!


5)


Hmmm, you are stating this more and more like me but before you kept on stating that the court's statements meant there is no threshold tests!




6) So instead of DEFLECTING you now are trying to spin this!


7) OK, just read the last part.....

You finally but partially admitted why you kept on making that mistake of yours!!! Well the evidence that you finally read gave you no choice!!!



8) Yes partially because you still are NOT getting what the CAS panel said.

At least you didn't state that you were WRONG! You also incorrectly stated some points.

Remember this and this is where this all started:

You said,
"a billion times" that the panel told the athlete that the test(s) for EPO cannot be a threshold test for EPO!!!!




You just realized it can be!


In other words,

YOU WERE WRONG, not me and NOT the WADA EXPERTs!





.

Go back and read my post again.

If you decide you want to challenge me on the court case, you are very welcome to.


Hope you are prepared to lose.

You are wrong and I made it clear. So you ready to step up about the case or are you going to walk away. Just because you want to stick to your vague topic, don’t think that impresses me.

We can do permanent ban, all points included, whatever you want. I only skimmed your message and don’t even care because my info is rock solid.

Up to you. We have a challenge on the case or not? Let’s find out who was wrong about it. Is it an 80% BAP test or are you wrong? Let me know, yea? But if you want to keep going, don’t duck the challenge. Thanks.

Let’s find out who is wrong about this case. You better not duck out!!!! You down???

[ADP02]

Go back and read my post again.

If you decide you want to challenge me on the court case, you are very welcome to.


Hope you are prepared to lose.

You are wrong and I made it clear. So you ready to step up about the case or are you going to walk away. Just because you want to stick to your vague topic, don’t think that impresses me.

We can do permanent ban, all points included, whatever you want. I only skimmed your message and don’t even care because my info is rock solid.

Up to you. We have a challenge on the case or not? Let’s find out who was wrong about it. Is it an 80% BAP test or are you wrong? Let me know, yea? But if you want to keep going, don’t duck the challenge. Thanks.

Let’s find out who is wrong about this case. You better not duck out!!!! You down???

You are continuing with your spin!


I asked you to be honest

but I see that you cannot do that.


What was the point of those statements that you posted over and over again about?

Was it to say that you believed that there was this 1 time where the BAP test was not seen as a threshold test because ........?

Or that this federation named the UCI, not WADA nor OIC, had rules such as ......? LOL

No!
You never said 1 time not even sometimes you can see the BAP test like that.

You said "a billion times" that the CAS panel stated that those statements comparing to threshold substance meant that EPO cannot have threshold type test. Even the WADA EPO experts had that wrong!

You even went a step further and said that is the case for ALL non threshold substances!!!!


Do you see the problem we have here? Do you understand now what the challenge was about?



I get it.
You realized after looking at those cases that you had no chance in hell but since you committed, you wanted to have the best chance possible. The best chance of fooling people is to get this case on something VAGUE and NOT really what we were arguing about!!!

And you said what I am telling you now, over and over again.

Man, you just went as far as to say that in 2002, they had it wrong when they called it a threshold test and same with WADA EPO experts.

So you tried AGAIN (new spin on reality) that the CAS panel finally got it. That BAP never had threshold type tests!

but

I think that is harder one to convince people so you focused on that case!

Do you understand that this NEW SPIN is so far different than what you were saying before?


That is what this challenge was about.
You continuously providing statements (You know which ones) that you were WRONG about but that you thought me and WADA EPO EXPERTS are wrong too!!!


Again, read what I said here and be honest with yourself.






Just to refresh your memory:

ADP02


Question: You said it is not a threshold type test.
a) Why did BOTH sides call it a threshold test in that case that you referenced?
b) In my post, even WADA expert Segura calls it a threshold test. Was the expert wrong?
c) Others called it that too! Are they all wrong?

Travestyny

Question A, B, and C:
THE COURT FOR ARBITRATION OF SPORT HAS CORRECTED ANYONE THAT HAS EVER CALLED THIS A THRESHOLD TEST A NUMBER OF TIMES....BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST!!!!!




THE ONLY THING THAT WAS EVER REFERRED TO AS A THRESHOLD WAS THE OLD WAY OF TESTING: THE BAP. AND THE COURT EVEN SAID THAT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST.



HERE IT IS AGAIN!!!!

Court of Arbitration for Sport!

Quote:
The criterion for EPO is not a measurement over the threshold that must occur

The fact is that the BAP and the other interpretative criteria are used to declare not a threshold of human body production but rather an image from the electropherogram as indicating the presence of non-human EPO.

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

It even specifically mentions that the BAP is not a threshold test. WADA DEFERS TO THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT!!!!!

Confident still on what you said above?

Let’s find out who is wrong about this case. You better not duck out!!!! You down???

THAT IS THE CHALLENGE!!!




.

[travestyny]

You are continuing with your spin!


I asked you to be honest

but I see that you cannot do that.


What was the point of those statements that you posted over and over again about?

Was it to say that you believed that there was this 1 time where the BAP test was not seen as a threshold test because ........?

Or that this federation named the UCI, not WADA nor OIC, had rules such as ......? LOL

No!
You never said 1 time not even sometimes you can see the BAP test like that.

You said "a billion times" that the CAS panel stated that those statements comparing to threshold substance meant that EPO cannot have threshold type test. Even the WADA EPO experts had that wrong!

You even went a step further and said that is the case for ALL non threshold substances!!!!


Do you see the problem we have here? Do you understand now what the challenge was about?



I get it.
You realized after looking at those cases that you had no chance in hell but since you committed, you wanted to have the best chance possible. The best chance of fooling people is to get this case on something VAGUE and NOT really what we were arguing about!!!

And you said what I am telling you now, over and over again.

Man, you just went as far as to say that in 2002, they had it wrong when they called it a threshold test and same with WADA EPO experts.

So you tried AGAIN (new spin on reality) that the CAS panel finally got it. That BAP never had threshold type tests!

but

I think that is harder one to convince people so you focused on that case!

Do you understand that this NEW SPIN is so far different than what you were saying before?


That is what this challenge was about.
You continuously providing statements (You know which ones) that you were WRONG about but that you thought me and WADA EPO EXPERTS are wrong too!!!


Again, read what I said here and be honest with yourself.






Just to refresh your memory:










Confident still on what you said above?






THAT IS THE CHALLENGE!!!




.

Where in that post does it say anything about “can.” The only time I said can was when you said in the court case that it can, and I said oh it can, and showed you what the case said. Stop with your lying bullshlt son. You and I both know why you are ducking the challenge.

The BAP is not a threshold test if they don’t put a threshold on it. And it certainly wasn’t a threshold test in that case. You said it was, but again you are backing out of your statement, right? Surprise surprise.


Are you going to challenge me on it, or do you realize that you were wrong and you will squirm now?


You don’t seem to want to challenge me in that case now, do you?

I think you learned your lesson

But if you didn’t, accept and get smashed son. You know you will lose. Your vague bullshlt can’t save you from that impending asswhoopin and you know that by now.


Come on. Let’s see who is right about that case. Deal?

I bet you won’t keep saying it was a 80%BAP threshold test, will ya

And yes, I’m very confident that it’s not a threshold test. Challenge me on it. Let’s see what’s up, yea

[travestyny]

You know, I keep asking myself where this vague "can" shlt came from. I finally looked into it.

You said,
"a billion times" that the panel told the athlete that the test(s) for EPO cannot be a threshold test for EPO!!!!

Look this lying scumbag. You're a real piece of shlt

I've explained this to you a billion times. The court said specifically the criteria do not represent a threshold.

Look at you trying to hold onto your vague bullshlt. Where is the word can????

My position has NEVER changed.

7/16/2018--Unedited

You have insinuated in the past that the threshold was 80%, but you now don't want to state that explicitly because you already know that the court brief stated plainly that there is NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. You know that smashes you. So what you are trying to say is that the only reason they say that is because they are saying other tests can be used. AGAIN, THAT WAS ONLY HALF THE ISSUE. THE COURT EXAMINED THE BAP SPECIFICALLY.

Well well well...so what is this telling us about the BAP. It can be lower than 80%. How much lower???? It doesn't say. It was never stated. But we do know what the court said. NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. Below 80%. Ok. 74.86%? Yea, that's seemingly gulity too. 73? 72? NO NUMERICAL LIMIT.

But the court says that, BECAUSE OF THE NEW RESEARCH...USING THE BAP WITH NO NUMERICAL LIMIT, THEY CAN STILL ANALYZE THE RESULTS AND FIND THAT IT CONCLUDES THERE WAS rEPO PRESENT. This section was ONLY concerned with the BAP. NOT using the other tests!

SO THE BAP, WITH NO THRESHOLD, BEING USED TO FIND ATHLETES GUILTY. WHAT DO YA KNOW

CLEARLY I SAID THE BAP WITH NO THRESHOLD. BUT BUT BUT...I JUST READ THESE CASES AND JUST LEARNED ABOUT THAT. LMAOOOOO. DUDE. SHUT THE FVVCK UP. YOU'RE A LYING SCUMBAG.

All you do is try to be sneaky. What likely happened is you found that 2002 CAS case and then you suddenly tried to change the narrative to from whether the BAP is a threshold test to whether EPO CAN have a threshold test. You kept trying to goad me into using the word can, and I wasn't buying it. You tried a number of times. You began with the ABP and that shlt didn't work. Then you tried with the BAP because you found a court case. But you knew that I was referring to WADA so you fought tooth and nail for this to not be about WADA....even going so far as to say this should be about the UCI because it was their test in the court case. So I said we should focus on the court case, and even said you can use any case you want to support your position, and you are still trying to decline and go with your some organization some time in the past can have a threshold for some thing that may or may not have been a threshold or non-threshold substance according to their rules. GET THE FVVCK OUTTA HERE! BE A FVVCKING MAN. IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE COURT CASE, CHALLENGE ME ON IT. LOOK AT THIS ****:

Sorry but you are WRONG Travestyny!!!

1) You are WRONG when you say that because of those references to nandrolone that the BAP test cannot be a threshold test. Not only threshold substances have threshold tests! EPO testing can have them too!

So there you go saying that I said the BAP cannot be a threshold test. Quote me USING THE WORD CANNOT BEFORE THAT TIME. I said it IS NOT. And I was basing it ON EXACTLY WHAT THE FVVCKING COURT SAID, since you were referring to THE INFORMATION THAT I PRESENTED FROM THE CASE.

THEY STATE IN PLAIN ENGLISH THAT THE TEST IS NOT A THRESHOLD.

The fact is that*the BAP*and the other interpretative*criteria*are used to declare*not a threshold*of human body production but*rather*an image*from the electropherogram as indicating the presence of non-human EPO.

So it was YOU that began using the word CAN. I wonder why. I already stated above that the BAP was used WITHOUT any threshold. And I didn't use the word CAN that you are trying to hold so dearly to.

Then you went further with this "can" talk. You kept saying we had a long conversation about "can." You even had to goad me into responding to it because I was just ignoring all of your bullshlt.

EPO testing can have thresholds ..... you said they cannot. I didn't see anything about that

When did I use this word CANNOT before this point? Please quote me on that. I SAID IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST...BECAUSE IT IS NOT. YOU ARE WELCOME TO CHALLENGE ME ON THAT.

Once you said that, I finally responded BASED ON THE COURT CASE WHICH YOU SAID I WAS BASING THAT OFF OF. Do you need proof:

EPO testing can have thresholds? Can you read?

Court of Arbitration for Sport!

* The*criterion*for EPO is*not a measurement over the threshold that must occur


* The fact is that*the BAP*and the other interpretative*criteria*are used to declare*not a threshold*of human body production but*rather*an image*from the electropherogram as indicating the presence of non-human EPO.


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

So yes, if you want to hold me to the CAN that you so desperately want, then hold me to it on the merits of what I posted about the court case, which is what we were discussing. IF YOU WANT TO SAY THE COURT CASE SAYS IT CANNOT HAVE A THRESHOLD BECAUSE THERE IS NO THRESHOLD FOR IT, THEN HAVE AT IT. IN THAT CASE, CLEARLY THERE CANNOT BE A THRESHOLD BECAUSE THE COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT A THRESHOLD DOES NOT EXIST, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID ABOVE. THE PROOF IS THERE. STOP YOUR BULLSHLT YOU SQUIRMING BlTCH! YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO DISCUSS THE COURT CASE NOW.

STOP WITH YOUR VAGUE BULLSHlT. YOU AREN'T IMPRESSING ME, SON. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS YOU SAID THIS:

TEST #1: BAP 80% threshold test
Results: 79.5 - Just under

With the BAP test alone the athlete is just below the threshold.

WRONG. THERE WAS NO FVVCKING THRESHOLD FOR THIS TEST. AND THAT'S WHAT I TOLD YOU OVER AND OVER A BILLION TIMES. YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT THE BAP IS A THRESHOLD AND IS ALWAYS A THRESHOLD. ISN'T THAT RIGHT??????

BUT what is the BAP test? It is a threshold type test. Says who? Everyone except for Travestyny!!!
.

SO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE BAP IS INHERENTLY A THRESHOLD TEST AND ALWAYS A THRESHOLD TEST. LET'S SEE IF YOU WANT TO STEP UP AND TAKE ON THAT CHALLENGE OR IF YOU TUCK TAIL AND RUN AWAY.

YOU BETTER NOT DUCK IT. DON'T YOU WANT TO GET THIS OVER WITH???? I'M READY!

TOPIC: THE BAP TEST IS INHERENTLY A THRESHOLD TEST, and had a threshold of 80% in the Bergman case!

Isn't that what you're saying????

WE HAVE A CLEAR DISAGREEMENT ON THIS AND THIS IS WHAT THE TOPIC SHOULD BE, AND ALSO IN RESPECT TO THE COURT CASE. NOW DO YOU ACCEPT OR DO YOU BACK DOWN FROM YOUR STATEMENT?

[ADP02]

You know, I keep asking myself where this vague "can" shlt came from. I finally looked into it.





Look this lying scumbag. You're a real piece of shlt




Look at you trying to hold onto your vague bullshlt. Where is the word can????

My position has NEVER changed.

7/16/2018--Unedited




CLEARLY I SAID THE BAP WITH NO THRESHOLD. BUT BUT BUT...I JUST READ THESE CASES AND JUST LEARNED ABOUT THAT. LMAOOOOO. DUDE. SHUT THE FVVCK UP. YOU'RE A LYING SCUMBAG.

All you do is try to be sneaky. What likely happened is you found that 2002 CAS case and then you suddenly tried to change the narrative to from whether the BAP is a threshold test to whether EPO CAN have a threshold test. You kept trying to goad me into using the word can, and I wasn't buying it. You tried a number of times. You began with the ABP and that shlt didn't work. Then you tried with the BAP because you found a court case. But you knew that I was referring to WADA so you fought tooth and nail for this to not be about WADA....even going so far as to say this should be about the UCI because it was their test in the court case. So I said we should focus on the court case, and even said you can use any case you want to support your position, and you are still trying to decline and go with your some organization some time in the past can have a threshold for some thing that may or may not have been a threshold or non-threshold substance according to their rules. GET THE FVVCK OUTTA HERE! BE A FVVCKING MAN. IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE COURT CASE, CHALLENGE ME ON IT. LOOK AT THIS ****:




So there you go saying that I said the BAP cannot be a threshold test. Quote me USING THE WORD CANNOT BEFORE THAT TIME. I said it IS NOT. And I was basing it ON EXACTLY WHAT THE FVVCKING COURT SAID, since you were referring to THE INFORMATION THAT I PRESENTED FROM THE CASE.

THEY STATE IN PLAIN ENGLISH THAT THE TEST IS NOT A THRESHOLD.



So it was YOU that began using the word CAN. I wonder why. I already stated above that the BAP was used WITHOUT any threshold. And I didn't use the word CAN that you are trying to hold so dearly to.

Then you went further with this "can" talk. You kept saying we had a long conversation about "can." You even had to goad me into responding to it because I was just ignoring all of your bullshlt.



When did I use this word CANNOT before this point? Please quote me on that. I SAID IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST...BECAUSE IT IS NOT. YOU ARE WELCOME TO CHALLENGE ME ON THAT.

Once you said that, I finally responded BASED ON THE COURT CASE WHICH YOU SAID I WAS BASING THAT OFF OF. Do you need proof:



So yes, if you want to hold me to the CAN that you so desperately want, then hold me to it on the merits of what I posted about the court case, which is what we were discussing. IF YOU WANT TO SAY THE COURT CASE SAYS IT CANNOT HAVE A THRESHOLD BECAUSE THERE IS NO THRESHOLD FOR IT, THEN HAVE AT IT. IN THAT CASE, CLEARLY THERE CANNOT BE A THRESHOLD BECAUSE THE COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT A THRESHOLD DOES NOT EXIST, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID ABOVE. THE PROOF IS THERE. STOP YOUR BULLSHLT YOU SQUIRMING BlTCH! YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO DISCUSS THE COURT CASE NOW.

STOP WITH YOUR VAGUE BULLSHlT. YOU AREN'T IMPRESSING ME, SON. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS YOU SAID THIS:





WRONG. THERE WAS NO FVVCKING THRESHOLD FOR THIS TEST. AND THAT'S WHAT I TOLD YOU OVER AND OVER A BILLION TIMES. YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT THE BAP IS A THRESHOLD AND IS ALWAYS A THRESHOLD. ISN'T THAT RIGHT??????





SO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE BAP IS INHERENTLY A THRESHOLD TEST AND ALWAYS A THRESHOLD TEST. LET'S SEE IF YOU WANT TO STEP UP AND TAKE ON THAT CHALLENGE OR IF YOU TUCK TAIL AND RUN AWAY.

YOU BETTER NOT DUCK IT. DON'T YOU WANT TO GET THIS OVER WITH???? I'M READY!

TOPIC: THE BAP TEST IS INHERENTLY A THRESHOLD TEST, and had a threshold of 80% in the Bergman case!

Isn't that what you're saying????

WE HAVE A CLEAR DISAGREEMENT ON THIS AND THIS IS WHAT THE TOPIC SHOULD BE, AND ALSO IN RESPECT TO THE COURT CASE. NOW DO YOU ACCEPT OR DO YOU BACK DOWN FROM YOUR STATEMENT?

I just skimmed thru this because I gotta go but I thought you were responding to my post but this seems to be YOU trying to get away with what you posted and that I showed you!

DEFLECTOR on a CHALLENGE is what I am smelling!!!

[travestyny]

I just skimmed thru this because I gotta go but I thought you were responding to my post but this seems to be YOU trying to get away with what you posted and that I showed you!

DEFLECTOR on a CHALLENGE is what I am smelling!!!

You won't dare challenge me, bltch. You know it and I know it.


You're scared of me because you know you're WRONG bout the court case or you would step up, son.


You know it and I know it. Come see me when your balls descent, Jr. You know you can't win.


[B]YOU KEEP MENTIONING THAT THE COURT CASE WAS A BAP 80% THRESHOLD....NOW YOU WON'T AGREE!!! WHAT HAPPENED, ADP???? ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO JUST LET THAT 4-0 STAND LIKE THAT. DON'T YOU WANT SOME REVENGE. YOU AREN'T TOO CONFIDENT, ARE YOU?


BUZZ OFF, BlTCH. YOU AND I BOTH KNOW YOU WILL NEVER AGREE TO THAT CHALLENGE BECAUSE YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG! JUST LIKE YOU WON'T AGREE TO A REMATCH BECAUSE YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG. I'M ALWAYS GOING TO OWN YOUR SOUL YOU BUTTHURT, ASKING FOR A DRAW, 4-0 LOSER.

[ADP02]

Where in that post does it say anything about “can.” The only time I said can was when you said in the court case that it can, and I said oh it can, and showed you what the case said. Stop with your lying bullshlt son. You and I both know why you are ducking the challenge.

The BAP is not a threshold test if they don’t put a threshold on it. And it certainly wasn’t a threshold test in that case. You said it was, but again you are backing out of your statement, right? Surprise surprise.


Are you going to challenge me on it, or do you realize that you were wrong and you will squirm now?


You don’t seem to want to challenge me in that case now, do you?

I think you learned your lesson

But if you didn’t, accept and get smashed son. You know you will lose. Your vague bullshlt can’t save you from that impending asswhoopin and you know that by now.


Come on. Let’s see who is right about that case. Deal?

I bet you won’t keep saying it was a 80%BAP threshold test, will ya

And yes, I’m very confident that it’s not a threshold test. Challenge me on it. Let’s see what’s up, yea

I bet the above post DEFLECTED away from what you wrote in my post above!

Travestyny

Question A, B, and C:
THE COURT FOR ARBITRATION OF SPORT HAS CORRECTED ANYONE THAT HAS EVER CALLED THIS A THRESHOLD TEST A NUMBER OF TIMES....BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST!!!!!




THE ONLY THING THAT WAS EVER REFERRED TO AS A THRESHOLD WAS THE OLD WAY OF TESTING: THE BAP. AND THE COURT EVEN SAID THAT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST.



HERE IT IS AGAIN!!!!

Court of Arbitration for Sport!
Quote:
Quote:
The criterion for EPO is not a measurement over the threshold that must occur

The fact is that the BAP and the other interpretative criteria are used to declare not a threshold of human body production but rather an image from the electropherogram as indicating the presence of non-human EPO.

there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance
It even specifically mentions that the BAP is not a threshold test. WADA DEFERS TO THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT!!!!!

You said that everyone calling it a threshold was WRONG!!!!

You said that the CAS rules over what everyone said so they are WRONG and YOU are RIGHT!


DO NOT DEFLECT AGAIN!!!!


.

[travestyny]

i bet the above post deflected away from what you wrote in my post above!





you said that everyone calling it a threshold was wrong!!!!

you said that the cas rules over what everyone said so they are wrong and you are right!


Do not deflect again!!!!


.

challenge me on it. Was it a threshold??????? I'm waiting......let's get it on, son!


AND BY THE WAY...WE CAN EVEN GO YOUR 2002 VS. MY 2010. WHAT YOU THINK??????

The relative amount (approximately 85%) of the basic band areas does not constitute the “threshold” past which an offense can be found: it only gives evidence of the presence in a sample of a prohibited substance, whose mere detection is considered an anti-doping rule violation.

THAT'S TWO COURT CASES SAYING I'M RIGHT. WAITING FOR YOU TO GROW SOME BALLS. ONE BEING IN 2010. SO WHAT'S UP, PVSSY????

[travestyny]

DO NOT DEFLECT AGAIN!!!!


.

DON'T EVER TALK ABOUT SOMEONE DEFLECTING, KING DEFLECTOR!!!!!!!!!

Sample A is a mixture of those 2 urine samples. There the second is diluting the initial one.

b) Threshold substances, there can be traces but the delay and dilution will drive down the numbers

I didn't even see EPO on the list so it must be a partial list.

You said thresholds are not a factor for Floyd but that is not an accurate statement.
EPO, testosterone (T/E) ratios are a few naturally produced substances in humans in which Floyd could have been trying to hide. We know of low T/E ratios, rumors of positive results and the IV scandal.

So if GC/MS or whatever measures EPO values below a threshold, as an example, due to a 6 hour delay and drinking fluids plus an IV that diluted the urine sample just enough.
Its NOT being biased. that is a big deal.


.

BUT NOOOOO, ADP NEVER SAID EPO WAS A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE. LMAOOOOOOOOO

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

I'M STILL CALLING FOR THAT DEBATE TOO. DON'T DEFLECT!

[ADP02]

challenge me on it. Was it a threshold??????? I'm waiting......let's get it on, son!


AND BY THE WAY...WE CAN EVEN GO YOUR 2002 VS. MY 2010. WHAT YOU THINK??????





THAT'S TWO COURT CASES SAYING I'M RIGHT. WAITING FOR YOU TO GROW SOME BALLS. ONE BEING IN 2010. SO WHAT'S UP, PVSSY????

I told you that you are not understanding what they are stating. You didn't show me the whole statement but from what I can remember, I'm quite sure that they are discussing that it is not a threshold substance.

For epo, the test which they speak of is a threshold to meet the requirement to state that it indicates the presence of rEPO!

So whether it is a static or in that case not absolute threshold there is still a threshold that is met to fulfill the requirements of an indication of detection.

If I remember that case, they then went on to explain that it's not, as I stated, a threshold substance but they implied that it still is a threshold and gave their reasons. If I remember, they explained that there is uncertainty. Why go there? Because the single test is a threshold type test.