Everyone Wants to Talk About Floyd's IV - What About Pac-Monster's Toradol Abuse???

[ADP02]

Say what? Fix your grammar. You seem a bit flustered.

While I'm reading through your latest bull****, chew on this:

How about another expert. Maybe he can help you understand, little guy. Here is Jeff Novitsky, an anti-doping expert. By the way, he worked on the Lance Armstrong case…and still believes you are wrong. LMAOOOOO!


Jeffrey John Novitzky is an agent for the Food and Drug Administration investigating the use of steroids in professional sports. Before April 2008 he was a special agent for the Internal Revenue Service who investigated the use of steroids for over five years.

His investigations have concerned Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Victor Conte, Dana Stubblefield, Tammy Thomas, Melky Cabrera, Trevor Graham, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, Kirk Radomski, Bill Romanowski, Justin Gatlin, Jose Canseco,[7] Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton and Lance Armstrong.

Starting in April 2015, Novitzky began working for the UFC as their Vice President of Athlete Health and Performance. Within this role, Novitzky will spearhead anti-doping efforts within the organization.




How about Eichner from SMRTL:

“The mass spectometry data that we do for the confirmation should definitely be consistent with other regulated programs like Quest.”

Meaning that the Quantitative data should be consistent.

7:12pm: 49ng
10:38pm: 733ng
11:55pm: 61ng

Both Eichner and the MRO stated that the 7:12pm and 11:55pm results were consistent.

HOW THE HELL IS IT POSSIBLE THAT DIAZ WENT FROM 49, SHOT UP TO 733, AND THEN SHOT DOWN TO 61????

Caused by the noted spike in Marijuana. Nope. This study took care of that:

HYDRATION? WRONG. YOU CAN’T PROVE IT, AND YOUR STUDIES SHOW THAT IT IS WRONG! Even at SPG 1.001…53ng to 5ng. No subject could achieve anything like what you claim Diaz did:

EXERCISE? WRONG. I already showed you this study:

To summarize, neither exercise at moderate intensity for 45*min. nor 24-hr food deprivation caused significant elevations in blood or urine cannabinoid levels in our six human subjects. Our results are in accordance with data from a similar study, where only slight and transient THC plasma elevations were noted during exercise, and none during fasting. We conclude that exercise and fasting in regular cannabis users are unlikely to cause sufficient concentration changes to hamper interpretation in drug testing programmes.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...cpt.12235/full


This is very simple. Can you explain how the marijuana metabolite went from 49ng to 733ng and back to 61ng? You already stated that you don’t know what Diaz did, so this means you simply don’t know, which in turn means you’ve admit you can’t blame this on hydration. Which in turn means you have no proof of the specific gravity level accepted by WADA being problematic.

Thanks for playing, chump!

Go back and read my points ....

Read that a while ago. Jeff Novitsky was NOT well informed when responding.

- (error #1 )If he was, he would red flag TEST #1 but he didn't.

- He didn't know that the reliable number was >300 (error #2) and

- there have been numbers well over 733 that I have seen so he is not knowledgeable enough when it comes to marijuana levels!!! (error #3).

- (Error #4), SRMTL has had bad results overturned before.

- (Error 5) The big one, he is giving out this information without knowing the full details of the case!!!


He is operating directly with USADA for all UFC athlete anti-doping. So of course he is biased but the errors that I pointed out speak for themselves.

[travestyny]

You got slammed dunked and ignorant you doesn't even realize it.

I showed you LOTs of ways to show you that there are many ways that it can be done! One study had a subject that had 2 samples in a span of 1 hour where the 2 samples were at the complete ends of the spectrum when it came to dilution. You said it cannot be done because the MRO said so. So that proves that he was wrong!!!! Its medically plausible and now you know it!!! Just say that you are WRONG!!!

You're a complete moron. What you showed wasn't even considered a diluted sample. Try again.

1. 1.009 means that its a dilute urine sample. I provided a ton of info and there is a ton more. SG/Cr readings have their limitations. Go read up then say that you are WRONG!!!!

Wrong! Is it considered diluted by Quest or WADA standards, or any drug testing standard? Waitingggg!

2. That guy knows that what Diaz's (MRO) team used to defend themselves is wrong. It was possible to dilute his urine without intoxicating himself so he was definitely right! Now he cannot be answering all of your questions but he answered the point that its medically plausible!!! Got it?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You seem flustered. Diluting from 733ng to 61ng would damn near put him in a coma. Do you understand that yet? If not, go look at your studies. lol.

So you think that the ref ***** foots and protects the NSAC instead of speaking up his mind? You cannot get a break Trav:
John McCarthy rips NSAC executive director Keith Kizer who defended Ross' scorecard and appointment, just as he did following the Bradley result.: 'Keith Kizer is a person that does not know combative sports. He puts people [in positions] at times that maybe shouldn't be put. You tell me why C.J. Ross said the Floyd Mayweather fight was a draw. Did you watch it? My god, I had it 11-1. It wasn't even close. So if you're doing that, you keep putting those same people back, you don't care about the fighters.

You don't care about them as athletes, you don't care about their livelihood. And you know what? You shouldn't be in that job. And if someone doesn't like what I said, too bad." McCarthy and Kizer have butted heads in the past. McCarthy voiced similar concerns regarding Kizer's dubious judging appointments years ago, which then lead to McCarthy's unofficial blacklist from refereeing events in the state of Nevada, despite McCarthy publicly apologizing and resubmitting his application for licensure in 2010.'

Did you really just quote all of that thinking that it means something? LMAOOO. You really are flustered, aren't you? You can't be this stupid. The point is: now try to understand this....: HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT DRUG TESTING. HE IS NOT AN MRO. NOT AN ANTI-DOPING EXPERT. HE IS A ****ING REFEREE! YOU'RE A MORON!

Was McCarthy or the NSAC wrong or was Diaz wrong when Diaz did not let the NSAC know that he was using marijuana during the last month? BOOOM!

"He’s been caught twice previously by the Nevada State Athletic Commission and when a fighter goes and applies for that license there are forms that he has to fill out. No different than when I have to fill out the forms when I get a license. And those forms are going to ask questions and those questions — you know when you sign your name at the bottom you’re saying that this is truthful. You’re being honest, you’re being truthful with this. And Nick is not being honest and truthful. He’s giving bad information because all he needs to do is be honest and truthful and tell them, ‘yes, I take marijuana.'"


Diaz answered at least 1 question wrong and perhaps more. He definitely answered this one wrong because I saw his form and he answered it "NO".

So did the NSAC fake Diaz's pre-fight form or was it Diaz who filled it up and signed it?

Diaz said "NO" to the question:
"Have you taken or received any medication, drug, cream, inhalant, or injection, whether prescription, over-the-counter, from anyone or anyplace, in the last month? If yes, explain?"

And yet again, more useless information. LMAOOOO. Dude, who gives a ****! He lied. We know he lied. That's the only reason that this was settle instead of NSAC getting roasted in court. That they relied on him lying shows what I've been telling your punk ass: THEY CAN'T PROVE HE DID ANYTHING BY HYDRATING!!!! Thanks for making this easy, chump!

3. What are you talking about? If it was so simple of a calculation then the MRO would have responded with an exact number when asked how many liters would it take. Did he answer? Nope? Real reason is because if he gave a number, he could have been easily countered but still, he is right in that there are plenty of factors to take into
account. If it was so easy, all they would have to so is 1 study and that's it! But as you know they still continue to do studies.

Now to your point. Check out all the studies. Do the studies say 1 liter = 1.003 or do they say that for a subject it happened?

Dude, the study you've been relying on says 1 liter = 1.003.

Current federally-regulated workplace drug testing programs have established 1.003 as the lower cut-off for specific gravity. This cut-off reflects approximately an 8-fold dilution from typical levels.

Current federally-regulated workplace drug testing programs have established 20 mg/dL as a cut-off for indicating a dilute specimen. Again, this cut-off reflects an approximately 8-fold dilution from typical levels. This level of dilution does not occur with normal water consumption (e.g. after an 8 oz.(240 ml) glass of water) but rather after consumption of 1 liter(~4 glasses) of water over a short period of time (i.e. 30minutes).

LMAOOO. SO THIS MEANS ACCORDING TO THE STUDY YOU'VE BEEN RELYING ON, DIAZ DRANK LESS THAN A LITER OF WATERRRRRR! DERP!

The point is either the study you've been relying on is shlt, or you have to accept Diaz drank less than a liter of water. So which is it?

See, this goes perfectly with what I am saying. Too many variables to make statements like you just did. So in fact its YOU that is picking and choosing NOT me. I just bring up the possibilities that can occur and

AGAIN, due to so so many variables, the results can differ dramatically. If you recall, there was a study that said the more subjects drank the higher the percentage of subjects that went from a positive to a negative result. Some occurred after 1.5 liters and some after 2 liters. BUT that is that study but for Diaz it can be different.

Yea yea yea. However, you still haven't found well over 300ng to 61ng have you? Have you?????

4. Nope. As I told you there are several separate points.
Diaz's defense cannot be just about dilution because he needs to convince the panel that there is no plausible explanation. If there is then that means that Diaz had alternative ways to beat the test and those alternatives can explain the results of TEST #2 and TEST #3. Got it?

Stop shltting yourself. YOU said this was about dilution and the SPG test. Now YOU are trying to squirm out of it. Again, thanks for proving my point, chump! If Nate found a magician who did this for him, good for him. It only shows that you are WRONGGGGG ABOUT SPECIFIC GRAVITY. WHICH IS THE ****ING POINT!

Second point is about the dilution and the limitations of SG and CR. Go check it out. They all bring it up. There are definite limitations. I brought up many. You cannot defend against that. Can you? If yes, lets see what you got!!!

SURE I CAN. YOUR LIMITATIONS DON'T MATCH UP WITH WHAT NICK DID YOU ****ING CLOWN. IT'S YOUR POSITION THAT EVEN AT 1.009 THE SAMPLE WAS TOO DILUTED. YOU FAILED!

I already answered your point plenty of times. The SG has limitations. Its possible that the SG goes up or down while the substance in question concentration does NOT reflect those SG variations at that point in time. Its NOT necessarily a 1 to 1 relationship. The substance may excrete at a different rate compared or that there may be a higher concentration of other substances as I already told you and gave examples of. Floyd used an IV. Man, Floyd could have had just about anything in that IV to
counteract and spike up enough the concentration of the SG that it does NOT go below the WADA threshold. BUT I already told you this before.

LMAOOOOOOO. MR. SPECULATION AT IT AGAIN. SO NOW FLOYD COULD HAVE HAD ANYTHING IN THE IV. SO WHY DIDN'T IT SHOW UP IN THE TESTS? AND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF HIS SAMPLE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE SHOVING YOUR FOOT DOWN YOUR THROAT AND KICKING YOUR OWN ASS. KEEP IT COMING!

So for you to say that its not possible is quite laughable! Especially when I pointed out so many examples. People who understand all this must be looking at you like as if you are just a punching bag at this point in time.

I think its time that you just wave the flag. Diaz even did that and admitted that he was wrong in his defense. Yet you say that he was right?

WRONGGGGGGGGGGG! LMAO. KEEP PRETENDING YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING. I'VE GOT 2 EXPERTS AGREEING WITH ME. YOU HAVE A REFEREE. LMAOOO. AND NO, DIAZ DID NOT ADMIT HE WAS WRONG IN THE MANNER THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT OUT. STOP BEING A BlTCH. YOU ALREADY TRIED TO GIVE A FALSE QUOTE TO FIT YOUR AGENDA, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST COWARDLY THINGS A POSTER CAN DO, AND NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IT WITH DIAZ. JUST STOP BEING A ****ING COWARD.

5. Man this is starting to look really bad TRAV. You are reading that graph all wrong. That graph is not showing the THC metabolite levels. They are showing you the normalized THC/CR concentrations.

To get a more accurate assessment, they prefer to take the urine samples on a daily basis at the same time of the day but that is not always possible of course. What they do then is a simple calculation to see if there are any spikes in the concentrations. If there is a spike then that would imply that the subject had used marijuana prior to the spike.

WHAT THE GRAPH IS SHOWING YOU IS THAT JUMPING FROM 300NG TO 61NG AINT GONNA HAPPEN, CHUMP! EVEN IF HE SMOKED AGAIN, IT AINT FALLING DOWN AFTER A SPG OF 1.009. YOU KNOW IT. YOU'RE DONE.

Date 1/26: THC metabolite level = 49 ng/ml CR = 241
FORMULA = (49 ng/ml * 100)/ 241 = 20

Date 1/31:
[B]BEFORE Fight:[/B] THC metabolite level = 49.73 ng/ml SG = 1.002 should mean Creatinine < 20 but lets use 20
FORMULA = (49.73 ng/ml * 100)/ 20 = 249

AFTER Fight: THC metabolite level > 300 (lets use 425 ng/ml) Creatinine = 168.4
FORMULA = (425 ng/ml * 100)/ 168.4 = 252

So on 1/26 the concentration was only at 20 but it spiked up to 250 in TEST #1 and TEST #2. So this would conclude that Diaz used marijuana after his 1/26 test.
.

LMAOOOOOO. DUDE, STOP DOING THIS TO YOURSELF!!!! NO EXPERT AGREES WITH YOU. YOU ACTUALLY THINK YOU KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE THE TRUE VALUE MORE THAN A WADA ACCREDITED LAB. THIS IS HYSTERICAL!!!! AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY WITH YOUR CALCULATIONS. ARE YOU SAYING THAT HIS TRUE METABOLITE LEVEL WAS 250NG? THEN WHY IS DR. SAMPLE SAYING IT WAS CERTAINLY WELL ABOVE 300NG?

And what you're saying is that your "expert" calculations can prove definitively that he in fact failed the 1/31 pre-fight test, yet all of the scientists at a WADA-Accredited lab missed this. They don't know math and have no idea what they are doing. Is that what you are actually saying????

Check this out. By normalized, you mean accounting for the level of hydration, correct? That would mean you are providing the true value of marijuana metabolite present, correct? Am I understanding this correctly? Let's use your calculation, that you somehow think isn't considered by WADA or Quest apparently.

Date 1/23: THC metabolite level = >300 ng/ml (Let's use 425 ng/ml as you did above) CR = 309.8
FORMULA = (425 ng/ml * 100)/ 309.8 = 137

So are you trying to say that the failed test on 1/23 was actually a passed test? Let's go further. You gave your own arbitrary numbers for the above calculations. We know the GC/MS machine measured the 1/31 Quest value as 733ng. Dr. Sample said the value could in fact be higher, or lower, but certainly well above 300ng. So why not use that value??? Make sense?

AFTER Fight: THC metabolite level > 300 (lets use 733.23 ng/ml) Creatinine = 168.4
FORMULA = (733.23 ng/ml * 100)/ 168.4 = 435

Wuh-oh! Look at the spike from 249 to 435. Tell me, expert, does that mean he smoked between test#1 and test#2???? Was he hitting the bong in the back of the venue???

This is an example of why you should leave this stuff to the experts. Furthermore, you gave an arbitrary value for the CR level above when it is well known that you can't take a SPG and from that get the CR. And finally, you conveniently left out test #3.

Dudeeeee....what the actual **** is wrong with you? That is a serious question.
YOU REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THESE ANTI-DOPING EXPERTS ARE AS SMART AS YOU, DO YOU? THIS IS SAD.

[travestyny]

go back and read my points ....

Read that a while ago. Jeff novitsky was not well informed when responding.

- (error #1 )if he was, he would red flag test #1 but he didn't.

- he didn't know that the reliable number was >300 (error #2) and

- there have been numbers well over 733 that i have seen so he is not knowledgeable enough when it comes to marijuana levels!!! (error #3).

- (error #4), srmtl has had bad results overturned before.

- (error 5) the big one, he is giving out this information without knowing the full details of the case!!!


He is operating directly with usada for all ufc athlete anti-doping. So of course he is biased but the errors that i pointed out speak for themselves.

lmaoooooooo. So once again, Mr. Adp02 knows more than an anti-doping expert!


Dudeeee. This is overrrrrrrrr! You lost! You sound like a straight clown, homie. Seek some help!

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

DUDE, HE CLEARLY KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE CASE THAN YOU KNEW! YOU WERE REPORTING THE SPG AT 1.006 ON AN ARTICLE THAT HAD THE QUEST METABOLITE AT 300NG. THE 733NG AMOUNT CAME OUT FROM THE ACTUAL PROCEEDING, SO UM.....I THINK HE IS INFORMED OF WHAT EXACTLY WENT ON HERE.

You sure do know a lot! I mean, three months ago you said this:

"For example, urine cannabinoids levels which were higher than 10,000 ng / ml dropped to the low 100's after drinking 12 ounces of water.

BADA-BOOM!

LMAOOO. I love the BADA-BOOM after this!!! So um....didn't you say this? Did you ever admit that you were WRONGGGG? And what advanced courses have you been taking in the past 3 months that allowed you to go from a complete imbecile regarding this topic to knowing more than WADA lab scientists? We need to check your credentials.

Is this why you saw plenty of marijuana metabolite values over 733ng? LMAO. 10,000ng reduced to 100ng with 350ml of water...less than a standard water bottle.

LMAOOO. You know it all! THIS IS OVERRRRRRRRR!

We don't believe you, you need more people!

[ADP02]

Go back and read my points ....

Read that a while ago. Jeff Novitsky was NOT well informed when responding.

- (error #1 )If he was, he would red flag TEST #1 but he didn't.

- He didn't know that the reliable number was >300 (error #2) and

- there have been numbers well over 733 that I have seen so he is not knowledgeable enough when it comes to marijuana levels!!! (error #3).

- (Error #4), SRMTL has had bad results overturned before.

- (Error 5) The big one, he is giving out this information without knowing the full details of the case!!!


He is operating directly with USADA for all UFC athlete anti-doping. So of course he is biased but the errors that I pointed out speak for themselves.

lmaoooooooo. So once again, Mr. Adp02 knows more than an anti-doping expert!


Dudeeee. This is overrrrrrrrr! You lost! You sound like a straight clown, homie. Seek some help!

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

DUDE, HE CLEARLY KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE CASE THAN YOU KNEW! YOU WERE REPORTING THE SPG AT 1.006 ON AN ARTICLE THAT HAD THE QUEST METABOLITE AT 300NG. THE 733NG AMOUNT CAME OUT FROM THE ACTUAL PROCEEDING, SO UM.....I THINK HE IS INFORMED OF WHAT EXACTLY WENT ON HERE.

You did it again. Deflected from actually posting about his remarks to something completely irrelevant!!! At least you are staying consistent! lol

I posted what was stated on multiple sites including ESPN, I didn't make it up. If they made an error of .003 and you are stuck up on that then you should do the same with Jeff's response! With this of course you are not consistent.

If Jeff was trying to keep it real, he would bring up the points that I brought up and more. But we both know that he was riding the wave and being VP (part of UFC) he had a good reason to try to help Diaz. He even got their lawyers to help Diaz out! He is so impartial! lol

You sure do know a lot! I mean, three months ago you said this:

ADP02: "For example, urine cannabinoids levels which were higher than 10,000 ng / ml dropped to the low 100's after drinking 12 ounces of water.

BADA-BOOM!
LMAOOO. I love the BADA-BOOM after this!!! So um....didn't you say this? Did you ever admit that you were WRONGGGG? And what advanced courses have you been taking in the past 3 months that allowed you to go from a complete imbecile regarding this topic to knowing more than WADA lab scientists? We need to check your credentials.

Is this why you saw plenty of marijuana metabolite values over 733ng? LMAO. 10,000ng reduced to 100ng with 350ml of water...less than a standard water bottle.

LMAOOO. You know it all! THIS IS OVERRRRRRRRR!

We don't believe you, you need more people![/CENTER]

Again, more deflections. Again, I posted what was stated about the study. Funnier still, my point was not about how the 12 ounces of water was able to dilute but how with just a few liters of water in 2 hours or less, subjects were so diluted that they had switched from postive to negative results ..... which was more on topic AND I even explained all of this to you but still you need to bring it up. lol .... furthermore, I can tell by your reference to this quote that you are not even understanding any of this AGAIN.

a) Can-nab-i-noid: any of the chemical compounds that are the active principles of marijuana. CBD is one of over 60 compounds found in cannabis that belong to a class of molecules called cannabinoids. Of these compounds, CBD and THC are usually present in the highest concentrations, and are therefore the most recognized and studied.

The following table lists compounds that are positively detected in urine by the THC One Step Marijuana Test Strip at 5 minutes. 11-nor-D9-THC-9 is the target compound.

Compound ----------------- Cutoff (ng/ml)
11-nor-D9-THC-9 ---------- 50
Cannabinol ------------------ 20,000
11-nor-D8-THC-9 ----------- 30
D8-THC ---------------------- 15,000
D9-THC --------------------- 15,000



b) Marijuana:
Marijuana (THC), being highly fat soluble, needs to be interpreted according to its level, rather than its presence. Small amounts will linger in the body for weeks, or even months. Generally, one marijuana cigarette will produce approximately 200-600 ng/ml of THC metabolite in the urine. Chronic users can have over 1000 ng/ml., and up to 6000 ng/ml. For a chronic user, the decline in levels of THC is slower than occasional users. It may require 2-3 weeks to get below 100 ng/ml. Therefore, if a urinary level of of 75 ng/ml was reported, it may represent: an occasional user who stopped usage 2 or 3 days prior; a chronic user who stopped usage 2 weeks prior; or an individual taking 1 or 2 “hits” of a marijuana cigarette within the last 24 hours.

The quality of the marijuana inhaled is another factor affecting urinary levels. Generally, marijuana cigarettes contain 1/2 to 1% THC (0.5-1.0%). However, if an individual were to smoke a poor quality cigarette, only 0.1% or less THC, he may never get over 100 ng/ml. On the other hand, there is a high quality marijuana available, which is up to 14% THC. One cigarette of this type may push urine levels over 1000 ng/ml.


c) "Identification Number : 204204851 RESULTS: 1,000 ng/ml day 19: *** 11-Nor-9-carboxy delta9-THC = 923 ng/ml ***


Called First Check and confirmed that their GC/MS cutoff is 1,000 ng/ml, so the test that started this thread (10 days clean) was probably in the 1600-2000 range. I was a *constant* all day smoker before this detox began, so I think it's safe to say I was anywhere from 3,000-3,800 ng/ml the day I quit. Definitely an eye opener.


For the amount I smoked daily, I think a 60-day detox sounds about right. What is somewhat more shocking is that if you do the math backwards, I was probably about over 4,000 ng/ml on the day I quit.

In all likelihood, given my smoking history and subsequent calculation of how fast the THC has been leaving my system, I was actually in the 2500-4500 ng/ml range when I tested (really high, but then again, so was I)."


d) Jeff brought up "733 ng/ml, one of the highest I’ve ever seen. There are big issues in interpreting those results"
That was unreliable stat instead he should have just given the reliable stat of >300.
Kinda strange that he would do that IF he actually knew his stuff and had questioned that it was a number that was unusually high. Ironically, the "BIG ISSUE" is his interpretation of those results!!!


Poor Travestny cannot get a break. Just lots of LMAO and deflections BUT he is consistently WRONG!!!

[ADP02]

You're a complete moron. What you showed wasn't even considered a diluted sample. Try again.

The only moron is you in all of this. If you do not understand, I'm OK with that but you are making yourself look like a fool when you make statements like you do. Just wave the flag already. Your responses are getting worse with each post. No comeback really. Not even a flinch from you. Pretty sad stuff. Well I get it. So much information out there that backs up my position and not yours.

Wrong! Is it considered diluted by Quest or WADA standards, or any drug testing standard? Waitingggg!

Look at subject F's CR value. A huge downward trend in just 1 hour. I thought this was supposed to be not medically plausible? And this was just a study not someone who must use all means to pass a test!!! This guy went from 1 end of the spectrum to the complete opposite end in 1 hour! and his THC metabolite level is not even readable! How many FOLDs was this dude able to dilute is supposed to be medically not plausible BUT he was able to .... Poof!

Since you are lost, Creatinine = 340 means that the urine is extremely concentrated. Creatinine = 47 is when the urine is very diluted. Time that it took to go from 340 to 47? 1 hour!!!! BOOOOOOOOOM!

Another point: So this subject was able to go to these type of extremes in 1 hour by rehydration yet Floyd, who we all saw drinking adequately enough to rehydrate after the weigh in, needed more time(delays), and an IV? lol


SUBJECT F
Time 4.0 to 5,0 to 8,8
THCCOOH 49.0 to 0,0 to 6.6
Creatinine 340 to 47 to 26
Volume 134 to 222


and these ones show that with that level of Creatinine, you can drop many FOLDs of THC metabolite levels. Below was not as extreme shift in dilution values but the substance drop was significant:

SUBJECT G
Time 20.5 to 23.0 to 24.0
THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1 to 13.7
Creatinine 184 to 39 to 23
Volume 320 to 195 to 260

SUBJECT H
Time 6.0 to 9.5
THCCOOH 234.2 to 59.6
Creatinine 174 to 45
Volume 116 to 390

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You seem flustered. Diluting from 733ng to 61ng would damn near put him in a coma. Do you understand that yet? If not, go look at your studies. lol.

1) According to Eichner, "ideal" specific gravity for a urine sample is approximately 1.020. A reading of 1.000 indicates water.

"We can take it a little more diluted than that, but that's what is ideal," Eichner said. "Obviously, we don't want a sample that is too dilute. It's hard to find levels of what you're looking for. Ideally, we try to make sure nothing is diluted more than 1.008."

according to Eichner, 1.009 is "significantly below normal" or ideal. > 2 FOLDs more dilute than ideal.

Actually depending on the instrument used to check SG, WADA has several cutoff points.
"Suitable Specific Gravity for Analysis: 1.05 with a refractometer, or 1.010 with lab sticks."

2) Still waiting for you to confirm that SG and CR have their limitations. Which is basically what my initial point was about. Then you can come back and say that YOU WERE WRONG!!!


3) Once you understand the above 2 points, you will understand that the SG can be significantly dilute so that the THC metabolites from a fresh urine sample will show a negative result.

4) Taking the limitations in mind, irrespective of what you say, it can and has thrown off SG/CR test results. I provided this information. You have not and cannot debunk FACTS!!! If you think you can, lets see facts.

Did you really just quote all of that thinking that it means something? LMAOOO. You really are flustered, aren't you? You can't be this stupid. The point is: now try to understand this....: HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT DRUG TESTING. HE IS NOT AN MRO. NOT AN ANTI-DOPING EXPERT. HE IS A ****ING REFEREE! YOU'RE A MORON!

- Moron? I realized this a while back that when you post like that you are just deflecting.

You were wrong about him. He spoke his mind

"John McCarthy rips NSAC executive director Keith Kizer " and got blacklisted as well for doing so. He also did point out that he thought 5 years was too much. Just like what the SAC wanted him to say? lol

- For one you are speculating about his knowledge and secondly, the data supports him. Third point is that he is much more knowledgeable than you about this!!!!

- You are completely lost. The MRO is not there to bring up all evidence including ones that can incriminate Diaz. The MRO was Diaz's defense. So he will only point out what Diaz's team planned before going into the hearing. You seem to be to naive to understand any of this.

- He is an MRO yet should have realized and told Diaz to get sample B tested. Most probably did but Diaz may have swayed it so that they should not check or else we would be seeing another positive test results.

- I already explained this enough so that even you can understand it. They said that TEST 2 is the outlier because it was bookended by 2 negative results. That is more stupid talk.
TEST #1 was an INVALID test.
Secondly, the MRO and the other experts said that its possible to see DRAMATICALY varying test results. So again, do you have something that goes against all of this? NO!!! If yes, lets see what you got!

And yet again, more useless information. LMAOOOO. Dude, who gives a ****! He lied. We know he lied. That's the only reason that this was settle instead of NSAC getting roasted in court. That they relied on him lying shows what I've been telling your punk ass: THEY CAN'T PROVE HE DID ANYTHING BY HYDRATING!!!! Thanks for making this easy, chump!

So let me get this straight. Diaz lied because what again? lol This is too easy!

Are you for real? This is about Diaz abusing marijuana and on top of that he lied that he used it recently. That is perjury. Remember when you guys found that to be a big deal when it came to another substance that numbs you even though that one was legal? lol! Now you are contradicting yourself and saying "that's all they have on Diaz?" Well NO! They have several positive results on the same freaking substance!!! Chump! lol


- The NSAC had a lot on Diaz. The pre-fight form, positive tests just before the fight and fight night and a prior offenses on the same substance. This was all taken into account but I agree that they went too far with 5 years ban (initially).


- The funniest line of yours "THEY CAN'T PROVE HE DID ANYTHING BY HYDRATING"
a) They have a positive test result! That is all they need!!!
b) They do not have to prove. EXPLAIN WHY THEY NEED TO FREAKING PROVE THAT IT HAD TO BE THE WAY DIAZ's TEAM said? Are you saying that Diaz's team is saying, "If you cannot prove that its by way of dilution then Diaz is not guilty?" Well, what if Diaz did it another way? He is not guilty because it was not by way of dilution? THis is so freaking dumb!!!!! lol!!!

Dude, the study you've been relying on says 1 liter = 1.003.








LMAOOO. SO THIS MEANS ACCORDING TO THE STUDY YOU'VE BEEN RELYING ON, DIAZ DRANK LESS THAN A LITER OF WATERRRRRR! DERP!

The point is either the study you've been relying on is shlt, or you have to accept Diaz drank less than a liter of water. So which is it?

Man you are dense!!! There are plenty of studies not just one. There are many variables that need to be taken into account (factored in). Do YOU NOT GET THIS SIMPLE POINT???????


The studies that I pointed to: Some subjects took less amount of water and some more. They were able to do it without being intoxicated. Some articles pointed to big drops in THC metabolite is possible by just diluting.

Yea yea yea. However, you still haven't found well over 300ng to 61ng have you? Have you?????

Actually I did but you are still lost on this one.

1) The article that I showed you says that its possible to dilute THC metabolites many FOLDS quite easily by drinking water. The diagram that he used for diluting I saw in other articles. Its even easier and faster when using a diuretic to help with dilution.

400 to 50 (8 folds). Article states that it can be even more than 10 FOLDS. Subject G in point 2 is about 10 fold. What can a 7 or 8 or 10+ FOLD of 61ng be if it was NOT diluted?

but you are lost when calculating. Come back when you learn all that!

2) These 3 subjects that I mentioned above were able to dilute and drop their metabolite levels many FOLDS and they were not Diaz who was someone who had to try to beat the test!
Subject G: THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1
Subject H: THCCOOH 234.2 to 59.6

Subject F: Creatinine 340 to 47 Here we have 2 values on the extremes of the urine concentration spectrum in only 1 hour!!!!

Now its time that you show your proof of impossibility! lol .... Like I said, there are too many possible ways not just one! Yet you say that its not possible.

3) You are clinging to Diaz's testimony on how its not medically plausible to do. I shot down their statements! So if you do not even have their statement, what do you have? NOTHING!!!!

- Was the reliable number 733 or > 300? Diaz's team statement was not acceptable!

- Was it 1:17 or over 2 hours(time before TEST #2 can affect TEST #3). Diaz's team statement was not acceptable!

- Remember subject F? He went from being extremely dehydrated to extremely hydrated in 1 hour!!!!! Diaz's team statement was not acceptable!

- 400 to 50 (8 folds). Article states that it can be even more than 10 FOLDS. Diaz's team statement was not acceptable!

- SG and CR are tools used to help out but they have limitations. I gave you tons of reasons why YET you keep on asking me these silly questions. TEST #1 was invalid due to dilution. TEST #3 was very diluted. You can have diluted urine samples that pass certain substance thresholds. Its quite easy now for marijuana since they boosted the limits.

Study on dilution and SG/CR values:
"example, most subjects began producing negative specimens with creatinine <20 mg/dL and specific gravity <1.003 after drinking the first 2 qt of liquid. There were even noticeable
effects on drug concentration, creatinine, and specific gravity produced by subjects drinking 12 oz of water (control treatment). For example, Subject D produced a negative specimen for cocaine approximately 2 h after drinking 12 oz of water (Table III). The effect was brief, and the next four specimens tested positive.

Importantly, when the negative test result for cocaine occurred as a result of ingestion of 12 oz of water by Subject D, the creatinine content of that specimen was 64 mg/dL and specific gravity was 1.010, well above recommended cutoff values indicative of dilute specimens."



4) The above was to prove you are wrong but as stated by the so "experts" in the hearing, you cannot correlate the different results as you keep on wanting to do. Reasons have been pointed out to you BUT you are avoiding this fact.

QUEST did a 2 test process where the GC/MS was the confirmation test.
SMRTL did just a screening test by way of GC/MS.

Studies have shown that QUEST's way can at times catch what the GC/MS didn't catch!!! poof! There are also different ways to test using the GC/MS!!! Whooaaa!!! Gets funnier and funnier ...

Stop shltting yourself. YOU said this was about dilution and the SPG test. Now YOU are trying to squirm out of it. Again, thanks for proving my point, chump! If Nate found a magician who did this for him, good for him. It only shows that you are WRONGGGGG ABOUT SPECIFIC GRAVITY. WHICH IS THE ****ING POINT!

Sorry but I cannot let you deflect anymore.

Diaz's team's statements were not acceptable.

The people who are looking at the evidence do NOT care HOW Diaz did it, only that he did it. If it wasn't by the scenario as explained by Diaz's team BUT its possible by another scenario, who cares. THEN Diaz could have PLUS we have a positive SCREEN and Confirmation TEST!!! and no Sample B tested. Its open and shut. Diaz is found guilty. More so since he lied on his pre-fight form to hide the fact that he uses.


Squirming? I freaking wrote a freaking novel to prove my points!!! And you respond wit NOTHING concrete. You at least made me laugh! Thanks!

SURE I CAN. YOUR LIMITATIONS DON'T MATCH UP WITH WHAT NICK DID YOU ****ING CLOWN. IT'S YOUR POSITION THAT EVEN AT 1.009 THE SAMPLE WAS TOO DILUTED. YOU FAILED!

Drrrr .... well if there are limitations and can be explained, as I did on multiple occasions then that is all that needs to be said! remember that I have a positive result on an admitted marijuana user where ALL tests came back positive for marijuana. Its just that for the diluted ones, the results were below the threshold. Whoaa!


The SCREENING by SMRTL came back negative while the 2 step process by QUEST came back positive for both TESTs.

Read up what they say about this 2 step process. They compliment each other very well.
You know math? You know USADA? You know about testing? A negative test does not mean that the athlete did not cheat. A positive test that has a 2 step process as QUEST does is hard to turn over ... only way was if Sample B came back negative.

LMAOOOOOOO. MR. SPECULATION AT IT AGAIN. SO NOW FLOYD COULD HAVE HAD ANYTHING IN THE IV. SO WHY DIDN'T IT SHOW UP IN THE TESTS? AND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF HIS SAMPLE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE SHOVING YOUR FOOT DOWN YOUR THROAT AND KICKING YOUR OWN ASS. KEEP IT COMING!

Would you have said the same thing about Lance Armstrong? He passed his tests in this manner and other ways! Of course, he was not the first and Floyd will not be the last! But keep on being naive about this! Diaz had his diluted samples. SMRTL checked. What happened with the invalid diluted sample? lol! Too funny!

WRONGGGGGGGGGGG! LMAO. KEEP PRETENDING YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING. I'VE GOT 2 EXPERTS AGREEING WITH ME. YOU HAVE A REFEREE. LMAOOO. AND NO, DIAZ DID NOT ADMIT HE WAS WRONG IN THE MANNER THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT OUT. STOP BEING A BlTCH. YOU ALREADY TRIED TO GIVE A FALSE QUOTE TO FIT YOUR AGENDA, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST COWARDLY THINGS A POSTER CAN DO, AND NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IT WITH DIAZ. JUST STOP BEING A ****ING COWARD.

More nothing from you. I shot down your expert's points and actually used his most important point to make my point. Diaz's expert was so flustered that he said it was impossible yet he didn't know what it would take to make it possible. lol I have a positive test. YOU HAVE NOTHING!!! I explained. YOU EXPLAINED NOTHING!!!!

WHAT THE GRAPH IS SHOWING YOU IS THAT JUMPING FROM 300NG TO 61NG AINT GONNA HAPPEN, CHUMP! EVEN IF HE SMOKED AGAIN, IT AINT FALLING DOWN AFTER A SPG OF 1.009. YOU KNOW IT. YOU'RE DONE.

No its not showing that. Its about normalizing the concentrations. Its taking into account multiple concentrations and coming up with a method to calculate the possibility that the user used recently the substance in question. That is by way of multiple back to back urine samples and by way of a ratio so that dilution is factored in the calculation.

LMAOOOOOO. DUDE, STOP DOING THIS TO YOURSELF!!!! NO EXPERT AGREES WITH YOU. YOU ACTUALLY THINK YOU KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE THE TRUE VALUE MORE THAN A WADA ACCREDITED LAB. THIS IS HYSTERICAL!!!! AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY WITH YOUR CALCULATIONS. ARE YOU SAYING THAT HIS TRUE METABOLITE LEVEL WAS 250NG? THEN WHY IS DR. SAMPLE SAYING IT WAS CERTAINLY WELL ABOVE 300NG?

And what you're saying is that your "expert" calculations can prove definitively that he in fact failed the 1/31 pre-fight test, yet all of the scientists at a WADA-Accredited lab missed this. They don't know math and have no idea what they are doing. Is that what you are actually saying????

Check this out. By normalized, you mean accounting for the level of hydration, correct? That would mean you are providing the true value of marijuana metabolite present, correct? Am I understanding this correctly? Let's use your calculation, that you somehow think isn't considered by WADA or Quest apparently.

Date 1/23: THC metabolite level = >300 ng/ml (Let's use 425 ng/ml as you did above) CR = 309.8
FORMULA = (425 ng/ml * 100)/ 309.8 = 137

So are you trying to say that the failed test on 1/23 was actually a passed test? Let's go further. You gave your own arbitrary numbers for the above calculations. We know the GC/MS machine measured the 1/31 Quest value as 733ng. Dr. Sample said the value could in fact be higher, or lower, but certainly well above 300ng. So why not use that value??? Make sense?

AFTER Fight: THC metabolite level > 300 (lets use 733.23 ng/ml) Creatinine = 168.4
FORMULA = (733.23 ng/ml * 100)/ 168.4 = 435

Wuh-oh! Look at the spike from 249 to 435. Tell me, expert, does that mean he smoked between test#1 and test#2???? Was he hitting the bong in the back of the venue???

This is an example of why you should leave this stuff to the experts. Furthermore, you gave an arbitrary value for the CR level above when it is well known that you can't take a SPG and from that get the CR. And finally, you conveniently left out test #3.

Dudeeeee....what the actual **** is wrong with you? That is a serious question.
YOU REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THESE ANTI-DOPING EXPERTS ARE AS SMART AS YOU, DO YOU? THIS IS SAD.

You could have stopped after saying you do not get it.

Its simple. They cannot apply these type of calculations when they are not consistently testing the athletes as may be done in a study. Timely and consistent urine samples must be taken. When they test in boxing or UFC, its possible that they do not test regularly or may not be tested at all before a fight. Certainly with no consistency. So to say, they cannot and are not allowed to apply these types of calculations BUT they do exist and some use them. Its about improving the testing ... but Diaz's is more random (spot) type of test while the other is collected at more consistent intervals.

WADA has their rules (diluted sample) instead of using these types of methods which indicates that Diaz smoke recently (after 1/26 but before TEST on 1/31)

What i provided was a ratio that takes into account dilution as well. There is a definite spike and the spike is very dramatic.


"The ratio method was successfully applied in a number of programs (3–5). Fraser and Worth (5–7) reported that the method predicted new use for chronic cannabis smokers in treatment. They noted that results were better when the time separation in urine collections was greater, recommending at least 48 h in one study and 96 h in another"

"They recommended that THCCOOH concentrations be normalized by dividing each by the urine creatinine concentration (1). This technique reduces the variability in concentration due to hydration effects. Using these creatinine-normalized THCCOOH concentrations, a ratio is calculated that is the concentration of any urine specimen (U2) divided by the concentration in a previously collected urine specimen (U1)."

Initial study had a ratio of 1.5 while a later study stated that 1.5 was not necessary and even .5 is enough to indicate new use by the user/

Concentration ratio 2(U2)/concentration ratio 1(U1) = 249/20 = 12.45!!!! Way more than .5 and even 1.5!!!


WADA actually applies a normalization method but only on steroids type substances.



BTW - Your examples are incorrect.
1) Made me crack up when you used the UNRELIABLE value instead of the evidence provided to you > 300.

2) The method that I presented to you also takes into account a time factor and consecutive urine samples. YOU did not apply that. You jumped(skipped results) and used unreliable numbers. But thanks for participating!


Its that time .... time to say that you were WRONG!!!

I pretty much shut down all your points. I certainly responded to them. You did not because you cannot ....

[travestyny]

You did it again. Deflected from actually posting about his remarks to something completely irrelevant!!! At least you are staying consistent! lol

I posted what was stated on multiple sites including ESPN, I didn't make it up. If they made an error of .003 and you are stuck up on that then you should do the same with Jeff's response! With this of course you are not consistent.

If Jeff was trying to keep it real, he would bring up the points that I brought up and more. But we both know that he was riding the wave and being VP (part of UFC) he had a good reason to try to help Diaz. He even got their lawyers to help Diaz out! He is so impartial! lol









Again, more deflections. Again, I posted what was stated about the study. Funnier still, my point was not about how the 12 ounces of water was able to dilute but how with just a few liters of water in 2 hours or less, subjects were so diluted that they had switched from postive to negative results ..... which was more on topic AND I even explained all of this to you but still you need to bring it up. lol .... furthermore, I can tell by your reference to this quote that you are not even understanding any of this AGAIN.

a) Can-nab-i-noid: any of the chemical compounds that are the active principles of marijuana. CBD is one of over 60 compounds found in cannabis that belong to a class of molecules called cannabinoids. Of these compounds, CBD and THC are usually present in the highest concentrations, and are therefore the most recognized and studied.

The following table lists compounds that are positively detected in urine by the THC One Step Marijuana Test Strip at 5 minutes. 11-nor-D9-THC-9 is the target compound.

Compound ----------------- Cutoff (ng/ml)
11-nor-D9-THC-9 ---------- 50
Cannabinol ------------------ 20,000
11-nor-D8-THC-9 ----------- 30
D8-THC ---------------------- 15,000
D9-THC --------------------- 15,000



b) Marijuana:
Marijuana (THC), being highly fat soluble, needs to be interpreted according to its level, rather than its presence. Small amounts will linger in the body for weeks, or even months. Generally, one marijuana cigarette will produce approximately 200-600 ng/ml of THC metabolite in the urine. Chronic users can have over 1000 ng/ml., and up to 6000 ng/ml. For a chronic user, the decline in levels of THC is slower than occasional users. It may require 2-3 weeks to get below 100 ng/ml. Therefore, if a urinary level of of 75 ng/ml was reported, it may represent: an occasional user who stopped usage 2 or 3 days prior; a chronic user who stopped usage 2 weeks prior; or an individual taking 1 or 2 “hits” of a marijuana cigarette within the last 24 hours.

The quality of the marijuana inhaled is another factor affecting urinary levels. Generally, marijuana cigarettes contain 1/2 to 1% THC (0.5-1.0%). However, if an individual were to smoke a poor quality cigarette, only 0.1% or less THC, he may never get over 100 ng/ml. On the other hand, there is a high quality marijuana available, which is up to 14% THC. One cigarette of this type may push urine levels over 1000 ng/ml.


c) "Identification Number : 204204851 RESULTS: 1,000 ng/ml day 19: *** 11-Nor-9-carboxy delta9-THC = 923 ng/ml ***


Called First Check and confirmed that their GC/MS cutoff is 1,000 ng/ml, so the test that started this thread (10 days clean) was probably in the 1600-2000 range. I was a *constant* all day smoker before this detox began, so I think it's safe to say I was anywhere from 3,000-3,800 ng/ml the day I quit. Definitely an eye opener.


For the amount I smoked daily, I think a 60-day detox sounds about right. What is somewhat more shocking is that if you do the math backwards, I was probably about over 4,000 ng/ml on the day I quit.

In all likelihood, given my smoking history and subsequent calculation of how fast the THC has been leaving my system, I was actually in the 2500-4500 ng/ml range when I tested (really high, but then again, so was I)."


d) Jeff brought up "733 ng/ml, one of the highest I’ve ever seen. There are big issues in interpreting those results"
That was unreliable stat instead he should have just given the reliable stat of >300.
Kinda strange that he would do that IF he actually knew his stuff and had questioned that it was a number that was unusually high. Ironically, the "BIG ISSUE" is his interpretation of those results!!!


Poor Travestny cannot get a break. Just lots of LMAO and deflections BUT he is consistently WRONG!!!

LMAOOOOOOOOO. DUDE. ARE YOU GOING TO STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF?

1. YOU HAVE GOTTEN YOUR ASS SO THOROUGHLY KICKED THAT YOU TRIED TO SLIP IN ATTRIBUTING A QUOTATION TO A DOCTOR THAT DIDN'T EVEN SAY IT. YOU ****ING COWARD. YOU TRIED TO CHEAT BECAUSE DEEP DOWN IT HURTS YOUR SOUL THAT YOU'VE BEEN GETTING ****ED UP. AND YOU DIDN'T THINK I WOULD NOTICE, DID YOU? LMAOOOOOO. THAT'S FIRST OF ALL.

2. YOU JUST POSTED ALL OF THAT ABOVE SHlT, AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DEFLECTIONS, WHEN ALL I ASKED YOU WAS ONE QUESTION. DID YOU SAY THAT 10,000NG DROPS TO 100NG AFTER DRINKING 350ML OF WATER. YES OR NO? DID YOU SAY IT???? LMAOOOOOO TALK ABOUT DEFLECTION! THEN YOU LIST ALL OF THAT ****, BUT NEVER MENTION 10,000NG DROPPING TO 100NG WITH 350ML OF WATER. YOU'RE A ****ING CLOWN WHO DOESN'T KNOW ****, AND THAT'S WHY I'VE DECAPITATED YOUR DUMB ASS. YOU CAN KEEP PRETENDING YOU'RE KEEPING UP. I'LL JUST KEEP LAUGHING AT YOU.

3. YOU HAVE NO READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS. TELL ME.....DOES SAYING IT IS "ONE OF THE HIGHEST VALUES I'VE EVER SEEN" MEAN THAT HE HASN'T SEE A HIGHER VALUE? LEARN HOW TO ****ING READ YOU ABSOLUTE MORON.

4. YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY HE WAS MISINFORMED WHEN HIS STATEMENT PROVES THAT HE WAS WELL AWARE OF THE PROCEEDING, YOU CLOWN.

5. YOU NOW ARE TRYING TO SAY YOU HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN A 20 YEAR VET MRO AND AN ANTI-DOPING SPECIALIST....WHICH IS WHY YOU TRIED TO RELY ON THE WORD OF A REFEREE TO BACK YOU UP.



LMAOOOOOOOOO. DE-****ING-STROYED!

[travestyny]

The only moron is you in all of this. If you do not understand, I'm OK with that but you are making yourself look like a fool when you make statements like you do. Just wave the flag already. Your responses are getting worse with each post. No comeback really. Not even a flinch from you. Pretty sad stuff. Well I get it. So much information out there that backs up my position and not yours.

HA. NOTHING AND NO ONE BACKS YOUR POSITION. FIND ONE SPECIALIST WHO BACKS YOUR POSITION. I HAVE 2 WHO BACK MINE. AND NO, A REFEREE ISN'T A SPECIALIST CLOWN BOY. LMAOOOOOOOO!

Look at subject F's CR value. A huge downward trend in just 1 hour. I thought this was supposed to be not medically plausible?

YOU'RE A ****ING MORON. YOU STILL CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ****ING MRO IS SAYING TO YOU, CAN YOU? THE MARIJUANA METABOLITE ISN'T GOING TO DROP FROM WELL OVER 300NG TO 61NG UNLESS HE DRANK SO MUCH WATER THAT IT WOULD DEFINITELY PRODUCE A DILUTED SAMPLE. NO ONE SAYS 1.009 IS DILUTED YOU IDIOT. WHAT YOU ARE SHOWING IS ANOTHER UNDILUTED SAMPLE. IF YOU THINK THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE MRO IS TALKING ABOUT....FORGET IT. WE BOTH KNOW YOU'RE A MORON.

And this was just a study not someone who must use all means to pass a test!!! This guy went from 1 end of the spectrum to the complete opposite end in 1 hour! and his THC metabolite level is not even readable! How many FOLDs was this dude able to dilute is supposed to be medically not plausible BUT he was able to .... Poof!

SO AN UNDILUTED SAMPLE IS THE OPPOSITE END OF THE SPECTRUM. LMAOOOOOO. GIVE THE **** UP, IDIOT!
HIS CREATININE LEVEL WAS 26 AT THE END, AND HE WAS AT 6.6, RIGHT? SO HOW THE **** DID NICK GO FROM A MEASURED 733 TO 61 WITH AN UNDILUTED SAMPLE. I'LL WAIT.

THANKS FOR PLAYING, CHUMP!

Since you are lost, Creatinine = 340 means that the urine is extremely concentrated. Creatinine = 47 is when the urine is very diluted. Time that it took to go from 340 to 47? 1 hour!!!! BOOOOOOOOOM!

QUESTION: DOES QUEST MARK CREATININE AT 47 DILUTED? THIS IS WHY YOU ARE A MORON.

Another point: So this subject was able to go to these type of extremes in 1 hour by rehydration yet Floyd, who we all saw drinking adequately enough to rehydrate after the weigh in, needed more time(delays), and an IV? lol


SUBJECT F
Time 4.0 to 5,0 to 8,8
THCCOOH 49.0 to 0,0 to 6.6
Creatinine 340 to 47 to 26
Volume 134 to 222


and these ones show that with that level of Creatinine, you can drop many FOLDs of THC metabolite levels. Below was not as extreme shift in dilution values but the substance drop was significant:

SUBJECT G
Time 20.5 to 23.0 to 24.0
THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1 to 13.7
Creatinine 184 to 39 to 23
Volume 320 to 195 to 260

SUBJECT H
Time 6.0 to 9.5
THCCOOH 234.2 to 59.6
Creatinine 174 to 45
Volume 116 to 390

SO UM....NOW WE ARE GOING TO COMPARE A MEASURED 733NG TO 61NG WITH THESE VALUES....ALL OF WHICH COMES NOWHERE NEAR THIS FIRST OF ALL. SECOND, THE LATER TWO TAKE PLACE OVER 3 HOURS. YAWNNNNNNN. GIVE UP, CLOWN BOY!

1) According to Eichner, "ideal" specific gravity for a urine sample is approximately 1.020. A reading of 1.000 indicates water.

"We can take it a little more diluted than that, but that's what is ideal," Eichner said. "Obviously, we don't want a sample that is too dilute. It's hard to find levels of what you're looking for. Ideally, we try to make sure nothing is diluted more than 1.008."

according to Eichner, 1.009 is "significantly below normal" or ideal. > 2 FOLDs more dilute than ideal.

Actually depending on the instrument used to check SG, WADA has several cutoff points.
"Suitable Specific Gravity for Analysis: 1.05 with a refractometer, or 1.010 with lab sticks."

THANKS FOR PLAYING, CHUMP! BUT DON'T LET ME STOP YOU. KEEP BODYING YOURSELF.

2) Still waiting for you to confirm that SG and CR have their limitations. Which is basically what my initial point was about. Then you can come back and say that YOU WERE WRONG!!!

I WAS WRONG TO THINK YOU HAVE A BRAIN. YOU LITERALLY HAVE SHlT FOR BRAINS. DO YOU REALLY NEED ME TO KEEP TAKING A DUMP ON YOU? YOUR INITIAL POINT WAS THAT ONE WAS BETTER THAN THE OTHER. THEN YOU REALIZED THAT YOU ARE INDEED A MORON, AND YOU TRIED TO SQUIRM OUT OF IT. AM I RIGHT? AM I RIGHT?????? DO I HAVE TO LIST YOUR QUOTATIONS ABOUT IT AGAIN, CLOWN BOY? LMAOOOOOO!

3) Once you understand the above 2 points, you will understand that the SG can be significantly dilute so that the THC metabolites from a fresh urine sample will show a negative result.

4) Taking the limitations in mind, irrespective of what you say, it can and has thrown off SG/CR test results. I provided this information. You have not and cannot debunk FACTS!!! If you think you can, lets see facts.

WOWWWWW. YOU ARE THE ****IGN WORST POSTER EVER. IN FACT, YOU ARE MORE OF A POSER THAN A POSTER. YOUR OWN STUDIES SHOW THAT YOU CAN ACHIEVE NOWHERE NEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING NICK DIAZ DID. TWO EXPERTS AGREE THAT YOU ARE WRONGGGGGGGGGG. LMAOOOOO. AND WHAT DO YOU DO. OH...THEY ARE BIASED. LMAOOOOOOO! YOU PIECE OF SHlT. IF THAT'S THE CASE, NO EXPERTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AT ANY PROCEEDING. YOU STEAMING SACK OF SHlT.

- Moron? I realized this a while back that when you post like that you are just deflecting.

You were wrong about him. He spoke his mind

"John McCarthy rips NSAC executive director Keith Kizer " and got blacklisted as well for doing so. He also did point out that he thought 5 years was too much. Just like what the SAC wanted him to say? lol

- For one you are speculating about his knowledge and secondly, the data supports him. Third point is that he is much more knowledgeable than you about this!!!!

THE DATA SUPPORTS HIM? SHOW IT, BlTCH. SHOW 2-4 LITERS LOWERING WELL OVER 300NG TO 61NG. IF YOU CAN'T.......YOU LOSE.

AND I KNOW YOU CAN'T. YOU LOSE! THE MRO AND ANTI-DOPING EXPERT KNOW MORE THAN YOU AND YOUR REF PUT TOGETHER, CLOWN.

- You are completely lost. The MRO is not there to bring up all evidence including ones that can incriminate Diaz. The MRO was Diaz's defense. So he will only point out what Diaz's team planned before going into the hearing. You seem to be to naive to understand any of this.

YOU SEEM TO BE AN IDIOT. THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS, WHICH YOU ARE TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO ADMIT, IS THAT YOU ARE SAYING THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST BEING SET AT WADA'S STANDARDS WILL FAIL TO CATCH A SAMPLE THAT CAN FALSELY PASS A DRUG TEST. NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO BRING UP OTHER THINGS BESIDES DILUTION BECAUSE....SURPRISE SURPRISE...YOU KNOW YOU ARE ****ING WRONG!!!!!!!!!! YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHlT.

- He is an MRO yet should have realized and told Diaz to get sample B tested. Most probably did but Diaz may have swayed it so that they should not check or else we would be seeing another positive test results.

SHUT THE **** UP. YOU ARE JUST FALLING BACK ON B-SAMPLE TESTING JUST LIKE NSAC BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE. FIND ONE EXPERT THAT AGREEEEES WITH YOUUUUUUU. DO IT....DO IT...DO ITTTTTTT! I DARE YOU! I HAVE 2. BOW DOWN, BlTCH.

- I already explained this enough so that even you can understand it. They said that TEST 2 is the outlier because it was bookended by 2 negative results. That is more stupid talk.

Yep. SO STUPID THAT 2 EXPERTS SAID IT'S LEGIT. LMAOOOOOOO!

TEST #1 was an INVALID test.
Secondly, the MRO and the other experts said that its possible to see DRAMATICALY varying test results. So again, do you have something that goes against all of this? NO!!! If yes, lets see what you got!

DUDE, YOUR MISINTERPRETATION OF THIS ISN'T GOING TO SAVE YOUR ASS. WHY DO YOU THINK NO ONE IS IS HARPING ON THE WHOLE "VARYING TEST RESULT." IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ARE RIGHTFULLY VARYING, YOU ****ING MORON. HE IS CLEARLY SAYING THAT ONE ****ED UP, AND HE TOLD YOU WHICH ONE ****ED UP. YOU ARE WRONGGGGGGGGGGGG!

So let me get this straight. Diaz lied because what again? lol This is too easy!

Are you for real? This is about Diaz abusing marijuana and on top of that he lied that he used it recently. That is perjury. Remember when you guys found that to be a big deal when it came to another substance that numbs you even though that one was legal? lol! Now you are contradicting yourself and saying "that's all they have on Diaz?" Well NO! They have several positive results on the same freaking substance!!! Chump! lol

YOU IDIOT. YOU AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO MAKE ANYONE BELIEVE YOU, AND THAT'S WHY YOU DUCK THE THUNDERDOME LIKE A BlTCH. HE LIED ABOUT USING MARIJUANA. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS TEST WAS LEGIT. IT SIMPLY WASN'T. THE ONLY REASON THAT NSAC DIDN'T GET ROASTED IN COURT INSTEAD OF DIAZ TEAM SETTLING IS BECAUSE THEY KNEW HE WOULD GET CAUGHT ON LYING. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT YOU AND YOUR REFEREE ARE THE ONLY IDIOTS THAT CAN'T SEE THAT QUEST ****ED UP BOTH NICK'S TEST AND SILVA'S TEST ON THE SAME DAMN DAY.

- The NSAC had a lot on Diaz. The pre-fight form, positive tests just before the fight and fight night and a prior offenses on the same substance. This was all taken into account but I agree that they went too far with 5 years ban (initially).

THEY ONLY HAD ONE THING ON DIAZ. THE OTHER TESTS DON'T MEAN SHlT YOU FOOL. TRY TO KEEP UP AND STOP TRYING TO DEFLECT. WHY THE **** WOULD HE SMOKE AGAIN AFTER HE WAS SHlTTING BRICKS TRYING TO PASS A TEST TO BE REINSTATED. YOU BELIEVE HE GOES THROUGH THAT, AND THEN SMOKES AGAIN 5 DAYS BEFORE A TEST...AND IT'S JUST COINCIDENCE THAT THE FIRST TEST HE TAKES SHOWS 41NG AND THE LAST ONE IS 61NG????? 2 EXPERTS TESTIFY THAT THE VALUES ARE CONSISTENT. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMON SENSE???? NO RATIONAL PERSON WOULD HAVE TROUBLE WITH A TEST AND THEN SMOKE AGAIN KNOWING THEY WILL BE TESTED IN 5 DAYS, AND THE PROOF IS THAT HIS LEVELS WERE SO LOW FOR 2 WADA TESTS. YOU'RE A ****ING MORON.

- The funniest line of yours "THEY CAN'T PROVE HE DID ANYTHING BY HYDRATING"
a) They have a positive test result! That is all they need!!!

RIGHT AND WRONG. IT'S ALL THEY NEEDED...BUT THEY KNEW IT WOULDN'T STAND UP IN COURT AND THEY WERE GOING TO BE ROASTED. WHY DO YOU THINK THYE ACCEPTED THE COMPROMISE? YOU'RE JUST AN IDIOT THAT CAN'T ACCEPT HIS LOSS.

b) They do not have to prove. EXPLAIN WHY THEY NEED TO FREAKING PROVE THAT IT HAD TO BE THE WAY DIAZ's TEAM said? Are you saying that Diaz's team is saying, "If you cannot prove that its by way of dilution then Diaz is not guilty?" Well, what if Diaz did it another way? He is not guilty because it was not by way of dilution? THis is so freaking dumb!!!!! lol!!!

YOU'RE RIGHT. THIS IS SO DUMB. YOU LITERALLY HAVE SHlT FOR BRAINS. TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS, GENIUS. NSAC IS SAYING HE DID THIS BY DILUTING. YOU ARE SAYING THAT DILUTING ALLOWS A FIGHTER TO PASS A DRUG TEST EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT DILUTED ACCORDING TO WADA'S STANDARDS. I DON'T GIVE A **** WHAT NICK DIAZ DID TO PASS THESE TESTS. IF A SHAMAN KNEELED OVER HIS BODY AND PUT A GOOD MOJO VOODOO SPELL ON HIS ASS, I DON'T GIVE A ****. THE POINT IS THAT YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST, AND YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO REALIZE THAT EVERY TIME YOU TRY TO BRING UP SOME OTHER WAY THAT DIAZ DID THIS INSTEAD OF IT BEING BY DILUTION, THEN YOU PROVE THAT I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG, YOU ****ING ABSOLUTE IDIOT.

Man you are dense!!! There are plenty of studies not just one. There are many variables that need to be taken into account (factored in). Do YOU NOT GET THIS SIMPLE POINT???????

LMAOOOO. SO AGAIN, IT WASN'T DONE BY DILUTION? NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST? THANKS FOR PLAYING.

The studies that I pointed to: Some subjects took less amount of water and some more. They were able to do it without being intoxicated. Some articles pointed to big drops in THC metabolite is possible by just diluting.

THEN SHOW IT. SHOW ME WELL OVER 300NG TO 61NG BY DILUTION OF 1.009SPG. I ASKED YOU FOR THIS OVER AND OVER. SHOW IT!!!!!!!!! STOP WRITING ALL OF THIS BULLSHlT AND SHOW IT!

Actually I did but you are still lost on this one.

1) The article that I showed you says that its possible to dilute THC metabolites many FOLDS quite easily by drinking water. The diagram that he used for diluting I saw in other articles. Its even easier and faster when using a diuretic to help with dilution.

400 to 50 (8 folds). Article states that it can be even more than 10 FOLDS. Subject G in point 2 is about 10 fold. What can a 7 or 8 or 10+ FOLD of 61ng be if it was NOT diluted?

but you are lost when calculating. Come back when you learn all that!

2) These 3 subjects that I mentioned above were able to dilute and drop their metabolite levels many FOLDS and they were not Diaz who was someone who had to try to beat the test!
Subject G: THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1
Subject H: THCCOOH 234.2 to 59.6

Subject F: Creatinine 340 to 47 Here we have 2 values on the extremes of the urine concentration spectrum in only 1 hour!!!!

Now its time that you show your proof of impossibility! lol .... Like I said, there are too many possible ways not just one! Yet you say that its not possible.

ONE MORE TIME. STOP DVCKING, BlTCH. ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION. I WANT YOU TO SHOW WELL ABOVE 300NG TO 61NG IN 1 HOUR 17 MINUTES WHEN AT A SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF 1.009. STOP ****ING DUCKING ME, SON. IF YOU CAN'T DO IT...YOU LOSE. IT'S VERY SIMPLE.

[QUOTE=ADP02;17362243]
3) You are clinging to Diaz's testimony on how its not medically plausible to do. I shot down their statements! So if you do not even have their statement, what do you have? NOTHING!!!!

- Was the reliable number 733 or > 300? Diaz's team statement was not acceptable!

YOU CAN'T EVEN SHOW WELL OVER 300NG. SHUT THE **** UP, BlTCH.

- Was it 1:17 or over 2 hours(time before TEST #2 can affect TEST #3). Diaz's team statement was not acceptable!

WHY DO YOU KEEP DUCKING MY QUESTION ABOUT THIS. LMAOOO. THAT SHOWS HOW MUCH OF A BlTCH YOU ARE. HOW WAS HE SLIGHTLY DEHYDRATED IF HE DID SOMETHING TO DILUTE ABOUT AN HOUR BEFORE THIS TEST. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER????

- Remember subject F? He went from being extremely dehydrated to extremely hydrated in 1 hour!!!!! Diaz's team statement was not acceptable!

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, DO YOU. JESUS CHRIST YOU ARE AN IDIOT. SUBJECT F WAS AT 49NG WENT DOWN TO 0 AND BY THE END WHEN HE WAS EVEN LOWER THAN THE CREATININE LEVEL WHICH PUT HIM AT 0, IT WAS AT 6.6NG. NOW HOW THE **** WOULD HE GO FROM WELL OVER 300NG TO 61NG???? YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN. DO YOU THINK THE AMOUNT OF WATER NEEDED TO DO THAT WOULD PUT THE SUBJECT AT CREATININE OF LESS THAN 26? DO YOU? CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU MORON? THAT IS WHAT IS MEDICALLY IMPLAUSIBLE. TALKING TO YOU IS LIKE TALKING TO A BRAIN DEAD MONKEY.

- 400 to 50 (8 folds). Article states that it can be even more than 10 FOLDS. Diaz's team statement was not acceptable!

WHAT ARTICLE? DO YOU HAVE A TIME OR SPECIFIC GRAVITY TO GO ALONG WITH THIS. WHY DO YOU LEAVE OUT SO MUCH INFORMATION? IS IT BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO SHOW THAT YOU HAVE NOTHING. WE ALREADY KNOW YOU TRIED TO FALSELY ATTRIBUTE A QUOTATION TO SOMEONE, SO THAT SHOWS THAT YOUR INFORMATION ISN'T TO BE TRUSTED AND YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHlT.

- SG and CR are tools used to help out but they have limitations. I gave you tons of reasons why YET you keep on asking me these silly questions. TEST #1 was invalid due to dilution. TEST #3 was very diluted. You can have diluted urine samples that pass certain substance thresholds. Its quite easy now for marijuana since they boosted the limits.

THEN SHOW YOUR PROOF OF WELL OVER 300NG TO 61NG IN 1HOUR17 MINUTES. DO IT! WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?????? WHY HAVEN'T YOU DONE THIS YET????

Study on dilution and SG/CR values:
"example, most subjects began producing negative specimens with creatinine <20 mg/dL and specific gravity <1.003 after drinking the first 2 qt of liquid. There were even noticeable
effects on drug concentration, creatinine, and specific gravity produced by subjects drinking 12 oz of water (control treatment). For example, Subject D produced a negative specimen for cocaine approximately 2 h after drinking 12 oz of water (Table III). The effect was brief, and the next four specimens tested positive.

CAN YOU STOP WITH ALL OF THE DEFLECTIONS. I DO BELIEVE THAT SAYS 1.003SPG. I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT 1.009 SPECIFIC GRAVITY. THIS SHOWS THAT YOU ARE A COWARDLY PIECE OF SHlT SAYING THE SAME SHlT OVER AND OVER WITH NO SUBSTANCE.

Importantly, when the negative test result for cocaine occurred as a result of ingestion of 12 oz of water by Subject D, the creatinine content of that specimen was 64 mg/dL and specific gravity was 1.010, well above recommended cutoff values indicative of dilute specimens."

SO NOW YOU ARE ON ABOUT COCAINE? DUDE. SHOW ME WELL OVER 300NG DOWN TO 61NG OR ANYWHERE IN THAT BALLPARK WITH 1.009 SPECIFIC GRAVITY. I'VE ASKED MANY TIMES. STOP BEING A BlTCH.

4) The above was to prove you are wrong but as stated by the so "experts" in the hearing, you cannot correlate the different results as you keep on wanting to do. Reasons have been pointed out to you BUT you are avoiding this fact.

WHAT? YOUUUUU STATED THAT WADA MESSED UP BECAUSE THEY USED THE SPG TEST DIDN'T YOU? DIDN'T YOU???? NOW YOU ARE ALL OVER THIS "YOU CAN'T CORRELATE BLAH BLAH BLAH." LMAOOO. UNBE****INLIEVABLE. ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO KEEP CUTTING DOWN YOUR OWN BULLSHlT? THANKS FOR MAKING THIS EASY.

HERE'S A NEWS FLASH. BOTH USED THE GC/MS. SOMEONE WAS WRONG.

QUEST did a 2 test process where the GC/MS was the confirmation test.
SMRTL did just a screening test by way of GC/MS.

WRONGGGGG!!!! I ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU, BUT YOU ARE ****ING SLOW. WHAT EICHNER SAID IS THAT THE CONFIRMATION ANALYSIS WAS NOT GIVEN AT THE TIME THE TEST WAS FIRST REPORTED. IT WAS GIVEN BY THE TIME OF THE HEARING...AND OBVIOUSLY SO BECAUSE....WAIT FOR IT MORON...WAIT FOR IT MORON....THEY GOT THE MARIJUANA METABOLITE AMOUNT!!!!! IF THAT'S NOT A CONFIRMATION, WHAT THE **** DO YOU THINK IT IS YOU ****ING IDIOT?

Studies have shown that QUEST's way can at times catch what the GC/MS didn't catch!!! poof! There are also different ways to test using the GC/MS!!! Whooaaa!!! Gets funnier and funnier ...

DUDE, YOUR STUDY FROM 1995? THE ONE THAT I HAD TO DIG UP? THE ONE THAT YOU TRIED TO USE TO PASS OFF QUOTATIONS TO EICHNER. WAS IT THAT ONE? LMAOOOOOOOO. GO READ IT AGAIN BUDDY, AND THEN YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHY UR AN IDIOT. OH, NEVERMIND. NO YOU WON'T. CARRY ON.

Sorry but I cannot let you deflect anymore.

Diaz's team's statements were not acceptable.

The people who are looking at the evidence do NOT care HOW Diaz did it, only that he did it. If it wasn't by the scenario as explained by Diaz's team BUT its possible by another scenario, who cares. THEN Diaz could have PLUS we have a positive SCREEN and Confirmation TEST!!! and no Sample B tested. Its open and shut. Diaz is found guilty. More so since he lied on his pre-fight form to hide the fact that he uses.

LISTEN FOOLIO. YOU REALLY MUST FEEL BUTTHURT ABOUT HOW I'VE BEEN KICKING YOUR ASS ALL OVER THIS THREAD. I'LL EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU ONE MORE TIME. I DO NOT GIVE 2 ****S ABOUT HOW DIAZ DID THIS. IF HE CHEATED AND GOT AWAY WITH IT BY USING SOME SUPERDRUG, I DON'T CARE. I DONT' CARE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE POINT OF THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION. THE POINT IS WHETHER WADA'S SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST IS FAULTY. THAT'S ALL. THAT'S IT? YOU GOT IT? AND YOU FELL FLAT ON YOUR FACE TRYING TO PROVE IT. NO EXPERT BELIEVES YOU. YOU SUCK ASS.

Squirming? I freaking wrote a freaking novel to prove my points!!! And you respond wit NOTHING concrete. You at least made me laugh! Thanks!

IF YOU THINK SO, I'M ALWAYS HERE TO SCHOOL YOU IN THE THUNDERDOME. SOMEONE WON'T ANSWER THE CALL. YOU'D RATHER KEEP TYPING NOVELS HERE, BUT YOU DON'T WANT THIS TO END...BECAUSE WHEN WE SET UP THAT POLL....LMAOOOOO. YOU WILL LOSE JUST LIKE YOU DID THE LAST TIME WE SET UP A POLL. LMAOOOOOO! REMEMBER THAT? YOU GET OWNED BY ME OVER...AND OVERRRR...AND OVER....MATTER OF FACT, YOU'RE MY SON. THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE. I'LL TEACH YOU SOME THINGS ONE DAY, MY CHILD. FOR NOW, I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP KICKING YOUR ASS ALL AROUND THIS FORUM.

Drrrr .... well if there are limitations and can be explained, as I did on multiple occasions then that is all that needs to be said! remember that I have a positive result on an admitted marijuana user where ALL tests came back positive for marijuana. Its just that for the diluted ones, the results were below the threshold. Whoaa!

AND REMEMBER I HAVE 2 EXPERTS THAT AGREE WITH ME THAT THE TEST WAS BULLSHlT. OH, BUT YOU DON'T LIKE THAT VERY MUCH, DO YA. DO YA? YOU'D RATHER GIVE FALSE QUOTATIONS TO TRY TO FIT YOUR AGENDA LIKE A BlTCH. LMAOOOOO. YOU'RE A BlTCH DUDE. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF FOR DOING THAT.

The SCREENING by SMRTL came back negative while the 2 step process by QUEST came back positive for both TESTs.

WRONGGGGGG! LMAOOOOO. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU, YOU NEED MORE PEOPLE!!!!!!

Read up what they say about this 2 step process. They compliment each other very well.
You know math? You know USADA? You know about testing? A negative test does not mean that the athlete did not cheat. A positive test that has a 2 step process as QUEST does is hard to turn over ... only way was if Sample B came back negative.

CHALLENGE.....FIND ONE EXPERT THAT THINKS QUEST'S METHOD IS BETTER THAN WADA'S METHOD. JUST ONE. THIS IS A CHALLENGE. DONT' BACK OUT NOW, BlTCH BOY. I'M DARING YOU. AND IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO THIS, YOU'RE A SCARED LITTLE BlTCH. LMAOOOOOOO! I DARE YA

Would you have said the same thing about Lance Armstrong? He passed his tests in this manner and other ways! Of course, he was not the first and Floyd will not be the last! But keep on being naive about this! Diaz had his diluted samples. SMRTL checked. What happened with the invalid diluted sample? lol! Too funny!

YEA, AND DIAZ DID SOMETHING FUNKY IN FRONT OF 2 DCO'S. LMAOOOOOOO. YEP. YOU GOT HIM. LMAOOOO. FLOYD CHEATED TOO...BECAUSE HE MADE YOUR SAVIOR LOOK LIKE A SORRY LITTLE BlTCH JUST LIKE I'M DOING TO YOU. YOU LOST, SON. PACQUAIO LOST, SON. DEAL WITH YOUR LOSS YOU LITTLE BlTCH.

More nothing from you. I shot down your expert's points and actually used his most important point to make my point. Diaz's expert was so flustered that he said it was impossible yet he didn't know what it would take to make it possible. lol I have a positive test. YOU HAVE NOTHING!!! I explained. YOU EXPLAINED NOTHING!!!!

LMAOOOOOOOO. DUDE. I'M STILL WAITING FOR YOUR EXPERTS. YOU GONNA PULL THAT REF OUT OF YOUR ASS? LMAOOO. THIS IS WHAT I WOULD EXPECT FROM SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES 10,000NG GOES DOWN TO 100NG WITH LESS THAN A BOTTLE OF WATER. LMAOOOOO.

No its not showing that. Its about normalizing the concentrations. Its taking into account multiple concentrations and coming up with a method to calculate the possibility that the user used recently the substance in question. That is by way of multiple back to back urine samples and by way of a ratio so that dilution is factored in the calculation.




You could have stopped after saying you do not get it.

Its simple. They cannot apply these type of calculations when they are not consistently testing the athletes as may be done in a study. Timely and consistent urine samples must be taken. When they test in boxing or UFC, its possible that they do not test regularly or may not be tested at all before a fight. Certainly with no consistency. So to say, they cannot and are not allowed to apply these types of calculations BUT they do exist and some use them. Its about improving the testing ... but Diaz's is more random (spot) type of test while the other is collected at more consistent intervals.

WADA has their rules (diluted sample) instead of using these types of methods which indicates that Diaz smoke recently (after 1/26 but before TEST on 1/31)

ARE YOU SERIOUS. DUDEEEEE? DO I EVEN HAVE TO RESPOND. GO AND READ WHAT YOU JUST WROTE AGAIN. YOU'RE DONEEEEE!

What i provided was a ratio that takes into account dilution as well. There is a definite spike and the spike is very dramatic.

WHAT YOU PROVED IS THAT YOU MADE UP YOUR OWN CREATININE LEVELS AND YOUR OWN MARIJUANA METABOLITE LEVELS. GOOD JOB!

"The ratio method was successfully applied in a number of programs (3–5). Fraser and Worth (5–7) reported that the method predicted new use for chronic cannabis smokers in treatment. They noted that results were better when the time separation in urine collections was greater, recommending at least 48 h in one study and 96 h in another"

"They recommended that THCCOOH concentrations be normalized by dividing each by the urine creatinine concentration (1). This technique reduces the variability in concentration due to hydration effects. Using these creatinine-normalized THCCOOH concentrations, a ratio is calculated that is the concentration of any urine specimen (U2) divided by the concentration in a previously collected urine specimen (U1)."

Initial study had a ratio of 1.5 while a later study stated that 1.5 was not necessary and even .5 is enough to indicate new use by the user/

Concentration ratio 2(U2)/concentration ratio 1(U1) = 249/20 = 12.45!!!! Way more than .5 and even 1.5!!!


WADA actually applies a normalization method but only on steroids type substances.

OH THEY DO, DO THEY? ANY IDEA WHY? OR ARE THEY JUST SITTING AROUND BUMMING EACH OTHER?

BTW - Your examples are incorrect.
1) Made me crack up when you used the UNRELIABLE value instead of the evidence provided to you > 300.

WHOA WHOA WHOAOOOO. OHHHHH, I GET IT. SO YOUR ARBITRARY 425 VALUE IS BETTER THAN THE VALUE THAT THE MACHINE PUT OUT BECAUSE.......YOU FEEL IT FITS YOUR AGENDA? EVEN THOUGH THE VALUE MIGHT EVEN BE ABOUVE 733? LMAOOOO. WELL I'VE HEARD IT ALL NOW. SO YOUR VALUE IS MORE RIGHT BECAUSE 425 IS WELL ABOVE 300. MY VALUE OF 733 THAT THE MACHINE ACTUALLY PUT OUT IS WRONG BECAUSE.....

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

2) The method that I presented to you also takes into account a time factor and consecutive urine samples. YOU did not apply that. You jumped(skipped results) and used unreliable numbers. But thanks for participating!

COMING FROM THE PERSON THAT JUST EXPLAINED WHY IT COULDN'T BE USED. LMAOOOO.

Its that time .... time to say that you were WRONG!!!

I pretty much shut down all your points. I certainly responded to them. You did not because you cannot ....

UM..YOU PRETTY MUCH SHOWED YOU'RE STILL GETTING YOUR ASS KICKED. BUT IF THAT MAKES YOU FEEL SOME TYPE OF WAY....


THEN I'M STILL UP FOR THAT THUNDERDOME. WHAT DO YOU THINK? YOU STILL GONNA BE A BlTCH? DON'T YOU THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE END THIS?

NOW LET'S GET TO THE NITTY GRITTY. DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT QUEST'S METHOD IS BETTER THAN WADA'S METHOD? DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST THAT WADA USES? BECAUSE I'M VERY WILLING TO POST UP THE INFO FROM MY 2 EXPERTS, AND HAVE THAT BE USED AGAINST YOUR INFO FROM YOUR REFEREE. LOL

HELL, YOU CAN EVEN ADD YOUR STUDIES. BUT BEWARE...THEY SUPPORT ME MORE THAN YOU, IDIOT? LMAOOOOO!

GIVE THE **** UP BlTCH AND LEARN TO DEAL WITH YOUR LOSS. PACQUAIO LOST, YOU LOST ONE POLL TO ME ALREADY, YOU LOST THE THREAD ABOUT PACQUAIO'S SHOULDER, YOU LOST HERE. YOU HAVE NOTHING LEFT. I TOLD YOU. YOU NEED MORE PEOPLE. SHOW ME ONE EXPERT THAT BELIEVES YOU. THAT'S ALL I WANT. GO!

SEE YOU IN FOUR ****ING DAYS WHEN YOU DRUM UP MORE BULLSHlT. NOTICE HOW I RESPOND TO YOU RIGHT AWAY. AND THAT'S BECAUSE....THIS SHlT IS SO EASY. YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, SHOW UP HERE DAY AFTER DAY BUT DON'T SAY ANYTHING FOR A BOUT 4 DAYS....AND THEN DO SHlT LIKE FALSELY QUOTING PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU FEEL SOOOO BAD ABOUT HOW MUCH OF AN ASSKICKING YOU ARE TAKING. LMAOOOOO! LOSER!

[travestyny]

its simple. They cannot apply these type of calculations when they are not consistently testing the athletes as may be done in a study. Timely and consistent urine samples must be taken. When they test in boxing or ufc, its possible that they do not test regularly or may not be tested at all before a fight. Certainly with no consistency. So to say, they cannot and are not allowed to apply these types of calculations but they do exist and some use them. Its about improving the testing ... But diaz's is more random (spot) type of test while the other is collected at more consistent intervals.

Wada has their rules (diluted sample) instead of using these types of methods which indicates that diaz smoke recently (after 1/26 but before test on 1/31)

what i provided was a ratio that takes into account dilution as well. There is a definite spike and the spike is very dramatic.


"the ratio method was successfully applied in a number of programs (3–5). Fraser and worth (5–7) reported that the method predicted new use for chronic cannabis smokers in treatment. They noted that results were better when the time separation in urine collections was greater, recommending at least 48 h in one study and 96 h in another"

"they recommended that thccooh concentrations be normalized by dividing each by the urine creatinine concentration (1). This technique reduces the variability in concentration due to hydration effects. Using these creatinine-normalized thccooh concentrations, a ratio is calculated that is the concentration of any urine specimen (u2) divided by the concentration in a previously collected urine specimen (u1)."

initial study had a ratio of 1.5 while a later study stated that 1.5 was not necessary and even .5 is enough to indicate new use by the user/

concentration ratio 2(u2)/concentration ratio 1(u1) = 249/20 = 12.45!!!! Way more than .5 and even 1.5!!!


Wada actually applies a normalization method but only on steroids type substances.



Btw - your examples are incorrect.
1) made me crack up when you used the unreliable value instead of the evidence provided to you > 300.

2) the method that i presented to you also takes into account a time factor and consecutive urine samples. You did not apply that. You jumped(skipped results) and used unreliable numbers. But thanks for participating!


Its that time .... Time to say that you were wrong!!!

I pretty much shut down all your points. I certainly responded to them. You did not because you cannot ....

ooops... Looks like Quest's Dr. Sample already shut down another one of your lines of defenses. Lmaoooooo. Dude...you gotta stop doing this to yourself.

The 1/26 result in which the urine concentration was high has a lower THC metabolite level than any of the 1/31 results. That must mean that Diaz smoked up after the 1/26 date and/or Diaz happened to beat the 1/26 test as well.

Nsac attorney: Can you tie together the labcorp tests on 1/23 and 1/26 with the Quest test on 1/31 for us?

Dr. Sample: It is next to impossible to tie together different specimens collected at different points of time. Particularly collected over different days.

The nsac attorney thought he was going to say that it proves he smoked again...but got shut the **** down. Lmao. JUST LIKE YOU!

What do you know? The guy from the very lab that you are trying to defend is shooting down your bullshlt. Are you surprised? I'm not. LMAO!!!!! Let's see if you can say it. ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONGGGGGGG!!!! HAHAHAHAHA. ONCE AGAIN, THIS PROVES THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. LEAVE IT TO THE EXPERTS!

SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS YOUR STUPID ASS CALCULATIONS DON'T AMOUNT TO SHlT, AND WE ARE STILL LEFT WITH HOW THE **** DID DIAZ GO FROM WELL OVER 300NG/ML TO 61NG/ML IN 1HR 17MINUTES.

AND IF YOU WANT TO SAY IT WAS 2 HOURS, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW HE WAS NORMAL/SLIGHTLY DEHYDRATED AT THE TIME OF THE 2ND TEST, AND 1.009 AT THE THIRD TEST. HE STARTED DILUTING ALMOST AN HOUR BEFORE THE 2ND TEST, YET HE WAS SLIGHTLY DEHYDRATED?????? YOU'VE BEEN DUCKING THIS FOR A LONG TIME!

bahahahahaha. Thanks for playing, chump! IT'S OVERRRRRRR!!!!!

[Shape up]

This imbecile still talking about this, he had an IV when it wasn't nessaccary, get a life stupid

[travestyny]

This imbecile still talking about this, he had an IV when it wasn't nessaccary, get a life stupid

The last post was in January. It's May, you moron. Go **** yourself.