Pac/Floyd investigation, documented punches (disputed rounds) blow by blow

[ADP02]

LMAOOOOOO.....


THEN LET'S GO. WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR. DO YOU AGREE?

Sure, go ahead.

Not finished like you the DEFLECTOR but keep on grasping at straws with your document .....


"To explain more, the EPO test isn’t like litmus paper where you dip a stick into the urine sample and it turns red or blue, positive or negative.

Instead it is a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis involving a percentage of isoforms where a reading over 80% was positive and would result in an anti-doping prosecution.

In short a score over 70% was seen as su****ious, indicating a strong probability but crucially not prosecution-proof certainty."


What did they say about EPO testing? Its not black and white? Either positive or negative? I gotta tell this to Travestyny!

[travestyny]

Thunderdome?
You have nothing to go on buddy .... but I do!


"The tests, as applied for the past 16 years, target the known differences between human (endogenous) and recombinant EPO, the latter being the doping agent."

"If an athlete is under su****ion of taking EPO, they will then be given the urinary test and another complete blood test. To be declared positive, the blood test will have to show anomalous values and the urine test will have to show a percentage of basic isoforms greater than 80%.

This threshold means that the risk of a false positive is around 1 in 3000. Higher threshold values were discussed, but that would also make it harder to catch those who had taken artificial EPO. The average level of basic EPO isoforms in urine is only 28% in non-doped persons - 80% is seen as fairly generous, allowing for standard deviations. "

THE DEFLECTOR!!!

Joint blood/urine test to be used in 2002 Winter Olympics

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has decided to use both the Australian developed blood test and French urine test for EPO detection at next year's Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. The decision came today after a meeting between the IOC medical committee and experts from various IOC accredited laboratories.

Two tests were used at the Sydney Olympics last year, with an athlete being declared positive only if both the blood and urine test were positive. However, according to the head of the IOC medical commission, Patrick Sc*****ch, "This is a significant advance compared to the Sydney Olympics from both a quantity and quality point of view. The urinary test alone is not sufficient to be able to determine a final result. We must keep in mind the legal questions," said Sc*****ch at the press conference.

The scale of EPO testing will be greatly increased, with all athletes competing in endurance sports (cross country skiing, biathlon, nordic combine, speed skating over long distances) having to undergo a blood test after the Olympic Village is opened on January 29, 2002. Some other athletes will also be tested randomly.

The initial blood screen will be a "lighter" version of the one used in Sydney 2000, allowing for faster processing of results.

If an athlete is under su****ion of taking EPO, they will then be given the urinary test and another complete blood test. To be declared positive, the blood test will have to show anomalous values and the urine test will have to show a percentage of basic isoforms greater than 80%.

This threshold means that the risk of a false positive is around 1 in 3000. Higher threshold values were discussed, but that would also make it harder to catch those who had taken artificial EPO. The average level of basic EPO isoforms in urine is only 28% in non-doped persons - 80% is seen as fairly generous, allowing for standard deviations.

The decision to include the blood test was not expected, but it is a way to lower the threshold as the blood test has a very low risk of showing a false positive. Unfortunately, the urine test still only has a detection limit of three days, while EPO can have effects lasting three weeks.

The IOC's decision will be closely examined in the next few days by the International Cycling Union (UCI), which uses a similar method to determine whether a cyclist is positive for EPO. The UCI is supportive of harmonisation of the fight against doping, which is hoped to be carried out by the World Anti-Doping Association in the future across all sports and all countries.

This year the UCI has conducted 271 urinary EPO tests, with 11 cyclists testing positive. In eight of these positive cases, the blood tests taken also showed anomalous values. In three of them (Bo Hamburger, Sergio Barbero and Juan Llaneras) there was no blood test carried out prior to the urine test.

LMAOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

LET'S PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE.

WADA IS FORMED:1999
WADA First Launched Program: 2000 Olympic Games
WADA MOVES TO ITS HEADQUARTERS IN QUEBEC: 2002
World Anti-Doping Code implemented by sports organizations: 2004



LMAOOOOO. This is what you come with? Dude, it's so fun clowning you. Please, tell us more!!!

[travestyny]

Sure, go ahead.

What does, "Sure, go ahead" mean exactly? Does that mean you will show up to the thunderdome?


Please tell me that's what that means.

"He's going to fight me???? He's going to fight me?????" LMAOOOO.


Seriously, please tell me that's a yes. Do you agree?

[travestyny]

Sure, go ahead.

Not finished like you the DEFLECTOR but keep on grasping at straws with your document .....


"To explain more, the EPO test isn’t like litmus paper where you dip a stick into the urine sample and it turns red or blue, positive or negative.

Instead it is a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis involving a percentage of isoforms where a reading over 80% was positive and would result in an anti-doping prosecution.

In short a score over 70% was seen as su****ious, indicating a strong probability but crucially not prosecution-proof certainty."


What did they say about EPO testing? Its not black and white? Either positive or negative? I gotta tell this to Travestyny!

STILL IN 2001 HUH? LMAOOOOO. THIS **** IS HYSTERICAL. TELL US MORE!!!

The UCI, Lance Armstrong and the 2001 “su****ious test”

Let’s go back to June 2001. If this feels like a long time ago, I’ll explain in a minute why it’s relevant for today. During the Tour of Switzerland Armstrong had five anti-doping controls. Two samples came back with a remark from the Lausanne laboratory that there was a “strong su****ion of the presence of EPO” but “the positivity criteria are not all met.”

To explain more, the EPO test isn’t like litmus paper where you dip a stick into the urine sample and it turns red or blue, positive or negative. Instead it is a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis involving a percentage of isoforms where a reading over 80% was positive and would result in an anti-doping prosecution. (for more on this, pull up a chair in the Podium Café). In short a score over 70% was seen as su****ious, indicating a strong probability but crucially not prosecution-proof certainty."

For Armstrong’s two su****ious samples, the Lausanne lab produced a complete analytical report. One sample showed a score of 75.1%, the other 70%. For the record 70.2% was the “su****ious” threshold but the Lausanne lab still flagged Armstrong’s 70.0% sample.

So here we have two su****ious tests. You’d think alarm bells should be ringing and the warning lights were flashing in the UCI only there seems to be little follow-up.

LMAOOOOOOOO!!!! WADA WASN'T EVEN IN MONTREAL YET!

[ADP02]

Thunderdome?
You have nothing to go on buddy .... but I do!


"The tests, as applied for the past 16 years, target the known differences between human (endogenous) and recombinant EPO, the latter being the doping agent."

"If an athlete is under su****ion of taking EPO, they will then be given the urinary test and another complete blood test. To be declared positive, the blood test will have to show anomalous values and the urine test will have to show a percentage of basic isoforms greater than 80%.

This threshold means that the risk of a false positive is around 1 in 3000. Higher threshold values were discussed, but that would also make it harder to catch those who had taken artificial EPO. The average level of basic EPO isoforms in urine is only 28% in non-doped persons - 80% is seen as fairly generous, allowing for standard deviations. "


I told you the above days ago ... I was waiting for you to come back with something .... but you are Travestyny ... THE DEFLECTOR!!!

Sure, go ahead.

Not finished like you the DEFLECTOR but keep on grasping at straws with your document .....


"To explain more, the EPO test isn’t like litmus paper where you dip a stick into the urine sample and it turns red or blue, positive or negative.

Instead it is a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis involving a percentage of isoforms where a reading over 80% was positive and would result in an anti-doping prosecution.

In short a score over 70% was seen as su****ious, indicating a strong probability but crucially not prosecution-proof certainty."


What did they say about EPO testing? Its not black and white? Either positive or negative? I gotta tell this to Travestyny!

STILL IN 2001 HUH? LMAOOOOO. THIS **** IS HYSTERICAL. TELL US MORE!!!



LMAOOOOOOOO!!!! WADA WASN'T EVEN IN MONTREAL YET!

That is your comeback?

Maybe I need to bold it for you!!!

[travestyny]

That is your comeback?

Maybe I need to bold it for you!!!

Do you need to know how EPO is tested for?

If you're having trouble, you only need to ask. I mean, I can find out the information for you.


There really isn't a need for you to go back to 2001. LMAOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

I actually couldn't type that without actually laughing out loud.

So we going to the Thunderdome to settle this? Yes or no?

[ADP02]

Do you need to know how EPO is tested for?

If you're having trouble, you only need to ask. I mean, I can find out the information for you.


There really isn't a need for you to go back to 2001. LMAOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

I actually couldn't type that without actually laughing out loud.

So we going to the Thunderdome to settle this? Yes or no?

Man, I said lets do it!!!!

BTW - Article explaining EPO testing was from ..........................
Wednesday, 29 May 2013 !!!!!!!!



"To explain more, the EPO test isn’t like litmus paper where you dip a stick into the urine sample and it turns red or blue, positive or negative.

Instead it is a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis involving a percentage of isoforms where a reading over 80% was positive and would result in an anti-doping prosecution . In short a score over 70% was seen as su****ious, indicating a strong probability but crucially not prosecution-proof certainty.
"

[travestyny]

"the tests, as applied for the past 16 years, target the known differences between human (endogenous) and recombinant epo, the latter being the doping agent."

lmaooooooo. Now now, Mr. Adp02. Are you really trying to do this again? Didn't you learn your lesson last time. Lmaooooo.

You can't go splicing together information from one place with information from another place. You should know by now that I'm too smart for that...and i'm going to find out. Lmaooooooo!

You ****ing coward. This is almost as bad as you giving a false quotation for that wada doctor. Did you think I wouldn't notice that the above quotation comes from a different place?

response to lab times biased description of steven colvert’s positive test results.

Lab times issue 5 october 6th 2016, front page: Wada’s testing procedures – dubious doping detection.

Borderline analysis another troubling doping case is questioning wada’s credibility again.

This article is the second one presenting the views of a group of scientists who are not only challenging the interpretation of an athlete’s epo test results, but discrediting “wada’s credibility, again”.

While it may sound seemingly insignificant to refer to “wada’s credibility”, this one-side vitriolic opus is a charge against skilled, experienced scientists. The sar-page and ief data presented are of excellent quality, the results clear and convincing. The methods, the interpretation of test results were published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (more than 40 research articles from anti-doping scientists) and so were the criteria for issuing positive findings that are available on wada’s website (www.wada-ama.org)[1]. It is worth noting that the four signatories never submitted any data in support to their position. After all, these techniques are not unique to epo doping control tests and are common in many molecular biology laboratories. The anti-bodies and the epo standards being accessible, nothing prevented the authors to demonstrate their point with simple experiments; they opted instead for voicing unchallenged theoretical objections, in a magazine.

The laboratory in cologne tested mr. Colvert’s a- and b-samples five times with the two recognized and widely applied complementary techniques; each time the results were consistent with the presence of a recombinant epo. The criteria for reporting an adverse analytical finding were objectively met and the conclusions reached by the laboratory were supported from the independent review made by the experts of a second laboratory located in austria[2]. The scientists from these two organizations have published on epo testing, their expertise is recognized.

the tests, as applied for the past 16 years, target the known differences between human (endogenous) and recombinant epo, the latter being the doping agent. The first method based on their different isoelectric profiles was published by f. Lasne in nature[3], a prestigious scientific journal. Later, the discrimination based on their different apparent weight lead to the development of the sds- page and finally sar-page approaches[4]. Both laboratories involved in mr. Colvert’s case authored these publications.

Ief test result:

The initial test done on a batch of samples including mr. Colvert’s, was with the sar-page: The laboratory determined that the profile of sample no. 7397 was su****ious and they decided to proceed with further confirmatory tests on other aliquots of the a-sample (n. B. The identity of the athlete is unknown to the laboratory).

The first confirmation data presented was from the ief. In order to interpret the results, regions must first be delimited from the position of bands generated by reference standards analysed simultaneously: Basic for recombinant, endogenous for human, acidic for nesp, as shown by the example provided in wada technical document reproduced in figure 1.

lmaooooo. Do you really want to embarrass yourself more????

[travestyny]

Man, I said lets do it!!!!

BTW - Article explaining EPO testing was from ..........................
Wednesday, 29 May 2013 !!!!!!!!



"To explain more, the EPO test isn’t like litmus paper where you dip a stick into the urine sample and it turns red or blue, positive or negative.

Instead it is a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis involving a percentage of isoforms where a reading over 80% was positive and would result in an anti-doping prosecution . In short a score over 70% was seen as su****ious, indicating a strong probability but crucially not prosecution-proof certainty.
"

THE ARTICLE IS REFERENCING TESTING DONE IN 2001 YOU MORON! LMAOOOOO!

For Armstrong’s two su****ious samples, the Lausanne lab produced a complete analytical report. One sample showed a score of 75.1%, the other 70%. For the record 70.2% was the “su****ious” threshold but the Lausanne lab still flagged Armstrong’s 70.0% sample.

DID THEY RETEST IT IN 2013?????? LMAO!!!!

[ADP02]

lmaooooooo. Now now, mr. Adp02. Are you really trying to do this again? Didn't you learn your lesson last time. Lmaooooo.

You can't go splicing together information from one place with information from another place. You should know by now that i'm too smart for that...and i'm going to find out. Lmaooooooo!

You ****ing coward. This is almost as bad as you giving a false quotation for that wada doctor. Did you think I wouldn't notice that the above quotation comes from a different place?




lmaooooo. Do you really want to embarrass yourself more????

Desperatooooo .... was it a single or separate quote?

Can you read .... 16 years!!!!!


Article explaining it to Travestyny was from May 2013!!!


Poor Travestyny, lost again!