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

[ADP02]

DEFLECTOR!!!!


It is simple. YES or NO

1) Yes or NO? You know it is YES!!!

2) Do not play dumb. This is about what we agreed to in that thread!!! DEFLECTOR!!!


3) Judges read all of the thread? What a LIAR
Mayweather dude voted for you and you couldn't even believe it because it was so obvious that he was biased! You even tried to make it sound as though he voted for you based on the criteria but he said NOPE!!!

Willy Wanker specifically said that he was not going to read the whole thread!!! He basically based his vote on a post that YOU posted on a case that was in the year 2003 or something like that!!! Are you OK with me bringing up data from 2000 - 2004? You were crying when I did!!!



4) Well, at least you kinda agreed with me on this point!!! He did NOT vote on the criteria. That is all you had to say DEFLECTOR!!! I will give you part marks on this one .... So you DEFLECTED on 4 of 5!!!


5) From the start, you kept on feeding me Mayweather posters until you had some names that I wasn't aware that they were part of the Mayweather Mafia!!!




.

Why are you avoiding me?


Let's do quid pro quo. You go first. Ask me one question, I answer, then I ask you a question. Let's see who is the real Deflector.


Don't DUCK AND DEFLECT. Do you agree or not?

Same DEFLECTIONs, same poster!!! Travestyny!!!

[ADP02]

Peace and God’s blessings be upon you, your wife, and family.

Thanks Zaroku!

[travestyny]

Why are you avoiding me?


Let's do quid pro quo. You go first. Ask me one question, I answer, then I ask you a question. Let's see who is the real Deflector.


Don't DUCK AND DEFLECT. Do you agree or not?

Same DEFLECTIONs, same poster!!! Travestyny!!!

LOOK HOW THIS BlTCH JUST DUCKED AND DEFLECTED!!!

Same ADP02 ducking me. Afraid to go quid pro quo because he knows he will be embarrassed again.


And don't think I didn't noticed how you wouldn't even mention me challenging you about Nick Diaz, Albert Salazar, or a rematch on EPO. You scared little bltch You know what I did to you, and what I would do to you. Also ducked out on my question about if you can be dehydrated without losing a ton of weight. Never even returned to the thread.


We both know why you decline so much, PROJECTOR DEFLECTOR!

R.I.P.

---edit---

Don't even think about responding to me unless you are willing to accept:

1. A quid pro quo challenge.
2. A challenge about Nick Diaz.
3. A challenge about Salazar.
4. A challenge about EPO.
5. A challenge about whether you can be dehydrated without losing a ton of weight.

You'll get decapitated 4-0 again and then claim everyone was too ****** to understand you. It's over.

[ADP02]

LOOK HOW THIS BlTCH JUST DUCKED AND DEFLECTED!!!

Same ADP02 ducking me. Afraid to go quid pro quo because he knows he will be embarrassed again.


And don't think I didn't noticed how you wouldn't even mention me challenging you about Nick Diaz, Albert Salazar, or a rematch on EPO. You scared little bltch You know what I did to you, and what I would do to you. Also ducked out on my question about if you can be dehydrated without losing a ton of weight. Never even returned to the thread.


We both know why you decline so much, PROJECTOR DEFLECTOR!





---edit---

Don't even think about responding to me unless you are willing to accept:

1. A quid pro quo challenge.
2. A challenge about Nick Diaz.
3. A challenge about Salazar.
4. A challenge about EPO.
5. A challenge about whether you can be dehydrated without losing a ton of weight.

You'll get decapitated 4-0 again and then claim everyone was too ****** to understand you. It's over.

1) You didn't honestly respond to those 5 points. YOU DEFLECTED!!!


2) The quote below is what we agreed to.

What we agreed to is this:
Does EPO testing have threshold type criteria?

You even said this if you recall

"There is no concentration, no ratio, no threshold, none of that. It's not even about measuring the intensity of the bands.
Travestyny

The problem is even now years later you are referencing "Threshold substances" NOT Threshold type test criteria!!!! Go read the quote that you had on me!!! So why bring up AGAIN a list of substances on thresholds? WTF!!!

AGAIN, your previous post was about "Threshold substances" not threshold type criteria!!!


The case itself referenced that there are threshold tests but of course, you do not refer that point which was what we were betting on!!!



BAP: Is where the LABs were verifying if the sample tested had a threshold of 80%. As stated, the case you referenced mentioned this on both sides. That is, there was a ratio in INTESNITY of the Bands of 20%/80% in respect to the CUT-OFF-LINE.

Besides the case mentioning it often as a threshold test, here is another reference to a threshold.

"The notable difference between the 2 applications is that ARANESP does NOT require a threshold safety margin to protect against false positives because of the overlap , as does r-EPO"

Here again they are calling it a threshold test:

"the test used electrophoresis to compare the quan****** of basic isoforms of certain proteins in the urine sample. More means more likely to have used EPO. You or I might show a percentage of basic isoforms in the high twenties to low forties, depending on who is telling you these things. The IOC set a threshold of eighty percent (one IOC-accredited laboratory in Paris - presumably Chatenay-Malabry - actually sometimes used a threshold of eighty-five per cent) which includes a safety margin of more than three standard deviations from a mean value, calculated from the validation studies for persons who tested negative, plus an additional precautionary allowance of 10%. The CAS were of the opinion that this produced the probability of a false positive in one in fifteen thousand case. They didn't compute a figure for false negatives."

I even made it easy for you to understand before we had started back then. I said it is similar to T/E ratio is a threshold type test criteria. T and E are separate and there is no absolute threshold value but there is a threshold that the test considers. At one point it was 6:1 ratio and later 4:1.


Just like the T/E ratio test must have a ratio (NOT A VALUE) above 4:1, the synthetic to human EPO ratio of the BANDs had it's own ratio. Remember that you kept on saying that there are no ratios, scores...?

"There is no concentration, no ratio, no threshold, none of that. It's not even about measuring the intensity of the bands.
Travestyny

Furthermore, I said that EPO is NOT like most substances. There are many testing steps to follow and all of the experts say that it is not a simple test.

"Jordi Segura, an EPO testing expert and the WADA lab director in Barcelona, said the EPO test consists of 170 steps that take three days to perform. Segura, who had no connection to Jones's case, said any minor mistake along the way can affect the quality of the result, making it effectively too "blurry" to fit into the criteria necessary for a positive result, particularly if the sample is right at the threshold."

"If its a borderline case it is not declared positive in order to remove the possibility of a false positive.

Christiane Ayotte

Regular micro-dosing kept riders below the threshold without diminishing the effectiveness of the drug. This would become especially clear once scientists started explaining the workings of the EPO test to the riders and their entourages, particularly when they told them about that large middle ground between a clean sample and one they would have to declare dirty.

and even:
In fact, the technology present at the UCLA Lab is so advanced that Dr Catlin testifies that the threshold could be even lower than the current 80% without risk of a false-positive.


and of course they mention this for the Biological Passport as well but of course, you deflected to "threshold substance"

" But many of the telltale blood parameters vary more between individuals than within a single person, so whatever thresholds the scientists set would either catch too many innocents or miss too many cheats. The Bayesian solution: an “athlete biological passport” that calculates individual thresholds of su****ion based on repeated tests—ideally four to six per season—of the same athlete."

EPO testing as I stated is not tested like other threshold substances or non-threshold substances. EPO is tested differently and has it's own special criteria for being evaluated!!!




and you think Salazar and Diaz are innocent when they say that they "didn't do that"????:

Salazar was a cheat. USADA even states this in their report! Several witnesses agree that he abused the TUE system! You said he was below the limit but the report proves you were wrong on that too!

Diaz is a known marijuana user who has admitted to using and was caught on several occasions and suspended several times for marijuana!!

He actually failed several tests just prior to the one we are arguing on which you think he passed but the results said otherwise!



.

[travestyny]

1) You didn't honestly respond to those 5 points. YOU DEFLECTED!!!


2) The quote below is what we agreed to.

You even said this if you recall




The problem is even now years later you are referencing "Threshold substances" NOT Threshold type test criteria!!!! Go read the quote that you had on me!!! So why bring up AGAIN a list of substances on thresholds? WTF!!!

AGAIN, your previous post was about "Threshold substances" not threshold type criteria!!!


The case itself referenced that there are threshold tests but of course, you do not refer that point which was what we were betting on!!!



BAP: Is where the LABs were verifying if the sample tested had a threshold of 80%. As stated, the case you referenced mentioned this on both sides. That is, there was a ratio in INTESNITY of the Bands of 20%/80% in respect to the CUT-OFF-LINE.

Besides the case mentioning it often as a threshold test, here is another reference to a threshold.


Here again they are calling it a threshold test:



I even made it easy for you to understand before we had started back then. I said it is similar to T/E ratio is a threshold type test criteria. T and E are separate and there is no absolute threshold value but there is a threshold that the test considers. At one point it was 6:1 ratio and later 4:1.


Just like the T/E ratio test must have a ratio (NOT A VALUE) above 4:1, the synthetic to human EPO ratio of the BANDs had it's own ratio. Remember that you kept on saying that there are no ratios, scores...?




Furthermore, I said that EPO is NOT like most substances. There are many testing steps to follow and all of the experts say that it is not a simple test.









and even:
In fact, the technology present at the UCLA Lab is so advanced that Dr Catlin testifies that the threshold could be even lower than the current 80% without risk of a false-positive.


and of course they mention this for the Biological Passport as well but of course, you deflected to "threshold substance"






EPO testing as I stated is not tested like other threshold substances or non-threshold substances. EPO is tested differently and has it's own special criteria for being evaluated!!!




and you think Salazar and Diaz are innocent when they say that they "didn't do that"????:

Salazar was a cheat. USADA even states this in their report! Several witnesses agree that he abused the TUE system! You said he was below the limit but the report proves you were wrong on that too!

Diaz is a known marijuana user who has admitted to using and was caught on several occasions and suspended several times for marijuana!!

He actually failed several tests just prior to the one we are arguing on which you think he passed but the results said otherwise!



.

Dude, you're writing too much. Every time I go through and answer ALL of your questions, you just claim I'm deflecting. And you avoid my questions like the plague. You know it and I know it. It's dull. Let's find out who is deflecting!


Ask me ONE question. I will respond. Then I will ask you ONE question. Question after question. Let's go back and forth so we can CLEARLY see who is deflecting.


Are you down or not? I'm down.


--edit--
And per your nonsense above:

1. You still haven't learned anything about EPO testing from that asswhoopin you took. You're clueless, and the court proved that by backing up EXACTLY what I said. it's an image that you would expect for it to be deemed positive. It's NOT a threshold. You know you got your ass beat, and that's why you were trying to DEFLECT to the athlete biological passport, which you again tried to deflect to on the previous page. You can't even deny it, DEFLECTOR!

2. USADA's own report had NOTHING about Salazar abusing the TUE process. he defended himself against this with PROOF. Gaucher was proven to be a liar. Also, what I said was exactly what was in the report, moron. He was giving multiple infusions TO AVOID THE TUE PROCESS. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, IDIOT.

3. Nick Diaz? LMAO. Quest labs even got his opponent's test wrong on the same damn day. I dare you to challenge me about this. You will get embarrassed worse than you did about EPO



Reiterated my challenge, plus answered ALL of your bullshlt in three short paragraphs. Watch you come back claiming I deflected, while not even mentioning the challenge I presented, Projector Deflector!

[bambam182]

where is tyrone?

[ADP02]

Dude, you're writing too much. Every time I go through and answer ALL of your questions, you just claim I'm deflecting. And you avoid my questions like the plague. You know it and I know it. It's dull. Let's find out who is deflecting!


Ask me ONE question. I will respond. Then I will ask you ONE question. Question after question. Let's go back and forth so we can CLEARLY see who is deflecting.


Are you down or not? I'm down.


--edit--
And per your nonsense above:

1. You still haven't learned anything about EPO testing from that asswhoopin you took. You're clueless, and the court proved that by backing up EXACTLY what I said. it's an image that you would expect for it to be deemed positive. It's NOT a threshold. You know you got your ass beat, and that's why you were trying to DEFLECT to the athlete biological passport, which you again tried to deflect to on the previous page. You can't even deny it, DEFLECTOR!

2. USADA's own report had NOTHING about Salazar abusing the TUE process. he defended himself against this with PROOF. Gaucher was proven to be a liar. Also, what I said was exactly what was in the report, moron. He was giving multiple infusions TO AVOID THE TUE PROCESS. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, IDIOT.

3. Nick Diaz? LMAO. Quest labs even got his opponent's test wrong on the same damn day. I dare you to challenge me about this. You will get embarrassed worse than you did about EPO



Reiterated my challenge, plus answered ALL of your bullshlt in three short paragraphs. Watch you come back claiming I deflected, while not even mentioning the challenge I presented, Projector Deflector!

DEFLECTION City!!!

You didn't answer anything!!!! As expected!!!


YOU are the one that is mixing this up as you did from the start.

Nobody is saying that there is an amount of synthetic EPO that is allowed and only if it surpasses a certain threshold that it is deemed illegal. Nor is anyone saying that the amount of natural EPO is allowed only if it doesn't surpasses a certain threshold. That is what you keep on being confused about. You are talking about Threshold substances which was OUT OF SCOPE!!! That is, NOT what we were betting on!!!


EPO is tested differently!!!
In the examples that I provided the Bands intensity are measured and the ratio is verified. If it's above the threshold (80% or 2X or 1X or 85%) then the test is said to indicate that there is synthetic EPO.


For example, If the BANDs in the basic area (Synthetic EPO) have an INTENSITY value > Natural EPO then its indicating that there is synthetic EPO in the urine sample based on the ratio rule (threshold).


So yes, any synthetic EPO is illegal but my point was how did they figure out (ie. TEST) or produce that evidence that there was synthetic EPO? They have a test criteria that checks as I stated above. That is in part what the case was referring to!!! You got that all mixed up and produced it as your point to the judges!!!


While they don't even need to use the word "threshold". They can call it threshold, scores, ratios, limit test BUT they did at times as pointed out in my previous post. As stated, the measured ratio was compared to the ratio rule (threshold). Even when verifying the definition for threshold substances (was out of scope), they do not just call it a threshold. It can be called a ratio of, score of that which is verified against!!!


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






DEFLECT to the athlete biological passport? WTF!!!
When we were in that thread, you couldn't admit to ABP having threshold tests and you either forgot or don't know why you couldn't admit!!!

So can you tell us all now, are there threshold tests for ABP?





.

[abracada]

Where’s spoon gone?!?

[travestyny]

DEFLECTION City!!!

You didn't answer anything!!!! As expected!!!


YOU are the one that is mixing this up as you did from the start.

Nobody is saying that there is an amount of synthetic EPO that is allowed and only if it surpasses a certain threshold that it is deemed illegal. Nor is anyone saying that the amount of natural EPO is allowed only if it doesn't surpasses a certain threshold. That is what you keep on being confused about. You are talking about Threshold substances which was OUT OF SCOPE!!! That is, NOT what we were betting on!!!


EPO is tested differently!!!
In the examples that I provided the Bands intensity are measured and the ratio is verified. If it's above the threshold (80% or 2X or 1X or 85%) then the test is said to indicate that there is synthetic EPO.


For example, If the BANDs in the basic area (Synthetic EPO) have an INTENSITY value > Natural EPO then its indicating that there is synthetic EPO in the urine sample based on the ratio rule (threshold).


So yes, any synthetic EPO is illegal but my point was how did they figure out (ie. TEST) or produce that evidence that there was synthetic EPO? They have a test criteria that checks as I stated above. That is in part what the case was referring to!!! You got that all mixed up and produced it as your point to the judges!!!


While they don't even need to use the word "threshold". They can call it threshold, scores, ratios, limit test BUT they did at times as pointed out in my previous post. As stated, the measured ratio was compared to the ratio rule (threshold). Even when verifying the definition for threshold substances (was out of scope), they do not just call it a threshold. It can be called a ratio of, score of that which is verified against!!!


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

Jesus Christ. You are still going!!!!!!!! Here it is AGAIN, in case you can't understand it!!!!

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

But just to be even more specific so you can't claim that I deflected:
A) I don't know what you mean by "both sides," but what you are talking about is the BAP, which WASN'T EVEN USED IN TESTING WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IT. YOU WERE DEFLECTING!!!!

B) Segura was talking about the BAP. BAP wasn't in scope when we discussed this because it wasn't used! YOU ARE DEFLECTING.

C) Others referred to the BAP being a threshold test. It wasn't used and was out of scope of your debate. YOU KNOW THAT BUT YOU ARE DEFLECTING.

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

HERE IT IS AGAIN!!!!

Court of Arbitration for Sport!

• The criterion for EPO is not a measurement over the threshold that must occur
  
  
• The fact is that the BAP and the other interpretative criteria are used to declare not a threshold of human body production but rather an image from the electropherogram as indicating the presence of non-human EPO.
  
  
• there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance

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

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is often referred to as "sport's supreme court".
CAS is an institution independent of any sports organization which provides for services to facilitate the settlement of sport-related disputes, through arbitration or mediation, by means of procedural rules adapted to the specific needs of the sport world.

WADA has a right of appeal to CAS for doping cases under the jurisdiction of organizations that have implemented the Code.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/court-of...tion-for-sport

DEFLECT THAT!

DEFLECT to the athlete biological passport? WTF!!!
When we were in that thread, you couldn't admit to ABP having threshold tests and you either forgot or don't know why you couldn't admit!!!

So can you tell us all now, are there threshold tests for ABP?





.

DEFLECTION CITY!!!!!

THE ATHLETE BIOLOGICAL TEST IS NOT USED TO TEST FOR EPO YOU FOOL. IT IS USED TO SAY...."HEY....YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY YOU DID, BUT YOUR VALUES ARE ALL MESSED UP.....SO WE PRESUME THAT YOU ARE GUILTY THOUGH WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST DEFLECTION EVER FROM YOU!!!!

The fundamental principle of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) is to monitor selected biological variables over time that indirectly reveal the effects of doping rather than attempting to detect the doping substance or method itself.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/athlete-biological-passport

BOOM DEFLECTOR!!!!!

Oh, by the way, Willy Wanker stated in that thread that he DID read your final posts!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. YOU RAN OUT OF EXCUSES.

R.I.P.

[ADP02]

Jesus Christ. You are still going!!!!!!!! Here it is AGAIN, in case you can't understand it!!!!

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

But just to be even more specific so you can't claim that I deflected:
A) I don't know what you mean by "both sides," but what you are talking about is the BAP, which WASN'T EVEN USED IN TESTING WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IT. YOU WERE DEFLECTING!!!!

B) Segura was talking about the BAP. BAP wasn't in scope when we discussed this because it wasn't used! YOU ARE DEFLECTING.

C) Others referred to the BAP being a threshold test. It wasn't used and was out of scope of your debate. YOU KNOW THAT BUT YOU ARE DEFLECTING.

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

HERE IT IS AGAIN!!!!

Court of Arbitration for Sport!

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



DEFLECT THAT!



DEFLECTION CITY!!!!!

THE ATHLETE BIOLOGICAL TEST IS NOT USED TO TEST FOR EPO YOU FOOL. IT IS USED TO SAY...."HEY....YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY YOU DID, BUT YOUR VALUES ARE ALL MESSED UP.....SO WE PRESUME THAT YOU ARE GUILTY THOUGH WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST DEFLECTION EVER FROM YOU!!!!





Oh, by the way, Willy Wanker stated in that thread that he DID read your final posts!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. YOU RAN OUT OF EXCUSES.

1) By the "2 sides"

I was referring to the case that you brought up. Both the defendant and prosecutors called it a threshold test.

What the CAS was stating is that the test is not about how much synthetic EPO is allowed nor about how much natural EPO is acceptable. Meaning, they said it is NOT a threshold substance.

That is, the 80% measured value was not a measurement of how much of the substance was acceptable as YOU KEEP on suggesting.

The 80% measured value is used to determine if what they are evaluating is indeed synthetic EPO or not!!!! So as YOU even state, either it is there or it is NOT but the test is used to evaluate if it is there!!!! KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!




2) You did it AGAIN! You mixed up threshold substance talk with a test in which the criteria tests a certain threshold/ratio!!! KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!




3) You first say that CAS was stating that BAP is not a threshold but then you are saying that the WADA expert and others were refering to BAP threshold test as a threshold test!!! KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Told you that what you said made no sense!!!!




4) We were discussing how they test for EPO.

As mentioned in the EPO document, they use the Biological Passport to test for EPO. Again, this was also mentioned in the EPO document in which you said doesn't refer to no tests about thresholds!!!! Now you are saying that it does!!! Oooops!!!
So now that I refreshed your memory as to why you struggled or should I say DEFLECTED from calling these tests threshold tests well now you finally have said that it is. KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!




5) Willy Wanker based his vote on your post about the CAS

where

both sides were calling it a threshold test.

I told Willy Wanker to refrain from voting until it is clear that he understands what we were voting on. I never got the chance to confirm since he voted on your post (NOT the thread). Your post was about THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE NOT Threshold tests!!!!

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!



.