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

[ADP02]

Adp02 went from "EPO is a threshold substance"

to....

"ABP has threshold type testing!"


To proud to admit he was wrong and just changes up to fit the agenda.

Actually, that is what we were arguing all along in the Thunderdome ... threshold type test NOT threshold substance ......

Don't worry, even Travestyny keeps on going back to his list of Threshold substances to confuse you guys but I see that he is confused too!!!. He did the same when he responded to you.

So no problem!

[ADP02]

Originally Posted by ADP02
I was thinking and here is the problem that I think that we will both have. What are we actually arguing about?

Because I knew that we were discussing 2 separate things and YOU DID NOT REALIZE THAT!!!! So I was just trying to bring you up to speed that EPO can be tested by way of threshold type tests!!!

If you agreed, we could have moved on but you still did NOT. Right?

[travestyny]

Imbecile? Is this you DEFLECTING AGAIN? YES!!!


You have misinterpreted the panel's statements. It's clear. BOTH sides in that case call it a threshold test. WADA EXPERTS call it a threshold test.

WRONG. WHAT DID THE COURT RULE, ADP? WHAT DID THEY SAY? THEY SAID IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD.

...ANDDDDDDD.....

WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO AS THE WADA EXPERTS SAYING WAS A THRESHOLD. A CRITERIA THAT DATES BACK TO 2004 THAT ISN'T USED ANYMORE, RIGHT? WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER, IMBECILE????

Can you point to me where the CAS directly states that Travestyny is right?[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]

As a matter of fact, YES I CAN!

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's clear, you moron!

Can you point to me where the CAS directly tells WADA experts that they are wrong? You know, the same WADA experts who also are called upon to testify as EXPERTS in these cases? You cannot!

Scroll up and see where they say "in reality" and "the fact." But not only that.

THE CRITERIA YOU ARE REFERRING TO DATES BACK TO BEFORE 2004 AND ISN'T USED ANYMORE. YOU KEEP DUCKING THIS BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT LEAVES YOU WITH NOTHING!

As I pointed out, some of those WADA experts are stating that there are threshold tests even years after that case. According to you Travestyny, those WADA experts are wrong. NO, YOU Travestyny are the one who is WRONG!!!!

SCROLL UP TO THE SIZE 5 FONT, IDIOT.

[SIZE="6"]
Who is right,
Travestyny or those WADA EXPERTS who said that they are threshold tests???

SCROLL UP TO THE SIZE 5 FONT, IDIOT!!!!!

BTW - The odds are bad .... Everyone knows that you will NOT respond directly.

YOU WILL DEFLECT AGAIN!!!!

.

I RESPONDED DIRECTLY!!!!!

1. THE COURT SAID THE FACT IS THAT THE CRITERIA, IN REALITY, IS NOT A THRESHOLD!!!!

2. THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT THE WADA EXPERTS REFERRED TO AS A THRESHOLD DATES BACK TO 2004 AND IS NOT USED IN TESTING ANYMORE YOU IDIOT. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS??????? YOU KNOW IT BUT YOU WONT EVEN ADDRESS IT. I WILL KEEP ASKING YOU THIS ONE QUESTION.

IS THE BAP CRITERIA IN THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT? YES OR NO?????

[travestyny]

Yawn ....

So you just learnt that there is DIRECT and INDIRECT testing for EPO testing? I never hid that from you in this thread or any thread. I actually clearly state that!!!!

So now that you are on board with that can we move on to does ABP testing use threshold type tests? YES!!!



I keep on presenting you with quotes that state that WADA uses ABP testing approach for EPO testing!!!! Sorry!!!


and yes as you have finally read, they do bring up even in that document that ABP is used for EPO testing. Why? You highlighted the wrong thing buddy!!!!

"to establish anti-doping rule violations. "


Even your friend DoNothing kept on stating that ABP testing would catch those who try to take synthetic EPO. Ooops!!!! ...

and ABP testing has threshold type tests!!!



BTW - Why don't you go to that thread and look up if I brought up ABP having thresholds? Oooops!!!!!


and that case that I quoted states that the ABP test results show that there is strong evidence that the athlete abused drugs by way of synthetic EPO!!!
Oooops!!!!!



KABADABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!


.

LMAOOOOOO. STRONG EVIDENCE, HUH? THAT RIGHT THERE TELLS YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG, YOU MORON. STRONG EVIDENCE MEANS TEHRE IS A SLIGHT CHANCE OF SOMETHING ELSE, LIKE A BLOOD TRANSFUSION OR A PATHOLOGICAL CONDITION.

THE ABP DOES NOT LOOK SPECIFICALLY FOR EPO YOU MORON. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TESTING FOR EPO! DONT' BRING UP DOSUMPTHIN WHEN HE JUST SENT YOU A MESSAGE LAUGHING AT YOU FOR DEFLECTING TO THRESHOLD CRITERIA IN THE ABP AND NOT KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINDING THE SUBSTANCE AND FINDING MARKERS FOR DRUG ABUSE YOU MORON!

AND YOU CAN'T READ, YOU MORON. THE WADA TD2014 EPO DOCUMENT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE ABP CAN BE USED TO FIND EPO. IT SAYS THAT THE DATA FROM EPO TARGET TESTING CAN BE ADDED TO THE PASSPORT OR TESTIMONY, ETC, IN A GENERAL SENSE TO ESTABLISH ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE ABP CAN BE USED TO TEST FOR EPO....BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DO THAT YOU MORON!!!! YOU KEPT RANTING ABOUT ABP BEING IN THE DOCUMENT, AND IT TURNS OUT ALL IT SAYS IS THAT YOU CAN ADD DATA FROM TARGET TESTING TO IT

It's time for you to ACCEPT THAT CHALLENGE THAT YOU KEEP IGNORING, or GIVE THE FUVCK UP!!!! DO YOU ACCEPT OR NOT?

[img]https://media.*****.com/media/14ceV8wMLIGO6Q/*****.gif[/img]

[travestyny]

Actually, that is what we were arguing all along in the Thunderdome ... threshold type test NOT threshold substance ......

Don't worry, even Travestyny keeps on going back to his list of Threshold substances to confuse you guys but I see that he is confused too!!!. He did the same when he responded to you.

So no problem!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I TOLD YOU HE WAS LAUGHING AT YOUR PUNK ASS. AND YOU HAD THE NERVE TO BRING HIM UP IN ONE OF YOUR POSTS? You absolute idiot. GIVE UP!

THE ONLY ONE WHO IS CONFUSED IS YOU!!!!

You won't even stand by your statement anymore. Explain it, ADP!!!!!!

2) The resulting data is validated against specific threshold criteria, when artificial EPO, in relation to naturally occurring EPO, exceeds threshold limits.

Explain...and then realize that the CAS just murdered you!

You clearly state that there is a threshold for natural EPO and above that shows artificial EPO.

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

YOU WERE SHUT DOWN!....4-0!!!!! LMAOOOO

[ADP02]

WRONG. WHAT DID THE COURT RULE, ADP? WHAT DID THEY SAY? THEY SAID IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD.

...ANDDDDDDD.....

WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO AS THE WADA EXPERTS SAYING WAS A THRESHOLD. A CRITERIA THAT DATES BACK TO 2004 THAT ISN'T USED ANYMORE, RIGHT? WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER, IMBECILE????



As a matter of fact, YES I CAN!

Court of Arbitration for Sport!

It's clear, you moron!



Scroll up and see where they say "in reality" and "the fact." But not only that.

THE CRITERIA YOU ARE REFERRING TO DATES BACK TO BEFORE 2004 AND ISN'T USED ANYMORE. YOU KEEP DUCKING THIS BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT LEAVES YOU WITH NOTHING!



SCROLL UP TO THE SIZE 5 FONT, IDIOT.




SCROLL UP TO THE SIZE 5 FONT, IDIOT!!!!!




I RESPONDED DIRECTLY!!!!!

1. THE COURT SAID THE FACT IS THAT THE CRITERIA, IN REALITY, IS NOT A THRESHOLD!!!!

2. THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT THE WADA EXPERTS REFERRED TO AS A THRESHOLD DATES BACK TO 2004 AND IS NOT USED IN TESTING ANYMORE YOU IDIOT. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS??????? YOU KNOW IT BUT YOU WONT EVEN ADDRESS IT. I WILL KEEP ASKING YOU THIS ONE QUESTION.

IS THE BAP CRITERIA IN THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT? YES OR NO?????

BTW - The odds are bad .... Everyone knows that you will NOT respond directly.

YOU WILL DEFLECT AGAIN!!!!

ADP02

I was right AGAIN!!!! YOU DEFLECTED!!!!


STOP with all that DEFLECTING. STICK to the question and STOP pretending that the CAS was stating WHAT YOU ARE MISENTERPRTING!!!!! THEY ARE NOT!!!!

YOU ARE CONFUSED AND WRONG!!!!


Come on you do this all the time. You know that you are WRONG so you bring up other points that are NOT relevant to:

What the CAS stated and why are those WADA EXPERTs calling it a threshold type test then?


So stick to that DEFLECTOR!!!!

Both sides called it a threshold test.

WADA experts called it a threshold test



Travestyny is misinterpreting the CAS and I have the WADA EXPERTs that PROVE that Travestyny is WRONG!!!!!


STOP DEFLECTING!!!!



.

[travestyny]

Because I knew that we were discussing 2 separate things and YOU DID NOT REALIZE THAT!!!! So I was just trying to bring you up to speed that EPO can be tested by way of threshold type tests!!!

If you agreed, we could have moved on but you still did NOT. Right?

WHEN DID YOU FIRST STATE THAT IT WAS NOT ABOUT THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES??????? EXPLAIN, ADP02.

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

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

You said it must be a partial list because EPO wasn’t there. So that shows that you believed EPO was a threshold substance, didn’t you?
Admit you are wrong.

IS EPO A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE?????? YES OR NO. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ASK YOU?

IS.....EPO....A....THRESHOLD...SUBSTANCE!!!!!! LOOK AT YOU ****ING SQUIRMING.

IS EPO A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE? Yes or no???

Is EPO a threshold substance? Yes or no. The list of ducks is growing!

Let's try this yet again. Is EPO a threshold substance? This requires a simple "yes" or "no." Are you ever going to stop ducking and deflecting so that you can answer this question?

you still won't answer my simple question?
IS EPO A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE? YES OR NO?

OH I'M WRONG, HUH? LET'S SEE YOU PUT YOUR ACCOUNT WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.

do you want to have someone unbiased look at the WADA documents that I linked you to and decide if EPO is a threshold substance?

Sure, go ahead.

YOU DEFLECTED ONCE YOU GOT INTO THE THUNDERDOME. ADMIT IT!!!!!

[travestyny]

I was right AGAIN!!!! YOU DEFLECTED!!!!


STOP with all that DEFLECTING. STICK to the question and STOP pretending that the CAS was stating WHAT YOU ARE MISENTERPRTING!!!!! THEY ARE NOT!!!!

YOU ARE CONFUSED AND WRONG!!!!


Come on you do this all the time. You know that you are WRONG so you bring up other points that are NOT relevant to:

What the CAS stated and why are those WADA EXPERTs calling it a threshold type test then?


So stick to that DEFLECTOR!!!!

Both sides called it a threshold test.

WADA experts called it a threshold test



Travestyny is misinterpreting the CAS and I have the WADA EXPERTs that PROVE that Travestyny is WRONG!!!!!


STOP DEFLECTING!!!!



.

ANSWER MY ONE QUESTION, ADP.


YOU KEEP SAYING THE WADA EXPERTS SAID THERE IS A THRESHOLD CRITERIA IN EPO TESTING.

IS THAT CRITERIA IN THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT OR NOT? YES OR NO?


WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY


ANSWER IT, AND DON'T DUCK AND DEFLECT. I'VE ASKED A BILLION TIMES NOW. ANSWER IT!


All you can talk about now is a criteria that dates back to before 2004 that isn't even used anymore and....well I won't give the most damning information. I'm leaving that for YOU. DOES THAT OLD CRITERIA EXIST IN THE TD2014EPO DOCUMENT???? YOU KNOW, THE ONE THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID IS THE SCOPE OF OUR DEBATE

YOUR EXACT WORDS!!!!

SCOPE: Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria

for epo testing, please refer to the following wada document:
wada technical document – td2014epo

OOOOOOPSSSSS. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[ADP02]

LMAOOOOOO. STRONG EVIDENCE, HUH? THAT RIGHT THERE TELLS YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG, YOU MORON. STRONG EVIDENCE MEANS TEHRE IS A SLIGHT CHANCE OF SOMETHING ELSE, LIKE A BLOOD TRANSFUSION OR A PATHOLOGICAL CONDITION.

THE ABP DOES NOT LOOK SPECIFICALLY FOR EPO YOU MORON. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TESTING FOR EPO! DONT' BRING UP DOSUMPTHIN WHEN HE JUST SENT YOU A MESSAGE LAUGHING AT YOU FOR DEFLECTING TO THRESHOLD CRITERIA IN THE ABP AND NOT KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINDING THE SUBSTANCE AND FINDING MARKERS FOR DRUG ABUSE YOU MORON!

AND YOU CAN'T READ, YOU MORON. THE WADA TD2014 EPO DOCUMENT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE ABP CAN BE USED TO FIND EPO. IT SAYS THAT THE DATA FROM EPO TARGET TESTING CAN BE ADDED TO THE PASSPORT OR TESTIMONY, ETC, IN A GENERAL SENSE TO ESTABLISH ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE ABP CAN BE USED TO TEST FOR EPO....BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DO THAT YOU MORON!!!! YOU KEPT RANTING ABOUT ABP BEING IN THE DOCUMENT, AND IT TURNS OUT ALL IT SAYS IS THAT YOU CAN ADD DATA FROM TARGET TESTING TO IT

It's time for you to ACCEPT THAT CHALLENGE THAT YOU KEEP IGNORING, or GIVE THE FUVCK UP!!!! DO YOU ACCEPT OR NOT?

Moron? I KEEP TELLING YOU that it is an INDIRECT TEST for ........ EPO!!!!

Get it? What will it take for you to understand!!!!

It doesn't matter if it is DIRECT or INDIRECT test for EPO testing .... it is still a test for ........ EPO TESTING



There are several ABP modules.


One is the ‘Haematological Module’ or ‘blood module’ which is the approach to EPO testing!!!!!




Here I say it AGAIN:
It is an INDIRECT test for EPO Testing that has multiple parameters that are checked by way of thresholds. In certain cases such as the one that I quoted, the thresholds of those parameters indicate that there is "strong evidence" that the athlete was using EPO. There was only a slight possibility that they are wrong according to the stats.

The athlete was found guilty by way of those ABP test results!!!


Similarly when they are doing DIRECT testing of EPO. There is uncertainty in their tests. Sometimes there is "strong evidence" and sometimes there is NOT!!!! Right?



Even with Threshold Substances there is Uncertainty and they are OK with a 95% probability factor !!!

A measurement of a Threshold Substance in a Sample shall be reported as an AAF when the value (expressed as a concentration, ratio or score of measured analytical values) exceeds, with an appropriate level of confidence (95%), the Threshold value (T) for that Prohibited Substance (or ratio or combination of substances or Markers) as defined by WADA.


has been exceeded with a statistical confidence of at least 95%, and hence that an AAF is justified.

So I gave you 3 examples where there is a slight chance that their findings were off but WADA is OK with all 3 of those examples in stating that the athlete is guilty of doping!!!!



.

[travestyny]

ADP, STOP BRINGING UP YOUR 2003 BAP CRITERIA UNLESS YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU KEEP DUCKING AND DEFLECTING FROM. I'M WAITING!!!! I WONDER WHY YOU WON'T JUST ANSWER!!!!

SHOW ME THAT OLD BAP CRITERIA THAT YOU KEEP BRINGING UP IN THE TD2014EPO DOCUMENT!!!!!!

IS THE BAP IN THE TD2014 EPO DOCUMENT? YES OR NO, ADP? WATCH YOU IGNORE THIS!

ANSWER THIS FUVCCKING QUESTION: DOES THE BAP CRITERIA EVEN EXIST IN THE TD2014 DOCUMENT?

DOES THE BAP CRITERIA EXIST IN THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT OR NOT ADP??????

How long are you going to duck this? Is the BAP in the WADA TD2014EPO document?????? Yes or no?

IS THE BAP CRITERIA IN THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT? YES OR NO?????

IS THAT CRITERIA IN THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT OR NOT? YES OR NO?