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

[ADP02]

This is what's clear:

Court of Arbitration for Sport!

IT TELLS YOU SPECIFICALLY THAT THESE CRITERIA ARE NOT THRESHOLDS, YOU IDIOT

YES, EVERYONE GETS IT. THE COURT, THE 4 JUDGES, ME, THE WADA EXPERTS (WHO NEVER SAID ANYTHING WAS A THRESHOLD EXCEPT FOR A CRITERIA THAT DATES BACK TO 2003 AND IS NO LONGER USED, BUT YOU KEEP AVOIDING THAT LIKE THE PLAGUE). THE MAN WHO DEVELOPED THE TEST EVEN SAID THAT IT'S NOT A THRESHOLD. YOU ADMIT THAT IT'S QUALITATIVE AND THEN TRY TO SAY THERE ARE QUALITATIVE THRESHOLDS. LMAOOOOOOOOO. THE COURT WAS VERY CLEAR. IT'S NOT A THRESHOLD.

TELL US, ADP. IF rEPO CAN EXCEED THE "THRESHOLD,"



CAN rEPO BE LOWER THAN THE "THRESHOLD"????? YOU WON'T ANSWER!!!!!

I'M THE ONE WHO'S PATIENT. I ALREADY DECAPITATED YOU 4-0 ON THIS TOPIC AND YOU'RE STILL CRYING. BUT I OFFERED YOU A REMATCH.....AND YOU WON'T EVEN MENTION IT!!!!!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAH. OH...THAT'S AFTER HALF-WAY THROUGH YOU SENT A PM BEGGING FOR A DRAW. DIDN'T YOU???



No, bltch. There was no misunderstanding. You DEFLECTED your way into a 4-0 Decapitation!!!!

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

I'm tired of the bullshlt with you ducking questions and claiming that everyone misunderstands this but you, ADP02.

A total of 6 people heard the information regarding this topic in a debate setting. 5 people(including me) said I am right and you are wrong. 1 person (ONLY YOU) said you are right and I am wrong.

I'm willing to settle this 1 of 2 ways:

1. I'll offer you a chance to redeem yourself from the 4-0 asswhoopin in a rematch. Do you agree?

2. I offer a quid pro quo challenge. I'll even let you go first. You ask a question....I answer. Then I ask a question...you answer.

Option 1 stops you from claiming I'm misunderstanding. The judge decides who has it wrong.

Option 2 stops you from ducking my questions. You should be ashamed of yourself that I asked you the same question 12 times and you have refused to respond.

Don't write me any more of your bullshlt over and over. Choose one option and let's end it. If you choose option 2 and keep ducking my questions, or keep claiming I'm deflecting, then we go to option 1 and let 2 judges decide. Agreed?

If you decline both, then just accept your 4-0 loss and that's it, deflector. What's your decision, deflector?

Not a threshold test?


Labs had it at 80% and some 85% but as Dr Catlin points out, even below 80% can be used due to further studies that showed that the risk of false positive is low.

"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 risking a false-positive."

Nice twist.


I'm going by memory but I do remember that both sides called it a threshold test. Are you saying that they didn't?


Show me the link to this case. You seem to be going all over the place with this. Year 2014, 2003 or 2004. I want to be sure that we are discussing the same case and the same CAS (panel) statements.



.

[travestyny]

Not a threshold test?


Labs had it at 80% and some 85% but as Dr Catlin points out, even below 80% can be used due to further studies that showed that the risk of false positive is low.







Nice twist.


I'm going by memory but I do remember that both sides called it a threshold test. Are you saying that they didn't?


Show me the link to this case. You seem to be going all over the place with this. Year 2014, 2003 or 2004. I want to be sure that we are discussing the same case and the same CAS (panel) statements.



.

Am I saying that they didn’t? I’m saying that they did about an old criteria THAT ISNT USED, HASNT BEEN USED FOR YEARS, AND WAS STATED TO BE ACTUALLY NOT A THRESHILD BY THE COURT.

What part of this criteria being irrelevant in the WADA TD2014EPO document can’t you understand???


Do you agree or not. Stop ducking it.

Go to the old thread and get the link. Stop pretending that you don’t know where the info is at. Are you afraid to re-enter the scene of your death?

And are while you are at it, tell me if that 80% or 85% criteria is still used. Thanks

[ADP02]

Am I saying that they didn’t? I’m saying that they did about an old criteria THAT ISNT USED, HASNT BEEN USED FOR YEARS, AND WAS STATED TO BE ACTUALLY NOT A THRESHILD BY THE COURT.

What part of this criteria being irrelevant in the WADA TD2014EPO document can’t you understand???


Do you agree or not. Stop ducking it.

Go to the old thread and get the link. Stop pretending that you don’t know where the info is at. Are you afraid to re-enter the scene of your death?

And are while you are at it, tell me if that 80% or 85% criteria is still used. Thanks

Are we not talking about a case that was in 2003 or 2004? Show me the link for that case.

You said previously that BAP 80% was not a threshold test, right? I don't want to put words in your mouth but now it appears that you are saying that it is a threshold test?

[travestyny]

Are we not talking about a case that was in 2003 or 2004? Show me the link for that case.

You said previously that BAP 80% was not a threshold test, right? I don't want to put words in your mouth but now it appears that you are saying that it is a threshold test?

Are you slow?

1. Go to the old thread and find the link. I’m not home and I’m not fishing through threads in my phone for you right now.

2. I’ve said over and over in this thread and in our debate that the only thing that was ever referred to as a threshold was an old criteria dating back to 2003 that was no longer used.

3. I’ve stated over and over that the court stated that this is actually NOT a threshold. They stated it plainly. I’ve given you the quotations over and over.

The whole reason for the court case is because of that confusion. The athlete labeled it a threshold because the WADA experts have always said it was a threshold. He argued that you can’t get rid of this threshold. They said....it’s not a threshold. And that is not the only time they said it’s not a threshold. They said it in more than one court case! Go look up those links too!!!

Again, this discussion of the BAP is not even relevant because..... IT ISN’T USED, HASN’T BEEN USED FOR YEARS, AND DOESNT EXIST IN THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT!!! You won’t even admit it!

So do you agree to the challenge? Yes or no?

[Vadrigar.]

Watch and weep.

Floyd objectively lost.

[ADP02]

Are you slow?

1. Go to the old thread and find the link. I’m not home and I’m not fishing through threads in my phone for you right now.

2. I’ve said over and over in this thread and in our debate that the only thing that was ever referred to as a threshold was an old criteria dating back to 2003 that was no longer used.

3. I’ve stated over and over that the court stated that this is actually NOT a threshold. They stated it plainly. I’ve given you the quotations over and over.

The whole reason for the court case is because of that confusion. The athlete labeled it a threshold because the WADA experts have always said it was a threshold. He argued that you can’t get rid of this threshold. They said....it’s not a threshold. And that is not the only time they said it’s not a threshold. They said it in more than one court case! Go look up those links too!!!

Again, this discussion of the BAP is not even relevant because..... IT ISN’T USED, HASN’T BEEN USED FOR YEARS, AND DOESNT EXIST IN THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT!!! You won’t even admit it!

So do you agree to the challenge? Yes or no?

Slow?

The current discussion was on the case's statements yet you are all over the place with your responses. Just stick to those statements(the case) and why you think that means that when the lab was testing the results, you think that as one of their tests, they were not comparing it against a certain threshold value?

Since you brought up those statements from that case, I thought you had the link. If you do not, I may check later as I gotta go.

[travestyny]

Slow?

The current discussion was on the case's statements yet you are all over the place with your responses. Just stick to those statements(the case) and why you think that means that when the lab was testing the results, you think that as one of their tests, they were not comparing it against a certain threshold value?

Since you brought up those statements from that case, I thought you had the link. If you do not, I may check later as I gotta go.

What exactly do you think was the "threshold" that they were referring to? The 80% in the BAP?

[Vadrigar.]

Watch and weep.

Floyd objectively lost.

[Vadrigar.]

Did he just admit to pu$$ying out? LMFAO yes he did.

He pu$$ied out.

The biatch pu$$ied out.

It's over.

Flawless victory.





















[img]https://media3.*****.com/media/oe33xf3B50fsc/200.gif[/img]

KABOOM!

[travestyny]

Vagisil still butthurt about being exposed.

January 2018

Floyd was a coward who ducked Khan.

Deal with it.

April 29th, 2014

If he beats Collazo in the flat and lackluster way he beat Julio Diaz, then no.
I don't see how they could sell the fight.

What could they possibly show as a recent highlight reel of Khan on All Access?

At least Maidana had beaten Broner in emphatic fashion, which generates some interest.

That really hurt your soul, didn't it?

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