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

[ADP02]

I know them better than you, which is why you lost 4-0. You should be ashamed of yourself for not winning ONE vote. LMAOOOOOOO.


I also know that the Court of Arbitration for Sport trumps all...and it agreed with me, not you, with your boy Catlin advising them. BAHAHAHHAAH!!!!

What I also know is that you won't answer these questions that you've been ducking and deflecting:

1. What is the threshold for the BAP?

2. Is the BAP in the WADA TD2014 EPO document?

3. Did the court say the BAP specifically is not a threshold?

4. Did the court say specifically that there is NO THRESHOLD for EPO?

[B][CENTER]


Poor Poor ADP. Still can't get over his loss.

Dr Catlin didn't say that the BAP is not a threshold type test. In fact, [B]he said it was a threshold test!




What you fail to understand is that BAP is a test criteria done by the lab. Dr Catlin said that he tested using other criteria as well that were just as reliable.


Just so you understand:

TEST #1: Lets go back to the T/E Ratio threshold test. It is currently used to screen athletes with a 4/1 RATIO. If the urine passed the threshold then that is a positive. Then the urine will follow the confirmation processes. That confirmation process may confirm or reject the 4/1 RATIO test.

So if lets say TEST #2's results disagrees with TEST #1, does that make the T/E RATIO test no longer a threshold test? No!!!! the test is still a threshold type test!!!!
Think about that one and you will get your answer!




It's unfortunate that you saw that document about threshold substances because it has you all confused.


For Threshold substance, the threshold result stands alone primarily. What the panel was trying to state is that the BAP threshold criteria is NOT like that just like the current T/E RATIO test is not like that. If there is another sound test that shows a different result and it makes sense, then that is just as reliable.


The athlete had 79.5% which was just below the 80% threshold. It was close to the threshold. So the additional data provided the proof that was needed that the chances of this being a false positive was very low.


You are thinking and said that the panel was explaining to the athlete and others to not get themselves confused and that only threshold substances can have threshold type tests but that is not the case.


.

[travestyny]

Dr Catlin didn't say that the BAP is not a threshold type test. In fact, [B]he said it was a threshold test!
[/B]



What you fail to understand is that BAP is a test criteria done by the lab. Dr Catlin said that he tested using other criteria as well that were just as reliable.


Just so you understand:

TEST #1: Lets go back to the T/E Ratio threshold test. It is currently used to screen athletes with a 4/1 RATIO. If the urine passed the threshold then that is a positive. Then the urine will follow the confirmation processes. That confirmation process may confirm or reject the 4/1 RATIO test.

So if lets say TEST #2's results disagrees with TEST #1, does that make the T/E RATIO test no longer a threshold test? No!!!! the test is still a threshold type test!!!!
Think about that one and you will get your answer!




It's unfortunate that you saw that document about threshold substances because it has you all confused.


For Threshold substance, the threshold result stands alone primarily. What the panel was trying to state is that the BAP threshold criteria is NOT like that just like the current T/E RATIO test is not like that. If there is another sound test that shows a different result and it makes sense, then that is just as reliable.


The athlete had 79.5% which was just below the 80% threshold. It was close to the threshold. So the additional data provided the proof that was needed that the chances of this being a false positive was very low.


You are thinking and said that the panel was explaining to the athlete and others to not get themselves confused and that only threshold substances can have threshold type tests but that is not the case.


.

Wrongggg

What is the threshold for this BAP that isn’t even in the relevant document, ADP? You gonna answer now?

[travestyny]

You are going down in flames still wanting to discuss threshold substances ....




As I said, YOU got that from another document which I didn't see nor read. Or is that from the EPO technical document? You showed me a screen shot. Right?

Let me and everyone know! If that is in the EPO technical document then I lied but you and I know that you got that from a different document that was only for threshold substances and had nothing to do with EPO testing! Sorry!



Discussion: I said that there is EPO threshold testing . You went on and on about threshold substances.

then when you understood where I was coming from, you still didn't let it go. Right?


.

Liarrrrrr

Why did you say that the document I showed you was a partial list, ADP???

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

OWNEDDDDD

[travestyny]

Stop ducking this, ADP02

1. What is the threshold for the BAP?

2. Is the BAP in the WADA TD2014 EPO document?

3. Did the court say the BAP specifically is not a threshold?

4. Did the court say specifically that there is NO THRESHOLD for EPO?

Game over!

[ADP02]

Wrongggg

What is the threshold for this BAP that isn’t even in the relevant document, ADP? You gonna answer now?

Dr Catlin told you yet you think that he is wrong.

Both sides in the case told you yet you think that they are wrong.

Other cases called it a threshold test yet you think that they are wrong.

Other WADA experts called it a threshold yet you think that they are wrong.

Other WADA experts years after the case still called it a threshold test yet you think that they are wrong.


I know that they are right and you just misinterpreted what the panel were trying to tell you in that case!

No, they were not saying that only threshold substances have threshold type tests. EPO's threshold test was a criteria used by the LAB but what the panel was trying to tell you is that there are other criteria now that are just as reliable and can be used to come to a conclusion. Even in today's EPO technical document, that is the way it works!!!!


TRAVESTYNY is WRONG. Those people that I mentioned above are RIGHT. Sorry Travestyny!!!!


DING DING DING, it's time for you to admit that ....




YOU ARE WRONG, TRAVESTYNY!!!!!




.

[ADP02]

Liarrrrrr

Why did you say that the document I showed you was a partial list, ADP???



OWNEDDDDD

You cannot read? I said why. You showed me a screen shot of a document! It didn't have all threshold tests used by WADA labs and that was only for threshold substances!


I explained up until now what I meant ... but you still do not want to understand! Sorry!

[travestyny]

You cannot read? I said why. You showed me a screen shot of a document! It didn't have all threshold tests used by WADA labs and that was only for threshold substances!

I explained up until now what I meant ... but you still do not want to understand! Sorry!

SO you're saying you didn't say it was a threshold substance?

Sample A is a mixture of those 2 urine samples. There the second is diluting the initial one.

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

Liar. Plus.....


ADP WON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS AGAINNNN . LMAOOOOOO.


1. What is the threshold for the BAP?

2. Is the BAP in the WADA TD2014 EPO document?

3. Did the court say the BAP specifically is not a threshold?

4. Did the court say specifically that there is NO THRESHOLD for EPO?


YOU GONNA ANSWER?

[rudy]

Can this thread be removed total pointless conversation

[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!

[ShoulderRoll]

Can this thread be removed total pointless conversation

A worthy request that the mods really should consider.