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

[travestyny]

I would rather have the experienced WADA EPO experts on my side than people who showed little interest and or were too busy to fully participate throughout that process. TRUTH BABY!!!!


So, now we have:
- Dr Catlin - WADA EPO EXPERT calling that test a threshold test.

- Dr Segura - stating that there are threshold tests.

- WADA acknowledging the threshold test.

- Both sides in the case calling it a threshold test

- Other cases calling it a threshold test!


You are stuck on threshold substances and didn't understand what the previous cases, that case, the WADA EPO Experts said, the WADA acknowledgment told you and so on.


A threshold type test at that point in time was but one test criteria ..... but the LAB used others as well. The athlete thought only the BAP test can be used. The panel said that there is no such rule that only the BAP test has to be used ..... BUT what is the BAP test? It is a threshold type test. Says who? Everyone except for Travestyny!!!



.

LMAOOOOO. ADP back on his "I'm smarter than everyone, and everyone is wrong" even after being shut down 4-0. The whole reason we wanted judges was because you can't admit that you're wrong, so we needed other people to make it CLEAR that you were wrong. There were FOUR judges. ALL of them said you were wrong. I've explained it to you a billion times, and it doesn't take me writing an essay to prove you are wrong.

1. No matter what you claim anyone said about the BAP, you've already admit that it is NOT a part of the WADA TD2014 EPO document. That means everything that you write about it and about what WADA experts have said about it is IRRELEVANT.

So the experts (according to you) agreed with you about something irrelevant...and that's your proof? lol. Give me a break. Not only that, but as you see below, they didn't agree with you.

2. You won't admit that the court said the BAP specifically is NOT a threshold. You claimed the threshold was 80%, but the court said specifically THERE IS NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. I've asked you over and over, what is the threshold then. You won't respond. You even claimed it could be lower. Great. Then what was it lowered to? You couldn't answer.

The labs did the test, they looked at it, and then the experts decided if it reveals EPO, ALONG with doing other tests. Remember....NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. That is the key that wrecks you. AND....YOU ALREADY ADMIT IT IS NOT A PART OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT. Your BAP bullshlt is doubly demolished.

3. Your ABP bullshlt was just a deflection when you failed regarding EPO target testing having a threshold. You know it and I know it. Talking about the ABP having threshold is far different from target testing having a theshold criteria. The entire reason that the court brought up threshold substances is to explain to dummies like you that, when target testing, threshold substances have threshold criteria.

4. Your statement directly contradicts the court's statement, which is the most clear evidence that you lost, and that's why this is over.

EPO drug when it exceeds or
just human EPO if it does not exceed!

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance

CLEAR CONTRADICTION! You lose. It's over. You keep coming back saying the same exact shlt that you've been saying since the debate. NEWSFLASH: You lost the debate 4-0.

It's over. Stop writing to me unless you are ready to lose your account.

[ADP02]

LMAOOOOO. ADP back on his "I'm smarter than everyone, and everyone is wrong" even after being shut down 4-0. The whole reason we wanted judges was because you can't admit that you're wrong, so we needed other people to make it CLEAR that you were wrong. There were FOUR judges. ALL of them said you were wrong. I've explained it to you a billion times, and it doesn't take me writing an essay to prove you are wrong.

1. No matter what you claim anyone said about the BAP, you've already admit that it is NOT a part of the WADA TD2014 EPO document. That means everything that you write about it and about what WADA experts have said about it is IRRELEVANT.

So the experts (according to you) agreed with you about something irrelevant...and that's your proof? lol. Give me a break. Not only that, but as you see below, they didn't agree with you.

2. You won't admit that the court said the BAP specifically is NOT a threshold. You claimed the threshold was 80%, but the court said specifically THERE IS NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. I've asked you over and over, what is the threshold then. You won't respond. You even claimed it could be lower. Great. Then what was it lowered to? You couldn't answer.

The labs did the test, they looked at it, and then the experts decided if it reveals EPO, ALONG with doing other tests. Remember....NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. That is the key that wrecks you. AND....YOU ALREADY ADMIT IT IS NOT A PART OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT. Your BAP bullshlt is doubly demolished.

3. Your ABP bullshlt was just a deflection when you failed regarding EPO target testing having a threshold. You know it and I know it. Talking about the ABP having threshold is far different from target testing having a theshold criteria. The entire reason that the court brought up threshold substances is to explain to dummies like you that, when target testing, threshold substances have threshold criteria.

4. Your statement directly contradicts the court's statement, which is the most clear evidence that you lost, and that's why this is over.




COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT



CLEAR CONTRADICTION! You lose. It's over. You keep coming back saying the same exact shlt that you've been saying since the debate. NEWSFLASH: You lost the debate 4-0.

It's over. Stop writing to me unless you are ready to lose your account.

No, That is you saying that I am smarter than others. Thanks for the compliment but I never said that.


I just told you who are the real experts and you got all defensive about it.

Travestyny
"You won't admit that the court said the BAP specifically is NOT a threshold. You claimed the threshold was 80%, but the court said specifically THERE IS NO NUMERICAL LIMIT."

You misunderstood this statement. The athlete said the BAP threshold is the only valid criteria. The panel disagreed that there is such a rule. Here is what was said just before that statement

"The rules provide that the presence of rEPO can be proven by any means. A numeric limit does not exist. "

then the panel also said "

Second, can other criteria than BAP be relied upon in making the judgement about the image produced by the accredited laboratory when the BAP is below 80%?"

So the panel is telling the athlete and YOU that the BAP threshold rule is but a single test.

the panel is stating that other tests can be used as well to verify if there is presence of rEPO. That is what you cannot seem to understand. The T/E Ratio test is but a single test. Another type of test, say CIR test can give a different result or conclusion than the T/E Ratio test. That other test does not make T/E Ratio test no longer a threshold test. That is absurd!!!! Same with my other example for the other non-threshold substance. the panel agreed that not all 4 threshold tests need to be proven. Only 1 of the tests is sufficient.


Did the UCI have any of those other tests in their rules? No but they too can still be used to detect the presence of rEPO. In fact it was the labs back then that had these test criteria. At that time, the athlete was positive only when over the 80% threshold. The time of the case, it became a sort of grey zone because of the new information and transition that was to occur .... but that can be the case with other substances as well including threshold substances!

But the test was a threshold type test. Everyone said so .... but you got confused. Badly!


I sufficiently explained my statement that you quoted. It's just too bad that you cannot understand. Sorry!



.

[travestyny]

No, That is you saying that I am smarter than others. Thanks for the compliment but I never said that.


I just told you who are the real experts and you got all defensive about it.





You misunderstood this statement. The athlete said the BAP threshold is the only valid criteria. The panel disagreed that there is such a rule. Here is what was said just before that statement



then the panel also said "

So the panel is telling the athlete and YOU that the BAP threshold rule is but a single test.

the panel is stating that other tests can be used as well to verify if there is presence of rEPO. That is what you cannot seem to understand. The T/E Ratio test is but a single test. Another type of test, say CIR test can give a different result or conclusion than the T/E Ratio test. That other test does not make T/E Ratio test no longer a threshold test. That is absurd!!!! Same with my other example for the other non-threshold substance. the panel agreed that not all 4 threshold tests need to be proven. Only 1 of the tests is sufficient.


Did the UCI have any of those other tests in their rules? No but they too can still be used to detect the presence of rEPO. In fact it was the labs back then that had these test criteria. At that time, the athlete was positive only when over the 80% threshold. The time of the case, it became a sort of grey zone because of the new information and transition that was to occur .... but that can be the case with other substances as well including threshold substances!

But the test was a threshold type test. Everyone said so .... but you got confused. Badly!


I sufficiently explained my statement that you quoted. It's just too bad that you cannot understand. Sorry!



.

If a numeric limit does not exist, then what is the threshold, ADP???

Oh...and don't forget this:

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.

THE BAP IS NOT WHAT...??? What part of that statement don't you understand???

Did 5 people tell you that you are wrong?


Did no people tell you that you are right?


I thought so Go away. I'm tired of humiliating you. Seriously.

[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.























KABOOM!

[travestyny]

Yo ADP02, come accept another challenge. Vagisil was real hurt by what happened to you last time. You know...losing 4-0 and all

[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.























KABOOM!

[travestyny]

You been stuck on ****** with this same post probably over 50 times

I never knew I could hurt someone's feelings online so badly.

[ADP02]

If a numeric limit does not exist, then what is the threshold, ADP???

Oh...and don't forget this:



THE BAP IS NOT WHAT...??? What part of that statement don't you understand???



Did 5 people tell you that you are wrong?


Did no people tell you that you are right?


I thought so Go away. I'm tired of humiliating you. Seriously.

Are you dense?


Because you didn't understand this:

The athlete said that there is only 1 test allowed for EPO.

The panel responded and said

"The rules provide that the presence of rEPO can be proven by any means. A numeric limit does not exist. "

The panel told you that there is no rule to say that the lab has to use just a single test and explained that it is not like the threshold substance nandrolone. They can use multiple tests if that is required and available. So if that is the case, there is no numeric limit. It does NOT exist!!!

Once you understand, you will be doing this!

.

[travestyny]

Are you dense?


Because you didn't understand this:

The athlete said that there is only 1 test allowed for EPO.

The panel responded and said





The panel told you that there is no rule to say that the lab has to use just a single test and explained that it is not like the threshold substance nandrolone. They can use multiple tests if that is required and available. So if that is the case, there is no numeric limit. It does NOT exist!!!

Once you understand, you will be doing this!

.

Nah, but you are dense. What does this mean, ADP?

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.

So when this says specifically that the BAP does not represent a threshold....you interpret that as...the BAP represents a threshold???

You are an imbecile. Sorry, loser


Oh, and why keep ducking the question, hmm? If there is NO NUMERICAL LIMIT....THEN WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD???? LMAOOO! You're saying this case was only about whether they could use other tests... and that's it? LMAO. Please tell me what the "threshold" was so I can embarrass you more and expose you.

Give up.

[ShoulderRoll]

Are you dense?


Because you didn't understand this:

The athlete said that there is only 1 test allowed for EPO.

The panel responded and said





The panel told you that there is no rule to say that the lab has to use just a single test and explained that it is not like the threshold substance nandrolone. They can use multiple tests if that is required and available. So if that is the case, there is no numeric limit. It does NOT exist!!!

Once you understand, you will be doing this!

.

Would you accept a rematch against Travestyny in the Thunderdome?