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

[travestyny]

I'm still waiting in the dome. I started a thread requesting a CHALLENGE!!!!

Are you refusing to accept the challenge. Please place your response there!


Secondly, I just destroyed the credibility of the first bet!



YOU brought up that case so you know that this was a period of transition from OIC to WADA. Still, you said that there still were no threshold type tests as per the panel's statements.


Now all I want is for you to admit to you being

WRONG in that case about EPO threshold tests.


If not, then there is a challenge ......

I'm still waiting for you to say:

I RESPONDED BlTCH. YOU'RE AVOIDING YOUR OWN THREAD. YOU HAVEN'T QUOTED ME ONCE IN YOUR OWN DAMN THREAD YOU IDIOT!


BY THE WAY, IT'S NOT EVEN IN THE DOME. YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT

Secondly, I just destroyed the credibility of the first bet!

SO MUCH DELUSION HERE. YOU CLAIMED I SAID THE CASE WAS IRRELEVANT, RIGHT??????? LMAOOOOOOO. QUOTE ME!!!!!!!

[abracada]

[ADP02]

I SAW NO ADMISSION HERE. DID YOU BELIEVE THAT EPO WAS A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE? YES OR NO? OR SHOULD WE GET A BRAND NEW CHALLENGE BASED ON THAT? I DON'T THINK YOU'LL LIKE THAT VERY MUCH.

Answer the question. Did you believe EPO was a threshold substance?






The BAP was irrelevant, you moron. You already admit that it wasn't in the relevant document. I brought up the case because it introduced WADA'S REQUIREMENTS and it stated plainly that THEY ARE NOT THRESHOLDS. They also DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.

You're weak as fvvck.




WHAT? THE CASE IS IRRELEVANT. FALSE. THE BAP IS IRRELEVANT AND THAT RUINS YOU. THE CASE IS VERY RELEVANT. LMAOOOOOO! It DESTROYS YOU! WANT PROOF?????




OVERTURNED BY THE COURT!!!!




THAT DESTROYS YOU AND THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T WANT A REMATCH!!!!



FALSE. YOU ARE FLAT OUT LYING. QUOTE ME SAYING THAT THIS CASE IS IRRELEVANT. I'LL WAIT!!!!!



YOU'RE DELUSIONAL. BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



WHAT THE ACTUAL FVVCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. YOUR CHALLENGE IS A DEFLECTION. IT WAS ME WHO MADE YOU ADMIT THAT THE BAP WAS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT CASE...THAT RUINS YOU. THE CASE STATED CLEARLY THE BAP AND THE OTHER CRITIERIA ARE NOT THRESHOLDS.

WHAT WERE THE OTHER CRITERIA? ONE OF THEM WAS....THE WADA CRITERIA!!!!!

YOU TRIED TO TELL WILLY WANKER THE CASE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WADA. I PROVED YOU WRONG!




Scroll up and read again. ahahahahahahahaha. Your deflection failed, son. You suddenly won't answer questions. I'm going to clown you in your own challenge!





THAT WAS A WHOLE LOT OF BULLSHlT FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO STAND BY HIS STATEMENT THAT SAID THE THRESHOLD HAS TO SHOW EPO SPECIFICALLY. DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT?????

AND SOMEONE WHO REFUSED THE REMATCH. WHY DID YOU REFUSE?

BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU LOST. EVEN ZAROKU CAME BACK A FEW POSTS AGO AND SAID AGAIN THAT YOU LOST. IT'S OVER!

1) Actually it is YOU that needs to admit that you were lost. GO INTO HIDING.

Once I explained what I meant, you should have QUICKLY realized that I was NOT discussing threshold substances. I got your repeated questioning to prove that YOU NEVER DID!!!

Even in that thread in the dome, you kept on referring to threshold substances!!! I kept on telling you it isn't but you kept on going back to it because that is all you know (not even because you are so confused) LOL

but the funniest part, you are doing it now. GO HIDE, change accounts, do something!!! LOL



2) WHAT A LIAR!!!!

Your statements as I quoted were about BAP threshold testing!!!!

3) You are confusing yourself. Now you want the case to be relevant and irrelevant. STOP THIS ******ITY!!!!

I can look it up if you wish but I remember you stating that you didn't like that I referred to old exampled even though I was using it solely to show the history of EPO test.

BUT you instead made the old documents, as you just said, relevant!!! That is NONSENSE and YES, YOU ARE LYING!!!


4) Quote you? You have said it enough times that the panel's statements that you have here and you had at the dome are not relevant.

STOP THE ******ITY!!!!

Well, this is you trying to cover up the TRUTH!!!


Reminder: I am the only one who is truly paying attention to these posts and I know the TRUTH.



5) LIAR - Did you not have those same statements quoted in the dome? You said that they are irrelevant now!!!

CASE CLOSED!!! You cannot have it both ways.


6) What you posted from the panel is what you are stating as irrelevant. You posted that at the Dome too! Sorry!

7) YOU DEFLECTED .... you didn't discuss any of what you said as your initial statements.

- You said there are no threshold type tests for EPO. Right? Does ABP testing have? YES

- You said there are no ratios. We argued forever in that thread. Why DEFLECTOR? Well, I proved you WRONG

- You ignored/deflected away from ABP threshold tests. Why DEFLECTOR?

- Is there measurements on intensity of the bands?

- Is it instead about the whole chart?

- MRPL - You said that is what they are talking about for EPO testing. WTF!!! You can fool others maybe but I proved you wrong there too!

- Did you try to have the judges sway away from all of your initial points? YES!!!

You even said that there were no threshold tests for the presumptive nor confirmation tests THEN you said there may be for the presumptive but it is not about that!!! WTF ....






Terrible month for Travestyny and catastrophic weekend to boot.

Why?

The truth has been exposed about the past!


and

YOU ARE PIUSSYING OUT OF A CHALLENGE!!!

Duel Challenge GIF from Duel GIFs

.

[ADP02]

I RESPONDED BlTCH. YOU'RE AVOIDING YOUR OWN THREAD. YOU HAVEN'T QUOTED ME ONCE IN YOUR OWN DAMN THREAD YOU IDIOT!


BY THE WAY, IT'S NOT EVEN IN THE DOME. YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT







SO MUCH DELUSION HERE. YOU CLAIMED I SAID THE CASE WAS IRRELEVANT, RIGHT??????? LMAOOOOOOO. QUOTE ME!!!!!!!

I see that you did what you are doing here!!!

You didn't say that you accepted, did you?

.

[travestyny]

I see that you did what you are doing here!!!

You didn't say that you accepted, did you?

.

LMAOOOOOOOO. ARE YOU UPSET THAT I SEE THROUGH YOUR DEFLECTION.


SORRY YOU DIDN'T GET WHAT YOU WANTED. I GUESS YOU'LL HAVE TO GO DOWN AS A 4-0 LOSER, UNLESS YOU ACCEPT THE REMATCH.


WHICH YOU WON'T, MR. "MY INITIAL STATEMENT IS NOT MY OWN AND DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING."

lmaoooo. It's over.

[travestyny]

1) Actually it is YOU that needs to admit that you were lost. GO INTO HIDING.

Once I explained what I meant, you should have QUICKLY realized that I was NOT discussing threshold substances. I got your repeated questioning to prove that YOU NEVER DID!!!

Even in that thread in the dome, you kept on referring to threshold substances!!! I kept on telling you it isn't but you kept on going back to it because that is all you know (not even because you are so confused) LOL

but the funniest part, you are doing it now. GO HIDE, change accounts, do something!!! LOL

TELL ME. WHEN DID YOU FIRST SAY IT WASN'T ABOUT THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES. DID THAT FIRST HAPPEN AFTER THE DOME THREAD OR BEFORE. PLEASE DON'T DUCK THIS QUESTION. MATTER OF FACT, QUOTE YOURSELF WHEN YOU FIRST SAID IT IS NOT ABOUT THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES!

2) WHAT A LIAR!!!!

Your statements as I quoted were about BAP threshold testing!!!!

3) You are confusing yourself. Now you want the case to be relevant and irrelevant. STOP THIS ******ITY!!!!

I can look it up if you wish but I remember you stating that you didn't like that I referred to old exampled even though I was using it solely to show the history of EPO test.

BUT you instead made the old documents, as you just said, relevant!!! That is NONSENSE and YES, YOU ARE LYING!!!

DUDE, DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A BRAIN? THE CHALLENGE WAS ABOUT WADA TESTING. THE CASE THAT I BROUGHT UP CONCERNED WADA TESTING. YOU TRIED TO TELL WILLY WANKER IT WASN'T ABOUT WADA TESTING.


THEN WHY DID THEY HAVE A WHOLE SECTION DISCUSSING...WADA TESTING!!!!!!

5.1.6.5 The third additional criterion is the WADA Standard, effective 1 January 2005. This criterion has been set forth in a WADA Technical Document TD2004EPO and is entitled; Harmonization of the Method for the Identification of Epoetin Alfa and Bèta (EPO) and Darbepoietin Alfa (NESP) by lEF-Double Blotting and Chemiluminescent Detection. The WADA Standard sets forth three criteria that must be met IN order to find a sample positive for rEPO. The Respondent's samples satisfied these criteria. Thus, the WADA criteria for interpreting the resulting test procedure image would also indicate rEPO as the analytical result. Of course, the WADA Standard did not apply at the time of the urine sample being given and analyzed by the UCLA Laboratory. While the Panel cannot rely upon this result to be comfortably satisfied that a doping offense occurred it can and does examine the criterion to collaborate the results derived by other criteria in use by accredited laboratories at the time of the giving of the urine sample,

OH, AND WHAT DID IT SAY ABOUT THE WADA CRITERIA?????

The fact is that the BAP and the other interpretative criteria are used to declare not a threshold of human body production

That contradicts your statement on the WADA testing, which was the whole point that apparently went over your head I guess! LMAOOOO.

4) Quote you? You have said it enough times that the panel's statements that you have here and you had at the dome are not relevant.

STOP THE ******ITY!!!!

Well, this is you trying to cover up the TRUTH!!!


Reminder: I am the only one who is truly paying attention to these posts and I know the TRUTH.

So then it should be easy for you to quote me saying the case is irrelevant. Why are you ducking this? The BAP is irrelevant. The case...is very relevant. LMAOOOOOO. It crushed you!

5) LIAR - Did you not have those same statements quoted in the dome? You said that they are irrelevant now!!!

CASE CLOSED!!! You cannot have it both ways.

WHY YOU ALWAYS LYINGGGGGGG. LMAOOOOO. QUOTE ME, SON. THE CASE IS RELEVANT BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS THAT THE WADA CRITERIA DON'T REPRESENT A THRESHOLD. SORRY. YOU LOSE!!!!

6) What you posted from the panel is what you are stating as irrelevant. You posted that at the Dome too! Sorry!

You have the brain of a bird! LMAOOOO. Quote me saying the case is irrelevant. Do it! Do it! Do it!!!!!

7) YOU DEFLECTED .... you didn't discuss any of what you said as your initial statements.

- You said there are no threshold type tests for EPO. Right? Does ABP testing have? YES

- You said there are no ratios. We argued forever in that thread. Why DEFLECTOR? Well, I proved you WRONG

- You ignored/deflected away from ABP threshold tests. Why DEFLECTOR?

- Is there measurements on intensity of the bands?

- Is it instead about the whole chart?

- MRPL - You said that is what they are talking about for EPO testing. WTF!!! You can fool others maybe but I proved you wrong there too!

- Did you try to have the judges sway away from all of your initial points? YES!!!

You even said that there were no threshold tests for the presumptive nor confirmation tests THEN you said there may be for the presumptive but it is not about that!!! WTF ....

You keep going on and on with this, but you refuse a rematch because you know you got bodied. You know it and I know it. once I found this...you were cooked.

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

DOES THAT CONTRADICT YOUR STATEMENT? LET ME KNOW, BRO!

The threshold test result indicates that there is synthetic EPO if it exceeds the threshold. If less, the indication is that there is only human EPO.

Terrible month for Travestyny and catastrophic weekend to boot.

Why?

The truth has been exposed about the past!


and

YOU ARE PIUSSYING OUT OF A CHALLENGE!!!


.

OH REALLY NOW? Let's see what happened.


1. ADP refuses a rematch, but claims he wants a different challenge that he doesn't want to clarify because he knows I see through his deflection. LMAOOOOOO

2. Zaroku returned to remind ADP that he lost!!!!

3. Travestyny makes ADP disown his initial statements in his challenge, confirming that ADP knows he lost.

4. Travestyny crushes Bobby Deez in a dome battle, and makes ADP tuck his tail.



I've had a great month. Sorry that you've lost. It's truly over now, unless you want that rematch. Let me know, bro.

[ADP02]

LMAOOOOOOOO. ARE YOU UPSET THAT I SEE THROUGH YOUR DEFLECTION.


SORRY YOU DIDN'T GET WHAT YOU WANTED. I GUESS YOU'LL HAVE TO GO DOWN AS A 4-0 LOSER, UNLESS YOU ACCEPT THE REMATCH.


WHICH YOU WON'T, MR. "MY INITIAL STATEMENT IS NOT MY OWN AND DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING."

lmaoooo. It's over.

DEFLECTOR:
So were those statements about
- No ratios YOUR OWN?
- Not about the intensity of the BANDs YOUR OWN?
?
- MRPL is what they are discussing not threshold test for EPO YOUR OWN? ? Go tell that to Billeau2

- CUT-OFF LINE IS NOT calculatedYOUR OWN?

- It's about the whole chart YOUR OWN?

- There is no threshold tests in the presumptive nor confirmation tests then you LIE to the judges and state, this was not about the presumptive tests YOUR OWN?

- Did you try to limit the discussion to current period for me while you making a case from 2003 both relevant and irrelevant .... it all depends! YOUR OWN?


- You stating that the CAS panel's statements are both irrelevant and relevant YOUR OWN? Go tell that to Willy Wanker!



STOP THE DEFLECTIONs and LIES:

- Did we agree to any limitations or was it simply about whether "EPO has threshold type tests"?

Also, you cannot have it both ways.
- TO begin with, you are not C/P me putting a NOTE that stated that I cannot state everything that I mean and this will all be discussed as we go along.
- Why are you not including YOUR OWN WRONG statements? DEFLECTOR!!!



.

[travestyny]

DEFLECTOR:
So were those statements about
- No ratios YOUR OWN?

Yep. I remember saying that the document doesn't use the word ratio if you do a search. Great. Did you lose the battle? LMAOOO.

- Not about the intensity of the BANDs YOUR OWN?
?

FALSE. I said it's not about the intensity of the bands, but where the most intense bands are located. Go look it up.

- MRPL is what they are discussing not threshold test for EPO YOUR OWN? ? Go tell that to Billeau2

FALSE. I said it was similar to that. Why don't YOU go tell it to Billeau. Last I checked, he was telling you to pay up! LMAOOOOO.

- CUT-OFF LINE IS NOT calculatedYOUR OWN?

WHAT???? You mean your deflection that you got destroyed over? LMAOOOOO. Dude. I even remember you talking about some kind of line and ranting about how that was the threshold....and then you haven't mentioned it since because you know I destroyed you.

- It's about the whole chart YOUR OWN?

What? No idea what you are talking about. It is about the chart.

- There is no threshold tests in the presumptive nor confirmation tests then you LIE to the judges and state, this was not about the presumptive tests YOUR OWN?

Are you ******ed? The EPO direct tests have no thresholds. I think you know that now. LMAOOOOOO

- Did you try to limit the discussion to current period for me while you making a case from 2003 both relevant and irrelevant .... it all depends! YOUR OWN?

Negative. You were discussing not WADA issues. I was discussing WADA.

- You stating that the CAS panel's statements are both irrelevant and relevant YOUR OWN? Go tell that to Willy Wanker!

FALSE. This is the funniest shlt. If you want that rematch, they are just going to tell you the same thing. That my information was clear. You lost.

STOP THE DEFLECTIONs and LIES:

- Did we agree to any limitations or was it simply about whether "EPO has threshold type tests"?

Oh, so now it wasn't about May 2nd, 2015? I dare you to try to say that. LMAOOOOO. It was clearly about WADA and about how they test for EPO. Now you want to make it about non-WADA? Sorry fool. Your deflection aint workin'.

Also, you cannot have it both ways.
- TO begin with, you are not C/P me putting a NOTE that stated that I cannot state everything that I mean and this will all be discussed as we go along.
- Why are you not including YOUR OWN WRONG statements? DEFLECTOR!!!
.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. YOU SAID EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANTED. I SAID EVERYTHING THAT I WANTED. IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO STOP YOU FROM GIVING YOUR INFORMATION. YOU GAVE YOUR INFORMATION, I GAVE MINE, AND ALL THE JUDGES VOTED FOR ME. GIVE UP. STOP FVVCKING CRYING. ARE YOU GOING TO CRY ABOUT THIS FOR ANOTHER YEAR. I RUINED YOUR FVVCKING LIFE. THE JUDGES DIDN'T CHOOSE YOU, DUDE. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT AGAIN, JUST SAY SO. IF NOT, SHUT THE FUVVCK UP ALREADY. IT'S OVER. I'M TIRED OF WRITING THE SAME SHlT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET OVER IT.


FOR THE LAST TIME. DO YOU WANT A REMATCH? YES OR NO? THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME I ASK YOU THIS. IF YOU DECLINE, THEN JUST GO DIE SOMEWHERE AND STOP CRYING TO ME. I'M JUST GOING TO POST THE SAME CRYING MEME OF YOU OVER AND OVER FROM NOW ON, YOU 4-0 LOSER.

[ADP02]

Yep. I remember saying that the document doesn't use the word ratio if you do a search. Great. Did you lose the battle? LMAOOO.




FALSE. I said it's not about the intensity of the bands, but where the most intense bands are located. Go look it up.




FALSE. I said it was similar to that. Why don't YOU go tell it to Billeau. Last I checked, he was telling you to pay up! LMAOOOOO.




WHAT???? You mean your deflection that you got destroyed over? LMAOOOOO. Dude. I even remember you talking about some kind of line and ranting about how that was the threshold....and then you haven't mentioned it since because you know I destroyed you.



What? No idea what you are talking about. It is about the chart.



Are you ******ed? The EPO direct tests have no thresholds. I think you know that now. LMAOOOOOO




Negative. You were discussing not WADA issues. I was discussing WADA.




FALSE. This is the funniest shlt. If you want that rematch, they are just going to tell you the same thing. That my information was clear. You lost.



Oh, so now it wasn't about May 2nd, 2015? I dare you to try to say that. LMAOOOOO. It was clearly about WADA and about how they test for EPO. Now you want to make it about non-WADA? Sorry fool. Your deflection aint workin'.





WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. YOU SAID EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANTED. I SAID EVERYTHING THAT I WANTED. IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO STOP YOU FROM GIVING YOUR INFORMATION. YOU GAVE YOUR INFORMATION, I GAVE MINE, AND ALL THE JUDGES VOTED FOR ME. GIVE UP. STOP FVVCKING CRYING. ARE YOU GOING TO CRY ABOUT THIS FOR ANOTHER YEAR. I RUINED YOUR FVVCKING LIFE. THE JUDGES DIDN'T CHOOSE YOU, DUDE. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT AGAIN, JUST SAY SO. IF NOT, SHUT THE FUVVCK UP ALREADY. IT'S OVER. I'M TIRED OF WRITING THE SAME SHlT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET OVER IT.


FOR THE LAST TIME. DO YOU WANT A REMATCH? YES OR NO? THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME I ASK YOU THIS. IF YOU DECLINE, THEN JUST GO DIE SOMEWHERE AND STOP CRYING TO ME. I'M JUST GOING TO POST THE SAME CRYING MEME OF YOU OVER AND OVER FROM NOW ON, YOU 4-0 LOSER.

Actually I proved to you that they do have ratios which is a threshold test! So yes, YOU LOST THE BATTLE ALREADY!!!

In fact, it was Dr Catlin that I had referred to and had also other information to back up my point. In fact, it is referred to even in the Bergman case - the Two-Band Ratio ("TBR"), You definitely lost already but it's OK .... nobody but me knows! Your good. You can keep your imaginary score! LOL

3 In his Clinical Chemistry article entitled "Detection of Recombinant Human Eijythropoietin in Urine by ïsoelectric Focussing", the Appellant's witness, Dr. Catlin, concludeded that a TBR of 1.19 had a safety margin of 99% and a TBR of 1,8 had a risk of a false positive of less than 1 in 100,000. The Respondent's TBR results for his A and B samples were 2.5 and 2.9 respectively. The Appellant argues that this is a clear indication of rEPO in the Respondent's sample and the risk of a false positive for these results has a mjuch smaller probability than the 1 in 100,000 risk at a TBR of 1.8. During the hearing, Dr. Catlin stated, in his expert opinion, that the TBR criterion is the most reliable method to' determine the presence of rBPO. He had no doubts that the sample contained rEPO

The first criterion is the Two Band Ratio. The TBR approach compares the combined density of the two bands on the basic side of the first basic band üi the athlete's sample with the two bands on the acidic side of that band, A significantly greater density in the two bands on the basic side signals the presence of rEPO in a sample. This method has been discussed in other rEPO cases but was never relied upon because the BAP test.

The Appellant argued that tliat TBR criterion was also a reliable method to establish a positive sample. The Respondent' s A and B samples provided TBR results of 2.5 and 2.9, respectively. It was submitted that a TBR of 1.8 would result in a false positive rate of le$sthanl in 100,000

SCORE: Travestyny 0 - ADP02 - 1

and I'm being nice. You forgot AGAIN. That should count for 2 points!

------------------------------------

"I said it's not about the intensity of the bands, but where the most intense bands are located."

Maybe I will look it up to be sure that you got it WRONG anyways!!! LOL I want to have a laugh!

SCORE: Travestyny 0 - ADP02 - 2

--------------------------------------

"FALSE. I said it was similar to that."

WRONG either way!!! I showed you the list for MRPL. There was no EPO!

SCORE: Travestyny 0 - ADP02 - 3

---------------------------------------

Travestyny
"WHAT???? You mean your deflection that you got destroyed over? LMAOOOOO. Dude. I even remember you talking about some kind of line and ranting about how that was the threshold....and then you haven't mentioned it since because you know I destroyed you. "

I know, I know. It is hard to keep up with all of your mistakes!

Remember that you thought I was crazy stating that then that there was a calculation? I provided to you a case with that statement? Ring a bell? LOL

SCORE: Travestyny 0 - ADP02 - 4

---------------------------------------

Travestyny
It's about the whole chart. What? No idea what you are talking about. It is about the chart.

I know, I know. It is hard to keep up with all of your mistakes!

SCORE: Travestyny 0 - ADP02 - 5
---------------------------------------
There is a ratio test which is a threshold test. Look up some cases. They discuss it!!! Including the Bergman case!!!


SCORE: Travestyny 0 - ADP02 - 6
---------------------------------------

Originally Posted by ADP02
- Did you try to limit the discussion to current period for me while you making a case from 2003 both relevant and irrelevant .... it all depends! YOUR OWN?

Travestyny
Negative. You were discussing not WADA issues. I was discussing WADA.

WTF - I went to the other thread and you want to narrow the discussion to 1 case and not about ABP nor blood tests!!!

I should deduct 2 points. One for last year and another 1 for now .... I will be nice, just 1 point!

SCORE: Travestyny 0 - ADP02 - 7
---------------------------------------

Travestyny
FALSE. This is the funniest shlt. If you want that rematch, they are just going to tell you the same thing. That my information was clear. You lost.

I went to the other thread, you are just about to fold. Too much pressure! Limit it to that sole case? Deja vu!!! WTF!

SCORE: Travestyny 0 - ADP02 - 8

---------------------------------------

Travestyny
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. YOU SAID EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANTED. I SAID EVERYTHING THAT I WANTED. IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO STOP YOU FROM GIVING YOUR INFORMATION. YOU GAVE YOUR INFORMATION, I GAVE MINE

Really? You are doing it again now but at least it is happening at the start .... So I can just laugh you right out of the challenge!!! Limit to that 1 case? WTF is wrong with YOU????

SCORE: Travestyny 0 - ADP02 - 9


--------------------------------------------
So you wanted to limit to one case but used that to get Willy Wanker to judge on!!! You even called it irrelevant many times!!! LOL THANKS for admitting that over and over and over again. SWEET!

Remove from your score from last year!!! LOL
--------------------------------------------

MRPL - Another negative

Remove from your score from last year!!! LOL

-----------------------------------------------

Tony Montana - Do I even need to say it?

Remove from your score from last year!!! LOL

--------------------------------------------


See if we add up all of what you said, you were WRONG most of the time.


but like I said, keep your imaginary win if it makes you sleep better at night!


.

[travestyny]

You can keep your imaginary score!


SCORE: Travestyny 0 - ADP02 - 9
.

LMAOOOOOO. ADP IS NOW HIS OWN JUDGE!!!!!! THAT'S HOW MUCH I HURT THIS DUDES FEELINGS!!! THAT IS THE FUNNIEST SHlT I'VE WITNESSED IN THIS ENTIRE INTERACTION!!!!!

IF YOU GET 9 POINTS FOR BULLSHlT...THEN I GET 1000 POINTS FOR BEATING THE LIVING SHlT OUT OF YOU IN FRONT OF 4 JUDGES WHO AGREED THAT I BEAT THE LIVING SHlT OUT OF YOU Unanimously!!!!! 4-0!!!!!!

Now now, ADP. After you took all the time to write that long ass message...you saying I can keep my imaginary score. That was some imaginary score you got there. 9-0. But that begs the question.

If your imaginary score is so high....

WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT THE REMATCH???? WHY WOULD YOU JUST LET THAT SLIDE???? LMAOOOOOO.

YEA I CAN KEEP THE SCORE, YOU DUMB BlTCH. BECAUSE YOU KNOW I DECAPITATED YOU!!!!

Lmaoooo. So does that mean you decline the rematch? IF WHAT YOU HAVE IS SO STRONG, THEN WHY DON'T YOU ACCEPT. I'M WAITINGGGGGG, PVSSY. ONCE AGAIN, ADP KNOWS I'D BODY HIM IN ONE POST.


Dude. You really had your feelings hurt. Look at all that bullshlt you just went through, which is a bunch of butthurt bullshlt and nothing more.

You were not only more wrong than not....YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT YOUR ENTIRE STANCE!!!!

If you ever want that rematch, you are welcome to it. But we both know the fact that you declined and tried to disown your initial statement means even you know you lost.


Because you know you're not getting over this EVER. EVER!!!!

The threshold test result indicates that there is synthetic EPO if it exceeds the threshold. If less, the indication is that there is only human EPO.

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

I can't believe you wrote up all of that complete bullshlt...and then declined again. I really took your soul, dude. But the best part was when you disowned your initial statement. You aint coming back from that, zombie boy!

R.I.P.