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

[ADP02]

THE COURT FOR ARBITRATION FOR SPORT SAID SPECIFICALLY THE CRITERIA DID NOT REPRESENT A THRESHOLD!!!! GIVE UP!




IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR SCOPE, THEY SAID THE CRITERIA DO NOT REPRESENT A THRESHOLD. GIVE UP!!!!!




WHY DO YOU KEEP DEFLECTING TO THE BAP WHICH YOU KNOW WAS:

1. NOT EVEN CONSIDERED IN OUR DEBATE
2. REVEALED TO BE NOT A THRESHOLD BY THE CAS






NO I DIDN'T MORON. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO KEEPS TALKING ABOUT THRESHOLDS WHEN THE CAS SAID THERE ARE NO THRESHOLDS. LMAOOOOOOOOOO. YOU CLAIM TO BE SMART BUT YOU STILL CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT!!!!! I TOLD YOU AT THE BEGINNING...GOOD LUCK PROVING THAT A NON-THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE RELIES ON THRESHOLD TESTS...YOU MORON!!!




I TOLD YOU THAT THE CAS REVEALED THAT IT WAS INDEED NOT A THRESHOLD TEST, NO MATTER WHAT THE WADA SCIENTISTS SAID ABOUT IT. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT YOU ARE DEFLECTING TO SOMETHING THAT WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED IN OUR DEBATE. DEFLECTOR!!!!!



MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT. JUST DOESN'T MAKES SENSE TO YOU. LMAOOOOOOOO.




WRONG!!!!! I JUST SHOWED YOU THAT AND YOU ARE TOO ****** TO UNDERSTAND THAT QUOTE!!!! SCROLL UP AND READ WHAT THE ABP DOES AGAIN!




IT NEVER SAYS THAT THEY USE THE ABP FOR EPO TESTING YOU MORON




WRONG. WHAT WAS THE FINAL DECISION, ADP???? LMAOOOO




LMAOOOOO. SO YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE CASE THAT SAYS THAT IT WAS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST?????


KABOOOOOOOOOM. GIVE UP ALREADY. IT'S OVER!!!!!


IS IT MY TURN TO ASK A QUESTION NOW, OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO KEEP CRYING AFTER GETTING DESTROYED?

WRONG! They were talking about threshold substance!!!! We BOTH agreed that it was out of scope but you like to hang onto that discussion now!!!

KABOOOOOM!!!!

You are confused.

This is not a discussion on Threshold substance where there is a single criteria based on the amount of the substance found.

This is not a threshold as you are thinking (ie not threshold substance).

This is a threshold test to determine if there is evidence of the presence of synthetic EPO. Also, for EPO testing there can be more than 1 criteria to evaluate the presence of EPO. In some cases they have 3 criteria and also can state that “additional evidence” can be used.

Unfortunately you are stuck on "threshold substance" but EPO is tested differently!!!


To add to your confusion, the 80% threshold test does not mean that at 75% there is no synthetic EPO. There may more than likely be but the chance of false positive increases as the number goes down. Dr Catlin concluded that even at 68% threshold it was fair game and the chance of false positive is still low enough.


Here in a case, Dr Catlin testifies and calls it a threshold!!!

The A confirmation conclusion indicated from all 3 criteria that Sbeih's sample was positive for EPO. The BAP was 86%. In fact the technology present at the UCLA Lab is so advanced that the Dr Catlin testified that the threshold could be even lower than the current 80% without risking a false-positive"

Dr Catlin tested using 3 criteria but they:
UCLA Lab (Dr Catlin) applied the 80% BAP to take advantage of the CAS precedence ....BAP of 86% in Sbeih's sample.


Decision:
The panel decides:
A doping violation occurred ....

So Gatlin testified that the current threshold test was 80%!!!! but can be lowered .... Total confusion by Travestyny!!!!!



So lets see.
Dr Catlin, Dr Segura and others are supposedly wrong as per Travestyny and Travestyny is right? .... or Travestyny is all mixed up???


KADABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!





2 & 3)
Why did I bring up this case about BAP?

May I remind you, it was you who brought it up back then to Willy Wanker and it was YOU who brought this up now!!!! KABOOOOOM!!!!



So now the WADA expert is wrong in calling it a threshold or is it that you are all mixed up!!!!

Furthermore, the WADA expert called it threshold years after that case that you brought up!!!




4) ABP testing results and other tests are mentioned in the EPO documentation. That is what our bet was about. You just agreed that ABP testing has threshold tests!!!

You instead DEFLECTED back then and just couldn't say it!!!!

Read below for more ......

KABOOOOOM!!!!





5)

IT NEVER SAYS THAT THEY USE THE ABP FOR EPO TESTING YOU MORON
travestyny

WRONG AGAIN!!!

Biological Passport approach to EPO detection is to count the number of immature red cells in te blood. This rises in a characterisitic way with EPO supplementation and the effect is detectable for several weeks. It is also possible to look at iron metabolism. HB contains iron and the body has well-developed transport and storage systems for iron so that enough is available to constantly produce the red cells we need. If EPO stimulates red cell production then the levels of the iron storage protein, ferritin, fall.

Haematological Module
The Haematological Module collects information on Markers of blood doping. This Module aims to identify the Use of Prohibited Substances and/or Prohibited Methods for the enhancement of oxygen transport or delivery, including the ***** Use of ESAs ***** and any form of blood transfusion or manipulation.

In addition to identifying the use of ESAs included under section S2 of the Prohibited List (Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances and Mimetics), the Haematological Module ..............

The following Markers are considered within the ABP Haematological Module:
HCT: Haematocrit
HGB: Haemoglobin
RBC: Red blood cell (erythrocyte) count
RET%: Reticulocytes percentage
RET#: Reticulocyte count
MCV: Mean corpuscular volume
MCH: Mean corpuscular haemoglobin
MCHC: Mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration
RDW-SD: Red cell distribution width (standard deviation)
IRF: Immature reticulocyte fraction
OFFS: OFF-hr Score
ABPS: Abnormal Blood Profile Score (ABPS)

Here is a case that concludes with strong evidence the use of EPO by way of Biological Passort tests

"See, e.g., IAAF v SEGAS & Kokkinariou, CAS 2012/A/2773, award dated 30 November 2012
(http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sit...ments/2773.pdf), para 114 ('association of high haemoglobin with low reticulocytes is a strong evidence of artificial inhibition of reticulocyte formation caused by the suspension of an ESA (or, less likely, by reinfusion of multiple blood bags). It is an indicator of the so-called OFF phase, which is seen when an ESA has been suspended one to three weeks before, such as is
observed in doped athletes before important competitions. When the ESA is stopped, hemoglobin remains high for at least two to three weeks, depending on the dosage, while reticulocytes are reduced because the high hemoglobin inhibits endogenous EPO production')."

KADABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!




.

[travestyny]

WRONG! They were talking about threshold substance!!!! We BOTH agreed that it was out of scope but you like to hang onto that discussion now!!!

KABOOOOOM!!!!

You are confused.

This is not a discussion on Threshold substance where there is a single criteria based on the amount of the substance found.

This is not a threshold as you are thinking (ie not threshold substance).

This is a threshold test to determine if there is evidence of the presence of synthetic EPO. Also, for EPO testing there can be more than 1 criteria to evaluate the presence of EPO. In some cases they have 3 criteria and also can state that “additional evidence” can be used.

Unfortunately you are stuck on "threshold substance" but EPO is tested differently!!!


To add to your confusion, the 80% threshold test does not mean that at 75% there is no synthetic EPO. There may more than likely be but the chance of false positive increases as the number goes down. Dr Catlin concluded that even at 68% threshold it was fair game and the chance of false positive is still low enough.


Here in a case, Dr Catlin testifies and calls it a threshold!!!




So Gatlin testified that the current threshold test was 80%!!!! but can be lowered .... Total confusion by Travestyny!!!!!



So lets see.
Dr Catlin, Dr Segura and others are supposedly wrong as per Travestyny and Travestyny is right? .... or Travestyny is all mixed up???


KADABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!

DID YOU REALLY GO BACK TO 2004 FOR THIS?????? LMAOOOOO. YOU AREN'T FOOLING ANYONE, SON. YOU KNOW I KNOW ALL ABOUT YOUR BULLSHlT.

2 & 3)
Why did I bring up this case about BAP?

May I remind you, it was you who brought it up back then to Willy Wanker and it was YOU who brought this up now!!!! KABOOOOOM!!!!



So now the WADA expert is wrong in calling it a threshold or is it that you are all mixed up!!!!

Furthermore, the WADA expert called it threshold years after that case that you brought up!!!




4) ABP testing results and other tests are mentioned in the EPO documentation. That is what our bet was about. You just agreed that ABP testing has threshold tests!!!

You instead DEFLECTED back then and just couldn't say it!!!!

Read below for more ......

KABOOOOOM!!!!





5)



WRONG AGAIN!!!








Here is a case that concludes with strong evidence the use of EPO by way of Biological Passort tests



KADABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!




.

GIVE UP ALREADY. IT'S OVER. THE COURT ALREADY PROVED YOU WERE WRONG!!!!!

DEFLECTION#1 DESTROYED:

What we agreed to is this:
Does EPO testing have threshold type criteria?

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

DEFLECTION #2 DESTROYED:

The fundamental principle of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) is to monitor selected biological variables over time that indirectly reveal the effects of doping rather than attempting to detect the doping substance or method itself.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/athlete-biological-passport

R.I.P.

[travestyny]

Here is a case that concludes with strong evidence the use of EPO by way of Biological Passort tests
.

YOU IDIOT. YOU JUST MURDERED YOURSELF. STRONG EVIDENCE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT PROVES EPO DOPING. IT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT THE ABP SAYS...THAT IT MEANS THEY MOST LIKELY DID SOMETHING.

IT EVEN SAYS IN YOUR OWN INFORMATION: or, less likely, by reinfusion of multiple blood bags) THAT SHOWS THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS DONE, BUT THEY KNOW SOMETHING WAS DONE YOU CLOWN!

LOOK AT WHAT THIS COURT CASE SAYS YOU MORON:

As submitted by IAAF, unlike direct detection methods, the ABP focuses on the effect of prohibited substances or methods on the body, rather than on their detection. For such purposes, the ABP was developed as an individual, electronic record for each athlete, in which the results of all doping tests over a period of time are collated. The ABP involves regular monitoring of biological markers on a longitudinal basis to facilitate the indirect detection of prohibited substances and methods.

The statistical result for the athlete does not in itself justify a conclusion that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred, but calls for an explanation by the athlete.

https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Sh...ments/4008.pdf

THEY EVEN SAY IN THAT CASE THAT THE RESULTS COULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO ANEMIA, BUT IT WAS RULED OUT. NOW TELL ME...AFTER THEY FIND ARTIFICIAL EPO IN SOMEONE'S SYSTEM, DO THEY THEN ASK IF IT COULD BE DUE TO ANEMIA?????? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


There is only one way to directly detect EPO...AND IT'S NOT DONE INDIRECTLY!!! LMAOOOOOO

DEFLECTION CITYYYYY. YOU GOT DESTROYED. KABOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!


YOUR OWN WORDING BODIES YOU. GIVE THE **** UP, LOSER!!!!!!!


I LOVE IT THAT YOU ARE CAUGHT OUT THERE...DEFLECTINGGGGGGG!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

WHEN YOU COME BACK AND EXPLAIN WHAT "RATHER THAN ON THEIR DETECTION" MEANS, I'LL STOP LAUGHING AT YOU. I PROMISE!!!!!!

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

[ADP02]

GIVE UP ALREAY. IT'S OVER. THE COURT ALREADY PROVED YOU WERE WRONG!!!!!

DEFLECTION#1 DESTROYED:

Court of Arbitration for Sport!

DEFLECTION #2 DESTROYED:

YOU IDIOT. YOU JUST MURDERED YOURSELF. STRONG EVIDENCE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT PROVES EPO DOPING. IT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT THE ABP SAYS...THAT IT MEANS THEY MOST LIKELY DID SOMETHING.

IT EVEN SAYS IN YOUR OWN INFORMATION: or, less likely, by reinfusion of multiple blood bags) THAT SHOWS THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS DONE, BUT THEY KNOW SOMETHING WAS DONE YOU CLOWN!

LOOK AT WHAT THIS COURT CASE SAYS YOU MORON:



THEY EVEN SAY IN THAT CASE THAT THE RESULTS COULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO ANEMIA, BUT IT WAS RULED OUT. NOW TELL ME...AFTER THEY FIND ARTIFICIAL EPO IN SOMEONE'S SYSTEM, DO THEY THEN ASK IF IT COULD BE DUE TO ANEMIA?????? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


There is only one way to directly detect EPO...AND IT'S NOT DONE INDIRECTLY!!! LMAOOOOOO

DEFLECTION CITYYYYY. YOU GOT DESTROYED. KABOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!


YOUR OWN WORDING BODIES YOU. GIVE THE **** UP, LOSER!!!!!!!


I LOVE IT THAT YOU ARE CAUGHT OUT THERE...DEFLECTINGGGGGGG!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

WHEN YOU COME BACK AND EXPLAIN WHAT "RATHER THAN ON THEIR DETECTION" MEANS, I'LL STOP LAUGHING AT YOU. I PROMISE!!!!!!

Lets repeat.

1)
YOU ARE MISINTERPRETATING the CAS.


Proof?

The Experts all called it a threshold type test criteria!!!!

Examples of who disagreed with Travestyny's MISINTERPRETATION?

Dr Catlin: EPO testing expert and the WADA lab director in Los Angeles (UCLA)

Dr Segura: EPO testing expert and the WADA lab director in Barcelona




2) Congratulations. You understand that ABP is not a direct method of revealing EPO it is an indirect way of indicating it is EPO!!!!

The CAS directly linked the ABP thresholds to EPO!!!!! (See what I did here?)!

In summary, ABP does NOT directly find EPO. By way of markers it verifies certain thresholds and determines that the user was taking EPO!!!!


NOTE: It's not always that easy (as I keep telling DoSumptin) but in the case that I presented to you, that is what happened!!!!

ABP data results can be used in various ways. As I stated is one way but when the ABP data results is not as obvious, it is used as a screening type test for EPO testing, as an example.


BUT

all we were looking from you is to finally admit that ABP testing is a threshold type test criteria!!!



THANK YOU!!!!


Can we now have a recount?

Actually there needs to be some changes ..... like ..... No Mayweather Mafia judges



.

[travestyny]

Lets repeat.

1)
YOU ARE MISINTERPRETATING the CAS.


Proof?

The Experts all called it a threshold type test criteria!!!!

Examples of who disagreed with Travestyny's MISINTERPRETATION?

Dr Catlin: EPO testing expert and the WADA lab director in Los Angeles (UCLA)

Dr Segura: EPO testing expert and the WADA lab director in Barcelona

YOU MEAN THE EXPERTS THAT YOU QUOTED IN 2004 ABOUT AN OLD METHOD THAT ISN'T EVEN USED ANYMORE AND HASN'T BEEN USED FOR YEARS, AND WHICH THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT SAID WAS NEVER A THRESHOLD CRITERIA AT ALL. LMAOOOOOOOOOO! I CAN'T WAIT TO DECAPITATE YOU AGAIN!!! YOU AREN'T FOOLING ANYONE, SON. 2004? REALLY?????

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

2) Congratulations. You understand that ABP is not a direct method of revealing EPO it is an indirect way of indicating it is EPO!!!!

The CAS directly linked the ABP thresholds to EPO!!!!! (See what I did here?)!

In summary, ABP does NOT directly find EPO. By way of markers it verifies certain thresholds and determines that the user was taking EPO!!!!


NOTE: It's not always that easy (as I keep telling DoSumptin) but in the case that I presented to you, that is what happened!!!!

ABP data results can be used in various ways. As I stated is one way but when the ABP data results is not as obvious, it is used as a screening type test for EPO testing, as an example.


BUT

all we were looking from you is to finally admit that ABP testing is a threshold type test criteria!!!



THANK YOU!!!!


Can we now have a recount?

Actually there needs to be some changes ..... like ..... No Mayweather Mafia judges



.

YOU CAN HAVE A REMATCH WHENEVER YOU LIKE. ITS YOU THAT IS MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT EVERONE SAYS IS CLEAR!!! This time, permaban bet!!!! You down???

What we agreed to is this:
Does EPO testing have threshold type criteria?

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 forgot the PLETHORA of information that even the BAP wasn't considered a threshold!!!!!! And the Court of Arbitration for Sport has the final word on this matter.

From court again!

The rule is in line with the “non-quantitative” nature of an anti-doping
rule violation linked to the detected presence of rEPO in an athlete’s sample. The relative amount (approximately 85%) of the basic band areas does not constitute the “threshold” past which an offense can be found: it only gives evidence of the presence in a sample of a prohibited substance, whose mere detection is considered an anti-doping rule violation

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU ARE DESPERATELY TRYING TO BRING UP THE BAP, JUST LIKE OU DID AFTER YOU LOST, BUT YOU KNOW IT'S NOT IN THE 2014EPO DOCUMENT I LOVE THAT I MADE YOU SO ****ING DESPERATE. BHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The fundamental principle of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) is to monitor selected biological variables over time that indirectly reveal the effects of doping rather than attempting to detect the doping substance or method itself.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/athlete-biological-passport

IF IT SAYS RATHER THAN DETECTING THE SUBSTANCE....HOW ARE YOU CLAIMING IT DETECTS THE SUBSTANCE. LMAOOOOO!!!! Holy DEFLECTIONNNNN!!!!

IT'S BEEN OVERRRRRR. 4-0!!!!!!

Want a rematch? Let me know!!!! No Mayweather Mafia? You mean like THREE OF THE FOUR JUDGES??? Hahahahahaha

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

[travestyny]

Can we now have a recount?
.

Come on, ADP. Should I send a message to the mod to get approval of the permaban bet? Put your account where your mouth is! I’m waitinggggg!!!!


OH, AND JUST FOR SHlTS AND GIGGLES.....LET ME EXPOSE THE WHOLE REASON THAT I KICKED YOUR ASS IN THE DEBATE WAS BECAUSE YOU DEFLECTED, YOU PIECE OF SHlT. YOU KNOW DAMN WELL WHY WE WENT TO THE DOME.

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

Once again...do you want to have this issue settled in the Thunderdome.

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?

Yes or no?

Sure, go ahead.

AND THEN ONCE WE GOT THERE, AFTER I PUT THE TOPIC JUST AS IT SAYS ABOVE IN THE VERY FIRST QUOTATION...YOU STALLED AND DUCKED AND HID FOR ABOUT 7 FVVCKING PAGES...AND THEN HAD THE NERVE TO SAY THIS!!!!

What are we actually arguing about?

YOU PIECE OF SHlT DEFLECTOR. THAT'S WHY I DECAPITATED YOUR DUMB ASS. YOU PIECE OF SHlT

YOU DEFLECTED FROM THE TOPIC AND STILL GOT MURDERED! JUST LIKE I SAID YOU WOULD!

THIS TIME WE CLEAR IT WITH THE MOD SO EVERY TIME SOMEONE RUNS INTO ONE OF YOUR POSTS, WE SEE IT SAYS "BANNED." ACTUALLY, LET'S DO SIG CHALLENGE TOO SO YOU GET PERMANENTLY BANNED WITH A SIG OF MY CHOICE, BlTCH. STEP UP!!!!!!! DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT DUCKING OUT, BlTCH!

Ohhhh and something else funny....

I already showed you that its possible that the SG can go back up before the concentration of the PED comes back up. In threshold substances, this is important!!!

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. Anyways, Floyd micro-doses then time is of essence if you want to catch the substance above the threshold. Then add to it that Floyd drank like a fish and had not 1 but 2 IVs .... other cheats wished they were allowed to do what Floyd was allowed on May 1st, 2015

THEN YOU WANTED TO DEFLECT AND PRETEND YOU NEVER WERE SAYING EPO WAS A THESHOLD SUBSTANCE. BAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

[Zaroku]

Lets repeat.

1)
YOU ARE MISINTERPRETATING the CAS.


Proof?

The Experts all called it a threshold type test criteria!!!!

Examples of who disagreed with Travestyny's MISINTERPRETATION?

Dr Catlin: EPO testing expert and the WADA lab director in Los Angeles (UCLA)

Dr Segura: EPO testing expert and the WADA lab director in Barcelona




2) Congratulations. You understand that ABP is not a direct method of revealing EPO it is an indirect way of indicating it is EPO!!!!

The CAS directly linked the ABP thresholds to EPO!!!!! (See what I did here?)!

In summary, ABP does NOT directly find EPO. By way of markers it verifies certain thresholds and determines that the user was taking EPO!!!!


NOTE: It's not always that easy (as I keep telling DoSumptin) but in the case that I presented to you, that is what happened!!!!

ABP data results can be used in various ways. As I stated is one way but when the ABP data results is not as obvious, it is used as a screening type test for EPO testing, as an example.


BUT

all we were looking from you is to finally admit that ABP testing is a threshold type test criteria!!!



THANK YOU!!!!


Can we now have a recount?

Actually there needs to be some changes ..... like ..... No Mayweather Mafia judges



.

Please just stop, please. I think I paid the bet you lost.. NYT. Did I pay enough?


Please homie, just let it go, please, at this point; 3 years, one moth and two days after the fight... move on... Pac has moved on..... you haven’t... my daughter Chloe went from 11 yers old to 14..years old...... let it go..... talk to the other judges... that you agreed to. Spoon32 was trying to tell you to leave me off from judging... pac lost, Floyd’s IV is suspect, I moved on... are you mentally challenged like I am.. let’s move on...

[travestyny]

This is not a discussion on 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

EXPLAIN, DEFLECTOR!

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

[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!

[abracada]

And this thread still goes on.......?