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

[Dosumpthin]

It's OK .... you just have not been following, I guess.

The discussion that we were dueling on was NOT threshold substance.


Look bud, this type of discussion has been brought up in the past with other athletes.

If you go back to Lance Armstrong, his fans kept on defending him until Lance finally admitted it. So I do not expect you and Travestyny to be any different unfortunately.


Lance was tested on different days in 1999. Some of those days he was tested positive and some negative. His fans said that didn't make any sense. Well, it does make sense! Lance and other dopers try there best to hide their doping. Sometimes they do not succeed and get caught! That is why there is a discrepancy!


Sure you taught me about ABP .... even though I have known about that way before we discussed it for Floyd Mayweather!!!! Thanks for the laugh!


Question:
So do they have ABP testing as an approach to catch those who use synthetic EPO? and NO, I'm not discussing threshold substances! Threshold type tests!


The interview was is it possible? YES IT IS was his response but you prefer to discuss ******ity instead of have a normal discussion.

ABP and other tests can be beat. It has happened in the past. There have been cases where athletes have actually masked their drug even with the DCO standing right in front of them.

We just hear about these stories later. Often only once they get caught as an example.

ABP is not an "epo test". Pretty ****** of you to try and pass it off as one to fit your agenda. The "approach" that WADA has taken is to monitor biomarkers over time and accurately gauge the likelihood of cheating - without the need to directly detect the banned substance.


Hence the term indirect/direct.


The DIRECT tests currently used to detect rEPO in urine have been proven 100% accurate in scientific studies - which includes diluted samples and of subjects that took microdoses of rEPO.






And no, you can't use a whizzinator to beat ABP. The interview you quoted was referring to NSAC testing or maybe pre ABP.

By you omitting part of the interview you have taken the comments out of context.

But you know that already.

[ADP02]

Thank you. Wait no more.




The BAP criteria has absolutely nothing to do with our debate, but since you keep bringing it up and pretending that it's relevant, I'm down to discuss it. Unfortunately, you are going to be unhappy with what you learn.

You said over and over that in the court case, both sides (The appellant--USADA, and the respondent--Bergman(athlete)) kept referring to the BAP as a threshold. You are somewhat correct. What you failed to acknowledge is that the CAS stated that the athlete's contention was false, and that the BAP does not represent a threshold. Does that mean that the CAS was also saying that USADA was also incorrect about the BAP not being a threshold. Well clearly, both sides can't say the same exact thing, as you mention, yet one side be correct and the other be incorrect. So either the CAS is saying that USADA was also incorrect, or USADA didn't make that contention. Now pay attention.


Here is what USADA submitted, which does not confirm the BAP having a threshold.


Notice the red text. If any. So is there a threshold or not?

The athlete argued that there definitely is, as you stated.


So the athlete says that threshold (80%) must be present. Above, USADA said that the threshold, IF ANY, can be lower.

So what is the final decision. Is there a threshold for the BAP or not?????

The court says THERE IS NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. THE 80% LIMIT DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST. THUS, THERE IS NO THRESHOLD.


This is all confirmed because the entire case is about the athlete's BAP being 79.5% and 79.4%, yet they confirm that he is guilty. Thus, there was NO THRESHOLD.

You stated yourself that the WADA expert, as it said in the report, can make the criteria lower. How much lower??? What was the threshold if it could be lower? Well the answer is...THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD. THE 80% REQUIREMENT WAS NEVER REALLY A REQUIREMENT. IT DIDN'T EXIST, AS IT STATES CLEARLY ABOVE.

Which is why the case said this:



The entire court case destroys the BAP being referred to as a threshold!!! Of course, this was all irrelevant because the BAP does not even exist in the WADA TD2014EPO document, but you refuse to acknowledge that because you simply see the word threshold throw around and realize this is your only chance. But you're not ****** enough to challenge me over it again because you know your contention would be destroyed.

And finally, the proof that really seals your deal:



Above, you are saying that artificial EPO is revealed when it goes above the threshold.

When I was looking for the link to the court case, I see that you doubled down on that:



Here you clearly state there is artificial EPO when it exceeds a threshold, and natural EPO when it does not exceed the threshold.

That is in DIRECT CONFLICT with what the court said:

Face the facts, dude, and give up.

And yes, this is about WADA Accredited Labs (which is why I put that in blue above) and it specifically mentions WADA's new rules that came after the BAP, which you were harping on. The statement about no threshold specifically states the BAP and the OTHER CRITERIA, being the band location criteria, and WADA Criteria!

Court case: http://freepdfhosting.com/649b8f7117.pdf

It's over--Unless you want that rematch.

You are not responding to what the BAP test was. You are responding to what I already stated and then added your misinterpretation!!!!


I will repeat what I said in that post that you responded to but here it is:

1) The International Federations all had their own rules and in some cases DID NOT have a specific rule because the test for EPO was at it's infancy. Furthermore, the LABs would be testing. They are the ones that were testing the BAP by way of a threshold type test.


At the time, the BAP test had become the standard and acceptable test. This was agreed to by the cases that came just before this case!!!! So this in itself proves that they used this criteria!!!!


but

now just months later, the LAB who tested Bergman's sample had discovered by way of studies that there can be other criteria that can be used as well. Furthermore, Dr Catlin, wrote the upcoming WADA document so he was fully aware of other possible criteria that had been approved to be in use very soon!!!


So Catlin's LAB used these criteria to test Bergman. Notice what was one of them? BAP test!!!

1) BAP 80% threshold test - results negative but just by a bit

2) Band Location

3) TBR

4) 2005 WADA standard - Soon to be implemented anyways



So on the above account you are WRONG.
The BAP criteria is a threshold type test but due to new upcoming available tests, this test was no longer the only criteria could be used to state that the athlete was doping. If any of the other criteria were met and proved to be sound, then the panel could, would and did accept the results!!!




Go check what they said constitutes a positive (5.1.4)

5.1.4.1 (QUOTE from the case)
"the issue is the interpretation of the results..... Can the procedure results be interpreted as a positive based on a criterion of a BAP that is below 80%?

The issue is where the analytical results may be interpreted by other criteria such as TBR or the 2005 WADA ....

5.1.4.2 (in my own words from the case)
You misinterpreted this completely
You use this quote but if you read the full statement, they are clearly stating that EPO is NOT a threshold substance!!!! They are stating CLEARLY that the criteria used is to come to a conclusion of whether there is or there is no rEPO ..... not that there is a threshold over the amount of EPO that a human reproduces. They clearly stated, humans do not reproduce rEPO so do no think of it as a threshold substance!!!!


5.1.4.3 and .4 (in my own words from the case)
The athlete thinks that only the 80% BAP criteria can be used since until that point, that is what was used. So he expects the panel to agree that the results are negative of doping.


5.1.4.6 (in my own words from the case)
The athletes sample results are just below the 80% threshold (79.5 and 79.4)
So the panel had to decide
a) What is the risk of false positive
b) can other test criteria besides BAP be relied upon

"a", as I stated already all along, there was new information that the risk is much lower than previously thought and that the new upcoming standard (WADA document) says this too!!!


5.1.6 - additional criteria when the BAP is below 80%
"b"., this clearly discusses OTHER criteria that can be used besides the already accepted BAP 80% threshold test

"Criteria other than the BAP are equally scientifically reliable in the interpreting the images produced .to establish the presence of rEPO, when the BAP is above or below 80%.

The 2-Band-Ratio - Was discussed in recent cases but the LABs tested by way of 80 BAP test and the athlete was over 80% anyways.


The case actually brings up that prior to this case, other athletes who were tested using that criteria of 80% BAP threshold and were below that threshold were not charged with doping since that was the criteria used at the time and due to the risk of false positive. For the Bergman case, there was a transition occurring. The studies and the upcoming WADA document stated that they can use other criteria.

During a time of transition, even when there was still a WADA technical document in effect, the CAS accepted the new upcoming requirements and their tests to find the athlete guilty. So this is not something new. Nor can one say that the criteria from previous documents were not a criteria!!!


In summary,
the BAP 80% test is what?

It was a criteria based on a 80% threshold. The panel said with new findings, they agreed with the LAB (Dr Catlin) that new criteria can be used as supporting or collaborative due to the evidence on hand. The panel said that rEPO is not humanly reproduced so any amount is unacceptable. The tests are to find out if the athlete had a rEPO. Not to find out a threshold of rEPO that was found in the athlete!!!


So as I stated, you misinterpreted the whole thing. You used some statements correctly but as I said, the statements that you provided you misinterpreted to mean that a BAP test is not a threshold type test.

It was clearly a test criteria used. Even Dr Catlin's LAB tested with that criteria BUT they had also other criteria test in their arsenal now due to new findings.

It's just that the panel agreed that other tests can also be used!!!!

[THE FACT KING]

Are you a former Subscriber? jw

[travestyny]

You are not responding to what the BAP test was. You are responding to what I already stated and then added your misinterpretation!!!!


I will repeat what I said in that post that you responded to but here it is:

1) The International Federations all had their own rules and in some cases DID NOT have a specific rule because the test for EPO was at it's infancy. Furthermore, the LABs would be testing. They are the ones that were testing the BAP by way of a threshold type test.


At the time, the BAP test had become the standard and acceptable test. This was agreed to by the cases that came just before this case!!!! So this in itself proves that they used this criteria!!!!


but

now just months later, the LAB who tested Bergman's sample had discovered by way of studies that there can be other criteria that can be used as well. Furthermore, Dr Catlin, wrote the upcoming WADA document so he was fully aware of other possible criteria that had been approved to be in use very soon!!!


So Catlin's LAB used these criteria to test Bergman. Notice what was one of them? BAP test!!!

1) BAP 80% threshold test - results negative but just by a bit

2) Band Location

3) TBR

4) 2005 WADA standard - Soon to be implemented anyways



So on the above account you are WRONG.
The BAP criteria is a threshold type test but due to new upcoming available tests, this test was no longer the only criteria could be used to state that the athlete was doping. If any of the other criteria were met and proved to be sound, then the panel could, would and did accept the results!!!




Go check what they said constitutes a positive (5.1.4)




5.1.4.2 (in my own words from the case)
You misinterpreted this completely
You use this quote but if you read the full statement, they are clearly stating that EPO is NOT a threshold substance!!!! They are stating CLEARLY that the criteria used is to come to a conclusion of whether there is or there is no rEPO ..... not that there is a threshold over the amount of EPO that a human reproduces. They clearly stated, humans do not reproduce rEPO so do no think of it as a threshold substance!!!!


5.1.4.3 and .4 (in my own words from the case)
The athlete thinks that only the 80% BAP criteria can be used since until that point, that is what was used. So he expects the panel to agree that the results are negative of doping.


5.1.4.6 (in my own words from the case)
The athletes sample results are just below the 80% threshold (79.5 and 79.4)
So the panel had to decide
a) What is the risk of false positive
b) can other test criteria besides BAP be relied upon

"a", as I stated already all along, there was new information that the risk is much lower than previously thought and that the new upcoming standard (WADA document) says this too!!!


5.1.6 - additional criteria when the BAP is below 80%
"b"., this clearly discusses OTHER criteria that can be used besides the already accepted BAP 80% threshold test


The 2-Band-Ratio - Was discussed in recent cases but the LABs tested by way of 80 BAP test and the athlete was over 80% anyways.


The case actually brings up that prior to this case, other athletes who were tested using that criteria of 80% BAP threshold and were below that threshold were not charged with doping since that was the criteria used at the time and due to the risk of false positive. For the Bergman case, there was a transition occurring. The studies and the upcoming WADA document stated that they can use other criteria.

During a time of transition, even when there was still a WADA technical document in effect, the CAS accepted the new upcoming requirements and their tests to find the athlete guilty. So this is not something new. Nor can one say that the criteria from previous documents were not a criteria!!!


In summary,
the BAP 80% test is what?

It was a criteria based on a 80% threshold. The panel said with new findings, they agreed with the LAB (Dr Catlin) that new criteria can be used as supporting or collaborative due to the evidence on hand. The panel said that rEPO is not humanly reproduced so any amount is unacceptable. The tests are to find out if the athlete had a rEPO. Not to find out a threshold of rEPO that was found in the athlete!!!


So as I stated, you misinterpreted the whole thing. You used some statements correctly but as I said, the statements that you provided you misinterpreted to mean that a BAP test is not a threshold type test.

It was clearly a test criteria used. Even Dr Catlin's LAB tested with that criteria BUT they had also other criteria test in their arsenal now due to new findings.

It's just that the panel agreed that other tests can also be used!!!!

It's so easy for me to destroy this. Pay attention.

the BAP 80% test is what?

It was a criteria based on a 80% threshold.

The court rejected the "BAP 80%" test. There was a "BAP" test. That's it.

What the Respondent cannot do is point to a laboratory convention or Standard that the BAP must be above 80%. The Respondent cannot point to scientific or laboratory requirements that an 80% BAP criterion is required under the UCI Antidoping Regulations or that the accredited laboratories required such a criterion to interpret their results. The UCI Antidoping Regulations do not refer to the BAP criterion or an established limit of 80%. The rules provide that the presence of rEPO can be proven by any means. A numeric limit does not exist.

You said 80% is the threshold! If there is NO NUMERICAL LIMIT, as the court said, then WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD, ADP? YOU ARE WRONG. Since the court rejected 80%, give me the new threshold for the test, ADP. I'll wait for it, yea?

Stop writing me essays. You asked about the BAP in that case. It doesn't get any clearer than 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.

GIVE UP! If you want to clarify this further, agree to the rematch. But you won't do that because of this.

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

Which is in DIRECT CONFLICT with This:

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

As for this:

They clearly stated, humans do not reproduce rEPO so do no think of it as a threshold substance!!!!

I told you this at the beginning of our debate, in the middle of our debate, end of our debate, and I'll do it again here! WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ARGUE WOULD EQUATE TO THIS BEING CONSIDERED A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU STATED ABOUT EPO IN THE FIRST PLACE(THAT IT IS A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE), WHICH REVEALED YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT IT, AND THEN YOU TRIED TO DEFLECT TO THRESHOLD CRITERIA (I DARE YOU TO TRY TO DENY IT) AND YOU WERE WRONG.

LIKE YOU, THE ATHLETE NEVER MENTIONED THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE. NEVER. HE ONLY SAID, "YOU CAN'T GET RID OF THIS THRESHOLD."

WHY DO YOU THINK THE COURT DECIDED TO BRING UP THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES, ADP???????? In a case that was about "threshold criteria," do you think they just took the time to bring up something irrelevant for no damn reason??? THIS IS NOT EVEN THE ONLY CASE WHERE THRESHOLD WAS BROUGHT UP AND THEY CHOSE TO STATE SPECIFICALLY EPO IS NOT A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE!!!!! THE COURT HAD TO ADDRESS IT BECAUSE HIS STATEMENT THAT THERE IS A THRESHOLD WOULD LEAD TO EPO BEING A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE. THAT'S THE POINT THAT I TOLD YOU IN THE BEGINNING. I EVEN MENTIONED IT IN MY OPENING STATEMENT AND I TOLD YOU IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE DISCUSSION. LOOKS LIKE THE COURT AGREED WITH ME BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS MENTION IT WHEN AN ATHLETE BRINGS UP THRESHOLD. THEY MADE THIS CLEAR!

Certain prohibited substances are produced naturally in small quantity in the body. Therefore, the UCI Anti-doping Regulations provide a threshold that must be exceeded in order to consider a laboratory analytical result to be positive. Thresholds are in place for certain substances such as nandrolone...

YES.....THRESHOLDS ARE IN PLACE FOR CERTAIN SUBSTANCES. THRESHOLDS ARE NOT IN PLACE FOR EPO, WHICH THE COURT MAKES CLEAR BY EVEN SAYING THE BAP DOES NOT USE A THRESHOLD! GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!!!

What you are arguing is the same as the athlete. You're saying that even with the BAP, it shows EPO when it exceeds a limit. The court says there is no numerical limit. It says that clearly. In plain written English. So your deflection has now been handled.

It also says there is no threshold for the other criteria in plain written English and completely contradicts your statement that there is rEPO when it is above a threshold. Good job trying to DEFLECT to the BAP, which got shot down here by the court (hope you got what you asked for) and doesn't help you anyway because it isn't in the relevant document.

Give up!

[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]

Have another parallelogram, Viagra. LMAOOOO


And be a fookin man and stop taking pictures of my posts to pretend you are quoting me, for god's sake. It's the pvssiest move in the history of this site

[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]

Viagra want another parallelogram????

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=401045

[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!

[travestyny]

Have another parallelogram
https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=401045