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

[travestyny]

ABP is the INDIRECT test for EPO. That was the last bet ..... So after 1.5 years since that thread and you avoiding to admit to that, you finally admitted it. You confirmed that.

but

it is 1.5 years later and you want to discuss just the direct method.

Here is the problem. You are saying that there is NO threshold tests associated to EPO testing. None. So how can we just skip ABP tests?

We really cannot. It is part of EPO testing. You say that only threshold substances have threshold type tests. As you can see, bet or no bet. You are wrong already. That is what I keep on telling you. You are mixed up.


But just for you, lets just discuss the direct method. I'm down with that too. No problem.

There is no other limit though since we are just discussing, can EPO and other non-threshold substances have threshold type tests? You are saying no. I am saying that it is possible.


The bet?
Winner says that he is the winner is fine with me .... but if you want points, OK .... but win or lose, I do not want your points. I didn't want it the first time either, if you remember.


.

Oh really????? It was about an indirect test, ADP? Didn't you pull that out of your ass after you were already down 2-0


What do we have here:

1) EPO testing has thresholds for substances that vary depending on the action of the drug, and whether it occurs naturally, among other reasons. EPO occurs naturally in the body, in addition to when it is taken by an athlete. Threshold testing data must show artificial EPO specifically.

DOES AN INDIRECT TEST SHOW ARTIFICIAL EPO SPECIFICALLY???

R.I.P.

[travestyny]

The bet?
Winner says that he is the winner is fine with me .... but if you want points, OK .... but win or lose, I do not want your points. I didn't want it the first time either, if you remember.


.

Rematch about EPO? I'm definitely down. Don't try to squirm out of that. You already made a thread, so suddenly no problem with judges huh?


You wanted the rematch, you got it. I'm in.

[ADP02]

Says the guy who deflected into a whole debate






When shown a list of threshold substances

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT, HUH ADP????
Did you believe that EPO was a threshold substance??? Yes or no?

We went over that already.

You showed me a screen shot not the document and I responded.

BUT

when we actually agreed on the bet, you were ALL over the place!!!


You went from:
- There are no thresholds, no ratios, .... none of that!
- It is not even about the bands intensity.
- There is none for the presumptive and confirmatory tests.

to

I, Travestyny, didn't agree to that .... it was about something else!

You went further ..... you said, there is nothing to see here because there might be for the presumptive but not the confirmatory ....

That was a direct conflict to your original statements!!!!
You actually said "no ratios".
You actually said "not even for the presumptive tests".


So this time, lets make it clear. No BS.



.

[travestyny]

We went over that already.

You showed me a screen shot not the document and I responded.

BUT

when we actually agreed on the bet, you were ALL over the place!!!


You went from:
- There are no thresholds, no ratios, .... none of that!
- It is not even about the bands intensity.
- There is none for the presumptive and confirmatory tests.

to

I, Travestyny, didn't agree to that .... it was about something else!

You went further ..... you said, there is nothing to see here because there might be for the presumptive but not the confirmatory ....

That was a direct conflict to your original statements!!!!
You actually said "no ratios".
You actually said "not even for the presumptive tests".


So this time, lets make it clear. No BS.



.

WAY TO DUCK THE QUESTION


DID YOU BELIEVE IT WAS A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE? Come on, now. Admit that you were confused!!!!

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

What does that mean?

[travestyny]

You went from:

That was a direct conflict to your original statements!!!!

.

SO HAPPY YOU SAID THAT. FOR THE REMATCH, LET'S POST OUR ORIGINAL STATEMENTS AND SEE WHO HAS TO TAKE A STEP BACK. DEAL?


Here is yours:

1) EPO testing has thresholds for substances that vary depending on the action of the drug, and whether it occurs naturally, among other reasons. EPO occurs naturally in the body, in addition to when it is taken by an athlete. Threshold testing data must show artificial EPO specifically.

2) The resulting data is validated against specific threshold criteria, when artificial EPO, in relation to naturally occurring EPO, exceeds threshold limits.

3) With current testing, you cannot find out the concentration amount of synthetic EPO for a given urine sample. Due to that, they are relying on different types of testing that tries to distinguish between natural and synthetic EPO. If they can clearly make that distinction then its a positive for the synthetic EPO substance. Although even this currently existing testing protocol can sometimes be controversial. There is a CUT OFF LINE (threshold) where a BAND must cross over. Sometimes, the BAND crossed over this CUT OFF LINE ever so slightly. This usually occurs when there is very little distinction between the naturally occurring EPO vs the synthetic. WADA calls this a "mixed band".
.

You still believe in this, right? This rematch is going to be a piece of cake! Rematch based on our original statements. Deal?

[ADP02]

Rematch about EPO? I'm definitely down. Don't try to squirm out of that. You already made a thread, so suddenly no problem with judges huh?


You wanted the rematch, you got it. I'm in.

Of course there can be a problem if they are not objective or they do not show much interest.

If you want to know, previously I even asked around for objective judges ..... not judges so I can win. It is not about winning if that is how you want to win it.

... but that is me.

[travestyny]

Of course there can be a problem if they are not objective or they do not show much interest.

If you want to know, previously I even asked around for objective judges ..... not judges so I can win. It is not about winning if that is how you want to win it.

... but that is me.

Oh please. Did you not approve of the other judges? You're full of shlt.

Again, rematch based on our original statements. You down or are you going to tuck tail? Don't try to go adding some obscure bullshlt to save face. You been begging for the rematch. Let's see if your statements stand up.

[ADP02]

SO HAPPY YOU SAID THAT. FOR THE REMATCH, LET'S POST OUR ORIGINAL STATEMENTS AND SEE WHO HAS TO TAKE A STEP BACK. DEAL?


Here is yours:




You still believe in this, right? This rematch is going to be a piece of cake! Rematch based on our original statements. Deal?

If I remember correctly those statements were reworded by Billeau2 ..... when I saw your statements being totally in conflict with our discussion that we agreed on, I said, the initial statements really do not mean much.

and not interested in "Got you games" or you trying to weasel your way out of the discussion that we agree to.

What we agreed on last time was simple.

Does EPO have threshold type tests. Simple. Easy ....
You agreed with ABP having thresholds so we are good there, anyways!

but

As per our recent argument:
now it is can EPO testing have threshold type tests!!!! You are saying no because of what a CAS panel said, according to your interpretation ........ you said that non-threshold substances cannot have those type of tests. I am saying that they can have threshold type test.



.

[travestyny]

If I remember correctly those statements were reworded by Billeau2 ..... when I saw your statements being totally in conflict with our discussion that we agreed on, I said, the initial statements really do not mean much.

and not interested in "Got you games" or you trying to weasel your way out of the discussion that we agree to.

What we agreed on last time was simple.

Does EPO have threshold type tests. Simple. Easy ....
You agreed with ABP having thresholds so we are good there, anyways!

but

As per our recent argument:
now it is can EPO testing have threshold type tests!!!! You are saying no because of what a CAS panel said, according to your interpretation ........ you said that non-threshold substances cannot have those type of tests. I am saying that they can have threshold type test.



.

WTF???? Did you not approve of the statements?????

Stop trying to squirm your way to a win. It's not going to work.

You agreed to the statements. Do you want a rematch based on them or not? End of story.

You can't have a problem with judges now, so what's the problem? You no longer believe in your statements?

If you decline, then you admit you lost. I'm waiting.

[ADP02]

If I remember correctly those statements were reworded by Billeau2 ..... when I saw your statements being totally in conflict with our discussion that we agreed on, I said, the initial statements really do not mean much.

and not interested in "Got you games" or you trying to weasel your way out of the discussion that we agree to.

What we agreed on last time was simple.

Does EPO have threshold type tests. Simple. Easy ....
You agreed with ABP having thresholds so we are good there, anyways!

but

As per our recent argument:
now it is can EPO testing have threshold type tests!!!! You are saying no because of what a CAS panel said, according to your interpretation ........ you said that non-threshold substances cannot have those type of tests. I am saying that they can have threshold type test.



.

WTF???? Did you not approve of the statements?????

Stop trying to squirm your way to a win. It's not going to work.

You agreed to the statements. Do you want a rematch based on them or not? End of story.

You can't have a problem with judges now, so what's the problem? You no longer believe in your statements?

If you decline, then you admit you lost. I'm waiting.

Our recent argument was on what?

That is what I am requesting the bet on. Are you no longer confident on your statements? You think that maybe you are WRONG??? Ooops!




.