Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

DEFLECTOR!!!!


KABADABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!

LMAOOOOOOOO..


NOW I'M A DEFLECTOR FOR SAYING CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.



I RUINED THIS DUDE. I THINK I MELTED HIS BRAIN!

[ADP02]

So Travestyny has accepted the challenge. GREAT!!!


The judges will be verifying based on the challenge on the topic/scope stated here, who is right:
"Can EPO have a threshold type test criteria associated to its testing process?"

Judges duties: They will decide whether it can or cannot: YES it can or NO it cannot.

YES it can - ADP02 wins
NO it cannot - Travestyny wins


The exclusions that we agreed to:
- ABP testing related to EPO testing.
- Other non-threshold susbtances.


Anything from the start of EPO testing which was circa 2000 up to today is part of the scope. That is, the scope is not based on today's testing of EPO. Evidence from any period can be used to come to their conclusion (YES or NO).


Travestyny used a case based on 2003 events to conclude that EPO testing did not and cannot ever have any threshold type test associated to it. Travestyny said that anyone that has ever said that there was were wrong. Travestyny based it on his interpretation of the CAS panel's statement. This will be included later.


ADP02 disagrees with Travestyny's interpretation since ADP02 believes that there have been threshold type tests related to EPO testing. Both sides will have the opportunity to explain their side.


.

[travestyny]

GET READY TO BE EMBARRASSED YET AGAIN


ALL POINTS AND PERMANENT BAN, RIGHT?

[ADP02]

So Travestyny has accepted the challenge. GREAT!!!


The judges will be verifying based on the challenge on the topic/scope stated here, who is right:
"Can EPO have a threshold type test criteria associated to its testing process?"

Judges duties: They will decide whether it can or cannot: YES it can or NO it cannot.

YES it can - ADP02 wins
NO it cannot - Travestyny wins


The exclusions that we agreed to:
- ABP testing related to EPO testing.
- Other non-threshold susbtances.


Anything from the start of EPO testing which was circa 2000 up to today is part of the scope. That is, the scope is not based on today's testing of EPO only. Evidence from any period can be used to come to their conclusion (YES or NO). That is, if an EPO test was deemed as a threshold type test criteria at any 1 time during any period (eg. year 2000) (eg 2 year 2018) means a YES, it CAN, else it is a NO, it cannot. So it is not based on anything theoretically possible in the future but whether there was evidence at one point in time.


Travestyny used a case based on 2003 events to conclude that EPO testing did not and cannot ever have any threshold type test associated to it. Travestyny said that anyone that has ever said that there was were wrong. Travestyny based it on his interpretation of the CAS panel's statement. This will be included later.


ADP02 disagrees with Travestyny's interpretation since ADP02 believes that there have been threshold type tests related to EPO testing. Both sides will have the opportunity to explain their side.


.

FIXED it for Travestyny. Anything else?


ACCEPT?


YES/NO


QUACK!!!!

[travestyny]

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! THE JUDGES WILL PERFORM THEIR DUTY AS JUDGES.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE WAGER OR NOT? ALL POINTS. PERMANENT BAN. LET'S GO.



DID YOU ADD THE WAGER YET? AS FOR WHAT YOU CLAIM I'M SAYING, MY QUOTATIONS THAT YOU KEEP POSTING WILL HANDLE THAT. SO DON'T WORRY.


GET READY TO SAY GOODBYYYYYYEEEEEE BlTCH!

[ADP02]

Here is what we agreed to nothing more.




I made it as CLEAR as possible.





Travestyny and ADP02 have accepted the following challenge:


The judges will be verifying based on the challenge on the topic/scope stated here, who is right:
"Can EPO have a threshold type test criteria associated to its testing process?"

Judges duties: They will decide whether it can or cannot: YES it can or NO it cannot.

YES it can - ADP02 wins
NO it cannot - Travestyny wins


The exclusions that we agreed to:
- ABP testing related to EPO testing.
- Other non-threshold susbtances.


Anything from the start of EPO testing which was circa 2000 up to today is part of the scope. That is, the scope is not based on today's testing of EPO only. Evidence from any period can be used to come to their conclusion (YES or NO). That is, if an EPO test was deemed as a threshold type test criteria at any 1 time during any period (eg. year 2000) (eg 2. year 2018) means a YES, it CAN, else it is a NO, it cannot. So it is not based on anything theoretically possible in the future but whether there was evidence at one point in time.


Travestyny used a case based on 2003 events to conclude that EPO testing did not and cannot ever have any threshold type test associated to it. Travestyny said that anyone that has ever said that there was were wrong. Travestyny based it on his interpretation of the CAS panel's statement. This will be included later.


ADP02 disagrees with Travestyny's interpretation since ADP02 believes that there have been threshold type tests related to EPO testing.


Both sides will have the opportunity to explain their side on why they believe that there was a threshold type test criteria (ADP02) or why there never was a threshold type test criteria (Travestyny) related to EPO testing.






.

[travestyny]

Seeing more posts from you can mean just 1 thing.
You are deflecting again.




Here is what we agreed to nothing more.




I made it as CLEAR as possible.





Travestyny and ADP02 have accepted the following challenge:


The judges will be verifying based on the challenge on the topic/scope stated here, who is right:
"Can EPO have a threshold type test criteria associated to its testing process?"

Judges duties: They will decide whether it can or cannot: YES it can or NO it cannot.

YES it can - ADP02 wins
NO it cannot - Travestyny wins


The exclusions that we agreed to:
- ABP testing related to EPO testing.
- Other non-threshold susbtances.


Anything from the start of EPO testing which was circa 2000 up to today is part of the scope. That is, the scope is not based on today's testing of EPO only. Evidence from any period can be used to come to their conclusion (YES or NO). That is, if an EPO test was deemed as a threshold type test criteria at any 1 time during any period (eg. year 2000) (eg 2. year 2018) means a YES, it CAN, else it is a NO, it cannot. So it is not based on anything theoretically possible in the future but whether there was evidence at one point in time.


Travestyny used a case based on 2003 events to conclude that EPO testing did not and cannot ever have any threshold type test associated to it. Travestyny said that anyone that has ever said that there was were wrong. Travestyny based it on his interpretation of the CAS panel's statement. This will be included later.


ADP02 disagrees with Travestyny's interpretation since ADP02 believes that there have been threshold type tests related to EPO testing.


Both sides will have the opportunity to explain their side on why they believe that there was a threshold type test criteria (ADP02) or why there never was a threshold type test criteria (Travestyny) related to EPO testing.






.

SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS YOU DECLINED THE PERMANENT BAN??????


BUT BUT BUT.....YOU SAID THAT I WOULD DECLINE BECAUSE IT WOULD PROVE THAT I LIED AND CHEATED.



NOW YOU ARE DECLINING BECAUSE IT WON'T PROVE THAT I LIED AND CHEATED???????


How you gonna sell that ticket son?

ACCEPT THE PERMANENT BAN BASED ON YOUR POST SAYING THAT THE DEBATE WILL PROVE I DUPED THE JUDGES, LIED AND CHEATED! WE END THIS BETWEEN YOU AND ME AND ONE OF US HAS TO GO!

[travestyny]

The TRUTH!!!


YOU WANTED OUT!!!


OUT? To DUCK the CHALLENGE!!!!


[/B]
WHY?



Because you know that you cannot win on a debate that you duped the judges with previously!!!!





BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS ALL A LIE & YOU CHEATED!!!!
Therefore, YOU DUCKED!!!!




DUCKER!!!!!!

ABOVE YOU ARE SAYING I WANT OUT BECAUSE YOUR CHALLENGE WILL PROVE THAT I LIED AND CHEATED.


I DON'T WANT OUT. I WANT A PERMANENT BAN PENALTY ADDED TO THIS CHALLENGE. ACCEPT AND LET'S GET IT ON!!!! YOU KEEP DUCKING DISCUSSING THE PENALTY!

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY FVVCKED!!!!

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. IF YOU PROVE I LIED AND CHEATED, I ACCEPT A PERMANENT BAN AND GIVE YOU ALL MY POINTS. IF YOU CAN'T PROVE I LIED AND CHEATED....LOL...I GET ALL OF YOUR POINTS AND YOU TAKE THE PERMANENT BAN. YOUR POINTS ARE TO BE GIVEN TO ONE OF THE JUDGES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DEBATE AS PER YOUR REQUEST, SO THAT YOU DON'T WELCH ON ME YET AGAIN.

AND DON'T YOU DARE TRY TO SAY THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHALLENGE IS NOT TO PROVE I LIED AND CHEATED!

After 2 months, I decided to a DUEL. This was to prove that he CHEATED and LIED the first time around.

GET READY TO SAY GOODBYE BlTCH. ARE YOU READY TO BRING IN JUDGES?????

[ADP02]

I told you NO DEFLECTIONs!

Judges will have enough on their hands and will not care about all that anyways!

We had a 2 month argument. Lets get that settled. You thought that experts were all wrong. That everyone including me, we are all wrong and you are right. That is your interpretation. Not mine.

[travestyny]

i told you no deflections!

Judges will have enough on their hands and will not care about all that anyways!

We had a 2 month argument. Lets get that settled. You thought that experts were all wrong. That everyone including me, we are all wrong and you are right. That is your interpretation. Not mine.

how is something that you said a deflection....unless you deflect. Lmaoooooo!

WE ARGUED FOR 2 MONTHS. OH, THAT'S RIGHT. HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THAT ARGUMENT FOR 2 MONTHS AND THE PURPOSE OF YOUR CHALLENGE!

After 2 months, I decided to a DUEL. This was to prove that he CHEATED and LIED the first time around.

DID I DOCTOR THIS QUOTATION? I DON'T THINK SO. DON'T BACK DOWN FROM YOUR STATEMENT, ADP. LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A SCOPE. THE PURPOSE IS TO PROVE THAT I CHEATED AND LIED IN THE FIRST DEBATE IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A WIN. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BACK DOWN FROM THAT NOW? Deflecting to your "can..." statement is going to be quite hard, being that the quotation that you placed in the opening post doesn't even have the word 'can' in it

The court's statement is clear, and I stick by my quotation. It is not a threshold test. That's what I said, right? It is not a threshold test because it does not declare a threshold above which it can be said that there is rEPO. On the other hand, you (and the athlete) were saying that it does declare a threshold above which it can be said that there is rEPO. Which, by your standards, means the athlete was INNOCENT


This is going to be easy!


The judges will be just fine, son. After all, I'm going to help them to decipher the real from your bullshlt. Best believe that.

Accept and agree to the permanent ban and all points challenge! I'M TIRED OF ASKING YOU. LET'S GO!