Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[ADP02]

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.

Is this my wife? The only person that may want me to not spend as much time as I do here, is sometimes my wife!


What I will do because I do not even care what my name is nor my points, is I will accept to this:

- All points are to be given to a 3rd party. Then given to the winner.
- Loser's account cannot be used by winner/loser any longer.


As stated, the challenge remains as per the topic/scope that I presented here.


I will definitely be bringing up all evidence that there have been threshold type test criteria. You will defend as you wish. The judges will decide if my evidence proved that there was at some point in time a threshold type test criteria or not.

If they agree that at one point in time there is evidence of a threshold type test criteria, then that means the judge is saying YES. A point for me.


NO, means that whatever evidence that I presented was not considered a threshold type test criteria. Then that would be a point for you.

The CAS panel was comparing threshold substance vs EPO testing to the athlete and stating that EPO is tested differently since the objective of the criteria is to verify if there is presence of EPO substance. BUT what I am stating is that you are WRONG in that a given single test criteria related to EPO CAN be considered to be a threshold type test criteria. When I say this (threshold test criteria), it is not necessarily about that case and I'm sure that you know that already. That is why I said all evidence is in scope. 2000-2018. You and I will need to defend all evidence.


BUT as stated, at the end of the day, YES either there was evidence of a threshold type test criteria at some point in time or NO there never was.




No posting on any deflections that is not within the topic/scope.
This includes you trying to change the topic/scope (same with me). This includes you bringing up about who really LIED/cheated (same with me). Any such posting will be an automatic DQ.




REFs:
We will get 2 refs. You decide on 1 and I will pick 1. The refs can DQ either 1 of us BUT I do not want to win by DQ. For me it is about the challenge. So the rule will be that if you get DQd, I have the final say on if you are DQ'd. You too. You decide if I get DQ'd.

The ref needs to use sound judgement based on the topic/scope. Either one of us goes off on a tangent and they can get DQ'd. I do not want any kangaroo court here. I will ask whoever I chose to just make sure that this stays on topic!



JUDGES:
As stated, the only acceptable way for a judge to vote for you or me is by way of their duties. They will also need to make a statement as how they came to their conclusions. If they are unsure or do not understand based on the evidence, the judge should NOT vote. Neither one of us should be getting votes if the judge is lost or does not actually analyze our evidence.


Let me know if you accept my previous post in its entirety. I do not want to hear nor do I care what you thought afterwards. As I said, this is NOT a "Got you game" by me. Maybe you are going to try to do that but like I said, you try, you will likely be DQ'd this time!








.

[travestyny]

Is this my wife? The only person that may want me to not spend as much time as I do here, is sometimes my wife!


What I will do because I do not even care what my name is nor my points, is I will accept to this:

- All points are to be given to a 3rd party. Then given to the winner.
- Loser's account cannot be used by winner/loser any longer.


As stated, the challenge remains as per the topic/scope that I presented here.


I will definitely be bringing up all evidence that there have been threshold type test criteria. You will defend as you wish. The judges will decide if my evidence proved that there was at some point in time a threshold type test criteria or not.

If they agree that at one point in time there is evidence of a threshold type test criteria, then that means the judge is saying YES. A point for me.


NO, means that whatever evidence that I presented was not considered a threshold type test criteria. Then that would be a point for you.

The CAS panel was comparing threshold substance vs EPO testing to the athlete and stating that EPO is tested differently since the objective of the criteria is to verify if there is presence of EPO substance. BUT what I am stating is that you are WRONG in that a given single test criteria related to EPO CAN be considered to be a threshold type test criteria. When I say this (threshold test criteria), it is not necessarily about that case and I'm sure that you know that already. That is why I said all evidence is in scope. 2000-2018. You and I will need to defend all evidence.


BUT as stated, at the end of the day, YES either there was evidence of a threshold type test criteria at some point in time or NO there never was.




No posting on any deflections that is not within the topic/scope.
This includes you trying to change the topic/scope (same with me). This includes you bringing up about who really LIED/cheated (same with me). Any such posting will be an automatic DQ.




REFs:
We will get 2 refs. You decide on 1 and I will pick 1. The refs can DQ either 1 of us BUT I do not want to win by DQ. For me it is about the challenge. So the rule will be that if you get DQd, I have the final say on if you are DQ'd. You too. You decide if I get DQ'd.

The ref needs to use sound judgement based on the topic/scope. Either one of us goes off on a tangent and they can get DQ'd. I do not want any kangaroo court here. I will ask whoever I chose to just make sure that this stays on topic!



JUDGES:
As stated, the only acceptable way for a judge to vote for you or me is by way of their duties. They will also need to make a statement as how they came to their conclusions. If they are unsure or do not understand based on the evidence, the judge should NOT vote. Neither one of us should be getting votes if the judge is lost or does not actually analyze our evidence.


Let me know if you accept my previous post in its entirety. I do not want to hear nor do I care what you thought afterwards. As I said, this is NOT a "Got you game" by me. Maybe you are going to try to do that but like I said, you try, you will likely be DQ'd this time!








.

What? I aint reading all of that.


DO YOU ACCEPT THE PERMANENT BAN. YES OR NO?


YOU ARE TRYING TOO DAMN HARD TO CONTROL EVERY ASPECT OF THIS. SHOWS HOW MUCH OF A BlTCH YOU ARE.

[travestyny]

YOU'RE SCARED AS FVVCK! LOOK AT ALL THAT BULLSHlT YOU'RE WRITING WHEN IT'S THIS SIMPLE!

I accept your challenge claiming that my quotation is false and proves that i lied and cheated in the former debate.

Challenge is accepted for all points and permanent ban!

[travestyny]

No posting... about who really LIED/cheated
.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA. YOU'RE A FVVVCKING CLOWN, DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!

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

I provided hard proof that Travestyny either misinterpreted what he said or he CHEATED and LIED

He knows that he LIED and CHEATED.[/SIZE]

He CHEATED and LIED

you know that you LIED and CHEATED.

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

He used those statements to cheat and lie in the past. He doubled down on them, AGAIN!

YOU CHEATED and LIED!!!!

This PROVED that you CHEATED and LIED 1.5 years ago and continued that for the last 2 months!!!!

You are a liar and cheat!!!!

you LIED and CHEATED.

YOU SIR, are a LIAR and CHEAT!!!!

AND YOU'RE TRYING TO DUCK THE PERMANENT BAN!!!!!!!!

What I will do because I do not even care what my name is nor my points, is I will accept to this:

- Loser's account cannot be used by winner/loser any longer.

WHAT THE FVVCK WOULD BE THE POINT OF A PERMANENT BAN IF YOU CAN JUST USE A DIFFERENT NAME ACCOUNT YOU IMBECILE.

YOU ARE OFFICIALLY THE BIGGEST PVSSY IN THE WORLD!

[travestyny]

This dude had to log out after posting that bullshlt.


Refused the permanent ban.


Claimed that the reason for the challenge is to prove that I lied and cheated, then stated no one is allowed to talk about who lied and cheated

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

No posting about who really LIED/cheated
.

Dude is an utter embarrassment. Oh well! It's clear the bltch realized he was going to be exposed!


You'll always be my bltch, ADP.

THAT WAS THE MOST EPIC BlTCH MOVE EVER. I'LL NEVER LET YOU FORGET THIS ONE...OR THAT 4-0 ASSWHOOPIN

4-0!!!!!!

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=740888

[ADP02]

originated by ADP02

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.

originated by ADP02
Is this my wife? The only person that may want me to not spend as much time as I do here, is sometimes my wife!


What I will do because I do not even care what my name is nor my points, is I will accept to this:

- All points are to be given to a 3rd party. Then given to the winner.
- Loser's account cannot be used by winner/loser any longer.


As stated, the challenge remains as per the topic/scope that I presented here.


I will definitely be bringing up all evidence that there have been threshold type test criteria. You will defend as you wish. The judges will decide if my evidence proved that there was at some point in time a threshold type test criteria or not.

If they agree that at one point in time there is evidence of a threshold type test criteria, then that means the judge is saying YES. A point for me.


NO, means that whatever evidence that I presented was not considered a threshold type test criteria. Then that would be a point for you.

The CAS panel was comparing threshold substance vs EPO testing to the athlete and stating that EPO is tested differently since the objective of the criteria is to verify if there is presence of EPO substance. BUT what I am stating is that you are WRONG in that a given single test criteria related to EPO CAN be considered to be a threshold type test criteria. When I say this (threshold test criteria), it is not necessarily about that case and I'm sure that you know that already. That is why I said all evidence is in scope. 2000-2018. You and I will need to defend all evidence.


BUT as stated, at the end of the day, YES either there was evidence of a threshold type test criteria at some point in time or NO there never was.




No posting on any deflections that is not within the topic/scope.
This includes you trying to change the topic/scope (same with me). This includes you bringing up about who really LIED/cheated (same with me). Any such posting will be an automatic DQ.




REFs:
We will get 2 refs. You decide on 1 and I will pick 1. The refs can DQ either 1 of us BUT I do not want to win by DQ. For me it is about the challenge. So the rule will be that if you get DQd, I have the final say on if you are DQ'd. You too. You decide if I get DQ'd.

The ref needs to use sound judgement based on the topic/scope. Either one of us goes off on a tangent and they can get DQ'd. I do not want any kangaroo court here. I will ask whoever I chose to just make sure that this stays on topic!



JUDGES:
As stated, the only acceptable way for a judge to vote for you or me is by way of their duties. They will also need to make a statement as how they came to their conclusions. If they are unsure or do not understand based on the evidence, the judge should NOT vote. Neither one of us should be getting votes if the judge is lost or does not actually analyze our evidence.


Let me know if you accept my previous post in its entirety. I do not want to hear nor do I care what you thought afterwards. As I said, this is NOT a "Got you game" by me. Maybe you are going to try to do that but like I said, you try, you will likely be DQ'd this time!

STOP with the DUMB DEFLECTIONs.
As per agreement, you win I will be out (account closed) and you can say what the freak you want about ADP02 …. That account will be OUT! I win, well, it will not matter to you! There will no longer be a Travestyny DEFLECTING, DUCKING, CHEATING and LYING. Just a DoNothing!




You wanted this CLEAR. Well, I made this super CLEAR.

I presented to you a challenge with a topic/scope. I have given you the 2 exclusions that you previously wanted.



Now it is very simple. Either ACCEPT what I presented to you or DUCK!!!!


What I have presented has been consistent since my original post. Very little has changed just that I tried to make it a clearer,
- so that you and I understand from the get go.
- The judges understand from the get go
- The ref understands from the get go.


You keep on stating that you accept but every time I verified, you really did NOT accept. I explained this enough times that you should no longer be deflecting to something else but you did again in your previous posts!!! That is what YOU did in the previous debate.


Well, it was explained multiple times. You accept, you are accepting what I stated above.




So AGAIN, are you accepting my challenge as I presented in its entirety?



.

[travestyny]

STOP with the DUMB DEFLECTIONs.
As per agreement, you win I will be out (account closed) and you can say what the freak you want about ADP02 …. That account will be OUT! I win, well, it will not matter to you! There will no longer be a Travestyny DEFLECTING, DUCKING, CHEATING and LYING. Just a DoNothing!




You wanted this CLEAR. Well, I made this super CLEAR.

I presented to you a challenge with a topic/scope. I have given you the 2 exclusions that you previously wanted.



Now it is very simple. Either ACCEPT what I presented to you or DUCK!!!!


What I have presented has been consistent since my original post. Very little has changed just that I tried to make it a clearer,
- so that you and I understand from the get go.
- The judges understand from the get go
- The ref understands from the get go.


You keep on stating that you accept but every time I verified, you really did NOT accept. I explained this enough times that you should no longer be deflecting to something else but you did again in your previous posts!!! That is what YOU did in the previous debate.


Well, it was explained multiple times. You accept, you are accepting what I stated above.




So AGAIN, are you accepting my challenge as I presented in its entirety?



.

Come to the debate thread. One last post is going to settle this once and for all.

[travestyny]

Here is the deal and my final offer on this.

First of all, let me get this out of the way to show that you're being dishonest:

Travestyny

Question A, B, and C:
THE COURT FOR ARBITRATION OF SPORT HAS CORRECTED ANYONE THAT HAS EVER CALLED THIS A THRESHOLD TEST A NUMBER OF TIMES....BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST!!!!!

THE ONLY THING THAT WAS EVER REFERRED TO AS A THRESHOLD WAS THE OLD WAY OF TESTING: THE BAP. AND THE COURT EVEN SAID THAT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST.

I DO NOT SEE THE WORD 'CAN' THERE. I STAND BY MY STATEMENT COMPLETELY. THE CAS HAS CORRECTED ANYONE WHO HAS EVER SAID THE BAP IS A THRESHOLD TEST, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST.

EXACTLY AS IT SAYS IN MY QUOTATION. BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO USE EXACTLY WHAT IS IN MY QUOTATION. YOU WANT TO INSERT YOUR OWN SPIN!

WE BOTH KNOW WHY YOU ARE TRYING TO HOLD ONTO SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T APPEAR THERE AT ALL AND ONLY DENOTES POSSIBILITY INSTEAD OF TAKING EXACTLY WHAT MY QUOTATION SAYS. HMMMMMMMMMM.

SECONDLY, YOUR BIASED, SKEWED CHALLENGE DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THE BAP TEST AT ALL, WHICH IS WHAT MY QUOTATION IS ENTIRELY ABOUT. WHY IS THAT????

What you are trying to do is completely ridiculous AND DISHONEST. You are trying to set all the parameters. What can be discussed and what can't be discussed. You are trying to interpret my quotations the way you want and framing that into the scope before the judges can even decide if you are even interpreting them correctly. You want each of us to choose one judge unilaterally so that it inevitably either ends in a draw or such that your judge can claim that I should be disqualified and you can agree to it. You want this to have ramifications on the last debate, yet you don't want anything from the past debate to be brought up, including the scope of the last debate, which obviously would have to be brought up if you are to prove that I lied and cheated to get a win. It makes no sense.

In our debate, there was NONE of this. Everything was done EQUALLY. Bilaterally with both of us taking part, mediated by UNBIASED judges.

You are not an unbiased party in this. It's impossible for you to set everything yourself and expect that I have to abide by everything that you say. Funny how you want that while you were the one who LOST 4-0! What do you think gives you a right to set everything yourself. Really?

Here is my final proposal.

We get ONE UNBIASED MEDIATOR to settle this all for us. That person will set the scope and settle all of the issues. That person will not act as a judge, unless we BOTH agree.

We each provide ONE POST to the mediator stating what the topic/scope should be. We both agree that what the mediator states, we will agree to. At that point, we decide if we want to go ahead with the debate or not.

The penalty will be all points and a permanent ban. A permanent ban is appropriate since this has gone on for long enough, though you seem to be not very confident when I bring this up. We can decide more about this later. I'm willing to hear your point on why this should not be a permanent ban bet. This will NOT be part of what the mediator decides. I think we can decide this on our own after the mediator settles the scope of this challenge. If we both can't come to a decision on the penalty, we can again both walk away.


THIS IS BY FAR MORE FAIR THAN THE BULLSHlT YOU ARE TRYING TO PASS OFF AS FAIR. BOTH OF US PARTICIPATING EQUALLY AND AN UNBIASED PERSON THAT WE BOTH AGREE TO WHO WILL SET WHAT IS FAIR AND JUST. IF YOU DECLINE THIS, IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF THIS BEING FAIR, BUT ARE INSTEAD TRYING TO SKEW THIS IN YOUR FAVOR.

The person who I think will be great for this is Billeau. Again, he would NOT be a judge (I don't think he would want to be anyway, but we can eliminate him because he participated in the last debate). His only job will be to serve as an unbiased party to settle the scope of the challenge. We present to him ONE post each and that's it. After that, he makes his ruling, and we settle it.

Billeau and I got into MAJOR beef not long ago where we were calling each other all types of names, and I can find evidence of that. We have both settled the issue since then. Therefore, you should not be worried about him being biased in this situation. He has far more reason to hate me than he does to hate you, and yet I still trust him to reconcile this.

If he declines, or if you don't want to use him in this capacity, then we BOTH agree to another person to settle the scope.

Afterwards, if we decide to go on, we BOTH agree to the two or more judges who will participate. NOT you pick one and I pick one. That is ridiculous. BOTH of us TOGETHER choose the two judges to make it completely unbiased.


THIS IS A COMPLETELY UNBIASED AND FAIR WAY TO SETTLE THIS. ANYONE WHO COMPARES MY PROPOSAL TO YOURS WILL KNOW CLEARLY THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS THE MORE FAIR OF THE TWO.

And now it's up to you. If you accept, then great. I'm ready to get this on and over with. If you decline, so be it. You can go around claiming I ducked your BIASED proposal while I'll go around stating that you ducked my UNBIASED proposal, and also continue clowning you for getting your ass beat 4-0 and then trying your bullshlt in here where you try to reverse the decision by not allowing any information from the debate into the process, which is utterly ******ed.

THAT'S IT. WHAT IS YOUR DECISION? ACCEPT OR DECLINE?

[travestyny]

WAITING FOR ADP02 TO DUCK HAVING AN UNBIASED THIRD PARTY TO MEDIATE THIS. LET'S BE REAL. WE BOTH KNOW IT'S COMING.

[travestyny]

COME ON, ADP. YOU HAVE NO REASON TO DUCK HAVING AN UNBIASED MEDIATOR SETTLE THIS AND BILATERAL DECISIONS BEING MADE....UNLESS OF COURSE....YOU'RE A DUCKK!

LET'S SEE IF YOU'RE CONFIDENT ENOUGH WHEN AN UNBIASED POSTER THAT WE BOTH AGREE TO IS CALLING THE SHOTS INSTEAD OF YOU!

QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK