Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

You know what's funny? I offered you PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE CHALLENGES IN HERE OVER AND OVER AGAIN. YOU KEPT DECLINING. I want you to tell me...what was wrong with this topic:


Topic: In the case USADA vs. Bergman, the BAP test served as a threshold type test.


WHAT PROBLEM DID YOU HAVE WITH THIS THAT MADE YOU DECLINE???

Back to what is funny. This is EXACTLY LIKE MAYWEATHER VS. PACQUIAO. I offered you a very reasonable topic, you declined. Then I say, you know what...**** this and **** you....

and you're posturing like you were down with it? Get the ****k out of here. You fuvcking bailed on the points you owed me after the first debate. I could have came in here from jump stating give me the points. But I didn't. I just said, tighten it up and I'm game. Right? Over and over.

I even accepted after you accepted. I said ok, let's get the judges...and then you walked again.


GUESS WHAT. NO CUTT-OFF DATE NOW. ADMIT YOU FVVCKING LOST!!!!


1. Admit that you lost the first debate here, 4-0.

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

2. Make a public apology to the 4 judges that you claimed cheated in this debate. That would be Billeau2, Willy Wanker, Zaroku, and Tony Montana.

3. Give me the points that you owe me from losing this debate. 100,000,000,000 points

4. Apologize to me for saying I cheated and manipulated the 4 judges!

IF I DONT' GET THOSE POINTS YOU OWE ME AND I DON'T SEE THOSE APOLOGIES, IT'S OVER. GO CHOKE ON YOUR 4-0 LOSS, BlTCH!

[travestyny]

Nice try but we are currently at the initial stages and I want to be sure that we are both in agreement.

HOW LONG DID YOU EXPECT THIS INITIA STAGE TO LAST. LMAOOOOOOOO. YOU FVVCKED UP DUMMY. I OFFERED YOU A MULTITUDE OF ACCEPTED CHALLENGES AND YOU DECLINED THEM ALL.


ONLY LOSS ON RECORD IS YOU LOSING 4-0 AND SAYING EVERYONE CHEATED

Aint that right, ADP02. DID THAT HURT YOUR SOUL???? LMAOOOOOOOO.


KEEP TALKING SHlT SON. IT'S ALL YOU HAVE. I HAVE THIS:


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


DON'T MAKE ME MAKE ANOTHER THREAD WHERE I EMBARRASS YOU ABOUT SAYING EVERYONE CHEATED YOU, THE JUDGES WERE TOO STUPID, AND INCLUDE YOUR POST DISOWNING YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT

[travestyny]

All of the topics I've offered in here that you declined. I want you to tell me what is wrong with these statements?

You could have just said: Is the BAP test inherently a threshold test

TOPIC: THE CASE BERGMAN VS. USADA CONSISTED OF NO THRESHOLD CRITERIA.

TOPIC: THE BAP TEST IN THAT COURT CASE WAS A 80% THRESHOLD TEST.

Topic: In the case USADA vs. Bergman, the BAP test served as a threshold type test.

TOPIC: THE BAP TEST IS INHERENTLY A THRESHOLD TEST, and had a threshold of 80% in the Bergman case!

Just agree to the challenge.

So you're going to argue that in that case, the BAP is a threshold test, right? That's all I want to know.

Yes or no?

ALL OF THEM SPECIFIC. TO THE POINT. YOU DECLINED EVERY ONE. NOW, PLEASE TELL ME WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THESE TOPICS. I'LL WAIT.

SOMETHING ABOUT THESE STATEMENTS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE!!!!

[ADP02]

You know what's funny? I offered you PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE CHALLENGES IN HERE OVER AND OVER AGAIN. YOU KEPT DECLINING. I want you to tell me...what was wrong with this topic:


Topic: In the case USADA vs. Bergman, the BAP test served as a threshold type test.


WHAT PROBLEM DID YOU HAVE WITH THIS THAT MADE YOU DECLINE???

Back to what is funny. This is EXACTLY LIKE MAYWEATHER VS. PACQUIAO. I offered you a very reasonable topic, you declined. Then I say, you know what...**** this and **** you....

and you're posturing like you were down with it? Get the ****k out of here. You fuvcking bailed on the points you owed me after the first debate. I could have came in here from jump stating give me the points. But I didn't. I just said, tighten it up and I'm game. Right? Over and over.

I even accepted after you accepted. I said ok, let's get the judges...and then you walked again.


GUESS WHAT. NO CUTT-OFF DATE NOW. ADMIT YOU FVVCKING LOST!!!!


1. Admit that you lost the first debate here, 4-0.

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

2. Make a public apology to the 4 judges that you claimed cheated in this debate. That would be Billeau2, Willy Wanker, Zaroku, and Tony Montana.

3. Give me the points that you owe me from losing this debate. 100,000,000,000 points

4. Apologize to me for saying I cheated and manipulated the 4 judges!

IF I DONT' GET THOSE POINTS YOU OWE ME AND I DON'T SEE THOSE APOLOGIES, IT'S OVER. GO CHOKE ON YOUR 4-0 LOSS, BlTCH!

NO, you didn't try to work with me. You tried to make it so you can have it as confusing as possible.

I told you to be honest but you are not!!!

Read the below. Were you implying that this was about just this 1 case or for all cases?
It was NOT about just this case.


It just happens that the quotes are based on this case but several of your quotes that you provided were for all non-threshold substances


See the subject?


Work with you?

I said OK, not on every non-threshold substances, just EPO

Then you said, not blood sample testing just urine.

I said OK to that too!!!


So I can work with you and have. It is you that keeps on dumbing down so that the subject is no longer about can EPO have threshold type tests..
You know, just like the subject of this thread states!!!!


What you want is something entirely different and really not what we were arguing about.






You said this from the CASE, YES, BUT it was not a statement about the case was it?

I've answered this a million times. I told you that the WADA experts referred to the BAP as a threshold, but the CAS stated that it was in reality not a threshold. I can't say that any more clearly.

YOU WERE TRYING TO PROVE TO ME AND THE JUDGES:

CAS panel is stating that EPO cannot have threshold type tests



This was NOT supposed to take this long but it so happens that YOU are NO LONGER confident in your statements and as you said, you said them CLEARLY a "BILLION" times now.

Why are you no longer confident in your "BILLION" statements???????????????????




CHALLENGE IS ON

OR DUCK

[travestyny]

CAS panel is stating that EPO cannot have threshold type tests

I already told you to quote me where I used the word cannot. You didn't even respond. I used the word cannot after you kept saying that I used it over and over.....and I never ONCE at that time said cannot. When I finally did after you kept begging me to address the "cannot" that I never used, I specifically used in the context of the case. I already posted this. You aren't fooling me, son. I even told you in our dome battle that anything can have or can be a threshold if you make it one. I also told you that everything was in reference to WADA. That's when you went on this rant about the case not being about WADA...but I killed that noise with the post that specifically discussed the WADA criteria, and then you gave up on that too!

The fact of the matter is you completely made up this "cannot" thing and then tried to pin it down because you are butthurt about losing 4-0.

You also tried to pin me down to making the statement about threshold substances for all testing entity, which you know was specifically about WADA target testing. You claim you aren't trying to play gotcha games, but you definitely are. I'm just not falling for them and you're getting frustrated because you so desperately want to come back from your 4-0 loss.

You've been dishonest FROM THE BEGINNING.

1. You were just trying to say this wasn't about Maywewather.

2. You were trying to say it wasn't about WADA testing

3. You won't admit that you believed EPO was a threshold substance, though the evidenced proves that clearly.

And so on. I proved to you that I was trying to work with you here. Over and over. TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH ANY OF THE STATEMENTS I MENTIONED BELOW.

You could have just said: Is the BAP test inherently a threshold test

TOPIC: THE CASE BERGMAN VS. USADA CONSISTED OF NO THRESHOLD CRITERIA.

TOPIC: THE BAP TEST IN THAT COURT CASE WAS A 80% THRESHOLD TEST.

Topic: In the case USADA vs. Bergman, the BAP test served as a threshold type test.

TOPIC: THE BAP TEST IS INHERENTLY A THRESHOLD TEST, and had a threshold of 80% in the Bergman case!

Just agree to the challenge.

So you're going to argue that in that case, the BAP is a threshold test, right? That's all I want to know.

Yes or no?

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE ON YOUR 'GOTCHA GAME' BULLSHlT, BUT I'M NOT FALLING FOR IT. I'M NOT FALLING FOR YOU TRYING TO SQUIRM OUT OF ANYTHING ANYMORE. I'M NOT FALLING FOR YOUR LIES. I'M NOT LETTING YOU DEFLECT LIKE YOU DEFLECTED IN THE FIRST DEBATE (ADMIT IT!!!!!!!!). NOW YOU PAY THE DEBT AND APOLOGIZE TO THE JUDGES OR YOU GET NOTHING.

[ADP02]

I already told you to quote me where I used the word cannot. You didn't even respond. I used the word cannot after you kept saying that I used it over and over.....and I never ONCE at that time said cannot. When I finally did after you kept begging me to address the "cannot" that I never used, I specifically used in the context of the case. I already posted this. You aren't fooling me, son. I even told you in our dome battle that anything can have or can be a threshold if you make it one.

The fact of the matter is you completely made up this "cannot" thing and then tried to pin it down because you are butthurt about losing 4-0.

You also tried to pin me down to making the statement about threshold substances for all testing entity, which you know was specifically about WADA target testing. You claim you aren't trying to play gotcha games, but you definitely are. I'm just not falling for them and you're getting frustrated because you so desperately want to come back from your 4-0 loss.

You've been dishonest FROM THE BEGINNING.

1. You were just trying to say this wasn't about Maywewather.

2. You were trying to say it wasn't about WADA testing

3. You won't admit that you believed EPO was a threshold substance, though the evidenced proves that clearly.

And so on. I proved to you that I was trying to work with you here. Over and over. TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH ANY OF THE STATEMENTS I MENTIONED BELOW.


THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE ON YOUR 'GOTCHA GAME' BULLSHlT, BUT I'M NOT FALLING FOR IT. I'M NOT FALLING FOR YOU TRYING TO SQUIRM OUT OF ANYTHING ANYMORE. I'M NOT FALLING FOR YOUR LIES. I'M NOT LETTING YOU DEFLECT LIKE YOU DEFLECTED IN THE FIRST DEBATE (ADMIT IT!!!!!!!!). NOW YOU PAY THE DEBT AND APOLOGIZE TO THE JUDGES OR YOU GET NOTHING.

STOP THE DUCKING EXCUSES!!!!! I can see them a mile away!!!!


Here we go, lets work on this and see what we come up with.





In the case USADA vs. Bergman -
The BAP test for EPO was discussed due to some confusion on the part of the athlete .


CHALLENGE: ADP02 does not agree with Travestyny's interpretation on the court's statements as stated below:

Travestyny's interpretation:

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.

ADP02 believes that Travestyny has misinterpreted the panel's statements.
- There were threshold tests for EPO and people such as WADA EPO experts were not incorrect when they referred to EPO testing having a threshold test.



COURT panels statements in question (full version can be added later):

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

Non-threshold substances other than EPO are out of scope

EPO blood testing is out of scope

Only EPO testing by way of urine samples.


All and any documentation can be used.

[travestyny]

STOP THE DUCKING EXCUSES!!!!! I can see them a mile away!!!!


Here we go, lets work on this and see what we come up with.





In the case USADA vs. Bergman -
The BAP test for EPO was discussed due to some confusion on the part of the athlete .


CHALLENGE: ADP02 does not agree with Travestyny's interpretation on the court's statements as stated below:

Travestyny's interpretation:



ADP02 believes that Travestyny has misinterpreted the panel's statements.
- There were threshold tests for EPO and people such as WADA EPO experts were not incorrect when they referred to EPO testing having a threshold test.



COURT panels statements in question (full version can be added later):



Non-threshold substances other than EPO are out of scope

EPO blood testing is out of scope

Only EPO testing by way of urine samples.


All and any documentation can be used.

Sure. We can discuss this....


Once you admit that you lost the first debate, give me the points from the debate, issue your apology to the judges, and issue your apology to me.

Sounds fair to me. You can't expect me to accept a challenge with you when you have already proven that you won't abide by the decision of the judges, right? Plus you already owe me a debt that you have refused to pay.


After that, then we discuss how you said, "Both sides mentioned it as a threshold," and then you feel stupid when you realize that the panel said the athlete is wrong about it being a threshold...

and what do you think that means for the other side that mentioned the threshold

Also take note of how the panel NEVER ITSELF mentions a threshold.


But we'll come to all of that once you admit that you lost the first debate, give me my points, and issue the apologies. Deal?


And also before we begin, I want you to confirm that this is what you mean by a threshold:

The threshold test result indicates that there is synthetic EPO if it exceeds the threshold. If less, the indication is that there is only human EPO.

[ADP02]

Sure. We can discuss this....


Once you admit that you lost the first debate, give me the points from the debate, issue your apology to the judges, and issue your apology to me.

Sounds fair to me. You can't expect me to accept a challenge with you when you have already proven that you won't abide by the decision of the judges, right? Plus you already owe me a debt that you have refused to pay.


After that, then we discuss how you said, "Both sides mentioned it as a threshold," and then you feel stupid when you realize that the panel said the athlete is wrong about it being a threshold...

and what do you think that means for the other side that mentioned the threshold

Also take note of how the panel NEVER ITSELF mentions a threshold.


But we'll come to all of that once you admit that you lost the first debate, give me my points, and issue the apologies. Deal?


And also before we begin, I want you to confirm that this is what you mean by a threshold:

Here is the thing. I do not accept that imaginary "debate" and have already stated why and do not want to drag out why again.


but since this is related, I will say this:
As I told you and YOU admitted, you presented to the judges this case from 2004 to vote on and you stated it was irrelevant in our discussions. I have a "billion" posts of yours stating so!!!

Specifically one judge, he voted on basically this case and your interpretation. That in itself is a DQ for bringing up irrelevant topics and getting it wrong, to boot, and not clarifying that to the judges.... but as you know, there are other reasons ....

I always say this. Just pretend you are on the other side of this situation. Imagine if I brought up BAP testing and presented that and won? Would you be cool with that? Be honest, as I keep on telling you. You would have called for a DQ, right? Well, that (scenario) is exactly what you did!!!!

Secondly, this CHALLENGE will be a factor in the previous debate in that, you said that EPO cannot have threshold tests. You used the same statements from the case for that debate and your on-going theme in that debate was the same. You said there couldn't be a threshold test because they were just looking at the image. Ring a bell? As I keep on telling you, there is bigger fish to discuss than solely the case. The case will be used as reference to see where the statements came from but the bigger picture is your interpretation was wrong. That is, there can be and there were threshold tests for EPO and the WADA EPO experts were not wrong and so on.....

I get it, you have your views .....


While I will not give you any credit for the previous one because like I said, that Kangaroo Court was just that. A Kangaroo Court! You didn't like that for the Diaz case so why should I like that either?

What I will do is give you double the points if you win this time or whatever number you feel is right. Bonus is that I will not request any points from you if I win. So it is a win-win proposition for you! You lose nothing even if you lose or you get double or more.



As for your point on the meaning of that post, not sure why this is relevant at this point in time. That is, you are stating that the CAS panel stated that they corrected others who ever related an EPO test criteria as a threshold type test. You believe that interpretation. I do not. So if lets say my interpretation is not spot on, that still does not mean that there cannot be a threshold type test for EPO. But maybe I am not understanding you.

[travestyny]

Here is the thing. I do not accept that imaginary "debate" and have already stated why and do not want to drag out why again.

Dude, that's complete bullshlt and you know it. Then what is to say that you will accept the outcome of any other debate. Dude. You lost. The information was clear. You just can't accept it. It blatantly contradicts your statement.

but since this is related, I will say this:
As I told you and YOU admitted, you presented to the judges this case from 2004 to vote on and you stated it was irrelevant in our discussions. I have a "billion" posts of yours stating so!!!

You are outright lying or you are confused. You keep saying I said it is irrelevant. POST THE QUOTATIONS FROM ME THAT SAID THIS CASE IS IRRELEVANT. I SAID THE BAP, WHICH YOU ARE OBSESSED WITH, IS IRRELEVANT. THE CASE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU ARE WRONG, AND IT DISCUSSED WADA CRITERIA AND SAID IT ALSO HAS NO THRESHOLDS. IT SAID IT CLEARLY. WILLY WANKER SAID IT IS CLEAR. I SAY IT'S CLEAR. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DOESN'T THINK IT IS CLEAR. Again, post the quotations backing up me saying that this case is irrelevant.

Specifically one judge, he voted on basically this case and your interpretation. That in itself is a DQ for bringing up irrelevant topics and getting it wrong, to boot, and not clarifying that to the judges.... but as you know, there are other reasons ....

See, you are blatantly lying again. A DQ? IT IS RELEVANT. IT MADE THINGS CRYSTAL CLEAR AND YOU KNOW IT. IT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU SAID.

I always say this. Just pretend you are on the other side of this situation. Imagine if I brought up BAP testing and presented that and won? Would you be cool with that? Be honest, as I keep on telling you. You would have called for a DQ, right? Well, that (scenario) is exactly what you did!!!!

NOW YOU ARE COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES FOR REAL. THE BAP WAS NOT RELEVANT. WADA CRITERIA IS VERY RELEVANT.

Secondly, this CHALLENGE will be a factor in the previous debate in that, you said that EPO cannot have threshold tests.

I already told you about this cannot bullshlt but you won't stop. It DOES NOT have threshold tests. The WADA criteria are not thresholds.

You used the same statements from the case for that debate and your on-going theme in that debate was the same. You said there couldn't be a threshold test because they were just looking at the image. Ring a bell?

I don't know if you're using this "could not" thing to try to be sneaky or what. IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY THRESHOLD. JUST LIKE THE DAMN COURT CASE SAID IN PLAIN ENGLISH. YOU KNOW THAT THE ONLY THING IN THE HISTORY THAT WAS EVER REFERRED TO AS A THRESHOLD WAS THE BAP, AND THAT WAS NOT A RELEVANT. SO WHAT DOES THAT LEAVE YOU WITH. NOTHING. THE COURT SAID OUTRIGHT THAT THERE IS NO THRESHOLD ABOVE WHICH THERE IS NON-HUMAN EPO. THIS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS YOU. KEEP IT REAL!

As I keep on telling you, there is bigger fish to discuss than solely the case. The case will be used as reference to see where the statements came from but the bigger picture is your interpretation was wrong. That is, there can be and there were threshold tests for EPO and the WADA EPO experts were not wrong and so on.....

YOU'RE OBSESSED WITH THE DEBATE AND THIS IS A COVER FOR IT. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S YOU THAT IS CLEARLY WRONG. SECOND OF ALL, TALKING ABOUT THE BAP WON'T HELP...BECAUSE IT'S IRRELEVANT. The discussion you want to have now HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DEBATE. But in your head it does. Dude....THE BAP WAS NOT PART OF OUR DEBATE. THAT'S FIRST OF ALL. SECOND, THE COURT STATED SPECIFICALLY THAT YOUR POSITION WAS WRONG!! YOU WON'T ACCEPT IT.

I get it, you have your views .....


While I will not give you any credit for the previous one because like I said, that Kangaroo Court was just that. A Kangaroo Court! You didn't like that for the Diaz case so why should I like that either?

What I will do is give you double the points if you win this time or whatever number you feel is right. Bonus is that I will not request any points from you if I win. So it is a win-win proposition for you! You lose nothing even if you lose or you get double or more.



As for your point on the meaning of that post, not sure why this is relevant at this point in time. That is, you are stating that the CAS panel stated that they corrected others who ever related an EPO test criteria as a threshold type test. You believe that interpretation. I do not. So if lets say my interpretation is not spot on, that still does not mean that there cannot be a threshold type test for EPO. But maybe I am not understanding you.

Nope. Sorry. I don't respect your position at all. I backed down from the original reason we had that debate and let you change the topic (and you know you were full of shlt about that). I will NOT back down from my stance here about you honoring your bet.


If you want me to explain to you AGAIN why it is CLEAR that the panel is correcting everyone about this case, I have no problem. You already posted it I think anyway. I can explain it again if you want. But no, you don't get another debate until you admit you lost, apologize to the judges, and give me the points that you owe.

YOU CAN'T DEFEND AGAINS THIS!

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

That was your initial statement. Then you said it wasn't your own and that Billieau reworded it, so you blamed him. Yet, you then doubled down on it!!!!!! SO YOU CAN'T BLAME BILLEAU FOR THE STATEMENT BELOW!!!

The threshold test result indicates that there is synthetic EPO if it exceeds the threshold. If less, the indication is that there is only human EPO.

NOW LOOK AT THE COURT'S STATEMENT!

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

IT IS A DIRECT CONTRADICTION WHICH TOPPLES YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT!!!!!


You need to accept that you lost and move on. Your post above makes it clear that this is ALL about that debate, and that's the reason you don't want to admit that you lost and pay up. That's all I have to say about this. You say it was a kangaroo court after all the judges went through all of that absolute bullshlt. That's ridiculous. You accused me and everyone with cheating. Said you should spit in my face????? WTFFFF????? But you wouldn't accept the rematch, though you've shown here that you have no problem with finding judges at this website to discuss EPO testing. THAT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT YOU KNOW YOU RIGHTFULLY LOST AND DON'T THINK YOU CAN WIN. I'm done with this.

I like the fact that we could talk bluntly without all of the memes, colored big letters, and all of that. But this is fitting and I have to do it.

I have no respect for the way you are going about this. Like I said, if you need assistance understanding this, I can help you. Otherwise, you get nothing until you admit you rightfully lost, apologize to everyone you offended, and pay me the points that you owe. Thanks.


--edit--

And one more thing to keep it REALLY REAL.

Dude. You are lying through your teeth if you say this wasn't about Mayweather. Some have wondered why this whole thing got started? Why would two nerds out of nowhere be arguing about threshold substances for EPO testing. Well here is your answer:

In the case of Floyd, we aren't talking about threshold substances as far as I know.

You said thresholds are not a factor for Floyd but that is not an accurate statement.
EPO, testosterone (T/E) ratios are a few naturally produced substances in humans in which Floyd could have been trying to hide. We know of low T/E ratios, rumors of positive results and the IV scandal.

So if GC/MS or whatever measures EPO values below a threshold, as an example, due to a 6 hour delay and drinking fluids plus an IV that diluted the urine sample just enough.
Its NOT being biased. that is a big deal.
.

This was BLATANTLY about Mayweather and about your getting it wrong that EPO is a threshold substance. You always talk about being honest, but you can't admit that you believed it was a threshold substance. There's nothing wrong with that. We all get shlt wrong. But all you have to do is just admit it and move on. So you thought it was a threshold substance and you thought he was driving the numbers down just enough to pass the test. You were wrong! Whoopty fvvcking doo, dude. You can still hate on Mayweather all you like. Stop being such an ******* about everything and stop being the dude that can't admit when he's wrong. I've been wrong about shlt. I was definitely wrong about that Pacquiao flag flying shlt. So the fvcck what. Who cares.

The conversation then moved on, for you, to be NOT about Mayweather, but...ABOUT ME. That's why you are obsessed with having a debate about something that I LITERALLY GIVE LESS THAN 2 SHlTS ABOUT. THE BAP HASN'T BEEN USED SINCE WHAT...2010????? 8 FVVCKING YEARS AGO. WHO GIVES A FLYING FVVCK!!!! You are now just obsessed with ME. Maybe it's because of the debate and the fact that I also kicked another dude around in a debate. GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE. You lost the debate. It's not the end of the fvvcking world. I don't go around saying Pacquiao is a drug cheat, BECAUSE I DONT' FVVCKIGN KNOW, NOR DO I HAVE PROOF. I wouldn't be surprised if he has abused Toradol. Other than that, I don't know. His shoulder situation seems bogus as hell. He lost the fight. That's all. Stop crying. I assure you, knowing I have a place in your heart is not something I care about, nor is it wanted. I had your info. out of my sig. I don't hold grudges and I, to be frank, didn't give 2 shlts about you. MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE!

[ADP02]

Dude, that's complete bullshlt and you know it. Then what is to say that you will accept the outcome of any other debate. Dude. You lost. The information was clear. You just can't accept it. It blatantly contradicts your statement.



You are outright lying or you are confused. You keep saying I said it is irrelevant. POST THE QUOTATIONS FROM ME THAT SAID THIS CASE IS IRRELEVANT. I SAID THE BAP, WHICH YOU ARE OBSESSED WITH, IS IRRELEVANT. THE CASE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU ARE WRONG, AND IT DISCUSSED WADA CRITERIA AND SAID IT ALSO HAS NO THRESHOLDS. IT SAID IT CLEARLY. WILLY WANKER SAID IT IS CLEAR. I SAY IT'S CLEAR. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DOESN'T THINK IT IS CLEAR. Again, post the quotations backing up me saying that this case is irrelevant.



See, you are blatantly lying again. A DQ? IT IS RELEVANT. IT MADE THINGS CRYSTAL CLEAR AND YOU KNOW IT. IT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU SAID.




NOW YOU ARE COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES FOR REAL. THE BAP WAS NOT RELEVANT. WADA CRITERIA IS VERY RELEVANT.




I already told you about this cannot bullshlt but you won't stop. It DOES NOT have threshold tests. The WADA criteria are not thresholds.



I don't know if you're using this "could not" thing to try to be sneaky or what. IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY THRESHOLD. JUST LIKE THE DAMN COURT CASE SAID IN PLAIN ENGLISH. YOU KNOW THAT THE ONLY THING IN THE HISTORY THAT WAS EVER REFERRED TO AS A THRESHOLD WAS THE BAP, AND THAT WAS NOT A RELEVANT. SO WHAT DOES THAT LEAVE YOU WITH. NOTHING. THE COURT SAID OUTRIGHT THAT THERE IS NO THRESHOLD ABOVE WHICH THERE IS NON-HUMAN EPO. THIS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS YOU. KEEP IT REAL!



YOU'RE OBSESSED WITH THE DEBATE AND THIS IS A COVER FOR IT. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S YOU THAT IS CLEARLY WRONG. SECOND OF ALL, TALKING ABOUT THE BAP WON'T HELP...BECAUSE IT'S IRRELEVANT. The discussion you want to have now HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DEBATE. But in your head it does. Dude....THE BAP WAS NOT PART OF OUR DEBATE. THAT'S FIRST OF ALL. SECOND, THE COURT STATED SPECIFICALLY THAT YOUR POSITION WAS WRONG!! YOU WON'T ACCEPT IT.





Nope. Sorry. I don't respect your position at all. I backed down from the original reason we had that debate and let you change the topic (and you know you were full of shlt about that). I will NOT back down from my stance here about you honoring your bet.


If you want me to explain to you AGAIN why it is CLEAR that the panel is correcting everyone about this case, I have no problem. You already posted it I think anyway. I can explain it again if you want. But no, you don't get another debate until you admit you lost, apologize to the judges, and give me the points that you owe.

YOU CAN'T DEFEND AGAINS THIS!



That was your initial statement. Then you said it wasn't your own and that Billieau reworded it, so you blamed him. Yet, you then doubled down on it!!!!!! SO YOU CAN'T BLAME BILLEAU FOR THE STATEMENT BELOW!!!



NOW LOOK AT THE COURT'S STATEMENT!




IT IS A DIRECT CONTRADICTION WHICH TOPPLES YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT!!!!!


You need to accept that you lost and move on. Your post above makes it clear that this is ALL about that debate, and that's the reason you don't want to admit that you lost and pay up. That's all I have to say about this. You say it was a kangaroo court after all the judges went through all of that absolute bullshlt. That's ridiculous. You accused me and everyone with cheating. Said you should spit in my face????? WTFFFF????? But you wouldn't accept the rematch, though you've shown here that you have no problem with finding judges at this website to discuss EPO testing. THAT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT YOU KNOW YOU RIGHTFULLY LOST AND DON'T THINK YOU CAN WIN. I'm done with this.

I like the fact that we could talk bluntly without all of the memes, colored big letters, and all of that. But this is fitting and I have to do it.

I have no respect for the way you are going about this. Like I said, if you need assistance understanding this, I can help you. Otherwise, you get nothing until you admit you rightfully lost, apologize to everyone you offended, and pay me the points that you owe. Thanks.


--edit--

And one more thing to keep it REALLY REAL.

Dude. You are lying through your teeth if you say this wasn't about Mayweather. Some have wondered why this whole thing got started? Why would two nerds out of nowhere be arguing about threshold substances for EPO testing. Well here is your answer:







This was BLATANTLY about Mayweather and about your getting it wrong that EPO is a threshold substance. You always talk about being honest, but you can't admit that you believed it was a threshold substance. There's nothing wrong with that. We all get shlt wrong. But all you have to do is just admit it and move on. So you thought it was a threshold substance and you thought he was driving the numbers down just enough to pass the test. You were wrong! Whoopty fvvcking doo, dude. You can still hate on Mayweather all you like. Stop being such an ******* about everything and stop being the dude that can't admit when he's wrong. I've been wrong about shlt. I was definitely wrong about that Pacquiao flag flying shlt. So the fvcck what. Who cares.

The conversation then moved on, for you, to be NOT about Mayweather, but...ABOUT ME. That's why you are obsessed with having a debate about something that I LITERALLY GIVE LESS THAN 2 SHlTS ABOUT. THE BAP HASN'T BEEN USED SINCE WHAT...2010????? 8 FVVCKING YEARS AGO. WHO GIVES A FLYING FVVCK!!!! You are now just obsessed with ME. Maybe it's because of the debate and the fact that I also kicked another dude around in a debate. GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE. You lost the debate. It's not the end of the fvvcking world. I don't go around saying Pacquiao is a drug cheat, BECAUSE I DONT' FVVCKIGN KNOW, NOR DO I HAVE PROOF. I wouldn't be surprised if he has abused Toradol. Other than that, I don't know. His shoulder situation seems bogus as hell. He lost the fight. That's all. Stop crying. I assure you, knowing I have a place in your heart is not something I care about, nor is it wanted. I had your info. out of my sig. I don't hold grudges and I, to be frank, didn't give 2 shlts about you. MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE!

I was thinking about that actually. Maybe we can give the points to a 3rd person? Well just me because like I said, I do not want your points!


I said be honest.
You just admitted that you said the BAP is irrelevant. Those statements that you keep on repeating had to do with BAP testing not WADA requirements!!!! This case didn't even need those requirements to state that the athlete was positive!!! It was just additional confirmation.

So yes, it was irrelevant and call for a DQ in my books. You would have been pulling a fit if I did what you did …. be honest!



a) Read above. How can statements that the panel was explaining to the athlete about BAP testing and comparing to threshold substances relavent?
b) Did you just use the word "CLEAR"? You alternate between clear and vague on your statements!


The quotes, I really not sure what you are getting at but we can discuss this and I am pretty sure that I did already at some point.



Looks like you are having a bad day or night! Relax, …. take a deep breathe!