Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[ADP02]

so you agree to let the judges decide which one of us is trying to cheat? Yes or no? I'm waiting, adp02. Let's have the judges look over the evidence and decide who is trying to cheat and who isn't.


Do you agree. Yes or no?

So the question is simple.

Judges, please find where we agreed to the terms of this debate. Also where we specifically BOTH agreed to exclude something from the scope.

Then I will bring up the statement that we did agree to:
"Can or does ……"

You responding with
"I'm fine with that"



BTW - Our statements do not reflect what we agreed to. Go check out what travestyny said! It is basically 99% on what we excluded from the scope!!! WTF

The only thing relevant is that Travestyny said "WADA DOCUMENTS" are in scope!!!


travestyny will now try to prove that a statement means that it encompasses everything that we said in our agreement. Now, go look at his statement. Do you think that his statement encompasses our agreement? Or was he writing about something entirely different?



.

[travestyny]

LET'S HAVE THE JUDGES LOOK INTO THESE CONTRADICTIONS, ADP02. MAYBE THIS WILL SHOW WHO IS LYING!!!!!


1.

Threshold testing data must show artificial EPO specifically.

BUT NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE THRESHOLD TESTING DATA NEED NOT SHOW ARTIFICIAL EPO SPECIFICALLY, RIGHT??????

2.

2) WHILE OUT OF SCOPE, this specific criteria had an "and/OR" in which the panel was describing. In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used.

BUT NOW YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT OUT OF SCOPE, RIGHT?


Let's let the judges decide about these two contradictions, huh ADP02. Do you agree? Why wouldn't you agree? That's fair, isn't it????

[travestyny]

So the question is simple.

Judges, please find where we agreed to the terms of this debate. Also where we specifically BOTH agreed to exclude something from the scope.

Then I will bring up the statement that we did agree to:
"Can or does ……"

You responding with
"I'm fine with that"



BTW - Our statements do not reflect what we agreed to. Go check out what travestyny said! It is basically 99% on what we excluded from the scope!!! WTF

The only thing relevant is that Travestyny said "WADA DOCUMENTS" are in scope!!!


travestyny will now try to prove that a statement means that it encompasses everything that we said in our agreement. Now, go look at his statement. Do you think that his statement encompasses our agreement? Or was he writing about something entirely different?



.

So you agree, yes? We get the judges to look into the information and find out who is lying and who is telling the truth. Who is trying to cheat. Who is trying to change up the information that they gave. Correct?


What is the penalty for the person who is found to have been trying to cheat? I'm down for permanent ban and all points. What do you think? Are you in?

[travestyny]

btw - our statements do not reflect what we agreed to. Go check out what travestyny said! It is basically 99% on what we excluded from the scope!!! Wtf

billeau specifically stated that the statements are there so that we can't try to change it up midstream...or did he not state that?


Why are you worried about your initial statement being used, adp? You have a probem with them now? Hmmmm.

i will look at what you both wrote and try to make it direct and what you intend... I will of course be asking each of you if i am correct about what you mean when i go through what you wrote.

The reason it is important to simplify things is because it makes it very clear what your position is so nobody can make changes midstream, or so there are no misunderstandings...you guys already had a misunderstanding about the topic yes? And thats cool...it happens that way for a reason, and its important to get past that with a good solid, clear understanding of each individual's point of view, and... Not where you think the difference of opinion lays, but what the actual difference of opinion is, based on what you wrote, not on what you think the other person believes.

Did you read that during the debate, adp????

ARE YOU READY TO LET THE JUDGES DECIDE WHO IS TRYING TO CHEAT AND WHO WAS DEBATING IN GOOD FAITH? I'M READY. YOU'VE BEEN ACCUSING ME FOR A LONG TIME NOW. LET'S SEE WHO IS THE TRUE CHEATER.

AGREE, RIGHT? I CAN SET UP THE THREAD RIGHT NOW. WE LOOK AT THE PROOF AND WE SEE WHICH OF US IS TRYING TO CHANGE POSITION.

AGREE? I'M WAITING FOR A SIMPLE YES BEFORE I MAKE THE THREAD. AND YOU BETTER SHOW UP WITH YOUR PROOF OF ME CHEATING, BECAUSE I'LL BE THERE WITH PROOF OF YOU CHEATING!

[ADP02]

LET'S HAVE THE JUDGES LOOK INTO THESE CONTRADICTIONS, ADP02. MAYBE THIS WILL SHOW WHO IS LYING!!!!!


1.


BUT NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE THRESHOLD TESTING DATA NEED NOT SHOW ARTIFICIAL EPO SPECIFICALLY, RIGHT??????

2.

BUT NOW YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT OUT OF SCOPE, RIGHT?


Let's let the judges decide about these two contradictions, huh ADP02. Do you agree? Why wouldn't you agree? That's fair, isn't it????

yes well, you did "I'm fine with that" to "CAN and does"

and your response to Willy Wanker on 2004EPO document is consistent. You said "Cannot" and "does not"

[ADP02]

billeau specifically stated that the statements are there so that we can't try to change it up midstream...or did he not state that?


Why are you worried about your initial statement being used, adp? You have a probem with them now? Hmmmm.





did you read that during the debate, adp????

"i will look at what you both wrote and try to make it direct"

Were you direct? 99% was about threshold susbtances!!! WTF!!!

Those are statements, not an agreement. I didn't agree on your statements and you didn't agree to mine. We agreed before that time!


You accepted.


You were OK with SCREENING, presumptive and confirmation …. later you tried to change the scope.

Was I LYING?

[travestyny]

yes well, you did "i'm fine with that" to "can and does"

and your response to willy wanker on 2004epo document is consistent. You said "cannot" and "does not"

do you agree to the challenge that we ask the judges to get to the bottom of who was moving off of their position and trying to cheat. That's all i want to know.


Agree and then we set the penalty. And you show your proof of me trying to cheat, i show mine, the judges vote, and that's it.


i want permanent ban and all points, since this is about something serious. Trying to cheat. Are you down?

[travestyny]

"i will look at what you both wrote and try to make it direct"

Were you direct? 99% was about threshold susbtances!!! WTF!!!

Those are statements, not an agreement. I didn't agree on your statements and you didn't agree to mine. We agreed before that time!


You accepted.


You were OK with SCREENING, presumptive and confirmation …. later you tried to change the scope.

Was I LYING?

IF YOU THINK I TRIED TO CHANGE THE SCOPE, THEN YOU CAN PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE TO THE JUDGES.


DO YOU AGREE. WE GET THE JUDGES TO DECIDE WHO IS TRYING TO CHEAT. THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME AT LEAST THAT I'VE ASKED YOU.


IF THEY FIND THAT ONE OF US WAS DEBATING IN BAD FAITH, WE AGREE TO ALL POINTS AND PERMANENT BAN. DO YOU AGREE OR NOT?


Just agree already since you been saying for over a year I cheated you. Should be an easy win for you, right?

[ADP02]

IF YOU THINK I TRIED TO CHANGE THE SCOPE, THEN YOU CAN PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE TO THE JUDGES.


DO YOU AGREE. WE GET THE JUDGES TO DECIDE WHO IS TRYING TO CHEAT. THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME AT LEAST THAT I'VE ASKED YOU.


IF THEY FIND THAT ONE OF US WAS DEBATING IN BAD FAITH, WE AGREE TO ALL POINTS AND PERMANENT BAN. DO YOU AGREE OR NOT?


Just agree already since you been saying for over a year I cheated you. Should be an easy win for you, right?

So the question is simple.

Judges, please find where we agreed to the terms of this debate. Also where we specifically BOTH agreed to exclude something from the scope.

[travestyny]

So the question is simple.

Judges, please find where we agreed to the terms of this debate. Also where we specifically BOTH agreed to exclude something from the scope.

You can phrase it to them any way you like. What I want to know is who was backing off of their statements, who was debating in bad faith, who is outright lying.

THAT'S SOME PRETTY SERIOUS SHlT, DON'T YOU THINK. YOU'VE ACCUSED ME OF CHEATING, LYING, DEFLECTING. LET'S SEE WHO WAS THE CULPRIT. DO YOU AGREE TO THAT FOR A PERMANENT BAN AND ALL POINTS????