Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

that last part of your statement is all we have about "threshold" but you do state wada documents


while that statement of yours is false, you are stating that i can actually verify wada documents with anything that is tested related to epo. Whether it be direct or indirect. Furthermore, you are actually bringing up the other point of that only threshold susbtances can or does have threshold type criteria!!! Hmmm!


that is the way i am reading your statement.


still, our statements are not an agreement. its just a statement. there is a difference.

example:
if in a statement, you or i just write "valid" information but it has nothing to do with our agreement then that is bs statement!


.

dude, give it the fvvck up. You are blatantly trying to lie and it's so obvious. There is more than one document that is currently, like tdeaas or tdepo or tddl....but you know damn well this was not about what wada was doing in the past. You are blatantly lying and your own statements prove that!!!!!!


I've already shown you saying what document was relevant. I've already shown you stating what document was out of scope.


If you want to take this to the judges and have them decide, let's do it!!!! I'm down. Are you????


This is the last time i will ask you. If you decline, then we know who the cheater is!

[travestyny]

they are all similar documents if you put it that way. Ok, we can use all wada documents since they are all similar …. Anyways, your bs "statement" says that too! So you are fine.


You are always fine, until you change your mind. Then it becomes, out of scope!!!!

do you have a brain.


the 2014 document does not have the bap criteria. You already know this and you are squirming. You even said it's out of scope and you are having a hard time reconciling that!!!!!


Give it up. It's cowardly what you're doing!

[travestyny]

More proof. BEFORE THE DEBATE EVEN BEGAN!!!!!

When he comes with his information, I'll easily prove that his info is outdated and not applicable.

EVEN WHEN YOU BEGAN, I WAS GOADING YOU THE WHOLE WAY BECAUSE YOU STARTED IN 1999 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND I'M WAITING FOR YOU TO MAKE IT TO THE YEAR THAT MAYWEATHER WAS TESTED FOR THE DAMN PACQUIAO FIGHT.


PROOF!

Dude....you began at 1998. Are we only up to 2004 now? Are you serious?


I have to go do some stuff. I'll try to keep checking this via my phone, so keep going, but I hope that at some point you make it to at least 2015!!!

AND THAT'S BEFORE YOU EVEN MADE IT TO THE 2009 DOCUMENT, WHICH LET ME REMIND YOU, YOU CLEARLY STATED WAS OUT OF SCOPE. STOP LYING!!!!!!!!

GIVE IT UP!!!!!

[travestyny]

Look, I have all the proof I need about who is lying here.


Do you accept the challenge regarding who is the one who is debating in bad faith here? Yes or no?

Very specific. Who is trying to change their views. Who is disowning their initial statement. Who is changing what they specifically said the scope was. Who is even trying to lie about why this debate was happening in the first place.


That's all I want to know. Nothing else. YES OR NO?


IF YOU DECLINE. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT CONTACTING ME AGAIN UNLESS IT'S TO PAY YOUR DEBT.


IF YOU ACCEPT. IT'S FOR PERMANENT BAN AND ALL POINTS.

ACCEPT OR DECLINE?? LET'S GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHO IS TRYING TO CHEAT HERE!

[ADP02]

I already told you a few posts ago!!!

You kept on saying that it was OUT OF SCOPE when it suited you, remember?

BUT you often started your comments like it was "IN SCOPE" during your posts. AFTER I correct you, then it is "OUT OF SCOPE".

You made BAP of 2003 and WADA 2004 in SCOPE ….. I didn't have time to convince WILLY WANKER so you were fine with that.

So now, we are supposed to not have that in scope? WTF!!!!! See the problem we have here?



You stayed consistently until now.



YET, you want judges to hope that we do not discuss that? WTF!!!!!

The more I think about it, no can do! You liked it then, you gotta like it now! and you did double down on that. So what gives?????


That is a huge roadblock!!!!!



.
.

.



.

.

WRONG. YOU ARE A LYING SCUMBAG. WHY ARE YOU DEFLECTING.


I ASKED YOU WHY YOU SAID IT WAS OUT OF SCOPE???? THAT'S ALL I WANT TO KNOW.



AS FOR THE 2004 DOCUMENT, READ IT AND WEEP!!!!!




DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT. THE EXACT CRITERIA THAT YOU WERE SAYING WERE THRESHOLDS STILL EXIST IN THE 2014 DOCUMENT. YOU STEPPED IN SHlT. YOU HAVE NO ESCAPE!!!!

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF WHY YOU LOST. IF YOU ARE ONLY JUST NOW UNDERSTANDING THAT, THEN YOU ARE FAR DUMBER THAN I THOUGHT. BUT YOUR'E NOT THAT DUMB. YOU KNEW THAT.

YOU WOULD RATHER PLAY STUPID THAN ADMIT DEFEAT!

do you have a brain.


the 2014 document does not have the bap criteria. You already know this and you are squirming. You even said it's out of scope and you are having a hard time reconciling that!!!!!


Give it up. It's cowardly what you're doing!

There you go. Now you know what I mean by "IN SCOPE" then "OUT OF SCOPE" after 1 post!!!!!! I hope you are going to use this too as "evidence"! WTF!!!!


See, all you do is C/P the posts that fit your case but once it doesn't suit you then the document/case/post/statement/word is NO LONGER IN SCOPE for you!!!!


I didn't just mention 2004 but also the other documents to point out that there are RATIOs involved in any and all of those documents mentioned. Thank you for stating that they are similar.... actually, you were bold and used the word EXACT.

If you recall, you said that there areNO RATIOs for EPO testing. After pages of calling me names that I do not know anything, I then placed the "evidence" in your lap.


Then as per your routine, "RATIOS" were no longer "IN SCOPE"


I hope that you will use all of that as "evidence". "IN SCOPE" becomes "OUT OF SCOPE" if proved WRONG!!!! If ADP02 cannot prove it on time (AKA WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE) then it becomes "IN SCOPE". That was fun!


BUT now, Travestyny wants those same (WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE) statements that he continues to doubled down as "IN SCOPE" to now be "OUT OF SCOPE"!!!!


DEFLECTOR, you have some explaining to do!!!





So where were we?




Oh yeah.
Why did we spend so much time at the beginning this time to come to an agreement on scope?

Was it so later on a "statement" can just skip everything that we agreed on later? We can say anything and not even agree but the opponent has no say until it starts! But then it is too late! That is funny stuff!!!!

You tried and failed. If how you thought the judges voted, . Man, that would be nice to find out. More of a joke if that is what happened.


So DEFLECTOR, So what you agreed to as scope and the agreed exclusions meant nothing to you?



Just asking. DO NOT DEFLECT!!!


.

.

[travestyny]

There you go. Now you know what I mean by "IN SCOPE" then "OUT OF SCOPE" after 1 post!!!!!! I hope you are going to use this too as "evidence"! WTF!!!!

Again, you're playing stupid. The TD2014EPO document is in scope and nothing else. You know that. The reason my evidence included the court case from 2004 is because the 2014 document has the specific criteria that you claim were thresholds, that the court specifically said were not thresholds. This is not rocket science. You just continue to play dumb.

See, all you do is C/P the posts that fit your case but once it doesn't suit you then the document/case/post/statement/word is NO LONGER IN SCOPE for you!!!!

Then present it to a judge and let's see who is right about that.

I didn't just mention 2004 but also the other documents to point out that there are RATIOs involved in any and all of those documents mentioned. Thank you for stating that they are similar.... actually, you were bold and used the word EXACT.

Do you have a point here? You tried to say the BAP was a refinement. It was non-existent in the 2014 document. Your whole manner of going about this was to try to say that what was done in 2014 was just a refinement of the BAP. I'm not stupid, dude. This is obvious. And if you keep trying to lie, I suggest that you accept that challenge. I'm tired of dealing with a liar.

If you recall, you said that there areNO RATIOs for EPO testing. After pages of calling me names that I do not know anything, I then placed the "evidence" in your lap.

Great job. You still lost. Legitimately lost. So what's your point?

Then as per your routine, "RATIOS" were no longer "IN SCOPE"

Where did the scope ever mention ratios????? That was the scope. The scope was are there ratios???? You're desperate.

I hope that you will use all of that as "evidence". "IN SCOPE" becomes "OUT OF SCOPE" if proved WRONG!!!! If ADP02 cannot prove it on time (AKA WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE) then it becomes "IN SCOPE". That was fun!

LET'S ASK THE JUDGES TO DECIDE WHO IS LYING. AGREE OR NOT?

BUT now, Travestyny wants those same (WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE) statements that he continues to doubled down as "IN SCOPE" to now be "OUT OF SCOPE"!!!!

YOU'RE DESPERATE. LET'S DO THAT CHALLENGE, SON. DON'T BACK OUT. TRYING TO PLAY STUPID IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU.

DEFLECTOR, you have some explaining to do!!!

YEA. I HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY I'M TALKING TO A MORON WHO IS SO DESTROYED ABOUT A 1.5 YEAR OLD BET THAT HE CAN'T SLEEP AT NIGHT AND PISSES HIMSELF THINKING ABOUT IT.

So where were we?




Oh yeah.
Why did we spend so much time at the beginning this time to come to an agreement on scope?

BECAUSE YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE SCOPE AND IT'S OBVSIOUS. Let's go to the judges and see what they say. Deal?

Was it so later on a "statement" can just skip everything that we agreed on later? We can say anything and not even agree but the opponent has no say until it starts! But then it is too late! That is funny stuff!!!!

WHAT THE ACTUAL FVVCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHY ARE YOU CRYING ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE SCOPE. YOU HAVE TO SERIOUSLY BE THE BIGGEST BlTCH IN THE WORLD.

You tried and failed. If how you thought the judges voted, . Man, that would be nice to find out. More of a joke if that is what happened.

ACTUALLY YOU FAILED. 4-0.

So DEFLECTOR, So what you agreed to as scope and the agreed exclusions meant nothing to you?

OH. THIS:

I clearly stated AND HE ACCEPTED that the scope will be just about whether the EPO document has threshold criteria in the document.

YOU SUDDENLY DON'T LIKE THAT. LMAOOOOOOO.

Just asking. DO NOT DEFLECT!!!

.

SO DEFLECTOR. DO YOU ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE. WE TURN TO THE JUDGES TO TELL US WHO IS LYING, WHO IS TRYING TO CHANGE THEIR INFORMATION, WHO IS TRYING TO CHANGE THE SCOPE. WHO IS TRYING TO CHANGE THE REASON WE HAD THE DEBATE. WHO IS NOT WILLING TO STAND UP FOR THEIR INITIAL STATEMENT ANYMORE.


1. PERMANENT BAN.

2. ALL POINTS.


DO YOU AGREE? YES OR NO? LET'S FIND OUT WHO IS THE CHEATER. AGREE OR NO?


BY THE WAY, AFTER YOU LOST BILLEAU'S VOTE, YOU GAVE THAT RAMBLING MESSAGE ABOUT THE SCOPE AND WHY YOU THINK YOU WERE RIGHT....AND YOU NEVER ONCE MENTIONED THE ABP. YOU ONLY TRIED TO SAY THAT TTHEY WERE THE SAME TYPE OF THING AS THE CRITERIA YOU FALSELY BELIEVED WERE THRESHOLDS.


THE JUDGES ARE GOING TO SEE RIGHT THROUGH YOU! DO YOU AGREE. LET'S GET IT ON!!!!!!!

DID YOU LOSE YOUR BALLS NOW? WAITING!!!! ACCEPT! IT'S COMPLETELY FAIR TO ASK THE JUDGES TO TELL US WHO THEY BELIEVE HAS BEEN DEBATING IN BAD FAITH. ESPECIALLY AFTER YOU ACCUSING ME OF CHEATING FOR OVER A YEAR. NOW WE SETTLE THIS BY PROVING WHICH OF US TRIED TO CHEAT. YOU'RE GOING TO FEEL REALLY DUMB AFTER ALREADY LOSING 4-0 AND BEING PROVEN TO BE THE CHEATER! WHY ARE YOU SO HESITANT, ADP? IS IT BECAUSE YOU'RE A LYING SCUMBAG????? YOUR NEXT MESSAGE BETTER BE: YES, I ACCEPT! OR YOU'RE DONE! THERE IS NO REASON TO RUN FROM THE JUDGES!!!!!!!!!!

Balls Big Black Balls GIF from Balls GIFs

[ADP02]

Again, you're playing stupid. The TD2014EPO document is in scope and nothing else. You know that. The reason my evidence included the court case from 2004 is because the 2014 document has the specific criteria that you claim were thresholds, that the court specifically said were not thresholds. This is not rocket science. You just continue to play dumb.






Then present it to a judge and let's see who is right about that.





Do you have a point here? You tried to say the BAP was a refinement. It was non-existent in the 2014 document. Your whole manner of going about this was to try to say that what was done in 2014 was just a refinement of the BAP. I'm not stupid, dude. This is obvious. And if you keep trying to lie, I suggest that you accept that challenge. I'm tired of dealing with a liar.




Great job. You still lost. Legitimately lost. So what's your point?




Where did the scope ever mention ratios????? That was the scope. The scope was are there ratios???? You're desperate.




LET'S ASK THE JUDGES TO DECIDE WHO IS LYING. AGREE OR NOT?






YOU'RE DESPERATE. LET'S DO THAT CHALLENGE, SON. DON'T BACK OUT. TRYING TO PLAY STUPID IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU.






YEA. I HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY I'M TALKING TO A MORON WHO IS SO DESTROYED ABOUT A 1.5 YEAR OLD BET THAT HE CAN'T SLEEP AT NIGHT AND PISSES HIMSELF THINKING ABOUT IT.





BECAUSE YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE SCOPE AND IT'S OBVSIOUS. Let's go to the judges and see what they say. Deal?




WHAT THE ACTUAL FVVCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHY ARE YOU CRYING ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE SCOPE. YOU HAVE TO SERIOUSLY BE THE BIGGEST BlTCH IN THE WORLD.

ACTUALLY YOU FAILED. 4-0.

OH. THIS:



YOU SUDDENLY DON'T LIKE THAT. LMAOOOOOOO.





SO DEFLECTOR. DO YOU ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE. WE TURN TO THE JUDGES TO TELL US WHO IS LYING, WHO IS TRYING TO CHANGE THEIR INFORMATION, WHO IS TRYING TO CHANGE THE SCOPE. WHO IS TRYING TO CHANGE THE REASON WE HAD THE DEBATE. WHO IS NOT WILLING TO STAND UP FOR THEIR INITIAL STATEMENT ANYMORE.


1. PERMANENT BAN.

2. ALL POINTS.


DO YOU AGREE? YES OR NO? LET'S FIND OUT WHO IS THE CHEATER. AGREE OR NO?


BY THE WAY, AFTER YOU LOST BILLEAU'S VOTE, YOU GAVE THAT RAMBLING MESSAGE ABOUT THE SCOPE AND WHY YOU THINK YOU WERE RIGHT....AND YOU NEVER ONCE MENTIONED THE ABP. YOU ONLY TRIED TO SAY THAT TTHEY WERE THE SAME TYPE OF THING AS THE CRITERIA YOU FALSELY BELIEVED WERE THRESHOLDS.


THE JUDGES ARE GOING TO SEE RIGHT THROUGH YOU! DO YOU AGREE. LET'S GET IT ON!!!!!!!

DID YOU LOSE YOUR BALLS NOW? WAITING!!!! ACCEPT! IT'S COMPLETELY FAIR TO ASK THE JUDGES TO TELL US WHO THEY BELIEVE HAS BEEN DEBATING IN BAD FAITH. ESPECIALLY AFTER YOU ACCUSING ME OF CHEATING FOR OVER A YEAR. NOW WE SETTLE THIS BY PROVING WHICH OF US TRIED TO CHEAT. YOU'RE GOING TO FEEL REALLY DUMB AFTER ALREADY LOSING 4-0 AND BEING PROVEN TO BE THE CHEATER! WHY ARE YOU SO HESITANT, ADP? IS IT BECAUSE YOU'RE A LYING SCUMBAG????? YOUR NEXT MESSAGE BETTER BE: YES, I ACCEPT! OR YOU'RE DONE! THERE IS NO REASON TO RUN FROM THE JUDGES!!!!!!!!!!

We are still talking about 2 challenges based on the scope and agreements that we had, right?


There is no way that I would agree to those statements that you made and I made as the scope and exclusions.


We did NOT agree to each other's statements. BUT we did agree to the below scope and the exclusion was that this was not about threshold susbtances.




HERE IS WHAT WE AGREED TO:

Originally Posted by ADP02

Its simple. Can or does EPO testing go thru threshold type tests?


It's up to you. No pressure. You can either go ahead and start this or say that you didn't understand my point and have no beef with my statement .... I will not hold it against you either way. Its up to you.

ADP02

Are you fine with my post? Let me know ...

Travestyny

Yes, I'm fine with it.

DEFLECTOR, respond to this:

Originally Posted by ADP02
So DEFLECTOR, So what you agreed to as scope and the agreed exclusions meant nothing to you?

[ADP02]

and DEFLECTOR, before you reply, you need to be aware that you did say this. You were trying your best in the post below and other posts that EPO "DID NOT" have any threshold type criteria ever since WADA came into existence.

So as per scope, that is what you thought.


You even said that when you brought up the WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE CAS panel statements to the judges.

But every time I disprove your BS, you back away and squirm away from what you agreed to as scope:

"Can or does ….."

Travestyny
So while we have no evidence that any expert scientist associated with WADA has ever stated that threshold criteria are associated with EPO testing, what we DO have is the opposite: WADA's REJECTION of what was once upon a time deemed by other scientists to be threshold criteria when testing for EPO

AGAIN: This is the current threads WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE. I'm still waiting for you on that.


AGAIN: You brought up those same points in the other debate.


Now it appears that you do not want this as part of the challenge? Does this make any sense to you since you got votes based on this point the first time around and you have been arguing with me for 2 months on this.







.

[travestyny]

before you reply

.

Listen, you dumb twat. I'm tired of you crying about this debate. I offered you a rematch. I offered you to talk to the judges about who was cheating.


I've proven that you have LIED over and over again simply because you lost 4-0. It's over. You keep ducking and hiding from me. You don't want to review the debate. Plain and simple. I'm not going to engage in a 90 page thread with you AGAIN.


IF YOU REFUSE TO HAVE THE JUDGES REVIEW THE DEBATE, THEN IT'S VERY SIMPLE. THE SCORE STANDS, YOU LOST, AND YOU MUST PAY YOUR DEBT. IF YOU THINK YOU WERE TREATED UNFAIRLY, TALK TO THE JUDGES (WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY TRIED 1.5 YEARS AGO) AND LET THEM EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY THEY LOST. IF YOU HAVE NEW INFORMATION TO PRESENT TO THEM, DO IT. I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHOW THEM YOUR CHEATING WAYS, THAT THEY SAW RIGHT THROUGH THE FIRST TIME WHEN YOU LOST.

IT'S OVER!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP WITH THE BULLSHlT AND PAY YOUR DEBT. YOU ARE THE BIGGEST BlTCH ON THIS SITE EVER!!!

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE JUDGES REVIEW THE INFORMATION, THAT SHOWS THAT YOU KNOW YOU LOST. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PRESENT TO THEM EVIDENCE OF CHEATING, LIKE I AM WILLING TO DO ABOUT YOUR CHEATING, THAT SHOWS THAT YOU KNOW YOU WEREN'T CHEATED, AND THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO DO THE CHEATING.

IT'S OVER!!!!


YOU ARE AFRAID TO CALL BACK THE JUDGES BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOUR 4-0 LOSS WILL NOT ONLY BE DOUBLED DOWN ON, YOU KNOW YOU'LL BE EXPOSED FOR A CHEAT. SORRY BlTCH!!!!!!!

4-0!!!!!!

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

STOP CRYING BlTCH. I KNOW I RUINED YOUR LIFE. PAY YOUR DEBT YOU SCUMBAG!!!!

LOOK AT WHAT I DID TO YOU! UNTIL YOU GET THE BALLS TO CALL BACK THE JUDGES, STAY IN YOUR BOX ALONE AND KEEP CRYING YOU BROKEN BlTCH!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[ADP02]

We are still talking about 2 challenges based on the scope and agreements that we had, right?


There is no way that I would agree to those statements that you made and I made as the scope and exclusions.


We did NOT agree to each other's statements. BUT we did agree to the below scope and the exclusion was that this was not about threshold susbtances.




HERE IS WHAT WE AGREED TO:












DEFLECTOR, respond to this:

Listen, you dumb twat. I'm tired of you crying about this debate. I offered you a rematch. I offered you to talk to the judges about who was cheating.


I've proven that you have LIED over and over again simply because you lost 4-0. It's over. You keep ducking and hiding from me. You don't want to review the debate. Plain and simple. I'm not going to engage in a 90 page thread with you AGAIN.


IF YOU REFUSE TO HAVE THE JUDGES REVIEW THE DEBATE, THEN IT'S VERY SIMPLE. THE SCORE STANDS, YOU LOST, AND YOU MUST PAY YOUR DEBT. IF YOU THINK YOU WERE TREATED UNFAIRLY, TALK TO THE JUDGES (WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY TRIED 1.5 YEARS AGO) AND LET THEM EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY THEY LOST. IF YOU HAVE NEW INFORMATION TO PRESENT TO THEM, DO IT. I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHOW THEM YOUR CHEATING WAYS, THAT THEY SAW RIGHT THROUGH THE FIRST TIME WHEN YOU LOST.

IT'S OVER!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP WITH THE BULLSHlT AND PAY YOUR DEBT. YOU ARE THE BIGGEST BlTCH ON THIS SITE EVER!!!

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE JUDGES REVIEW THE INFORMATION, THAT SHOWS THAT YOU KNOW YOU LOST. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PRESENT TO THEM EVIDENCE OF CHEATING, LIKE I AM WILLING TO DO ABOUT YOUR CHEATING, THAT SHOWS THAT YOU KNOW YOU WEREN'T CHEATED, AND THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO DO THE CHEATING.

IT'S OVER!!!!


YOU ARE AFRAID TO CALL BACK THE JUDGES BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOUR 4-0 LOSS WILL NOT ONLY BE DOUBLED DOWN ON, YOU KNOW YOU'LL BE EXPOSED FOR A CHEAT. SORRY BlTCH!!!!!!!

4-0!!!!!!

STOP CRYING BlTCH. I KNOW I RUINED YOUR LIFE. PAY YOUR DEBT YOU SCUMBAG!!!!

LOOK AT WHAT I DID TO YOU! UNTIL YOU GET THE BALLS TO CALL BACK THE JUDGES, STAY IN YOUR BOX ALONE AND KEEP CRYING YOU BROKEN BlTCH!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Well, I need to know your position because it is too VAGUE.


YOU ARE NOW DEFLECTING ON A QUESTION ON THAT.

Simple question, did you take our agreement and exclusion seriously when you were debating or were you basing it on something else?

Originally Posted by ADP02

Its simple. Can or does EPO testing go thru threshold type tests?


It's up to you. No pressure. You can either go ahead and start this or say that you didn't understand my point and have no beef with my statement .... I will not hold it against you either way. Its up to you.

ADP02

Are you fine with my post? Let me know ...

Travestyny

Yes, I'm fine with it.

.