Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[ADP02]

lol She's like a turtle. When its about to get real her head goes into a shell. Typical biatch ass Travesty.

BINGO!!!


Travestyny does a lot of BS talking but when it matters most, he turtles out!!!



We are on page 45 and he has yet to pull the trigger and accept as per my challenge!!!!!




.

[travestyny]

Nope.

I think that you had a bit of time and read some discussions we had during the debate.

You tried to weasel out of not only the scope but your statements as well!


You said WADA documentS. Am I right?



Except for what I provide,
Your posts, that are out of context, never say that you actually agreed with what I said, did it? We were quarrelling on you constantly trying to move the goal posts of the scope.

So here you are again doing the same!!!!


There was only 1 place where we agreed to the SCOPE and we both no that there was only 1 exclusion that we BOTH agreed on.


BUT there is more:
- You post but do not keep anything in context

Meaning that we were actually arguing that you were using as "scope" what you agreed to "exclude" as scope. Even your statement was 90% on threshold susbtances!!!! Something that we BOTH AGREED to exclude!!!!




Like I said before, you are OK using an old case, document but if I would, it is out of scope!!!


example: You used as evidence to get a vote or 2 something from 2003!!!!! The EPO document that you references wasn't even in effect yet!!!!

You came up with a BS excuse that it is similar so you used it. REALLY?

I do not believe that Mr BS!

1) I also said that those WADA documents are ALL similar.
Since you are agreeing, you must agree with the FULL context of my statements!!! Right?


2) Do you remember Mr BS what you said about the WADA 2004 EPO document?









So LIAR, what were you saying?



So when you post next time, let us know if you are in agreement with my post or NOT, DEFLECTOR and CHEATER!!!


.

Say what???? Weasel out???? Don’t you think the judges will be smart enough to know who is lying and cheating? Stop being a little puss!!! Accept the rematch, son. The judges will see right through who the liar is. And better than that. It’s for a permanent ban!!!! LET’S FIND OUT WHO THE CHEATER IS AND GET RID OF HIM!!!Let’s do it. Are you down? Why is only one of us willing??? Hmmmmmm????

[travestyny]

BINGO!!!


Travestyny does a lot of BS talking but when it matters most, he turtles out!!!



We are on page 45 and he has yet to pull the trigger and accept as per my challenge!!!!!




.

SPOON, Please tell me that you will join this debate and be on his team. I’m going to beat the dog shlt out of both of you.... if you two can find your balls. 2 bltches and not 1 ball between the two of you! Lmaoooooooo!!!!!

[Spoon23]

1) You are still not getting it? I challenge you on what we have been arguing for over 2 months now. I made this challenge as CLEAR as possible. There is no way that we will do 2 challenges in 1. You just finished saying that you do not want any confusion!!!

HENCE, CHALLENGE #2 will remain separate and can start right away because you are even OK with the scope and 2 exclusions that you wanted and I agreed even though I shouldn't as the Subject is about that too!




2) WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE!!!
The below posts were in order and on the same page in the thread. You said that you are fine with the scope and actually you stated if I was going to propose that to the judges!!!

3) Billeau2 did not post my statements until later on!!!



So now that we have YOUR BS LIE CLEARED UP, please respond to the below simple question!!!




YOU ARE NOW DEFLECTING and LIED ON A QUESTION for at least the 6th TIME.



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


Here is what you agreed to.















.

Damn this is as clear as it gets. No where to run now Travesty. Step up or shut up.

[ADP02]

Say what???? Weasel out???? Don’t you think the judges will be smart enough to know who is lying and cheating? Stop being a little puss!!! Accept the rematch, son. The judges will see right through who the liar is. And better than that. It’s for a permanent ban!!!! LET’S FIND OUT WHO THE CHEATER IS AND GET RID OF HIM!!!Let’s do it. Are you down? Why is only one of us willing??? Hmmmmmm????

Weasal out is your middle name!!!!


We are on page 45 and you are trying to turn this into a debate that NOT what this thread is about!!!


That is WEASELING OUT!!!







QUESTION to the one named DEFLECTOR:

- Why do you care about the scope? You appear to have it all covered with your statements below!


I don't get it!
You just told me and that other poster what you told WILLY WANKER and company.


You said that whoever called it a threshold type criteria is WRONG. Whether it be the OIC, UCI or WADA.



I am CHALLENGING YOU ON THIS!!!


WEASAL!!!

DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE CAS PANEL


Court of Arbitration for Sport
Quote:
The reality is that 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

http://freepdfhosting.com/b5f50d8182.pdf

[ADP02]

Damn this is as clear as it gets. No where to run now Travesty. Step up or shut up.

Yup, Travestyny knows where and when we BOTH AGREED on the scope. He has said and tried everything to try to CHANGE it.


Nothing new from Traevstyny because in that first debate, I was constantly arguing with him on the SCOPE even though it was AGREED. He likes to muddy the waters!



.

[travestyny]

Weasal out is your middle name!!!!


We are on page 45 and you are trying to turn this into a debate that NOT what this thread is about!!!


That is WEASELING OUT!!!







QUESTION to the one named DEFLECTOR:

- Why do you care about the scope? You appear to have it all covered with your statements below!


I don't get it!
You just told me and that other poster what you told WILLY WANKER and company.


You said that whoever called it a threshold type criteria is WRONG. Whether it be the OIC, UCI or WADA.



I am CHALLENGING YOU ON THIS!!!


WEASAL!!!

LOOK AT THIS BlTCH. ALL THAT ABOUT THE SCOPE AND NOW THT I EXPOSED HIM ABOUT THE SCOPE HE SAYS...WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE SCOPE??? HAHAHAHAHA

Oh, I’m sorry. Did you accept yet, or are you still scared that the judges will see through your blatant lies and fvvck ups? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF???? TRY TO EXPOSE ME TO THE JUDGES SO I CAN BE PERMANENTLY BANNED. DO IT! DO IT! I DARE YOU!!!!

IS THE PROBLEM THAT YOU WILL BE THE ONE GETTING EXPOSED? ONLY ONE OF US IS UNWILLING TO LET THE JUDGES REVIEW WHO IS THE CHEATER HERE. I WONDER WHY! LMAOOOOOOO!!

I’M A WEASEL BECAUSE I WANT A JUDGE TO LOOK OVER THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHO IS LYING AND CHEATING???? SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE A LYING CHEATING BlTCH THAT IS AFRAID TO GET EXPOSED AND TAKE THAT PERMANENT BAN!!! ACCEPT THE REMATCH BlTCH!!!!

EXPOSEDDDDDDDD!!!!!

[travestyny]

Yup, Travestyny knows where and when we BOTH AGREED on the scope. He has said and tried everything to try to CHANGE it.
.

Then it should be so easy for you to expose me and get me permanently banned. Wassup, pvssy? Why won’t you step up to the plate and show us all about that scope?

I know why you won’t.

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

and again....

- Furthermore, your point is irrelevant since the scope that you accepted was whether there are threshold criteria in the EPO technical document!!!

AND

The scope was simple. Either there is or there is not threhsold criteria mentioned in the EPO technical document.

and

and I have posts that state that the scope of the discussion is that you will discuss why you do not believe there are threshold criteria in the EPO technical document while I believe there are ....

and....

Sorry but the scope was about threshold criteria in relation to EPO and the technical document.

and....

as this is NOT even part of the scope
but as stated, it is in the EPO technical document, correct?

and...

SCOPE that YOU agreed on: Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria?

and....

SCOPE: Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria

and

SHOWING PROOF THAT YOU DID NOT MEAN ALL EPO TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS!!!!

SAYING THE 2009 DOCUMENT IS OUT OF SCOPE:

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.

AND...

For EPO testing, please refer to the following WADA document:
"WADA Technical Document – TD2014EPO - HARMONIZATION OF ANALYSIS AND REPORTING OF ERYTHROPOIESIS STIMULATING AGENTS (ESAs) BY ELECTROPHORETIC TECHNIQUES."

LOOK AT ALL THAT SHlT. YOU LYING SCUMBAG. THE TRUTH IS YOU KNOW YOU HAVE NO CHANCE DEFENDING YOURSELF. Especially since you said the scope came AFTER BILLEAU’s MESSAGE, BUT NOW YOU CLAIM IT CAME BEFORE IT. HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO GET CAUGHT LYING. LET’S GET THAT PERMANENT BAN BET GOING, SON. IM WAITING FOR YOU TO ACCEPT!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Get ready to say goodbye, bltch!!!

[Spoon23]

Yup, Travestyny knows where and when we BOTH AGREED on the scope. He has said and tried everything to try to CHANGE it.


Nothing new from Traevstyny because in that first debate, I was constantly arguing with him on the SCOPE even though it was AGREED. He likes to muddy the waters!



.

It's as clear as it gets. I guess what Travesty is telling you. She's biatchin' out.

It's time to tell her to shut up. At this point she sound like a biatch who hasn't gotten any for decades.

[travestyny]

It's as clear as it gets. I guess what Travesty is telling you. She's biatchin' out.

It's time to tell her to shut up. At this point she sound like a biatch who hasn't gotten any for decades.

YOUR BOY IS GETTING THE SHlT KICKED OUT OF HIM.


EXPLAIN, SPOON. LMAOOOOOOO!

Unless I'm mistaken, the topic is now whether WADA labs have a threshold criteria that must be met for an adverse analytical finding of EPO.

but the above should not be confused with my point. my point was about epo testing includes specific threshold criteria that must be passed in order to conclude a positive result.

DO YOU NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE. I don't