Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

The argument that we have been having for the last 2 months was about the CAS panel's statements.

I'm stating that you have misinterpreted what they meant.

The Challenge is on but YOU are DEFLECTING and you are trying to find any possible excuse to

PIUSSY OUT of the CHALLENGE!!!


Go ahead, PIUSSSY, lets see, are you going to accept or try some other dumb excuse to PIUSSY out!

The odds are not good, I can sense someone named the DEFLECTOR is about to PIUSSY out of this challenge!



.



.

YOUR VAGUE CHALLENGE. DUDE. YOU AREN'T FOOLING ANYONE.


TELL ME WHY YOU PVSSIED OUT OF THIS CHALLENGE!!!!!!

This time he said he will show up. Let's see if he keeps his word.

The issue: He's claiming that WADA measures EPO as a threshold substance. I disagree. We will need some unbiased judges to present our information to, and then we can get a final decision that we will both agree to accept.

YOU LYING PVSSY. HOW DO YOU PVSSY OUT OF A CHALLENGE...AND STILL LOSE 4-0????? IT'S LIKE GETTING FIRED....ON YOUR DAY OFF!!!!!!

[travestyny]

Since you did that, your next task (AGAIN) is to verify if YOU said that there never were any threshold tests for WADA.

Secondly, did we agree to any limitations?

This is the 2nd time I ask you, silly DEFLECTOR!!!

WANT PROOF THAT THIS WAS ABOUT WADA AND ABOUT CURRENT TESTING. OK. TAKE IT FROM YOUR OWN MOUTH, YOU PUNK BlTCH!!!!

the scope will be just about whether the EPO document has threshold criteria in the document.

WELL WELL WELL. WHAT DOCUMENT WOULD THAT BE? WOULD THAT BE THE WADA DOCUMENT? THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT....

WHICH CONFIRMS THIS WAS ABOUT PRESENT DAY WADA TESTING!!!!


GAME OVER YOU DUMB BlTCH!!!!!! YOU BEEN DEFLECTING THIS WHOLE TIME AND I GOT MY FOOT LODGE UP YOUR ASS.

[travestyny]

Yo ADP02, you like my new sig, bltch? It's an oldie but goodie


I used to think you were a decent person. Now I realize how full of shlt you are. All you do is deflect and claim other people are deflecting. When someone kicks your ass, you claim that they cheated, just like when pacquiao lost, you claim there was cheating. YOu're such a little bltch. You told so many ****ing lies here that it's UNBELIEVABLE.

1. This wasn't about Mayweather Pacquiao?
2. This wasn't about testing at the time of their fight.
3. This wasn't about WADA
4. You never thought EPO was a threshold substance
Really???
5. You claim your initial statements were not really your own and disowned them
6. You try to give me some vague ass non- wada, earlier than muffuccing 2003 at least challenge and yet you keep turning down a rematch for what you said you were the rightful winner.
7.You deflect once you get in the dome and stay denying it.


Man that's just off the dome and I can keep going. I'm leaving my sig this way FOREVER. You will NEVER get an ounce of respect from me. NEVER. You're my bltch and I'm glad I took a huge shlt on your face. 4-0 Bltch. Live with that shlt in your mouth, choke on it, and die. **** you.


With no due respect, you f@ggot ass bltch. So long bltch. I'll be catching you around to deflect and I'll expose your ass, Mr. It's not about threshold substances.

Even your boy Zaroku riding on your punkass. No one respects you anymore.

[ADP02]

LMAOOOOOOOO. DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE? LOOK CAREFULLY, ADP!

You lying sack of shlt.


Dilute the urine sample just enough? Measures EPO values below a threshold?


Tell the truth now, son!

You sir are LOST!

You want me to show you studies?

If the athlete abuses by way of EPO there is not much of a window for detection of EPO. Less so if they are micro dosing.


Some tests are threshold tests. You still need to get by that before we can even discuss this but lets say the BAP test or the TBR ratio test the threshold is exceeding as per the requirement, there is an indication of EPO. Else there is not!


You wait 6 hours plus the time the EPO substances was taken by the athlete then those 6 hours delay can mean the difference between being over or below the threshold!!!!!!



.

[ADP02]

Yo ADP02, you like my new sig, bltch? It's an oldie but goodie


I used to think you were a decent person. Now I realize how full of shlt you are. All you do is deflect and claim other people are deflecting. When someone kicks your ass, you claim that they cheated, just like when pacquiao lost, you claim there was cheating. YOu're such a little bltch. You told so many ****ing lies here that it's UNBELIEVABLE.

1. This wasn't about Mayweather Pacquiao?
2. This wasn't about testing at the time of their fight.
3. This wasn't about WADA
4. You never thought EPO was a threshold substance
Really???
5. You claim your initial statements were not really your own and disowned them
6. You try to give me some vague ass non- wada, earlier than muffuccing 2003 at least challenge and yet you keep turning down a rematch for what you said you were the rightful winner.
7.You deflect once you get in the dome and stay denying it.


Man that's just off the dome and I can keep going. I'm leaving my sig this way FOREVER. You will NEVER get an ounce of respect from me. NEVER. You're my bltch and I'm glad I took a huge shlt on your face. 4-0 Bltch. Live with that shlt in your mouth, choke on it, and die. **** you.


With no due respect, you f@ggot ass bltch. So long bltch. I'll be catching you around to deflect and I'll expose your ass, Mr. It's not about threshold substances.

Even your boy Zaroku riding on your punkass. No one respects you anymore.

Just stop it deflector.

You only want to use what I state if it improves your chances or else you will not.

You will only use what you state if it improves your chances or else you will not.



STOP DEFLECTING!

There were NO limits agreed to the discussion. If there was an agreement, show it to me!!!!

Did we agree to not discuss ABP testing? NO

Did we agree to limit to just a document? No

Did you state that there are no threshold tests for EPO, ever, never by WADA? YES

Did you say that there are no ratios? Yes

Did you go back to pre-WADA rules? Yes!!!

So what are you talking about? RESPOND DEFLECTOR!!!



Did you say other mistakes that you want to retract? YOU BET!!!

Post all of them. Why don't you? CHEATER!!!


the only thing that we agreed upon was that the bet was NOT on threshold substances but you kept on going there too!!!!



.

[travestyny]

You sir are LOST!

You want me to show you studies?

If the athlete abuses by way of EPO there is not much of a window for detection of EPO. Less so if they are micro dosing.


Some tests are threshold tests. You still need to get by that before we can even discuss this but lets say the BAP test or the TBR ratio test the threshold is exceeding as per the requirement, there is an indication of EPO. Else there is not!


You wait 6 hours plus the time the EPO substances was taken by the athlete then those 6 hours delay can mean the difference between being over or below the threshold!!!!!!



.

ARE YOU ACTUALLY TRYING TO DOUBLE DOWN AND SAY THAT THE LABS CAN DETECT EPO BELOW A THRESHOLD!!!!! SUDDENLY THE THRESHOLD IS NOT ABOUT THE INTENSITY, BUT IT'S ABOUT DETECTING THE SUBSTANCE AND THE SUBSTANCE BEING BELOW THE THRESHOLD????????? THIS IS ABOUT WADA TESTING RIGHT?????? AROUND THE TIME OF MAYWEATHER TESTING, RIGHT, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THIS SPECIFICALLY REGARDING MAYWEATHER, WHICH I CAN PROVE. SO IT DETECTS rEPO, BUT IT IS BELOW A THRESHOLD, RIGHT???? AND THEN THE ATHLETE IS CLEAN?

I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL ABOUT IT. LET'S ROLL!!!!!!

ANSWER THE QUESTION. DID YOU BELIEVE THAT EPO WAS A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE???????? YES OR NO?


OR SHOULD WE MAKE ANOTHER DEBATE ABOUT THAT FOR YOU TO PVSSY OUT. THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING. I DARE YOU!!!!


"WE'VE BEEN ARGUING NOW OVER A YEAR ON WHETHER YOU BELIEVED EPO WAS A THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE. I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL ABOUT IT. WHAT SAY YOU????? LET'S GET IT ON!!!!"

[travestyny]

GONNA RIP YOU A NEW *******EEEE. LMAOOOO. YOU COOKED YOURSELF WELL DONE!!!

There were NO limits agreed to the discussion. If there was an agreement, show it to me!!!!

YOU SAID THE SCOPE WAS THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT. PROOF:

the scope will be just about whether the EPO document has threshold criteria in the document.

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

SCOPE: Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria

WHAT DOCUMENT WOULD THAT BE????

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."

Did we agree to not discuss ABP testing? NO

Oh really?
1. Why did your initial statement say that the "threshold" must show EPO specifically. ABP doesn't do that. LMAOOOO

1) EPO testing has thresholds for substances that vary depending on the action of the drug, and whether it occurs naturally, among other reasons. EPO occurs naturally in the body, in addition to when it is taken by an athlete. Threshold testing data must show artificial EPO specifically.

Oh that's right, you now said that the initial statement was not yours and that you didn't take it seriously. LMAOOOOOOOO.

2. You also, after you were down 2-0, tried to talking about the indirect test. And you then tried to say it's in the what....2014 document...that you're not trying to say was not the score though you were caught above saying it is the scope. Well I already told you. Find where in the document it says that the ABP can be used to confirm EPO as you tried to state. Here is the only thing it mentions.

Provisions 3.2 and 6.2 of the Code allow the use of results to establish profile of doping by Athletes. Thus, even if the results of EPO analysis are reported as negative by a Laboratory on the basis of IEF and/or SDS/SAR-PAGE analysis, information contained in the analysis combined with other information (e.g. blood variables, longitudinal profiles, testimonies) may remain relevant in a more general context to establish anti-doping rule violations.

ALL IT SAYS IS THAT THE INFOMATION FROM THE TESTS CAN BE ADDED TO THE ABP. IT NEVER SAYS THE ABP DETECTS EPO SPECIFICALLY. IN FACT, WADA STATES THAT IT DOES NOT DO THAT.

The fundamental principle of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) is to monitor selected biological variables over time that indirectly reveal the effects of doping rather than attempting to detect the doping substance or method itself.

BUT YOU KNOW AND I KNOW...YOU DEFLECT AND SQUIRM A LOT.

Did we agree to limit to just a document? No

LMAOOOOOO. LET ME POST THIS AGAIN!

SCOPE: Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria

Did you state that there are no threshold tests for EPO, ever, never by WADA? YES

YES, AND THERE WEREN'T YOU FOOL. EVEN WHEN THEY WENT TO AN 85%, they stated clearly....THAT IT WAS NOT A THRESHOLD!!!! I remember I showed you that and you made up all kinds of excuses and then went back to saying the intensity is what makes it a threshold. Now go back to your new deflection here and read up on what they say about NESP having no threshold. I also got the guy who developed the test saying CERA has no threshold. I also have the court saying the WADA criteria are not thresholds. You are drowning, son. But we already did this. You already drowned and you're laying at the bottom of the ocean with eels crawling out of your eye sockets.

Did you say that there are no ratios? Yes

I said do a search and you will not see the word ratio. What's your point, son? You were already taught that it doesn't make it a threshold, now does it. The CAS kicked your ass! Try to tell me that they didn't mention WADA's Criteria. I dare you. But more about that later. I'm going to expose you just this last time!

Did you go back to pre-WADA rules? Yes!!!
.

Pre-WADA? LMAOOOOO. Tell me, son. What is this:

5.1.6.5 The third additional criterion is the WADA Standard, effective 1 January 2005. This criterion has been set forth in a WADA Technical Document TD2004EPO and is entitled; Harmonization of the Method for the Identification of Epoetin Alfa and Bèta (EPO) and Darbepoietin Alfa (NESP) by lEF-Double Bhtting and Chemiluminescent Deteotion. The WADA Standard sets forth three criteria that must be met in order to find a sample positive for rEPO. The Respondent's samples satisfied these criteria. Thus, the WADA criteria for interpreting the resulting test procedure image would also indicate rEPO as the analytical result. Of course, the WADA Standard did not apply at the time of the urine sample being given and analyzed by the UCLA Laboratory. While the Panel cannot rely upon this result to be comfortably satisfied that a doping offense occurred it can and does examine the criterion to collaborate the results derived by other criteria in use by accredited laboratories at the time of the giving of the urine sample.

5.1.6.6 Although this WADA standard is by the time of writing these reasons the criterion to determine a positive test, its application in this case is merely collaborative or supportive of the Panel's findings but not determinative of them, The Technical Document states that it is "required for analyses performed after December 31, 2004." The Respondent's sample was on 6 April 2004. Although this Panel cannot solely rely upon this criterion, it can definitely refer to the standard to serve as confirmatory evidence to support its decision,

PRE-WADA DOE???? LMAOOOOOOOO. I SEE THAT WADA SHlT UP THERE. DON'T YOU?????

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT'S EVEN FUNNIER? You know what's relevant is the WADA TD2014EPO Document. Above I highlighted the WADA TD2004EPO document. Just because I want to completely slit your throat. Here it is, son:

If you look at that document from 2004 its similar to the recent one of 2014. At least in what I will bring up. They both bring up Isolectric Focusing (IEF).

The above indicate thresholds that must be met ....... I will try to explain ....

You said the documents both contain thresholds and that they are similar. But the CAS said the WADA Criteria don't contain thresholds.

The fact is that the BAP and the other interpretative criteria[THE WADA STANDARD 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.

But now you try to change your story....
WHY YOU ALWAYS LYING, SON???????? IT WASN'T ABOUT MAY 2, 2015???? IT WASN'T ABOUT WADA? LMAOOOOOO.


YOU WANT MY RESPONSE, you got it YOU FVVCKING MORON!!!!


That's the last time I decapitate a headless man!!!!

R.I.P.

[ADP02]

GONNA RIP YOU A NEW *******EEEE. LMAOOOO. YOU COOKED YOURSELF WELL DONE!!!




YOU SAID THE SCOPE WAS THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT. PROOF:







WHAT DOCUMENT WOULD THAT BE????







Oh really?
1. Why did your initial statement say that the "threshold" must show EPO specifically. ABP doesn't do that. LMAOOOO



Oh that's right, you now said that the initial statement was not yours and that you didn't take it seriously. LMAOOOOOOOO.

2. You also, after you were down 2-0, tried to talking about the indirect test. And you then tried to say it's in the what....2014 document...that you're not trying to say was not the score though you were caught above saying it is the scope. Well I already told you. Find where in the document it says that the ABP can be used to confirm EPO as you tried to state. Here is the only thing it mentions.



ALL IT SAYS IS THAT THE INFOMATION FROM THE TESTS CAN BE ADDED TO THE ABP. IT NEVER SAYS THE ABP DETECTS EPO SPECIFICALLY. IN FACT, WADA STATES THAT IT DOES NOT DO THAT.



BUT YOU KNOW AND I KNOW...YOU DEFLECT AND SQUIRM A LOT.



LMAOOOOOO. LET ME POST THIS AGAIN!






YES, AND THERE WEREN'T YOU FOOL. EVEN WHEN THEY WENT TO AN 85%, they stated clearly....THAT IT WAS NOT A THRESHOLD!!!! I remember I showed you that and you made up all kinds of excuses and then went back to saying the intensity is what makes it a threshold. Now go back to your new deflection here and read up on what they say about NESP having no threshold. I also got the guy who developed the test saying CERA has no threshold. I also have the court saying the WADA criteria are not thresholds. You are drowning, son. But we already did this. You already drowned and you're laying at the bottom of the ocean with eels crawling out of your eye sockets.



I said do a search and you will not see the word ratio. What's your point, son? You were already taught that it doesn't make it a threshold, now does it. The CAS kicked your ass! Try to tell me that they didn't mention WADA's Criteria. I dare you. But more about that later. I'm going to expose you just this last time!




Pre-WADA? LMAOOOOO. Tell me, son. What is this:



PRE-WADA DOE???? LMAOOOOOOOO. I SEE THAT WADA SHlT UP THERE. DON'T YOU?????

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT'S EVEN FUNNIER? You know what's relevant is the WADA TD2014EPO Document. Above I highlighted the WADA TD2004EPO document. Just because I want to completely slit your throat. Here it is, son:




You said the documents both contain thresholds and that they are similar. But the CAS said the WADA Criteria don't contain thresholds.






But now you try to change your story....
WHY YOU ALWAYS LYING, SON???????? IT WASN'T ABOUT MAY 2, 2015???? IT WASN'T ABOUT WADA? LMAOOOOOO.


YOU WANT MY RESPONSE, you got it YOU FVVCKING MORON!!!!


That's the last time I decapitate a headless man!!!!

DEFLECTO, go do this DEFLECTING in the other thread.


I'm waiting for an answer there.


NOTE: Respond to the questions. Do not try to play cute as you always do to avoid THE TRUTH!!!!



This thread is for the CHALLENGE that I have requested!!!!

[ADP02]

BAP test is not unique to just UCI. It was used by others including OIC. So all facts can be used to determine this


You used a case that is based on UCI rules.

So that means that the LABs can use any criteria available.


As per their rules, "by any means"


that means, that the LAB can use the BAP test as a test to help identify the presence of rEPO.



So you cannot squirm from this.


The challenge still remains.


But you are the one they call

THE DEFLECTOR so that is all you will do, right?


Reason:

YOU KNOW THAT

YOU ARE WRONG!!!!




.

[travestyny]

BAP test is not unique to just UCI. It was used by others including OIC. So all facts can be used to determine this


You used a case that is based on UCI rules.

So that means that the LABs can use any criteria available.


As per their rules, "by any means"


that means, that the LAB can use the BAP test as a test to help identify the presence of rEPO.



So you cannot squirm from this.


The challenge still remains.


But you are the one they call

THE DEFLECTOR so that is all you will do, right?


Reason:

YOU KNOW THAT

YOU ARE WRONG!!!!




.

Your deflections don’t work, bltch. I own your soul and I’m gonna clown you here till the day you die, you butthurt deflecting bltch


Why are you stating this isn't about WADA or Mayweather, son? Let me know



MAKE YOUR CHALLENGE ABOUT WADA SON. MAKE IT AT THE TIME OF THE MAYWEATHER FIGHT. WHAT'S WRONG, PVSSY. SOMETHIING FRIGHTENS YOU ABOUT THAT???? BUT BUT BUT.....LOOK AT WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE AND NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO HIDE BEHIND SOME VAGUE SHlT. BHAHAHAHAHAHA

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.


.

BUT YOU'RE BEING VAGUE BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T WIN, RIGHT BlTCH. LMAOOOOOO. HOW ABOUT YET ANOTHER CHALLENGE WHERE YOU TRY TO ARGUE THAT THIS WAS NEVER ABOUT WADA OR MAYWEATHER.

DO YOU ACCEPT????