Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[Dosumpthin]

travestyny's helper is here to get Travestyny out.

Is Spoon correct in saying that you are Travesytny's ALT? You always seem to come here to say nothing not something.



If you are truly objective, I dare you to read this thread. I placed the CHALLENGE and your friend Travestyny has been avoiding it like the plague!!!


This is something that he has argued for 2 months and was actually a CHEATING point from the first debate.


The only way that he could have proved that he was just plain misinterpreting all of that is if he accepted the challenge. Well, as I was expecting, your CHEATING friend placed about 20 roadblocks in this CHALLENGE but was ready to move ahead on other challenges.

This is exactly what I expected and it PROVES that this guy CHEATED and LIED in our previous debate.


I even allowed to exclude from the debate 2 items. Yes, I did that even though Travestyny didn't even back down for those that he was WRONG about.


I was even willing to give him as many points as he wanted for this debate and I would pay up for the first and much much more if he won this debate.

He had 2 options:
1) No apologies if the person loses
2) Or he or me needs to apologize if either of us lost.

Oh, and a 3rd party would be holding the points!

That was all because of his roadblocks and me trying to work it out. I had a solution every time, as you can see.

The dude has so far DUCKED the challenge! Imagine, he got WILLY WANKER to vote for him on this but now he is to SCARED to take on the same challenge!!!!


Too funny. It took time but it was well crafted by me with no CHEATING or LIES. Travestyny even said that he was SO CLEAR and said it a BILLION TIMES!!!!


BUT NOW TRAVESTYNY HAS DUCKED!!!!

**** whatever it is you just said.....
youre stuck on debating man made rules. You need to focus on the rules that make a man.


No need to discuss this any further.

[travestyny]

Then let’s ask you one more time. You won’t accept paying your debt because you think your info affects the result right?

Ok. So new judges. Same scope. Rematch. Use your new info.

Are you in or not? Last chance.

Still waiting. Your new info proves that I cheated apparently. Ok. No problem.

New judges. Keep the scope. Keep the initial statement. Use your new information. All points. Permanent ban.

What is your answer, ADP02? This is a more than fair offer. You want to show that you don’t owe me those points. You want to show your new info wins you this debate. Well there it is offered to you.

What is your answer????

I'm still waiting for your answer to this. You keep saying I duped the judges. I cheated. Etc. Etc. All I'm saying is...USE YOUR NEW INFORMATION IN A REMATCH WITH COMPLETELY NEW JUDGES.


You want to use the new information to clear up anything that you believe I stated incorrectly, I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. The only thing I ask is that you stay on scope and don't deflect from your initial statements.

-----------OFFICIAL INITIAL STATEMENTS:------------

We both agreed that the scope for our former debate developed out of the initial statements. Being that they were significant to the scope, we agree to uphold them.

Here is the updated version:

Note that my argument involves more information and proof regarding the test and procedures related to EPO testing.

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.

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

3) With current testing, you cannot find out the concentration amount of synthetic EPO for a given urine sample. Due to that, they are relying on different types of testing that tries to distinguish between natural and synthetic EPO. If they can clearly make that distinction then its a positive for the synthetic EPO substance. Although even this currently existing testing protocol can sometimes be controversial. There is a CUT OFF LINE (threshold) where a BAND must cross over. Sometimes, the BAND crossed over this CUT OFF LINE ever so slightly. This usually occurs when there is very little distinction between the naturally occurring EPO vs the synthetic. WADA calls this a "mixed band".
.

MY INITIAL STATEMENT

WADA procedures and documents make it clear that threshold substances are identified and have a pre-determined, specific reading for all substances tested. A high reading for any of these determined substance constitutes an adverse analytical finding.

There is a specific category of substances identified as threshold substances with one of the qualifying characteristics being to have a pre-determined specific reading the test is looking for.

If a substance is not found in testing documents for these category of substances, then it is NOT a threshold substance with the converse being true.

The term “threshold” or “decision limit” are not mentioned at all regarding EPO in WADA documents, because EPO is NOT a threshold substance.

-----------------PROOF OF SCOPE---------------

WE AGREE THAT WE WILL BOTH SHOW EVIDENCE BASED ON THE THREAD AS TO WHAT THE EXACT SINGULAR STATEMENT SCOPE WAS TO BE. WE AGREE THAT THE JUDGES WILL DECIDE WHAT THAT WILL BE BASED ON OUR EVIDENCE.




DO YOU WANT TO USE YOUR NEW INFORMATION TO ATTEMPT TO SHOW HOW I CHEATED YOU OUT OF THIS WIN? YES OR NO? SINCE YOU STATED THAT YOUR NEW INFORMATION IS RELEVANT, THEN USE IT TO PROVE WHAT YOU'VE BEEN CLAIMING. ARE WE IN AGREEMENT OR NOT?

IF NOT, THEN I MOVE TO ASK A FAIR AND UNBIASED MEDIATOR TO DECIDE WHO IS PRESENTING A FAIR CHALLENGE HERE SO THAT NO ONE CAN ACCUSE ANYONE OF DUCKING. AFTER THE MEDIATOR MAKES HIS DECISION, WE CAN DECIDE WHETHER TO GO AHEAD WITH THE DEBATE OR NOT TO.

IS THIS FAIR? LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK!

[ADP02]

Why do you keep calling it a kangaroo court?

You argue your points in front of neutral judges and agree to abide by their decision.

I think you just don't like it that all the judges voted against you. But that should tell you something about the holes in your logic, or about how you presented it.

WHY DID I CALL IT A KANGAROO COURT?

The SCOPE was set and AGREED by BOTH.

Can or does EPO have threshold type tests.

EXCLUSION was set.
This is NOT about if EPO is a threshold substance.

Initially I thought there was going to be either judges or a ref to control this.

Every time Travestyny was caught and he realized that he can lose, he tried to move the goal-posts!!!


Travestyny tried to remove "Can" from the scope.


Then after I started the debate, Travestyny soon realized he was in trouble, so he kept on crying to me, its just about 1 document even though he said it himself that he couldn't find any talk of a "threshold" in any WADA documentS and remember, Travestyny AGREED to the SCOPE!!!


He argued with me forever on there are no RATIOs/SCOREs for EPO testing. Once I proved him WRONG, he said it was not about that. He even tried to remove from SCOPE statements that were in the document that he was crying about!!! Even though he said in his initial statement, "there are no thresholds, ratios, scores, none of that. "

WTF!!!

Then he tried to remove any SCREENING/Presumptive type tests from the SCOPE that was IN THAT DOCUMENT that he was CRYING about was in scope!!! Even though he said in his initial statements, there are no thresholds, ratios, scores, none of that. He mentioned that he even was sure related to BOTH Presumptive/Confirmation type tests.



EPO testing includes ABP type tests. Its even mentioned in the document that he cried about. I even had an example that Travestyny said is an ABP type test. So then ask Travestyny, you agreed to the scope so then why do you now say, not in scope!


there is more....



EXCLUSION: Travestyny kept on mentioning that EPO is not a threshold susbtance. 90% of the contents of his initial statement was about that! Why?


travestyny DUPED the judges into thinking that he was providing honest statements. Far from the truth!

He said that a CAS panel statement confirmed his position but that was not an honest statement and guess what?/ The statement was based on 2003 case!!! Travestyny made 2003 in scope yet cried about what was in scope the whole time.



and there is more.


So when you are arguing 50% of the time on the SCOPE and the Exclusions, even though that was AGREED upon and NOBODY to stop this type of talk + Travestyny constantly breaking the rules and kept mentioning the only AGREED Exclusion.

YES, it was a Kangaroo Style Court!

[ADP02]

I'm still waiting for your answer to this. You keep saying I duped the judges. I cheated. Etc. Etc. All I'm saying is...USE YOUR NEW INFORMATION IN A REMATCH WITH COMPLETELY NEW JUDGES.


You want to use the new information to clear up anything that you believe I stated incorrectly, I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. The only thing I ask is that you stay on scope and don't deflect from your initial statements.

-----------OFFICIAL INITIAL STATEMENTS:------------

We both agreed that the scope for our former debate developed out of the initial statements. Being that they were significant to the scope, we agree to uphold them.



MY INITIAL STATEMENT

-----------------PROOF OF SCOPE---------------

WE AGREE THAT WE WILL BOTH SHOW EVIDENCE BASED ON THE THREAD AS TO WHAT THE EXACT SINGULAR STATEMENT SCOPE WAS TO BE. WE AGREE THAT THE JUDGES WILL DECIDE WHAT THAT WILL BE BASED ON OUR EVIDENCE.




DO YOU WANT TO USE YOUR NEW INFORMATION TO ATTEMPT TO SHOW HOW I CHEATED YOU OUT OF THIS WIN? YES OR NO? SINCE YOU STATED THAT YOUR NEW INFORMATION IS RELEVANT, THEN USE IT TO PROVE WHAT YOU'VE BEEN CLAIMING. ARE WE IN AGREEMENT OR NOT?

IF NOT, THEN I MOVE TO ASK A FAIR AND UNBIASED MEDIATOR TO DECIDE WHO IS PRESENTING A FAIR CHALLENGE HERE SO THAT NO ONE CAN ACCUSE ANYONE OF DUCKING. AFTER THE MEDIATOR MAKES HIS DECISION, WE CAN DECIDE WHETHER TO GO AHEAD WITH THE DEBATE OR NOT TO.

IS THIS FAIR? LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK!

REMINDER ALERT: I am the one who started this thread and I CLEARLY explained the SCOPE of this CHALLENGE.


AGAIN, I worked on the SCOPE so it is now CLEAR for you. SO that is what this CHALLENGE is ON.





We are on 60+ pages into this and I am still waiting for you to officially ACCEPT this CHALLENGE.


QUESTION for Mr DUCKard:
Why are you still squirming to any other debate but the debate that I am challenging you on? You want to squirm to a different topic.


We have argued this for 2+ months. You doubled down on it. That met the "threshold" for a challenge!!! BIG TIME!!!


WHY DUCKard?

via *****

[ShoulderRoll]

WHY DID I CALL IT A KANGAROO COURT?




Initially I thought there was going to be either judges or a ref to control this.

Every time Travestyny was caught and he realized that he can lose, he tried to move the goal-posts!!!


Travestyny tried to remove "Can" from the scope.


Then after I started the debate, Travestyny soon realized he was in trouble, so he kept on crying to me, its just about 1 document even though he said it himself that he couldn't find any talk of a "threshold" in any WADA documentS and remember, Travestyny AGREED to the SCOPE!!!


He argued with me forever on there are no RATIOs/SCOREs for EPO testing. Once I proved him WRONG, he said it was not about that. He even tried to remove from SCOPE statements that were in the document that he was crying about!!! Even though he said in his initial statement, "there are no thresholds, ratios, scores, none of that. "

WTF!!!

Then he tried to remove any SCREENING/Presumptive type tests from the SCOPE that was IN THAT DOCUMENT that he was CRYING about was in scope!!! Even though he said in his initial statements, there are no thresholds, ratios, scores, none of that. He mentioned that he even was sure related to BOTH Presumptive/Confirmation type tests.



EPO testing includes ABP type tests. Its even mentioned in the document that he cried about. I even had an example that Travestyny said is an ABP type test. So then ask Travestyny, you agreed to the scope so then why do you now say, not in scope!


there is more....



EXCLUSION: Travestyny kept on mentioning that EPO is not a threshold susbtance. 90% of the contents of his initial statement was about that! Why?


travestyny DUPED the judges into thinking that he was providing honest statements. Far from the truth!

He said that a CAS panel statement confirmed his position but that was not an honest statement and guess what?/ The statement was based on 2003 case!!! Travestyny made 2003 in scope yet cried about what was in scope the whole time.



and there is more.


So when you are arguing 50% of the time on the SCOPE and the Exclusions, even though that was AGREED upon and NOBODY to stop this type of talk + Travestyny constantly breaking the rules and kept mentioning the only AGREED Exclusion.

YES, it was a Kangaroo Style Court!

You are insulting the intelligence of the judges. Implying that they got duped or were incapable of following the logic of the debate.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you just didn't do a good enough job of arguing your point?

[travestyny]

REMINDER ALERT: I am the one who started this thread and I CLEARLY explained the SCOPE of this CHALLENGE.


AGAIN, I worked on the SCOPE so it is now CLEAR for you. SO that is what this CHALLENGE is ON.





We are on 60+ pages into this and I am still waiting for you to officially ACCEPT this CHALLENGE.


QUESTION for Mr DUCKard:
Why are you still squirming to any other debate but the debate that I am challenging you on? You want to squirm to a different topic.


We have argued this for 2+ months. You doubled down on it. That met the "threshold" for a challenge!!! BIG TIME!!!


WHY DUCKard?

via *****

LMAOOOOO. NOWWWWW I SEE YOUR DEFLECTION CLEARLY!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THEY AREN'T REALLY DIFFERENT SCOPES. YOU KEEP HARPING ON CAN. CAN CAN CAN.


YOU KNOW I ALREADY EXPOSED YOU ABOUT THIS. THAT'S WHY YOU WON'T ACCEPT THE REMATCH. YOU KNOW THE SCOPE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CAN! DUDE. YOU'RE AN OUTRIGH LIAR.



YOU ARE GOING TO GET EXPOSED AND THAT'S WHY YOU KEEP DUCKING ME. YOU LITTLE Bltch. LMAOOOOOO

[travestyny]

You are insulting the intelligence of the judges. Implying that they got duped or were incapable of following the logic of the debate.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you just didn't do a good enough job of arguing your point?

I understand his deflection completely now. He is saying that the scope of our debate was very loose. He's saying it was "can EPO have a threshold criteria" because he wants to bring up old or unrelated things that he knows won't win him this debate, and that's why he keeps refusing the rematch.


1. He already is on record admitting that the old criteria, that was once referred to as a threshold, but specifically stated by two court panels to be actually not a threshold, is out of scope anyway because it was already out of use. He's hoping that he can confuse judges by showing statements calling it a threshold even though:

A. The court has said twice that in reality it's not a threshold.
B. EVEN HE ADMIT THAT THIS OLD CRITERIA WAS OUT OF SCOPE.

PROOF:

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.

2. The rest of his "can" bullshlt is only things unrelated to the scope of specific EPO testing like the ABP and CIR testing.


This dude is the biggest piece of shlt. I've asked him over and over to have a judge settle whether what he is saying is correct. That the scope was "CAN IT HAVE.." or not. He won't agree....


I ALREADY BUSTED HIM SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT ON ANYTHING BEFORE THE INITIAL STATEMENTS WERE MADE.

We both said stuff BEFORE the initial statement. Was there an agreement at that point? NOT REALLY.

Yet he is now trying to claim that his "CAN" statement, which came from before that point, was the scope. He refuses to have a judge review this!

AND I BUSTED HIM STATING EXACTLY WHAT THE SCOPE WAS:

4) Billeau2 and Zaroku understood that after we made our statements that we were at that point in time establishing what was the scope and anything that we are disagreeing with.

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

HIS OWN STATEMENTS. DIRECTLY FROM HIM. HE IS NOW SAYING THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS INACCURATE.

SO WHO IS TRYING TO CHEAT? I'D LOVE FOR HIM TO AGREE TO HAVE A JUDGE TO LOOK OVER THE INFO. SHOULD BE EASY TO PROVE WHO IS LYING

[travestyny]

Travestyny tried to remove "Can" from the scope.

YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THIS WAS THE TRUE SCOPE OF THE DEBATE:

POST #87

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

HERE IS WHERE WE POSTED OUR INITIAL STATEMENTS.

POST #137 AND #138

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=740888&page=14

HERE YOU ARE SAYING THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BEFORE POSTS #137 AND #138, THE INITIAL STATEMENTS, WERE OFFICIALLY POSTED:

We both said stuff BEFORE the initial statement. Was there an agreement at that point? NOT REALLY.

4) Billeau2 and Zaroku understood that after we made our statements that we were at that point in time establishing what was the scope and anything that we are disagreeing with.

YOUR WORDS. COMING STRAIGHT FROM YOU. UNDOCTORED POSTS!

SO EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE SCOPE CAME BEFORE THE INITIAL STATEMENTS WERE POSTED....WHEN EVEN YOU ADMIT THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BEFORE THEY WERE POSTED, AND YOU ALSO SAID SPECIFICALLY THAT THE SCOPE WOULD BE ESTABLISHED AFTER THAT. OH, AND LET ME REMIND YOU, YOU THEN STATED CLEARLY THAT THIS WAS THE SCOPE:

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

WHERE IS THE WORD 'CAN' YOU LYING SCUMBAG????

BUSTED YOU FVVCKING LIAR. LMAOOOOOOO!

DURING THE DEBATE, YOU CLAIMED THE SCOPE COULDN'T COME BEFORE THE INITIAL STATEMENTS WERE OFFICIALLY POSTED BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO DEFLECT THAT I STATED EXACTLY WHAT THE SCOPE WAS, YOU DIDN'T OBJECT, AND YOU ALSO SAID THAT THE EXACT SAME THING WAS YOUR POINT!!!!!

THIS SHOWS US AGREEING WITH THE EXACT SAME THING!!!!

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.

EXPLAIN YOURSELF, ADP02

[IMG]https://media.*****.com/media/TUHInIQM4bXBS/*****.gif[/IMG]



[IMG]https://media.*****.com/media/14ceV8wMLIGO6Q/*****.gif[/IMG]

[travestyny]

You are insulting the intelligence of the judges. Implying that they got duped or were incapable of following the logic of the debate.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you just didn't do a good enough job of arguing your point?

Let me ask you one more thing, homie.


Any difference between these two statements?

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.

I don't see the difference and I'm wondering why ADP has been trying so hard for over a year to walk back this statement. This dude is the most dishonest scumbag bar none and he knows it, which is why he wont' accept a rematch. He knows any judge will see right through who is the real liar here.

[travestyny]

WHY DID I CALL IT A KANGAROO COURT?




Initially I thought there was going to be either judges or a ref to control this.

Every time Travestyny was caught and he realized that he can lose, he tried to move the goal-posts!!!


Travestyny tried to remove "Can" from the scope.


Then after I started the debate, Travestyny soon realized he was in trouble, so he kept on crying to me, its just about 1 document even though he said it himself that he couldn't find any talk of a "threshold" in any WADA documentS and remember, Travestyny AGREED to the SCOPE!!!


He argued with me forever on there are no RATIOs/SCOREs for EPO testing. Once I proved him WRONG, he said it was not about that. He even tried to remove from SCOPE statements that were in the document that he was crying about!!! Even though he said in his initial statement, "there are no thresholds, ratios, scores, none of that. "

WTF!!!

Then he tried to remove any SCREENING/Presumptive type tests from the SCOPE that was IN THAT DOCUMENT that he was CRYING about was in scope!!! Even though he said in his initial statements, there are no thresholds, ratios, scores, none of that. He mentioned that he even was sure related to BOTH Presumptive/Confirmation type tests.



EPO testing includes ABP type tests. Its even mentioned in the document that he cried about. I even had an example that Travestyny said is an ABP type test. So then ask Travestyny, you agreed to the scope so then why do you now say, not in scope!


there is more....



EXCLUSION: Travestyny kept on mentioning that EPO is not a threshold susbtance. 90% of the contents of his initial statement was about that! Why?


travestyny DUPED the judges into thinking that he was providing honest statements. Far from the truth!

He said that a CAS panel statement confirmed his position but that was not an honest statement and guess what?/ The statement was based on 2003 case!!! Travestyny made 2003 in scope yet cried about what was in scope the whole time.



and there is more.


So when you are arguing 50% of the time on the SCOPE and the Exclusions, even though that was AGREED upon and NOBODY to stop this type of talk + Travestyny constantly breaking the rules and kept mentioning the only AGREED Exclusion.

YES, it was a Kangaroo Style Court!

ONE WAY TO SETTLE ALL OF THIS IS FOR YOU TO ACCEPT A REMATCH. AFTER EVERYTHING YOU SAID, YOU CAN'T DECLINE, CHUMP. YOUR ACCUSATIONS ARE COMPLETE BULLSHLT AND YOU KNOW IT.


STEP UP AND ACCEPT THE REMATCH. USE WHATEVER INFORMATION YOU WANT. WE KEEP THE SCOPE AND INITIAL STATEMENTS. YOU SAY MY INITIAL STATEMENT WORKS AGAINST ME. I SAY YOURS WORKS AGAINST YOU. LET'S SEE WHO HAS TO STEP BACK FROM THE INITIAL STATEMENTS, ADP.


DO YOU AGREE? DON'T DUCK, BlTCH BOY. LMAOOOOOO!

WHO AM I KIDDING. I KNOW YOU WILL DUCK THIS. DUCK DUCK DUCK DUCK. STEP UP, PVSSSY. ALL THAT CRYING AND YOU ARE AFRAIDDDDDDDDDDD!