Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[ADP02]

Simple QUESTION coming up here:





For 2 months you have been saying that EPO testing CANNOT have threshold type tests.


You brought this up 1.5 years ago and now doubled down on that point for 2 months!


So you pretty much AGREED with the SCOPE!!!








Am I right that you said that?




.

Wrong. This whole can business was just your deflection. You already admit that the 2009 document was out of scope. Your scope having “can” in it was proven to be complete bullshlt. You were proven to be a liar.

EPO DOES NOT HAVE THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR TESTING. What we have argued about for a year is the debate that you refuse to accept a rematch for, compulsive liar.

Did you accept the challenge or not? Don’t see why you didn’t just respond yes.

Waiting.

"CAN" is BS, Travestyny says?


REALLY?


Well, that is the

WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE!!!!!






You freaking brought up those statements from a case to state that EPO testing CANNOT have threshold type tests!!!!







You said the supreme court CAS panel said that I and WADA EXPERTs are WRONG and YOU are RIGHT!!!







DUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!
.




.

[travestyny]

HERE'S WHAT YOU TRIED TO SAY WERE THRESHOLD CRITERIA IN THE 2004 DOCUMENT:

WADA TD2004EPO:

the 2 most intense bands either measured by densitometry or assessed visually in the basic area must be consecutive and the most intense band must be 1, 2 or 3.

the two most intense bands in the basic area must be more intense than any other band in the endogenous area either measured by densitometry or assessed visually.


AND HERE IS WHY YOU SAID IT IS THE SAME THRESHOLD CRITERIA IN THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT!

The 2 most intense bands measured by densitometry shall be in the basic area.

At least one band in the “acidic area” must be more intense than the last band of the endogenous area.



YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT WAS TRYING TO RELATE IT TO THE 2014 DOCUMENT. WANT PROOF???????

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).

1 - "In the basic area there must be at least 3 acceptable, consecutive bands assigned as 1, 2, 3 or 4 ...."
2 - "The 2 most intense bands either measured by densitometry or assessed visually in the basic area must be consecutive and the most intense band must be 1, 2 or 3"
3 - "The 2 most intense bands in the basic area must be MORE INTENSE than any other band in the endogenous area"

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

THE COLORING ON THE CRITERIA IS YOURS, NOT MINE! LMAOOOOO. YOU GOT EXPOSED! YOU WERE TRYING TO SAY THOSE CRITERIA WERE THRESHOLD CRITERIA....BUT IF THEY WEREN'T THRESHOLD CRITERIA IN 2004, HOW THE FFVCCCK ARE THEY THRESHOLD CRITERIA IN 2014???????

YOU GOT EXPOSED, LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[travestyny]

"CAN" is BS, Travestyny says?


REALLY?


Well, that is the

WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE!!!!!






You freaking brought up those statements from a case to state that EPO testing CANNOT have threshold type tests!!!!







You said the supreme court CAS panel said that I and WADA EXPERTs are WRONG and YOU are RIGHT!!!







DUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!
.




.

LET'S GO BlTCH. CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU CAN PROVE THE SCOPE. BECAUSE I HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION FROM YOU, ME, AND BILLIEAU SO THAT YOU WON'T BE POSTING HERE AGAIN, AND ALL YOUR POINTS WILL BE MINE.

ARE YOU NOW TRYING TO SAY THAT IT IS NOT RELATED TO OUR DEBATE? I'D LOVE TO SEE YOU TRY THAT. DON'T MAKE ME GO FIND THE QUOTATIONS. IF IT IS RELATED, PROVE THAT I CHEATED AND PROVE THAT YOUR INFORMATION MAKES YOU WIN THAT DEBATE! WHAT'S THE PROBLEM, ADP02. WILL YOU REALLY DUCK THE 'WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE' BECAUSE YOU FEEL YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT IT WILL SHOW YOU WERE THE WINNER?

BAHAHAHAHAHA. YOU BETTER NOT DUCK BlTCH. THIS IS ABOUT TO BE OVERRRR. DONT LET IT SLIP AWAY SO EASILY. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


DO YOU ACCEPT????? YES OR NO? SIMPLE ONE WORD ANSWER NEEDED OR THIS IS OVERRRRRR. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



OH, AND DON'T FORGET....ABOUT WADA CRITERIA, RIGHT? RIGHTTTTT????? BAP WAS NOT WADA CRITERIA AT THAT TIME, WAS IT?


DO YOU ACCEPT????? ACCEPT THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE. GOOD LUCK BRINGING UP THE BAP WHICH WAS NOT WADA CRITERIA AND EVEN OUT OF SCOPE IN 2009 WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS.


YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY FVVCKED. ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE, BlTCH!

[ADP02]

HERE'S WHAT YOU TRIED TO SAY WERE THRESHOLD CRITERIA IN THE 2004 DOCUMENT:

WADA TD2004EPO:

the 2 most intense bands either measured by densitometry or assessed visually in the basic area must be consecutive and the most intense band must be 1, 2 or 3.

the two most intense bands in the basic area must be more intense than any other band in the endogenous area either measured by densitometry or assessed visually.


AND HERE IS WHY YOU SAID IT IS THE SAME THRESHOLD CRITERIA IN THE WADA TD2014EPO DOCUMENT!

The 2 most intense bands measured by densitometry shall be in the basic area.

At least one band in the “acidic area” must be more intense than the last band of the endogenous area.



YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT WAS TRYING TO RELATE IT TO THE 2014 DOCUMENT. WANT PROOF???????





THE COLORING ON THE CRITERIA IS YOURS, NOT MINE! LMAOOOOO. YOU GOT EXPOSED! YOU WERE TRYING TO SAY THOSE CRITERIA WERE THRESHOLD CRITERIA....BUT IF THEY WEREN'T THRESHOLD CRITERIA IN 2004, HOW THE FFVCCCK ARE THEY THRESHOLD CRITERIA IN 2014???????

YOU GOT EXPOSED, LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice DEFLECTION!!!!


CAN EPO testing have threshold type tests?




YOU said that Case said NO!!!!!





and that was to state RATIO/Thresholds are there in several WADA documents on EPO.

BUT you then said this! Ooops!

Travestyny

FIRST OF ALL, NO...THEY AREN'T SIMILAR. YOU HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE 2004 DOCUMENT FOR WHAT WAS BEING DONE IN 2006, AND THAT DID NOT INCLUDE SAR-PAGE OR SDS-PAGE.

Now the ABOVE was you trying to make a 2004 document OUT OF SCOPE ….. BUT you are fine trying to state that it is IN SCOPE for YOU ONLY!!!!

For Travestyny, it all depends on who is making the point!!! What a CLOWN!!!!

[travestyny]

Nice DEFLECTION!!!!


CAN EPO testing have threshold type tests?




YOU said that Case said NO!!!!!





and that was to state RATIO/Thresholds are there in several WADA documents on EPO.

BUT you then said this! Ooops!






Now the ABOVE was you trying to make a 2004 document OUT OF SCOPE ….. BUT you are fine trying to state that it is IN SCOPE for YOU ONLY!!!!

For Travestyny, it all depends on who is making the point!!! What a CLOWN!!!!

CAN....IS THAT THE SCOPE? YOU ARE FREE TO ARGUE THAT. I DON'T MIND.


WILL YOU ARGUE THAT "CAN IT HAVE" WAS THE SCOPE. I'M OK WITH THAT ADP. ARE YOU OK WITH IT.


LAST CHANCE. ARGUE THAT IT WAS CAN. DO IT. DO IT! I WANT YOU TO SO I CAN HUMILIATE YOU FOR LYING AND GROVELING. LMAOOOOOOO.


SO DO YOU WANT TO ARGUE THAT? LET ME KNOW BRO. Really....THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE, BlTCH!!!!!!


JUST SHOW YOUR PROOF THAT THE SCOPE WAS CAN. LET'S DO IT. DO YOU ACCEPT OR DECLINE THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGEEEEEE

[travestyny]

Spoon23, I know you're too busy crying about what McDonalds did to your thread.


But come get your boy. He's ducking again. Now he won't even accept his own challenge

[travestyny]

Billeau's opinion reveals that you were lyingggggg!!!! Lmaooooooooooo

summing it up a might say "i am talking about threshold criteria objectively not threshold substances.... and t might say ill follow you til the ends of the earth until you can show me a place where wada documents verify any threshold criteria for epo in recent adapted testing procedures.

ooops. You fvvked up and got exposedddddddd!

[ADP02]

CAN....IS THAT THE SCOPE? YOU ARE FREE TO ARGUE THAT. I DON'T MIND.


WILL YOU ARGUE THAT "CAN IT HAVE" WAS THE SCOPE. I'M OK WITH THAT ADP. ARE YOU OK WITH IT.


LAST CHANCE. ARGUE THAT IT WAS CAN. DO IT. DO IT! I WANT YOU TO SO I CAN HUMILIATE YOU FOR LYING AND GROVELING. LMAOOOOOOO.


SO DO YOU WANT TO ARGUE THAT? LET ME KNOW BRO. Really....THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE, BlTCH!!!!!!


JUST SHOW YOUR PROOF THAT THE SCOPE WAS CAN. LET'S DO IT. DO YOU ACCEPT OR DECLINE THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGEEEEEE

So you are OK with the SCOPE of the 2 CHALLENGES?




You know, as stated originally in the first debate when you responded here:



You can search and search but the below will always be the scope.



CHALLENGE #1

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.

EXCLUSION: EPO is a threshold substance.





AND CHALLENGE #2


the WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE?


EXCLUSION: other non-threshold susbtances and ABP testing.



.

[travestyny]

So you are OK with the SCOPE of the 2 CHALLENGES?




You know, as stated originally in the first debate when you responded here:



You can search and search but the below will always be the scope.



CHALLENGE #1







EXCLUSION: EPO is a threshold substance.





AND CHALLENGE #2


the WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE?


EXCLUSION: other non-threshold susbtances and ABP testing.



.

THE QUESTION IS ARE YOU OK WITH THE SCOPE. LMAOOOOOO. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS DUCKING. WHAT DOES THE FIRST ONE WITH THE CAN HAVE TO DO WITH OUR DEBATE. THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID, RIGHT. IT'S RELATED????? HOW IS IT RELATED.

LOOK HOW YOU ARE TRYING TO PASS THE FIRST ONE OFF AS OUR SCOPE. LMAOOOOOOO. IT DOESN'T EVEN SAY IT'S ABOUT WADA, SON. YOU'RE DESPERATE. LET'S GET THAT JUDGE TO FIND THE TRUE SCOPE. WHY DON'T YOU LIKE THAT IDEA. YOU SURE ARE SQUIRMING HARD AS FVVCK!


IT'S ABOUT WADA CRITERIA, RIGHT? SO WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO TALK ABOUT? THE BAP? THAT AINT WADA CRITERIA, SON. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY FVVCKED. DO YOU PLAN TO SAY THAT THIS WASN'T ABOUT THE WADA CRITERIA?????? THE ONES YOU SAID WERE JUST LIKE THE CRITERIA IN THE 2014 DOCUMENT. YEP THEY SURE ARE SIMILAR.
AND THEY BOTH ARE NOT THRESHOLDS AS THAT COURT SPECIFICALLY STATED. SO LET'S SEE HOW I DUPED THOSE JUDGES. STEP THE FVVCK UP!!!!


YOU TOLD ME TO ACCEPT THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE. IT'S FOR PERMANENT BAN, SINCE YOU SAID I DUPED THE JUDGES AND YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE WINNER. WELL LET'S FIND OUT. IF YOU LOSE....LMAOOOOOO. YOU WON'T BE AROUND ANYMORE.


1. PERMANENT BAN
2. ALL POINTS
3. GIVE YOUR POINTS TO A NEUTRAL PARTY, WELCHER!


THIS IS REALLY YOUR FINAL CHANCE NOW TO STEP UP AND PROVE EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE BEEN SAYING ABOUT ME LYING AND DUPING THE JUDGES. LET'S SEE HOW I DUPED A JUDGE THAT AGREED WITH ME ABOUT THE SCOPE....AND YOU AGREED...UNTIL YOU DIDN'T LMAOOOO


LAST CHANCE. DO YOU ACCEPT THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE. YES OR NO. ONE WORD BlTCH. LET'S GOOOOOOO. STOP DUCKINGGGGG!

YES OR NO???

[travestyny]

Incredible, we hit 70 PAGES Officially and you are still SQUIRMING to AVOID the CHALLENGE!!!




THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE


Be a man, STOP the DUCKING!!!!

DO YOU ACCEPT THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE? I ACCEPTED. WHY HAVEN'T YOU? YOU SAID YOU WILL SHOW HOW I DUPED THE JUDGES AND CHEATED. LET'S GO.


IT'S ABOUT TO BE CHECKMATE, BlTCH. SAY YES AND GET DESTROYED!!!!!!!!!


"BE A MAN. STOP DUCKING. WHAT'S WRONG, ADP? LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE BACKED INTO A CORNER AND YOU'RE BOWING OUT!!!!!!"