Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

By the way....

Travestyny

the reason that the court said that EVEN THE BAP IS IN REALITY NOT A THRESHOLD is because a threshold is about an allowance. The BAP is not in fact concerned with an allowance. Thresholds can be approached and exceeded, AS YOU WROTE ABOVE. That is NOT what the BAP is about. The court clarified this explicitly. It is about AN IMAGE. A picture is taken, and based on that picture, they decide if they are looking at rEPO or not. That's it. There are no moving parts. If something can EXCEED something, as you mentioned above, then it can also drop below it. The court is saying NOTHING IS EXCEEDING ANYTHING. The image just is what it is! rEPO doesn't approach and exceed a threshold, as you incorrectly stated above. There is NO THRESHOLD. There is simply an image.

Keep believing what you read in 2002, son. I prefer to listen to what the CAS told me in 2010

The relative amount (approximately 85%) of the basic band areas does not constitute the “threshold” past which an offense can be found: it only gives evidence of the presence in a sample of a prohibited substance, whose mere detection is considered an anti-doping rule violation.

Now please argue that they knew more about EPO testing in 2002 than they did in 2010.

[ADP02]

Deflector,

Actually read my post. Those statements were made by you over and over again.

You said that it is about the image and therefore there cannot ever be a threshold test!!!


You now have realized your mistakes.


The challenge is on you misinterpreting those statements. You said the Cas panel corrected everyone who called it a threshold test including wada epo experts. I even named wada epo experts that nothing to do wth that case

We both mentioned other cases.

You still came back over and over to use those statements to state that for epo testing there cannot be threshold type test.

You now even deflected and didn't even mention about what you said about epo and other non threshold substances!!!!

You said they cannot have threshold type tests. Only threshold substances can.

You were clear as day. This was not about a single case!!!

[ADP02]

See you are looking at other case which makes sense!!! Bravo!



Challenge is on!!!!

[travestyny]

deflector,

actually read my post. Those statements were made by you over and over again.

You said that it is about the image and therefore there cannot ever be a threshold test!!!


You now have realized your mistakes.


The challenge is on you misinterpreting those statements. You said the cas panel corrected everyone who called it a threshold test including wada epo experts. I even named wada epo experts that nothing to do wth that case

we both mentioned other cases.

You still came back over and over to use those statements to state that for epo testing there cannot be threshold type test.

You now even deflected and didn't even mention about what you said about epo and other non threshold substances!!!!

You said they cannot have threshold type tests. Only threshold substances can.

You were clear as day. This was not about a single case!!!

We have been talking about this damn case since I destroyed you about it in that debate that you lost 4-0, and now you don't want to discuss it!!!!!

Challenge me on the merits of the case you pvssy. You can use any damn case you want in your defense. Let's go. Stop fvvcking stalling. I'm tried of waiting for you to step the fvvck up. You kept talking about this case because it broke your ****ing back in that debate. Now challenge me on it and get over it so i can stop wasting time in this dumb ass thread!

Do you accept that topic i posted or not!!!!!!?????

[travestyny]

see you are looking at other case which makes sense!!! Bravo!



Challenge is on!!!!

omg you fvvvcking weasly little coward. I told you fuvvcking 4 times now that you can use any damn case you want.


Do you accept the topic that i posted or not????

[ADP02]

So we are in agreement then that you believe that due to what the panel stated epo testing is tested by way of verifying an image (see panels statements) and therefore epo cannot ever be tested by way of thresholds type tests. Only threshold substances can.

I disagree with your statement. One of the tests can be a threshold type test.

Are you ok with this challenge?

Epo can be tested by way of threshold test.

[travestyny]

So we are in agreement then that you believe that due to what the panel stated epo testing is tested by way of verifying an image (see panels statements) and therefore epo cannot ever be tested by way of thresholds type tests. Only threshold substances can.

I disagree with your statement. One of the tests can be a threshold type test.

Are you ok with this challenge?

Epo can be tested by way of threshold test.

Dude, can you stop with the vague ass bullshlt.

I know you think I'm god because I kicked your ass 4-0 in that debate, because you are such a pompous ******* that you think no one could have kicked your ass 4-0, unless they are God or they cheated and manipulated the minds of the 4 judges, but it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO KNOW WHAT EVERY SINGLE FUVCCKING TESTING ENTITY HAS EVER DONE AT ANY GIVEN TIME OVER TESTING FOR SUBSTANCES THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE LABELED THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES.


Stop with the vague bullshlt.


We have been arguing on what was being said in that court case. You are welcome to use any case that you want to defend your stance. What the fvvck is there for you to squirm about. Do you agree with it or not? I'm tired of the bullshlt. Now you don't want to discuss who was right about the case. THIS IS YOUR LAST FVVCKING TIME. I GAVE YOU A TOPIC THAT IS SPECIFIC AND THAT WE BOTH CLEARLY DISAGREE ABOUT, AND YOU WON'T STEP UP. DO YOU ACCEPT OR NOT???????


I EVEN GAVE YOU THE CRUX OF MY POSITION BECAUSE IT'S ROCK SOLID...AND YOU WON'T BUDGE ON YOUR VAGUE BULLSHlT. YOU MUST SEE SOMETHING THERE THAT YOU DON'T LIKE.


DO YOU AGREE OR NOT????

[ADP02]

So we are in agreement then that you believe that due to what the panel stated epo testing is tested by way of verifying an image (see panels statements) and therefore epo cannot ever be tested by way of thresholds type tests. Only threshold substances can.

I disagree with your statement. One of the tests can be a threshold type test.

Are you ok with this challenge?

Epo can be tested by way of threshold test.

Dude, can you stop with the vague ass bullshlt.

I know you think I'm god because I kicked your ass 4-0 in that debate, because you are such a pompous ******* that you think no one could have kicked your ass 4-0, unless they are God or they cheated and manipulated the minds of the 4 judges, but it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO KNOW WHAT EVERY SINGLE FUVCCKING TESTING ENTITY HAS EVER DONE AT ANY GIVEN TIME OVER TESTING FOR SUBSTANCES THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE LABELED THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES.


Stop with the vague bullshlt.


We have been arguing on what was being said in that court case. You are welcome to use any case that you want to defend your stance. What the fvvck is there for you to squirm about. Do you agree with it or not? I'm tired of the bullshlt. Now you don't want to discuss who was right about the case. THIS IS YOUR LAST FVVCKING TIME. I GAVE YOU A TOPIC THAT IS SPECIFIC AND THAT WE BOTH CLEARLY DISAGREE ABOUT, AND YOU WON'T STEP UP. DO YOU ACCEPT OR NOT???????


I EVEN GAVE YOU THE CRUX OF MY POSITION BECAUSE IT'S ROCK SOLID...AND YOU WON'T BUDGE ON YOUR VAGUE BULLSHlT. YOU MUST SEE SOMETHING THERE THAT YOU DON'T LIKE.


DO YOU AGREE OR NOT????

Ok so you do not want this argument to be on all non-threshold substances.

Ok, I'm fine with that

You also said to remove blood sample testing from this discussion.

Ok I'm fine with that



Remember that UCI rules state that they can determine the presence of repo by any means.

The case mentions that. Right?

So I'm trying to make you understand that it means that they can test by way of BAP test,as is stated in the case.

So we are I believe in agreement so far?

My statement made was what you kept on quoting me to state that it meant that bap cannot be considered a threshold type test. That too was from the case.

So from my end, I will be explaining and presenting different sources to prove that your interpretation of what the cas panel stated is wrong.

I will be stating that BAP testing is a threshold type test


You will show why it cannot be a threshold type test


So far, are we on the same page?

[travestyny]

Ok so you do not want this argument to be on all non-threshold substances.

Ok, I'm fine with that

You also said to remove blood sample testing from this discussion.

Ok I'm fine with that

It was NEVER about the ABP. That was your deflection, just like now this whole BAP discussion is your deflection. You've already admit that the BAP is irrelevant. Keep it real. The only reason you want to DEFLECT to this in the first place is because you are embarrassed with what happened in our debate, which you still won't admit that you lost, yet you wanted to come here on some vague shlt. Just by virtue of wanting to have another debate, you admit that you have no problem with the process, no problem with having judges here preside over the debate, yet you will under no circumstances accept a rematch. That's telling. I wish you could be a man and admit that you rightfully lost, but that's for your conscience.

Remember that UCI rules state that they can determine the presence of repo by any means.

The case mentions that. Right?

Yes, the case mentions that. I don't think you realize what that means.

So I'm trying to make you understand that it means that they can test by way of BAP test,as is stated in the case.

So we are I believe in agreement so far?

No, I don't understand what you mean. Yes, test for it by way of the BAP test, but you are saying that the BAP was the 80% threshold test, which it clearly was not.

My statement made was what you kept on quoting me to state that it meant that bap cannot be considered a threshold type test. That too was from the case.

IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED A THRESHOLD TYPE TEST IN THAT CASE. IT WAS NOT A THRESHOLD TYPE TEST IN THAT CASE. THE BAP TEST IS NOT A THRESHOLD PER SE. IT IS ONLY A TEST. AS I TOLD YOU IN THE DEBATE IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, ANYTHING CAN BE A THRESHOLD IF YOU PLACE A THRESHOLD ON IT. SOMETIMES THIS TEST WAS RUN AND THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD PLACED ON IT. I'VE ALREADY SHOWN YOU THE EVIDENCE OF THIS. DUDE, IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS DEBATE, I'M WARNING YOU. YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE!!!! AND I'M TELLING YOU THIS NICELY AND WITH REAL TALK, BECAUSE I KNOW IF YOU GO AHEAD WITH THIS, YOU ARE ONLY GOING TO WELCH OUT ON WHATEVER THE PENALTY IS, YOU'RE GOING TO CRY ABOUT IT, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY I CHEATED, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THE JUDGES CHEATED, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT I MANIPULATED EVERYONE. DUDE. JUST STOP ALREADY. THE INFORMATION I HAVE ALREADY PRESENTED IS CLEAR ENOUGH.

So from my end, I will be explaining and presenting different sources to prove that your interpretation of what the cas panel stated is wrong.

You're welcome to try that, and I welcome you to do so. I very much welcome that.

I will be stating that BAP testing is a threshold type test

Go for it. You are going to lose. I've warned you. It is NOT a threshold type test when there is no threshold placed on it. USE YOUR BRAIN. All I have to do is ask you....in that case, WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD????? You are not going to be able to answer. You have stated that it is 80%, the court stated that there is NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. Dude....what do you think is going to happen if you debate me on that???? USE YOUR BRAIN!

You will show why it cannot be a threshold type test

So far, are we on the same page?

NO I'M NOT SAYING IT CANNOT BE. JESUS FVVCKING CHRIST. I've already told you....how fvvcking vague is that. Should I know about how every entity has ever run the BAP test from its inception and what criteria they placed on it?????? Anything can be a threshold if you put a fvvcking threshold on it. YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE BAP TEST IS ALWAYS A THRESHOLD TYPE TEST. THAT IS NOT TRUE.

All of the information is out there. The court case, as I said, gave a full history of the BAP test.


It stated that in the early days there was a cut-off placed on it. That cut-off was 80%. THAT is what was labeled the threshold by scientists, and I have stated that it was labeled that. That was going back to 2002 when they didn't even understand this so well.

By the time we get to the court case I'm talking about, the CAS was already showing that they did NOT want to use the word threshold when it came to this test. Whether that means they would refer to the test run by the IOC with the 80% critieria as a threshold or not at this point, who knows. They certainly about faced that in 2010. But in the Bergman case, it's so much easier to see that the BAP test WASN'T a threshold in the case we were referring to because THERE IS NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. HOW CAN IT BE A THRESHOLD IF THERE IS NO NUMERICAL LIMIT???

The only "threshold" you can refer to in that case is..."there is EPO or there isn't EPO." And no one in their right mind is going to say...well that is the threshold. THE WORDING OF THE CASE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE BAP IS NOT A THRESHOLD, YET YOU ARE ARGUING THAT THE WORDS OF THE PANEL ARE INCORRECT. OR YOU ARE ARGUING THT IT IS STILL A THRESHOLD IN A DIFFERENT WAY. BUT THINK ABOUT IT. THE COURT ALREADY STATED THAT THE UCI SET DOWN NO THRESHOLDS. THERE IS NOWHERE FOR YOU TO GO WITH REGARDS TO SAYING THERE WAS ANY THRESHOLD!

IT IS STATED OVER AND OVER IN MORE THAN A FEW CAS CASES THAT THE UCI NEVER SET A THRESHOLD FOR EPO. In a few of those cases, the labs decided to use the 80% anyway, which is why in the Hamburg case when it was brought up that there was NO THRESHOLD, the athlete still won his case because they found that since the lab CHOSE to use the 80%, they had to use it on the B sample, which was below 80%. Due to that, the athlete got off.

THE CASE WE ARE REFERRING TO, BERGMAN, IS THE CASE THAT IS GOING TO BREAK YOUR BACK. Finally there was a case where that standard not only was not applied, but it was also not met. The athlete's sample wasn't above 80%. But the test was not an 80% threshold test. It was just a BAP test. I've already shown you that the CAS stated in the past that when dealing with the UCI, there was NO THRESHOLDS put in place. So any means necessary, which they were saying even about those cases, not only means that other criteria could be used, but also means that the BAP test could be analyzed without a threshold. The court said that while a threshold was NOT mandatory, it would be nice if there were one. The court then said that in the absence of that threshold, the court will decide if the sample fails the BAP test on a case by case basis.

HERE IS THE KEY. IN THIS CASE, THE BAP TEST WAS DONE. IT WAS NOT AN 80% THRESHOLD TEST. AS SUCH, THE COURT HAD TO DECIDE BASED ON THE LEVEL IF THE UNCERTAINTY WAS LOW ENOUGH TO BE UPHELD. THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD. THEY FOUND THAT EVEN WITH SOMETHING AS LOW AS 74% OR WHATEVER IT WAS, THE RISK OF A FALSE POSITIVE WAS STILL SUPER LOW. ON THAT BASIS, NOT ON THE BASIS OF A THRESHOLD, THEY DECIDED THAT THE BAP TEST PROVED THE PRESENCE OF EPO. THE BAP TEST IS NOT ALWAYS A THRESHOLD TEST.

I CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS ANY MORE CLEARLY TO YOU. THE IOC WAS THE ENTITY THAT PUT A THRESHOLD ON IT, THE UCI NEVER DID, AND IT WAS THE UCI THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD PLACED ON THE TEST. IT WAS NOT, AS YOU SAID, AN 80% THRESHOLD TEST. YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE!!!!! THE THRESHOLD DOESN'T SUDDENLY BECOME 79.5% ONCE THE TEST IS DONE. THE THRESHOLD DOESN'T CHANGE AFTER EVERY TEST. IT SIMPLY IS NOT A THRESHOLD. THEY ANALYZE THE RESULTS AFTER THE TEST AND THAT'S THAT.

THE IOC WAS PRETTY MUCH DONE AT THAT POINT BECAUSE WADA WAS COMING IN, WHICH IS WHAT OUR DEBATE WAS ABOUT. WADA. AS YOU KNOW, WADA DID AWAY WITH THE BAP EARLY. THEY WENT BACK TO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO IT IN 2010 I BELIEVE, AND THEY EVEN STATED THAT VERSION OF THE BAP WAS NOT A THRESHOLD. THEY SAID THE SAME THING IT SAID IN THE CASE WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT. IT ONLY GIVES EVIDENCE OF THE PRESENCE OF EPO. I SHOWED YOU THIS A POST OR TWO AGO.

I have never been concerned with what other en****** have done besides WADA. I don't know about you, but I have no problem admitting that I didn't know a damn thing about the UCI or the IOC testing for EPO before these debates. Nor did I care. Nor DO I care. This all means nothing to the main debate that we had which was about Mayweather being tested, and you know that. Stop lying to yourself. And as you already admit, the BAP is irrelevant to our original debate.

But now, all you're trying to do is show that the IOC added what they labeled a threshold to the BAP test. Whoopty doo!!!!!! The court in Bergman stated clearly that the BAP is NOT A THRESHOLD. And you are trying to say it's only because the "by any means necessary" means that they can use other tests. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CASE IS GETTING AT. I've already shown you!!!! THere were TWO SUB-ISSUES. ONLY ONE WAS ABOUT THE OTHER CRITERIA, WHICH BY THE WAY WAS THE FOCUS OF MY INFORMATION TO WIN THE DEBATE. THE OTHER WAS ABOUT IF THE BAP WITHOUT ANY THRESHOLD COULD BE UPHELD. AND IT WAS UPHELD.

YOU ARE ON RECORD SAYING IT WAS THE BAP 80% THRESHOLD TEST. IT WASN'T. THE BAP IS NOT ALWAYS A THRESHOLD, AND IT SEEMS ACCORDING TO WADA, THEY NEVER OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED IT TO BE A THRESHOLD, AT LEAST NOT BY WHAT THE CAS HAS STATED, WHICH *****S EVERYONE.

I doubt you want to debate this because it is CLEAR. Get over it and move on with your life now.

If after all of this you still want to debate me about whether the BAP test is inherently a threshold type test, by all means let me know. I suggest you let it go.

[ADP02]

It was NEVER about the ABP. That was your deflection, just like now this whole BAP discussion is your deflection. You've already admit that the BAP is irrelevant. Keep it real. The only reason you want to DEFLECT to this in the first place is because you are embarrassed with what happened in our debate, which you still won't admit that you lost, yet you wanted to come here on some vague shlt. Just by virtue of wanting to have another debate, you admit that you have no problem with the process, no problem with having judges here preside over the debate, yet you will under no circumstances accept a rematch. That's telling. I wish you could be a man and admit that you rightfully lost, but that's for your conscience.




Yes, the case mentions that. I don't think you realize what that means.



No, I don't understand what you mean. Yes, test for it by way of the BAP test, but you are saying that the BAP was the 80% threshold test, which it clearly was not.



IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED A THRESHOLD TYPE TEST IN THAT CASE. IT WAS NOT A THRESHOLD TYPE TEST IN THAT CASE. THE BAP TEST IS NOT A THRESHOLD PER SE. IT IS ONLY A TEST. AS I TOLD YOU IN THE DEBATE IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, ANYTHING CAN BE A THRESHOLD IF YOU PLACE A THRESHOLD ON IT. SOMETIMES THIS TEST WAS RUN AND THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD PLACED ON IT. I'VE ALREADY SHOWN YOU THE EVIDENCE OF THIS. DUDE, IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS DEBATE, I'M WARNING YOU. YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE!!!! AND I'M TELLING YOU THIS NICELY AND WITH REAL TALK, BECAUSE I KNOW IF YOU GO AHEAD WITH THIS, YOU ARE ONLY GOING TO WELCH OUT ON WHATEVER THE PENALTY IS, YOU'RE GOING TO CRY ABOUT IT, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY I CHEATED, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THE JUDGES CHEATED, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT I MANIPULATED EVERYONE. DUDE. JUST STOP ALREADY. THE INFORMATION I HAVE ALREADY PRESENTED IS CLEAR ENOUGH.



You're welcome to try that, and I welcome you to do so. I very much welcome that.



Go for it. You are going to lose. I've warned you. It is NOT a threshold type test when there is no threshold placed on it. USE YOUR BRAIN. All I have to do is ask you....in that case, WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD????? You are not going to be able to answer. You have stated that it is 80%, the court stated that there is NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. Dude....what do you think is going to happen if you debate me on that???? USE YOUR BRAIN!



NO I'M NOT SAYING IT CANNOT BE. JESUS FVVCKING CHRIST. I've already told you....how fvvcking vague is that. Should I know about how every entity has ever run the BAP test from its inception and what criteria they placed on it?????? Anything can be a threshold if you put a fvvcking threshold on it. YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE BAP TEST IS ALWAYS A THRESHOLD TYPE TEST. THAT IS NOT TRUE.

All of the information is out there. The court case, as I said, gave a full history of the BAP test.


It stated that in the early days there was a cut-off placed on it. That cut-off was 80%. THAT is what was labeled the threshold by scientists, and I have stated that it was labeled that. That was going back to 2002 when they didn't even understand this so well.

By the time we get to the court case I'm talking about, the CAS was already showing that they did NOT want to use the word threshold when it came to this test. Whether that means they would refer to the test run by the IOC with the 80% critieria as a threshold or not at this point, who knows. They certainly about faced that in 2010. But in the Bergman case, it's so much easier to see that the BAP test WASN'T a threshold in the case we were referring to because THERE IS NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. HOW CAN IT BE A THRESHOLD IF THERE IS NO NUMERICAL LIMIT???

The only "threshold" you can refer to in that case is..."there is EPO or there isn't EPO." And no one in their right mind is going to say...well that is the threshold. THE WORDING OF THE CASE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE BAP IS NOT A THRESHOLD, YET YOU ARE ARGUING THAT THE WORDS OF THE PANEL ARE INCORRECT. OR YOU ARE ARGUING THT IT IS STILL A THRESHOLD IN A DIFFERENT WAY. BUT THINK ABOUT IT. THE COURT ALREADY STATED THAT THE UCI SET DOWN NO THRESHOLDS. THERE IS NOWHERE FOR YOU TO GO WITH REGARDS TO SAYING THERE WAS ANY THRESHOLD!

IT IS STATED OVER AND OVER IN MORE THAN A FEW CAS CASES THAT THE UCI NEVER SET A THRESHOLD FOR EPO. In a few of those cases, the labs decided to use the 80% anyway, which is why in the Hamburg case when it was brought up that there was NO THRESHOLD, the athlete still won his case because they found that since the lab CHOSE to use the 80%, they had to use it on the B sample, which was below 80%. Due to that, the athlete got off.

THE CASE WE ARE REFERRING TO, BERGMAN, IS THE CASE THAT IS GOING TO BREAK YOUR BACK. Finally there was a case where that standard not only was not applied, but it was also not met. The athlete's sample wasn't above 80%. But the test was not an 80% threshold test. It was just a BAP test. I've already shown you that the CAS stated in the past that when dealing with the UCI, there was NO THRESHOLDS put in place. So any means necessary, which they were saying even about those cases, not only means that other criteria could be used, but also means that the BAP test could be analyzed without a threshold. The court said that while a threshold was NOT mandatory, it would be nice if there were one. The court then said that in the absence of that threshold, the court will decide if the sample fails the BAP test on a case by case basis.

HERE IS THE KEY. IN THIS CASE, THE BAP TEST WAS DONE. IT WAS NOT AN 80% THRESHOLD TEST. AS SUCH, THE COURT HAD TO DECIDE BASED ON THE LEVEL IF THE UNCERTAINTY WAS LOW ENOUGH TO BE UPHELD. THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD. THEY FOUND THAT EVEN WITH SOMETHING AS LOW AS 74% OR WHATEVER IT WAS, THE RISK OF A FALSE POSITIVE WAS STILL SUPER LOW. ON THAT BASIS, NOT ON THE BASIS OF A THRESHOLD, THEY DECIDED THAT THE BAP TEST PROVED THE PRESENCE OF EPO. THE BAP TEST IS NOT ALWAYS A THRESHOLD TEST.

I CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS ANY MORE CLEARLY TO YOU. THE IOC WAS THE ENTITY THAT PUT A THRESHOLD ON IT, THE UCI NEVER DID, AND IT WAS THE UCI THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD PLACED ON THE TEST. IT WAS NOT, AS YOU SAID, AN 80% THRESHOLD TEST. YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE!!!!! THE THRESHOLD DOESN'T SUDDENLY BECOME 79.5% ONCE THE TEST IS DONE. THE THRESHOLD DOESN'T CHANGE AFTER EVERY TEST. IT SIMPLY IS NOT A THRESHOLD. THEY ANALYZE THE RESULTS AFTER THE TEST AND THAT'S THAT.

THE IOC WAS PRETTY MUCH DONE AT THAT POINT BECAUSE WADA WAS COMING IN, WHICH IS WHAT OUR DEBATE WAS ABOUT. WADA. AS YOU KNOW, WADA DID AWAY WITH THE BAP EARLY. THEY WENT BACK TO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO IT IN 2010 I BELIEVE, AND THEY EVEN STATED THAT VERSION OF THE BAP WAS NOT A THRESHOLD. THEY SAID THE SAME THING IT SAID IN THE CASE WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT. IT ONLY GIVES EVIDENCE OF THE PRESENCE OF EPO. I SHOWED YOU THIS A POST OR TWO AGO.

I have never been concerned with what other en****** have done besides WADA. I don't know about you, but I have no problem admitting that I didn't know a damn thing about the UCI or the IOC testing for EPO before these debates. Nor did I care. Nor DO I care. This all means nothing to the main debate that we had which was about Mayweather being tested, and you know that. Stop lying to yourself. And as you already admit, the BAP is irrelevant to our original debate.

But now, all you're trying to do is show that the IOC added what they labeled a threshold to the BAP test. Whoopty doo!!!!!! The court in Bergman stated clearly that the BAP is NOT A THRESHOLD. And you are trying to say it's only because the "by any means necessary" means that they can use other tests. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CASE IS GETTING AT. I've already shown you!!!! THere were TWO SUB-ISSUES. ONLY ONE WAS ABOUT THE OTHER CRITERIA, WHICH BY THE WAY WAS THE FOCUS OF MY INFORMATION TO WIN THE DEBATE. THE OTHER WAS ABOUT IF THE BAP WITHOUT ANY THRESHOLD COULD BE UPHELD. AND IT WAS UPHELD.

YOU ARE ON RECORD SAYING IT WAS THE BAP 80% THRESHOLD TEST. IT WASN'T. THE BAP IS NOT ALWAYS A THRESHOLD, AND IT SEEMS ACCORDING TO WADA, THEY NEVER OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED IT TO BE A THRESHOLD, AT LEAST NOT BY WHAT THE CAS HAS STATED, WHICH *****S EVERYONE.

I doubt you want to debate this because it is CLEAR. Get over it and move on with your life now.

If after all of this you still want to debate me about whether the BAP test is inherently a threshold type test, by all means let me know. I suggest you let it go.

I got part of my answer already from you!!!!


1) I told you that you just realized that you were WRONG!!!!


You went from there cannot be a threshold test to there can, sometimes!!!! Hilarious!

See you were WRONG!!!!

I just read it all and you added this so to say, I have to prove that each time they do a test that it is a threshold test? Nice spin AGAIN!!!

Spin? Yup.
the reason is that you said that the panel told the athlete that the test(s) for EPO cannot be a threshold test for EPO!!!!
a) They had new evidence to prove that the BAP threshold should be lower that 80% now! The what? The threshold!
and I even said this a long time ago!


This even has happened with threshold substances!!! Guess what? After, they still call it a threshold substance! They just updated the threshold!

Secondly, even a threshold substance limit is made up of several variables.


b) They used other criteria results to verify and prove their claim. Similar to what they do today! Test #1 results do not indicate EPO, how about Test #2? this doesn't mean that Test #1 was not valid test or means something else (eg. no longer a threshold test)

"YOU ARE ON RECORD SAYING IT WAS THE BAP 80% THRESHOLD TEST. IT WASN'T. THE BAP IS NOT ALWAYS A THRESHOLD!

2) Man, I cannot believe that you are talking like this now!

You showed me those quotes and even said this. Does what you said below sound like what you said meant, sometimes there can be and sometimes there cannot?

BEFORE when you posted the quote:

" Travestyny
I TOLD YOU AT THE BEGINNING...GOOD LUCK PROVING THAT A NON-THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE RELIES ON THRESHOLD TESTS...YOU MORON!!!"

Today's new version by Travestyny
"IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED A THRESHOLD TYPE TEST IN THAT CASE."

3)
Be honest.
You didn't bring up those statements (see below) to tell me that I am right, sometimes.

You brought up those statements to prove that EPO testing does not have threshold type tests!!!! but NICE TRY SPINNING IT!!!!

Certain prohibited substances are produced naturally in small quantitles in the body. Therefore, the UCI Antidoping Regulations provide a threshold that must be exceeded m otder to consider a laboratory analytical result to be positive. Thresholds are in place for cértam. substances such as nandrolone because of the fact that the human body produces. the substance in small quan******. Human EPO is also produced naturally by the human body, as is nandrolone, The argument is that the 80% for a BAP positive is like the threshold for nandrolone or other drug testing thresholds. The reality is that the criterion fór EPO is not a measurement over the threshold that must occur to take account of the human body's production. The fact is that the BAP and the ether interpretative criteria are uSed to declare not a threshold of huraan body production but rather an image trom the eléctropherogram as indicating the presence of non-human BPO. Therefore, in the case of rEPO, there is no threshold above which it caa be said there is non-human production of the substance rather there are criteria by which it can be said that what the image from thjs test procedure represents is rEPO. The argument of the Respondent is one of ccjmparing apples to oranges when there is no comparlson. rEPO is not produced by the bódy and must be admmistered exogenously. Tiie various mterpretative criteria are applied to the image to make the judgement as to whether the Lab test result and lts adcompanying image is revealing endogenous or exogenous BPO,

4) Now you are reading the other cases and finding out that not only OIC but even with UCI, who tries to detect EPO by any means, tested by way of BAP test and that the threshold they used was 80%! No limit?

So the more you read, the more you are coming to saying that there can be threshold type tests for BAP!!!! WOW the contradiction!!!!


5)

OIC had one but not UCI and the other statements of yours

Hmmm, you are stating this more and more like me but before you kept on stating that the court's statements meant there is no threshold tests!

" I TOLD YOU AT THE BEGINNING...GOOD LUCK PROVING THAT A NON-THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE RELIES ON THRESHOLD TESTS...YOU MORON!!!"

6) So instead of DEFLECTING you now are trying to spin this!


7) OK, just read the last part.....

You finally but partially admitted why you kept on making that mistake of yours!!! Well the evidence that you finally read gave you no choice!!!



8) Yes partially because you still are NOT getting what the CAS panel said.

At least you didn't state that you were WRONG! You also incorrectly stated some points.

Remember this and this is where this all started:

You said,
"a billion times" that the panel told the athlete that the test(s) for EPO cannot be a threshold test for EPO!!!!




You just realized it can be!


In other words,

YOU WERE WRONG, not me and NOT the WADA EXPERTs!





.