Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

AND HERE IS YOU FINALLY ANSWERING THAT IT'S NOT IN THE DOCUMENT!!!!!

2. You tell me. yes or No?
If you ask me, the same exact criteria is not in the document .

SO PLEASE TELL ME. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD? IT DAMN SURE PROVES NOTHING ABOUT OUR DEBATE. RIGHT?????????


IS IT JUST a Deflection for you to try to save face about losing 4-0. Is it? Let me know. Because it seems what you ran in here to prove was IRRELEVANT and also you're purposely being vague to get over and you don't want to let go of that. It's so obvious, dude. This whole thread was nothing more than a bltch move.

All of the things that we both stated that we expressly disagree about, you have DECLINED debating about.

Even your Willy Wanker Challenge which you said over and over and over is about that court case....now you don't want it to be about the court case.

This thread should be aptly called...desperation!

[ADP02]

The reality is that the criterion for 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 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 BPO.

Therefore, in the case of rEPO, there is no threshold above which it can 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 this test procedure represents is rEPO. The argument of the Respondent is one of comparing apples to oranges when there is no comparison. rEPO is not produced by the body and must be administered exogenously. The various interpretative criteria are applied to the image to make the judgement as to whether the Lab test result and its accompanying image is revealing endogenous or exogenous EPO.

ADP02

As you can see, this is about EPO testing. You are saying that EPO testing CANNOT have threshold type tests!

Originally Posted by 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.

[B][I]

Found it. HERE I AM DEALING WITH THIS SHlT A LONG TIME AGO!!!!!




I ALREADY DEALT WITH THIS DEFLECTION OF YOURS. THE POINT IS THAT YOU WANTED TO KEEP WITH IT BECAUSE YOU HAD NOWHERE TO TURN AND YOU WANTED TO LIE ABOUT THE SCOPE OF OUR DEBATE TO FIT YOUR AGENDA. WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH!!!????

YOU ARE NOT EXPLAINING IT BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG.

Look dude, the lab might have used it as a threshold in the past because they CAN. But that doesn't mean that it is inherently a threshold. I can prove this quite simply if you want me to.


Let's go through this one step at a time and see if we have any issues.


FIRST: Do you think that it was an 80% threshold in that case? Answer honestly.

As you can see from what I posted above, you used statements from the CAS panel that was mainly focused on BAP test criteria. So yes, it is part of the SCOPE.


AGAIN, you are trying to make it about a case but your statements on the CAS panel's statement do not reflect that at all. You even posted that this has been said before and after this case. That whenever someone has called it a threshold, the CAS panel was correcting them ….. this was true whether it was for BAP testing or not.

I even posted where you were correcting me and saying there is no threshold. There is just an image.





.

[travestyny]

[B][I]










As you can see from what I posted above, you used statements from the CAS panel that was mainly focused on BAP test criteria. So yes, it is part of the SCOPE.


AGAIN, you are trying to make it about a case but your statements on the CAS panel's statement do not reflect that at all. You even posted that this has been said before and after this case. That whenever someone has called it a threshold, the CAS panel was correcting them ….. this was true whether it was for BAP testing or not.

I even posted where you were correcting me and saying there is no threshold. There is just an image.





.

I AGREE WITH ALL OF MY STATEMENTS MADE THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE.


1. THE BAP AND THE INTERPRETIVE CRITERIA DO NOT DECLARE A THRESHOLD.

THAT'S EVEN THE COURT'S WORDS, NOT MINE. SO HOW ARE YOU SAYING THAT'S WRONG? LMAOOO


2. THERE IS NO THRESHOLD....BECAUSE THERE ISN'T.


So I don't see what you are talking about or where was this sustained 2 month conversation over "can." Was that all a lie? because like I said, I can show you that I said discussing it is irrelevant....and I can show you that 2 months we were talking about a rematch.


Do you need me to go get the quotations?????

[ADP02]

Travestyny

Question A, B, and C:
THE COURT FOR ARBITRATION OF SPORT HAS CORRECTED ANYONE THAT HAS EVER CALLED THIS A THRESHOLD TEST A NUMBER OF TIMES....BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST!!!!!




THE ONLY THING THAT WAS EVER REFERRED TO AS A THRESHOLD WAS THE OLD WAY OF TESTING: THE BAP. AND THE COURT EVEN SAID THAT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST.

DUDE. I JUST SAID THE SAME THING. IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST.

I just told you...if you want to debate whether it represents a threshold in that case, I'm fine with it.

I don't see what's the problem.


THE BAP IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST. IT IS NOT AN 80% THRESHOLD TEST IN THAT CASE. YOU KEEP SAYING IT IS, WHICH MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE AT ALL.

If they used it in the past as a threshold, well that's how they used it when they didn't know much about this. THE COURT CLEARLY STATES THAT IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST.

I don't know how many other ways I have to say it. But you keep going with "can ...can." ANY TESTING ENTITY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. But that court case is telling you.....THIS IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST.

HOW THE HELL CAN IT BE A THRESHOLD TEST WHEN THEY FOUND THE ATHLETE GUILTY BELOW THE SUPPOSED THRESHOLD?????? YOU SAID THEY DID IT BY USING THE OTHER TESTS. THAT IS FALSE. THEY ALSO USED THE BAP ALONE...WITHOUT ANY THRESHOLD ATTACHED TO IT. IT IS NOT INHERENTLY A THRESHOLD TEST!!!

I AGREE WITH ALL OF MY STATEMENTS MADE THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE.


1. THE BAP AND THE INTERPRETIVE CRITERIA DO NOT DECLARE A THRESHOLD.

THAT'S EVEN THE COURT'S WORDS, NOT MINE. SO HOW ARE YOU SAYING THAT'S WRONG? LMAOOO


2. THERE IS NO THRESHOLD....BECAUSE THERE ISN'T.


So I don't see what you are talking about or where was this sustained 2 month conversation over "can." Was that all a lie? because like I said, I can show you that I said discussing it is irrelevant....and I can show you that 2 months we were talking about a rematch.


Do you need me to go get the quotations?????

Because to you there is no threshold type test that can be involved .... for you, you said it is just an image. I say that ther can be threshold type criteria used BUT you said there cannot because it is just an image. Well, that is what you are saying that the CAS panel is stating.



We can use your statements above that I just posted relative to the Case panel's statements when he compares EPO testing to threshold susbtances. That is what you did every time we argued this.



.

[travestyny]

Because to you there is no threshold type test that can be involved .... for you, you said it is just an image. I say that ther can be threshold type criteria used BUT you said there cannot because it is just an image. Well, that is what you are saying that the CAS panel is stating.



We can use your statements above that I just posted relative to the Case panel's statements when he compares EPO testing to threshold susbtances. That is what you did every time we argued this.



.

Can be? No.


THERE IS NO THRESHOLD. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT TO YOU?

THERE IS NO THRESHOLD. THE COURT SAID IT TO YOU AS PLAIN AS DAY. LOOK AT YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF WHAT A THRESHOLD IS!!!

The threshold test result indicates that there is synthetic EPO if it exceeds the threshold. If less, the indication is that there is only human EPO.

NOW LOOK AT WHAT THE COURT SAYS!!!!

Here is the court's statement.

there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance

IT IS A DIRECT CONTRADICTION. I KEEP TELLING YOU. YOU ARE WRONG. THERE IS NO THRESHOLD. IF THE LABS TEST USING A THRESHOLD LIKE THEY WERE DOING IT IN THE PAST THEY HAD TO STICK BY THAT. THAT'S WHY THEY LOST THE HAMBURG CASE BECAUSE THEY MESSED UP WITH REGARDS TO THE CRITERIA. THEY WERE USING IT AS A THRESHOLD. WHEN WE GET TO THIS COURT CASE THE COURT MAKES IT CLEAR....THERE IS NO THRESHOLD. IT SAYS IT IN PLAIN ENGLISH. Dude. IN THE HAMBURG CASE THEY COULDN'T EVEN FALL BACK ON OTHER TESTS. DO YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE THE LAB ADMIT THAT THEY WERE TREATING THE TEST AS A THRESHOLD. IF YOU TREAT IT AS A THRESHOLD THEN LIKE YOU SAID ABOVE.....IF IT'S OVER, IT'S EPO....IF ITS NOT, THEN IT'S NOT EPO. NOT IN REALITY...BUT ACCORDING TO THE LAB'S STANDARDS. THAT WAS THE CONFUSION FROM THE PAST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT WELL ENOUGH AND THEY WERE USING THE BAP THE WAY YOU SAID. IT CERTAINLY WASN'T USED THAT WAY IN THE CASE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, NOR IN 2010. THEY STATED ALL OF THESE CRITERIA ARE NOT THRESHOLD CRITERIA! THAT DOESN'T LEAVE ANY WIGGLE ROOM. THE COURT IS SAYING THIS CRITERIA IS NOT TO BE THOUGHT OF AS A THRESHOLD. IT SAYS STRAIGHT UP THAT THEY ARE NOT THRESHOLD CRITERIA. FOR ONE, THAT IS THE REASON THAT THEY CAN USE OTHER CRITERIA. BUT FOR THE OTHER....THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD FOR THE BAP. IT WAS NOT AN 80% THRESHOLD. WHEN THEY TOOK THE FIRST TEST AND IT WAS 79.5 OR WHATEVER...THAT DID NOT BECOME THE THRESHOLD. THAT'S STUPID. I CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU ANY MORE.


WHY DO YOU THINK THAT COUR CASE SAYS....THE FACT IS.....THE REALITY IS......USE YOUR BRAIN. THE LABS CAN SET THE STANDARDS THAT THEY WANT. THE COURT IS TELLING YOU STRAIGHT UP THAT IN REALITY, THERE IS NO THRESHOLD!!!!

Just answer. WHAT WAS THE THRESHOLD IN THAT CASE. You went on record saying 80%. Do you still believe that? Yes or No?

[travestyny]

BY the way, more proof that you're lying about the sustained conversation being about "can", when like I said, it was about the rematch.

You returned to Spoon's thread in June. You made this thread in July, is it? Look how many times a rematch was offered. And you DECLINED every time. Also, already showed you that every step of the way I was saying your BS about the BAP is irrelevant. You even tried to argue that it makes the entire case irrelevant, which was stupid. Then out of nowhere, you ran in here saying "can can can..." You are not being honest!


6-2

You are welcome to a rematch. You know it only takes one paragraph for me to win. You know that, don't you????

6-17

Oh, and STILL WAITINGGGGGGG....

I ASKED YOU ALREADY. DO YOU WANT A REMATCH???????? FUNNY THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO AVENGE YOUR UTTER EMBARRASSMENT. YOU DON'T WANT THAT SMOKE!

6-24

Oh reallyyyyyy???? Then let's get that rematch popping, son. You down?

7-4

You were proven wrong, son. That's why you won't mention rematch. LMAOO.

7-15

Would you accept a rematch against Travestyny in the Thunderdome?

You're done. Unless you want that rematch. Let me know, yea?

7-24

If you believe that, why not accept the rematch and show the judges where I supposedly said that. You down?

[ADP02]

travestyny
Question A, B, and C:
THE COURT FOR ARBITRATION OF SPORT HAS CORRECTED ANYONE THAT HAS EVER CALLED THIS A THRESHOLD TEST A NUMBER OF TIMES....BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST!!!!!




THE ONLY THING THAT WAS EVER REFERRED TO AS A THRESHOLD WAS THE OLD WAY OF TESTING: THE BAP. AND THE COURT EVEN SAID THAT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST.

Can be? No.


THERE IS NO THRESHOLD. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT TO YOU?

THERE IS NO THRESHOLD. THE COURT SAID IT TO YOU AS PLAIN AS DAY. LOOK AT YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF WHAT A THRESHOLD IS!!!




NOW LOOK AT WHAT THE COURT SAYS!!!!

Here is the court's statement.



IT IS A DIRECT CONTRADICTION. I KEEP TELLING YOU. YOU ARE WRONG. THERE IS NO THRESHOLD. IF THE LABS TEST USING A THRESHOLD LIKE THEY WERE DOING IT IN THE PAST THEY HAD TO STICK BY THAT. THAT'S WHY THEY LOST THE HAMBURG CASE BECAUSE THEY MESSED UP WITH REGARDS TO THE CRITERIA. THEY WERE USING IT AS A THRESHOLD. WHEN WE GET TO THIS COURT CASE THE COURT MAKES IT CLEAR....THERE IS NO THRESHOLD. IT SAYS IT IN PLAIN ENGLISH. Dude. IN THE HAMBURG CASE THEY COULDN'T EVEN FALL BACK ON OTHER TESTS. DO YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE THE LAB ADMIT THAT THEY WERE TREATING THE TEST AS A THRESHOLD. IF YOU TREAT IT AS A THRESHOLD THEN LIKE YOU SAID ABOVE.....IF IT'S OVER, IT'S EPO....IF ITS NOT, THEN IT'S NOT EPO. NOT IN REALITY...BUT ACCORDING TO THE LAB'S STANDARDS. THAT WAS THE CONFUSION FROM THE PAST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT WELL ENOUGH AND THEY WERE USING THE BAP THE WAY YOU SAID. IT CERTAINLY WASN'T USED THAT WAY IN THE CASE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, NOR IN 2010. THEY STATED ALL OF THESE CRITERIA ARE NOT THRESHOLD CRITERIA! THAT DOESN'T LEAVE ANY WIGGLE ROOM. THE COURT IS SAYING THIS CRITERIA IS NOT TO BE THOUGHT OF AS A THRESHOLD. IT SAYS STRAIGHT UP THAT THEY ARE NOT THRESHOLD CRITERIA. FOR ONE, THAT IS THE REASON THAT THEY CAN USE OTHER CRITERIA. BUT FOR THE OTHER....THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD FOR THE BAP. IT WAS NOT AN 80% THRESHOLD. WHEN THEY TOOK THE FIRST TEST AND IT WAS 79.5 OR WHATEVER...THAT DID NOT BECOME THE THRESHOLD. THAT'S STUPID. I CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU ANY MORE.


WHY DO YOU THINK THAT COUR CASE SAYS....THE FACT IS.....THE REALITY IS......USE YOUR BRAIN. THE LABS CAN SET THE STANDARDS THAT THEY WANT. THE COURT IS TELLING YOU STRAIGHT UP THAT IN REALITY, THERE IS NO THRESHOLD!!!!

Just answer. WHAT WAS THE THRESHOLD IN THAT CASE. You went on record saying 80%. Do you still believe that? Yes or No?

Are we starting or continuing the debate now?


The issue is that you are discussing the case for some reason but that statement from the CAS panel goes way beyond the case and that is why you used those statements related to EPO testing in general. Right? You were not concerned just about that case. You were focused on the bigger picture in that anyone who calls the tests a threshold test is WRONG as per your interpretation.


Well, your post above is CLEAR on that and you said that you stand by your statements.


I said this:

We can use your statements above that I just posted relative to the Case panel's statements when he compares EPO testing to threshold susbtances. That is what you did every time we argued this.

[travestyny]

Are we starting or continuing the debate now?


The issue is that you are discussing the case for some reason but that statement from the CAS panel goes way beyond the case and that is why you used those statements related to EPO testing in general. Right? You were not concerned just about that case. You were focused on the bigger picture in that anyone who calls the tests a threshold test is WRONG as per your interpretation.


Well, your post above is CLEAR on that and you said that you stand by your statements.


I said this:

I have no idea what even you are trying to say. If you want to debate whether there exists a threshold in that case, then I told you a billion times, I'm all for it. So is that what you want to do? Because there was no threshold used in that case, and the BAP is not inherently a threshold test. I think I made this clear already.

If the labs in the past used it as if it was a threshold, then that was their business, and in fact, THAT'S THE ENTIRE REASON THAT HAMBURG GOT OFF WHEN HE WAS CLEARLY GUILTY.

Are you familiar with that case or not? Because that will come up. The lab treated the BAP criteria as a threshold, and that's why he was able to get off when one of the B samples didn't pass. Fast forward to our case. NONE of the samples were over 80%. So what was the threshold?


So what do you have to say?

It's not different from what I already asked you to accept in the past.

Topic: In the case of Bergman vs. USADA, the BAP test was an 80% BAP test.


or

Topic: In the case of Bergman vs. USADA, the BAP test represented a threshold criteria.

Its up to you really. I don't mind either. Your quotes prove that you agree with both! So I don't now which one you'd rather go for.

[ADP02]

ADP02

Just to refresh your memory:

Question: You said it is not a threshold type test.
a) Why did BOTH sides call it a threshold test in that case that you referenced?
b) In my post, even WADA expert Segura calls it a threshold test. Was the expert wrong?
c) Others called it that too! Are they all wrong?

Travestyny

Question A, B, and C:
THE COURT FOR ARBITRATION OF SPORT HAS CORRECTED ANYONE THAT HAS EVER CALLED THIS A THRESHOLD TEST A NUMBER OF TIMES....BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST!!!!!




THE ONLY THING THAT WAS EVER REFERRED TO AS A THRESHOLD WAS THE OLD WAY OF TESTING: THE BAP. AND THE COURT EVEN SAID THAT IS NOT A THRESHOLD TEST.

I have no idea what even you are trying to say. If you want to debate whether there exists a threshold in that case, then I told you a billion times, I'm all for it. So is that what you want to do? Because there was no threshold used in that case, and the BAP is not inherently a threshold test. I think I made this clear already.

If the labs in the past used it as if it was a threshold, then that was their business, and in fact, THAT'S THE ENTIRE REASON THAT HAMBURG GOT OFF WHEN HE WAS CLEARLY GUILTY.

Are you familiar with that case or not? Because that will come up. The lab treated the BAP criteria as a threshold, and that's why he was able to get off when one of the B samples didn't pass. Fast forward to our case. NONE of the samples were over 80%. So what was the threshold?


So what do you have to say?

It's not different from what I already asked you to accept in the past.

Topic: In the case of Bergman vs. USADA, the BAP test was an 80% BAP test.


or

Topic: In the case of Bergman vs. USADA, the BAP test represented a threshold criteria.

Its up to you really. I don't mind either. Your quotes prove that you agree with both! So I don't now which one you'd rather go for.

There you go trying to squirm to some other topic.


You were interpreting what the CAS panel said about EPO testing and that there is no threshold test. If some called it that, they are wrong.

You even said WADA experts in the past AND FUTURE who had nothing to do with that case were all wrong and corrected by way of those statements!!!!

You said that you even stand by all of your statements and have said it a billion times.



Now, you are not so confident in your statements. So you keep on going to another case or debate.



It's simple. You believe in those statements that you made but I think that they are wrong. That is still the challenge and has ALWAYs been the challenge since page #1. Well, I watered it down since you said the same about all non-threshold susbtances!!!! You said, good luck proving that.

[travestyny]

There you go trying to squirm to some other topic.


You were interpreting what the CAS panel said about EPO testing and that there is no threshold test. If some called it that, they are wrong.

You even said WADA experts in the past AND FUTURE who had nothing to do with that case were all wrong and corrected by way of those statements!!!!

You said that you even stand by all of your statements and have said it a billion times.



Now, you are not so confident in your statements. So you keep on going to another case or debate.



It's simple. You believe in those statements that you made but I think that they are wrong. That is still the challenge and has ALWAYs been the challenge since page #1. Well, I watered it down since you said the same about all non-threshold susbtances!!!! You said, good luck proving that.

Squrim to another topic??????


Your statements say something we clearly don't agree with...and you are refusing:

1st topic:

TEST #1: BAP 80% threshold test
Results: 79.5 - Just under

With the BAP test alone the athlete is just below the threshold.

2nd Topic:

Some LABs used the test with a threshold of 80% some with 85% and due to new data, they wanted to accept even a lower threshold .... BUT it is still a threshold test!!!!

THEY BOTH SAY EXACTLY WHAT I SAID I WILL ACCEPT ABOUT, BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO FOR SOME REASON NOW.


Forget it. Enjoy your thread. You want to keep being impossible about every damn thing, then just continue ranting in here about me supposedly ducking when I've provided enough topics for us to debate if you really wanted it.

And I'll just keep taking about you ducking my thread in the dome, ducking the rematch, and losing 4-0 and refusing to pay up if you want to go that route. Bothers me none.

I'm done. Enjoy!