Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

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!!!!

Yea, I thought that post would shut you the fvvck up and put you back into your world of delusion. LMAOOOO.

BUT BUT BUT ITS NOT ABOUT WADA. It wasn’t about May 2nd 2015. It wasn’t about threshold substances!!!!


Owned. 4-0 bltch. Deal with it.

[ADP02]

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




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????

Vague?


DEFLECTOR


The case was vague now?



UCI rules - ""by any means""



Are they being vague?




.

[Zaroku]

What's going in here? Is this a throw down??

Guys better define the parameters to the letter. That will be the guide of the the debate. Veering away from the premise is a pussay move and an immediate DQ.

You make a great point... finally. Define the parameters.... I’m sure they will do that...

How do we call the person with the best proof...

Legally, it’s called best evidence..

[travestyny]

Vague?


DEFLECTOR


The case was vague now?



UCI rules - ""by any means""



Are they being vague?
.

You are such a squirming bltch. The case is not being vague.

YOU ARE BEING VAGUE

.


If you want this to be about the case, all we need to do is.....LOOK AT THE CASE.


But you don't want to do that. Because you know you will get embarrassed.

Let me remind you of YOUR topic.

Topic: "Can EPO testing at any point in time, by any testing entity, by any laboratory, have had a threshold."

VAUGE AS FVVCK.

What was our debate about?

WADA ACCREDITED LABS. WADA TESTING. CIRCA MAY 2ND 2015.


BUT NOW YOU SAY.....OH, IT WASN'T ABOUT TESTING MAYWEATHER. IT WASN'T ABOUT WADA.

YOU'RE FULL OF SHlT AND IT'S OBVIOUS!!!!!!

But hey, you want to switch gears and deflect to the BAP, which is irrelevant to our debate because you want so desperately to try to get one over on me, then let's do it. But stop being so fvvcking vague about your topic. If you want this to be about the court case, then let's make it about the court case. You know....the case that specifically says that the BAP doesn't represent a threshold. I've explained this to your monkey ass over and over and over again. It's YOU that can't understand this. You keep saying that it is only because other criteria are used. That is FALSE!

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 EPO.

What does "the BAP is used to declare not a threshold" mean? If the test has NO NUMERICAL LIMIT....HOW THE FVVCK CAN THERE BE A THRESHOLD???? If you want to discuss the court case, then stick to the fvvcking court case.

If you want to discuss the UCI...

UCI rules - ""by any means""

Then you should have paid attention when it told you this a very long time ago you buffoon (actually, if I remember correctly, this was originally from a link that YOU posted):

The CAS in the Hamburger case went on to state that:

"the UCI's rules do not lay down any thresholds for the laboratory analysis."

In the court case that we have been discussing, it also mentioned this:

The UCI Antidoping Regulations do not refer to the BAP criterion or an established limit of 80%.

THE UCI WAS NOT OPERATING UNDER A THRESHOLD. That is stated clearly. The court even said that a threshold for the UCI would be desirable, but it is not mandatory. The court also said that in absence of a threshold under the UCI's rules, the court would have to look at each case to see if what was done holds up on a case by case basis. PROOF.


Arbitration CAS 2001/A/345 M. / Swiss Cycling, Award of 28 January 2002

40. In connection with the evaluation of the test results, it should be pointed out that the UCI's rules and regulations – unlike those of the IOC – do not lay down any threshold which must be reached for the finding to be positive. Although the Panel does not consider such thresholds to be absolutely necessary in the rules and regulations of the federations, they are desirable to enable greater objective verification and, moreover, also for the purposes of acceptability.

41. So long as the rules of the federation concerned do not stipulate such generally recognized levels, the Panel must review, on a case by case basis, whether the levels, upon which the laboratory based its decision, justify a positive finding. In the instant case and on the basis of the evidence taken, the Panel is satisfied of this.

SO WHEN THERE IS NOT A THRESHOLD GIVEN, THE COURT HAS TO DECIDE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS IF THE BAP TEST PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF DOPING. I HAVE STATED THIS TO YOU IN THE PAST DURING THE DISCUSSION, WHICH WAS NEVER ABOUT WHETHER SOME ENTITY COULD HAVE AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST HAD A THRESHOLD. THE PROOF IS IN MY QUOTATION BELOW THAT I ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS TO YOUR DUMB ASS. KEEP THE CASE BY CASE BASIS IN MIND!!!!


You were trying to give one side of the story in the court case. The court stated over and over that there were TWO SEPARATE ISSUES:

1. Could a BAP below 80% be considered a positive.

2. Could other criteria be used to find an athlete positive.

ACTUALLY, YOU TRIED TO DENY BOTH OF THEM! First, you claim that the first issue was never an issue at all. You went straight to the second issue. Then, when it comes to the WADA criteria, which is part of the discussion in issue #2, and which is what our debate was about, YOU STATE THAT THE CASE WASN'T ABOUT WADA AT ALL.

YOU'RE SQUIRMING ALL OVER THE FVVCKING PLACE. JUST STOP ALREADY.

AS FOR THE FIRST ISSUE, I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU. They discussed THE BAP. ONLY THE BAP. And they stated IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD. THAT IS BECAUSE IT HAD NO NUMERICAL LIMIT IN THAT COURT CASE. IT STATES THAT IN PLAIN ENGLISH.

A numeric limit does not exist. The Panel in Hamburger stated at p. 19 that a numeric limit below which a test is declared negative is desirable but not mandatory.

THERE IS AN ENTIRE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT WHY IT CAN BE BELOW 80%. IT NEVER STATES HOW FAR BELOW. Here is the post where I tried to explain this to your dumb ass!

WRONG. The court said that there were two things to consider.

5.1.4.1 The agreed stipulations indicate that the testing procedure used by the Lab is not in dispute in this proceeding. The issue is the interpretation of the results of the test procedure as opposed to the procedure itself. Can the procedure results be interpreted as a positive analytical finding based on a criterion of a BAP that is below 80%?

The subsidiary issue is whether the analytical result may be interpreted by other criteria such as the TBR, the Band Location or the 2005 WADA Standard.

Well well well. So you keep bringing up the issue in blue, but you only glance over the first issue. I wonder why.

You have been glancing over that first issue and trying to state that this case is only about the second issue. You are doing that either because you don't understand this, or because you're just trying to be deceitful.

This was NOT only about whether they can use other tests. THERE WERE TWO ISSUES. THE FIRST BEING AN EXAMINATION OF THE BAP TEST.

You have insinuated in the past that the threshold was 80%, but you now don't want to state that explicitly because you already know that the court brief stated plainly that there is NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. You know that smashes you. So what you are trying to say is that the only reason they say that is because they are saying other tests can be used. AGAIN, THAT WAS ONLY HALF THE ISSUE. THE COURT EXAMINED THE BAP SPECIFICALLY.

5.1.5.2 Recent research now indicates that the risks of a false positive at 80% BAP are much lower than originally thought, In Sbeih, the Panel stated on p. 9 that the risk was actually 1 in 500,000. The same research shows that at a BAP of 74.86% the risk is 1 in 100,000. The Respondent's BAP values of 79.5% and 79.4% were only slightly below 80%, Given these new scientific findings, this Panel is confident in concluding that a BAP lower than 80% can still provide the assurance required to rule out a false positive. The Panel finds that it has been established to its comfortable satisfaction that the Respondent's analytical result can be interpreted as revealing the use of rEPO.

Well well well...so what is this telling us about the BAP. It can be lower than 80%. How much lower???? It doesn't say. It was never stated. But we do know what the court said. NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. Below 80%. Ok. 74.86%? Yea, that's seemingly gulity too. 73? 72? NO NUMERICAL LIMIT.

But the court says that, BECAUSE OF THE NEW RESEARCH...USING THE BAP WITH NO NUMERICAL LIMIT, THEY CAN STILL ANALYZE THE RESULTS AND FIND THAT IT CONCLUDES THERE WAS rEPO PRESENT. This section was ONLY concerned with the BAP. NOT using the other tests!

SO THE BAP, WITH NO THRESHOLD, BEING USED TO FIND ATHLETES GUILTY. WHAT DO YA KNOW


You keep trying to give half of the story. This proves that you were wrong!!!!

ABOVE YOU HAVE THE PANEL DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD DO IN 2001. THE PANEL OPERATING WITH NO THRESHOLD FOR THE BAP, DETERMINING ON THIS CASE BY CASE BASIS THAT THE RESULT WAS POSITIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'VE ASKED YOU OVER AND OVER WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD IF IT CAN BE POSITIVE LOWER THAN 80%. YOU HAVE NEVER ANSWERED BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD IN THAT CASE. THEY STATED PLAINLY THAT THE BAP DID NOT REPRESENT A THRESHOLD. THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD.

You are trying to state that even when no numerical limit is giving, it is still a threshold test. How the fvvck can it be a threshold test then? WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD???? You're saying that the threshold moves around on a case by case basis. If they get a BAP of 74% for one test, that is the threshold. If they get 77%, then that becomes the threshold. THAT IS NOT A THRESHOLD FOR THE BAP YOU MORON. That is the court looking at what the BAP percentage is and making a judgement on if it holds up to scrutiny. The court has stated over and over: NO THRESHOLD!

IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE ME ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THAT CASE, WHICH WAS, TO USE THE WORDS OF THE COURT, THE SUBSIDIARY ISSUE THAT WE WERE HAVING, WITH THE PRIMARY ISSUE BEING WHETHER YOUR PUNKASS WANTS A REMATCH THAT YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY DECLINED, THEN CHALLENGE ME ON WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THAT CASE. THAT IS THE ISSUE. NOT YOUR VAGUE AS CAN EPO HAVE BEEN TESTED FOR USING A THRESHOLD AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST BY SOME UNKNOWN ENTITY.

So the true issue here is: IS THE BAP TEST ALWAYS OPERATING UNDER THRESHOLD CRITERIA.

You're stating that there can be no threshold before the test takes place, and after the results come in, then whatever the results were is the threshold!

I'm stating that if there is no threshold set before the test takes place, there is no threshold point blank period. Whomever is responsible will look at the information and decide if there is a positive or negative test.

THAT IS THE ISSUE.

And your side, comedically, boils down to you stating that there is indeed a threshold...with that threshold being...IF THERE IS EPO OR NOT!!!!!!

SO DO WE HAVE A NEW DEBATE OR NOT? AS YOU CAN SEE MY INFORMATION IS ALREADY OUT THERE AND I AM 100% CONFIDENT ON IT. I'LL AWAIT YOUR REPLY!

YOUR POST HERE MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT THE REAL ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR CHALLENGE. IT'S ABOUT THE COURT CASE AND WHETHER IT IS STATED THE BAP IS NOT A THRESHOLD BECAUSE OF OTHER TESTS OR BASED ON IT'S OWN MERIT AS USED IN THE CASE. YOU CAN'T BACK OUT OF THAT NOW.

SO REVISE YOUR TOPIC. ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE. AND LET'S DO IT!

[travestyny]

And not only your last post, but once again from the horses' mouth:

The UCI's rules didn't have a specific rule that the athlete had to be proved by way of BAP threshold test. Their rule states "by any means". So if there are other criteria that makes sense and is sound and reliable, those too would be valid, as per the panel's statements ..... but when testing for the BAP test, that was a threshold test! Even if the LAB had said, 78% is now the valid number instead of 80% that is still a threshold test .... If they could have convince with sound data to back that new threshold then perhaps the panel would have said OK .... but as I just stated, that new number is the threshold that the LAB would have ended up using ....


BUT again, what they (The lab) did is that they proved rEPO using other criteria. the panel found that to be reliable.

The bolding and colored text is yours, not mine. So you are stating that court case said the BAP is not a threshold ONLY because they also used other criteria. You've said this over and over again.

Here are the key points of your above quotation:

1. The UCI didn't say the BAP test had to be used.
2. The UCI rules would allow other tests to be used.
3. When the BAP test IS used, it is a threshold test.
4. If they change the threshold from 80% to a lower percentage, that is the threshold.
5. If they did change the threshold from 80% to lower, the new number would be the new threshold for the test.
6. But in this case, they merely proved the sample positive based on other criteria, and that's why it was positive. The panel accepted those other criteria.


Everything is about the BAP not having to be used, other criteria being used, and that the BAP could have been lowered, but you NEVER stated that the BAP was indeed lowered. You are only stating that it was the other criteria which was the basis of the sample being proven positive. Is this the main issue? Or will you now back off and say that it is not only because of other criteria that the sample was proven positive? Let's see who pvssies out now

ONCE AGAIN. THE SPECIFICS:
1. BAP test.
2. Specific court case (and feel free to bring up any court case you want).

THIS IS WHY I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT YOUR TOPIC IS VAGUE. WHY DID I HAVE TO BEAT IT OUT OF YOU THAT THE TOPIC IS MORE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE BAP TEST. WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT IN YOUR OPENING POST??? THERE WILL BE NO ROOM TO SQUIRM!

You could have just said: Is the BAP test inherently a threshold test instead of that vague bullshlt you are trying to run.

YOUR OP DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THE BAP AT ALL!!!!

Tighten up your topic, resubmit it, and let's go.

I'm ready. Are you down?

[ADP02]

You are such a squirming bltch. The case is not being vague.

YOU ARE BEING VAGUE

.


If you want this to be about the case, all we need to do is.....LOOK AT THE CASE.


But you don't want to do that. Because you know you will get embarrassed.

Let me remind you of YOUR topic.

Topic: "Can EPO testing at any point in time, by any testing entity, by any laboratory, have had a threshold."

VAUGE AS FVVCK.

What was our debate about?

WADA ACCREDITED LABS. WADA TESTING. CIRCA MAY 2ND 2015.


BUT NOW YOU SAY.....OH, IT WASN'T ABOUT TESTING MAYWEATHER. IT WASN'T ABOUT WADA.

YOU'RE FULL OF SHlT AND IT'S OBVIOUS!!!!!!

But hey, you want to switch gears and deflect to the BAP, which is irrelevant to our debate because you want so desperately to try to get one over on me, then let's do it. But stop being so fvvcking vague about your topic. If you want this to be about the court case, then let's make it about the court case. You know....the case that specifically says that the BAP doesn't represent a threshold. I've explained this to your monkey ass over and over and over again. It's YOU that can't understand this. You keep saying that it is only because other criteria are used. That is FALSE!





What does "the BAP is used to declare not a threshold" mean? If the test has NO NUMERICAL LIMIT....HOW THE FVVCK CAN THERE BE A THRESHOLD???? If you want to discuss the court case, then stick to the fvvcking court case.

If you want to discuss the UCI...



Then you should have paid attention when it told you this a very long time ago you buffoon (actually, if I remember correctly, this was originally from a link that YOU posted):



In the court case that we have been discussing, it also mentioned this:



THE UCI WAS NOT OPERATING UNDER A THRESHOLD. That is stated clearly. The court even said that a threshold for the UCI would be desirable, but it is not mandatory. The court also said that in absence of a threshold under the UCI's rules, the court would have to look at each case to see if what was done holds up on a case by case basis. PROOF.


Arbitration CAS 2001/A/345 M. / Swiss Cycling, Award of 28 January 2002


SO WHEN THERE IS NOT A THRESHOLD GIVEN, THE COURT HAS TO DECIDE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS IF THE BAP TEST PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF DOPING. I HAVE STATED THIS TO YOU IN THE PAST DURING THE DISCUSSION, WHICH WAS NEVER ABOUT WHETHER SOME ENTITY COULD HAVE AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST HAD A THRESHOLD. THE PROOF IS IN MY QUOTATION BELOW THAT I ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS TO YOUR DUMB ASS. KEEP THE CASE BY CASE BASIS IN MIND!!!!


You were trying to give one side of the story in the court case. The court stated over and over that there were TWO SEPARATE ISSUES:

1. Could a BAP below 80% be considered a positive.

2. Could other criteria be used to find an athlete positive.

ACTUALLY, YOU TRIED TO DENY BOTH OF THEM! First, you claim that the first issue was never an issue at all. You went straight to the second issue. Then, when it comes to the WADA criteria, which is part of the discussion in issue #2, and which is what our debate was about, YOU STATE THAT THE CASE WASN'T ABOUT WADA AT ALL.

YOU'RE SQUIRMING ALL OVER THE FVVCKING PLACE. JUST STOP ALREADY.

AS FOR THE FIRST ISSUE, I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU. They discussed THE BAP. ONLY THE BAP. And they stated IT IS NOT A THRESHOLD. THAT IS BECAUSE IT HAD NO NUMERICAL LIMIT IN THAT COURT CASE. IT STATES THAT IN PLAIN ENGLISH.



THERE IS AN ENTIRE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT WHY IT CAN BE BELOW 80%. IT NEVER STATES HOW FAR BELOW. Here is the post where I tried to explain this to your dumb ass!



ABOVE YOU HAVE THE PANEL DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD DO IN 2001. THE PANEL OPERATING WITH NO THRESHOLD FOR THE BAP, DETERMINING ON THIS CASE BY CASE BASIS THAT THE RESULT WAS POSITIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'VE ASKED YOU OVER AND OVER WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD IF IT CAN BE POSITIVE LOWER THAN 80%. YOU HAVE NEVER ANSWERED BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD IN THAT CASE. THEY STATED PLAINLY THAT THE BAP DID NOT REPRESENT A THRESHOLD. THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD.

You are trying to state that even when no numerical limit is giving, it is still a threshold test. How the fvvck can it be a threshold test then? WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD???? You're saying that the threshold moves around on a case by case basis. If they get a BAP of 74% for one test, that is the threshold. If they get 77%, then that becomes the threshold. THAT IS NOT A THRESHOLD FOR THE BAP YOU MORON. That is the court looking at what the BAP percentage is and making a judgement on if it holds up to scrutiny. The court has stated over and over: NO THRESHOLD!

IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE ME ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THAT CASE, WHICH WAS, TO USE THE WORDS OF THE COURT, THE SUBSIDIARY ISSUE THAT WE WERE HAVING, WITH THE PRIMARY ISSUE BEING WHETHER YOUR PUNKASS WANTS A REMATCH THAT YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY DECLINED, THEN CHALLENGE ME ON WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THAT CASE. THAT IS THE ISSUE. NOT YOUR VAGUE AS CAN EPO HAVE BEEN TESTED FOR USING A THRESHOLD AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST BY SOME UNKNOWN ENTITY.

So the true issue here is: IS THE BAP TEST ALWAYS OPERATING UNDER THRESHOLD CRITERIA.

You're stating that there can be no threshold before the test takes place, and after the results come in, then whatever the results were is the threshold!

I'm stating that if there is no threshold set before the test takes place, there is no threshold point blank period. Whomever is responsible will look at the information and decide if there is a positive or negative test.

THAT IS THE ISSUE.

And your side, comedically, boils down to you stating that there is indeed a threshold...with that threshold being...IF THERE IS EPO OR NOT!!!!!!

SO DO WE HAVE A NEW DEBATE OR NOT? AS YOU CAN SEE MY INFORMATION IS ALREADY OUT THERE AND I AM 100% CONFIDENT ON IT. I'LL AWAIT YOUR REPLY!

YOUR POST HERE MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT THE REAL ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR CHALLENGE. IT'S ABOUT THE COURT CASE AND WHETHER IT IS STATED THE BAP IS NOT A THRESHOLD BECAUSE OF OTHER TESTS OR BASED ON IT'S OWN MERIT AS USED IN THE CASE. YOU CAN'T BACK OUT OF THAT NOW.

SO REVISE YOUR TOPIC. ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE. AND LET'S DO IT!

See, to try to make your point, it is better that we use other cases, as you just did. Thank you for proving my point!!!!

Not only that:
This is about if EPO testing can have threshold type tests. YOU SAID NO!!!!!

You even went a step further and got bold. You said that there cannot be any threshold type testing for any non-threshold susbtances!!!!.

Travesytny
GOOD LUCK PROVING THAT A NON-THRESHOLD SUBSTANCE RELIES ON THRESHOLD TESTS...YOU MORON!!!

and not only today but during our discussion, I said that not only in this case but other cases, other WADA EPO Experts have said that there are threshold type tests!!!!

Note that I said, other cases and other WADA EPO Experts! You still maintained that EPO cannot have threshold type tests.



In fact, during our discussion, you too told me to look at other cases.

Travestyny
The whole reason for the court case is because of that confusion. The athlete labeled it a threshold because the WADA experts have always said it was a threshold. He argued that you can’t get rid of this threshold.

They said....it’s not a threshold. And that is not the only time they said it’s not a threshold. They said it in more than one court case! Go look up those links too!!!

Sorry but as I stated, you misinterpreted what the CAS panel was stating.


CAS panel brings up other cases to prove a point. You just did in this very post and other posts!

Yet you expect us to all of a sudden have to limit it to 1 case???


That does NOT make any sense.




You KEEP ON STATING that it is about an image and therefore there can never be any threshold type tests. You repeat this over and over again.


BAP test is BAP test.
The testing methodology does NOT change between qualified LABs.
For this test, All of the labs are verifying the image to conclude the presence of rEPO. That is, in part, what you have misunderstood!

Understand?

So that means if there is any reliable source that states that EPO was tested by way of threshold type test then, that would be valid. Reason is that it goes against everything that you have kept on stating over and over again.


I will prove to you that not only me but UCI, OIC, WADA EPO EXPERTs and more all call it a threshold type test. Same goes with other CAS panels.


The truth is in the above statement. You are now caught between what you said and the truth. You cannot admit that EPO testing can have threshold type tests and so you are no longer confident!





The difference between some federation rules is that some have a defined threshold and some like UCI left it open ended for the LABs ….


BUT


That didn't mean that they didn't set a threshold for BAP testing? They did!


BUT


with new evidence and testing criteria, this case became a turning point, so to speak.

Out with the old and in with the new.


They had multiple criteria tests.


The panel told the confused athlete that this is unlike threshold substances. There can be other criteria that can prove that there is a presence of rEPO.


In summary,
the statement that you kept on flashing, you misinterpreted. I will prove it to you that by looking at that "image" there can be a threshold test and the reason is because everyone says so!!!!


AGAIN,
I believe that you have realized that, so that is why you are now so apprehensive and no longer confident.

Just admit that you were wrong. EPO can be tested by way of threshold type tests such as BAP threshold test. You just do not seem to understand what the panel was telling you!!!!

.


Several points that you said in the above post is incorrectly said by you.


CHALLENGE IS ON!!!!!!


,

[travestyny]

See, to try to make your point, it is better that we use other cases, as you just did. Thank you for proving my point!!!!

Not only that:
This is about if EPO testing can have threshold type tests. YOU SAID NO!!!!!

You even went a step further and got bold. You said that there cannot be any threshold type testing for any non-threshold susbtances!!!!.





and not only today but during our discussion, I said that not only in this case but other cases, other WADA EPO Experts have said that there are threshold type tests!!!!

Note that I said, other cases and other WADA EPO Experts! You still maintained that EPO cannot have threshold type tests.



In fact, during our discussion, you too told me to look at other cases.







Sorry but as I stated, you misinterpreted what the CAS panel was stating.


CAS panel brings up other cases to prove a point. You just did in this very post and other posts!

Yet you expect us to all of a sudden have to limit it to 1 case???


That does NOT make any sense.




You KEEP ON STATING that it is about an image and therefore there can never be any threshold type tests. You repeat this over and over again.


BAP test is BAP test.
The testing methodology does NOT change between qualified LABs.
For this test, All of the labs are verifying the image to conclude the presence of rEPO. That is, in part, what you have misunderstood!

Understand?

So that means if there is any reliable source that states that EPO was tested by way of threshold type test then, that would be valid. Reason is that it goes against everything that you have kept on stating over and over again.


I will prove to you that not only me but UCI, OIC, WADA EPO EXPERTs and more all call it a threshold type test. Same goes with other CAS panels.


The truth is in the above statement. You are now caught between what you said and the truth. You cannot admit that EPO testing can have threshold type tests and so you are no longer confident!





The difference between some federation rules is that some have a defined threshold and some like UCI left it open ended for the LABs ….


BUT


That didn't mean that they didn't set a threshold for BAP testing? They did!


BUT


with new evidence and testing criteria, this case became a turning point, so to speak.

Out with the old and in with the new.


They had multiple criteria tests.


The panel told the confused athlete that this is unlike threshold substances. There can be other criteria that can prove that there is a presence of rEPO.


In summary,
the statement that you kept on flashing, you misinterpreted. I will prove it to you that by looking at that "image" there can be a threshold test and the reason is because everyone says so!!!!


AGAIN,
I believe that you have realized that, so that is why you are now so apprehensive and no longer confident.

Just admit that you were wrong. EPO can be tested by way of threshold type tests such as BAP threshold test. You just do not seem to understand what the panel was telling you!!!!

.


Several points that you said in the above post is incorrectly said by you.


CHALLENGE IS ON!!!!!!


,

What are you crying about? I said use any case you want.

WADA Standard procedure do not use threshold criteria for direct detection of non-threshold substances (seems I have to state everything specifically for your butthurt ass because you are so hurt by losing 4-0). My statement was specifically about WADA standard procedure and specifically circa May 2nd, 2015. You know it and I know it. I've already proven it, though you want to deflect and say this wasn't about Mayweather being tested. That's the biggest fvvcking joke ever, and I still want you to accept a challenge about that. Let's see if you can convince anyone that this wan't about Mayweather. What you're trying desperately to do is not going to work.

I have no idea of whether the UCI or the IOC even had classifications for threshold substances or non-threshold substances, so get out of here with that squirming bullshlt. You can NOT make this challenge so vague as to say "EPO at some point in the past by some testing entity accredited by some organization had a threshold for EPO." It's not going to happen so stop trying.

Again, if you want to talk about what happened in the court case, then let's debate what the panel is stating in the court case, and feel free to use any court case you want. I don't mind.


Or, if you want to even make the topic simply "The BAP is inherently a threshold type test, meaning it always uses a threshold," then I'm fine with that also. I don't mind one bit.


Tighten up your proposal. We are discussing the case and who is interpreting it the right way, right? Or we are discussing the BAP. I think we should discuss the court case since that is the major cause of disagreement, but if you want to discuss whether the BAP test is always performed as a threshold test, I'm fine with that as well. In fact, that would come up about the court case, so let's just make this about the court case and use whatever information you like.

You are saying that the panel states it’s not a threshold because they can use other criteria and that’s it, right? You're saying that the BAP test that they used was still a threshold. So what's the problem with that being the topic of this challenge?

I’m saying the BAP need not have a threshold and they are saying that they can use this test while it NOT be a threshold. It's clearly against your stance that the BAP is always a threshold, so then why not discuss the court case specifically and bring up these points. Simple.

Why do you suddenly seem so worried about basing it on that particular case when the decision given in that case is what we have discussed THE ENTIRE TIME. You kept saying we were arguing for months.
WE WERE ARGUING FOR MONTHS ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS CASE!!!!!! I said you can use any evidence as your proof. Don't see what you have a problem with.

You're simply trying to pin me to "EPO can never have a threshold type test from any testing entity." It's too fuvvcking vague. Should I go and look into the history of how Quest Diagnostics have checked for EPO at any point since their existence? It's too fvvcking vague.


Make your proposal based on the court case and use any court case you want as your evidence. Told you I’m ready, son. Step it up.


Matter of fact...do you have any problem with this statement:

Topic: In the case USADA vs. Bergman, the BAP test served as a threshold type test.

Simple and specific. And we definitely disagree with this statement, right?

You just reiterated this:

That didn't mean that they didn't set a threshold for BAP testing? They did!

So what is the problem? Do you agree with the topic or not?

[ADP02]

What are you crying about? I said use any case you want.

WADA Standard procedure do not use threshold criteria for direct detection of non-threshold substances (seems I have to state everything specifically for your butthurt ass because you are so hurt by losing 4-0). My statement was specifically about WADA standard procedure and specifically circa May 2nd, 2015. You know it and I know it. I've already proven it, though you want to deflect and say this wasn't about Mayweather being tested. That's the biggest fvvcking joke ever, and I still want you to accept a challenge about that. Let's see if you can convince anyone that this wan't about Mayweather. What you're trying desperately to do is not going to work.

I have no idea of whether the UCI or the IOC even had classifications for threshold substances or non-threshold substances, so get out of here with that squirming bullshlt. You can NOT make this challenge so vague as to say "EPO at some point in the past by some testing entity accredited by some organization had a threshold for EPO." It's not going to happen so stop trying.

Again, if you want to talk about what happened in the court case, then let's debate what the panel is stating in the court case, and feel free to use any court case you want. I don't mind.


Or, if you want to even make the topic simply "The BAP is inherently a threshold type test, meaning it always uses a threshold," then I'm fine with that also. I don't mind one bit.


Tighten up your proposal. We are discussing the case and who is interpreting it the right way, right? Or we are discussing the BAP. I think we should discuss the court case since that is the major cause of disagreement, but if you want to discuss whether the BAP test is always performed as a threshold test, I'm fine with that as well. In fact, that would come up about the court case, so let's just make this about the court case and use whatever information you like.

You are saying that the panel states it’s not a threshold because they can use other criteria and that’s it, right? You're saying that the BAP test that they used was still a threshold. So what's the problem with that being the topic of this challenge?

I’m saying the BAP need not have a threshold and they are saying that they can use this test while it NOT be a threshold. It's clearly against your stance that the BAP is always a threshold, so then why not discuss the court case specifically and bring up these points. Simple.

Why do you suddenly seem so worried about basing it on that particular case when the decision given in that case is what we have discussed THE ENTIRE TIME. You kept saying we were arguing for months.
WE WERE ARGUING FOR MONTHS ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS CASE!!!!!! I said you can use any evidence as your proof. Don't see what you have a problem with.

You're simply trying to pin me to "EPO can never have a threshold type test from any testing entity." It's too fuvvcking vague. Should I go and look into the history of how Quest Diagnostics have checked for EPO at any point since their existence? It's too fvvcking vague.


Make your proposal based on the court case and use any court case you want as your evidence. Told you I’m ready, son. Step it up.


Matter of fact...do you have any problem with this statement:

Topic: In the case USADA vs. Bergman, the BAP test served as a threshold type test.

Simple and specific. And we definitely disagree with this statement, right?

You just reiterated this:



So what is the problem? Do you agree with the topic or not?

Funny how you were so bold before I challenged you on this. Now you are turning to chicken SH$T!!!!


There is nothing vague. You said that BAP test cannot be a threshold test PERIOD!!!! You kept on bringing up those statements to state that for EPO testing there can never be a threshold type test. WTF did you care about just that case. Your statements stayed consistent. Meaning, that whenever I said that there can be threshold type tests, you came back with this statement from a random case to let me know, NO ADP02, it is about testing an image and therefore there are no type of threshold tests.

You didn't say this once, you said this over and over again!!!!!

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.

DEFLECTOR!!!!

Nothing vague. You just are no longer confident and for you, it is about the "win" not about understanding.

BAP test is BAP test. You even said that it is about "the image".


I said multiple times that even in other cases, other WADA EPO EXPERTs (eg Dr Segura) said that you are WRONG, there can be threshold tests.

You kept on stating that I was WRONG!!!!


You went back to that case and those statements about an image to make your point that there can NEVER be a threshold test and you even explained it multiple times why. YOU said, Because it is about an image and there are no threshold type tests!


AGAIN, you went as far as to state, that all non-threshold substances cannot have threshold type tests. That was not a statement about just this case. This was about non-threshold substances!!!!!




Here again, you were discussing EPO testing cannot have threshold type tests PERIOD!!!

Originally Posted by travestyny
The man who designed the test:
Dr. Francoise Lasne: NO THRESHOLD FOR EPO ANALOGUE CERA BECAUSE IT IS QUALITATIVE.

Oh, and this one is particularly important. Tells us not only about your intensity being qualitative, but also, tells us more about the BAP that you keep talking about

Is the WADA expert wrong? You love that line.

OWNED.


Now for the last time....these criteria are NOT threshold criteria. It says it here clearly!

So there is nothing vague. This is about BAP testing by way of verifying the "image". You kept on stating that there cannot be threshold type tests. I say that there can be.


CHALLENGE IS ON!!!!

[travestyny]

Funny how you were so bold before I challenged you on this. Now you are turning to chicken SH$T!!!!


There is nothing vague. You said that BAP test cannot be a threshold test PERIOD!!!! You kept on bringing up those statements to state that for EPO testing there can never be a threshold type test. WTF did you care about just that case. Your statements stayed consistent. Meaning, that whenever I said that there can be threshold type tests, you came back with this statement from a random case to let me know, NO ADP02, it is about testing an image and therefore there are no type of threshold tests.

You didn't say this once, you said this over and over again!!!!!



DEFLECTOR!!!!

Nothing vague. You just are no longer confident and for you, it is about the "win" not about understanding.

BAP test is BAP test. You even said that it is about "the image".


I said multiple times that even in other cases, other WADA EPO EXPERTs (eg Dr Segura) said that you are WRONG, there can be threshold tests.

You kept on stating that I was WRONG!!!!


You went back to that case and those statements about an image to make your point that there can NEVER be a threshold test and you even explained it multiple times why. YOU said, Because it is about an image and there are no threshold type tests!


AGAIN, you went as far as to state, that all non-threshold substances cannot have threshold type tests. That was not a statement about just this case. This was about non-threshold substances!!!!!




Here again, you were discussing EPO testing cannot have threshold type tests PERIOD!!!





So there is nothing vague. This is about BAP testing by way of verifying the "image". You kept on stating that there cannot be threshold type tests. I say that there can be.


CHALLENGE IS ON!!!!

Who is turning to chicken shlt? You seem to not want to accept.


WHAT IS THE TOPIC?????


ARE YOU DUCKING OUT ON SAYING THAT THE BAP AS USED IN THAT CASE WAS DECLARED NOT A THRESHOLD ONLY BECAUSE THE OTHER CRITERIA WERE PRESENT?????? ISN'T THAT WHAT WE WERE ARGUING ABOUT.


AND YES, THE CRITERIA IN THAT CASE WERE NOT THRESHOLDS. I STAND BY THAT. HOW ABOUT THIS THEN:


TOPIC: THE CASE BERGMAN VS. USADA CONSISTED OF NO THRESHOLD CRITERIA.


That better? Stop being a little bltch.


YOU'RE ACTING LIKE A SCARED LITTLE BlTCH RIGHT NOW THAT I'M CALLING YOUR BLUFF. CHALLENGE ME ON THE FVVCKING COURT CASE THAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED OVER AND OVER THAT I'M WRONG ABOUT. STEP THE FVVCK UP AND STOP BEING A BlTCH OR DIE A COWARD. DON'T MAKE ME QUOTE YOU A BILLION TIMES TELLING ME I'M WRONG ABOUT WHAT THE COURT CASE SAYS AND YOU NOT STEPPING UP, YOU SCARED BlTCH.

[travestyny]

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

So in the Bergman case, you're saying it was a BAP 80% threshold test????? Is that what you're saying or not?


Or will you back down from this statement?


Actually, all 4 were thresholds, huh?

BUT all 4 criteria were threshold type tests!!!!

That is, it didn't make any 1 of those 4 tests be changed to a non-threshold test .... they were still threshold tests. It's just that the LAB concluded the presence of a substance with 1 test and not the other 3 tests!!!!!

Accept the challenge and stop being a bltch. Why don't you want to talk about the case now, ADP? Is it becasue you realize that you're wrong. You're fighting tooth and nail not to discuss who is right about this court case after not being able to stop your butthurt ass from talking about it before. DID YOU LOSE CONFIDENCE IN YOUR STANCE LIKE YOU DID IN THAT DEBATE THAT YOU LOST 4-0???

TOPIC: THE BAP TEST IN THAT COURT CASE WAS A 80% THRESHOLD TEST.

DO YOU AGREE TO THE TOPIC?