Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

I do not want these DEFLECTIONs!

I will just say this:

We did NOT make any agreement initially to limit anything except that we were not discussing threshold substances!

For starters, you post what you like and omit the posts or part of the posts that does not fit your purpose.



Did you not say that there was never ever any threshold type tests by WADA? So then I would think that should include all WADA related cases, right? WADA came into existence in 1999.
So why are you NOT posting this comment of yours?



You said it there were no thresholds, ratios, scores, and so on.
So why are you NOT posting this comment of yours?



You said it was NOT about the intensity of the bands.
So why are you NOT posting this comment of yours?


You said there were no thresholds for the presumptive nor the confirmation tests.
So why are you NOT posting this comment of yours?

On some of these you doubled down on them until I provided to you proof!!! Then all you did when I provided evidence, is state that it was not applicable even though YOU stated most of those comments before we even started!!!! And so you WERE WRONG and intentionally CONFUSED the judges!!!



After I corrected you each time, did you clear it up for everyone or did you either ignore or continue the confusion???


Kangaroo court!


So now I wanted to clear all of that up now. Before we start.

Dude. You have to stop. We both know that you will fight tooth and nail if you feel something is part of the scope and something isn't. You specifically stated that the BAP was not part of the scope.

2) WHILE OUT OF SCOPE, this specific criteria had an "and/OR" in which the panel was describing. In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used.

That ends this discussion about the BAP. Can you admit that? I mean I didn't force you to say that, and if I did, you would be crying that I'm trying to change the scope. IT'S RIGHT THERE.

And you are still ducking that the court specifically said the WADA standard criteria are not threshold criteria.

That seals the deal that you were the rightful loser, doesn't it? Just pay your debt already and move on with your life.

Finally I've shown definitive proof that you've been lying about what is in scope. You can't go back on that now. It's over.

[ADP02]

You refuse to accept why both times threshold substances have come up. If you can't understand it by now, then I can't help you anymore. I'm tired of telling you the same shlt over and over. Pay me the points that you owe. This debate was over a year and a half ago, and you still can't move on.

Pay me my points, apologize to the people that you've offended, and let it go.

I do not want these DEFLECTIONs!

I will just say this:

We did NOT make any agreement initially to limit anything except that we were not discussing threshold substances!

For starters, you post what you like and omit the posts or part of the posts that does not fit your purpose.



Did you not say that there was never ever any threshold type tests by WADA? So then I would think that should include all WADA related cases, right? WADA came into existence in 1999.
So why are you NOT posting this comment of yours?



You said it there were no thresholds, ratios, scores, and so on.
So why are you NOT posting this comment of yours?



You said it was NOT about the intensity of the bands.
So why are you NOT posting this comment of yours?


You said there were no thresholds for the presumptive nor the confirmation tests.
So why are you NOT posting this comment of yours?

On some of these you doubled down on them until I provided to you proof!!! Then all you did when I provided evidence, is state that it was not applicable even though YOU stated most of those comments before we even started!!!! And so you WERE WRONG and intentionally CONFUSED the judges!!!



After I corrected you each time, did you clear it up for everyone or did you either ignore or continue the confusion???


Kangaroo court!


So now I wanted to clear all of that up now. Before we start.

Dude. You have to stop. We both know that you will fight tooth and nail if you feel something is part of the scope and something isn't. You specifically stated that the BAP was not part of the scope.




That ends this discussion about the BAP. Can you admit that? I mean I didn't force you to say that, and if I did, you would be crying that I'm trying to change the scope. IT'S RIGHT THERE.

And you are still ducking that the court specifically said the WADA standard criteria are not threshold criteria.

That seals the deal that you were the rightful loser, doesn't it? Just pay your debt already and move on with your life.

Finally I've shown definitive proof that you've been lying about what is in scope. You can't go back on that now. It's over.

DEFLECTOR, did you even read and reply to my post!!!!

[ADP02]

You refuse to accept why both times threshold substances have come up. If you can't understand it by now, then I can't help you anymore. I'm tired of telling you the same shlt over and over. Pay me the points that you owe. This debate was over a year and a half ago, and you still can't move on.

Pay me my points, apologize to the people that you've offended, and let it go.

You are not reading what the CAS panel said correctly BOTH TIMEs, if that is truly what you believe. You are doubling down now on the CAS panel's statements and so then we have a CHALLENGE!!!!


But your constant DEFLECTIONs are proving that you are not so confident in those statements anymore. Imagine, you fed that to the judges the first time and at least one judge based it on those statements BUT you are wavering.

At least, that is what it appears to me!

You are doing like Floyd Mayweather did. Every time you requested something, I accepted and or provided to you a very reasonable solution BUT then you ended up putting another roadblock.



Examples:
1)
Travestyny: Scope cannot be on all non-threshold susbtances.

ADP02: Well, even though you used those comments for ALL non-threshold susbtances I will agree to omit that. OK DEAL, lets get it on!



2)
Travestyny: Scope cannot be on blood testing just urine testing methodologies.

ADP02: OK DEAL, lets get it on!


3)
Travestyny: Lets make the discussion on a different thing ….. the case only.

ADP02: I started the thread and challenged you on something completely different. Lets get it on!



4)
Travestyny: Well those statements of mine that I made a "BILLION" times and told you that I couldn't be more CLEAR, they are VAGUE! Can you make my statements more clear?

ADP02: OK DEAL, lets get it on!



5)
Travestyny: Well, now I want you to first give me points …..

ADP02: What I will do is this. You come up with a wager that will take care of the 2 debates. Come up with a reasonable number. Lets get it on!



6)
Travestyny: Well, the thing is I do not trust you. How about you do not give me the points this time …..

ADP02: What I will do is this. I can give the points to a 3rd party Lets get it on!



7)
Travestyny: Well, I really do not care about the BAP testing discussion and well, lets just let it go and enjoy life …..

ADP02: We have been arguing about this for 2 months now!!!!! Actually, even more since you brought this up 1.5 years ago as well!!! Now that I challenged you, you want to tell me, stop? Lets get it on!



I see someone wavering and NOT confident in what he provided to the judges and doubled down on those statements 1.5 years later.


We have been arguing about this for 2 months now!!!!!


We appeared to have agreed to the discussion. The limits on the discussion.

YOU EVEN ACCEPTED!!!!


LETS GET IT ON!!!!



.

[travestyny]

DEFLECTOR, did you even read and reply to my post!!!!

You are not reading what the CAS panel said correctly BOTH TIMEs, if that is truly what you believe. You are doubling down now on the CAS panel's statements and so then we have a CHALLENGE!!!!


But your constant DEFLECTIONs are proving that you are no so confident in those statements anymore. Imagine, you fed that to the judges the first time and at least one judge based it on those statements BUT you are wavering.

At least, that is what it appears to me!

You are doing like Floyd Mayweather did. Every time you requested something, I accepted and or provided to you a very reasonable solution BUT then you ended up putting another roadblock.



Examples:
1)
Travestyny: Scope cannot be on all non-threshold susbtances.

ADP02: Well, even though you used those comments for ALL non-threshold susbtances I will agree to omit that. OK DEAL, lets get it on!



2)
Travestyny: Scope cannot be on blood testing just urine testing methodologies.

ADP02: OK DEAL, lets get it on!


3)
Travestyny: Lets make the discussion on a different thing ….. the case only.

ADP02: I started the thread and challenged you on something completely different. OK DEAL, lets get it on!



4)
Travestyny: Well those statements of mine that I made a "BILLION" times and told you that I couldn't be more CLEAR, they are VAGUE! Can you make my statements more clear?

ADP02: OK DEAL, lets get it on!



5)
Travestyny: Well, now I want you to first give me points …..

ADP02: What I will do is this. You come up with a wager that will take care of the 2 debates. Some up with a reasonable number. Lets get it on!



6)
Travestyny: Well, the thing is I do not trust you. How about you do not give me the points this time …..

ADP02: What I will do is this. I can give the points to a 3rd party Lets get it on!



7)
Travestyny: Well, I really do not care about the BAP testing discussion and well, lets just let it go and enjoy life …..

ADP02: We have been arguing about this for 2 months now!!!!! Actually, even more since you brought this up 1.5 years ago as well!!! Now that I challenged you, you want to tell me, stop? Lets get it on!



I see someone wavering and NOT confident in what he provided to the judges and doubled down on those statements 1.5 years later.


We have been arguing about this for 2 months now!!!!!


We appeared to have agreed to the discussion. The limits on the discussion.

YOU EVEN ACCEPTED!!!!


LETS GET IT ON!!!!



.

You're desperate now and you're acting like a child. Just stop.


Did you or did you not say that the BAP was OUT of scope?

Did I not prove that the CAS stated the WADA standard criteria are not thresholds?


Then that means you are the rightful loser. Now admit that you lost, pay your debt from the first debate that you welched on, apologize for saying I cheated, apologize to the judges that you accused of cheating, and move on with your life. You all but admit this is still just about that debate. I provided undeniable evidence that you've been lying.

You are dishonest as hell. Pay your debt, ADP.

[ADP02]

You're desperate now and you're acting like a child. Just stop.


Did you or did you not say that the BAP was OUT of scope?

Did I not prove that the CAS stated the WADA standard criteria are not thresholds?


Then that means you are the rightful loser. Now admit that you lost, pay your debt from the first debate that you welched on, apologize for saying I cheated, apologize to the judges that you accused of cheating, and move on with your life. You all but admit this is still just about that debate. I provided undeniable evidence that you've been lying.

You are dishonest as hell. Pay your debt, ADP.

From the start, I believe that what you stated was a BS LIE!!!!


As I stated, you used 1 part of the statement without looking at the WHOLE STATEMENT!!!!


That statement was 80% or more concerning the BAP test (LOL) because that is what the athlete stated and what the CAS panel was responding to.

AGAIN, that statement had BAP testing in mind and was to correct the athlete for BAP testing. YES, there were other criteria ...… BUT the BAP testing has threshold type tests!!!

So that means that what you stated was BS LIE!!!


You doubled down on your statements so you put yourself into a corner.




These constant DEFLECTIONs and roadblocks can mean only one thing.

ALL of this is a BS LIE from you!

If you truly believe this, you would NOT have stalled like this.

You think that is not true? Well, you wanted to narrow and limit this to 1 item on a single case that was NOT part of this discussion because you thought you had at least a better chance. Imagine, you were moving AWAY from those statements to wager on something minute (1 separate item) as the case!!!


You seem to be less confident here. Almost zero confidence!!!!


BUT it is up to you!


CHALLENGE IS ON ……..


AGAIN!!!!!




.

[travestyny]

From the start, I believe that what you stated was a BS LIE!!!!


As I stated, you used 1 part of the statement without looking at the WHOLE STATEMENT!!!!


That statement was 80% or more concerning the BAP test (LOL) because that is what the athlete stated and what the CAS panel was responding to.

AGAIN, that statement had BAP testing in mind and was to correct the athlete for BAP testing. YES, there were other criteria ...… BUT the BAP testing has threshold type tests!!!

So that means that what you stated was BS LIE!!!


You doubled down on your statements so you put yourself into a corner.




These constant DEFLECTIONs and roadblocks can mean only one thing.

ALL of this is a BS LIE from you!

If you truly believe this, you would NOT have stalled like this.

You think that is not true? Well, you wanted to narrow and limit this to 1 item on a single case that was NOT part of this discussion because you thought you had at least a better chance.


You seem to be less confident here. Almost zero confidence!!!!


BUT it is up to you!


CHALLENGE IS ON ……..


AGAIN!!!!!




.

I'm not even sure what you're referring to as being a lie. I know that I just proved you were lying about the scope.


That means all of your BS about the BAP is irrelevant.


Did I just prove that you lied about the scope? Yes or no?


---edit----

Oh, you're referring to this:

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.

YES, there were other criteria

Please tell me. What were the other interpretive criteria that they stated are not a threshold. Can you list them please?

[ADP02]

From the start, I believe that what you stated was a BS LIE!!!!


As I stated, you used 1 part of the statement without looking at the WHOLE STATEMENT!!!!


That statement was 80% or more concerning the BAP test (LOL) because that is what the athlete stated and what the CAS panel was responding to.

AGAIN, that statement had BAP testing in mind and was to correct the athlete for BAP testing. YES, there were other criteria ...… BUT the BAP testing has threshold type tests!!!

So that means that what you stated was BS LIE!!!


You doubled down on your statements so you put yourself into a corner.




These constant DEFLECTIONs and roadblocks can mean only one thing.

ALL of this is a BS LIE from you!

If you truly believe this, you would NOT have stalled like this.

You think that is not true? Well, you wanted to narrow and limit this to 1 item on a single case that was NOT part of this discussion because you thought you had at least a better chance. Imagine, you were moving AWAY from those statements to wager on something minute (1 separate item) as the case!!!


You seem to be less confident here. Almost zero confidence!!!!


BUT it is up to you!


CHALLENGE IS ON ……..


AGAIN!!!!!




.

I'm not even sure what you're referring to as being a lie. I know that I just proved you were lying about the scope.


That means all of your BS about the BAP is irrelevant.


Did I just prove that you lied about the scope? Yes or no?


---edit----

Oh, you're referring to this:





Please tell me. What were the other interpretive criteria that they stated are not a threshold. Can you list them please?

Why a LIE?

The explanation by the panel was on what?


BAP and other items.





The panel was NOT stating what you said YET 1.5 years later, you had no choice but to double down on that.

BUT

BAP testing has threshold type tests!!!! So your position is a BS LIE.




That is WHY I CHALLENGED YOU!!!!





Travestyny said that the CAS panel meant:

1.5 years ago: BAP and other criteria (EPO) never had a threshold type test.


2 months discussion: BAP and other criteria (EPO) never had a threshold type test.



CHALLENGE IS ON

OR

DUCK!!!!



.

[travestyny]

Why a LIE?

The explanation by the panel was on what?


BAP and other items.





The panel was NOT stating what you said YET 1.5 years later, you had no choice but to double down on that.

BUT

BAP testing has threshold type tests!!!! So your position is a BS LIE.




That is WHY I CHALLENGED YOU!!!!





Travestyny said that the CAS panel meant:

1.5 years ago: BAP and other criteria (EPO) never had a threshold type test.


2 months discussion: BAP and other criteria (EPO) never had a threshold type test.



CHALLENGE IS ON

OR

DUCK!!!!



.

1. I don't see an answer there.


What were the other interpretive criteria that the panel stated were not threshold criteria. Can you list them?

2. Did you not admit during the debate that the BAP was out of scope?

3. Have you paid your debt from the last debate that you lost 4-0, or are you still welching on what you owe?


You seem real upset about something. If you answer the above questions honestly, you'll be a better person. I promise.

[ADP02]

Why a LIE?

The explanation by the panel was on what?


BAP and other items.





The panel was NOT stating what you said YET 1.5 years later, you had no choice but to double down on that.

BUT

BAP testing has threshold type tests!!!! So your position is a BS LIE.




That is WHY I CHALLENGED YOU!!!!





Travestyny said that the CAS panel meant:

1.5 years ago: BAP and other criteria (EPO) never had a threshold type test.


2 months discussion: BAP and other criteria (EPO) never had a threshold type test.



CHALLENGE IS ON

OR

DUCK!!!!



.

1. I don't see an answer there.


What were the other interpretive criteria that the panel stated were not threshold criteria. Can you list them?

2. Did you not admit during the debate that the BAP was out of scope?

3. Have you paid your debt from the last debate that you lost 4-0, or are you still welching on what you owe?


You seem real upset about something. If you answer the above questions honestly, you'll be a better person. I promise.

ARE YOU THAT DUMB?


You made it be part of the SCOPE.


BAP and other items.



BAP does have threshold type tests? YES!!!

So DEFLECTOR, how can your BS LIE be true?



You do not even believe that or else you would have accepted and done this (as you did 3 days ago)


See the difference?

Travestyny

Thank you.


You gotta be a ****** muthafvvcka to challenge me on a case that says BAP is not a threshold...and argue that it is a threshold


Jesus Christ. Who you have in mind for judges?



WHAT THE ACTUAL FVVCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????? STOP PVSSYING OUT.


NOW YOU GOT COLD FEET? UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!


YOU JUST PROVED THAT YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING. GET THE FVVCK OUT OF HERE AND STOP WASTING MY TIME.


NOW IT'S CLEAR. I WAS WILLING TO GO ON SOMETHING YOU CLEARLY BELIEVE IN AND YOU BACKED THE FVVCK OUT AS SOON AS I MADE THE LITTLE QUIP THAT IT'S ****** OF YOU TO ACCEPT THIS CHALLENGE.


UN****ING BELIEVABLE!!!

You thought that confusion was acceptable and vague so you thought you had a chance, at least.



Why are you not so eager now?



.

[travestyny]

ARE YOU THAT DUMB?


You made it be part of the SCOPE.


BAP and other items.



BAP does have threshold type tests? YES!!!

So DEFLECTOR, how can your BS LIE be true?



You do not even believe that or else you would have accepted and done this (as you did 3 days ago)


See the difference?






You thought that confusion was acceptable and vague so you thought you had a chance, at least.



Why are you not so eager now?



.

I made it be part of the scope???? LMAO. So before you were complaining that I was trying to change the scope, and now you're saying that I was allowed to change the scope.


You're not very good at this and you're exposing even more how dishonest you are. Now you're saying I was allowed to change the scope...when it fits your agenda.

2) WHILE OUT OF SCOPE, this specific criteria had an "and/OR" in which the panel was describing. In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used.

So why were you lying about the scope, ADP?

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

You should be ashamed of yourself!

This thread isn't going so well for you, is it? You are getting exposed and destroyed yet again. Tuck your tail and move on.

Oh. And pay me the points that you owe for losing. RIGHTFULLY losing. Which is why you keep ducking the questions that expose you.

1. What were the other interpretive criteria that the panel stated were not threshold criteria. Can you list them?

2. Did you not admit during the debate that the BAP was out of scope?

3. Have you paid your debt from the last debate that you lost 4-0, or are you still welching on what you owe?