Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[ADP02]

You are insulting the intelligence of the judges. Implying that they got duped or were incapable of following the logic of the debate.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you just didn't do a good enough job of arguing your point?

I can provide you proof of what I am talking about but lets make this a little bit easier.



The challenge of this thread is connected to what at least 1 judge voted on.

The CAS panel's 2003 statements.




1) So is what Travestyny brought up which is a 2003 case valid and in scope?


Then anything related to WADA is in SCOPE!!!!



So that means if we have a rematch, all is valid as long as it is WADA related. Cool! Now lets see if Travestyny is ACCEPTING!!!!




2) I can come up with other points similar to point #1 but lets move on to point #3




3) Travestyny received votes on those CAS panel's 2003 statements. That is what I am challenging him on.



If what you are saying is true and if Travestyny didn't DUPE the judges then there should be no reason for Travestyny to DUCK this CHALLENGE on those same statement!!! Right?


- Travestyny got votes based on those CAS statements in 2017.
- Travestyny was confident and bragging about those statements for another 2+ months in June and July, 2018.


4) The only reason that Travestyny was ready to look for the judges on several "other" challenges but not this one is because …...

… because Travestyny KNOWS that he CANNOT defend those very same statements that he DUPED the JUDGES

SO HE NEEDs to DUCK the CHALLENGE with that as SCOPE. No muddying the waters from my end.

SCOPE is CLEAR!!!
EXCLUSIONS that Travestyny wanted, I accepted too!!!!







.

[travestyny]

i can provide you proof of what i am talking about but lets make this a little bit easier.



The challenge of this thread is connected to what at least 1 judge voted on.

the cas panel's 2003 statements.




1) so is what travestyny brought up which is a 2003 case valid and in scope?


then anything related to wada is in scope!!!!



so that means if we have a rematch, all is valid as long as it is wada related. Cool! Now lets see if travestyny is accepting!!!!




2) i can come up with other points similar to point #1 but lets move on to point #3




3) travestyny received votes on those cas panel's 2003 statements. that is what i am challenging him on.



if what you are saying is true and if travestyny didn't dupe the judges then there should be no reason for travestyny to duck this challenge on those same statement!!! right?


- travestyny got votes based on those cas statements in 2017.
- travestyny was confident and bragging about those statements for another 2+ months in june and july, 2018.


4) the only reason that travestyny was ready to look for the judges on several "other" challenges but not this one is because …...

… because travestyny knows that he cannot defend those very same statements that he duped the judges

so he needs to duck the challenge with that as scope. No muddying the waters from my end.

Scope is clear!!!
Exclusions that travestyny wanted, i accepted too!!!!







.

accept the rematch adp. What are you waiting for???????


I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHOW YOU EACTLY WHY THE 2003 STATEMENTS ARE RELATED TO THE 2014 DOCUMENT...JUST LIKE YOU SAID THEY WERE. DIDN'T YOU ADMIT THAT? WEREN'T THEY ABOUT THE WADA TD2004EPO DOCUMENT? REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID!????

If you look at that document from 2004 its similar to the recent one of 2014. At least in what I will bring up. They both bring up Isolectric Focusing (IEF).

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

BUSTED AGAINNNNNNN!!!! YOU CAN'T WIN!

[ADP02]

Let me ask you one more thing, homie.


Any difference between these two statements?






I don't see the difference and I'm wondering why ADP has been trying so hard for over a year to walk back this statement. This dude is the most dishonest scumbag bar none and he knows it, which is why he wont' accept a rematch. He knows any judge will see right through who is the real liar here.

DUMBO,

You even had to ask me what I meant. You still do NOT understand!!!!

and go check out the other points that you cannot admit to.


WHAT DID WE AGREE TO AS SCOPE and EXCLUSIONs?

[travestyny]

DUMBO,

You even had to ask me what I meant. You still do NOT understand!!!!

and go check out the other points that you cannot admit to.


WHAT DID WE AGREE TO AS SCOPE and EXCLUSIONs?

LET'S SEE WHO THE DUMBO IS. QUESTION....ARE THEY DIFFERENT????

Unless I'm mistaken, the topic is now whether WADA labs have a threshold criteria that must be met for an adverse analytical finding of EPO.

but the above should not be confused with my point. my point was about epo testing includes specific threshold criteria that must be passed in order to conclude a positive result.

ANSWER THE QUESTION. DON'T DUCK IT!

I CAN TELL THAT YOU DON'T LIKE WHEN I START EXPOSING YOU TO OTHER POSTERS. YOU TALK A LOT OF SHlT WHEN NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION. ONCE I SHOW A POSTER YOUR FVVCK UP'S THEN YOU DON'T SEEM SO BRAVE ANYMORE, DO YA? THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T WANT JUDGES TO LOOK AT THIS SHlT PVSSY

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

[ADP02]

What Time Is It GIF from Whattimeisit GIFs

IT's TIME to EITHER ACCEPT the

The WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE ?



OR

DUCK!!!!






What do you say, Travestyny?


NO!!!

accept the rematch adp. What are you waiting for???????

DEFLECTOR, is still confused and squirming after 60+ pages. Go read what the TS is CHALLENGING YOU, Travestyny, on.


I explained it so it is crystal CLEAR and did so a "BILLION" times!!!

via *****

[travestyny]

DEFLECTOR, is still confused and squirming after 60+ pages. Go read what the TS is CHALLENGING YOU, Travestyny, on.


I explained it so it is crystal CLEAR and did so a "BILLION" times!!!

via *****

YOU CAN POST THIS ALL YOU WANT SON. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS YOU WON'T AGREE TO THE REMATCH...YET YOU CLAIM THAT I CHEATED YOU IN THE DEBATE.


That's the true definition of a PVSSY. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA


STEP UP AND STOP DUCKING BlTCH. YOU KNOW YOU'LL GET BODIED. YOU DON'T WANT THAT WORK. YOU ARE AFRAID THAT THE JUDGES WILL SEE THROUGH YOUR LIES. STOP DUCKING MY POSTS. ANSWER UP, BlTCH!

[ADP02]

LET'S SEE WHO THE DUMBO IS. QUESTION....ARE THEY DIFFERENT????

ANSWER THE QUESTION. DON'T DUCK IT!

Are YOU Travestyny AGREEING with what I said?


Lets see you respond, DEFLECTOR!!!!



.

[travestyny]

are you travestyny agreeing with what i said?


Lets see you respond, deflector!!!!



.

am I agreeing that this is the scope???????

Unless i'm mistaken, the topic is now whether wada labs have a threshold criteria that must be met for an adverse analytical finding of EPO.

but the above should not be confused with my point. My point was about epo testing includes specific threshold criteria that must be passed in order to conclude a positive result.

Hell Yes I'll agree to that. Thank you. We have our scope now. Do you want me to set up the thread for the battle now??????

WHAT WAS THERE TO DEFLECT. YOUR STATEMENT SAYS THE SAME EXACT THING, DOESN'T IT????? NOW YOU DON'T DEFLECT!!!!!
SHOULD I SET UP THE THREAD FOR THE REMATCH NOW?????

[ADP02]

Are YOU Travestyny AGREEING with what I said?


Lets see you respond, DEFLECTOR!!!!



.

am I agreeing that this is the scope???????








Hell Yes i'll agree to that. Thank you. We have our scope now. Do you want me to set up the thread for the battle now??????

WHAT WAS THERE TO DEFLECT. YOUR STATEMENT SAYS THE SAME EXACT THING, DOESN'T IT????? NOW YOU DON'T DEFLECT!!!!!
SHOULD I SET UP THE THREAD FOR THE REMATCH NOW?????

SHoulderRoll, come see Travestyny's GAMES!!!!





IT is a QUESTION to YOU NOT an AGREEMENT on the SCOPE. Man, you cannot wait until we get off the TRUE CHALLENGE here … poor Travestyny!!!!





So you AGREE with my statement and what I meant? I want to be sure so that you are no longer confused.


Simple, CLEAR RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Hell, YES by Travestyny means that you AGREED with what I meant?



.

[travestyny]

SHoulderRoll, come see Travestyny's GAMES!!!!





IT is a QUESTION to YOU NOT an AGREEMENT on the SCOPE. Man, you cannot wait until we get off the TRUE CHALLENGE here … poor Travestyny!!!!





So you AGREE with my statement and what I meant? I want to be sure so that you are no longer confused.


Simple, CLEAR RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Hell, YES by Travestyny means that you AGREED with what I meant?



.

DUDE, I ALEADY POSTED THIS TO SHOULDEROLL. So I really don't know what you're trying to prove



Are you asking me if that was the scope of our debate. YES.

It's called consistency. I said the same thing one year ago when you wanted to deflect away from it. You said the scope had to come after the initial statements were posted. Fine. After they were posted, you said what you stated the scope was.


But fast foward to today, and you're saying it's a completely different scope. Isn't that right? HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, ADP?



I answered. Now stop deflecting.


Do you believe that this is different or not?

Unless i'm mistaken, the topic is now whether wada labs have a threshold criteria that must be met for an adverse analytical finding of EPO.

but the above should not be confused with my point. My point was about epo testing includes specific threshold criteria that must be passed in order to conclude a positive result.

Waiting.....


YOU SAID ANSWER WITH A YES OR NO. I ANSWERED. NOW IT'S YOUR TURN. ANSWER UP AND EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER!