Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[ADP02]

Incredible, we hit 70 PAGES Officially and you are still SQUIRMING to AVOID the CHALLENGE!!!




THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE


Be a man, STOP the DUCKING!!!!






So far, you said NO!!!! Just like I expected!!!!


CHECKMATE!!!

That is not an answer.

AND YOU NEED TO MAKE UP YOUR MIND. IS IT NOW A NEW DEBATE OR IS IT RELATED TO THE OLD DEBATE SO THAT IT WILL SHOW THAT I LIED AND CHEATED? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. YOU ARE ALL OVER THE DAMN PLACE.


You said that your topic here is related because the scope of that debate is "can...."

You refuse to pay your former debt because you say it is related to the debate.


Let's settle it to see if that is accurate.



Do you accept that a judge will settle what the scope was so that we can proceed. Yes or No. That's it.


What is your answer?





You stated that, right? Let's get to the bottom of it. Do you agree or not? One word. Yes or no?

Simple QUESTION coming up here:





For 2 months you have been saying that EPO testing CANNOT have threshold type tests.


You brought this up 1.5 years ago and now doubled down on that point for 2 months!


So you pretty much AGREED with the SCOPE!!!








Am I right that you said that?




.

[ADP02]

ADP02, did you get the memo?

Travesty admitted to being a cheater.

What happens to cheaters?

They get Disqualified.




[IMG]https://media.*****.com/media/3o6fITV51yZ1ja8Nz2/source.gif[/IMG]




DQ

His SQUIRMING for 71+ pages already proved it.

It looks like Travestyny finally admitted it!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by travestyny
Your new info proves that I cheated apparently. Ok. No problem.

[travestyny]

Simple QUESTION coming up here:





For 2 months you have been saying that EPO testing CANNOT have threshold type tests.


You brought this up 1.5 years ago and now doubled down on that point for 2 months!


So you pretty much AGREED with the SCOPE!!!








Am I right that you said that?




.

Wrong. This whole can business was just your deflection. You already admit that the 2009 document was out of scope. Your scope having “can” in it was proven to be complete bullshlt. You were proven to be a liar.

EPO DOES NOT HAVE THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR TESTING. What we have argued about for a year is the debate that you refuse to accept a rematch for, compulsive liar.

Did you accept the challenge or not? Don’t see why you didn’t just respond yes.

Waiting.

[travestyny]

His SQUIRMING for 71+ pages already proved it.

It looks like Travestyny finally admitted it!!!!

LMAO. You just proved you are as desperate as Spoon. That’s hysterical as fvvck!

[img]https://media.*****.com/media/l3E6uhDAN3W7vylji/*****.gif[/img]

[travestyny]

His SQUIRMING for 71+ pages already proved it.

Where did you go? Come on. We have the perfect way to settle this now. You should be happy, and I will be happy because I will know that this is not a complete DEFLECTION that will just be a waste of time.


I will accept the Willy Wanker Challenge. All you have to do is add to the scope that your new information will prove that you should have been the rightful winner of our debate. Then....prove it.

First we have to settle what the scope was of the initial debate.

Then, you present your information and we see if it proves you are right.


So I'm giving you want you want. I'm agreeing as long as you show this is not a useless deflection.

If you fail to prove to the judge that it means you should have been the rightful winner of our debate, with respect to the original scope, then you lose.

ALSO, YOU GIVE YOUR POINTS OWED TO THE JUDGE SO THAT IF YOU LOSE, YOU CAN'T WELCH AGAIN. JUST LIKE YOU WANTED.

THE CHALLENGE IS FOR PERMANENT BAN AND ALL POINTS

So Yes, I accept under the condition that you must show proof that your information proves you should have been the true winner of the past debate, since you yourself claim that it would do just that.

What is the answer? Do you accept the 'WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE.' Yes or no?


NO MORE ROOM FOR DUCKING NOW, IS THERE. THIS DEFINITIVELY SETTLES EVERYTHING. IT SETTLES THE LAST DEBATE, IT SETTLES YOUR NEW INFORMATION. IT SETTLES WHAT THE SCOPE WAS. EVERYTHING WRAPPED UP NEATLY TOGETHER. PERFECT!


SO...DO YOU AGREE OR DECLINE? I DON'T WANT TO SEE AN ESSAY. I WANT A YES OR NO ANSWER. IF YOU DECLINE THIS, THAT MEANS YOU KNOW WHAT INFORMATION YOU HAVE DOES NOT AFFECT THE RESULT OF OUR DEBATE, LIKE YOU CLAIM, AND YOU'RE DONE. LET ME KNOW. I'LL BE WAITING.....


THIS SHOULD END EVERYTHING. NO DUCKING. NO DEFLECTING. ALL THE MARBLES. ARE YOU IN OR NOT?

SQUIRMING, HUH? WHERE IS YOUR ANSWER TO THIS? Hmmmmmm.


You are a complete utter bltch. You asked me to answer about the scope and said, 'WILL YOU ANSWER. DON'T DEFLECT. BLAH BLAH BLAH.' Then I answered your monkey ass straight up. You immediately sent a message to ShoulderRoll about me doing it, like he is your daddy, and I said, "Great. I already showed him that info so what's up?"


AND WHAT CAME OF IT? NOTHING. YOU STILL REFUSED TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU LYING ABOUT THE SCOPE. SHOULDERROLL HAS SINCE COME THROUGH AND SAID EXACTLY WHAT I SAID A YEAR AGO....THAT WHAT WE TYPED WAS NEARLY IDENTICAL EXCEPT YOU DIDN'T USE THE TERM WADA. AND WE BOTH KNOW DAMN WELL THAT THIS WAS ABOUT WADA CRITERIA.

YOU DIDN'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ANY OF THAT HAPPENED AND YOU ARE CURRENTLY DUCKING THE MOST RECENT CHALLENGE.


SO WHO IS SQUIRMING, BlTCH?

WHERE IS YOUR ANSWER??????

[travestyny]

Let's make this even more clear for this ducking bltch.

[/SIZE]

THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE


Be a man, STOP the DUCKING!!!!

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE:

You prove that the information in the Bergman vs. USADA case proves that WADA Criteria have in place thresholds for EPO testing with respect to the scope of our past debate.

I prove that the information in the Berman vs. USADA case proves that WADA Criteria does not have in place threshold for EPO testing with respect to the Scope of our past debate.

If there is any disagreement about the scope of our last debate(which you have claimed plays a part in this debate), since you been lying about it over and over, and you got caught lying about it, we ask the judge to settle what was the scope of our past debate...because it damn sure wasn't 'can...' and you know I can prove that!

You already claimed that this 'WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE' is related to our past debate, so now it's time for you to step up and prove it.


1. Permanent Ban
2. All Points
3. As per your former request and so that I know you are not going to welch out, you are to pass all of your points to the judge for safe keeping until the challenge is complete.

'WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE' ACCEPTED. DO YOU WANT ME TO CREATE THE THREAD NOW OR NOT? WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY TO GET THIS OVER WITH.

AND DON'T YOU DARE THINK OF DUCKING OUT!

[travestyny]

WELL WELL WELLLLLLL.....LOOK WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

PROOF THAT YOU ARE LYING, COMING FROM THE MOST INVOLVED AND THOROUGH JUDGE IN THE DEBATE!!!!!

More confirmation that you are lying, ADP02. Now we also have a statement from one of the judges about how he saw the scope and whether it included testing from all-time or just recent testing. Check it out!

From Judge Billeau!

Summing it up A might say "I am talking about threshold criteria objectively not threshold substances.... And T might say Ill follow you til the ends of the earth until you can show me a place where WADA documents verify any threshold criteria for EPO in recent adapted testing procedures.

AND...

T wants to say " my opponent is stuck in the past and does not see that EPO testing is not threshold related by WADA's criteria."

YOU ARE SO FVVCKED. ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE!!!!!

BOOOM!!!!

[IMG]http://i284.***********.com/albums/ll36/Bigsteve87/Gifs/AtomicBomb.gif[/IMG]

[travestyny]

Come out of hiding, ADP02!!!!

So if I showed proof that this was about present day WADA testing:

When he comes with his information, I'll easily prove that his info is outdated and not applicable.

2. ADP02's information is largely outdated. The purpose of this debate is not to go back to a time before WADA was doing testing or when WADA was experimenting on how to test for EPO. It's also not to talk about what may happen in the future. This is to discuss testing in present times. By present times, we mean around the time of May 2nd, 2015

You showed evidence yourself that this was about present day WADA testing

Initial statement:

3) With current testing.........
.

Stating the 2009 document was out of 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.

and the judge revealed that this was about present day WADA testing:

T wants to say " my opponent is stuck in the past and does not see that EPO testing is not threshold related by WADA's criteria."

Summing it up A might say "I am talking about threshold criteria objectively not threshold substances....And T might say Ill follow you til the ends of the earth until you can show me a place where WADA documents verify any threshold criteria for EPO in recent adapted testing procedures.

ISN'T THAT PROOF THAT YOU, THE JUDGES, AND I WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT?????

....THEN HOW ARE YOU NOW TRYING TO CHANGE IT UP AND ARGUE THAT THIS WAS ABOUT TESTING FROM THE PAST??????

BUSTEDDDDDD!!!!!
YOU ARE BY FAR THE BIGGEST LIAR I HAVE EVER KNOWN! THERE IS NOTHING YOU WON'T SAY TO TRY TO GET OUT OF THIS 4-0 LOSS, BUT NOW YOU HAVE NO ESCAPE! YOUR BUTTHURT IS EPIC!

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


WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY FOR YOURSELF????

[ADP02]

Come out of hiding, ADP02!!!!

So if I showed proof that this was about present day WADA testing:





You showed evidence yourself that this was about present day WADA testing

Initial statement:


Stating the 2009 document was out of scope:


and the judge revealed that this was about present day WADA testing:




ISN'T THAT PROOF THAT YOU, THE JUDGES, AND I WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT?????

....THEN HOW ARE YOU NOW TRYING TO CHANGE IT UP AND ARGUE THAT THIS WAS ABOUT TESTING FROM THE PAST??????

BUSTEDDDDDD!!!!!
YOU ARE BY FAR THE BIGGEST LIAR I HAVE EVER KNOWN! THERE IS NOTHING YOU WON'T SAY TO TRY TO GET OUT OF THIS 4-0 LOSS, BUT NOW YOU HAVE NO ESCAPE! YOUR BUTTHURT IS EPIC!

WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY FOR YOURSELF????[/CENTER]

1) YOU ARGUED with me back then on something about a statement before the start .... and to no longer try to change the scope after the fact when you THOUGHT that you had certain statements that made your point. You then pointed to a statement before the start of the debate. While that makes sense, YOU ARE NOW DOING THE OPPOSITE!!!!! So sorry, it is useless.



2) Now that I pointed to where we AGREED, you do not like that that was where we AGREED. So you are SQUIRMING!!!!




3) PRE-WADA is outdated? Whatever ..... you would use anything (see point #5)



4) So the other post is basically after you see me bringing up WADA documents that may shoot you down. Too late, right?



5) YOU Received VOTEs based on 2003 case that was basically PRE-WADA with an "outdated" WADA document?

I better watch out and let it be known or else Travestyny may think it meant that I said that it was "outdated" LOL . "outdated" is Travestyny wanting it not to be in scope even though he used this case that had a 2004 WADA document that was going to become into effect in 2005. WTF!!!!


6) I remember when you brought up cases around the year 2001. Then I said, is that now in scope?


You responded, that I was WRONG and that the case was WADA related 2009. ONLY after I destroyed your logic, you said, it is not in scope!!! BUT you had no problem using that case before I destroyed your logic.

Travestyny's ACTIONs:
- 2003 was GOOD
- 2004 was GOOD
- 2005 was GOOD
- 2009 was GOOD
- 2010 was GOOD

ALL good unless ADP02 proves Travestyny WRONG!!!!



7) Did you ACCEPT VOTEs based on PRE-WADA case? (point 5 above) YES!!!!





So you received votes and ACCEPTED votes based on a hint of WADA 2005 document on a case in 2003.




IS THAT RIGHT, Travestyny?




WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY FOR YOURSELF????





DEFLECTOR … WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE WAS on a case of 2003!!!!!


.



You can search and search but the below will always be the scope.

ADP02
Its simple. Can or does EPO testing go thru threshold type tests?


It's up to you. No pressure. You can either go ahead and start this or say that you didn't understand my point and have no beef with my statement .... I will not hold it against you either way. Its up to you.

ADP02

Are you fine with my post? Let me know ...

Travestyny

Yes, I'm fine with it.

.

[travestyny]

1) YOU ARGUED with me back then on something about a statement before the start .... and to no longer try to change the scope after the fact when you THOUGHT that you had certain statements that made your point. You then pointed to a statement before the start of the debate. While that makes sense, YOU ARE NOW DOING THE OPPOSITE!!!!! So sorry, it is useless.



2) Now that I pointed to where we AGREED, you do not like that that was where we AGREED. So you are SQUIRMING!!!!




3) PRE-WADA is outdated? Whatever ..... you would use anything (see point #5)



4) So the other post is basically after you see me bringing up WADA documents that may shoot you down. Too late, right?



5) YOU Received VOTEs based on 2003 case that was basically PRE-WADA with an "outdated" WADA document?

I better watch out and let it be known or else Travestyny may think it meant that I said that it was "outdated" LOL . "outdated" is Travestyny wanting it not to be in scope even though he used this case that had a 2004 WADA document that was going to become into effect in 2005. WTF!!!!


6) I remember when you brought up cases around the year 2001. Then I said, is that now in scope?


You responded, that I was WRONG and that the case was WADA related 2009. ONLY after I destroyed your logic, you said, it is not in scope!!! BUT you had no problem using that case before I destroyed your logic.

Travestyny's ACTIONs:
- 2003 was GOOD
- 2004 was GOOD
- 2005 was GOOD
- 2009 was GOOD
- 2010 was GOOD

ALL good unless ADP02 proves Travestyny WRONG!!!!



7) Did you ACCEPT VOTEs based on PRE-WADA case? (point 5 above) YES!!!!





So you received votes and ACCEPTED votes based on a hint of WADA 2005 document on a case in 2003.




IS THAT RIGHT, Travestyny?




WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY FOR YOURSELF????





DEFLECTOR … WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE WAS on a case of 2003!!!!!


.



You can search and search but the above will always be the scope.



Its simple. Can or does EPO testing go thru threshold type tests?


It's up to you. No pressure. You can either go ahead and start this or say that you didn't understand my point and have no beef with my statement .... I will not hold it against you either way. Its up to you.

WHAT IS ALL OF THIS SHlT?????? ACCEPT THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE. YOU SAID THAT IT WAS RELATED TO OUR DEBATE. COME ON BlTCH. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE! YOU KNOW WHAT THE SCOPE WAS. I JUST REVEALED THAT YOU, BILLEAU, AND I ALL ACCEPTED WHAT THE SCOPE WAS.

NOW ACCEPT OR FOREVER BY MY BlTCH. I WILL MAKE SURE YOU WILL NEVER POST HERE AGAIN. I WANT ALL POINTS AND PERMANENT BAN.

ACCEPT THE WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE!!!! YES OR NO. DON'T YOU DARE DUCK IT!

Are you down? YES OR NO???? DON'T DUCK YOUR OWN CHALLENGE, BlTCH. THE SCOPE IS PROVEN AND YOU ARE SQUIRMING LIKE A BlTCH. ACCEPT!!!!!!! LAST CHANCE!

DON'T YOU DARE DUCK OUT NOW!!!!!