Everyone Wants to Talk About Floyd's IV - What About Pac-Monster's Toradol Abuse???

[travestyny]

OK so now that you agree

and so did the so called "expert" agree that there are many variables that can make the final result dramatically different then what is the problem here?

TEST #2 and TEST #3 cannot be compared reliably!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!

I've already explained how you took this the wrong way. You have a head like a rock.

They use different protocols. That doesn't mean that both are right. One is clearly right, and one is clearly wrong. You can't take a drug test and have one saying it's 733ng and the other saying it's 61ng in 75 minutes. ONE IS CLEARLY WRONG!

And he tells you why one may be wrong. It's the Quest lab that ****ed up chain of custody and anonymity. He made that statement right after discussing these two issues and how it jeopardizes the sample. Why are you siding with QUEST when clearly the sample could have been tampered with, while the WADA lab followed WADA protocol!

[travestyny]

Show me where it mentions in the ISTUE about IV being given at home, I have shown you and it stipulates it needs to have a tue in advance, all the info you've posted covers hospital admissions, not home IV infusions, PUT UP OR SHUT Up DICKHEAD

You are back? Seriously?????????

Did you read the ISTUE. What does it say? It doesn't distinguish between the different prohibited methods, you absolute waste of oxygen.

Show me where in the ISTUE it says it needs to be an IV in advance. I dare you.

It says that ALL prohibited methods can receive a retroactive TUE. It says it in clear English and you know it...that's why you tried to claim that the ISTUE is IRRELEVANT. LMAOOOOOOOOOO. ****ING CLOWN.

[ADP02]

He never said medically impossible. How many times do I have to say this to you.

He said medically implausible....because the person would get hyponatremia and possibly die! Even if he does not die, the person would become very sick.

FURTHERMORE, YOUR STUDY SAYS 1 LITER BRINGS YOU DOWN TO 1.003, YET NICK WAS AT 1.009. SO DID HE EVEN DRINK 1 LITER OF WATER??? Use your brain!!!

One thing at a time.

He said something like this:
"1:17 minutes between the 2 tests after the fight, absolutely not. To drop from 733 to 61 in 1:17 minutes it would require massive consumption of fluids. We are talking in the order of several liters in a very short period of time. That has an affect on our body and causes hyponatremia. The sodium level drops too much or an electrolyte imbalance. Basically if not properly corrected it can lead to serious medical condition such as headaches, .....

If its from hydration alone its not medically plausible."


1) Was it 733? Nope. It can be more or less but the reliable number is > 300

2) Was it only 1:15 min? Nope

3) Was it just water? Who knows! If Diaz took in the right balance of electrolytes, the amount of fluids taken in could have gone higher with less risk. Your anecdotal points are baseless as its not what Diaz.

4) As I keep on telling you the witness is focused on one particular scenario. If its off, he cannot state what he said and he knows it.

5) Others who have posted on this and get it know have also stated similar to what I said. Diaz was not able to dilute in time for TEST #2 but was able to for TEST # 3 and it was NOT impossible. As studies keep on telling you but you just do not understand them!

6) Even the expert says this:
"if not properly corrected it can lead to serious medical condition" ..... Well expert, what if it was properly corrected!!!!!!!!!!!! BOOOOOM!!!

7) The expert said "If its from hydration alone its not medically plausible" Well what if it was not? BOOOOOOM!

Sorry but several studies and the article that I pointed out points to that its possible to dilute even into with concentrations of several 1000s of metabolites!!! And not one of them were saying it was too risky to do so!
Unfortunately you do not understand but the numbers given was proportionally diluted to be at least 8X and even 10X.

The article points out that it can be done easily just before getting drug tested.

[ADP02]

I've already explained how you took this the wrong way. You have a head like a rock.

They use different protocols. That doesn't mean that both are right. One is clearly right, and one is clearly wrong. You can't take a drug test and have one saying it's 733ng and the other saying it's 61ng in 75 minutes. ONE IS CLEARLY WRONG!

And he tells you why one may be wrong. It's the Quest lab that ****ed up chain of custody and anonymity. He made that statement right after discussing these two issues and how it jeopardizes the sample. Why are you siding with QUEST when clearly the sample could have been tampered with, while the WADA lab followed WADA protocol!

Nope. These protocols are just different according to the different labs. BOTH are acceptable according to NSAC.

According to WADA, a heavily diluted sample is NOT acceptable. SMRTL turned in a diluted sample!!! That jeopardizes ...... so SMRTL is just as bad then?


Different protocols also means different LABs will not give you the same results because they may use different equipment, protocols, calibrations, techniques .... as said by the expert!

Expert then said Final results can vary dramatically!!!!


BOOM! Thank YOU!

[travestyny]

1) Was it 733? Nope. It can be more or less but the reliable number is > 300

Dude, it was WELL ABOVE 300. What do you want to put that as. The 99% accurate machine said 733ng. Ok. What do you want? 655? 743? Choose a number...but it's well above 300. WELL....ABOVE!

2) Was it only 1:15 min? Nope

Yes it was! He was slightly dehydrated at the time of test #2. So how the hell could it be he was drinking immediately after the fight? I've asked you over and over to explain this and you won't go near it.

3) Was it just water? Who knows! If Diaz took in the right balance of electrolytes, the amount of fluids taken in could have gone higher with less risk. Your anecdotal points are baseless as its not what Diaz.

You have zero proof of this. Asked you for proof. You gave none. I gave you cases of people dying from doing this. What have you given. GIVE SOME PROOF!

4) As I keep on telling you the witness is focused on one particular scenario. If its off, he cannot state what he said and he knows it.

THE WITNESS IS A 20 YEAR VET MEDICAL REVIEW OFFICER. THIS IS HIS ****ING JOB. YOU ON THE OTHER HAND, CAN'T READ A GRAPH.

5) Others who have posted on this and get it know have also stated similar to what I said. Diaz was not able to dilute in time for TEST #2 but was able to for TEST # 3 and it was NOT impossible. As studies keep on telling you but you just do not understand them!

Who said that? Show me! Everyone roasted NSAC for this. You're a liar. None of your studies come close to doing anything except proving YOU wrong.

6) Even the expert says this:
"if not properly corrected it can lead to serious medical condition" ..... Well expert, what if it was properly corrected!!!!!!!!!!!! BOOOOOM!!!

LMAOOOOO. DO YOU KNOW HOW IT IS CORRECTED?????? LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO. HOW DO YOU CORRECT HYPONATREMIA? TELL ME. IT OBVIOUSLY WASN'T CORRECTED BEING THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT ALSO BEING THAT HE WENT TO THE ****ING PRESS CONFERENCE RIGHT AFTER, AND BEFORE THAT WENT TO GET STITCHES. THIS IS WHY I LAUGH AT YOU. EVERYTIME YOU USE THAT "BOOM" YOU EMBARRASS YOURSELF!

7) The expert said "If its from hydration alone its not medically plausible" Well what if it was not? BOOOOOOM!

IF IT'S NOT, WHO GIVES A ****. YOU ARE SAYING THAT IT'S FROM HYDRATION FOOL. WHY THE **** ARE YOU BEING SO STUPID? THIS IS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST!

Sorry but several studies and the article that I pointed out points to that its possible to dilute even into with concentrations of several 1000s of metabolites!!! And not one of them were saying it was too risky to do so!
Unfortunately you do not understand but the numbers given was proportionally diluted to be at least 8X and even 10X.

YOU ARE TOO ****ING STUPID TO REALIZE THE MRO'S POINT. IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN'T DILUTE, FOOLIO. IT'S THAT HE CAN'T DO IT IN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME! PLUS, IF YOU DILUTE, THE SAMPLE WON'T BE ACCEPTED. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THAT ARTICLE THAT YOU MISUNDERSTAND!

The article points out that it can be done easily just before getting drug tested.

WRONG. Even you admit that you have no idea how much time that study needs to get from 400ng to 50ng. You blatantly ignore the times given at the bottom of the graph and claim the top graph shows the time it takes for marijuana metabolite to naturally leave your body as if something like that can be measured. Furthermore, it would take over 2 days to pass a drug test naturally for even a seldom user. You don't know shlt. Go do some ****ing research!

[travestyny]

Nope. These protocols are just different according to the different labs. BOTH are acceptable according to NSAC.

According to WADA, a heavily diluted sample is NOT acceptable. SMRTL turned in a diluted sample!!! That jeopardizes ...... so SMRTL is just as bad then?


Different protocols also means different LABs will not give you the same results because they may use different equipment, protocols, calibrations, techniques .... as said by the expert!

Expert then said Final results can vary dramatically!!!!


BOOM! Thank YOU!

So what you are trying to argue is that one lab can rightfully say a person failed a test and another lab with the same sample can rightfully say the person passed the test.

THEN WHY THE **** DOES THE B SAMPLE EXIST YOU CLOWN? IT'S TO PROVE THAT LABS CAN GET IT WRONG.

YOU ARE SUCH A ****ING DOPE.

[travestyny]

nope. These protocols are just different according to the different labs. Both are acceptable according to nsac.

According to wada, a heavily diluted sample is not acceptable. Smrtl turned in a diluted sample!!! That jeopardizes ...... So smrtl is just as bad then?


Different protocols also means different labs will not give you the same results because they may use different equipment, protocols, calibrations, techniques .... As said by the expert!

Expert then said final results can vary dramatically!!!!


Boom! Thank you!

you are the only person in the world who would perform drug testing on sample a, get a positive result, drug test sample b, get a negative result, and then say: Uhhhhh....now i don't know what to do....best two out of three? Lol.

-----EDIT-----
Actually, what you would say is, "Well, I'll pick the one that fits my agenda."


Funny thing is, we have nick diaz passing his last 3 of 4 tests at around the same level, you know, being that he went to get himself tested until he was sure he could pass. Lmao. No word from you about those labcorp results.

You're being dumb. You think too much with your emotions because floyd ruined your life. Use your brain.

BOOM.

[ADP02]

So what you are trying to argue is that one lab can rightfully say a person failed a test and another lab with the same sample can rightfully say the person passed the test.

THEN WHY THE **** DOES THE B SAMPLE EXIST YOU CLOWN? IT'S TO PROVE THAT LABS CAN GET IT WRONG.

YOU ARE SUCH A ****ING DOPE.

Man, you have the courage to call me names when you have been flunking BADLY and sadly do not even know it? You cannot even read a graph!



Stick to the facts:

Negative test Result:
"USADA admitted as much in the report outlining its evidence, saying that “the contention that an absence of positive drug tests is proof that a cyclist is clean does not bear serious scrutiny.” What do you have to say, Clown?

Its mainly to confirm the positive test but there is a rare possibility that it can be different. Should I let you know the definition of rare? Diaz was tested positive by 2 QUEST protocols yet you think they screwed up twice on an admitted marijuana user where even SMRTL found metabolites in Diaz's urine?
Stop making me laugh, its started to hurt!

"WADA Director General David Howman have said this about the reason for collecting the B-sample:
- The B-sample helps confirm that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred and protects the rights of the athletes. It should be stressed that anti-doping is one of the few types of controls in society in which a confirmation procedure is used in order to protect individuals, and the very rare cases in which the analysis of the B-sample did not match the results of the A-sample have shown the usefulness of such procedure."


Finally, Diaz's side didn't request that Sample B be analyzed, Clown!!! They just thought that TEST #1 and TEST #3 is the same BUT IT IS NOT!!! That is Diaz's team's fault!

[travestyny]

Man, you have the courage to call me names when you have been flunking BADLY and sadly do not even know it? You cannot even read a graph!

Who can't read a graph? You who claims that a graph is comparing natural release of marijuana metabolite and then in the same paragraph mentions that there are too many factors for this to be done? You who blatantly disregards one of the axis of the graph? You who believes that a start time of 0 means it actually already started? lol. Wow. So smart you are.

Stick to the facts:

Negative test Result:
"USADA admitted as much in the report outlining its evidence, saying that “the contention that an absence of positive drug tests is proof that a cyclist is clean does not bear serious scrutiny.” What do you have to say, Clown?

YOU SAY STICK TO THE FACTS...THEN YOU BRING UP CYCLING? LMAOOOOOO! NOW WHO IS THE ****ING CLOWN?

YOU'VE BEEN SPOUTING THIS FOR AWHILE NOW. WHAT THE **** DOES IT PROVE? THAT ANYONE WHO PASSES A DRUG TEST CAN REALLY BE CHEATING? YEA. AND YOU CAN POSSIBLY HAVE SHlT FOR BRAINS. HOW DOES THAT SOUND?

Its mainly to confirm the positive test but there is a rare possibility that it can be different. Should I let you know the definition of rare? Diaz was tested positive by 2 QUEST protocols yet you think they screwed up twice on an admitted marijuana user where even SMRTL found metabolites in Diaz's urine?
Stop making me laugh, its started to hurt!

YOU ****ING IMBECILE. THEY DID NOT TEST HIM TWICE! THEY TESTED ONE SAMPLE. THEY GAVE THE SAMPLE A SCREENING TEST AND THEN THE GC/MS TEST. THE SAME ****ING SAMPLE. THAT MEANS IF THE SAMPLE WAS CONTAMINATED, IT WOULD STILL FAIL NO MATTER WHAT TEST YOU GIVE IT, CLOWN.

NOW ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE LABCORP'S SAMPLE...NEGATIVE. SMRTL'S 1ST SAMPLE...NEGATIVE. SMRTL'S SECOND SAMPLE....NEGATIVE. SO YOU SEE, YOU JUST GAVE INFORMATION THINKING IT SUPPORTS YOU, BUT IT SUPPORTS THE OPPOSITE ARGUMENT. YOU DO THAT OFTEN BECAUSE YOU'RE A DOPE.

"WADA Director General David Howman have said this about the reason for collecting the B-sample:
- The B-sample helps confirm that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred and protects the rights of the athletes. It should be stressed that anti-doping is one of the few types of controls in society in which a confirmation procedure is used in order to protect individuals, and the very rare cases in which the analysis of the B-sample did not match the results of the A-sample have shown the usefulness of such procedure."

WHAT'S YOUR POINT? BECAUSE IT'S RARE IT NEVER HAPPENS? LMAOOOOOOO. OK. SO IT'S RARE. YET YOU BELIEVE IT HAPPENED TO TWO DIFFERENT SAMPLES FROM SMRTL AND POSSIBLY THE LABCORP TEST I ASSUME. LMAOOO. NOW WHICH ONE WOULD BE MORE RARE, IDIOT. FOR THE QUEST SAMPLE TO BE FUVKED UP BEING THAT THE DCO DIDN'T FOLLOW CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND WROTE DIAZ' NAME ON IT, OR SMRTL GETTING IT WRONG TWO TIMES WHILE FOLLOWING WADA PROTOCOL. LMAOOOOO!

Finally, Diaz's side didn't request that Sample B be analyzed, Clown!!! They just thought that TEST #1 and TEST #3 is the same BUT IT IS NOT!!! That is Diaz's team's fault!

YOU'VE REVIEWD THE VIDEO, ******. YOU KNOW THAT THE MRO ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A B SAMPLE BECAUSE IN ESSENCE THEY ALREADY HAD ONE.


FINALLY, YOU'RE GETTING SOME FIRE. RETURNING THAT NAME CALLING. THAT'S WHAT I LIKE.


READY FOR THE THUNDERDOME NOW, OR ARE YOU STILL BEING A PVSSY?

[ADP02]

[QUOTE]

Who can't read a graph? You who claims that a graph is comparing natural release of marijuana metabolite and then in the same paragraph mentions that there are too many factors for this to be done? You who blatantly disregards one of the axis of the graph? You who believes that a start time of 0 means it actually already started? lol. Wow. So smart you are.

More deflections. The article states it, the other studies state it, you cannot understand it. Those are the facts. All the other stuff you say is nonsense!


Unless you understand what the guy wanted to formulate then you cannot shoot it down!!! Simple as that.

The point that he made was that if you have 400ng/ml then by drinking quickly 1 liter of water, it will drive the values down to 50ng/ml. He also mentions that it can be done up to several thousands.

BOOM! You lost but cannot handle it! Call him up if you want to complain but its stated in that article.

YOU SAY STICK TO THE FACTS...THEN YOU BRING UP CYCLING? LMAOOOOOO! NOW WHO IS THE ****ING CLOWN?

YOU'VE BEEN SPOUTING THIS FOR AWHILE NOW. WHAT THE **** DOES IT PROVE? THAT ANYONE WHO PASSES A DRUG TEST CAN REALLY BE CHEATING? YEA. AND YOU CAN POSSIBLY HAVE SHlT FOR BRAINS. HOW DOES THAT SOUND?

Man, are you 12 years old?

YOU ****ING IMBECILE. THEY DID NOT TEST HIM TWICE! THEY TESTED ONE SAMPLE. THEY GAVE THE SAMPLE A SCREENING TEST AND THEN THE GC/MS TEST. THE SAME ****ING SAMPLE. THAT MEANS IF THE SAMPLE WAS CONTAMINATED, IT WOULD STILL FAIL NO MATTER WHAT TEST YOU GIVE IT, CLOWN.

CONTAMINATED? WTFreak, even SMRTL had marijuana in its samples. Diaz admits to smoking what? Marijuana?

They had 2 separate tests performed. BOTH turned up positive!!!

Its too bad so sad that they didn't ask for SAMPLE B to be tested. I wonder why? oh yes, they knew that Diaz was smoking to the gills, that is why!

NOW ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE LABCORP'S SAMPLE...NEGATIVE. SMRTL'S 1ST SAMPLE...NEGATIVE. SMRTL'S SECOND SAMPLE....NEGATIVE. SO YOU SEE, YOU JUST GAVE INFORMATION THINKING IT SUPPORTS YOU, BUT IT SUPPORTS THE OPPOSITE ARGUMENT. YOU DO THAT OFTEN BECAUSE YOU'RE A DOPE.

SMRTL:
TEST 1 - Heavily dilute. Unacceptable even for WADA
TEST 3 - dilute by at least 2 folds

The best sample to test is TEST #2 which QUEST did. It was supposedly not diluted enough to test negative.

TEST #1 is a complete FAIL even for WADA's standard's. So how can we trust SMRTL?

WHAT'S YOUR POINT? BECAUSE IT'S RARE IT NEVER HAPPENS? LMAOOOOOOO. OK. SO IT'S RARE. YET YOU BELIEVE IT HAPPENED TO TWO DIFFERENT SAMPLES FROM SMRTL AND POSSIBLY THE LABCORP TEST I ASSUME. LMAOOO. NOW WHICH ONE WOULD BE MORE RARE, IDIOT. FOR THE QUEST SAMPLE TO BE FUVKED UP BEING THAT THE DCO DIDN'T FOLLOW CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND WROTE DIAZ' NAME ON IT, OR SMRTL GETTING IT WRONG TWO TIMES WHILE FOLLOWING WADA PROTOCOL. LMAOOOOO!

RARE: not occurring very often: "a rare genetic disorder"

synonyms: infrequent, scarce, sparse, few and far between, thin on the ground, like gold dust, as scarce as hen's teeth; Funny stuff!

YOU'VE REVIEWD THE VIDEO, ******. YOU KNOW THAT THE MRO ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A B SAMPLE BECAUSE IN ESSENCE THEY ALREADY HAD ONE.

He said that because he knew that the TRUE B Sample would turn up positive as well.

If its the same then are TEST #1 and TEST #3 the same? Nope! All 3 tests had different dilution for starters!!! Man, I have to stop calling him "expert"

FINALLY, YOU'RE GETTING SOME FIRE. RETURNING THAT NAME CALLING. THAT'S WHAT I LIKE.


READY FOR THE THUNDERDOME NOW, OR ARE YOU STILL BEING A PVSSY?

Go check out how to read a graph, studies, and so on ..... You would be saying that Travestyny "OLD" is WROOONG but "NEW" now understands!


You are protecting someone who tried to cheat the system. Diaz admits to that but you are implying that Diaz is wrong!


10:18.00 min mark - Diaz is pretty much admitting that he is using.

"They raised the limit so they do not say that you cannot use it. Its only banned after a certain limit. "