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

[travestyny]

As I stated, SG and even Creatinine tests are just a tool but have their limitations.

Oh, so now there is no problem with the SPG test. LMAO. Why do you keep doing this to yourself? If you have a problem with drug testing in general based upon your own SPECULATION, just say that. YOU SAID THE PROBLEM WAS WITH THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST, AND NOW YOU ARE EATING SHlT RETRACTING YOUR STATEMENT!!!!

THE SPG TEST HAS LIMITATIONS. YOU HEAR THAT EVERYONE? ALL OF WADA'S SCIENTISTS SAY A SPG OF 1.005 OR HIGHER SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE FOR DRUG TESTING. YET, THE MAGICAL MR. ADP02 HAS PROVEN THAT EVEN A SPG OF 1.009 IS NOT WORTHY OF BEING TESTED. HE DID THIS WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OF PED TESTING AT ALL. THIS COMING FROM THE MAN WHO ACCEPTS THE TESTIMONY OF A DAMN REFEREE NAMED BIG JOHN REGARDING DRUG TESTING (A REF THAT IS PAID BY NSAC, I MAY ADD, BUT HEY, HE ONLY PAYS ATTENTION TO WHO IS CUTTING THE CHECKS WHEN IT BENEFITS HIS ARGUMENTS) INSTEAD OF TAKING THE WORD OF A 20 YEAR MEDICAL REVIEW OFFICER VET. LMAOOOO. YOU'RE A ****ING JOKE!

Secondly and again, using an IV one can dilute and still pass the SG test.

WRONG! CAN YOU ****ING READ?????
IV infusions before sample collection could actually prolong the doping control sample process because it has a greater potential to produce multiple dilute samples.

THE SAMPLE IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE DILUTED. NOW YOU WANT TO GIVE A REDEFINITION ABOUT WHAT A DILUTED SAMPLE MEANS? ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? GO FIND ONE SOURCE THAT SAYS A SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF 1.009 IS TOO DILUTED FOR AN ACCURATE DRUG TEST. JUST ONE. I ****ING DARE YOU. EVEN QUEST WOULD NOT DEEM THIS SAMPLE AS DILUTED. EVEN SMRTL'S EICHNER SAID IDEALLY IT SHOULD BE 1.008 OR ABOVE. WADA SAYS ABOVE 1.005. EVERY ENTITY INVOLVED SAYS YOU ARE WRONG! YOU BASE YOUR "IT'S STILL DILUTED THOUGH NO ORGANIZATION SAYS IT IS" ON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT A JEALOUS HEART AND HATRED BECAUSE YOUR MESIAH LOST AN EASY DECISION TO FLOYD MAYWEATHER. YOU ARE A SAD LITTLE FANBOY.

Third point is that the SG can have a result that is passable but the substance abused is under the threshold still.

LMAO. BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? LET ME ONCE AGAIN REMIND YOU WHAT YOU SAID:

Secondly, there is also the possibility that none of the LABs had it wrong in that they reported what they could find and that's it.

YOU JUST ****ING ADMIT THAT YOUR OWN DAMN THEORY DOESN'T HOLD UP. HOW ****** DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO KEEP SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FACE? "OH, THIS WAS BECAUSE OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY....BUT MAYBE...IT WASN'T AND EVERYTHING WAS DONE THE RIGHT WAY." LMAOOOOOO. IT'S OVERRRRRR, FOOOOOOL! JUST BUZZ OFF!

Finally, as we saw with Diaz, the lab got a hold of an invalid urine sample due to it being too diluted.

Just like Quest gave NSAC a diluted sample that was accepted. You fail to mention one thing. USADA IS A SIGNATORY OF THE WADA CODE. USADA DOESN'T ACCEPT SAMPLES WITH SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNDER 1.005. MAYWEATHER'S SAMPLES WERE NOT DILUTED ACCORDING TO ANY STANDARD IN THE WORLD. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, OR ARE YOU STILL GOING TO KEEP SLOSHING AROUND IN YOUR SHlT?

USADA should NOT have given Floyd a RETRO TUE when we saw that Floyd could have drank easily enough to rehydrate himself and we saw that his vitals and weigh in agrees with my statement. Floyd's weight hardly budged for 30 days and just after getting the IV, Floyd boasts that he doesn't dehydrate himself like others because he walks around at close to his weigh in weight! That is just crazy!

Add the delays and statistics that state that Floyd should have been able to urinate a messily 90ml in 6+ hours without an IV ....

Finally his excuses for having the IV are lies in that urinating, giving blood 10 days before and exercising "a little" would have him fail as excuses.

So to say, lots of things that happened that day should not have happened but Floyd's tag team partner, USADA, let it happen!

Blah blah blah. You got medical records? Nope. What we know is that his undiluted sample was found to contain no drugs. In fact, his undiluted sample done the next day was found to contain no drugs. In fact, his undiluted samples taken about 15 times previously were found to have no drugs. How sad do you have to be to keep going on about this. YOU'RE WRONGGGGGG. STUP FUVCKING CRYING ALREADY. PACQUAIO WOULDN'T BEAT MAYWEATHER EVER. HE WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH. TAKE YOUR LOSS LIKE A DAMN MAN.

-----------------------------------------

I was correct. THANK YOU! SMRTL didn't catch what QUEST did!

-------------------------------------------

I was correct. THANK YOU! SMRTL didn't catch what QUEST did!

-------------------------------------------
I was correct. THANK YOU! SMRTL didn't catch what QUEST did!

-------------------------------------------
I was correct. THANK YOU! SMRTL didn't catch what QUEST did!

-------------------------------------------

IF YOU WERE CORRECT, WHY DID YOU SAY THAT MAYBE NONE OF THE LABS GOT IT WRONG? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! DID SMRTL MISS SOMETHING? BECAUSE YOU JUST WROTE THAT IT'S POSSIBLE SMRTL DIDN'T GET IT WRONG. WHICH IS IT???? LMAOOOO!!!! THAT SHOWS DEFINITIVELY THAT YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF ANYTHING AT ALL. YOU DONE ****ED UP!

There are many ways. Diaz's expert witness said that Diaz couldn't have drank enough in so little time. You agreed but as I stated there was more time than he said

WRONG! STOP DUCKING! I ASKED YOU A MILLION TIMES HOW HE WAS SLIGHTLY DEHYDRATED AT THE TIME OF THE 2ND TEST IF HE DRANK SO MUCH BEFORE THAT SECOND TEST?

CRICKETS CHIRPING. LMAOOOOOOOO!!!!! GIVE THE **** UP. ALL THAT WATER MAGICALLY SHOWED UP AT THE TIME OF THE LAST TEST...AND WAS ONLY ENOUGH TO GET HIM DOWN TO 1.009 WHICH WAS WHAT ACCORDING TO YOUR STUDY???? WHAT ACCORDING TO YOUR STUDY....? WHAT ACCORDING TO YOUR STUDY????? LESS THAN 1 GALLON OF WATER!!!!!!!

plus Diaz could have used for example a diuretic to speed up the process or done something else other than drink lots of fluids. My example is still technically about dilution but as you can see, it was possible for Diaz as I keep on telling you. Diaz's expert knows all this but he made it sound like it was only about his specific scenario but as I pointed out, there were too many IFs in his statements. I caught that and tried to explain it to you ......

LMAOOOOOOOOOO. SO NOW HE TOOK DIURETICS???????????? LMAOOO. THE KING OF SPECULATION IS BACK. WHY THE **** DO I WASTE MY TIME WITH YOU. YOU ARE A SAD, SAD FANBOY.

But lets face it, I gave you several days yet you deflected my post big time!!!! You didn't because you know that using your own point, Diaz had to have used marijuana since his levels were actually higher than the 1/26 results. BOOOM!

YOU WISH. I DELETED MY INITIAL POST TO MAKE SURE YOU WOULD ANSWER BASED ON THE MAIN TOPIC, THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO AVOID. AND LOOK WHAT YOU CAME BACK WITH. AND YOU'RE BEGGING ME TO CONTINUE WITH DIAZ BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU LOST TRACK OF THE MAYWEATHER ISSUE AND SHOVED YOUR FOOT SO FAR DOWN YOUR THROAT THAT IT'S KICKING YOUR ASS!

COMPLETE UTTER BULLSHlT!

WAHHHH, IT'S NOT ABOUT SPECIFIC GRAVITY....

WAHHHHH, OH IT IS ABOUT DILUTION..KINDA....

WAHHHH...MAYBE HE DID DIURETICS...


WAHHHH...MAYBE HE DID SOMETHING ELSE?

DUDE. SHUT THE **** UP. TALKING ABOUT YOU GAVE ME DAYS. I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR YOU IN THE THUNDERDOME FOR WHAT...A MONTH NOW?

BUZZ THE **** OFF, LOSER. YOU'RE DONE.

[LoadedWraps]

@Dosumpthin has spoken. Release the PEDquiao!

[ADP02]

No you don't. One positive test on 1/23. One negative test on 1/26. These were voluntary tests that he took to make sure he could pass (without diluting, I might add).

WRONG:
1) Diaz failed multiple times:
"NAC licensed Diaz despite several failed pre-fight tests

According to coach Cesar Gracie and NAC executive, Bob Bennett, Nick Diaz failed multiple drug tests in the weeks leading up to UFC 183.

UFC 183 almost lost their main event. UFC welterweight superstar, Nick Diaz did not receive his license until the week of the fight, due to an inability to provide a clean urine sample until mere "days before" the fight, according to his coach, Cesar Gracie. MMA Fighting reports that NAC executive, Bob Bennett corroborates Gracie's story."

2) It was NOT voluntary:
"Fighters who have failed tests previously must re-apply for licenses with the NAC before being allowed to compete again. Diaz had popped for weed twice before in Nevada.

The process to get re-licensed requires submitting documentation of a clean drug test. Gracie said Diaz was not able to do so until the 11th hour. Bennett said he believes the paperwork came in Jan. 28, three days before UFC 183.":

This is dumb and I've told you this a billion times. If he is below the threshold, he is not guilty. Right? Why are you bringing up so much **** that doesn't matter? Every single test found marijuana. Only 2 were above threshold. One where he was seeing if he could pass...then negative..then negative...then whopping positive...then negative. Something look out of place to you yet?

Correct, ALL results came back stating that Diaz had marijuana. The ones that didn't go over the limit on 1/31 were diluted urine samples. One of which even WADA considers it invalid.

Secondly, Diaz's team uses that invalid result as evidence that Quest result must be the outlier. Mentions that the Quest results was bookended by 2 negative results. Too funny!


2 positive tests pre-fight,
1 negative pre-fight,
then on 1/31: 1 Invalid result by SMRTL, 1 QUEST positive result, 1 SMRTL negative result which was > 2 times dilute .....
Diaz's team was wrong again! Yet you believed their defense!

You are really not too bright. One was a SCREENING. WADA labs don't screen because maybe they can afford to do the main test that Quest is trying to avoid doing because of the cost. What you are doing is cowardly. If the GC/MS was negative, would you still say there was a legit positive? NO! So stop being a coward. The GC/MS was done by both and the screening doesn't matter worth shlt.

Sorry but this just made me laugh.

1) QUEST does a SCREENING test. Correct. If positive (over the threshold) then they do a second test which is called a confirmation test.

How do they do it?
At one place in their facility (LAB) they get an amount of urine from Sample A then test it. If positive THEN at another separate area in the LAB they do a separate test that is different than the first test. This is to confirm the initial test result. They do this by getting another amount of urine from Sample A. If
positive then this confirms that Diaz is positive on that substance. BOTH TESTS were positive. TWO positive tests on the same sample makes it a very reliable result!!!



SMRTL: They did a SCREENING test too. It came back negative!!! So they did not do their confirmation test!

You said that the SCREENING doesn't matter and is worth Sh$t. So since SCREENING test is all that SMRTL did then its worth Sh$t, right?


Question to SMRTL: "Dr Eichner, when you do the GCMS review and an athlete sample does not test above the (threshold) limit do you then get a numerical indication of what it may be even though it may be below the limit established by WADA?"

SMRTL Response: "No because its a threshold substance. If it does not meet that threshold, there is no point to do a confirmation analysis and it is reported as negative."


Daniel Eichner, a Ph.D. who is the executive director of SMRTL said there is a lack of understanding of how testing procedures work.
"If anything is detected during the initial SCREEN, that triggers MORE WORK."

"If we see anything that could look remotely like a prohibited substance, we then go back to that urine sample in the A bottle and then we do a CONFIRMATION process,"

Eichner said. "We look specifically for that compound of the parent drug or the metabolite."

So basically since the substance didn't go over the threshold, SMRTL only did a SCREENING not a confirmation test. QUEST did both a screening and a confirmation test. BOTH TESTS were positive.


2) Daniel Eichner, a Ph.D. who is the executive director of SMRTL said there is a lack of understanding of how testing procedures work.
The sample is split into two, an A sample and a B sample. The analyst works with the A sample and puts the B sample aside. Eichner said the lab then looks for every known prohibited substance and metabolite, which he called "quite a vast and extensive SCREENING process."

"Once a positive test is returned, the screen is completed and the test is implemented. A urine drug test is executed via the gas chromatography/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) to provide confirmation of the positive results."

So TEST #2 done by QUEST confirmed TEST #1 done by QUEST.

3) The 2 step process used by QUEST has in the past caught what the single pass by GC/MS didn't catch.

One such case (scenario) is when urine has a competing substance either accidentally or used to trick the test.
Example: When the urine sample tested for marijuana and was detected because a positive immunoassay screen while was unexpectedly negative by GC/MS.
The positive result got the LAB personnel to verify why. It was due to a substance that thru off the GC/MS not the immunoassay screen. Under these conditions, the concentration of the target drug may be dramatically decreased by the presence of the interferant.

If the sample was adulterated, would the result be different? Would it? Stop making dumb accusations.

So AGAIN, its YOU that needs to show why Diaz is innocent. Not even Diaz's team wanted to know the results of Sample B. You know why? Because it would have told you that Diaz was guilty!!! There is no other possible explanation for that move. NONE!!!!!


What are you saying? This appears to be a deflection! Lets hope you can answer it directly.

LMAO. Coward.

True, Diaz's team were cowards for not having sample B tested.

Remember that Russian athlete? She requested STRONGLY that WADA investigate SMRTL and have the urine reexamined. THey did and found out that SMRTL was wrong. Anyhow, if sample B was tested, it would show that Diaz is a marijuana abuser, as we already know. But Diaz's team knew that the B sample would be positive.

Your still in denial. I can understand you buying that excuse initially but not now that you have the details. Its no longer an acceptable stance!

How ****** do you have to be to keep saying this? You treat hyponatremia by being rushed to a hospital and having an IV. We know he didn't get rushed to a hospital because he went to the press conference after. Stop being dumb.

WOW!

a) Expert says IF. This is to imply that only if the scenario mentioned by Diaz's expert does his scenario apply. Its clear as day that there are other scenarios that were possible that Diaz's expert does not want to mention and his scenario is a fail from the get to!!!

b) You said "How ****** do you have to be to keep saying this"
Well, I laughed at your post because I kept telling you that no way did Floyd have hyponatremia for numerous reasons but you just pointed out one of them and now are saying "How ****** do you have to be to keep saying this" lol! Too funny!!!.

Floyd was not rushed to no hospital. Hyponatremia is serious stuff where Floyd could potentially have had brain swelling. Floyd thanks Dr Alex Ariza ..... shady stuff man and now you are basically agreeing with me! BOOOM!

LMAO. Again, thanks for proving that your whole premise about specific gravity is shlt.

I keep on going back and forth. Seriously, you just do not get it or pretending because you know you are wrong? There is no other explanation.

Diaz's expert says that he must have drank X amount of water. A number that he couldn't even state but its a number that in which would produce severe water intoxication to drop if tried to drop so fast!

I'm saying that even that scenario is not the only possible scenario. What if, as an example, Diaz drank less than what he considers impossible but also took another substance that acts as a diuretic and in fact the fluid itself didn't necessarily need to be just water. The fluid could have been and/or included a mild to not so mild diuretic and/or intake something that would be easier to take without intoxicating himself.

So to say it would produce a dilute urine without drinking as much as the poor doctor tried to convince us .... well he convinced you Score that ADP02 = 1, Diaz's expert = 0. Travestny = 0 for believing Diaz's expert.



BTW - Nothing will squash my point on Specific Gravity. Go read up. It has its limitations!!! That is my point! You are saying that it doesn't? lol!

You're so smart. Fight ended at 9:34ish. He stayed in the ring till about 9:45ish. First test was at 10:38 and he was slightly dehydrated. How the hell was he slightly dehydrated if he began drinking immediately? If he didn't begin drinking immediately, how is he at 1.009 after 1hour 17 minutes? LMAOOO. GIVE UP!

As I stated, SG and Creatinine are tools but have their limitations. You are basically agreeing with me without even realizing this! lol
You need to read up. I did and even pointed this out to you. What gives?

Still "The Quest report registered a creatinine level of 168.4 mg/dL, which is virtually right in the middle of Quest's reference range of 20-to-370 mg/dL."

Still, Creatinine can be off due to numerous reasons!!! Same with SG!!!

There you go again saying it's now something else..the protocols...not dilution. LMAO. Do you understand that you are arguing against your point yet? This is really ******.

Only way it's possible by only dilution is if he damn near kills himself. Isn't that what your studies show? Isn't it????? lmaoooooo. GIVE THE **** UP! When you stop ducking the questions about what your studies show, then we should discuss further.

More deflections. Your come back is just you doing this "lmaoooooo. GIVE THE **** UP!" Why do you not have a valid response since its YOU that needs to prove that those positive tests were not right BUT again, you cannot because your team didn't request for the B sample to be tested. That was dumb unless they knew the results! lol!

lmaoooooo. GIVE THE **** UP!


You said: "Only way it's possible by only dilution is if he damn near kills himself." Diaz's team said what they said because they had nothing else left, why are you being ignorant?

Do not be naïve and believe what Diaz's team said. Not too far up I explained that one can dilute by various ways. There are other ways too such as, remember what Lance Armstrong did? Floyd did? Used an IV. SO I keep on giving you examples over examples and you are stuck in neutral!!! lol

Your "expert" said it was 2-4 liters. Your studies beg to differ. LMAO.

What are you even talking about? Your ship has sunk and you know it. That is the only explanation I can think of.

LMAOOOO. DUDEEEEEEE????? CAN YOU READ????? CAN YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH???????? I CORRECTED YOU ON THIS A BILLION TIMES. MEDICALLY IMPLAUSIBLE. NOT IMPOSSIBLE. MEANING, IF IT WAS DONE BY DILUTING ALONE, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DAMN NEAR IN A COMA! SO BRINGING UP OTHER SCENARIOS IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT THE MRO IS SAYING! YOU HAVE A HEAD LIKE A ****ING ROCK.

You are the rock here.

I pointed it out already in this post and others. I read others who agreed with my points on other forums.

Diaz's expert is formulating a specific scenario. WHY????? Because he is making it sound like its NOT possible! Why???? If its possible by another way, then Diaz's defense crumbles!!!!!!!
For Diaz, WHo cares HOW but if its possible is what matters!!! If there is ANY explicable reason then Diaz's team cannot defend and Diaz is found guilty!!!!!!! What do you not get about this very very simple statement?

If Diaz was trying to beat the test and it was NOT by drinking water alone as Diaz's team stated then Diaz's team has no defense!!!
a) Its possible and
b) There are 2 positive results (Screening by Immunoassays and confirmation by GCMS ). Go check up. When both are positive, you have a tough road to climb if you are trying to shoot these 2 positive results on a given urine sample!
"Since IA and GC-MS are based on different principles, the probability of generating a false positive is significantly reduced"


"An initial urinary screening test must be confirmed for evidence of drug use. Confirmatory testing is more sensitive and specific than screening tests and confirms the drug of interest as opposed to the drug class."



c) Diaz's team was wrong in that there is nothing to bookend since TEST #1 is so extremely dilute that it is INVALID.
THEN Diaz's team can go packing already!!!! This is so funny .... why are you not getting this? Its so simple? lol

d) I explained all this in this post and previous ones. What are you having difficulties with? Really?

Looks like you are buying what he is saying because he says this can't be just from diluting. Don't you feel ****** yet?

His defense is dumb if its what you think he is trying to say. DO YOU NOT GET IT? It does NOT matter from what its from. If its possible then his point is meaningless and dumb!!!!!!!!!! lol!

If its possible then that meant that the test was valid and Diaz was guilty! lol!

That's exactly what I'm saying, because it is irrelevant. The issue is whether his marijuana metabolite was below the threshold, and if not, why the discrepancy. The issue between you and me is was it due to only diluting and the specific gravity test being faulty. You claim now that it wasn't due only to diluting and that all labs could have been correct, so why do we need to continue? You admit defeat.

Its NOT irrelevant. It shows that Diaz has been caught in the past, uses and his tests kept on coming back positive up to days before the fight! On what? Marijuana! lol

The only issue is that you are not getting any of this. Again, I already gave examples. Its not hard to understand! SG and Creatinine are used as a tool but have their limitations. Go read up.

When I say that the LABS didn't do anything wrong as one of the possibilities:
Its just like when testing any athlete that gets caught. The athlete was able to beat the other tests and not that 1 test. Its no fault of the LABS that they missed it the other times. It was not possible for them to get a positive result either due to masking or the PED was out of the system due to micro dosing or dilution or whatever. That's all.

The tests were voluntary. If they weren't, he wouldn't have gotten his license, genius.

No test, no license! But you are having trouble understanding the other stuff so of course you want to stay consistent. lol!

Whoopty doo. You found a quote saying he smoked it before fights in what? 2006? 2009? Good for you. I highly doubt he is dumb enough to pay out of pocket to make sure he can pass, then get reinstated, then smoke again right before knowing he would be tested. Makes no damn sense and you know it.

Diaz got caught several times before, caught diluting, avoided being testing, caught days before the fight twice ..... and again after the fight. Uses medical marijuana in California ..... ALL tests show levels of the substance. Diaz says he is consistent about one thing. Using marijuana! Whoopty doo!!! lol

LMAO. Have you paid attention to your studies about marijuana and the patterns in the levels. How many times have you seen them fluctuate maybe 10ng. Now how many times have you seen them fluctuate about 600ng? Yea, I thought so.

Reliable result is > 300. Even if it was more than 300, its more than possible as I pointed out already. The flaw in all of this is that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!

I'm the one that keeps on telling you that there are fluctuations due to numerous reasons BUT only now that it affects your logic you buy that. How convenient! lol

BUT if you check out the studies and compare -
BEFORE TEST #1 the urine was supposedly very concentrated but the THC levels were lower than TEST #1 which was extremely diluted. When urine is more dilute it should show a much lower level of THC metabolites compared to a heavily concentrated urine sample. Plus a good 5 days passed by so that too should lower the number of THC metabolites.

Studies state to get ratios THC/Creatinine levels to get a better read not just the THC metabolite levels.

Use logic. WHy does one dilute their urine? What is the effect if done right? To lower the THC metabolite levels. So to say, TEST #1's number would have been much higher that 50 since he had diluted 10X (FOLD).

If you still accept what you think then you cannot say that any of this was impossible like you keep on saying.

Again, you are assuming he smoked after the 1/26 test, which makes no sense first of all. Second, doesn't explain why the third test would be so low, now does it? Where did all of that metabolite go? Wasn't due to dilution, was it? Nope. 1.009.

What? I keep on telling you that SG reading has its limitations.

- 1.009 is > 2 FOLD diluted. So it was definitely a diluted sample!
- Remember that Diaz was in a fight. Remember that I provided to you info where athletes urine can have higher volumes of lots of substances due to trauma, exercise and stress!!! That can EASILY account for differences in SG values .... .
- SG values and concentration values of a substance is not exactly linear. SG can rise or fall more or less compared to concentration readings of a given substance. Lots of reasons why.
- Diaz had just voided by urinating in TEST #2 and soon after, 1:17 later, had a fresh batch of urine where Diaz clearly was rehydrating himself when you compare to TEST #2. Marijuana concentration levels were lower on a fresh sample since its possible that in such a short time, less was excreted than on previous samples.
- "one should be aware that heavy molecules not normally present in large quan****** in urine can falsely affect specific gravity readings"
- SG readings are also affected by temperature fluctuations, which make specimens expand or contract, altering their density.
- CR excretion over short intervals also shows considerable variation. Studies showed that subsequent 2-h interval samples varied by >100%, and several studies have reported that spot-sample CR variation is several times higher than variation for 24-h values.
- Can be a combo of dilution that brings down the substance level and an interfering substance that further brought down the THC metabolite levels.
- refrigerated samples may have falsely elevated readings, as may specimens exposed to excessive heat and dryness.
- Was urine sample tested immediately after the specimen was collected? Can give a different SG reading the longer one waits to measure.
- Allession et al. (9) suggested rejection of specimens that had specific gravity measures that were < 1.010 or > 1.030 and specimens with creatinine < 50 mg/dL or > 300 mg/dL.
- Lots of other reasons for a change in SG readings. Read up!
- Diuretics can have an effect on SG.
- As a measure of urine concentration, Urine osmolality is more accurate than specific gravity. Travestyny thinks that there is no limitations to SG. Oh No!
- Other ways is to actually try to mask the accurate SG/CR values. For example, creatinine converted to creatinine will mask the dilution efforts.
- In a dilute sample, negative or none detected results should never be interpreted as indicating no drug use (abstinence), because if, in fact, drugs were present, they probably could not be detected by the test.

and the above is just to answer your misunderstanding about all of this because as I stated and the experts stated and other studies have stated:
- There can be dramatic differences between samples and between different labs, protocols, and so on.
- With no bookends due to TEST #1 being clearly an invalid test and with SMRTL's testing being just a screening test with "no additional confirmation test" done, and no B sample tested, the A sample stands!!!! Its just that simple.
- "URine samples in 139 professional boxers before and after a bout were examined. 46% of the fighter's urine changed from clear before the fight to turbid immediately afterwards and the specific gravity increased in 80% of the cases. Traces of aceton were manifest in 14%. Sugar spilled in the urine in 9% of the boxers.
Albuminuria: 68% that had none present before the fight, 68% was present after the fight. Red blood cells were found in significant pathological amounts in 73% after the fight .... and more."
- "for example, glucose, albumin, or radiocontrast dyes will elevate urinary specific gravity out of proportion to the actual concentration." read above line. It mentions glucose, albumin, .....!!!!


Secondly, you are stuck with just the THC metabolite value. When verifying if a user smoked after a previous test, they use ratios. If the concentration of 1/26 is very high and 1/31 is very dilute then that can have a dramatic difference in the true values. Using that, 1/26 THC ratio would be significantly lower than any of the 1/31 tests. Which implies that Diaz did smoke after 1/26. GO READ UP!!!

I understand that you are wrong. GC/MS is the same test for both, right? You are saying the problem was the specific gravity test? Right? Not one person besides you has drawn that conclusion, and all because you have a hatred for Floyd Mayweather. It's really sad, bro. Really. Having a specific gravity of 1.009 is not going to dilute 733ng or even well over 300ng to 61ng. You know it and I know it, so why are you still going? Show me one study that shows you can dilute well over 300ng of marijuana by diluting to 1.009SPG. I'll wait. I bet you come up with nothing and ignore this.

I already provided you with a lot of information that shows that an SG value can be skewed. SG has its limitations. Did you finally understand this?

Secondly, the SMRTL test was just 1 test plus it was just a screening test. QUEST had 2 tests. The screening test and then the confirmation test done by way of the GC/MS.

In a screening test, it can be a less specific test compared to the confirmation test. GC/MS test can vary as there are multiple variables in the test. It can be less specific by using a certain testing method or it can be a more refined test. Both with its own advantages and disadvantages. BUT as stated, the QUESTS test complimented each other and removed in essence the possibility of an incorrect positive test. SMRTL's test was just a negative test.

Again, a negative test does NOT mean that Diaz did
not cheat. A positive test on s substance that we both know that Diaz has been associated to on many other occasion and admitted to doing and admitted to trying to beat the test ...... is harder to deny!!!

"The confirmatory GC-MS test is extremely specific – it produces almost no false positives." Now add the fact that another test on the same sample also gave a positive result?

Not by diluting alone. Nope. And you agree...so what's your problem with SPG?

- A reasonable person would have said "Diaz's team used the over inflated and unreliable number of 733. QUEST said the reliable number was > 300
- A reasonable person would have said "using Diaz's team own evidence, the time after the fight needs to be factored in. So its not only the time between TEST #2 and TEST #3 that should be taken into account.
- A reasonable person would have said "Lots of studies, website state that you should try to dilute just prior to the test (1-2 hours before) and drink not many gallons but just liters.
- A reasonable person would have said "You can dilute by a combination of ways not just by drinking water"
- A reasonable person would have said "wait a second. Diaz's team's scenario is NOT the only possible explanation. So it is medically plausible. So why did Diaz's team not tie up all the lose ends? Because they couldn't as it negates what Diaz's team said.
- A reasonable person would have said "If you are so sure, why not have another LAB test the B sample"


After reading about the SG/Cr limitations and hearing the experts stating that you cannot just correlate the different urine sample done at different labs because its quite possible that they can give your dramatically different results!!!!!!! This should be an open and shut case.

Good for them. Waiting for you to show me well over 300ng to 61ng with spg 1.009.

Time to carefully read and UNDERSTAND all of this!!! You can do it!!! I provided quite a bit but there is a lot more that you can do on your own.

Again, then how was he slightly diluted at 10:38pm? Why was spg 1.009 an hour and 17 minutes after that. Oh, he drank so much. LMAO.

Wash, rinse and repeat. Time to carefully read and UNDERSTAND all of this!!!

This is one of your most idiotic arguments. The dude says he could happen if he treated his hyponatremia, and you think DIAZ thought of some novel way to treat hyponatremia in a few minutes in the back of a stadium. LMAOOOOOO! Dude, go away.

Again, it was all possible .... so no hyponatremia.
but the funny part is that you now think that Floyd I mean Diaz would have had to have gone rushing to a hospital if he had hyponatremia .... lol. Remember that was your last line of defense for Floyd. So maybe you are not ignorant. Just cannot admit the truth. Its not a bad trade off, I guess ...... BOOOOM!

Good for you. Did you reveal the specific gravities for those subjects? Did you? Did you???? Keep your focus.

Several were above the levels that they state is diluted (eg. Cr < 20) yet made it below the many known testing cutoffs (eg. 150, 100, 50 and in some cases even 20, 15).

If you understand, Subject G and H went down in value many FOLDs yet was above the CR < 20 level. So its possible to go down many FOLDS and not even get flagged as too dilute!

SUBJECT G
Time 20.5 to 23.0 to 24.0
THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1 to 13.7
Creatinine 184 to 39 to 23
Volume 320 to 195 to 260

SUBJECT H
Time 6.0 to 9.5
THCCOOH 234.2 to 59.6
Creatinine 174 to 45
Volume 116 to 390

Look at subject F's CR value. A huge downward trend in just 1 hour. I thought this was supposed to be not medically plausible? And this was just a study not someone who must use all means to pass a test!!! This guy went from 1 end of the spectrum to the complete opposite end in 1 hour! Poof!

SUBJECT F
Time 4.0 to 5,0 to 8,8
THCCOOH 49.0 to 0,0 to 6.6
Creatinine 340 to 47 to 26
Volume 134 to 222


and again, SG and CR have their limitations. It's used as a tool but as I pointed out, limited!!!

LMAO. Dude, I already showed you the studies on this. Give the **** up. Exercise doesn't make that big of a difference if any at all. Scroll pages back and stop with your delusional bs.

- Diaz was exercising, under stress and in a fight where there is trauma occurring to the body. Add hormone, body metabolism, dieting fluctuations (making weight) and All can increase the excretion of THC metabolites. The studies show a variance and it was not in a fight!!! Some were in the negative and some were significantly positive and again, none were named Diaz who had just finished fighting.

I think you pointed to a study where they admitted that it was too limited in that they only had about 6 subjects where a few goofed up and it was not a controlled study.

Even then, there was a subject that showed a significant increase of over 30%. The other study also noted that some participants went over the testing threshold that they used. That is to say, would have turned from negative to positive.- Diaz was exercising, under stress and in a fight where there is trauma occurring to the body. Add hormone, body metabolism, dieting fluctuations (making weight) and All can increase the excretion of THC metabolites. The studies show a variance and it was not in a fight!!! Some were in the negative and some were significantly positive and again, none were named Diaz who had just finished fighting.

I think you pointed to a study where they admitted that it was too limited in that they only had about 6 subjects where a few goofed up and it was not a controlled study.

Even then, there was a subject that showed a significant increase of over 30%. The other study also noted that some participants went over the testing threshold that they used. That is to say, would have turned from negative to positive.

So it's not about dilution? How many times are you going to admit you are wrong by saying this?

Wash, rinse and repeat. I told you enough for you to stop talking foolishly!

LMAO. So much bullshlt. Was this about only dilution? Is there a problem with the specific gravity test? Yes or no?

Just say that its all going over your head and we are all good. Trust me that it gets simpler if you stop saying "LMAO" and start to read up and actually understand all this.

What? Lots could have happened. Did dilution cause it? Yes or no?

Wash, rinse and repeat. I told you enough for you to stop talking foolishly!

Already addressed this. Look at your studies about marijuana, then you won't say such foolishness like the 1/26 test which was consistent with the SMRTL test was actually in line with the Quest test. LMAO. How the **** can <50ng be more in line with >300ng???? What the **** are you smoking?

Like I said, you need to stop saying LMAO and read up! If you read up its explained that the THC value on its own is not always enough. TEST #1 was extremely diluted yet only at around 50 while the other previous tests were extremely concentrated and also at 50 or higher (failed ones). Logically it makes sense. For a given individual, if a sample is very diluted then that means that the concentration of that substance is lower than when its heavily diluted. So to say, TEST #1 on 1/31 would have been much higher than 50 if it was extremely concentrated .... plus 5 days passed. Why no drop?

BINGO! You're done!

lol, I said that there are many possibilities. Only Diaz can know ... and I said that we do not know how exactly Diaz cheated and you said BINGO!!! lol

Finally, do you understand the concept that IF there are 5 negative tests and 1 is positive that the positive test *****s all the negative ones? Sure, the athlete may get defensive and deny it all and use excuses like you and Diaz are trying to do but YOU cannot deny that you have no answers as to why 2 tests on 1/31 came up positive. I answered all of your questions at length. You never did.

As has been stated, a positive screen then positive CONFIRMATION test is very tough to beat. Only way was by verifying sample B. Diaz's team knew this but they couldn't go there. There were no bookends because TEST #1 was a fail. TEST #3 can be explained. So its over!

They use that for samples that are found to be DILUTED! 1.009 is not found by anyone or any organization to be diluted. Nice try.

lol! Just deflecting .....

Do you not see that the system is completely flawed as far as this test is concerned. That is why the threshold's used to be much lower. So they can catch people and even when the thresholds were very low (eg. thresholds of <50, <20 , <15) some athletes such as Diaz still attempted to beat the thresholds. So you think that 150 will be difficult? lol Its flawed. THINK!!! Many athletes will not have to go to extreme dilution ranges to beat this test.

Oh, the guy who said ideally they want a SPC no lower than 1.008? lol. We been through this already.

As I stated above. Its not difficult to pass this test given the new thresholds. If the thresholds were lower, its more difficult but not at 150. Anyways, I said enough that you can understand all this.

Squirminggggggg. So is this because of SPG or not?

Wash, rinse and repeat. I told you enough for you to stop talking foolishly!

BINGO. You still doing this to yourself???

Wash, rinse and repeat. I told you enough for you to stop talking foolishly!

I'm trying to show you that even on the same sample they can get it wrong. Its to point out that if we can get different results on the same sample then you cannot compare TEST #1 with TEST #2 and then with TEST #3 results as you and Diaz's team tried to do. BUT at least Diaz's team admitted to the issue ..... but that killed his case! ...

BINGO!!!

LMAOOOOOOO. So either beat the 1/26 test that wasn't diluted...or he smoked up again so soon and beat 2 WADA tests but not the Quest test. Yea, ok. I think you are smoking something.

You are smoking not me. Stop clinging to TEST #1. Its invalid. If you correct the values due to the extreme dilution, the values would be way above 150!!! TEST #1 was diluted by about 10 FOLD.

Not sure what tests before 1/23 you are referring to, but it's pretty idiotic what you are saying. He failed...failed...PASSED! Applied for reinstatement...PASSED (yes diluted, but within normal range of the 3rd test according to a ****ing MRO), FAILS with well over 300ng, Passes with 61ng 1hr 17minutes later. HMMM. And you think you have something? According to you, it was due to dilution...now it's "other factors." You just came off of your whole argument. It's over.

What? Stop deflecting.

First of all you are totally confused and mixing the topics.
1) Diaz's defense. His case is to try to provide evidence that he did not cheat. It was NOT about Diaz trying to convince us that he was not cheating by way of dilution.

SO if Diaz's team explains about dilution but there are other ways to cheat, well, Diaz is guilty. So stick with this simple point!!!!!

2) Dilution: I explained this already. There are multiple ways to dilute. NOT just by drinking water. There are other ways that the SG can be wherever it is because Testing in general and the SG and CR tests have their limitations. BUT I explained this already.

Got it?

3) TEST #1 was invalid. TEST #2 had a normal concentration and was tested positive by 2 different ways on the sample in question. No B sample was tested.
TEST #3 was over 2 Folds diluted. So to say, it was diluted more than normal.

So now you need to explain to me how you can believe TEST #3 by way of screening only vs 2 tests on TEST #2 in which complement each other? More importantly, since all the experts said that you cannot do what you are doing yet you are trying to correlate the results of TEST #2 and TEST #3 and say TEST 2 is wrong because of TEST #3? lol!!!!

Note: When you bring up these points, I try to give you possibilities as we both do not know exactly what Diaz did.

Again, if I would have told you as an explanation that Lance used an IV right under the DCO's nose to dilute, you would be saying "LMAO, what are you smoking" but I would be right!!!

Would you have a B sample tested if the A sample had your name on it, ****ed up chain of custody, and you had a commission that was on your ass from the get go by having you take 3 tests in one day? That sample was contaminated. Who knows how or why, but it seems clear to me. Why test him 3 times in one day? That doesn't hit you as su****ious at all? They wanted him...no matter what was said, they got him.

Diaz was not alone in being tested multiple times. Also they were supposedly tested multiple times because they were in the process of getting USADA/WADA involved in their testing process.

Silva was tested as well. You think they were after him too?

Diaz got caught. Simple as that. All tests showed levels of marijuana. Secondly, your point does NOT make any sense. Why would the NSAC want to go after Diaz BEFORE even knowing about his positive test? That is nonsense! If you read up you would find out that they kept on contacting Diaz so that he gets tested often enough before the fight until he passes so he can get his license to fight. If they wanted Diaz out then they wouldn't have bothered and wouldn't even have given him a license to begin with. These organizations want the fights and athletes to fight. Its all a business.

Diaz failed 3 times so he got a harsher penalty but the NSAC eventually cut it down dramatically. Why would they if they wanted Diaz out? They could have dragged it out until Diaz would just call it quits .....

Finally, what makes your point worse is Diaz's defense was NOT strong. So if you say that the NSAC was out to get Diaz, then why go in with such a useless defense where the NSAC could EASILY shoot Diaz down and find him guilty? You expected the NSAC to be after Diaz yet what did you expect? From the pre-fight form (lie), multiple repeat offenses, avoided being tested, admitted cheater, admitted to trying to beat the tests. On what? Marijuana. You can only blame Diaz for this. Even SMRTL found a high level of THC metabolites .... even his tests prior to 1/26 failed. Blaming the NSAC for Diaz's mistakes is a joke!

So to answer your question, YES, I would definitely have had Sample B tested. It's better than no defense and having the NSAC definitely find you guilty! Even after the sentence of 5 years, they could have requested that the B sample be checked at a different LAB. Having the B sample tested was the BEST WAY OUT!!!! NOT pointing to a different urine sample.

BTW - Why would the NSAC and QUEST be "fixing" a urine sample test to make it positive? Who the freak is Nick Diaz to have this grand "fixing" scheme that makes no sense?

Remember that he was tested positive days before getting his license. Stop blaming others. This is a no brainer. At least with Floyd it makes a lot of sense. It was to make money for all and Floyd was Nevada's golden PPV egg. Nick Diaz is a pawn.

Apples and oranges? Are we talking about marijuana? Did he pass a WADA test 1hr 17 minutes later? Come on, man.

So they only need to test once negative and it means that the athlete is not using PEDs? lol

Also, SMRLT's Screening test vs 2 tests done by QUEST that compliment each other and BOTH concluded that Diaz did use marijuana. THC metabolites were in all urine samples but QUEST proved that it was above the limit.

WADA accepts higher than 1.005. Eichner said ideally 1.008 or above. You aren't fooling anyone.

So what. They also said that TEST #1 was too dilute (INVALID) and TEST #3 was dilute. Studies show that the THC metabolite numbers can go way lower than 150 by diluting.

Its not hard to beat. Subject F was able to dilute in 1 hour!!! Yet is supposedly "Medically not plausible"

Anyways, I explained all of that SG and CR limitations. Its time that you find a new excuse!

LMAOOO> Lance ARMSTRONG AGAIN? I'M DONE!

Lance ARMSTRONG used IVs and so did many others. Floyd did too.

Why do you think that they do not want you to dilute? Yet you are laughing at people using IVs?

[LoadedWraps]

[travestyny]

Dude, how many times do I have to **** you up over this issue. You have NO IDEA how drug testing works. You're an absolute imbecile. I'll reply to your bullshlt, but before I do, chew on this:

One question only. Do your studies provide any proof that he drank liters of water to dilute??? ACTUALLY, FORGET THE WATER PART OF IT SINCE NOW YOU ARE SQUIRMING SAYING HE DILUTED WITH SOMETHING BESIDES WATER. LMAOOOOOOO. YOU ARE SUCH A LITTLE BlTCH. REPHRASING: DO YOUR STUDIES SHOW HE DILUTED HIS SAMPLE TO PASS THE TEST?

1. 1.009 is his specific gravity.

2. Your ref said he needed 2-4 liters (by the way, funny you disregard a 20 year vet MRO because you believe he is biased...and instead say a referee that is employed by NSAC knows more about drug testing. Brilliant!)

3. 1 of your studies said 1 liter = spg 1.003
You are relying so heavily on this 2-fold, 8-fold dilution mumbo jumbo taking from this study, yet you are blatantly ignoring and not going near where it says DRINKING 1 LITER OF WATER PUTS THE SUBJECT AT 1.003 SPG!!! STOP PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT YOU WANT!!! TAKE THE WHOLE DAMN STUDY IF YOU ARE GOING TO RELY ON IT SO MUCH.

4. Your study with live samples puts him at 1.006 or lower with slightly less than 2 liters of water and nowhere near the jump in marijuana metabolite amount. 4 liters puts the subjects at 1.001 spg. THIS STUDY IS PURELY ABOUT DILUTION, which is your point. I DON'T CARE WHAT ELSE DIAZ DID TO FOOL THE SYSTEM IF HE DID IT. THIS IS ABOUT SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND DILUTION AND NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO SQUIRM OUT OF IT. THIS WAS ALL ABOUT MAYWEATHER HAVING TO PASS THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST. SO STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

So how much did Diaz drink to dilute???? Are you ever going to answer??? Oh, that's right, he drank something else in front of the 2 DCO's. lmao. And it still only got him to 1.009...and didn't get him down very much at all for the 2nd test. lmaoooooo.

One of your studies that you are relying on says less than 1 liter he drank. Right or wrong? GIVE A SIMPLE ANSWER. STOP DUCKING IT.

YOUR OTHER STUDY SAYS HAD HE DRANK 2 LITERS HE WOULD BE AT 1.006 OR LESS. RIGHT OR WRONG? STOP DUCKING IT!!!!!

YOUR STUDIES SHOW....THE RESULT IS NOT BASED ON DILUTION AND YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST!!!

Diaz had to have used marijuana since his levels were actually higher than the 1/26 results. BOOOM!

LMAO. What did I tell you about using your ****** ass “boom.” Every time you do it, you get beaten to a pulp and just look like an utter moron.

The 1/26 result in which the urine concentration was high has a lower THC metabolite level than any of the 1/31 results. That must mean that Diaz smoked up after the 1/26 date and/or Diaz happened to beat the 1/26 test as well.

In summary, the 1/26 results show lower THC levels with a relatively higher concentration of urine (more dehydrated) than the 1/31 THC levels for all 3 tests.
To get the THC levels up, only if Diaz smoked up afterwards does it make any sense! BINGO!!! Case solved.

AHAHAHAHAHA. Now pay attention to how your new line of defense is shot down:

Marijuana consumers are likely to experience frequent spikes in their level of detectable metabolites despite having ceased using the drug, according to clinical trial data published in the October edition of the Journal of Analytical Toxicology.
Investigators at the National Institutes of Health performed urine screens for the presence of the carboxy-THC metabolite (aka THC-COOH, the most commonly screened for metabolite in workplace drug tests) in 60 adult cannabis users for a period of 30 days. Participants in the study resided in a closed research unit during the trial period and abstained from any use of cannabis during their stay.
Researchers reported that subjects frequently experienced spikes in the levels of detectable metabolites in their urine despite having abstained from the drug for several days or weeks.
“During the terminal elimination phase, an individual may produce consecutive specimens that test positive, negative, and positive again over time,” authors concluded. “This makes it problematic to determine whether positive results are indicative of new drug use or reflective of previous cannabis exposure.”
Authors reported that heavy users were more likely than moderate users to have their metabolite levels fluctuate below and above the test’s detection cut-offs on consecutive days.
http://norml.org/news/2008/12/18/spi...use-study-says

Now look at the chart

Could Diaz’ marijuana metabolite fluctuate from <50ng to 61ng. Yes.

Would it fluctuate from 300ng to 61ng and back to 300ng. HELL NO!

So you are WRONG that the only way his marijuana metabolite would fluctuate that way was from smoking again. LMAO!!!!!!! And if you try to say he smoked again, why is his level so low? You still haven’t shown any large dilution affect from 1.009 specific gravity.

Yet again, another of your “genius” points shot down. I’m tired of doing this to you. Give the **** up!

[travestyny]

WRONG:
1) Diaz failed multiple times:
"NAC licensed Diaz despite several failed pre-fight tests

According to coach Cesar Gracie and NAC executive, Bob Bennett, Nick Diaz failed multiple drug tests in the weeks leading up to UFC 183.

UFC 183 almost lost their main event. UFC welterweight superstar, Nick Diaz did not receive his license until the week of the fight, due to an inability to provide a clean urine sample until mere "days before" the fight, according to his coach, Cesar Gracie. MMA Fighting reports that NAC executive, Bob Bennett corroborates Gracie's story."

2) It was NOT voluntary:
"Fighters who have failed tests previously must re-apply for licenses with the NAC before being allowed to compete again. Diaz had popped for weed twice before in Nevada.

The process to get re-licensed requires submitting documentation of a clean drug test. Gracie said Diaz was not able to do so until the 11th hour. Bennett said he believes the paperwork came in Jan. 28, three days before UFC 183.":

All you are doing is playing with semantics. Obviously it didn't matter how many drug tests he failed. He needed to make sure that he could pass a drug test before he applied for reinstatement. You are mentioning this as to say he could have been suspended for failing a drug test before the fight.....WHEN HE WAS ALREADY ****ING SUSPENDED. He could have failed a billion drug tests and it wouldn't have mattered as long as he showed he could pass before being REINSTATED. WHICH IS THE REASON THAT THESE DRUG TESTS COULDN'T EVEN BE USED AGAINST HIM IN A COURT OF LAW. Get your head out from up NSAC's kangaroo court's a$$.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS HE HAD HIMSELF TESTED TO MAKE SURE HE COULD PASS AND BE REINSTATED. HE PASSED...AND WAS REINSTATED. NOW YOU SAY HE SMOKED AGAIN AFTER BEING RESINSTATED????? 5 DAYS BEFORE THE FIGHT? HOW ****** ARE YOU???

Correct, ALL results came back stating that Diaz had marijuana. The ones that didn't go over the limit on 1/31 were diluted urine samples. One of which even WADA considers it invalid.

And about the one that WADA doesn't consider to be diluted? What about that one? LMAO. LabCorp's test and SMRTL's test are in sync with each other. QUEST ****ED UP! That's right. Negative, Negative(but dilited, ok), POSITIVE WITH AN OUTRAGEOUS AMOUNT), NEGATIVE. You're wrong. Give the **** up!

Secondly, Diaz's team uses that invalid result as evidence that Quest result must be the outlier. Mentions that the Quest results was bookended by 2 negative results. Too funny!

It's funny because you have no idea how drug testing works and you want to pretend that you know more than a 20 year vet MRO. Sorry, but I'd take his word on this more than any idiot whose "expert" on drug testing is named Referee Big John. You're a joke.

By the way, your newly beloved Eichner of SMRTL was asked about the diluted sample:

Question: So in your professional opinion to a scientific degree of certainty....are the 41ng test and the 61ng test consistent with each other?

Eichner: It's impossible to directly correlate exactly, but DEFINITELY CONSISTENT. THAT'S FOR SURE.

JUST AS THE ****ING MRO STATED! BOOM!!!!

2 positive tests pre-fight,
1 negative pre-fight,

Yea...what's your point? The marijuana metabolite jumps up 600ng's after legitimately going down to less than 50ng? LMAO.

then on 1/31: 1 Invalid result by SMRTL, 1 QUEST positive result, 1 SMRTL negative result which was > 2 times dilute .....
Diaz's team was wrong again! Yet you believed their defense!

LMAO. Let's see. Go back to your studies and see how much dilution lowers marijuana. YOUR STUDY. LMAO. You don't want to mention your study anymore, do ya?

Find any agency that says SPG 1.009 is too diluted for a valid drug test. You can't. Shut the **** up with your 2 times diluted shlt. The study that you got that from proves he drank less than 1 liter of water. Clown!

1) QUEST does a SCREENING test. Correct. If positive (over the threshold) then they do a second test which is called a confirmation test.

How do they do it?
At one place in their facility (LAB) they get an amount of urine from Sample A then test it. If positive THEN at another separate area in the LAB they do a separate test that is different than the first test. This is to confirm the initial test result. They do this by getting another amount of urine from Sample A. If
positive then this confirms that Diaz is positive on that substance. BOTH TESTS were positive. TWO positive tests on the same sample makes it a very reliable result!!!

LMAOOOOOOO! Dude. Go the **** away. Everyone knows that the only reason Quest does the screening test is in hope of not having to foot the bill every time to do the GC/MS test. You are looking like a damn clown.

The GC/MS is typically used to confirm “non-negative” EMIT and immunoassay test results. GC/MS will indicate precisely what chemical is present. This is necessary because the EMIT & immunoassay are only indicators of whether something similar to what is being tested is present. The GC/MS is difficult and more costly, which is why the EMIT and immunoassay screenings are given first

SMRTL: They did a SCREENING test too. It came back negative!!! So they did not do their confirmation test!

LMAOOOO.WRONGGGGGGGGG!!!! You have no idea what was going on during this portion of the video, did you? Even when Diaz attorney clarified, you still got lost, didn't you. LOL. You don't even have an idea of what GC/MS does and how it's different from Immunoassay, do you?

You said that the SCREENING doesn't matter and is worth Sh$t. So since SCREENING test is all that SMRTL did then its worth Sh$t, right?


Question to SMRTL: "Dr Eichner, when you do the GCMS review and an athlete sample does not test above the (threshold) limit do you then get a numerical indication of what it may be even though it may be below the limit established by WADA?"

SMRTL Response: "No because its a threshold substance. If it does not meet that threshold, there is no point to do a confirmation analysis and it is reported as negative."


Daniel Eichner, a Ph.D. who is the executive director of SMRTL said there is a lack of understanding of how testing procedures work.
"If anything is detected during the initial SCREEN, that triggers MORE WORK."

"If we see anything that could look remotely like a prohibited substance, we then go back to that urine sample in the A bottle and then we do a CONFIRMATION process,"

Eichner said. "We look specifically for that compound of the parent drug or the metabolite."

So basically since the substance didn't go over the threshold, SMRTL only did a SCREENING not a confirmation test. QUEST did both a screening and a confirmation test. BOTH TESTS were positive.

LMAOOOOOO. NOW ANSWER ME THIS...IF THEY DIDN'T GET THE EXACT NUMERICAL NUMBER FOR THE MARIJUANA METABOLITE NANOGRAM, HOW THE **** DO WE KNOW IT????? LMAOOOOOOO!

DUDEEEEEE. YOU ARE A LOST IDIOT. EICHER STATED THAT NO NUMBER IS REPORTED IF IT DOESN'T REACH THE THRESHOLD. IT'S JUST REPORTED AS NEGATIVE. WHEN DIAZ LAWYER ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION STATING THAT IN A PROCEEDING LIKE THE HEARING THEY WERE PRESENT AT, WILL THE EXACT CONFIRMED AMOUNT BE DETAILED IN THE REPORT, EICHNER SAID YES!!!!! YOU DAMN FOOL!

2) Daniel Eichner, a Ph.D. who is the executive director of SMRTL said there is a lack of understanding of how testing procedures work.
The sample is split into two, an A sample and a B sample. The analyst works with the A sample and puts the B sample aside. Eichner said the lab then looks for every known prohibited substance and metabolite, which he called "quite a vast and extensive SCREENING process."

LMAOOOOO. YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF HOW HE IS USING THE WORD SCREENING HERE, DO YOU?

SCREENING(DEFINITION 1): THE TESTING OF A PERSON FOR THE PRESENCE OF A DISEASE OR OTHER ISSUE.

SCREENING(DEFINITION 2): THE EVALUATION OR INVESTIGATION OF SOMETHING AS PART OF A METHODICAL SURVEY TO ASSES THE SUITABILITY FOR A PARTICULAR ROLE OR PURPOSE.

LMAOOOOOO.
Let me help you out, little guy.

Eichner is talking about screening for drugs.

The Immunoassay is a SCREENING to ASSES the SUITABILITY of the sample being tested by GC/MS.

Quest doesn't go straight to GC/MS because it is too expensive! There would be no need for the immunoassay if they had the money to go straight to GC/MS, foolio.

"Once a positive test is returned, the screen is completed and the test is implemented. A urine drug test is executed via the gas chromatography/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) to provide confirmation of the positive results."

LMAOOOOOOOO!!!!! YOU DONE ****ED UP YOU LITTLE BlTCH. DID YOU REALLY GET THIS QUOTATION FROM A WEBSITE AND THROW IT IN HERE TRYING TO PRETEND IT'S PART OF WADA'S PROTOCOL AND WHAT EICHER IS SAYING? LMAOOOOO. YOU ARE A ****ING CLOWN. SHAME ON YOU! THE "SCREEN" REFERRED TO HERE IS THE IMMUNOASSAY. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT EICHNER IS SAYING, SO WHY DO YOU HAVE THIS UNDER YOUR #2 AS IF IT IS PART OF WHAT HE'S SAYING, WITH QUOTATION MARKS AT THAT. YOU HIT AN ALL TIME LOW, BlTCH! I HAVE LESS THAN ZERO RESPECT FOR YOU, YOU LOW LIFE CLOWN!

So TEST #2 done by QUEST confirmed TEST #1 done by QUEST.

NICE TRY, BUT IN YOUR ABOVE QUOTATION IT CLEARLY SAYS ONLY THE GC/MS IS THE TEST!!!!! YOUR "TEST #1" IS A SCREEN, YOU IDIOT! THANK YOU FOR CONTINUOUSLY MURDERING YOURSELF!!!!

3) The 2 step process used by QUEST has in the past caught what the single pass by GC/MS didn't catch.

One such case (scenario) is when urine has a competing substance either accidentally or used to trick the test.
Example: When the urine sample tested for marijuana and was detected because a positive immunoassay screen while was unexpectedly negative by GC/MS.
The positive result got the LAB personnel to verify why. It was due to a substance that thru off the GC/MS not the immunoassay screen. Under these conditions, the concentration of the target drug may be dramatically decreased by the presence of the interferant.

COMPLETE BULLSHlT AND IT MAKES NO SENSE WHAT SO EVER. HOW COULD THE GC/MS BE USED TO CONFIRM THE IMMUNOASSAY IF IT IS FOUND TO BE MORE FAULTY THAN IT, YOU IDIOT? USE YOUR ****ING BRAIN! IF THE LAB PERSONNEL DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORK THE GC/MS PROPERLY, THAT DOESN'T REFLECT ON THE TEST.

So AGAIN, its YOU that needs to show why Diaz is innocent. Not even Diaz's team wanted to know the results of Sample B. You know why? Because it would have told you that Diaz was guilty!!! There is no other possible explanation for that move. NONE!!!!!


What are you saying? This appears to be a deflection! Lets hope you can answer it directly.

Answer what, moron? Was there a question? Why would he test a B sample that had his name attached to it and had faulty chain of custody. If the sample was contaminated, it wouldn't test any differently. You still won't address this because you are a coward.

True, Diaz's team were cowards for not having sample B tested.

No, you're a coward for trying to attribute a quotation to Eichner like a clown and for ducking me like a bltch in the thunderdome.

Remember that Russian athlete? She requested STRONGLY that WADA investigate SMRTL and have the urine reexamined. THey did and found out that SMRTL was wrong. Anyhow, if sample B was tested, it would show that Diaz is a marijuana abuser, as we already know. But Diaz's team knew that the B sample would be positive.

Remember Silva? Remember how QUEST ****ed up his teat on the same ****ing day. Remember you were WRONG about your assessment, and tried to say Quest was actually right? LMAO. Now many times do you have to get destroyed?

Your still in denial. I can understand you buying that excuse initially but not now that you have the details. Its no longer an acceptable stance!

SHut up, bltch.

WOW!

a) Expert says IF. This is to imply that only if the scenario mentioned by Diaz's expert does his scenario apply. Its clear as day that there are other scenarios that were possible that Diaz's expert does not want to mention and his scenario is a fail from the get to!!!

WOW! The whole case was about dilution. Now you want to say it's something else. You squirming little bltch. NSAC had NOTHING to go on but dilution and Nick lying. They failed miserably about the dilution and one judge even admit that Nick's team did a hell of a job. Get out of here with your bullshlt.

b) You said "How ****** do you have to be to keep saying this"
Well, I laughed at your post because I kept telling you that no way did Floyd have hyponatremia for numerous reasons but you just pointed out one of them and now are saying "How ****** do you have to be to keep saying this" lol! Too funny!!!.

Floyd was not rushed to no hospital. Hyponatremia is serious stuff where Floyd could potentially have had brain swelling. Floyd thanks Dr Alex Ariza ..... shady stuff man and now you are basically agreeing with me! BOOOM!

Um, excuse me. Hyponatremia, no matter what degree, is treated with an IV. Did Nick have an IV, or was he right up there at the conference right after? That's first of all.

Second, did Nick have an independent team of Doctors who approved his TUE with no knowledge of who the applicant was? I never said Mayweahter had hyponatremia. I said we don't know what the **** we had, but we do know that his anonymous application was approved of by a group of doctors, as well as said application being sent to WADA. BOOOM! You big ****ing dummy!

I keep on going back and forth. Seriously, you just do not get it or pretending because you know you are wrong? There is no other explanation.

Diaz's expert says that he must have drank X amount of water. A number that he couldn't even state but its a number that in which would produce severe water intoxication to drop if tried to drop so fast!

I'm saying that even that scenario is not the only possible scenario. What if, as an example, Diaz drank less than what he considers impossible but also took another substance that acts as a diuretic and in fact the fluid itself didn't necessarily need to be just water. The fluid could have been and/or included a mild to not so mild diuretic and/or intake something that would be easier to take without intoxicating himself.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK ****** SKULL. NO ONE GIVES A **** ABOUT YOUR SPECULATION. YOU SAID THIS WAS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST. YOU GOT SHUT DOWN. NOW CRAWL UNDER A ROCK, BlTCH. YOU SAID IT WAS ABOUT DILUTION. DID YOU PROVE YOUR CASE? NO. SHUT THE **** UP ALREADY.

So to say it would produce a dilute urine without drinking as much as the poor doctor tried to convince us .... well he convinced you Score that ADP02 = 1, Diaz's expert = 0. Travestny = 0 for believing Diaz's expert.

LMAOOOOOO. SO YOU ARE SAYING HIS URINE WOULD BE DILUTED....BUT 1.009 DOESN'T SHOW EXACTLY HOW DILUTED IT IS? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. LMAOOOOOO. 1.009 BlTCH. ACCEPTABLE BY EVERY ****ING DRUG TESTING AGENCY THERE IS. YOU STILL HAVE NO PROOF THAT A DILUTED SAMPLE OF 1.009 CAN DILUTE WELL OVER 300NG OF MARIJUANA. FACE IT...YOU'VE LOST. I FEEL SAD FOR CONTINUOUSLY KICKING THE SHlT OUT OF YOU. LOG OFF AND STAY OFF!

BTW - Nothing will squash my point on Specific Gravity. Go read up. It has its limitations!!! That is my point! You are saying that it doesn't? lol!

LMAOOOOOOOO. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO PROVE THAT 1.009 CAN DILUTE WELL OVER 300NG. I'M STILL WAITING. YOU TRIED TO SAY ONE FOUND OUT NICK BECAUSE IT USED THE CREATININE TEST, THEN SAID BOTH HAVE LIMITATIONS. LMAO. YOU ARE A SQUIRMING LITTLE ****** THAT CAN'T DEAL WITH YOUR LOSS. FLOYD MAYWEATHER RUINED YOUR ****ING LIFE. I'M ACTUALLY ENJOYING LAUGHING KNOWING HOW HURT YOU ARE, AND **** IT...DON'T GO AWAY. I'M GONNA KEEP KICKING YOUR ASS AND LAUGHING AT YOU.

As I stated, SG and Creatinine are tools but have their limitations. You are basically agreeing with me without even realizing this! lol
You need to read up. I did and even pointed this out to you. What gives?

Still "The Quest report registered a creatinine level of 168.4 mg/dL, which is virtually right in the middle of Quest's reference range of 20-to-370 mg/dL."

Still, Creatinine can be off due to numerous reasons!!! Same with SG!!!

THEN YOU DESTROYED YOUR OWN POINT THAT ONE FOUND OUT NICK BECAUSE THE OTHER LAB USED THE DIFFERENT CRITERIA. THIS IS GETTING BORING. YOU JUST KEEP MURDERING YOURSELF. YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO SAY DRUG TESTING IN ITSELF IS ****ED, WITH NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER, BECAUSE YOUR IDOL WAS MADE INTO A SPARRING PARTNER. LMAO. I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU!

More deflections. Your come back is just you doing this "lmaoooooo. GIVE THE **** UP!" Why do you not have a valid response since its YOU that needs to prove that those positive tests were not right BUT again, you cannot because your team didn't request for the B sample to be tested. That was dumb unless they knew the results! lol!

LMAOOOOO. NOW YOU SOUND LIKE NSAC. TEST THE B SAMPLE, TEST THE B SAMPLE. LMAOOOOOO. GO FIND HOW NSAC WAS ROASTED ABOUT THIS ISSUE. YOU'RE A DUMMY. I SUGGEST YOU FIND ANOTHER ISSUE TO DISCUSS HERE.

You said: "Only way it's possible by only dilution is if he damn near kills himself." Diaz's team said what they said because they had nothing else left, why are you being ignorant?

Do not be naïve and believe what Diaz's team said. Not too far up I explained that one can dilute by various ways. There are other ways too such as, remember what Lance Armstrong did? Floyd did? Used an IV. SO I keep on giving you examples over examples and you are stuck in neutral!!! lol

YOU'RE IGNORANT.
1. 1.009 IS NOT CONSIDERED DILUTED BY ANY DRUG TESTING AGENCY. -- FACT

2. WADA DOES NOT ALLOW USADA TO ACCEPT A DILUTED SAMPLE AFTER IV USE -- FACT

YOU STATED #2 WAS NOT A FACT. YOU WERE WRONGGGGGGGG! HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN WRONG NOW? HOW MANY? YOU CAN'T WIN!

What are you even talking about? Your ship has sunk and you know it. That is the only explanation I can think of.

LMAOOOOO. WHAT AM I TALKING ABOUT? OH NOW YOU FORGET THAT YOUR 'EXPERT' THE REFEREE SAID HE HAD TO DRINK 2-4 LITERS. LMAOOOOO. KEEP KILLING YOURSELF, IDIOT. I'LL KEEP LAUGHING AT YOU OWNING YOURSELF. KEEP DIGGING THAT GRAVE, BUDDY!

You are the rock here.

I pointed it out already in this post and others. I read others who agreed with my points on other forums.

Diaz's expert is formulating a specific scenario. WHY????? Because he is making it sound like its NOT possible! Why???? If its possible by another way, then Diaz's defense crumbles!!!!!!!

YOU IDIOT. IT'S NSAC THAT PROPOSES THAT HE DID IT BY DILUTING. DIAZ IS DEFENDING HIMSELF AGAINST THEIR ACCUSATION. YOU ARE AN UTTER IMBECILE.

For Diaz, WHo cares HOW but if its possible is what matters!!! If there is ANY explicable reason then Diaz's team cannot defend and Diaz is found guilty!!!!!!! What do you not get about this very very simple statement?

YOU ARE A MORON. AGAIN, HE IS DEFENDING HIMSELF AGAINST THEIR ACCUSATION THAT HE DILUTED HIS URINE. YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN THAT IT'S POSSIBLE SO.....I GUESS YOU SHOULD LOG OFF, CHUMP. IN FACT, ALL OF YOUR STUDIES SHOW YOU ARE WRONNNGGGGGG. LMAOOO. THAT'S THE FUNNIEST PART OF ALL OF THIS!

If Diaz was trying to beat the test and it was NOT by drinking water alone as Diaz's team stated then Diaz's team has no defense!!!
a) Its possible and
b) There are 2 positive results (Screening by Immunoassays and confirmation by GCMS ). Go check up. When both are positive, you have a tough road to climb if you are trying to shoot these 2 positive results on a given urine sample!
"Since IA and GC-MS are based on different principles, the probability of generating a false positive is significantly reduced"


"An initial urinary screening test must be confirmed for evidence of drug use. Confirmatory testing is more sensitive and specific than screening tests and confirms the drug of interest as opposed to the drug class."

YOU SAID THIS ALREADY. YOU ARE NOW TRYING TO HARP ON WATER. LMAO. IT'S ABOUT DILUTION YOU IDIOT. DILUTION. YOU DO KNOW THAT IT IS MEASURED BY SPG RIGHT? WHETHER WATER CAUSES IT OR NOT, RIGHT? LMAO. GIVE UP.

c) Diaz's team was wrong in that there is nothing to bookend since TEST #1 is so extremely dilute that it is INVALID.
THEN Diaz's team can go packing already!!!! This is so funny .... why are you not getting this? Its so simple? lol

SO SIMPLE THAT YOU ARE AFRAID OF ME IN THE THUNDERDOME. OH, DID I MENTION THAT EICNER SAID THE 1ST AND 3RD TEST WERE CONSISTENT, JUST LIKE THE MRO. SEEMS THE MRO KNOWS SOMETHING AFTERALL, HUH? LOL

d) I explained all this in this post and previous ones. What are you having difficulties with? Really?

I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING WHY YOU KEEP COMING BACK TO RECEIVE MORE OF THIS GOOD OLD DOWN HOME ASSWHOOPIN' I'M GIVING YOU.

His defense is dumb if its what you think he is trying to say. DO YOU NOT GET IT? It does NOT matter from what its from. If its possible then his point is meaningless and dumb!!!!!!!!!! lol!

If its possible then that meant that the test was valid and Diaz was guilty! lol!

YOU'RE AN IDIOT. THEY HAD NO PROOF. THEY HAD NOTHING TO GO ON BUT DILUTION. THEY FAILED. JUST LIKE YOU CONTINUOUSLY FAIL.

Its NOT irrelevant. It shows that Diaz has been caught in the past, uses and his tests kept on coming back positive up to days before the fight! On what? Marijuana! lol

The only issue is that you are not getting any of this. Again, I already gave examples. Its not hard to understand! SG and Creatinine are used as a tool but have their limitations. Go read up.

When I say that the LABS didn't do anything wrong as one of the possibilities:
Its just like when testing any athlete that gets caught. The athlete was able to beat the other tests and not that 1 test. Its no fault of the LABS that they missed it the other times. It was not possible for them to get a positive result either due to masking or the PED was out of the system due to micro dosing or dilution or whatever. That's all.

LMAOOOOOOO. HE FAILED QUEST BUT BEAT SMRTL 1 HOUR 17 MINUTES LATER WITH URINE THAT IS NOT DEEMED TOO DILUTED TO GET A FAIR READING BY ANY DRUG TESTING AGENCY IN THE WORLD. LMAO. YOU ARE SMOKING SOMETHING, MY MAN.

No test, no license! But you are having trouble understanding the other stuff so of course you want to stay consistent. lol!

LMAOOOOO. ONE WORD. EICHNER. LMAOOOOOO! WILLING TO BET HE KNOWS MORE THAN YOU! IDIOTTTTTTTTTT!

Diaz got caught several times before, caught diluting, avoided being testing, caught days before the fight twice ..... and again after the fight. Uses medical marijuana in California ..... ALL tests show levels of the substance. Diaz says he is consistent about one thing. Using marijuana! Whoopty doo!!! lol



Reliable result is > 300. Even if it was more than 300, its more than possible as I pointed out already. The flaw in all of this is that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!

I'm the one that keeps on telling you that there are fluctuations due to numerous reasons BUT only now that it affects your logic you buy that. How convenient! lol

BUT if you check out the studies and compare -
BEFORE TEST #1 the urine was supposedly very concentrated but the THC levels were lower than TEST #1 which was extremely diluted. When urine is more dilute it should show a much lower level of THC metabolites compared to a heavily concentrated urine sample. Plus a good 5 days passed by so that too should lower the number of THC metabolites.

Studies state to get ratios THC/Creatinine levels to get a better read not just the THC metabolite levels.

Use logic. WHy does one dilute their urine? What is the effect if done right? To lower the THC metabolite levels. So to say, TEST #1's number would have been much higher that 50 since he had diluted 10X (FOLD).

If you still accept what you think then you cannot say that any of this was impossible like you keep on saying.

SAME OLD **** THAT I ALREADY DEALT WITH.

What? I keep on telling you that SG reading has its limitations.

- 1.009 is > 2 FOLD diluted. So it was definitely a diluted sample!
- Remember that Diaz was in a fight. Remember that I provided to you info where athletes urine can have higher volumes of lots of substances due to trauma, exercise and stress!!! That can EASILY account for differences in SG values .... .
- SG values and concentration values of a substance is not exactly linear. SG can rise or fall more or less compared to concentration readings of a given substance. Lots of reasons why.
- Diaz had just voided by urinating in TEST #2 and soon after, 1:17 later, had a fresh batch of urine where Diaz clearly was rehydrating himself when you compare to TEST #2. Marijuana concentration levels were lower on a fresh sample since its possible that in such a short time, less was excreted than on previous samples.
- "one should be aware that heavy molecules not normally present in large quan****** in urine can falsely affect specific gravity readings"
- SG readings are also affected by temperature fluctuations, which make specimens expand or contract, altering their density.
- CR excretion over short intervals also shows considerable variation. Studies showed that subsequent 2-h interval samples varied by >100%, and several studies have reported that spot-sample CR variation is several times higher than variation for 24-h values.
- Can be a combo of dilution that brings down the substance level and an interfering substance that further brought down the THC metabolite levels.
- refrigerated samples may have falsely elevated readings, as may specimens exposed to excessive heat and dryness.
- Was urine sample tested immediately after the specimen was collected? Can give a different SG reading the longer one waits to measure.
- Allession et al. (9) suggested rejection of specimens that had specific gravity measures that were < 1.010 or > 1.030 and specimens with creatinine < 50 mg/dL or > 300 mg/dL.
- Lots of other reasons for a change in SG readings. Read up!
- Diuretics can have an effect on SG.
- As a measure of urine concentration, Urine osmolality is more accurate than specific gravity. Travestyny thinks that there is no limitations to SG. Oh No!
- Other ways is to actually try to mask the accurate SG/CR values. For example, creatinine converted to creatinine will mask the dilution efforts.
- In a dilute sample, negative or none detected results should never be interpreted as indicating no drug use (abstinence), because if, in fact, drugs were present, they probably could not be detected by the test.

and the above is just to answer your misunderstanding about all of this because as I stated and the experts stated and other studies have stated:
- There can be dramatic differences between samples and between different labs, protocols, and so on.
- With no bookends due to TEST #1 being clearly an invalid test and with SMRTL's testing being just a screening test with "no additional confirmation test" done, and no B sample tested, the A sample stands!!!! Its just that simple.
- "URine samples in 139 professional boxers before and after a bout were examined. 46% of the fighter's urine changed from clear before the fight to turbid immediately afterwards and the specific gravity increased in 80% of the cases. Traces of aceton were manifest in 14%. Sugar spilled in the urine in 9% of the boxers.
Albuminuria: 68% that had none present before the fight, 68% was present after the fight. Red blood cells were found in significant pathological amounts in 73% after the fight .... and more."
- "for example, glucose, albumin, or radiocontrast dyes will elevate urinary specific gravity out of proportion to the actual concentration." read above line. It mentions glucose, albumin, .....!!!!

LOOK AT ALL OF THIS BULLSHlT. Stop doing this to yourself. I already showed you that working out doesn't effect marijuana to the extent that you are trying to say. you just ignored that because you had no defense. Then you go rambling with all that shlt above. It's very simple. Show me where 1.009 dilutes well above 300ng to 61ng. You still can't do it!

Secondly, you are stuck with just the THC metabolite value. When verifying if a user smoked after a previous test, they use ratios. If the concentration of 1/26 is very high and 1/31 is very dilute then that can have a dramatic difference in the true values. Using that, 1/26 THC ratio would be significantly lower than any of the 1/31 tests. Which implies that Diaz did smoke after 1/26. GO READ UP!!!

ALready addressed this in the other post. Time for you to read up, chump, and by the way. admit that you were wrongggggggg!

I already provided you with a lot of information that shows that an SG value can be skewed. SG has its limitations. Did you finally understand this?

Secondly, the SMRTL test was just 1 test plus it was just a screening test. QUEST had 2 tests. The screening test and then the confirmation test done by way of the GC/MS.

In a screening test, it can be a less specific test compared to the confirmation test. GC/MS test can vary as there are multiple variables in the test. It can be less specific by using a certain testing method or it can be a more refined test. Both with its own advantages and disadvantages. BUT as stated, the QUESTS test complimented each other and removed in essence the possibility of an incorrect positive test. SMRTL's test was just a negative test.

Again, a negative test does NOT mean that Diaz did
not cheat. A positive test on s substance that we both know that Diaz has been associated to on many other occasion and admitted to doing and admitted to trying to beat the test ...... is harder to deny!!!

"The confirmatory GC-MS test is extremely specific – it produces almost no false positives." Now add the fact that another test on the same sample also gave a positive result?

yep. Thanks for that. ANd we have two WADA lab tests that used GC-MS and were consistent with each other. lmaooooooo. NO WAY THEY APPROACH WELL OVER 300NG EVEN IF HE WAS AT 1.020. YOU'RE DONEEEEEE!

- A reasonable person would have said "Diaz's team used the over inflated and unreliable number of 733. QUEST said the reliable number was > 300

WRONG. THEY SAID WELL ABOVE 300. WELLLLLL ABOVE. YOU DON'T LIKE THAT, DO YOU? LMAOOO. HOW THE **** DID IT GO FROM WELL ABOVE 300 TO 61. YOU CAN'T ANSWERRRRRRR!!!!

- A reasonable person would have said "using Diaz's team own evidence, the time after the fight needs to be factored in. So its not only the time between TEST #2 and TEST #3 that should be taken into account.

HOW WAS HE NOT SUPER DILUTED AT THE TIME OF TEST 2 IF HE DRANK SO MUCH IMMEDIATELY. YOU CAN'T ANSWERRRRRRRR!!!!!LMAOOOOOOO. STOP DUCKING, Bltch!

- A reasonable person would have said "Lots of studies, website state that you should try to dilute just prior to the test (1-2 hours before) and drink not many gallons but just liters.
- A reasonable person would have said "You can dilute by a combination of ways not just by drinking water"
- A reasonable person would have said "wait a second. Diaz's team's scenario is NOT the only possible explanation. So it is medically plausible. So why did Diaz's team not tie up all the lose ends? Because they couldn't as it negates what Diaz's team said.
- A reasonable person would have said "If you are so sure, why not have another LAB test the B sample"

ALready addressed. A REASONABLE PERSON WOULDN'T BE STILL SAYING THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER WHEN HE'S BEEN GETTING HIS ASS KICKED THE WAY YOU HAVE BEEN. GIVE THE **** UP.

[QUOTE=ADP02;17345338]
After reading about the SG/Cr limitations and hearing the experts stating that you cannot just correlate the different urine sample done at different labs because its quite possible that they can give your dramatically different results!!!!!!! This should be an open and shut case.
[/QUEST]

EXCEPT THEY BOTH USED GC/MS. OOPS!

Again, it was all possible .... so no hyponatremia.
but the funny part is that you now think that Floyd I mean Diaz would have had to have gone rushing to a hospital if he had hyponatremia .... lol. Remember that was your last line of defense for Floyd. So maybe you are not ignorant. Just cannot admit the truth. Its not a bad trade off, I guess ...... BOOOOM!

YOU ARE TOO ****** TO REALIZE THAT YOU CAN'T DISPROVE HYPONATREMIA FOR MAYWEATHER AT ANY LEVEL, WHEREAS NICK DIAZ WOULD HAVE HAD TO DILUTE A MASSIVE AMOUNT WHICH WOULD HAVE SURELY BEEN EXREME HYPONATREMIA. BOOOOOOOM. WE HAVE THE NUMBERS FOR DIAZ, CHUMP. NOW SHUT THE **** UP.

Several were above the levels that they state is diluted (eg. Cr < 20) yet made it below the many known testing cutoffs (eg. 150, 100, 50 and in some cases even 20, 15).

If you understand, Subject G and H went down in value many FOLDs yet was above the CR < 20 level. So its possible to go down many FOLDS and not even get flagged as too dilute!

SUBJECT G
Time 20.5 to 23.0 to 24.0
THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1 to 13.7
Creatinine 184 to 39 to 23
Volume 320 to 195 to 260

SUBJECT H
Time 6.0 to 9.5
THCCOOH 234.2 to 59.6
Creatinine 174 to 45
Volume 116 to 390

Look at subject F's CR value. A huge downward trend in just 1 hour. I thought this was supposed to be not medically plausible? And this was just a study not someone who must use all means to pass a test!!! This guy went from 1 end of the spectrum to the complete opposite end in 1 hour! Poof!

SUBJECT F
Time 4.0 to 5,0 to 8,8
THCCOOH 49.0 to 0,0 to 6.6
Creatinine 340 to 47 to 26
Volume 134 to 222

OH, I'M SORRY. WHICH ONE OF THESE ARE WELL ABOVE 300NG???? WHICH. YOU TELL ME. LET ME KNOW. I'LL BE WAITING. LMAOOOOOOO!

and again, SG and CR have their limitations. It's used as a tool but as I pointed out, limited!!!



- Diaz was exercising, under stress and in a fight where there is trauma occurring to the body. Add hormone, body metabolism, dieting fluctuations (making weight) and All can increase the excretion of THC metabolites. The studies show a variance and it was not in a fight!!! Some were in the negative and some were significantly positive and again, none were named Diaz who had just finished fighting.

I think you pointed to a study where they admitted that it was too limited in that they only had about 6 subjects where a few goofed up and it was not a controlled study.

Even then, there was a subject that showed a significant increase of over 30%. The other study also noted that some participants went over the testing threshold that they used. That is to say, would have turned from negative to positive.- Diaz was exercising, under stress and in a fight where there is trauma occurring to the body. Add hormone, body metabolism, dieting fluctuations (making weight) and All can increase the excretion of THC metabolites. The studies show a variance and it was not in a fight!!! Some were in the negative and some were significantly positive and again, none were named Diaz who had just finished fighting.

I think you pointed to a study where they admitted that it was too limited in that they only had about 6 subjects where a few goofed up and it was not a controlled study.

Even then, there was a subject that showed a significant increase of over 30%. The other study also noted that some participants went over the testing threshold that they used. That is to say, would have turned from negative to positive.

I THINK YOU POINTED OUT SOME STUDIES....THAT WENT DIRECTLY AGAINST YOUR THEORY. LMAOOOOOO. YOU GOTTA ADMIT. THAT'S SOME FUNNY SHlT.

Wash, rinse and repeat. I told you enough for you to stop talking foolishly!



Just say that its all going over your head and we are all good. Trust me that it gets simpler if you stop saying "LMAO" and start to read up and actually understand all this.




Wash, rinse and repeat. I told you enough for you to stop talking foolishly!

YOU'RE GETTING LIKE THE BONG IN NICK'S HANDS RIGHT NOW. IF YOU WEREN'T, YOU WOULD STOP BEING A BlTCH AND SEE ME IN THE THUNDERDONE, CHUMP.

Like I said, you need to stop saying LMAO and read up! If you read up its explained that the THC value on its own is not always enough. TEST #1 was extremely diluted yet only at around 50 while the other previous tests were extremely concentrated and also at 50 or higher (failed ones). Logically it makes sense. For a given individual, if a sample is very diluted then that means that the concentration of that substance is lower than when its heavily diluted. So to say, TEST #1 on 1/31 would have been much higher than 50 if it was extremely concentrated .... plus 5 days passed. Why no drop?

REFER TO THE CHART IN THE OTHER POST I SENT. THANKS.

lol, I said that there are many possibilities. Only Diaz can know ... and I said that we do not know how exactly Diaz cheated and you said BINGO!!! lol

Finally, do you understand the concept that IF there are 5 negative tests and 1 is positive that the positive test *****s all the negative ones? Sure, the athlete may get defensive and deny it all and use excuses like you and Diaz are trying to do but YOU cannot deny that you have no answers as to why 2 tests on 1/31 came up positive. I answered all of your questions at length. You never did.

BULLSHlT. ABSOLUTE BULLSHlT. YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED ONE QUESTION THAT I'VE ASKED YOU.

1. HOW DID HE START DRINKING OR DILUTING IMMEDIATELY IF HE IS SLIGHTLY CONCENTRATED AT TEST 2 AND 1.009 AT TEST 3. -- NO ANSWER.

2. HOW DOES YOUR STUDY PROVE HE DRANK LESS THAN 1 LITER. -- NO ANSWER

3. HOW DOES HE DILUTE THAT MUCH MARIJUANA YET YOUR STUDIES DON'T CORRELATE TO HIS SPG. -- NO ANSWER.

YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED EVEN 1 OF MY QUESTIONS AND THIS IS WHY YOU ARE A SHlT POSTER. JUST SAYING YOU ANSWERD DOESN'T MEAN YOU'VE ANSWERED ANYTHING. YOU HAVEN'T. POINT BLACK PERIOD. YOU ARE A COWARDLY ****ING DUCK AND YOU KNOW IT.

As has been stated, a positive screen then positive CONFIRMATION test is very tough to beat. Only way was by verifying sample B. Diaz's team knew this but they couldn't go there. There were no bookends because TEST #1 was a fail. TEST #3 can be explained. So its over!

THE GUY YOU QUOTED DISAGREED WITH YOU. YOUR STUDIES DISAGREE WITH YOU. EICHNER DISAGREES WITH YOU. WADA, DISAGREES WITH YOU. THE MRO DISAGREES WITH YOU. QUEST EVEN DISAGREES WITH YOU REGARDING THE DILUTION THEORY. LMAO. DUDEEEEE. YOU LOST. GET OVER IT!

lol! Just deflecting .....

ALL YOU DO IS DEFLECT AND SPECULATE. THE TWO THINGS YOU SAY OTHERS DO MOST. THIS IS CALLED PROJECTING. I'M STARTING TO BELIEVE YOU AREN'T MENTALLY STABLE.

Do you not see that the system is completely flawed as far as this test is concerned. That is why the threshold's used to be much lower. So they can catch people and even when the thresholds were very low (eg. thresholds of <50, <20 , <15) some athletes such as Diaz still attempted to beat the thresholds. So you think that 150 will be difficult? lol Its flawed. THINK!!! Many athletes will not have to go to extreme dilution ranges to beat this test.

LMAOOO. YOU KNOW MORE THAN THE SCIENTISTS WHO DO THIS FOR A LIVING. YEA. I BELIEVE YOU....ARE A NUTCASE.

As I stated above. Its not difficult to pass this test given the new thresholds. If the thresholds were lower, its more difficult but not at 150. Anyways, I said enough that you can understand all this.



Wash, rinse and repeat. I told you enough for you to stop talking foolishly!





Wash, rinse and repeat. I told you enough for you to stop talking foolishly!

YOU ARE A SAD LITTLE MAN. YOU REALLY AREN'T SANE. YOU'RE A NUTTER. DID YOU GET THIS INFO FROM YOUR REF? LOL

I'm trying to show you that even on the same sample they can get it wrong. Its to point out that if we can get different results on the same sample then you cannot compare TEST #1 with TEST #2 and then with TEST #3 results as you and Diaz's team tried to do. BUT at least Diaz's team admitted to the issue ..... but that killed his case! ...

BINGO!!!

OH, YOU MEAN WHAT NSAC ALSO TRIED TO DO? LOL. ONE LAB GOT IT WRONG. AND LET ME GIVE YOU A HINT. IT WAS THE SAME LAB THAT GOT THE OTHER TEST WRONG ON THE SAME DAMN NIGHT CONCERNING THE SAME DAMN FIGHT. LMAO. YOU DON'T FIND THAT FUNNY? I DO.

You are smoking not me. Stop clinging to TEST #1. Its invalid. If you correct the values due to the extreme dilution, the values would be way above 150!!! TEST #1 was diluted by about 10 FOLD.

EICHNER DISAGREES WITH YOU. LMAO

What? Stop deflecting.

First of all you are totally confused and mixing the topics.
1) Diaz's defense. His case is to try to provide evidence that he did not cheat. It was NOT about Diaz trying to convince us that he was not cheating by way of dilution.

SO if Diaz's team explains about dilution but there are other ways to cheat, well, Diaz is guilty. So stick with this simple point!!!!!

2) Dilution: I explained this already. There are multiple ways to dilute. NOT just by drinking water. There are other ways that the SG can be wherever it is because Testing in general and the SG and CR tests have their limitations. BUT I explained this already.

Got it?

3) TEST #1 was invalid. TEST #2 had a normal concentration and was tested positive by 2 different ways on the sample in question. No B sample was tested.
TEST #3 was over 2 Folds diluted. So to say, it was diluted more than normal.

So now you need to explain to me how you can believe TEST #3 by way of screening only vs 2 tests on TEST #2 in which complement each other? More importantly, since all the experts said that you cannot do what you are doing yet you are trying to correlate the results of TEST #2 and TEST #3 and say TEST 2 is wrong because of TEST #3? lol!!!!

Note: When you bring up these points, I try to give you possibilities as we both do not know exactly what Diaz did.

NO. WHAT YOU DO IS TRY TO SPECULATE. LMAO. NO ONE BELIEVES YOU EXCEPT YOUR REF PAID BY NSAC. NSAC ACCUSED HIM OF DILUTING, FOOL. THEY DIDN'T ACCUSE HIM OF DOING THIS BY ANY OTHER WAY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY THEY FOUND.

Again, if I would have told you as an explanation that Lance used an IV right under the DCO's nose to dilute, you would be saying "LMAO, what are you smoking" but I would be right!!!

ONLY...THEY WERE AT THE BACK OF A DAMN FIGHT VENUE WITH 2 DCO'S PRESENT AND WATCHING HIM. GIVE THE **** UP. YOU ARE MORONIC! STOP BRINGING UP LANCE YOU IMBECILE.

Diaz was not alone in being tested multiple times. Also they were supposedly tested multiple times because they were in the process of getting USADA/WADA involved in their testing process.

Silva was tested as well. You think they were after him too?

Diaz got caught. Simple as that. All tests showed levels of marijuana. Secondly, your point does NOT make any sense. Why would the NSAC want to go after Diaz BEFORE even knowing about his positive test? That is nonsense! If you read up you would find out that they kept on contacting Diaz so that he gets tested often enough before the fight until he passes so he can get his license to fight. If they wanted Diaz out then they wouldn't have bothered and wouldn't even have given him a license to begin with. These organizations want the fights and athletes to fight. Its all a business.

Diaz failed 3 times so he got a harsher penalty but the NSAC eventually cut it down dramatically. Why would they if they wanted Diaz out? They could have dragged it out until Diaz would just call it quits .....

TESTED 3 TIMES AFTER HAVING TROUBLE PASSING AND SAYING HE WOULDN'T DO IT AGAIN. YOU SAW THE DAMN VIDEO. DID IT LOOK LIKE THEY WERE REASONABLE? EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS A KANGAROO COURT AND THAT'S THE REASON THEY WENT BACK ON THE SUSPENSION. YOU KNOW IT AND I KNOW IT. FIGHTERS WERE THREATENING TO BOYCOTT OVER IT. USE YOUR BRAIN.

Finally, what makes your point worse is Diaz's defense was NOT strong. So if you say that the NSAC was out to get Diaz, then why go in with such a useless defense where the NSAC could EASILY shoot Diaz down and find him guilty? You expected the NSAC to be after Diaz yet what did you expect? From the pre-fight form (lie), multiple repeat offenses, avoided being tested, admitted cheater, admitted to trying to beat the tests. On what? Marijuana. You can only blame Diaz for this. Even SMRTL found a high level of THC metabolites .... even his tests prior to 1/26 failed. Blaming the NSAC for Diaz's mistakes is a joke!

OH REALLY? HIS DEFENSE WAS SHlT. NOT ACCORDING TO THE "JUDGE" ON NSAC'S BOARD. LMAO. HOW MUCH FOOLISHNESS IS GOING TO COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH. THAT LAWYER WAS WIDELY PRAISED FOR THE JOB HE DID. YOU'RE JUST A BUTTHURT LITTLE PAC FAN.

So to answer your question, YES, I would definitely have had Sample B tested. It's better than no defense and having the NSAC definitely find you guilty! Even after the sentence of 5 years, they could have requested that the B sample be checked at a different LAB. Having the B sample tested was the BEST WAY OUT!!!! NOT pointing to a different urine sample.

BTW - Why would the NSAC and QUEST be "fixing" a urine sample test to make it positive? Who the freak is Nick Diaz to have this grand "fixing" scheme that makes no sense?

WHO ARE THEY TO BE TESTING HIM 3 TIMES AND PUTTING HIS NAME ON THE DAMN BOTTLE AND ****ING UP CHAIN OF CUSTODY. THE POINT IS...IF THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING TO THAT SAMPLE, IT WOULD BE EASY AS HELL TO DO SO. THEY FELT HE WAS MAKING THEM LOOK LIKE A FOOL AND IT'S CLEAR HOW BAD THEY WANTED HIM. THEY GOT HIM. LAWYERS THREATENED TO TAKE IT TO COURT. THEY SETTLED.

Remember that he was tested positive days before getting his license. Stop blaming others. This is a no brainer. At least with Floyd it makes a lot of sense. It was to make money for all and Floyd was Nevada's golden PPV egg. Nick Diaz is a pawn.

SHUT UP, CLOWN. IF MAYWEATHER LOST THERE WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY BEEN A REMATCH BECAUSE JUST HIM LOSING WOULD HAVE BEEN A BIG DEAL. HE WASN'T PROTECTED. HE MADE YOUR IDOL LOOK LIKE A SPARRING CHUMP.

So they only need to test once negative and it means that the athlete is not using PEDs? lol

Also, SMRLT's Screening test vs 2 tests done by QUEST that compliment each other and BOTH concluded that Diaz did use marijuana. THC metabolites were in all urine samples but QUEST proved that it was above the limit.

2 TESTS? LMAO. AFTER YOU GAVE THAT QUOTE THAT YOU TRIED TO SLIP IN THERE, YOU SHOULD JUST STOP WITH THIS 2 TESTS BULLSHlT. NO ONE BELIEVES YOU. WADA IS THE GOLD STANDARD. WE ALL KNOW THAT. GET OUT OF HERE WITH YOUR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TESTING. LMAOOOOOO.

So what. They also said that TEST #1 was too dilute (INVALID) and TEST #3 was dilute. Studies show that the THC metabolite numbers can go way lower than 150 by diluting.

Its not hard to beat. Subject F was able to dilute in 1 hour!!! Yet is supposedly "Medically not plausible"

Anyways, I explained all of that SG and CR limitations. Its time that you find a new excuse!

IT'S TIME YOU MAN UP AND ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG. "SO WHAT" IS YOUR ANSWER? LOL THAT'S HYSTERICAL. STILL WAITING FOR 41NG TO WELL OVER 300NG TO 61NG IN A MATTER OF..WHAT...2 HOURS? LMAO. SOMETHING AINT RIGHTTTTT. ONLY UR TOO BUTTHURT TO SEE THAT YOUR HOPES AND DREAMS WERE CRUSHED AND IT MADE YOU INTO THIS RAVING MAD MAN THAT CAN'T SEE CLEARLY. YOU'RE SAD, SON. SEEK SOME HELP.

Lance ARMSTRONG used IVs and so did many others. Floyd did too.

OH FLOYD DID, DID HE. HIS UNDILUTED SAMPLES WERE FOUND CLEAN. ALL OF THEM. YOU REALLY GOT YOUR HEART STEPPED ON BY THIS DUDE. HE DESTROYED YOU. THIS SHlT IS HYSTERICAL TO ME. HE LITERALLY WHIPED HIS ASS ALL OVER YOUR FACE. LMAOOO. HOW'S IT FEEL, CHUMP?

Why do you think that they do not want you to dilute? Yet you are laughing at people using IVs?

OH...SO IT'S ABOUT DILUTION AGAIN? LOL. LET ME HELP YOU OUT....


USADA DOESN'T ACCEPT DILUTED SAMPLES AFTER AN IV.

[Zaroku]

WRONG:
1) Diaz failed multiple times:
"NAC licensed Diaz despite several failed pre-fight tests

According to coach Cesar Gracie and NAC executive, Bob Bennett, Nick Diaz failed multiple drug tests in the weeks leading up to UFC 183.

UFC 183 almost lost their main event. UFC welterweight superstar, Nick Diaz did not receive his license until the week of the fight, due to an inability to provide a clean urine sample until mere "days before" the fight, according to his coach, Cesar Gracie. MMA Fighting reports that NAC executive, Bob Bennett corroborates Gracie's story."

2) It was NOT voluntary:
"Fighters who have failed tests previously must re-apply for licenses with the NAC before being allowed to compete again. Diaz had popped for weed twice before in Nevada.

The process to get re-licensed requires submitting documentation of a clean drug test. Gracie said Diaz was not able to do so until the 11th hour. Bennett said he believes the paperwork came in Jan. 28, three days before UFC 183.":



Correct, ALL results came back stating that Diaz had marijuana. The ones that didn't go over the limit on 1/31 were diluted urine samples. One of which even WADA considers it invalid.

Secondly, Diaz's team uses that invalid result as evidence that Quest result must be the outlier. Mentions that the Quest results was bookended by 2 negative results. Too funny!


2 positive tests pre-fight,
1 negative pre-fight,
then on 1/31: 1 Invalid result by SMRTL, 1 QUEST positive result, 1 SMRTL negative result which was > 2 times dilute .....
Diaz's team was wrong again! Yet you believed their defense!




Sorry but this just made me laugh.

1) QUEST does a SCREENING test. Correct. If positive (over the threshold) then they do a second test which is called a confirmation test.

How do they do it?
At one place in their facility (LAB) they get an amount of urine from Sample A then test it. If positive THEN at another separate area in the LAB they do a separate test that is different than the first test. This is to confirm the initial test result. They do this by getting another amount of urine from Sample A. If
positive then this confirms that Diaz is positive on that substance. BOTH TESTS were positive. TWO positive tests on the same sample makes it a very reliable result!!!



SMRTL: They did a SCREENING test too. It came back negative!!! So they did not do their confirmation test!

You said that the SCREENING doesn't matter and is worth Sh$t. So since SCREENING test is all that SMRTL did then its worth Sh$t, right?


Question to SMRTL: "Dr Eichner, when you do the GCMS review and an athlete sample does not test above the (threshold) limit do you then get a numerical indication of what it may be even though it may be below the limit established by WADA?"

SMRTL Response: "No because its a threshold substance. If it does not meet that threshold, there is no point to do a confirmation analysis and it is reported as negative."


Daniel Eichner, a Ph.D. who is the executive director of SMRTL said there is a lack of understanding of how testing procedures work.
"If anything is detected during the initial SCREEN, that triggers MORE WORK."

"If we see anything that could look remotely like a prohibited substance, we then go back to that urine sample in the A bottle and then we do a CONFIRMATION process,"

Eichner said. "We look specifically for that compound of the parent drug or the metabolite."

So basically since the substance didn't go over the threshold, SMRTL only did a SCREENING not a confirmation test. QUEST did both a screening and a confirmation test. BOTH TESTS were positive.


2) Daniel Eichner, a Ph.D. who is the executive director of SMRTL said there is a lack of understanding of how testing procedures work.
The sample is split into two, an A sample and a B sample. The analyst works with the A sample and puts the B sample aside. Eichner said the lab then looks for every known prohibited substance and metabolite, which he called "quite a vast and extensive SCREENING process."

"Once a positive test is returned, the screen is completed and the test is implemented. A urine drug test is executed via the gas chromatography/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) to provide confirmation of the positive results."

So TEST #2 done by QUEST confirmed TEST #1 done by QUEST.

3) The 2 step process used by QUEST has in the past caught what the single pass by GC/MS didn't catch.

One such case (scenario) is when urine has a competing substance either accidentally or used to trick the test.
Example: When the urine sample tested for marijuana and was detected because a positive immunoassay screen while was unexpectedly negative by GC/MS.
The positive result got the LAB personnel to verify why. It was due to a substance that thru off the GC/MS not the immunoassay screen. Under these conditions, the concentration of the target drug may be dramatically decreased by the presence of the interferant.




So AGAIN, its YOU that needs to show why Diaz is innocent. Not even Diaz's team wanted to know the results of Sample B. You know why? Because it would have told you that Diaz was guilty!!! There is no other possible explanation for that move. NONE!!!!!


What are you saying? This appears to be a deflection! Lets hope you can answer it directly.



True, Diaz's team were cowards for not having sample B tested.

Remember that Russian athlete? She requested STRONGLY that WADA investigate SMRTL and have the urine reexamined. THey did and found out that SMRTL was wrong. Anyhow, if sample B was tested, it would show that Diaz is a marijuana abuser, as we already know. But Diaz's team knew that the B sample would be positive.

Your still in denial. I can understand you buying that excuse initially but not now that you have the details. Its no longer an acceptable stance!



WOW!

a) Expert says IF. This is to imply that only if the scenario mentioned by Diaz's expert does his scenario apply. Its clear as day that there are other scenarios that were possible that Diaz's expert does not want to mention and his scenario is a fail from the get to!!!

b) You said "How ****** do you have to be to keep saying this"
Well, I laughed at your post because I kept telling you that no way did Floyd have hyponatremia for numerous reasons but you just pointed out one of them and now are saying "How ****** do you have to be to keep saying this" lol! Too funny!!!.

Floyd was not rushed to no hospital. Hyponatremia is serious stuff where Floyd could potentially have had brain swelling. Floyd thanks Dr Alex Ariza ..... shady stuff man and now you are basically agreeing with me! BOOOM!




I keep on going back and forth. Seriously, you just do not get it or pretending because you know you are wrong? There is no other explanation.

Diaz's expert says that he must have drank X amount of water. A number that he couldn't even state but its a number that in which would produce severe water intoxication to drop if tried to drop so fast!

I'm saying that even that scenario is not the only possible scenario. What if, as an example, Diaz drank less than what he considers impossible but also took another substance that acts as a diuretic and in fact the fluid itself didn't necessarily need to be just water. The fluid could have been and/or included a mild to not so mild diuretic and/or intake something that would be easier to take without intoxicating himself.

So to say it would produce a dilute urine without drinking as much as the poor doctor tried to convince us .... well he convinced you Score that ADP02 = 1, Diaz's expert = 0. Travestny = 0 for believing Diaz's expert.



BTW - Nothing will squash my point on Specific Gravity. Go read up. It has its limitations!!! That is my point! You are saying that it doesn't? lol!




As I stated, SG and Creatinine are tools but have their limitations. You are basically agreeing with me without even realizing this! lol
You need to read up. I did and even pointed this out to you. What gives?

Still "The Quest report registered a creatinine level of 168.4 mg/dL, which is virtually right in the middle of Quest's reference range of 20-to-370 mg/dL."

Still, Creatinine can be off due to numerous reasons!!! Same with SG!!!



More deflections. Your come back is just you doing this "lmaoooooo. GIVE THE **** UP!" Why do you not have a valid response since its YOU that needs to prove that those positive tests were not right BUT again, you cannot because your team didn't request for the B sample to be tested. That was dumb unless they knew the results! lol!

lmaoooooo. GIVE THE **** UP!


You said: "Only way it's possible by only dilution is if he damn near kills himself." Diaz's team said what they said because they had nothing else left, why are you being ignorant?

Do not be naïve and believe what Diaz's team said. Not too far up I explained that one can dilute by various ways. There are other ways too such as, remember what Lance Armstrong did? Floyd did? Used an IV. SO I keep on giving you examples over examples and you are stuck in neutral!!! lol




What are you even talking about? Your ship has sunk and you know it. That is the only explanation I can think of.



You are the rock here.

I pointed it out already in this post and others. I read others who agreed with my points on other forums.

Diaz's expert is formulating a specific scenario. WHY????? Because he is making it sound like its NOT possible! Why???? If its possible by another way, then Diaz's defense crumbles!!!!!!!
For Diaz, WHo cares HOW but if its possible is what matters!!! If there is ANY explicable reason then Diaz's team cannot defend and Diaz is found guilty!!!!!!! What do you not get about this very very simple statement?

If Diaz was trying to beat the test and it was NOT by drinking water alone as Diaz's team stated then Diaz's team has no defense!!!
a) Its possible and
b) There are 2 positive results (Screening by Immunoassays and confirmation by GCMS ). Go check up. When both are positive, you have a tough road to climb if you are trying to shoot these 2 positive results on a given urine sample!
"Since IA and GC-MS are based on different principles, the probability of generating a false positive is significantly reduced"


"An initial urinary screening test must be confirmed for evidence of drug use. Confirmatory testing is more sensitive and specific than screening tests and confirms the drug of interest as opposed to the drug class."



c) Diaz's team was wrong in that there is nothing to bookend since TEST #1 is so extremely dilute that it is INVALID.
THEN Diaz's team can go packing already!!!! This is so funny .... why are you not getting this? Its so simple? lol

d) I explained all this in this post and previous ones. What are you having difficulties with? Really?




His defense is dumb if its what you think he is trying to say. DO YOU NOT GET IT? It does NOT matter from what its from. If its possible then his point is meaningless and dumb!!!!!!!!!! lol!

If its possible then that meant that the test was valid and Diaz was guilty! lol!




Its NOT irrelevant. It shows that Diaz has been caught in the past, uses and his tests kept on coming back positive up to days before the fight! On what? Marijuana! lol

The only issue is that you are not getting any of this. Again, I already gave examples. Its not hard to understand! SG and Creatinine are used as a tool but have their limitations. Go read up.

When I say that the LABS didn't do anything wrong as one of the possibilities:
Its just like when testing any athlete that gets caught. The athlete was able to beat the other tests and not that 1 test. Its no fault of the LABS that they missed it the other times. It was not possible for them to get a positive result either due to masking or the PED was out of the system due to micro dosing or dilution or whatever. That's all.




No test, no license! But you are having trouble understanding the other stuff so of course you want to stay consistent. lol!



Diaz got caught several times before, caught diluting, avoided being testing, caught days before the fight twice ..... and again after the fight. Uses medical marijuana in California ..... ALL tests show levels of the substance. Diaz says he is consistent about one thing. Using marijuana! Whoopty doo!!! lol



Reliable result is > 300. Even if it was more than 300, its more than possible as I pointed out already. The flaw in all of this is that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!

I'm the one that keeps on telling you that there are fluctuations due to numerous reasons BUT only now that it affects your logic you buy that. How convenient! lol

BUT if you check out the studies and compare -
BEFORE TEST #1 the urine was supposedly very concentrated but the THC levels were lower than TEST #1 which was extremely diluted. When urine is more dilute it should show a much lower level of THC metabolites compared to a heavily concentrated urine sample. Plus a good 5 days passed by so that too should lower the number of THC metabolites.

Studies state to get ratios THC/Creatinine levels to get a better read not just the THC metabolite levels.

Use logic. WHy does one dilute their urine? What is the effect if done right? To lower the THC metabolite levels. So to say, TEST #1's number would have been much higher that 50 since he had diluted 10X (FOLD).

If you still accept what you think then you cannot say that any of this was impossible like you keep on saying.



What? I keep on telling you that SG reading has its limitations.

- 1.009 is > 2 FOLD diluted. So it was definitely a diluted sample!
- Remember that Diaz was in a fight. Remember that I provided to you info where athletes urine can have higher volumes of lots of substances due to trauma, exercise and stress!!! That can EASILY account for differences in SG values .... .
- SG values and concentration values of a substance is not exactly linear. SG can rise or fall more or less compared to concentration readings of a given substance. Lots of reasons why.
- Diaz had just voided by urinating in TEST #2 and soon after, 1:17 later, had a fresh batch of urine where Diaz clearly was rehydrating himself when you compare to TEST #2. Marijuana concentration levels were lower on a fresh sample since its possible that in such a short time, less was excreted than on previous samples.
- "one should be aware that heavy molecules not normally present in large quan****** in urine can falsely affect specific gravity readings"
- SG readings are also affected by temperature fluctuations, which make specimens expand or contract, altering their density.
- CR excretion over short intervals also shows considerable variation. Studies showed that subsequent 2-h interval samples varied by >100%, and several studies have reported that spot-sample CR variation is several times higher than variation for 24-h values.
- Can be a combo of dilution that brings down the substance level and an interfering substance that further brought down the THC metabolite levels.
- refrigerated samples may have falsely elevated readings, as may specimens exposed to excessive heat and dryness.
- Was urine sample tested immediately after the specimen was collected? Can give a different SG reading the longer one waits to measure.
- Allession et al. (9) suggested rejection of specimens that had specific gravity measures that were < 1.010 or > 1.030 and specimens with creatinine < 50 mg/dL or > 300 mg/dL.
- Lots of other reasons for a change in SG readings. Read up!
- Diuretics can have an effect on SG.
- As a measure of urine concentration, Urine osmolality is more accurate than specific gravity. Travestyny thinks that there is no limitations to SG. Oh No!
- Other ways is to actually try to mask the accurate SG/CR values. For example, creatinine converted to creatinine will mask the dilution efforts.
- In a dilute sample, negative or none detected results should never be interpreted as indicating no drug use (abstinence), because if, in fact, drugs were present, they probably could not be detected by the test.

and the above is just to answer your misunderstanding about all of this because as I stated and the experts stated and other studies have stated:
- There can be dramatic differences between samples and between different labs, protocols, and so on.
- With no bookends due to TEST #1 being clearly an invalid test and with SMRTL's testing being just a screening test with "no additional confirmation test" done, and no B sample tested, the A sample stands!!!! Its just that simple.
- "URine samples in 139 professional boxers before and after a bout were examined. 46% of the fighter's urine changed from clear before the fight to turbid immediately afterwards and the specific gravity increased in 80% of the cases. Traces of aceton were manifest in 14%. Sugar spilled in the urine in 9% of the boxers.
Albuminuria: 68% that had none present before the fight, 68% was present after the fight. Red blood cells were found in significant pathological amounts in 73% after the fight .... and more."
- "for example, glucose, albumin, or radiocontrast dyes will elevate urinary specific gravity out of proportion to the actual concentration." read above line. It mentions glucose, albumin, .....!!!!


Secondly, you are stuck with just the THC metabolite value. When verifying if a user smoked after a previous test, they use ratios. If the concentration of 1/26 is very high and 1/31 is very dilute then that can have a dramatic difference in the true values. Using that, 1/26 THC ratio would be significantly lower than any of the 1/31 tests. Which implies that Diaz did smoke after 1/26. GO READ UP!!!



I already provided you with a lot of information that shows that an SG value can be skewed. SG has its limitations. Did you finally understand this?

Secondly, the SMRTL test was just 1 test plus it was just a screening test. QUEST had 2 tests. The screening test and then the confirmation test done by way of the GC/MS.

In a screening test, it can be a less specific test compared to the confirmation test. GC/MS test can vary as there are multiple variables in the test. It can be less specific by using a certain testing method or it can be a more refined test. Both with its own advantages and disadvantages. BUT as stated, the QUESTS test complimented each other and removed in essence the possibility of an incorrect positive test. SMRTL's test was just a negative test.

Again, a negative test does NOT mean that Diaz did
not cheat. A positive test on s substance that we both know that Diaz has been associated to on many other occasion and admitted to doing and admitted to trying to beat the test ...... is harder to deny!!!

"The confirmatory GC-MS test is extremely specific – it produces almost no false positives." Now add the fact that another test on the same sample also gave a positive result?




- A reasonable person would have said "Diaz's team used the over inflated and unreliable number of 733. QUEST said the reliable number was > 300
- A reasonable person would have said "using Diaz's team own evidence, the time after the fight needs to be factored in. So its not only the time between TEST #2 and TEST #3 that should be taken into account.
- A reasonable person would have said "Lots of studies, website state that you should try to dilute just prior to the test (1-2 hours before) and drink not many gallons but just liters.
- A reasonable person would have said "You can dilute by a combination of ways not just by drinking water"
- A reasonable person would have said "wait a second. Diaz's team's scenario is NOT the only possible explanation. So it is medically plausible. So why did Diaz's team not tie up all the lose ends? Because they couldn't as it negates what Diaz's team said.
- A reasonable person would have said "If you are so sure, why not have another LAB test the B sample"


After reading about the SG/Cr limitations and hearing the experts stating that you cannot just correlate the different urine sample done at different labs because its quite possible that they can give your dramatically different results!!!!!!! This should be an open and shut case.




Time to carefully read and UNDERSTAND all of this!!! You can do it!!! I provided quite a bit but there is a lot more that you can do on your own.




Wash, rinse and repeat. Time to carefully read and UNDERSTAND all of this!!!



Again, it was all possible .... so no hyponatremia.
but the funny part is that you now think that Floyd I mean Diaz would have had to have gone rushing to a hospital if he had hyponatremia .... lol. Remember that was your last line of defense for Floyd. So maybe you are not ignorant. Just cannot admit the truth. Its not a bad trade off, I guess ...... BOOOOM!




Several were above the levels that they state is diluted (eg. Cr < 20) yet made it below the many known testing cutoffs (eg. 150, 100, 50 and in some cases even 20, 15).

If you understand, Subject G and H went down in value many FOLDs yet was above the CR < 20 level. So its possible to go down many FOLDS and not even get flagged as too dilute!

SUBJECT G
Time 20.5 to 23.0 to 24.0
THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1 to 13.7
Creatinine 184 to 39 to 23
Volume 320 to 195 to 260

SUBJECT H
Time 6.0 to 9.5
THCCOOH 234.2 to 59.6
Creatinine 174 to 45
Volume 116 to 390

Look at subject F's CR value. A huge downward trend in just 1 hour. I thought this was supposed to be not medically plausible? And this was just a study not someone who must use all means to pass a test!!! This guy went from 1 end of the spectrum to the complete opposite end in 1 hour! Poof!

SUBJECT F
Time 4.0 to 5,0 to 8,8
THCCOOH 49.0 to 0,0 to 6.6
Creatinine 340 to 47 to 26
Volume 134 to 222


and again, SG and CR have their limitations. It's used as a tool but as I pointed out, limited!!!



- Diaz was exercising, under stress and in a fight where there is trauma occurring to the body. Add hormone, body metabolism, dieting fluctuations (making weight) and All can increase the excretion of THC metabolites. The studies show a variance and it was not in a fight!!! Some were in the negative and some were significantly positive and again, none were named Diaz who had just finished fighting.

I think you pointed to a study where they admitted that it was too limited in that they only had about 6 subjects where a few goofed up and it was not a controlled study.

Even then, there was a subject that showed a significant increase of over 30%. The other study also noted that some participants went over the testing threshold that they used. That is to say, would have turned from negative to positive.- Diaz was exercising, under stress and in a fight where there is trauma occurring to the body. Add hormone, body metabolism, dieting fluctuations (making weight) and All can increase the excretion of THC metabolites. The studies show a variance and it was not in a fight!!! Some were in the negative and some were significantly positive and again, none were named Diaz who had just finished fighting.

I think you pointed to a study where they admitted that it was too limited in that they only had about 6 subjects where a few goofed up and it was not a controlled study.

Even then, there was a subject that showed a significant increase of over 30%. The other study also noted that some participants went over the testing threshold that they used. That is to say, would have turned from negative to positive.



Wash, rinse and repeat. I told you enough for you to stop talking foolishly!



Just say that its all going over your head and we are all good. Trust me that it gets simpler if you stop saying "LMAO" and start to read up and actually understand all this.




Wash, rinse and repeat. I told you enough for you to stop talking foolishly!



Like I said, you need to stop saying LMAO and read up! If you read up its explained that the THC value on its own is not always enough. TEST #1 was extremely diluted yet only at around 50 while the other previous tests were extremely concentrated and also at 50 or higher (failed ones). Logically it makes sense. For a given individual, if a sample is very diluted then that means that the concentration of that substance is lower than when its heavily diluted. So to say, TEST #1 on 1/31 would have been much higher than 50 if it was extremely concentrated .... plus 5 days passed. Why no drop?










lol, I said that there are many possibilities. Only Diaz can know ... and I said that we do not know how exactly Diaz cheated and you said BINGO!!! lol

Finally, do you understand the concept that IF there are 5 negative tests and 1 is positive that the positive test *****s all the negative ones? Sure, the athlete may get defensive and deny it all and use excuses like you and Diaz are trying to do but YOU cannot deny that you have no answers as to why 2 tests on 1/31 came up positive. I answered all of your questions at length. You never did.

As has been stated, a positive screen then positive CONFIRMATION test is very tough to beat. Only way was by verifying sample B. Diaz's team knew this but they couldn't go there. There were no bookends because TEST #1 was a fail. TEST #3 can be explained. So its over!



lol! Just deflecting .....

Do you not see that the system is completely flawed as far as this test is concerned. That is why the threshold's used to be much lower. So they can catch people and even when the thresholds were very low (eg. thresholds of <50, <20 , <15) some athletes such as Diaz still attempted to beat the thresholds. So you think that 150 will be difficult? lol Its flawed. THINK!!! Many athletes will not have to go to extreme dilution ranges to beat this test.



As I stated above. Its not difficult to pass this test given the new thresholds. If the thresholds were lower, its more difficult but not at 150. Anyways, I said enough that you can understand all this.



Wash, rinse and repeat. I told you enough for you to stop talking foolishly!





Wash, rinse and repeat. I told you enough for you to stop talking foolishly!

I'm trying to show you that even on the same sample they can get it wrong. Its to point out that if we can get different results on the same sample then you cannot compare TEST #1 with TEST #2 and then with TEST #3 results as you and Diaz's team tried to do. BUT at least Diaz's team admitted to the issue ..... but that killed his case! ...

BINGO!!!



You are smoking not me. Stop clinging to TEST #1. Its invalid. If you correct the values due to the extreme dilution, the values would be way above 150!!! TEST #1 was diluted by about 10 FOLD.



What? Stop deflecting.

First of all you are totally confused and mixing the topics.
1) Diaz's defense. His case is to try to provide evidence that he did not cheat. It was NOT about Diaz trying to convince us that he was not cheating by way of dilution.

SO if Diaz's team explains about dilution but there are other ways to cheat, well, Diaz is guilty. So stick with this simple point!!!!!

2) Dilution: I explained this already. There are multiple ways to dilute. NOT just by drinking water. There are other ways that the SG can be wherever it is because Testing in general and the SG and CR tests have their limitations. BUT I explained this already.

Got it?

3) TEST #1 was invalid. TEST #2 had a normal concentration and was tested positive by 2 different ways on the sample in question. No B sample was tested.
TEST #3 was over 2 Folds diluted. So to say, it was diluted more than normal.

So now you need to explain to me how you can believe TEST #3 by way of screening only vs 2 tests on TEST #2 in which complement each other? More importantly, since all the experts said that you cannot do what you are doing yet you are trying to correlate the results of TEST #2 and TEST #3 and say TEST 2 is wrong because of TEST #3? lol!!!!

Note: When you bring up these points, I try to give you possibilities as we both do not know exactly what Diaz did.

Again, if I would have told you as an explanation that Lance used an IV right under the DCO's nose to dilute, you would be saying "LMAO, what are you smoking" but I would be right!!!




Diaz was not alone in being tested multiple times. Also they were supposedly tested multiple times because they were in the process of getting USADA/WADA involved in their testing process.

Silva was tested as well. You think they were after him too?

Diaz got caught. Simple as that. All tests showed levels of marijuana. Secondly, your point does NOT make any sense. Why would the NSAC want to go after Diaz BEFORE even knowing about his positive test? That is nonsense! If you read up you would find out that they kept on contacting Diaz so that he gets tested often enough before the fight until he passes so he can get his license to fight. If they wanted Diaz out then they wouldn't have bothered and wouldn't even have given him a license to begin with. These organizations want the fights and athletes to fight. Its all a business.

Diaz failed 3 times so he got a harsher penalty but the NSAC eventually cut it down dramatically. Why would they if they wanted Diaz out? They could have dragged it out until Diaz would just call it quits .....

Finally, what makes your point worse is Diaz's defense was NOT strong. So if you say that the NSAC was out to get Diaz, then why go in with such a useless defense where the NSAC could EASILY shoot Diaz down and find him guilty? You expected the NSAC to be after Diaz yet what did you expect? From the pre-fight form (lie), multiple repeat offenses, avoided being tested, admitted cheater, admitted to trying to beat the tests. On what? Marijuana. You can only blame Diaz for this. Even SMRTL found a high level of THC metabolites .... even his tests prior to 1/26 failed. Blaming the NSAC for Diaz's mistakes is a joke!

So to answer your question, YES, I would definitely have had Sample B tested. It's better than no defense and having the NSAC definitely find you guilty! Even after the sentence of 5 years, they could have requested that the B sample be checked at a different LAB. Having the B sample tested was the BEST WAY OUT!!!! NOT pointing to a different urine sample.

BTW - Why would the NSAC and QUEST be "fixing" a urine sample test to make it positive? Who the freak is Nick Diaz to have this grand "fixing" scheme that makes no sense?

Remember that he was tested positive days before getting his license. Stop blaming others. This is a no brainer. At least with Floyd it makes a lot of sense. It was to make money for all and Floyd was Nevada's golden PPV egg. Nick Diaz is a pawn.



So they only need to test once negative and it means that the athlete is not using PEDs? lol

Also, SMRLT's Screening test vs 2 tests done by QUEST that compliment each other and BOTH concluded that Diaz did use marijuana. THC metabolites were in all urine samples but QUEST proved that it was above the limit.




So what. They also said that TEST #1 was too dilute (INVALID) and TEST #3 was dilute. Studies show that the THC metabolite numbers can go way lower than 150 by diluting.

Its not hard to beat. Subject F was able to dilute in 1 hour!!! Yet is supposedly "Medically not plausible"

Anyways, I explained all of that SG and CR limitations. Its time that you find a new excuse!



Lance ARMSTRONG used IVs and so did many others. Floyd did too.

Why do you think that they do not want you to dilute? Yet you are laughing at people using IVs?

You a definitely King T@rd. so much time wasted to prove what? What? The fight is over, PAC lost, end thread.

[Shape up]

Lots of things usada aren't supposed to do but it seems they really don't care about the rules

[ADP02]

Dude, how many times do I have to **** you up over this issue. You have NO IDEA how drug testing works. You're an absolute imbecile. I'll reply to your bullshlt, but before I do, chew on this:

One question only. Do your studies provide any proof that he drank liters of water to dilute??? ACTUALLY, FORGET THE WATER PART OF IT SINCE NOW YOU ARE SQUIRMING SAYING HE DILUTED WITH SOMETHING BESIDES WATER. LMAOOOOOOO. YOU ARE SUCH A LITTLE BlTCH. REPHRASING: DO YOUR STUDIES SHOW HE DILUTED HIS SAMPLE TO PASS THE TEST?

1. 1.009 is his specific gravity.

2. Your ref said he needed 2-4 liters (by the way, funny you disregard a 20 year vet MRO because you believe he is biased...and instead say a referee that is employed by NSAC knows more about drug testing. Brilliant!)

3. 1 of your studies said 1 liter = spg 1.003
You are relying so heavily on this 2-fold, 8-fold dilution mumbo jumbo taking from this study, yet you are blatantly ignoring and not going near where it says DRINKING 1 LITER OF WATER PUTS THE SUBJECT AT 1.003 SPG!!! STOP PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT YOU WANT!!! TAKE THE WHOLE DAMN STUDY IF YOU ARE GOING TO RELY ON IT SO MUCH.

4. Your study with live samples puts him at 1.006 or lower with slightly less than 2 liters of water and nowhere near the jump in marijuana metabolite amount. 4 liters puts the subjects at 1.001 spg. THIS STUDY IS PURELY ABOUT DILUTION, which is your point. I DON'T CARE WHAT ELSE DIAZ DID TO FOOL THE SYSTEM IF HE DID IT. THIS IS ABOUT SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND DILUTION AND NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO SQUIRM OUT OF IT. THIS WAS ALL ABOUT MAYWEATHER HAVING TO PASS THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST. SO STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

So how much did Diaz drink to dilute???? Are you ever going to answer??? Oh, that's right, he drank something else in front of the 2 DCO's. lmao. And it still only got him to 1.009...and didn't get him down very much at all for the 2nd test. lmaoooooo.

One of your studies that you are relying on says less than 1 liter he drank. Right or wrong? GIVE A SIMPLE ANSWER. STOP DUCKING IT.

YOUR OTHER STUDY SAYS HAD HE DRANK 2 LITERS HE WOULD BE AT 1.006 OR LESS. RIGHT OR WRONG? STOP DUCKING IT!!!!!

YOUR STUDIES SHOW....THE RESULT IS NOT BASED ON DILUTION AND YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST!!!




LMAO. What did I tell you about using your ****** ass “boom.” Every time you do it, you get beaten to a pulp and just look like an utter moron.





AHAHAHAHAHA. Now pay attention to how your new line of defense is shot down:



Now look at the chart

Could Diaz’ marijuana metabolite fluctuate from <50ng to 61ng. Yes.

Would it fluctuate from 300ng to 61ng and back to 300ng. HELL NO!

So you are WRONG that the only way his marijuana metabolite would fluctuate that way was from smoking again. LMAO!!!!!!! And if you try to say he smoked again, why is his level so low? You still haven’t shown any large dilution affect from 1.009 specific gravity.

Yet again, another of your “genius” points shot down. I’m tired of doing this to you. Give the **** up!

You got slammed dunked and ignorant you doesn't even realize it.

I showed you LOTs of ways to show you that there are many ways that it can be done! One study had a subject that had 2 samples in a span of 1 hour where the 2 samples were at the complete ends of the spectrum when it came to dilution. You said it cannot be done because the MRO said so. So that proves that he was wrong!!!! Its medically plausible and now you know it!!! Just say that you are WRONG!!!


1. 1.009 means that its a dilute urine sample. I provided a ton of info and there is a ton more. SG/Cr readings have their limitations. Go read up then say that you are WRONG!!!!

2. That guy knows that what Diaz's (MRO) team used to defend themselves is wrong. It was possible to dilute his urine without intoxicating himself so he was definitely right! Now he cannot be answering all of your questions but he answered the point that its medically plausible!!! Got it?


So you think that the ref ***** foots and protects the NSAC instead of speaking up his mind? You cannot get a break Trav:
John McCarthy rips NSAC executive director Keith Kizer who defended Ross' scorecard and appointment, just as he did following the Bradley result.: 'Keith Kizer is a person that does not know combative sports. He puts people [in positions] at times that maybe shouldn't be put. You tell me why C.J. Ross said the Floyd Mayweather fight was a draw. Did you watch it? My god, I had it 11-1. It wasn't even close. So if you're doing that, you keep putting those same people back, you don't care about the fighters.

You don't care about them as athletes, you don't care about their livelihood. And you know what? You shouldn't be in that job. And if someone doesn't like what I said, too bad." McCarthy and Kizer have butted heads in the past. McCarthy voiced similar concerns regarding Kizer's dubious judging appointments years ago, which then lead to McCarthy's unofficial blacklist from refereeing events in the state of Nevada, despite McCarthy publicly apologizing and resubmitting his application for licensure in 2010.'


Was McCarthy or the NSAC wrong or was Diaz wrong when Diaz did not let the NSAC know that he was using marijuana during the last month? BOOOM!

"He’s been caught twice previously by the Nevada State Athletic Commission and when a fighter goes and applies for that license there are forms that he has to fill out. No different than when I have to fill out the forms when I get a license. And those forms are going to ask questions and those questions — you know when you sign your name at the bottom you’re saying that this is truthful. You’re being honest, you’re being truthful with this. And Nick is not being honest and truthful. He’s giving bad information because all he needs to do is be honest and truthful and tell them, ‘yes, I take marijuana.'"


Diaz answered at least 1 question wrong and perhaps more. He definitely answered this one wrong because I saw his form and he answered it "NO".

So did the NSAC fake Diaz's pre-fight form or was it Diaz who filled it up and signed it?

Diaz said "NO" to the question:
"Have you taken or received any medication, drug, cream, inhalant, or injection, whether prescription, over-the-counter, from anyone or anyplace, in the last month? If yes, explain?"



3. What are you talking about? If it was so simple of a calculation then the MRO would have responded with an exact number when asked how many liters would it take. Did he answer? Nope? Real reason is because if he gave a number, he could have been easily countered but still, he is right in that there are plenty of factors to take into
account. If it was so easy, all they would have to so is 1 study and that's it! But as you know they still continue to do studies.

Now to your point. Check out all the studies. Do the studies say 1 liter = 1.003 or do they say that for a subject it happened?

See, this goes perfectly with what I am saying. Too many variables to make statements like you just did. So in fact its YOU that is picking and choosing NOT me. I just bring up the possibilities that can occur and

AGAIN, due to so so many variables, the results can differ dramatically. If you recall, there was a study that said the more subjects drank the higher the percentage of subjects that went from a positive to a negative result. Some occurred after 1.5 liters and some after 2 liters. BUT that is that study but for Diaz it can be different.

4. Nope. As I told you there are several separate points.
Diaz's defense cannot be just about dilution because he needs to convince the panel that there is no plausible explanation. If there is then that means that Diaz had alternative ways to beat the test and those alternatives can explain the results of TEST #2 and TEST #3. Got it?

Second point is about the dilution and the limitations of SG and CR. Go check it out. They all bring it up. There are definite limitations. I brought up many. You cannot defend against that. Can you? If yes, lets see what you got!!!

I already answered your point plenty of times. The SG has limitations. Its possible that the SG goes up or down while the substance in question concentration does NOT reflect those SG variations at that point in time. Its NOT necessarily a 1 to 1 relationship. The substance may excrete at a different rate compared or that there may be a higher concentration of other substances as I already told you and gave examples of. Floyd used an IV. Man, Floyd could have had just about anything in that IV to
counteract and spike up enough the concentration of the SG that it does NOT go below the WADA threshold. BUT I already told you this before.

So for you to say that its not possible is quite laughable! Especially when I pointed out so many examples. People who understand all this must be looking at you like as if you are just a punching bag at this point in time.

I think its time that you just wave the flag. Diaz even did that and admitted that he was wrong in his defense. Yet you say that he was right?


5. Man this is starting to look really bad TRAV. You are reading that graph all wrong.

That graph is not showing the THC metabolite levels. They are showing you the normalized THC/CR concentrations.

To get a more accurate assessment, they prefer to take the urine samples on a daily basis at the same time of the day but that is not always possible of course. What they do then is a simple calculation to see if there are any spikes in the concentrations. If there is a spike then that would imply that the subject had used marijuana prior to the spike.

Date 1/26: THC metabolite level = 49 ng/ml CR = 241
FORMULA = (49 ng/ml * 100)/ 241 = 20

Date 1/31:
BEFORE Fight: THC metabolite level = 49.73 ng/ml SG = 1.002 should mean Creatinine < 20 but lets use 20
FORMULA = (49.73 ng/ml * 100)/ 20 = 249

AFTER Fight: THC metabolite level > 300 (lets use 425 ng/ml) Creatinine = 168.4
FORMULA = (425 ng/ml * 100)/ 168.4 = 252

So on 1/26 the concentration was only at 20 but it spiked up to 250 in TEST #1 and TEST #2. So this would conclude that Diaz used marijuana after his 1/26 test.



.

[travestyny]

You got slammed dunked and ignorant you doesn't even realize it.

Say what? Fix your grammar. You seem a bit flustered.

While I'm reading through your latest bull****, chew on this:

How about another expert. Maybe he can help you understand, little guy. Here is Jeff Novitsky, an anti-doping expert. By the way, he worked on the Lance Armstrong case…and still believes you are wrong. LMAOOOOO!


Jeffrey John Novitzky is an agent for the Food and Drug Administration investigating the use of steroids in professional sports. Before April 2008 he was a special agent for the Internal Revenue Service who investigated the use of steroids for over five years.

His investigations have concerned Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Victor Conte, Dana Stubblefield, Tammy Thomas, Melky Cabrera, Trevor Graham, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, Kirk Radomski, Bill Romanowski, Justin Gatlin, Jose Canseco,[7] Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton and Lance Armstrong.

Starting in April 2015, Novitzky began working for the UFC as their Vice President of Athlete Health and Performance. Within this role, Novitzky will spearhead anti-doping efforts within the organization.

"They got this one wrong, in my opinion. My understanding was that there was three tests taken the night of the fight. There was one taken before the fight, one immediately after, and one shortly after that. The ones at either end, first and last, were done at WADA accredited labs. Those will be the ones we use under our program, and they are the highest standard in laboratories, both in testing and sensitivity of equipment, and in the way samples are collected. They are sent to the lab anonymously so the lab doesn’t know who they are testing. The first and last tests came well under the threshold for marijuana.

The first test came back around 40 ng/ml, and the last one after fight was around 60 ng/ml. The concentration of urine is higher while dehydrated, so that makes sense, but both were well under the threshold. Then you have this other one, that is taken right after the fight, that is taken to Quest Labs. I’m not going to disparage them and say they’re no good, but the WADA accredited lab is the highest standard. WADA labs are constantly being sent samples, blind samples, where the company knows what’s in the sample, to make sure the different labs get it right.

"Samples often include marijuana, they're constantly tested on that. You’re not gonna find better calibrated equipment than what WADA has. That being said, the Quest Labs sample was 733 ng/ml, one of the highest I’ve ever seen.

There are big issues in interpreting those results.

There’s no real scientific medical explanation for someone having a 40, then right after the fight a 733, and shortly after that back to 60."

How about Eichner from SMRTL:

“The mass spectometry data that we do for the confirmation should definitely be consistent with other regulated programs like Quest.”

Meaning that the Quantitative data should be consistent.

7:12pm: 49ng
10:38pm: 733ng
11:55pm: 61ng

Both Eichner and the MRO stated that the 7:12pm and 11:55pm results were consistent.

HOW THE HELL IS IT POSSIBLE THAT DIAZ WENT FROM 49, SHOT UP TO 733, AND THEN SHOT DOWN TO 61????

Caused by the noted spike in Marijuana. Nope. This study took care of that:

HYDRATION? WRONG. YOU CAN’T PROVE IT, AND YOUR STUDIES SHOW THAT IT IS WRONG! Even at SPG 1.001…53ng to 5ng. No subject could achieve anything like what you claim Diaz did:

EXERCISE? WRONG. I already showed you this study:

To summarize, neither exercise at moderate intensity for 45*min. nor 24-hr food deprivation caused significant elevations in blood or urine cannabinoid levels in our six human subjects. Our results are in accordance with data from a similar study, where only slight and transient THC plasma elevations were noted during exercise, and none during fasting. We conclude that exercise and fasting in regular cannabis users are unlikely to cause sufficient concentration changes to hamper interpretation in drug testing programmes.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...cpt.12235/full


This is very simple. Can you explain how the marijuana metabolite went from 49ng to 733ng and back to 61ng? You already stated that you don’t know what Diaz did, so this means you simply don’t know, which in turn means you’ve admit you can’t blame this on hydration. Which in turn means you have no proof of the specific gravity level accepted by WADA being problematic.

Thanks for playing, chump!