Comments Thread For: Pacquiao: In The Eyes of The People - I Beat Floyd Mayweather

[travestyny]

He was trying to differentiate between using his stuff being tested compared to someone using saline IV. Then stated that USADA said that they do more than just the plasticide test .....

So he was sure about that part because he said that that they also said .... but the other stuff he was questioning because that kind of question did not come up with USADA......

As I stated, these athletes met with USADA, as they stated in their tweets and as you heard in that interview. They all said the same thing about how they would be tested.

Nope. He said IF they do the plasticizer test. Are you saying they will only do the plasticizer test if there is an IV. That makes no sense. How would they know if he was just drinking or not.

Why is he saying IF..... if he is sure they will do it. Does that make sense to you?

How will WADA know if the DEHP they find is from 50ml IV? Does any of this make sense to you?

Why did WADA say that they check with the ABP if they check with a urine test? THEY DON'T CHECK WITH A URINE TEST.

Do they check plasticisers with blood? I don't know....perhaps they do. But that doesn't help you. You are WRONG saying that USADA was scared the lab would find plastic in Mayweather's urine. No one was worried about that except you, for your own faulty reasons. The blood test was done the next day.

So what do you believe about the ABP? Do you believe that USADA falsified it? Or did they check it out and determine that Mayweather didn't dope? You know the values are also sent to WADA, right?

So if they check the values with the ABP which is sent to WADA, how exactly did they help Mayweather cheat? Let me remind you that he also passed 19 blood and urine tests.

Do you actually have anything substantial besides speculation, because I, and everyone else, is bored of this already.

[ADP02]

How accurate is this machine.

You know what? nevermind. It doesn't matter. I'll throw you a bone and say let's pretend it was 400ng.

You said 400ng can be diluted to 50ng. Ok.

Now show it to me in 75minutes with 1.009spg.

Go!

I showed you that its possible with ******* to beat a test with SG 1.01. Remember? They said that even though the SG values went back up to 1.01, the test results stayed negative.

It should be even easier for marijuana if the thresholds are at 150.

With the studies, the thresholds that they measured against is lower than that so they used lower doses BUT when you check out how many FOLDS that were dropped, it was close to 8 FOLDs and the Creatinine level was above 20 which is their criteria to check SG.


All 3 subject below have CR > 20 yet they went down a lot
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

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


As the article that I pointed to said:
400=>50 is 8 FOLD.



Now the above is not taking into consideration that this was someone who just came out of a fight. Diaz could have been pissing blood for all we know.

Still, its been said that with an IV, you can dilute yet have SG values above that 1.005 threshold.

[travestyny]

I showed you that its possible with ******* to beat a test with SG 1.01. Remember? They said that even though the SG values went back up to 1.01, the test results stayed negative.

It should be even easier for marijuana if the thresholds are at 150.

With the studies, the thresholds that they measured against is lower than that so they used lower doses BUT when you check out how many FOLDS that were dropped, it was close to 8 FOLDs and the Creatinine level was above 20 which is their criteria to check SG.


All 3 subject below have CR > 20 yet they went down a lot
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

2.5 hours. Not certainly over 300ng.

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

3.5 hours. Not certainly well over 300ng.

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

49ng??? LMAO

As the article that I pointed to said:
400=>50 is 8 FOLD.



Now the above is not taking into consideration that this was someone who just came out of a fight. Diaz could have been pissing blood for all we know.

Still, its been said that with an IV, you can dilute yet have SG values above that 1.005 threshold.

Dude, how many times do I have to tell you that you are wrong?

1. The article that had the 400 to 50 with 8 fold dilution clearly stated that SPG would be 1.003. You know it and I know it.

2. Nothing you showed above came close to well over 300ng to 61ng with specific gravity of 1.009.

3. Your bullshlt about ******* is just bullshlt and I already told you that. Let me help you out:

What machine was used in that study?
Does WADA use that machine, or a more accurate machine?
What was the confirmation number used in the study?
Was ******* metaboliteS looked for, or the single metabolite?
Does WADA test for metaboliteS or the single metabolite?


That study used the less accurate immunoassay, and not GC/MS for confirmation. It searched for metaboliteS, not the single metabolite like the GC/MS confirmation. The cut-off value was not the same as WADA would use when searching for the single metabolite.

You have nothing.

[ADP02]

Nope. He said IF they do the plasticizer test. Are you saying they will only do the plasticizer test if there is an IV. That makes no sense. How would they know if he was just drinking or not.

Why is he saying IF..... if he is sure they will do it. Does that make sense to you?

How will WADA know if the DEHP they find is from 50ml IV? Does any of this make sense to you?

Why did WADA say that they check with the ABP if they check with a urine test? THEY DON'T CHECK WITH A URINE TEST.

Do they check plasticisers with blood? I don't know....perhaps they do. But that doesn't help you. You are WRONG saying that USADA was scared the lab would find plastic in Mayweather's urine. No one was worried about that except you, for your own faulty reasons. The blood test was done the next day.

So what do you believe about the ABP? Do you believe that USADA falsified it? Or did they check it out and determine that Mayweather didn't dope? You know the values are also sent to WADA, right?

So if they check the values with the ABP which is sent to WADA, how exactly did they help Mayweather cheat? Let me remind you that he also passed 19 blood and urine tests.

Do you actually have anything substantial besides speculation, because I, and everyone else, is bored of this already.

Lots of athletes that cheat only fail 1 of several tests. Nothing new.

The DCO was a witness too.

What if they do the test?

Actually you asked that question before. I even told you that they pick and chose what they test on a given sample. Some stuff they always do and some stuff may depend on their initial screening process or what they find initially that can be a red flag. Even SMRTL told you that.

Remember that testing is always a step or two behind the cheaters. Whenever the testers do actually catch up, the cheaters try and do find another way to cheat.

I told you before. Its a cat and mouse game.

[travestyny]

Lots of athletes that cheat only fail 1 of several tests. Nothing new.

The DCO was a witness too.

What if they do the test?

Actually you asked that question before. I even told you that they pick and chose what they test on a given sample. Some stuff they always do and some stuff may depend on their initial screening process or what they find initially that can be a red flag. Even SMRTL told you that.

Remember that testing is always a step or two behind the cheaters. Whenever the testers do actually catch up, the cheaters try and do find another way to cheat.

I told you before. Its a cat and mouse game.

I'll indulge you for a moment.


They don't do the urine test for plasticizers. Let's say they do the blood test for plasticizers. That would have been done on May 2nd. Ok.

So they do that test, and do you believe that then causes a positive test? Absolutely not. Like you said above, it would be considered a red flag. It would be considered su****ious, and then they would have to do more testing.

So why the **** are you saying that USADA should worry about having the TUE when this test would only reveal su****ion and mean that they have to do more testing?

You are wrong. It makes no sense. DEHP is NOT a prohibited substance. It would not be reported as a failed test!

[ADP02]

2.5 hours. Not certainly over 300ng.



3.5 hours. Not certainly well over 300ng.



49ng??? LMAO



Dude, how many times do I have to tell you that you are wrong?

1. The article that had the 400 to 50 with 8 fold dilution clearly stated that SPG would be 1.003. You know it and I know it.

2. Nothing you showed above came close to well over 300ng to 61ng with specific gravity of 1.009.

3. Your bullshlt about ******* is just bullshlt and I already told you that. Let me help you out:

What machine was used in that study?
Does WADA use that machine, or a more accurate machine?
What was the confirmation number used in the study?
Was ******* metaboliteS looked for, or the single metabolite?
Does WADA test for metaboliteS or the single metabolite?


That study used the less accurate immunoassay, and not GC/MS for confirmation. It searched for metaboliteS, not the single metabolite like the GC/MS confirmation. The cut-off value was not the same as WADA would use when searching for the single metabolite.

You have nothing.

Its about ratios.

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

THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1 = 8.2+ FOLD so that is equivalent to 400 to 48.57 = 8.2 FOLD

TEST #3 was about 62? 62 * 8.2+ FOLD = 510.64

and the above subject was not trying to cheat. A cheater would be trying to elevate Cr and SG values while diluting to bring down their substance level.

[travestyny]

Its about ratios.

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

THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1 = 8.2+ FOLD so that is equivalent to 400 to 48.57 = 8.2 FOLD

TEST #3 was about 62? 62 * 8.2+ FOLD = 510.64

Dude, you keep going with this 8 fold bull****.

We both know where you got this info from. Why don't you accept that the very same study said an 8-fold dilution would be equivalent to 1 liter of water and also 1.003spg.

Didn't it say that? His SPG was 1.009.

You're also ignoring the time!

You really need to stop doing calculations. You've already been proven wrong before. The experts don't back up any of your calculations and you've yet to find any expert who has taken your side in all of this. When you get one, let me know. Until then...let it go.

and the above subject was not trying to cheat. A cheater would be trying to elevate Cr and SG values while diluting to bring down their substance level.

Still, its been said that with an IV, you can dilute yet have SG values above that 1.005 threshold.

Whoa, just saw this part. Is it possible to dilute and at the same time bring up CR and SG? That seems like an oxymoron since...you know.... CR and SPG both test for dilution. How do you dilute more while bringing up these values? Do you have a link of info on this? You need to prove this statement, because that is NOT what WADA says.

"IV infusions before sample collection could actually prolong the doping control sample process because it has a greater potential to produce multiple dilute samples."
http://www.usada.org/wp-content/uplo...-Infusions.pdf

YOUR INFORMATION DIRECTLY DISAGREES WITH WADA'S FINDINGS. PROOF OR YOU ARE FULL OF SHlT!

[travestyny]

Did they say this?
Urinary DEHP metabolite measurement is a cost-effective way to detect ABT in anti-doping field even when BTHC bags are used for blood storage.

By the way....BTHC is just another plasticizer that is very similar to DEHP and is used in storage of BLOOD BAGS. I guess you didn't take the time to check up on that.

And the study you are referencing is to check for A BLOOD TRANSFUSION. Even Contador wad accused of what...A BLOOD TRANSFUSION.

This still doesn't correct your issue of IV bags that have no plasticizers. I sent you the link on that already.

The solution contact materials do not contain PVC, DEHP, or other plasticizers.
http://www.rxlist.com/normal-saline-drug.htm

Just admit you were wrong. You have nothing left.

[Reloaded]

Go and fight Nate Diaz and earn a rematch lol.

[ADP02]

Dude, you keep going with this 8 fold bull****.

We both know where you got this info from. Why don't you accept that the very same study said an 8-fold dilution would be equivalent to 1 liter of water and also 1.003spg.

Didn't it say that? His SPG was 1.009.

You're also ignoring the time!

You really need to stop doing calculations. You've already been proven wrong before. The experts don't back up any of your calculations and you've yet to find any expert who has taken your side in all of this. When you get one, let me know. Until then...let it go.





Whoa, just saw this part. Is it possible to dilute and at the same time bring up CR and SG? That seems like an oxymoron since...you know.... CR and SPG both test for dilution. How do you dilute more while bringing up these values? Do you have a link of info on this? You need to prove this statement, because that is NOT what WADA says.

"IV infusions before sample collection could actually prolong the doping control sample process because it has a greater potential to produce multiple dilute samples."
http://www.usada.org/wp-content/uplo...-Infusions.pdf

YOUR INFORMATION DIRECTLY DISAGREES WITH WADA'S FINDINGS. PROOF OR YOU ARE FULL OF SHlT!

The problem is not where I got it from. Its that you do not understand. Lots of articles and studies mentions this term. 8 FOLD, 10 FOLD.....

Here is a definition of 8 FOLD:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eightfold

being eight times as great or as many


Studies over studies mentions this possibility.

The studies that I pointed to you show you that it does not need to have Cr < 20 to put substances below a threshold.
Also the study on ******* specifically pointed out this:
"Importantly, when the negative test result for ******* occurred as a result of ingestion of 12 oz of water by Subject D, the creatinine content of that specimen was 64 mg/dL and specific gravity was 1.010, well above recommended cutoff values indicative of dilute specimens."


For the below subject, the next 4 tests were positive. Which shows that the correlation is not 1:1
Subject D
CR = 64 mg/dL
SG = 1.010
yet produces a negative test result for *******

SG = 1.010 is more concentrated than Diaz's 1.009 yet the subject beat the test.

Before you go there, the QUEST SCREENING caught Diaz, SMRTL's didn't. Studies show this as being possible.
--------------------------

Other studies
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

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

Just from your post, its shows that you do not get it. Not all substances will excrete proportionally at the same time in urine. So if Diaz just gave urine in TEST #2 then
1) TEST #3 was from a fresh void.
2) Urine was 2+ FOLD dilute
3) The THC metabolite excretion could have been at a lower rate than other substances.
4) As pointed out above, other substances in the urine sample would be the reason why the SG is at 1.09, as an example, while the THC metabolite is BELOW the threshold.
5) Above Subjects have CR > 20 yet their levels were below the threshold.
6) THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1 is 8.2+ FOLD decrease .... I showed you the rest in the previous post.