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

[travestyny]

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.

No. The problem is that you are a butthurt pacquaio fan.

1. The study mentioned 8 fold...yes. And it said 8 fold was 1.003. YOU ARE IGNORING THAT.

[IMG]http://i62.***********.com/albums/h95/travestyny/Screen%20Shot%202016-11-12%20at%205.38.53%20PM.png[/IMG]

THE VERY STUDY THAT YOU KEEP FOCUSING ON DISAGREES WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. WHY ARE YOU BRINGING UP 8-FOLD DILUTION WHEN CLEARLY DIAZ'S SPECIFIC GRAVITY WAS ABOVE THAT VALUE!

2. The study on ******* was not aligned with WADA's testing.

A. It did not use GC/MS for confirmation, which is the most accurate way to do confirmation.

B. It searched for MetaboliteS. WADA searches for the one metabolite.

C. It has a different cut-off value than WADA uses because of the difference in what they are looking for.

D. The QUEST screening didn't catch Diaz, clown. The QUEST screening had to be confirmed by GC/MS. You know...the machine that this ******* study didn't use!

3. 2 experts disagree with you. I've said this over and over. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. YOU NEED TO CALL A FRIEND.

4. YOU KEEP TRYING TO SAY YOU CAN DILUTE AND HAVE SPECIFIC GRAVITY ABOVE BLAH BLAH BLAH. YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO DUCK AND DODGE LIKE A COWARD. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT YOU CAN DILUTE TO SOME DEGREE. THE POINT IS HOW COULD HE DILUTE WELL ABOVE 300NG TO 61NG IN 75 MINUTES. NONE OF YOUR STUDIES SHOW THAT!

AND YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE TIME. 75 MINUTES, WHICH YOU SHOULD ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT NOW!

IT'S OVER. MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE. OH, BUT BEFORE YOU DO, ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT PLASTICIZERS AND ABOUT THE OVER 2 HOUR TIME. THANKS!

[ADP02]

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.

If you read what I pointed to, they would have stated what BTHC was .... The reason for that study is because they know that the "mouse" will move away from DEHP to other known storage container that is DEHP-FREE. Again, this was pointed out to you in the studies.

As you saw, WADA is still capturing this type of data and DID even in the Contador case. Why did they if what you say is true?

You cannot.


The athletes were in a meeting with USADA. What did they say? I showed you.




The below points to this test as an example where WADA will not exactly let you know what "cat" is doing:
By Associated Press | May 22, 2016 @ 7:12 pm

Under new rules, the IOC can hold the bottles for up to 10 years, and can thaw the urine for a retest any time during that window.

The limit was recently raised from eight years, which gives scientists more time to identify new drugs, then develop new tests to identify them. Also, scientists can develop more sensitive tests for metabolites — residue — of known drugs that are found in urine. And, if a test for a certain drug wasn’t completed at the Olympics, it can be done in a retest years later.

“The anti-doping guys have an arsenal that they don’t make public,” said Tom Brenna, a Cornell University professor and an expert on anti-doping laboratories.

Funny enough, he brings up this example:
An example Brenna gave was the discovery of a test for plastic residue from the bags some cyclists used for EPO-laden blood transfusions. Because EPO has been notoriously difficult to detect, the test for the “plasticizer” gave the drug-fighters a back-door method to prove someone was using the drug.

[travestyny]

If you read what I pointed to, they would have stated what BTHC was .... The reason for that study is because they know that the "mouse" will move away from DEHP to other known storage container that is DEHP-FREE. Again, this was pointed out to you in the studies.

As you saw, WADA is still capturing this type of data and DID even in the Contador case. Why did they if what you say is true?

You cannot.


The athletes were in a meeting with USADA. What did they say? I showed you.




The below points to this test as an example where WADA will not exactly let you know what "cat" is doing:
By Associated Press | May 22, 2016 @ 7:12 pm

Under new rules, the IOC can hold the bottles for up to 10 years, and can thaw the urine for a retest any time during that window.

The limit was recently raised from eight years, which gives scientists more time to identify new drugs, then develop new tests to identify them. Also, scientists can develop more sensitive tests for metabolites — residue — of known drugs that are found in urine. And, if a test for a certain drug wasn’t completed at the Olympics, it can be done in a retest years later.

“The anti-doping guys have an arsenal that they don’t make public,” said Tom Brenna, a Cornell University professor and an expert on anti-doping laboratories.

Funny enough, he brings up this example:
An example Brenna gave was the discovery of a test for plastic residue from the bags some cyclists used for EPO-laden blood transfusions. Because EPO has been notoriously difficult to detect, the test for the “plasticizer” gave the drug-fighters a back-door method to prove someone was using the drug.

Can you read???


NONE OF THIS MATTERS ANYMORE BECAUSE MOST IV BAGS SINCE PROBABLY ABOUT 2007 OR BEFORE DON'T USE PLASTICIZERS! DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

PVC BAGS ARE USED FOR STORING BLOOD! IV BAGS NEED NOT BE PVC BAGS AND NEED NOT HAVE PLASTICIZERS. THIS WRECKS YOUR WHOLE POINT....EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE STILL WRONG ABOUT IT.


NOW ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONGGGG!!!!!

[ADP02]

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.

No. The problem is that you are a butthurt pacquaio fan.

1. The study mentioned 8 fold...yes. And it said 8 fold was 1.003. YOU ARE IGNORING THAT.

[IMG]http://i62.***********.com/albums/h95/travestyny/Screen%20Shot%202016-11-12%20at%205.38.53%20PM.png[/IMG]

THE VERY STUDY THAT YOU KEEP FOCUSING ON DISAGREES WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. WHY ARE YOU BRINGING UP 8-FOLD DILUTION WHEN CLEARLY DIAZ'S SPECIFIC GRAVITY WAS ABOVE THAT VALUE!

2. The study on ******* was not aligned with WADA's testing.

A. It did not use GC/MS for confirmation, which is the most accurate way to do confirmation.

B. It searched for MetaboliteS. WADA searches for the one metabolite.

C. It has a different cut-off value than WADA uses because of the difference in what they are looking for.

D. The QUEST screening didn't catch Diaz, clown. The QUEST screening had to be confirmed by GC/MS. You know...the machine that this ******* study didn't use!

3. 2 experts disagree with you. I've said this over and over. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. YOU NEED TO CALL A FRIEND.

4. YOU KEEP TRYING TO SAY YOU CAN DILUTE AND HAVE SPECIFIC GRAVITY ABOVE BLAH BLAH BLAH. YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO DUCK AND DODGE LIKE A COWARD. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT YOU CAN DILUTE TO SOME DEGREE. THE POINT IS HOW COULD HE DILUTE WELL ABOVE 300NG TO 61NG IN 75 MINUTES. NONE OF YOUR STUDIES SHOW THAT!

AND YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE TIME. 75 MINUTES, WHICH YOU SHOULD ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT NOW!

IT'S OVER. MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE. OH, BUT BEFORE YOU DO, ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT PLASTICIZERS AND ABOUT THE OVER 2 HOUR TIME. THANKS!

Read above. Did you deflect? YUP! Did you not even read? Its simple stuff!

1) Article is to show you that you can go down FROM 400 to 50 ng/ml EASILY and that was only 8 FOLD. Its not talking about the possibilities of SG, or did you read them say that? and lets you understand what 8 FOLD means since you didn't understand that.

The other articles show that you can go down 8+ FOLDs yet have CR > 20

So STOP DEFLECTING!!!

2) YOU ARE DEFLECTING AGAIN
A) The study was consistent in that ALL tests was done using the same equipment.
B) I can and have shown you studies that show that GC/MS SCREENING can miss what an Immunoassay caught.
C) What?
D) lol ... this is too funny!!! This is a study. They know what they are looking for ..... *******!!! thanks for the laugh ...lol ... sorry, lol
Not accurate. QUEST's SCREENING turned in a positive result. QUEST's CONFIRMATION test CONFIRMED the SCREENING test was right!
3. Nope.
"It is next to impossible to tie together different specimens collected at different points in time, particularly collected over different dates."
" nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly but it is definitely consistent"
"Final results can vary dramatically as we can see here" This last one mentions because they use different labs, equipment, protocol, specimen,.....

With the above, you do not just take it out of context and say "definitely consistent" LIKE YOU DID!!!

4. DEFLECTION
So you switched from one UNRELIABLE value to another. Its not 75 min.
IF the expert is right that its not enough time to excrete in 75 minutes then time after the fight would carry over into TEST #3. That is, AFTER TEST #2 . That is using the expert's own logic!!!! BUT we both know why he used those specific numbers. That is all they had. A BIG 0


Stop deflecting. Just bring up the facts. You cannot. You are all mixed up!!!

[travestyny]

Read above. Did you deflect? YUP! Did you not even read? Its simple stuff!

1) Article is to show you that you can go down FROM 400 to 50 ng/ml EASILY and that was only 8 FOLD. Its not talking about the possibilities of SG, or did you read them say that? and lets you understand what 8 FOLD means since you didn't understand that.

The other articles show that you can go down 8+ FOLDs yet have CR > 20

So STOP DEFLECTING!!!

YOU ARE A COWARD.

QUESTION: DID NICK DIAZ DILUTE 8 FOLD? YES OR NO? LOOK AT THE CHART I POSTED. DID HE DILUTE 8 FOLD?

ALSO...400NG TO 50NG. PROVIDE THE TIME.

I DARE YOU!!!! YOU KNOW YOU ARE FULL OF SHlT YOU COWARD.

2) YOU ARE DEFLECTING AGAIN
A) The study was consistent in that ALL tests was done using the same equipment.
B) I can and have shown you studies that show that GC/MS SCREENING can miss what an Immunoassay caught.
C) What?
D) lol ... this is too funny!!! This is a study. They know what they are looking for ..... *******!!! thanks for the laugh ...lol ... sorry, lol
Not accurate. QUEST's SCREENING turned in a positive result. QUEST's CONFIRMATION test CONFIRMED the SCREENING test was right!
3. Nope.
"It is next to impossible to tie together different specimens collected at different points in time, particularly collected over different dates."
" nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly but it is definitely consistent"
"Final results can vary dramatically as we can see here" This last one mentions because they use different labs, equipment, protocol, specimen,.....

With the above, you do not just take it out of context and say "definitely consistent" LIKE YOU DID!!!

LMAOOOOOOO. SAME OLD SHlT


THE STUDY TOLD YOU WHAT IT WAS LOOKING FOR IDIOT. METABOLITES!!!


WHY DOES QUEST CONFIRM WITH GC/MS. DID THIS STUDY DO THAT????


AND FINALLYYYYYY...YOU STILL DUCKED MY EXAMPLE.

DID QUEST GET SILVA'S TEST WRONG? YES OR NO?


WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER. YOU HAVE NO BALLS!

4. DEFLECTION
So you switched from one UNRELIABLE value to another. Its not 75 min.
IF the expert is right that its not enough time to excrete in 75 minutes then time after the fight would carry over into TEST #3. That is, AFTER TEST #2 . That is using the expert's own logic!!!! BUT we both know why he used those specific numbers. That is all they had. A BIG 0


Stop deflecting. Just bring up the facts. You cannot. You are all mixed up!!!

WOWWW. I SWITCHED VALUES? YOU HAVE BEEN BEGGING FOR WELL OVER 300NG. NOW YOU SAY I SWITCHED VALUES. YOU ARE A ****ING TROLL. SHUT THE **** UP.

THE TIME WOULD CARRY OVER TO TEST #3? LMAOOOO. WE KNOW WHAT TIME TEST 3 WAS, YOU IDIOT. TIME BETWEEN TEST 2 AND TEST 3 WAS 75 MINUTES.


OMG. YOU ARE THE BIGGEST MORON ON THIS FORUM. BY THE WAY, WHERE IS THE QUOTATION FROM DR. EICHNER??? YOU PEICE OF SHlT. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED FOR FALSIFYING QUOTATIONS, BlTCH!

[TheUptownKid]

Lmao a Fine display of greatness at its greatest

[travestyny]

and lets you understand what 8 FOLD means since you didn't understand that.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT 8-FOLD MEANS?


FROM YOUR STUDY:

Current federally-regulated workplace drug testing programs have established 1.003 as the lower cut-off for specific gravity. This cut-off reflects approximately an 8-fold dilution from typical levels.

THIS IS THE STUDY THAT YOU FOUND...NO?

LMAOOOO

[ADP02]

Can you read???


NONE OF THIS MATTERS ANYMORE BECAUSE MOST IV BAGS SINCE PROBABLY ABOUT 2007 OR BEFORE DON'T USE PLASTICIZERS! DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

PVC BAGS ARE USED FOR STORING BLOOD! IV BAGS NEED NOT BE PVC BAGS AND NEED NOT HAVE PLASTICIZERS. THIS WRECKS YOUR WHOLE POINT....EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE STILL WRONG ABOUT IT.


NOW ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONGGGG!!!!!

When was Contador caught? 2010? You said they stopped at about 2007! So everyone forgot to tell the #1 cyclist back then, I guess?

Studies were done when?2010?2011?2012 NOT < 2007
Did they stop studying this and alternatives? Nope!


NOW ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONGGGG!!!!![/SIZE]


Floyd had an IV. The DCO had to write down all delays and the notable events occurred and getting an IV was HUGE!
"If relevant, the DCO documents the irregularities and determines if Investigating a Possible Failure to Comply (ISTI Annex A) is appropriate, if he/she believes the irregularities and/or su****ious behavior may have compromised the Sample Collection Session. "

STILL YOU ARE DEFLECTING!!!!

Its not how but if USADA/WADA does check if the athlete uses an IV.


Meaning, a paper trail was Floyd's safest option because it could get USADA's support. Not RETRO TUE and Floyd gets caught, he is FINISHED!!!




.

[travestyny]

When was Contador caught? 2010? You said they stopped at about 2007! So everyone forgot to tell the #1 cyclist back then, I guess?

Studies were done when?2010?2011?2012 NOT < 2007
Did they stop studying this and alternatives? Nope!


NOW ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONGGGG!!!!![/SIZE]


Floyd had an IV. The DCO had to write down all delays and the notable events occurred and getting an IV was HUGE!
"If relevant, the DCO documents the irregularities and determines if Investigating a Possible Failure to Comply (ISTI Annex A) is appropriate, if he/she believes the irregularities and/or su****ious behavior may have compromised the Sample Collection Session. "

STILL YOU ARE DEFLECTING!!!!

Its not how but if USADA/WADA does check if the athlete uses an IV.


Meaning, a paper trail was Floyd's safest option because it could get USADA's support. Not RETRO TUE and Floyd gets caught, he is FINISHED!!!

You're a troll.


CONTADOR WAS CAUGHT: FOR A BLOOD TRANSFUSION!!!!!!!!!!!!

You idiot. Do some research. There are reasons that BLOOD BAGS still need to use PVC and plasticizers.

IS AN INFUSION FOR IV FLUIDS THE SAME AS A BLOOD TRANSFUSION, YOU MORON????

NORMAL SALINE

The flexible container is made with non-latex plastic materials specially designed for a wide range of parenteral drugs including those requiring delivery in containers made of polyolefins or polypropylene. For example, the AVIVA container system is compatible with and appropriate for use in the admixture and administration of paclitaxel. In addition, the AVIVA container system is compatible with and appropriate for use in the admixture and administration of all drugs deemed compatible with existing polyvinyl chloride container systems. The solution contact materials do not contain PVC, DEHP, or other plasticizers.

Last reviewed on RxList: 12/2/2010
http://www.rxlist.com/normal-saline-drug.htm

R.I.P.

[ADP02]

You're a troll.


CONTADOR WAS CAUGHT: FOR A BLOOD TRANSFUSION!!!!!!!!!!!!


IS AN INFUSION FOR IV FLUIDS THE SAME AS A BLOOD TRANSFUSION, YOU MORON????

NORMAL SALINE

The flexible container is made with non-latex plastic materials specially designed for a wide range of parenteral drugs including those requiring delivery in containers made of polyolefins or polypropylene. For example, the AVIVA container system is compatible with and appropriate for use in the admixture and administration of paclitaxel. In addition, the AVIVA container system is compatible with and appropriate for use in the admixture and administration of all drugs deemed compatible with existing polyvinyl chloride container systems. The solution contact materials do not contain PVC, DEHP, or other plasticizers.

Last reviewed on RxList: 12/2/2010
http://www.rxlist.com/normal-saline-drug.htm

R.I.P.

CAN YOU STOP DEFLECTING FOR JUST 1 POST? What's wrong with you!!!

November 30, 2012
"Despite the presence of non-DEHP PVC and non-PVC IV-administration materials, PVC+DEHP is still prevalent in the clinical setting"


BUT THAT IS JUST DEFLECTING!!!!

USADA told you so!!!! Are they a troll too .... LIKE YOU?




Floyd had an IV. The DCO had to write down all delays and the notable events occurred and getting an IV was HUGE!
"If relevant, the DCO documents the irregularities and determines if Investigating a Possible Failure to Comply (ISTI Annex A) is appropriate, if he/she believes the irregularities and/or su****ious behavior may have compromised the Sample Collection Session. "

STILL YOU ARE DEFLECTING!!!!

Its not how but if USADA/WADA does check if the athlete uses an IV.


Meaning, a paper trail was Floyd's safest option because it could get USADA's support. Not RETRO TUE and Floyd gets caught, he is FINISHED!!!