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

[ADP02]

Already addressed this. You are saying they look specifically for carboxy-THC, correct? Ok. That's what they found correct? Ok.

Now why would a confirmation analysis show that the result should actually be over 600ng higher? Does that makes sense to you? If the GC/MS can find carboxy-THC and quantify it...why would it be that low? The whole point of your 2 prong test is irrelevant. If we take the 61ng result from SMRTL and gave that sample to Quest, it would fail the screening test which was set at 50ng. The 49ng test would likely fail as well because immunoassay takes into account other compounds, right?

So what you have is Quest saying a sample fails for something over 50ng.

Then Quest saying the result is much greater than 300ng.

That vs.

WADA saying they tested the same individual hours apart two times, and the results were 49ng and 61ng. These results were deemed consistent by Dr. Eichner and by a 20 year MRO.

So how the **** do you have the audacity to say that this 2 prong test is somehow better than the SMRTL tests?




Deflected? No. You deflected because I asked you to explain the quotation that clearly states the GC/MS during a screen is not optimized for individual compounds. Yet SMRTL found the data for....an individual compound. Are you ever going to address this? You will keep ducking it like you will keep ducking Eichner saying there is no reason to do a confirmation analysis ON THERE. You blatantly duck these and it's hysterical. Man up and stop being a bltch.



LMAO. SO what? You can multiply and divide. You want an award?



Again, you bring up 8 fold. Why are you ducking that the very study you got this bullshlt from says 8 fold dilution is a specific gravity of 1.005.

Oh, that's right, there was "something else" done. LMAO

You never showed this dilution in a short period of time. Never. You just lie. He had 1hour 17 minutes to dilute from test 2 to test 3. Do you admit that now? You said before "I understand what you are saying." Do you admit that you were wrong about the time, or do I have to go back and repost that part of the convo?

Better? Its different.

immunoassay and GCMS combo have been very effective compared to just GCMS and in SMRTLs case, just SCREENING test.
For example, there have been compounds that can interfere by way of GCMS test but caught using immunoassay ... but the other way can occur too.

The thing is that QUEST found a positive test and confirmed it. SRMTL only did a screening that missed it. Remember that SMRTLs were dilute relatively speaking and at least one of them was invalid.

SMRTL does not compensate (normalize) dilute urine samples for marijuana. If they did, those numbers would have been significantly higher!!!
TEST #1 from SMRTL: 1.002 is how many FOLDs dilute? Multiply 49 X 10 = 490


"I asked you to explain the quotation that clearly states the GC/MS during a screen is not optimized for individual compounds. " Trav

Man, I did but like I keep on telling you, you just do not understand this. If you did, you would have understood and said, "OK, I got it now".


10 FOLDs: No awards. Just you stating that you understand that what I presented to you in those studies was a reduction of levels of 8 times or 10 or more ... and then once you do that, you can agree that its possible for Diaz to go down 8 - 10 or more folds. Meaning, not impossible to do in a few hours time ... your "expert" said it was not medically plausible ... he was wrong but he fudged the data!


8 FOLD: but that is without taking into account other factors. SG has its limitations. As already stated, how can SG of 1.002 and 1.009 have concentration levels that are so close to each other given that many of those subjects had more of a variation due to dilution? I told you, its not 1 to 1 correlation due to other factors and limitations of SG!!

1hour 17 minutes is the lie When did the fight stop? When did Diaz take TEST #3? 2 hours 20 minutes later? What if Diaz also used a diuretic?

[ADP02]

LMAO. You are having a very hard time understanding this.

Let's call it a screen if you want.

Question 1: Do you agree that the values given by SMRTL were only for the marijuana metabolite (carboxy-THC)?

I think you do, right? ok.

Now what you are saying is that when they confirm...using the same GC/MS test for carboxy-THC, the machine would correct itself and find that the amount is actually much higher? Like 672ng higher.

How does that make sense to you? We are measuring apples to apples.

SMRTL Marijuana Metabolite - 41ng
QUEST Marijuana Metabolite - 733ng
SMRTL Marijuana Metabolite - 61ng


These were the results that the machine put out, correct? Now you are trying to argue that had SMRTL did a confirmation, they may have found that the number was actually 672ng higher? Is that your argument? Something was wrong with this machine twice?

If your argument is instead about dilution, then that has nothing to do with the testing methods. That has something to do with the samples. And your dilution theory is already proven to be shlt.

As everyone has been telling you, there are a lot of factors and you cannot exclude one when you are discussing the other.

QUEST's urine sample was concentrated but SMRTLs were both dilute. They were very similarly dilute as far as THC metabolite levels are concerned because the values didn't change much relative to dilution ratios so one can conclude that there were other variables in the urine sample that had one at 1.002 and the other at 1.009.

SMRTLs screening process was not able to capture the true concentration levels in part due to the dilution. QUESTs was able to but they had the advantage that their samples were concentrated. Its a fact.

I told you that a screening test can incorrectly turn up as a false positive but also a false negative if an interferon skewed the screening results of the GCMS .... and as you admitted, its possible because the screening test is not as specific.

[travestyny]

Better? Its different.

immunoassay and GCMS combo have been very effective compared to just GCMS and in SMRTLs case, just SCREENING test.
For example, there have been compounds that can interfere by way of GCMS test but caught using immunoassay ... but the other way can occur too.

The thing is that QUEST found a positive test and confirmed it. SRMTL only did a screening that missed it. Remember that SMRTLs were dilute relatively speaking and at least one of them was invalid.

WRONG. SMRTL did TWO tests. Are you saying that SMRTL missed it twice? Don't talk about invalid because both Dr. Eichner and the MRO said these results were consistent. So how did SMRTL get this wrong twice, according to you?

SMRTL does not compensate (normalize) dilute urine samples for marijuana. If they did, those numbers would have been significantly higher!!!
TEST #1 from SMRTL: 1.002 is how many FOLDs dilute? Multiply 49 X 10 = 490

Do you know the reason that they don't normalize? Please, let's hear you tell the WADA scientists how to do their job. I can't wait.

This is irrelevant unless you can show that it's normal for a sample to jump from 733ng to 61ng in 75 minutes with a specific gravity of 1.009. How the actual **** is that possible?

"I asked you to explain the quotation that clearly states the GC/MS during a screen is not optimized for individual compounds. " Trav

Man, I did but like I keep on telling you, you just do not understand this. If you did, you would have understood and said, "OK, I got it now".

You never explained this. Never.

10 FOLDs: No awards. Just you stating that you understand that what I presented to you in those studies was a reduction of levels of 8 times or 10 or more ... and then once you do that, you can agree that its possible for Diaz to go down 8 - 10 or more folds. Meaning, not impossible to do in a few hours time ... your "expert" said it was not medically plausible ... he was wrong but he fudged the data!

No dude. You don't understand. Your study shows a person going down to a level that is NOT deemed diluted. And that is using creatinine level which is not the same as specific gravity. And also, that large dilution jump that you show got down...what...40ng to 6ng? LMAO. Do you see why this doesn't fit yet?

8 FOLD: but that is without taking into account other factors. SG has its limitations. As already stated, how can SG of 1.002 and 1.009 have concentration levels that are so close to each other given that many of those subjects had more of a variation due to dilution? I told you, its not 1 to 1 correlation due to other factors and limitations of SG!!

This is boring. You failed about specific gravity. Two experts stated specifically that these results are consistent. These are experts. They are not you, who just makes up bullshlt hoping that anything will stick. This is their job. Go look up the definition of an MRO. Oh, that's right, he's biased because you said so. Everyone is biased when it doesn't fit your agenda.

1hour 17 minutes is the lie When did the fight stop? When did Diaz take TEST #3? 2 hours 20 minutes later? What if Diaz also used a diuretic?

Wowwww. I told you this before and you said "I understand what you are saying." So what did you understand?

AT THE TIME OF TEST #2, HE WAS SLIGHTLY DEHYDRATED OR NORMAL. SO HOW MUCH COULD HE HAVE DRANK IN THE HOUR BEFORE THIS TEST? PLEASE TELL ME WITHOUT DUCKING, WHICH YOU DO SO MUCH THAT HONESTLY (SERIOUSLY HONESTLY) YOU ARE NOT EVEN WORTH HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH. THE NUMBER OF TIMES YOU HAVE BLATANTLY DUCKED MY QUESTIONS IS ANNOYING AND DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF A CONVERSATION! REALLY.

[travestyny]

As everyone has been telling you, there are a lot of factors and you cannot exclude one when you are discussing the other.

QUEST's urine sample was concentrated but SMRTLs were both dilute. They were very similarly dilute as far as THC metabolite levels are concerned because the values didn't change much relative to dilution ratios so one can conclude that there were other variables in the urine sample that had one at 1.002 and the other at 1.009.

SMRTLs screening process was not able to capture the true concentration levels in part due to the dilution. QUESTs was able to but they had the advantage that their samples were concentrated. Its a fact.

I told you that a screening test can incorrectly turn up as a false positive but also a false negative if an interferon skewed the screening results of the GCMS .... and as you admitted, its possible because the screening test is not as specific.

WRONG. I never admitted anything. I told you that I'm willing to play along with your scenario, and that's only because you will keep ducking my challenge, so going back and forth with you when you don't want to hear from someone else who can point out that you're being an idiot is useless.

So let's understand this now. What you are NOW trying to say is that Diaz must have used something else. Correct? If I'm understanding what you wrote correctly, you're saying it was dilution plus something else.

1. Why did this "something else" not show up in the tests?
2. Whatever this "something else" was that he took, he must have taken it after test #2, correct? Because it didn't show up in his undiluted sample, right? The one done by Quest. So now it's your argument that at the time that he was being watched by TWO DCO's, right (one from NSAC and one from SMRTL), he then was able to ingest something or spike some water and drink something that was undetectable by WADA labs and enough of it to bring down marijuana from a very high level to a passing level in 75 minutes.


As the experts that I have mentioned told you...IMPOSSIBLE!

[travestyny]

how can SG of 1.002 and 1.009 have concentration levels that are so close to each other given that many of those subjects had more of a variation due to dilution?

Honestly, we could really stop this conversation at this point. This is a fine example of exactly what I'm talking about.


1. The MRO said that the concentrations corresponding with these two specific gravities are consistent.

2. The head of the WADA laboratory said that the concentrations corresponding with these two specific gravities are consistent.

ADP02 asks....how can these be consistent? Not just a question. It appears that you are saying they can't be consistent, correct?

If you can't accept what these two experts are telling you, then you certainly won't believe anything I say. What is the point of continuing? Over and over I've pointed out experts that say you are wrong. You "deflect" to them being biased. Give up. You need to admit that you don't know even an eighth of what these guys know about this topic.

[ADP02]

WRONG. SMRTL did TWO tests. Are you saying that SMRTL missed it twice? Don't talk about invalid because both Dr. Eichner and the MRO said these results were consistent. So how did SMRTL get this wrong twice, according to you?



Do you know the reason that they don't normalize? Please, let's hear you tell the WADA scientists how to do their job. I can't wait.

This is irrelevant unless you can show that it's normal for a sample to jump from 733ng to 61ng in 75 minutes with a specific gravity of 1.009. How the actual **** is that possible?



You never explained this. Never.



No dude. You don't understand. Your study shows a person going down to a level that is NOT deemed diluted. And that is using creatinine level which is not the same as specific gravity. And also, that large dilution jump that you show got down...what...40ng to 6ng? LMAO. Do you see why this doesn't fit yet?



This is boring. You failed about specific gravity. Two experts stated specifically that these results are consistent. These are experts. They are not you, who just makes up bullshlt hoping that anything will stick. This is their job. Go look up the definition of an MRO. Oh, that's right, he's biased because you said so. Everyone is biased when it doesn't fit your agenda.



Wowwww. I told you this before and you said "I understand what you are saying." So what did you understand?

AT THE TIME OF TEST #2, HE WAS SLIGHTLY DEHYDRATED OR NORMAL. SO HOW MUCH COULD HE HAVE DRANK IN THE HOUR BEFORE THIS TEST? PLEASE TELL ME WITHOUT DUCKING, WHICH YOU DO SO MUCH THAT HONESTLY (SERIOUSLY HONESTLY) YOU ARE NOT EVEN WORTH HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH. THE NUMBER OF TIMES YOU HAVE BLATANTLY DUCKED MY QUESTIONS IS ANNOYING AND DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF A CONVERSATION! REALLY.

Well, TEST #1 was wrong as per WADA rules. Invalid SG value

Your quote is out of context. Here is what was actually said:
"nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly but it is definitely consistent ...."

So to say, greater THC when specific gravity is greater but the relative difference is too low!!!! Other variables were there to have that SG value. How else can the SG go up several FOLDs while the THC metabolite just go slightly higher?

Next time, do not forget that he said "nearly impossible to directly correlate" HA!

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

Actually WADA has a normalization formula but they are currently only using it for steroids.


Man, 3 witnesses were at the Diaz hearing. They all said quotes like these to explain away that different samples and especially from different labs, protocols, equipment, dilutions can get you different values:

"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"

Summary Doctor "expert" witness for Diaz: Final results can vary dramatically since its a different protocol using different equipment, different calibration standards...!!!!


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

Again, I explained it several times but you just do not understand it. That is the problem. If you need help, I can assist .... but let me know what you do not understand so I can help you. Got it?

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

You cannot correlate as you are doing ADP02 because the Study "is using creatinine level which is not the same as specific gravity" - Travestyny

See, you keep on doing this but do not like when I point out that 3 witnesses explain why its possible to have varying results. The variables are more than just Creatinine to Specific Gravity ....

and even with TEST #2 vs TEST #3.
One of the many factors is that TEST #2 is using Creatinine while TEST #3 is using SPecific Gravity but is that stopping you from explaining away the impossibilities? You just killed everything you tried to say and do with the above line BUT at least I know that deep down inside, you have realized that YOU WERE WRONG!!!!

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

The full quote buddy is this:
""nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly but it is definitely consistent"


MRO who is paid to defend Diaz is going to go against Diaz? Yup, I must have an agenda when I say that ... too funny!

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

My point is that Diaz's witness's numbers were wrong. Concentration level used was not reliable number and time was wrong.

Now what's your point? and remember when you speak and going by your own words, do not try to compare TEST #2 to TEST #3 because one is using Creatinine and the other is using SPecific Gravity .... plus take into account what those 3 witnesses said .... GO!!!

[ADP02]

WRONG. I never admitted anything. I told you that I'm willing to play along with your scenario, and that's only because you will keep ducking my challenge, so going back and forth with you when you don't want to hear from someone else who can point out that you're being an idiot is useless.

So let's understand this now. What you are NOW trying to say is that Diaz must have used something else. Correct? If I'm understanding what you wrote correctly, you're saying it was dilution plus something else.

1. Why did this "something else" not show up in the tests?
2. Whatever this "something else" was that he took, he must have taken it after test #2, correct? Because it didn't show up in his undiluted sample, right? The one done by Quest. So now it's your argument that at the time that he was being watched by TWO DCO's, right (one from NSAC and one from SMRTL), he then was able to ingest something or spike some water and drink something that was undetectable by WADA labs and enough of it to bring down marijuana from a very high level to a passing level in 75 minutes.


As the experts that I have mentioned told you...IMPOSSIBLE!

read what I just posted. ..... Diaz's helper will help construct a scenario to help Diaz and avoid alternate scenarios.

Plus as I stated already, he and YOU are using bad numbers!

[ADP02]

Honestly, we could really stop this conversation at this point. This is a fine example of exactly what I'm talking about.


1. The MRO said that the concentrations corresponding with these two specific gravities are consistent.

2. The head of the WADA laboratory said that the concentrations corresponding with these two specific gravities are consistent.

ADP02 asks....how can these be consistent? Not just a question. It appears that you are saying they can't be consistent, correct?

If you can't accept what these two experts are telling you, then you certainly won't believe anything I say. What is the point of continuing? Over and over I've pointed out experts that say you are wrong. You "deflect" to them being biased. Give up. You need to admit that you don't know even an eighth of what these guys know about this topic.

Your quotes are out of context.

Man, 3 witnesses were at the Diaz hearing. They all said quotes like these to explain away that different samples and especially from different labs, protocols, equipment, dilutions can get you different values:

"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"

Summary Doctor "expert" witness for Diaz: Final results can vary dramatically since its a different protocol using different equipment, different calibration standards...!!!!

[travestyny]

Well, TEST #1 was wrong as per WADA rules. Invalid SG value

Your quote is out of context. Here is what was actually said:
"nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly but it is definitely consistent ...."

So to say, greater THC when specific gravity is greater but the relative difference is too low!!!! Other variables were there to have that SG value. How else can the SG go up several FOLDs while the THC metabolite just go slightly higher?

Next time, do not forget that he said "nearly impossible to directly correlate" HA!

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

LMAOOOOOOOOO. Jesus Christ.

Of course it is impossible to directly correlate. Do you know what that means? He is saying you just can't take the value for 1.002 and say, oh that will be this at 1.009.

Now go look up what CONSISTENT means.

Nevermind. I'll do it for you:

Consistent: compatible or in agreement with something. The 2 experts said these are consistent. What they did NOT say is that they are inconsistent. How can you misunderstand this?

Actually WADA has a normalization formula but they are currently only using it for steroids.

Correct. So...?

Man, 3 witnesses were at the Diaz hearing. They all said quotes like these to explain away that different samples and especially from different labs, protocols, equipment, dilutions can get you different values:

"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"

Summary Doctor "expert" witness for Diaz: Final results can vary dramatically since its a different protocol using different equipment, different calibration standards...!!!!


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

Why can't you understand this simple fact. They do NOT mean that this shows how the labs both got it right.

A. QUEST got another result wrong the very same day.
B. Eichner said the results should be consistent.
C. The MRO said Quest got this wrong.
D. The anti-doping agent said Quest got this wrong.
E. YOU said SMRTL once got a test wrong. Are you really trying to argue that labs don't get tests wrong? If so, then what is the point of all of this talking? If I'm not mistaken, you said something above about SMRTL not being able to find the right result. That's their job. That means they got it wrong. You are putting your foot in your mouth.

You cannot correlate as you are doing ADP02 because the Study "is using creatinine level which is not the same as specific gravity" - Travestyny

See, you keep on doing this but do not like when I point out that 3 witnesses explain why its possible to have varying results. The variables are more than just Creatinine to Specific Gravity ....

and even with TEST #2 vs TEST #3.
One of the many factors is that TEST #2 is using Creatinine while TEST #3 is using SPecific Gravity but is that stopping you from explaining away the impossibilities? You just killed everything you tried to say and do with the above line BUT at least I know that deep down inside, you have realized that YOU WERE WRONG!!!!

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

Nope. What you don't understand, once again, is that THE EXPERTS ARE ALL SAYING THIS. So if you want to say I got it wrong, ok. Then these experts also have it wrong. I'd rather be on their side than yours. Once again...

1. The MRO said one of these tests is wrong. QUEST's.
2. Eichner said the tests should be consistent. They weren't.
3. Novitsky said Quest got this test wrong.

This is what they said, right? I've asked you to do this before. Can you provide 1 expert that says you are right? Just one? A referee doesn't count as an expert, you know.

The full quote buddy is this:
""nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly but it is definitely consistent"


MRO who is paid to defend Diaz is going to go against Diaz? Yup, I must have an agenda when I say that ... too funny!

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

An MRO's job is to scrutinize drug testing results. The reason they are allowed to testify in court is because they are speaking from an area of expertise. They are sworn in. The guy has testified before. He wouldn't even go on record saying how much would have to be drank because he knows he could be held to that number. Yet.....he is biased based on his opinion that doesn't agree with you. Don't you see how warped that is?

My point is that Diaz's witness's numbers were wrong. Concentration level used was not reliable number and time was wrong.

And this is my point. IT'S HIS JOB TO SCRUTINIZE TESTS!!!! WHO THE **** ARE YOU TO TELL HIM THAT HE IS WRONG WHEN HE HAS DONE THIS FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND YOU DO IT WHEN YOU'RE AT HOME PLAYING WITH YOUR KNOB.

Now what's your point? and remember when you speak and going by your own words, do not try to compare TEST #2 to TEST #3 because one is using Creatinine and the other is using SPecific Gravity .... plus take into account what those 3 witnesses said .... GO!!!

Sure. I won't try to compare them. I will point to experts who compare them.

1. MRO: Quest result should be thrown out.
2. Eichner: The results should certainly be consistent.
3. Novitsky: Quest got this wrong.

How is that? Now maybe if you provide some experts who know about this that agree with you, I may change my mind. Go!

[travestyny]

Your quotes are out of context.

Man, 3 witnesses were at the Diaz hearing. They all said quotes like these to explain away that different samples and especially from different labs, protocols, equipment, dilutions can get you different values:

"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"

Summary Doctor "expert" witness for Diaz: Final results can vary dramatically since its a different protocol using different equipment, different calibration standards...!!!!

Why are you resending this?

Questions for you to not duck:

1. Did SMRTL and QUEST both test Silva?
2. Did QUEST get it wrong?

Simple questions. Can you answer? If you duck this...our conversation is over.