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

[ADP02]

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?




Correct. So...?



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.



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.




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?



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.



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!

Sorry but that means that if values are different, it is not unexpected!!!

Should I explain further?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So? You asked the question.

Oh wait, was that just you DEFLECTING again? I missed it this time!

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

Sure labs make mistakes but saying that TEST #1 and #3 are different than TEST #2 means that TEST #2 is wrong, IS WRONG!!!
TEST #1 was invalid due to dilution.
TEST #3 was also dilute 2+ FOLDs and the THC concentration values were just slightly higher than TEST #1 where it was extremely dilute so one can conclude that dilution and perhaps other factors kept the values at the levels close to TEST #1.

Plus we have a screen and confirmation results that BOTH came back positive and Diaz's team knew that they couldn't test Sample B because they knew that it would have turned up positive too!!!
So unless there is something that you can point out directly that QUEST did wrong with TEST #2, you can not say that TEST #2 is wrong!


Now what you like to avoid is the dilution, the unreliable numbers from the MRO and yes, he is Diaz's defendant. Plus I'm sorry but the other witnesses nor NSAC did not state that QUEST got it wrong. In fact, not even Diaz's expert MRO didn't dare say that!!! Why? Because then they would have to explain but as you know, they cannot and you know because you fail at this as well.

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

What are you talking about? They all gave the possibility that its possible to have different results. The quotes speak for themselves BILL!

MRO didn't dare say that Quest was wrong because he didn't have anything to back that up. He would have looked like a complete FOOL!!!
Eichner was NOT on Diaz's side ... too funny!

and here you are bringing up another guy who was trying to protect Diaz .... next thing you will say is Diaz's mom said that Diaz is not guilty ... stop it!

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

Stop the nonsense. This MRO was NOT objective!

Expertise? OK but he is still biased and he admitted that he never came across a case like this. Plus had no scientific data to support his statements. He couldn't even say the number of liters would have been too much because then the opposing lawyer could have crucified him!

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

Stop it. I do not care who you are. Unreliable numbers are just that. unreliable!

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

Only MRO tried with unreliable numbers and as stated above. He Never came across this type of case and never found QUEST to be wrong on a marijuana case. Had no scientific data to support his statements. He couldn't even say the number of liters would have been too much because then the opposing lawyer could have crucified him!

[ADP02]

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.

All I know for a fact is that WADA investigated SMRTL and admitted that they had a negative sample WRONG in that case with that Russian woman.

So your point is what again?

Oh, it was to DEFLECT what the only experts of the hearing said. That factors can contribute to differences in results ... so its possible to have those types of variations ... explicable. Oh well, Trav, you are WRONG AGAIN!

[travestyny]

Sorry but that means that if values are different, it is not unexpected!!!

Should I explain further?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you taking into account what the word consistent means at all? Seriously.

So? You asked the question.

Oh wait, was that just you DEFLECTING again? I missed it this time!

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

No, I thought I asked why they don't normalize for marijuana, threshold substances, or something to that effect. You gave an unrelated answer. I believe that's called "deflecting," no?

Also, while ur at it, do you know if Quest normalizes? According to you, if they did, perhaps we would find that Nick was smoking a bong between rounds.

Sure labs make mistakes but saying that TEST #1 and #3 are different than TEST #2 means that TEST #2 is wrong, IS WRONG!!!
TEST #1 was invalid due to dilution.
TEST #3 was also dilute 2+ FOLDs and the THC concentration values were just slightly higher than TEST #1 where it was extremely dilute so one can conclude that dilution and perhaps other factors kept the values at the levels close to TEST #1.

Sure. Conveniently ignore the experts that tell you these results are consistent. Not only that, but conveniently ignore that 2 experts tell you which one is the outlier. The one that had an astronomical amount of marijuana metabolite. Dude, you don't just throw out a sample if it is diluted. I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that even if it is diluted, the lab will still check it. I don't care enough to go back and find that tidbit of information.

Plus we have a screen and confirmation results that BOTH came back positive and Diaz's team knew that they couldn't test Sample B because they knew that it would have turned up positive too!!!
So unless there is something that you can point out directly that QUEST did wrong with TEST #2, you can not say that TEST #2 is wrong!

The screen only found that it was over 50ng. All the samples would have been the same. Whoopty doo.

The confirmation was clearly off based on the fact that 2 other tests had the value much lower. You don't jump way up, then jump way down. Especially keeping into account that something was up with Quest that day, being that they also got another test wrong on the same exact day. Again, experts told you that you're wrong. NO experts told you that you're right.

Now what you like to avoid is the dilution, the unreliable numbers from the MRO and yes, he is Diaz's defendant. Plus I'm sorry but the other witnesses nor NSAC did not state that QUEST got it wrong. In fact, not even Diaz's expert MRO didn't dare say that!!! Why? Because then they would have to explain but as you know, they cannot and you know because you fail at this as well.

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

THE MRO SAID THAT THE RESULT SHOULD BE THROWN OUT. HOW IS THAT NOT SAYING THAT THEY GOT IT WRONG. STOP MAKING SHlT UP! I'M NOT AVOIDING DILUTION. YOU ARE AVOIDING THAT IT WAS 1.009. AND YOU ARE AVOIDING THAT HE DID THIS IN FRONT OF TWO DCO'S IN 75 MINUTES. I ALREADY ASKED YOU IF YOU COULD CONFIRM YOUR TIME-FRAME. DID YOU RESPOND. NOT AT ALL. YOU DUCK SO ****ING MUCH THAT IT'S ANNOYING. GROW SOME BALLS.

What are you talking about? They all gave the possibility that its possible to have different results. The quotes speak for themselves BILL!

MRO didn't dare say that Quest was wrong because he didn't have anything to back that up. He would have looked like a complete FOOL!!!
Eichner was NOT on Diaz's side ... too funny!

and here you are bringing up another guy who was trying to protect Diaz .... next thing you will say is Diaz's mom said that Diaz is not guilty ... stop it!

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

LMAO. WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU HAVE THAT NOVITSKY WAS TRYING TO PROTECT DIAZ? CAN YOU POST IT UP...OR ARE YOU JUST PULLING THAT OUT OF YOUR ASS?

MRO, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, SAID QUEST RESULT SHOULD BE THROWN OUT.

THEY SAID EITHER THAT THE RESULTS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT, OR THAT THE RESULTS OF QUEST IS WRONG. YEP. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID. DO I NEED TO GET YOU THE QUOTATIONS AGAIN?

Stop the nonsense. This MRO was NOT objective!

Expertise? OK but he is still biased and he admitted that he never came across a case like this. Plus had no scientific data to support his statements. He couldn't even say the number of liters would have been too much because then the opposing lawyer could have crucified him!

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

HE SAID HE HASN'T COME ACROSS A CASE LIKE THAT FOR GOOD REASON, IDIOT. WHY THE HELL WAS HE TESTED 3 TIMES IN ONE DAY? EITHER SAMPLE OR EICHNER, CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH, ALSO SAID THIS WAS UNCOMMON. YOU TRY TO MIMIC THE NSAC LAWYER, WHO GOT THE SHlT BEAT OUT OF HIM AND ONLY "WON" THE CASE BECAUSE....HE IS THE NSAC LAWYER AND THE JUDGES ARE THE NSAC COMMISSIONERS. GET THE **** OUT OF HERE!

LMAOOOOOO. CRUCIFIED HIM MY ASS. THE DUDE ON THE PANEL ADMIT THAT DIAZ' LAWYER DID AN AMAZING JOB. GUESS WHAT....THE LAWYER'S TESTIMONY WAS ALL FROM ONE GUY. NOT OBJECTIVE WHY? BECAUSE YOU SAID SO? IS HE ****ING NICK DIAZ? WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT ANY WITNESS THEY CALLED IS AUTOMATICALLY BIASED. DO YOU REALIZE HOW ****** THAT IS? THIS IS THE ULTIMATE DEFLECTION, BUT I'VE SEEN IT BEFORE.

REMEMBER MY POLL. WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT IT? TELL ME. LMAOOOOOO!

Stop it. I do not care who you are. Unreliable numbers are just that. unreliable!

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

Only MRO tried with unreliable numbers and as stated above. He Never came across this type of case and never found QUEST to be wrong on a marijuana case. Had no scientific data to support his statements. He couldn't even say the number of liters would have been too much because then the opposing lawyer could have crucified him!

SO THIS MACHINE THAT IS VERY ACCURATE GAVE A NUMBER THAT, FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE, IS VERY CLOSE TO 300NG (WHICH BY THE WAY STILL DOESN'T HELP YOU). THE MACHINE IS LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE THAT FAR OFF. IT CAN BE HIGHER OR LOWER, BUT NO WAY IT'S OFF BY AROUND 100NG OR WHATEVER YOU'RE THINKING.

GIVE UP. YOU'RE JUST PROVING THAT YOU ARE A BUTTHURT MORON.

HERE IS THE MRO GIVING EVEN MORE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT DILUTION:



HERE IS THE MRO TELLING YOU WHAT HE THINKS OF THIS RESULT BY QUEST: LMAOOOO!


THESE GUYS DID A HELL OF A JOB, DIDN'T THEY? LMAOOOOO!!!! BUZZ OFF, MR. DEFLECTION.

[travestyny]

So your point is what again?

Oh, it was to DEFLECT what the only experts of the hearing said. That factors can contribute to differences in results ... so its possible to have those types of variations ... explicable. Oh well, Trav, you are WRONG AGAIN!

LMAOOOOOOO. WOWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!

LET'S SEE. I ASKED....

Questions for you to not duck:

1. Did SMRTL and QUEST both test Silva? (on the very same day as this Diaz test!)

2. Did QUEST get it wrong?

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

YOUR ANSWER:

All I know for a fact is that WADA investigated SMRTL and admitted that they had a negative sample WRONG in that case with that Russian woman.

LMAOOOOOOOO. DEFLECTION YOU CALL THAT, NO? LMAOOOOOOO. WHY DO YOU KEEP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF?????? WHERE IS THE ANWER TO THOSE 2 SIMPLE QUESTIONS? DUDE, YOU'RE SUCH A BlTCH!!!!


This was not a test regarding Meldonium at a time where there was a lot of confusion about Meldonium. This is a test regarding marijuana...and a test that was done THE SAME DAY THAT THE DIAZ TEST WAS DONE AND AROUND THE SAME TIME BECAUSE DIAZ WAS FIGHTING AGAINST SILVA!!!

ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU TO DUCK....SHOULDN'T QUEST HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED ON THIS VERY DAY BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY GOT ONE TEST WRONG, AND CAME UP WITH A SUSPECT TEST ALSO ON THIS DAY? WHO CHECKS UP ON QUEST? CAN YOU GO FIND OUT IF THEY WERE INVESTIGATED? LMAOOOOO! SEEMS LIKE SOMEONE THERE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE **** THEY WERE DOING THAT DAY. WAS IT "BRING YOUR DAUGHTER TO WORK" DAY?

HERE'S TO YOU, KID. DUCKER! DEFLECTOR! PROJECTOR! LMAOOOOOOO! HOW DOES IT FEEL TO HAVE NO BALLS??? YOU'RE PATHETIC!

[Elroy The Great]

this shlt is more exciting than the fight that may won....

[ADP02]

LMAOOOOOOO. WOWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!

LET'S SEE. I ASKED....



YOUR ANSWER:





LMAOOOOOOOO. DEFLECTION YOU CALL THAT, NO? LMAOOOOOOO. WHY DO YOU KEEP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF?????? WHERE IS THE ANWER TO THOSE 2 SIMPLE QUESTIONS? DUDE, YOU'RE SUCH A BlTCH!!!!


This was not a test regarding Meldonium at a time where there was a lot of confusion about Meldonium. This is a test regarding marijuana...and a test that was done THE SAME DAY THAT THE DIAZ TEST WAS DONE AND AROUND THE SAME TIME BECAUSE DIAZ WAS FIGHTING AGAINST SILVA!!!

ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU TO DUCK....SHOULDN'T QUEST HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED ON THIS VERY DAY BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY GOT ONE TEST WRONG, AND CAME UP WITH A SUSPECT TEST ALSO ON THIS DAY? WHO CHECKS UP ON QUEST? CAN YOU GO FIND OUT IF THEY WERE INVESTIGATED? LMAOOOOO! SEEMS LIKE SOMEONE THERE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE **** THEY WERE DOING THAT DAY. WAS IT "BRING YOUR DAUGHTER TO WORK" DAY?

HERE'S TO YOU, KID. DUCKER! DEFLECTOR! PROJECTOR! LMAOOOOOOO! HOW DOES IT FEEL TO HAVE NO BALLS??? YOU'RE PATHETIC!

Actually I answered this a long time ago BUT I see that you didn't come out and agree that WADA did indeed investigate SMRTL and found them wrong ... DEFLECTOR.

I never really looked into Silva's case close enough to respond accurately but as I stated before, I take no sides whether it be QUEST or SMRTL. If QUEST got something wrong, if Manny did something wrong they should be investigated FOR SURE!!!! I've said this numerous times.


Manny was going to be investigated until NSAC found out about Floyd's IV scandal then all investigations stopped!!!

So for Floyd there should have been an investigation by NSAC for checking up why the pre-fight form and the pre-fight examination, no mention of Floyd's serious medical condition and no notifications to NSAC.

If the head of WADA TUE Committee says that something smells, well, USADA should have certainly done an investigation and well, they are certainly NOT totally independent in Floyd's case. Floyd's reps have been paying USADA for 6 years.

BUT WADA, and above I mentioned already that even Catlin finds USADA su****ious organization. It just smells wrong!


Its time you do the same with Floyd and Diaz!

If you were objective, you would have said that the MRO did indeed use unreliable numbers. Instead, you double down on those unreliable numbers!!!

[travestyny]

Actually I answered this a long time ago BUT I see that you didn't come out and agree that WADA did indeed investigate SMRTL and found them wrong ... DEFLECTOR.

I never really looked into Silva's case close enough to respond accurately but as I stated before, I take no sides whether it be QUEST or SMRTL. If QUEST got something wrong, if Manny did something wrong they should be investigated FOR SURE!!!! I've said this numerous times.


Manny was going to be investigated until NSAC found out about Floyd's IV scandal then all investigations stopped!!!

So for Floyd there should have been an investigation by NSAC for checking up why the pre-fight form and the pre-fight examination, no mention of Floyd's serious medical condition and no notifications to NSAC.

If the head of WADA TUE Committee says that something smells, well, USADA should have certainly done an investigation and well, they are certainly NOT totally independent in Floyd's case. Floyd's reps have been paying USADA for 6 years.

BUT WADA, and above I mentioned already that even Catlin finds USADA su****ious organization. It just smells wrong!


Its time you do the same with Floyd and Diaz!

If you were objective, you would have said that the MRO did indeed use unreliable numbers. Instead, you double down on those unreliable numbers!!!

You completely missed the point, numbskull.


You keep saying over and over that the different results from different labs is expected, and you imply that it doesn't mean one got it wrong.


The case of Andersen Silva PROVES that YOU are WRONG! Same exact situation. IT'S EVEN ON THE SAME EXACT DAY. Two different labs. Different results. QUEST GOT IT WRONG!!!


SO NOW WHAT YOU GOTTA SAY? LMAOOOOOOOOO!

[DeadLikeMe]

22 months and their hearts are still broken by Manny's failure

[ADP02]

Are you taking into account what the word consistent means at all? Seriously.

Of course I am Bill. As I said before, all that the guy was trying to point out was that the greater THC levels are when specific gravity is greater and if you go back that is what was said!!!

SMRTL: nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly but it is definitely consistent.
Question: So your point is that greater hydration creates lesser amount of THC
RESPONSE: Yes that is the point .... BOOM!

So in summary, it was not to point out that SMRTL was trying to say that QUESTs results were wrong. So that is why you cannot remove the first part of their statement. In that its nearly impossible to directly correlate!!! ... BOOM!

ADP02: "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"

No, I thought I asked why they don't normalize for marijuana, threshold substances, or something to that effect. You gave an unrelated answer. I believe that's called "deflecting," no?

Also, while ur at it, do you know if Quest normalizes? According to you, if they did, perhaps we would find that Nick was smoking a bong between rounds.

You said that WADA scientist do not normalize to deflect from the point that TEST #1 and TEST #3's THC metabolite concentration levels would be much higher if the SG would have been normally (hydrated) concentrated instead of being so diluted.

Anyways, you didn't state it was for marijuana. I corrected/clarified your statement and told you that they do but currently not for marijuana.

But I get it, you had to deflect.

Sure. Conveniently ignore the experts that tell you these results are consistent. Not only that, but conveniently ignore that 2 experts tell you which one is the outlier. The one that had an astronomical amount of marijuana metabolite. Dude, you don't just throw out a sample if it is diluted. I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that even if it is diluted, the lab will still check it. I don't care enough to go back and find that tidbit of information.

HA! I answered your question above. SMRTL was not stating that QUESTs result was wrong. Just to point out that its impossible to correlate different specimens (BOOM) but yes, if the higher the SG then the higher the THC is expected and that was the case for SMRTLs results. Nothing close to what you were saying!!! HA!

DEFLECTOR, IF its 1.002, its too dilute to believe the final results in this case.

So you do throw out this result in this case!!! Its NOT a valid test.

The screen only found that it was over 50ng. All the samples would have been the same. Whoopty doo.

The confirmation was clearly off based on the fact that 2 other tests had the value much lower. You don't jump way up, then jump way down. Especially keeping into account that something was up with Quest that day, being that they also got another test wrong on the same exact day. Again, experts told you that you're wrong. NO experts told you that you're right.

As I pointed out, no witness clearly pointed out that QUESTs results were wrong


Start with this: TEST #1 is invalid.

So you have TEST #2 vs TEST #3. TEST #3 is also dilute and the THC is much lower than one would expect when comparing to TEST #1 which was 10+ FOLD dilute. So there were other factors that increased it to 1.009 while keeping the THC level at that low level. TEST #3 only did SCREENING Test so its possible that SMRTLs initial screening test missed something.

TEST #2 is concentrated which makes it the most ideal test. Plus we have a screening test and confirmation test in which compliment each other and came back positive in BOTH tests. This result stands unless one can formulate with scientific evidence that points to TEST #2 being the outlier using reliable data. Again, TEST #1 is invalid. So that in itself is the real outlier. TEST #3 results (THC concentration level), in which was also dilute (not ideal), is too close for comfort to TEST #1 as YOU EVEN ADMIT. So the most valid result in this case is TEST #2 from QUEST!!!! BOOM!

Not even the witness for Diaz said that it was due to QUEST's results being wrong. It was just left open ended. Why? He had no evidence!!! DING DING DING!!!

Finally, the B sample was not even looked at by Diaz. They were too afraid to look. Why? It too would have been positive. Therefore Sample A results stands! BOOOOOOM!


BTW- Screening threshold limit for QUEST was 100ng/ml not 50. So you are WRONG AGAIN!!! Poor Travestyny.

THE MRO SAID THAT THE RESULT SHOULD BE THROWN OUT. HOW IS THAT NOT SAYING THAT THEY GOT IT WRONG. STOP MAKING SHlT UP! I'M NOT AVOIDING DILUTION. YOU ARE AVOIDING THAT IT WAS 1.009. AND YOU ARE AVOIDING THAT HE DID THIS IN FRONT OF TWO DCO'S IN 75 MINUTES. I ALREADY ASKED YOU IF YOU COULD CONFIRM YOUR TIME-FRAME. DID YOU RESPOND. NOT AT ALL. YOU DUCK SO ****ING MUCH THAT IT'S ANNOYING. GROW SOME BALLS.

So the 2 DCOs were with Diaz from 9:30 of the fight up to 11:35pm? You do not even believe that and cannot prove any of that! Even if they were, you saw that Diaz was allowed to drink fluids since TEST #3 had much more dilute urine sample compared to Quests!

Fight stopped at about 9:35 and last sample was collected at about 11:55. That makes it more than 1:17. Close to double that. Also MRO used the unreliable value from Quest. When you are using unreliable data to establish your evidence, its automatically makes his statements invalid! He couldn't even get himself to say how much water would have intoxicated Diaz.

You go read studies and also websites and they all say to drink about a few liters of fluids.

Remember that Diaz has done this before. That is, tried to dilute his urine sample. Nothing new.

The THC levels are too close relative to one being about 10 FOLD diluted while the other being just over 2 FOLD diluted. Something made the 1.09 dilution higher and it was NOT CLEARER NOT because of the THC increasing!!!!!! BOOOM!
SMRTL TEST 1: SG=1.02, THC=49
SMRTL TEST 2: SG=1.09, THC=61

MRO was fishing because they had nothing. TEST #1 was invalid. So why throw out TEST #2 and not TEST #3 which was more dilute and only a screening test was done? Look it up. MRO cannot even get themselves to say its QUEST's was wrong when asked a direct question.

Question: Are you suggesting that the QUEST results are incorrect?
Doctor "expert" witness for Diaz: I'm suggesting that it is a scientific analysis where we have 2 labs that are producing very different results and if its from hydration alone and its not medically plausible.

LMAO. WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU HAVE THAT NOVITSKY WAS TRYING TO PROTECT DIAZ? CAN YOU POST IT UP...OR ARE YOU JUST PULLING THAT OUT OF YOUR ASS?

MRO, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, SAID QUEST RESULT SHOULD BE THROWN OUT.

THEY SAID EITHER THAT THE RESULTS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT, OR THAT THE RESULTS OF QUEST IS WRONG. YEP. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID. DO I NEED TO GET YOU THE QUOTATIONS AGAIN?

Here is the quote to a direct question:
Question: Are you suggesting that the QUEST results are incorrect?
Doctor "expert" witness for Diaz: I'm suggesting that it is a scientific analysis where we have 2 labs that are producing very different results and if its from hydration alone and its not medically plausible.


Jeff novitsky:
CONFLICT #1: Tied with USADA/UFC. He is in charge of and implemented the anti-doping program in UFC and trying to get USADA(SMRTL) to do the testing for UFC.
CONFLICT #2: Helped Diaz to get his suspension reduced.

"Novitsky is operating directly with USADA for all UFC athlete anti-doping"
"UFC's anti-doping program, I'm su****ious. Who's in charge? If USADA is in charge, I'm even more su****ious, because they're know to do a lot of weird things", Catlin told USA Today.


"Just spoke with my legal team at Campbell & Williams and talks with the Nevada athletic commission are going well," Diaz wrote
"“@ufc put me in touch with their lawyers at Campbell & Williams and they will also be helping me with the NSAC,” Diaz wrote "

"White will no doubt have consulted with the UFC’s new Vice President of Athlete Health and Performance Jeff Novitzky"

HE SAID HE HASN'T COME ACROSS A CASE LIKE THAT FOR GOOD REASON, IDIOT. WHY THE HELL WAS HE TESTED 3 TIMES IN ONE DAY? EITHER SAMPLE OR EICHNER, CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH, ALSO SAID THIS WAS UNCOMMON. YOU TRY TO MIMIC THE NSAC LAWYER, WHO GOT THE SHlT BEAT OUT OF HIM AND ONLY "WON" THE CASE BECAUSE....HE IS THE NSAC LAWYER AND THE JUDGES ARE THE NSAC COMMISSIONERS. GET THE **** OUT OF HERE!

LMAOOOOOO. CRUCIFIED HIM MY ASS. THE DUDE ON THE PANEL ADMIT THAT DIAZ' LAWYER DID AN AMAZING JOB. GUESS WHAT....THE LAWYER'S TESTIMONY WAS ALL FROM ONE GUY. NOT OBJECTIVE WHY? BECAUSE YOU SAID SO? IS HE ****ING NICK DIAZ? WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT ANY WITNESS THEY CALLED IS AUTOMATICALLY BIASED. DO YOU REALIZE HOW ****** THAT IS? THIS IS THE ULTIMATE DEFLECTION, BUT I'VE SEEN IT BEFORE.

REMEMBER MY POLL. WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT IT? TELL ME. LMAOOOOOO!

DEFLECTION CITY


If MRO never came across such a case and didn't use scientific evidence to back his statements and he used unreliable data and didn't request that sample B be tested, his points become useless and the positive A sample results stands!!!

SO THIS MACHINE THAT IS VERY ACCURATE GAVE A NUMBER THAT, FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE, IS VERY CLOSE TO 300NG (WHICH BY THE WAY STILL DOESN'T HELP YOU). THE MACHINE IS LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE THAT FAR OFF. IT CAN BE HIGHER OR LOWER, BUT NO WAY IT'S OFF BY AROUND 100NG OR WHATEVER YOU'RE THINKING.

GIVE UP. YOU'RE JUST PROVING THAT YOU ARE A BUTTHURT MORON.

Funny stuff.

The reliable stat is > 300 ng/ml. Did I invent that? Nope. I got that info from QUEST. You and the MRO are the ones that are spinning it and you know it!

HERE IS THE MRO GIVING EVEN MORE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT DILUTION:



HERE IS THE MRO TELLING YOU WHAT HE THINKS OF THIS RESULT BY QUEST: LMAOOOO!


THESE GUYS DID A HELL OF A JOB, DIDN'T THEY? LMAOOOOO!!!! BUZZ OFF, MR. DEFLECTION.

Question: Are you suggesting that the QUEST results are incorrect?
Doctor "expert" witness for Diaz: I'm suggesting that it is a scientific analysis where we have 2 labs that are producing very different results and if its from hydration alone and its not medically plausible.


In what you gave, all he said is that he preferred SMRTLs over QUESTs. Well, of course Diaz's team prefers SMRTLs over QUESTs but he didn't actually give scientific reasons why.

Why would TEST #1 be better than TEST #2? lol BOOOOM! Too Easy! So the bad result is..... TEST #1 by SMRTL.

TEST #3 by SMRTL is close to that BAD result of theirs, TEST #1 ..... BOOOOM!

[travestyny]

Of course I am Bill. As I said before, all that the guy was trying to point out was that the greater THC levels are when specific gravity is greater and if you go back that is what was said!!!

SMRTL: nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly but it is definitely consistent.
Question: So your point is that greater hydration creates lesser amount of THC
RESPONSE: Yes that is the point .... BOOM!

So in summary, it was not to point out that SMRTL was trying to say that QUESTs results were wrong. So that is why you cannot remove the first part of their statement. In that its nearly impossible to directly correlate!!! ... BOOM!




You said that WADA scientist do not normalize to deflect from the point that TEST #1 and TEST #3's THC metabolite concentration levels would be much higher if the SG would have been normally (hydrated) concentrated instead of being so diluted.

Anyways, you didn't state it was for marijuana. I corrected/clarified your statement and told you that they do but currently not for marijuana.

But I get it, you had to deflect.




HA! I answered your question above. SMRTL was not stating that QUESTs result was wrong. Just to point out that its impossible to correlate different specimens (BOOM) but yes, if the higher the SG then the higher the THC is expected and that was the case for SMRTLs results. Nothing close to what you were saying!!! HA!

DEFLECTOR, IF its 1.002, its too dilute to believe the final results in this case.

So you do throw out this result in this case!!! Its NOT a valid test.



As I pointed out, no witness clearly pointed out that QUESTs results were wrong


Start with this: TEST #1 is invalid.

So you have TEST #2 vs TEST #3. TEST #3 is also dilute and the THC is much lower than one would expect when comparing to TEST #1 which was 10+ FOLD dilute. So there were other factors that increased it to 1.009 while keeping the THC level at that low level. TEST #3 only did SCREENING Test so its possible that SMRTLs initial screening test missed something.

TEST #2 is concentrated which makes it the most ideal test. Plus we have a screening test and confirmation test in which compliment each other and came back positive in BOTH tests. This result stands unless one can formulate with scientific evidence that points to TEST #2 being the outlier using reliable data. Again, TEST #1 is invalid. So that in itself is the real outlier. TEST #3 results (THC concentration level), in which was also dilute (not ideal), is too close for comfort to TEST #1 as YOU EVEN ADMIT. So the most valid result in this case is TEST #2 from QUEST!!!! BOOM!

Not even the witness for Diaz said that it was due to QUEST's results being wrong. It was just left open ended. Why? He had no evidence!!! DING DING DING!!!

Finally, the B sample was not even looked at by Diaz. They were too afraid to look. Why? It too would have been positive. Therefore Sample A results stands! BOOOOOOM!


BTW- Screening threshold limit for QUEST was 100ng/ml not 50. So you are WRONG AGAIN!!! Poor Travestyny.



So the 2 DCOs were with Diaz from 9:30 of the fight up to 11:35pm? You do not even believe that and cannot prove any of that! Even if they were, you saw that Diaz was allowed to drink fluids since TEST #3 had much more dilute urine sample compared to Quests!

Fight stopped at about 9:35 and last sample was collected at about 11:55. That makes it more than 1:17. Close to double that. Also MRO used the unreliable value from Quest. When you are using unreliable data to establish your evidence, its automatically makes his statements invalid! He couldn't even get himself to say how much water would have intoxicated Diaz.

You go read studies and also websites and they all say to drink about a few liters of fluids.

Remember that Diaz has done this before. That is, tried to dilute his urine sample. Nothing new.

The THC levels are too close relative to one being about 10 FOLD diluted while the other being just over 2 FOLD diluted. Something made the 1.09 dilution higher and it was NOT CLEARER NOT because of the THC increasing!!!!!! BOOOM!
SMRTL TEST 1: SG=1.02, THC=49
SMRTL TEST 2: SG=1.09, THC=61

MRO was fishing because they had nothing. TEST #1 was invalid. So why throw out TEST #2 and not TEST #3 which was more dilute and only a screening test was done? Look it up. MRO cannot even get themselves to say its QUEST's was wrong when asked a direct question.

Question: Are you suggesting that the QUEST results are incorrect?
Doctor "expert" witness for Diaz: I'm suggesting that it is a scientific analysis where we have 2 labs that are producing very different results and if its from hydration alone and its not medically plausible.




Here is the quote to a direct question:
Question: Are you suggesting that the QUEST results are incorrect?
Doctor "expert" witness for Diaz: I'm suggesting that it is a scientific analysis where we have 2 labs that are producing very different results and if its from hydration alone and its not medically plausible.


Jeff novitsky:
CONFLICT #1: Tied with USADA/UFC. He is in charge of and implemented the anti-doping program in UFC and trying to get USADA(SMRTL) to do the testing for UFC.
CONFLICT #2: Helped Diaz to get his suspension reduced.

"Novitsky is operating directly with USADA for all UFC athlete anti-doping"
"UFC's anti-doping program, I'm su****ious. Who's in charge? If USADA is in charge, I'm even more su****ious, because they're know to do a lot of weird things", Catlin told USA Today.


"Just spoke with my legal team at Campbell & Williams and talks with the Nevada athletic commission are going well," Diaz wrote
"“@ufc put me in touch with their lawyers at Campbell & Williams and they will also be helping me with the NSAC,” Diaz wrote "

"White will no doubt have consulted with the UFC’s new Vice President of Athlete Health and Performance Jeff Novitzky"



DEFLECTION CITY


If MRO never came across such a case and didn't use scientific evidence to back his statements and he used unreliable data and didn't request that sample B be tested, his points become useless and the positive A sample results stands!!!



Funny stuff.

The reliable stat is > 300 ng/ml. Did I invent that? Nope. I got that info from QUEST. You and the MRO are the ones that are spinning it and you know it!



Question: Are you suggesting that the QUEST results are incorrect?
Doctor "expert" witness for Diaz: I'm suggesting that it is a scientific analysis where we have 2 labs that are producing very different results and if its from hydration alone and its not medically plausible.


In what you gave, all he said is that he preferred SMRTLs over QUESTs. Well, of course Diaz's team prefers SMRTLs over QUESTs but he didn't actually give scientific reasons why.

Why would TEST #1 be better than TEST #2? lol BOOOOM! Too Easy! So the bad result is..... TEST #1 by SMRTL.

TEST #3 by SMRTL is close to that BAD result of theirs, TEST #1 ..... BOOOOM!

So much bullshlt in one place.


1. We already know that the MRO said Quest was wrong. Your shlt about different results doesn't fly. You just got stomped about that so give up.

2. You can’t even admit what consistent means. You think:

“It’s impossible to directly correlate, but the results are definitely consistent” means…

Sorry but that means that if values are different, it is not unexpected!!!

That is nowhere near the same meaning. It’s beyond moronic for you to even say such bullshlt.

3. The video clearly says that the screening cutoff was 50ng. I posted it for you, foolio. Go back and review.

4. You claim everyone is biased. That's your last result when ur getting stomped out.

This was all about the specific gravity test. Correct? Yes, it was.


1. Now you say it was dilution and other factors. You can’t just make up your own scenario. Stick to the facts. There is no proof that he did anything else. None. You can’t just speculate.
2. You trying to say that it was dilution and other factors shows how you have diverted from your only dilution theory. You gave quotations that said this was because of dilution. Now you’re trying to change it and say it’s dilution and something else. That’s because you failed in your critique of the specific gravity test.
3. Mayweather’s sample was required to be undiluted. A sample from before the IV and after was given.

Is there really anything else to discuss? This was just another unfounded excuse for you to say that Mayweather was on PED’s, but it falls flat on its face. Your paper trail plasticizer theory also fell flat on its face.

This PED theory doesn’t make sense logically, nor scientifically. An undiluted urine sample with urine also from before the IV, an ABP that exists for over 130 tests, testing 19 times total for this specific fight and all clean. If you want to believe USADA messed up and granted him an IV when they shouldn’t have, ok. You can believe that. I don’t know what they did because I wasn’t there, and it would be speculation unless you have medical records. But when an undiluted urine sample is tested by an independent WADA lab, that is also backed by an ABP that goes back 6 years…

In conclusion, you're a moron.

OH...IF YOU FEEL SOME SORT OF WAY....I'M STILL WILLING TO TAKE THIS TO THE THUNDERDOME. LET'S SEE IF YOU HAVE BALLS. BUT IF YOU BACK OUT....WE KNOW YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE BULLSHlT THAT YOU'RE SAYING.

BOOM! YES OR NO???

PS. YOU KNOW I'M GONNA STOMP YOU THE **** OUT. I DARE YOU TO STEP UP.