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

[ADP02]

Your expert never seen QUEST make a mistake as far as incorrectly call out a positive result.

Your expert said that there can be dramatically different results.

Which of the above 2 statements are wrong? I say none and I see you deflecting what I said! lol




TALK ABOUT SLOW:
a) Your 2 experts are biased and in favor of Diaz. One was Diaz's witness and the other helped Diaz by providing him with lawyers and both used unreliable values. Lets see you deflect the word UNRELIABLE VALUES ....... AGAIN!!!! lol

b) As I stated above but you like to deflect, Your expert said that there can be dramatically different results.


.


Drrr, ALL 3 experts said that there can be dramatically different results. That is all you really need to know and get. Can you understand that? I doubt it! You will deflect ...... AGAIN!!!


and lets not forget that you cannot get what 8 FOLDS or 10 FOLDS mean. So again, go learn all that and then come back and say THAY YOU WERE WRONG!!!


You couldn't even agree to something as simple as this:
SG and CR have their limitations. I showed you proof that SG can be above the limit yet the sample was still diluted as far as the PEDs in question. Go learn or at least admit that you were WRONG but didn't have the guts to admit it. I would accept that and shake your hand ......................

.

YOU HAVE NO EXPERTS THAT AGREE WITH YOU! WHERE THEY AT? STOP DUCKING!




LMAOOOOO. THAT'S WHAT YOU ALWAYS SAY WHEN YOU LOSE!!!!!!!!



WRONG. I DON'T KNOW WHAT 3 EXPERTS YOU ARE REFERRING TO. I SHOWED YOU 2 THAT SAID YOU ARE WRONG!!! WHERE ARE YOURS AT THAT SAY YOU ARE RIGHT? SHOW ME. STOP DUCKING BlTCH!



WHERE THE **** IS THERE ANY EXPERT THAT SAYS YOU ARE RIGHT. STOP DUCKING BIOTCH!!!! YOU DON'T HAVE ANY!

WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU...YOU NEED MORE PEOPLE!

Read my post. I told you that you would deflect. I'm right AGAIN!


3 experts who stated that results can be dramatically different:
- QUEST, SMRTL and yes, even Diaz's side ....

Now lets see you deflect again ... you gotta stay consistent! lol


QUEST: "It is next to impossible to tie together different specimens collected at different points in time, particularly collected over different dates."


SMRTL: "nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly but it is definitely consistent (greater THC when specific gravity is greater)"


DIAZ's expert: It requires that they follow certain protocols and standards to ensure that the outcome is similar in between different labs. They are regulating on which instruments they can use. The reagents on the instruments and the calibration on the instruments and techniques and many more ..... and without that,
Final results can vary dramatically as we can see here (Quest vs SMRTL Labs).



BOOM!!!!

Where are your experts at that believe you. I’m waiting!!! Let’s make a poll and post up our experts who know shlt about drug testing, and let BoxingScene decide. Deal? I bet you’ll bltch outttt! hahahahahaha. Step up, boy!

Dr. Hani Khella: A certified medical review officer for 20 years.

[IMG]http://i62.***********.com/albums/h95/travestyny/Screen%20Shot%202017-01-19%20at%207.43.05%20AM.png[/IMG]

A Medical Review Officer (MRO) is a person who is a licensed physician and who is responsible for receiving and reviewing laboratory results generated by an employer's drug testing program and evaluating medical explanations for certain drug test results.

MRO’s act as an independent and impartial "gatekeeper" and advocate for the accuracy and integrity of the drug testing process.

Diaz’s medical expert, Dr. Hani Khella, testified that the variations in the test results were “not medically plausible.” Dr. Khella stated that the difference between concentrations in the two post-fight tests could not be attributed to simple rehydration and that Diaz would have had to endanger his life by drinking “30 glasses of water” in such a short timeframe. The doctor testified that the increase between Diaz’s first and third tests was “typical movement that you would expect to see in a more concentrated sample or more dehydrated sample.”

Jeff Novitzky: Anti-Doping Expert



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

Novitzky first gained renown in 2003 while working as an IRS agent in the Bay Area, where he uncovered the BALCO doping conspiracy. After sifting through garbage for clues as to how Victor Conte's nutritional supplement company was dispensing steroids to athletes, Novitzky led a raid that led to prosecutions of Marion Jones, Barry Bonds and others.
Later Novitzky moved to the FDA, where he helped drive the government probes that brought down Roger Clemens and Lance Armstrong. Novitzky testified at the perjury trials of both Bonds and Clemens. He was said by several acquaintances to be deeply frustrated by the 2012 decision by the U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles to not seek criminal charges against Armstrong, who was later banned from sports for leading a sophisticated doping conspiracy.

"They got this one wrong, in my opinion. The Quest Labs sample was 733 ng/ml, one of the highest I’ve ever seen.

There are big issues in interpreting those results.

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

Two experts say you're wrong. Bring out your experts, boy! I'll be waiting!

I told you that you would deflect. I am right again! BOOOOM!


Now go back and read what the 3 experts said then read your post.

1) As per QUEST's testimony BOTH of your experts used UNRELIABLE values .... YOU FAIL!!!


2) One of your experts said that what I stated is more than possible. Why? BECAUSE one my 3 quotes is his quotes.

3) So if they all state that what you are trying to do is incorrect since its more than possible to have dramatically different results, how can you be right?

4) Your so called experts, are biased. Diaz's witness is your expert. Same goes with Jeff ..... YOU LOSE!!!


At least you stated consistent .... since you keep on deflecting but you are looking BAD!!!

[ADP02]

No. You just got it wrong, clown. LMAOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Still at it .... In fact, YOU were the one that was wrong.

I told you that LABs can find out if one uses an IV because of the residue from an IV bag .... you said that I was wrong. I was right and YOU WERE WRONG!!!


Poor TRAV ...

[travestyny]

I told you that you would deflect. I am right again! BOOOOM!


Now go back and read what the 3 experts said then read your post.

1) As per QUEST's testimony BOTH of your experts used UNRELIABLE values .... YOU FAIL!!!


2) One of your experts said that what I stated is more than possible. Why? BECAUSE one my 3 quotes is his quotes.

3) So if they all state that what you are trying to do is incorrect since its more than possible to have dramatically different results, how can you be right?

4) Your so called experts, are biased. Diaz's witness is your expert. Same goes with Jeff ..... YOU LOSE!!!


At least you stated consistent .... since you keep on deflecting but you are looking BAD!!!

Yea, because when in a courtroom and an expert is called, the defense or prosecution is deflecting.

You ****ing moron.

[travestyny]

Still at it .... In fact, YOU were the one that was wrong.

I told you that LABs can find out if one uses an IV because of the residue from an IV bag .... you said that I was wrong. I was right and YOU WERE WRONG!!!


Poor TRAV ...

Wrong!!! YOU SAID IT WAS CLENBUTEROL! You moron!!!

[travestyny]

Now go back and read what the 3 experts said then read your post.

Your so called experts, are biased. Diaz's witness is your expert. Same goes with Jeff ..... YOU LOSE!!!

Once again, you go with the old "they are biased" scenario. LMAO.

Plus you are still incapable of understand what the MRO is telling you.

How about this: That thunderdome thread is still around. You want to get decapitated there or are you still gonna duck it like a bltch.

I challenged you because I know you are full of shlt. Do you finally accept the challenge? You claim you are right. Prove it. Let BOxing Scene decide which one is right.

Let's bet all of our points and our sig. deal? Let's see if you can man up bltch! Lmao. I bet you won't accept.

[Larry the boss]

I told you that you would deflect. I am right again! BOOOOM!


Now go back and read what the 3 experts said then read your post.

1) As per QUEST's testimony BOTH of your experts used UNRELIABLE values .... YOU FAIL!!!


2) One of your experts said that what I stated is more than possible. Why? BECAUSE one my 3 quotes is his quotes.

3) So if they all state that what you are trying to do is incorrect since its more than possible to have dramatically different results, how can you be right?

4) Your so called experts, are biased. Diaz's witness is your expert. Same goes with Jeff ..... YOU LOSE!!!


At least you stated consistent .... since you keep on deflecting but you are looking BAD!!!

No matter how many long ass posts you make in different colors..Manny lost!!!point blank period..it wasnt even close in the damn media man...get over it..move on..its 2017 for crying out loud

[Larry the boss]

Once again, you go with the old "they are biased" scenario. LMAO.

Plus you are still incapable of understand what the MRO is telling you.

How about this: That thunderdome thread is still around. You want to get decapitated there or are you still gonna duck it like a bltch.

I challenged you because I know you are full of shlt. Do you finally accept the challenge? You claim you are right. Prove it. Let BOxing Scene decide which one is right.

Let's bet all of our points and our sig. deal? Let's see if you can man up bltch! Lmao. I bet you won't accept.

Why are you arguing with this guy?? you are giving this guy life

[travestyny]

Why are you arguing with this guy?? you are giving this guy life

You are right. Say no more. I'm done.

[ADP02]

I told you that you would deflect. I am right again! BOOOOM!


Now go back and read what the 3 experts said then read your post.

1) As per QUEST's testimony BOTH of your experts used UNRELIABLE values .... YOU FAIL!!!


2) One of your experts said that what I stated is more than possible. Why? BECAUSE one my 3 quotes is his quotes.

3) So if they all state that what you are trying to do is incorrect since its more than possible to have dramatically different results, how can you be right?

4) Your so called experts, are biased. Diaz's witness is your expert. Same goes with Jeff ..... YOU LOSE!!!


At least you stated consistent .... since you keep on deflecting but you are looking BAD!!!

Yea, because when in a courtroom and an expert is called, the defense or prosecution is deflecting.

You ****ing moron.

Man, what is wrong with you? You cannot answer any questions directly. You appear to have a built in mechanism that defaults all your responses to deflections.


If I ask you this simple question, which statement shoots down the other persons statement:
- 3 experts, who testified, including Diaz's own witness state that the results can be explained due to LABs were using different protocols, equipment, urine samples, and so on. That is, dramatically different results are possible.

or

- Diaz's witness and the guy who helped Diaz (Jeff - did not testify and admits to not knowing all the details) who use to explain their point of view using UNRELIABLE data?

- 733 ng/ml is not reliable.
- 1.17 hours is not reliable.
- Drinking just water is not the only way one can dilute urine. There are other avenues that can speed up the process.
- Using TEST #1 to bookend and call another legit result an outlier.

Diaz's team will not point out the above nor that there are other possibilities.

To me this is very easy and like asking you what is 2+2 = ? ........but I'm sure that you will deflect.

[ADP02]

Still at it .... In fact, YOU were the one that was wrong.

I told you that LABs can find out if one uses an IV because of the residue from an IV bag .... you said that I was wrong. I was right and YOU WERE WRONG!!!


Poor TRAV ...

Wrong!!! YOU SAID IT WAS CLENBUTEROL! You moron!!!

Moron is you. Name is not important. The explanation of what LABs can find is what was discussed and you called out that its not possible or BS. Since you cannot admit that you were WRONG, you deflected until this day. Not surprised anymore.

but I have realized that you will deflect and cannot admit your faults. My fault was thinking that by presenting you with clear evidence that you would participate and accept the evidence presented.




I presented to you plenty but you just deflected it away with NOTHING in return as a response.


Examples:
The article that I presented to you on rehydration by an expert. He said that Floyd should have been able to rehydrate quickly (not require an IV). You deflected.

The article on diluting 8-10+ FOLDs and stating that one can bring down THC metabolite from 400 to 50 (8 FOLDs). You laughed at that but why? You had something? Nope. That was an article that was written for the courts but you who cannot understand what 8 FOLDs mean is right?

Then when I showed you that SG readings of 1.01 while they stated that the ******* metabolite still remained below threshold levels, you deflected and said that it has nothing to do with marijuana BUT it does have to do with SG limitations you deflector!!!

Then I showed you studies that clearly show diluted but above threshold levels while the THC metabolite as below thresholds .... crickets from the deflector!

I can go on .... but you will deflect.




.