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

[ADP02]

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!


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!!!!

THIS WAS SMRTL'S RESPONSE TO THE NSAC LAWYER TRYING TO PROVE THAT DIAZ SMOKED BETWEEN 1/26 AND 1/31....JUST LIKE YOU WERE TRYING TO PROVE YOU CLOWN. I POSTED THIS QUOTATION TO YOU BECAUSE IT SHOT DOWN YOUR IDIOCY! LMAOOOOO

TRY AGAIN...BUT YOU SHOULD REMEMBER THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC MEDICAL EXPLANATION FOR SOMEONE BEING AT 41NG AT 7:12PM, 733NG AT 10:38PM, AND 61NG AT 11:55PM. DID DIAZ SMOKE WEED IN THE OCTAGON? LMAOOOOOO! ****ING CLOWN. IF YOU THINK THIS QUOTATION IS ABOUT SPECIMENS TAKEN 1HOUR 17 MINUTES APART AFTER THE ATHLETE IS WATCHED BY 2 DCO'S THE ENTIRE 2 TESTS....LOL. YOU ARE A MORON.



LMAOOOO. THIS IS YOUR PROOF? LMAOOOOOO. DO YOU MEAN SOMETHING LIKE THIS:

Question: So in your professional opinion to a scientific degree of certainty....are the 41ng test and the 61ng test consistent with each other?

Eichner: It's impossible to directly correlate exactly, but DEFINITELY CONSISTENT. THAT'S FOR SURE.

WAIT WAIT WAIT...IT GETS WORSE FOR YOU:

Eichner from SMRTL:

“The mass spectometry data that we do for the confirmation should definitely be consistent with other regulated programs like Quest.”


SOOOOOO....SMRTL SAYS TEST 1 AND 3 WERE CONSISTENT...AND SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH QUEST'S TEST. I WONDER WHAT WENT WRONG. LMAOOO.

OH, AND BY THE WAY, MY QUOTATIONS ARE LEGIT AND CAN BE VERIFIED. I DON'T HAVE TO ATTRIBUTE FALSE QUOTATIONS LIKE YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHlT. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO APOLOGIZE FOR DOING THAT? LMAOOOOO. YOU WERE REALLY THAT HURT ABOUT ME STOMPING A HOLE IN YOU, HUH? SORRY, BIOTCH



LMAOOOO. LET ME EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU ONE MORE TIME. THE MRO OFFERED THIS INFORMATION FREELY. IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS GIVEN UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION. THAT SHOULD BE YOUR FIRST HINT THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD IT INCORRECTLY.

HE IS SAYING THAT THE LABS CAN HAVE DIFFERENT RESULTS, BUT HE IS NOT SAYING THAT BOTH RESULTS ARE THE CORRECT RESULT YOU CLOWN. THIS IS OBVIOUS BECAUSE HE CLEARLY STATES THAT THE QUEST RESULT SHOULD BE THROWN OUT! THIS IS THE SAME REASON THAT WADA BUSTED SILVA BUT QUEST FOUND HIM TO BE CLEAN....AND SILVA ADMITTED TAKING THE DRUG. DIFFERENT RESULTS....AND QUEST GOOFED THE **** UP!

NOW IF YOU NEED ANY MORE CLARIFICATION, LET'S CLEAR IT UP IN THE THUNDERDOME SO NO ONE HAS TO SEE THE BOARD CLUTTERED WITH THIS SHlT ANYMORE. I WANT YOUR SIG. UNLESS YOU ARE TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO STEP UP.

YOU REALLY GOING TO BlTCH OUT IN FRONT OF ALL THE PACROACHES THAT BEEN COMING HERE? HAVE SOME BALLS. LMAOOOOO! REMEMBER, ALL MY POINTS AND MY SIG. I'M DOWN...HOW ABOUT YOU? I BET YOU Bltch OUTTTTT!

BY THE WAY:



NOW I'M DONE UNLESS YOU WANT TO TAKE IT TO THE THUNDERDOME FOR ALL YOUR POINTS AND YOUR SIG AGAINST MY POINTS AND SIG. MAN UP OR **** OFF. THE END.

Man, you have huge problems. You do this with every post. You deflect away.

You just had to ask me and I would have told you. They were questioned at different points and they all responded consistently. Man, you made me laugh (see below). The point is not on which specimens that they were talking about but the words that they stated.

Did ALL 3 talk about the same specimens? NO!

Did they all say what I said even though they spoke about either different specimens or consistency of what the results were? YES!!!! DING DING DING!!!




The DEFLECTOR STRIKES AGAIN!!!
Here you deflected on that the discussion was not about TEST #2. So what. The key is still this
"It is next to impossible to tie together different specimens collected at different points in time"

Even more so is this point even though he states the word different dates he is implying that this is the case even if the samples are provided on the same day BUT more so on different dates!!!
"particularly collected over different dates."


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





Even funnier, here you deflected to the word "consistent" TOO FUNNY!!!

BUT the KEY is that if they were NOT consistent then that would be explained by the words "nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly"

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





DEFLECTOR is especially WRONG with this where the MRO is discussing TEST #2 and that there can be an explanation as to why the tests results are different.

Easy to see except by the man called the DEFLECTOR!!!

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).



New game: Whenever you post, I need to look for the word(s) or statements where you deflect. That's all I can do since that is all you do!!!

[ADP02]

Oh yea.....is that what happened? LMAOOOOOO.

LMAOOOOOO. PURE...****ING....OWNAGE!!!!

DEFLECTOR STRIKES AGAIN!!!

GAME: Deflection here was bringing up the substance in the first place (in which you had no idea about) but more importantly, YOU were lost way before that.

You had stated that USADA didn't even have to give Floyd a TUE because that would create a paper trail.
I told you that would be dumb on their part because the WADA accredited LAB would have found during their tests residue from the IV bag that would get red flagged. So to say, without a TUE, Floyd would come back positive for this substance.

You were lost and I even provided you the link and eventually I C/P one of the 2 substances in the article. I C/P the wrong one (see, is that too hard to say and do???) Reading the link you would soon realize that it was a simple mistake BUT that was not the point!!!

but of course,
YOU being the DEFLECTOR zeroed in on that because YOU WERE WRONG on a much more important and relevant point.

Based on my statements and explanations, you realized that USADA had to provide a TUE but you couldn't admit to that mistake. Instead, you brought up something completely irrelevant!

Well that is why people call you the DEFLECTOR!!!!

[Reloaded]

In the eyes of the people ,,, awwww Manny you got something stuck in your eye !

[ADP02]

In the eyes of the people ,,, awwww Manny you got something stuck in your eye !

With 2 of the 3 home town judges, Manny still just had to win 2 more rounds on their cards for it to be a draw.

Start with round 3.
Analyze objectively and come back and tell me who won that round. Manny did better and should have gotten that round.

but unfortunately, the fight was in Nevada. Imagine, even Juan Marquez said that Manny couldn't win because of the Nevada judges will favor Floyd.

REF - Had Floyd do whatever he wanted. Its' too bad because win or lose, that could have turned out to be a much more entertaining and fan friendly fight.

[Lester Tutor]

#48 got schooled by Floyd. lol

[travestyny]

man, you have huge problems. You do this with every post. You deflect away.

You just had to ask me and i would have told you. They were questioned at different points and they all responded consistently. Man, you made me laugh (see below). The point is not on which specimens that they were talking about but the words that they stated.

Did all 3 talk about the same specimens? No!

Did they all say what i said even though they spoke about either different specimens or consistency of what the results were? yes!!!! Ding ding ding!!!




the deflector strikes again!!!
here you deflected on that the discussion was not about test #2. So what. The key is still this
"it is next to impossible to tie together different specimens collected at different points in time"

even more so is this point even though he states the word different dates he is implying that this is the case even if the samples are provided on the same day but more so on different dates!!!
"particularly collected over different dates."


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





even funnier, here you deflected to the word "consistent" Too funny!!!

But the key is that if they were not consistent then that would be explained by the words "nearly impossible to directly correlate exactly"

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





deflector is especially wrong with this where the mro is discussing test #2 and that there can be an explanation as to why the tests results are different.

easy to see except by the man called the deflector!!!

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).



new game: whenever you post, i need to look for the word(s) or statements where you deflect. That's all i can do since that is all you do!!!

lmaooo. Moronnnnnnnnn!

1. Mro -- there is no way to dilute from 733ng to 61ng in 1hr 17 minutes without causing severe hyponatremia. These results are not consistent!

2. Smrtl -- test #1 and #3 are consistent. Our tests should be consistent with quests test. However, they are not consistent. Hmmm. I wonder why.

You ducked my example!

Anderson Silva -- quest found that he didn't abuse any drugs. Wada lab found that he did.

This is not consistent!!!!!!! One was wrong.

Or are you to argue that it means he had no drugs in his body but 2 minutes later had drugs in his body? LMAO!!!! Is that what you are trying to say? That each test was correct?

The tests were taken 2 minutes apart. Different labs. I guess according to your logic, this means....actually I don't know what the **** you are saying this means, so please explain it to me. I'll be waiting. Don't duck. I want your explanation for this:

Quest says No Adverse Finding:


Same day, 2 mins apart, WADA Lab says Adverse Finding:


Mr. Silva admit to taking the drug, so we know it was in his system. SO...explain.

lmaoooooo. Final results can vary dramatically...especially when one is BLATANTLY WRONG, YOU ****ING IDIOT! Game over, clown!

[travestyny]

DEFLECTOR STRIKES AGAIN!!!

GAME: Deflection here was bringing up the substance in the first place (in which you had no idea about) but more importantly, YOU were lost way before that.

1. YOU deflected by bringing up Pac's flag waving. I was returning your medicine.

2. LMOOO. I tried to tell you that what you were saying doesn't make sense even if everything you reported was correct. USADA could have just told Floyd when to taper off. But you clearly couldn't understand and you still wanna go on with this scenario, SO YOU ARE GONNA GET SCHOOLED YET AGAIN. WAIT FOR IT....WAIT FOR IT......

You had stated that USADA didn't even have to give Floyd a TUE because that would create a paper trail.
I told you that would be dumb on their part because the WADA accredited LAB would have found during their tests residue from the IV bag that would get red flagged. So to say, without a TUE, Floyd would come back positive for this substance.

You were lost and I even provided you the link and eventually I C/P one of the 2 substances in the article. I C/P the wrong one (see, is that too hard to say and do???) Reading the link you would soon realize that it was a simple mistake BUT that was not the point!!!

but of course,
YOU being the DEFLECTOR zeroed in on that because YOU WERE WRONG on a much more important and relevant point.

Based on my statements and explanations, you realized that USADA had to provide a TUE but you couldn't admit to that mistake. Instead, you brought up something completely irrelevant!

Well that is why people call you the DEFLECTOR!!!!

LMAOOOOOOO. OHHHHH, THAT'S RIGHT. THE WADA LAB WAS GOING TO FIND DEHP IN THE URINE SAMPLE. IS THAT RIGHT?

I FORGOT ABOUT THAT URINE TEST FOR DEHP. YOU KNOW...THE ONE THAT WAS NEVER EVER VALIDATED BY WADA, THAT WAS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO BE USED IN COURT BY WADA.

THE ONE THAT....WADA BEGAN FUNDING FOR TO TRY TO MAKE IT A SOLID RELIABLE TEST BUT INSTEAD DECIDED TO SCRAP ALTOGETHER. THEY STOPPED FUNDING FOR THIS IN 2011 YOU ABSOLUTE IMBECILE!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. DO SOME ****ING RESEARCH YOU STRAIGHT UP CLOWN! THE WADA LAB WAS NOT GOING TO TEST THE URINE FOR DEHP. USADA USES THE ABP TO CHECK FOR EVIDENCE OF IV USE.

LOOK WHO GOT SCHOOLED AGAIN! LMAOOOOOOOO!

WADA refuses funding for plasticizer test

The World Anti-Doping Agency has confirmed it has denied funding for a follow-up study on a test for plasticizers which was designed to detect blood transfusions.

The test for the chemical di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) was developed by the head of the IOC-accredited laboratory in Barcelona, Professor Jordi Segura, and was studied over the past year by WADA. The chemical is used to make plastic bags and tubes used in blood transfusions, and a spike in DEHP could indicate blood manipulation in athletes.

However, the chemical is also widely used in consumer products such as "imitation leather, rainwear, footwear, upholstery, flooring, tablecloths, shower curtains, food packaging materials, and children's toys", according to eco-usa.net. A report by Bloomberg speculated that the difficulty of proving the chemical originated from transfusion equipment and not food packaging was the reason behind the grant refusal.

Earlier this year, researchers in Lausanne were working on validating the test, and admitted it might not be sufficient alone to support an anti-doping violation.

Last year, WADA general director David Howman gave his support to Segura's idea to apply the test, which has been used in the food industry, to anti-doping controls, but at the time the test was not fully validated.

Segura applied to WADA for funding of a follow-up study, but while WADA contributed funds toward the initial study, it declined to continue to fund the approach.

"WADA's Laboratory Committee decided at the time that there were alternative ways to collect the evidence to the one proposed by Prof. Segura's research," WADA's media relations manager Terence O'Rorke said.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada...sticizer-test/

Say you were wrong, bltch. Come on. You can do it. You should be used to this by now. Owned yet again!

R.I.P.

[ADP02]

1. YOU deflected by bringing up Pac's flag waving. I was returning your medicine.

2. LMOOO. I tried to tell you that what you were saying doesn't make sense even if everything you reported was correct. USADA could have just told Floyd when to taper off. But you clearly couldn't understand and you still wanna go on with this scenario, SO YOU ARE GONNA GET SCHOOLED YET AGAIN. WAIT FOR IT....WAIT FOR IT......




LMAOOOOOOO. OHHHHH, THAT'S RIGHT. THE WADA LAB WAS GOING TO FIND DEHP IN THE URINE SAMPLE. IS THAT RIGHT?

I FORGOT ABOUT THAT URINE TEST FOR DEHP. YOU KNOW...THE ONE THAT WAS NEVER EVER VALIDATED BY WADA, THAT WAS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO BE USED IN COURT BY WADA.

THE ONE THAT....WADA BEGAN FUNDING FOR TO TRY TO MAKE IT A SOLID RELIABLE TEST BUT INSTEAD DECIDED TO SCRAP ALTOGETHER. THEY STOPPED FUNDING FOR THIS IN 2011 YOU ABSOLUTE IMBECILE!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. DO SOME ****ING RESEARCH YOU STRAIGHT UP CLOWN! THE WADA LAB WAS NOT GOING TO TEST THE URINE FOR DEHP. USADA USES THE ABP TO CHECK FOR EVIDENCE OF IV USE.

LOOK WHO GOT SCHOOLED AGAIN! LMAOOOOOOOO!

WADA refuses funding for plasticizer test

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada...sticizer-test/

Say you were wrong, bltch. Come on. You can do it. You should be used to this by now. Owned yet again!

R.I.P.

THE DEFLECTOR STRIKES BACK!!!! ... with more deflections!

Surprisingly a dumb move on your part, I see you are doubling down on your dumb remark that USADA shouldn't have left a paper trail.

Again, Lance Armstrong was even given advanced notice at times but not always could have received it on time or was not always the case ..... Even then, when he did get advance notice often Lance only knew 20-30 minutes in advance. Secondly, there were paper trails.

You cannot have too many people in on it. When someone states that USADA played preferential treatment in Floyd's case, it does NOT mean that everyone in USADA was in on it. This shouldn't even have to be explained to you but there you go. I had to.


Laugh is on you. I already knew enough to know that. There was a request to fund another study but WADA didn't accept funding that specific study but it did not mean that they stopped it altogether. Just that specific study.

Also, when was it stated that WADA would not fund that particular study? Well, the news came BEFORE WADA/UCI/Contador appeal took place. Win or lose, WADA used the evidence they did not retract their statements.

Plus this was mentioned even after that case and how it can be used as a tool in addition to the rest of what they have or will have in the future because its an ever changing situation. It's a cat and mouse game.

BUT lets face it, all you were trying to do was DEFLECT AGAIN!!!


Floyd requested that RETRO TUE 3 weeks after the fact. There is good reason on why they decided to apply for it. Without it, if Floyd got caught, there was no excuses, no way to explain away.

When you have USADA in the palm of your hands, you use them. Floyd did. That is in part why we have this IV scandal.

[travestyny]

Laugh is on you. I already knew enough to know that.

I told you that would be dumb on their part because the WADA accredited LAB would have found during their tests residue from the IV bag that would get red flagged.

So...you already knew that the labs don't do urine testing for DEHP.....yet four days ago you were just saying that the labs do urine testing for DEHP????

LMAOOOOO. THIS IS WHAT YOU COME BACK WITH AFTER 4 DAYS. REALLY? YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT YOU WERE BASING YOUR BULLSHlT ON FALSE INFORMATION?
LMAOOOOOOO!!!!!!


DUDE, GIVE THE **** UP. YOU GOT OWNED! YOU JUST COULDN'T ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONG, HUH? IT'S BEEN FUN BEATING THE SHlT OUT OF YOU ALL OVER THESE BOARDS. LMAO. THANKS FOR THE LAUGHS, CHUMP

ADP02 Four Days Ago

Aint no coming back from the dead, homie. Time to accept you've been destroyed.

[ADP02]

lmaooo. Moronnnnnnnnn!

1. Mro -- there is no way to dilute from 733ng to 61ng in 1hr 17 minutes without causing severe hyponatremia. These results are not consistent!

2. Smrtl -- test #1 and #3 are consistent. Our tests should be consistent with quests test. However, they are not consistent. Hmmm. I wonder why.

You ducked my example!

Anderson Silva -- quest found that he didn't abuse any drugs. Wada lab found that he did.

This is not consistent!!!!!!! One was wrong.

Or are you to argue that it means he had no drugs in his body but 2 minutes later had drugs in his body? LMAO!!!! Is that what you are trying to say? That each test was correct?

The tests were taken 2 minutes apart. Different labs. I guess according to your logic, this means....actually I don't know what the **** you are saying this means, so please explain it to me. I'll be waiting. Don't duck. I want your explanation for this:

Quest says No Adverse Finding:


Same day, 2 mins apart, WADA Lab says Adverse Finding:


Mr. Silva admit to taking the drug, so we know it was in his system. SO...explain.

lmaoooooo. Final results can vary dramatically...especially when one is BLATANTLY WRONG, YOU ****ING IDIOT! Game over, clown!

OMG ..... MORE DEFLECTIONS!!!! What's wrong with you? Too funny!

1. 733 was NOT RELIABLE. What do you not understand about that very simple statement?

2. You forgot to add this:
"it is next to impossible to tie ... "

So to say, if the numbers jive, great but if not then it can be explained away without that BS that you are trying to DEFLECT TO!


3. So how did SMRTL and QUEST do their analysis on this? Please provide all the information and data. Including if they were testing on the same or different urine sample, same protocol, equipment, labs, ..... IF NOT, all you are doing is helping my case out!!! In all honesty, I have no allegiance to either SMRTL or QUEST.

Your silly statement is this. If QUEST couldn't find Silva positive and SMRTL did then SMRTL is who you should trust on the Diaz sample. That is dumb!!!
a) As I pointed out, SMRTL missed out on that Russian women where about 4 other samples came back positive including SMRTL's once it was investigated. Are you still going to use your dumb logic?


b) QUEST found Diaz positive but SMRTL couldn't and didn't. Are you still going to use your dumb logic?


For me, I would not be questioning the positive results of either unless the B Sample was negative. Without Diaz having the B sample tested, it for me showed that they knew that it would come back POSITIVE .... and no way was the MRO thinking of your twisted conspiracy theory when they thought it was best to not have it tested. You cannot explain this .... YOU PREFER TO DEFLECT AWAY!!! No choice, .....


BUT remember, Diaz admits to expecting marijuana in his samples and all do. So is it that he was wrong on what he expected his thresholds would be?

Silva actually couldn't even explain why the substance was there for the final urine samples.

So to say with both, they both admit that at one point early on they can see why there were traces of the substance but both do not understand why some other samples, later on, had more metabolites than expected.

Except for what I mentioned initially, and you cannot get even though the experts agree with me. With one, you seem to accept the positive results the other you do not. EXPLAIN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!