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

[travestyny]

Diaz was in a hearing where he was trying to get off on a positive result on a banned substance (over the threshold limit).

oh, so the experts that you are referring to are:
- Diaz's defense team's witness
- The guy who helped get Diaz top lawyers to get Diaz out


Thank you for the laugh .... I have property to sell you for $5 million but is worth $100 million. I will bring with me 3 experts who will tell you that its a great deal. lol

Lots of suckers out there.....

What do you call this? Deflecting? Dude, it's a trial.

Is it really your argument that all expert witnesses should be thrown out of every trial???

And what the hell are you talking about with the lawyer shlt? What the **** does that have to do with this guy being a anti-doping expert? Who gave you information that he found the lawyer? Are you on drugs?

Damn, man. GO away. You are ridiculous.

Smoke and mirrors.

When the court has a positive result, its for the defense team to build the case that the positive result is wrong.

That is quite hard to do but here is ANOTHER FREE tip from me.
You can get the B Sample tested. If that turns up negative then Diaz is a free man. Oh wait, Diaz's team knew that Diaz was guilty so they didn't go there! Nevermind!


When you do not have a B sample tested, you do like Silva and Diaz did and squirm to try to get out on some kind of loop holes, technicalities. Good luck with that! They both lost!!!!


lol .... Lets make this clear. Diaz's DEFENSE Team's expert is who you are talking about. Diaz's team couldn't even get SMRTL to really defend against QUESTs results!


Diaz's team: "We have just one witness today" lol

How many experts do you have? I didn't think so. Go away, dude. THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE EXPERT IN THIS FIELD THAT AGREES WITH YOU. NOT ONE! DON'T YOU FEEL ******??? YOU SHOULD!

WRONG! Since the SCREENING Results from SMRTL was a negative, then there was no point in providing the number. In this case, since there is a hearing, they were requested to provide the concentration value associated with that negative result. They were NOT requested to do more rigorous analysis on the A or B samples!!!


NSAC: "Dr Eichner, when you do the GCMS review and an athlete sample does not test above the (threshold) limit do you then get a numerical indication of what it may be even though it may
be below the limit established by WADA"

SMRTL: No because its a threshold substance if it does not meet that threshold, there is no point to do a confirmation analysis and reported it as negative.

DIAZ LAWYER: just so its clear in respect to concentration analysis, the results that SMRTL releases to the commission is just going to say if there was a prohibited substance detected or not right?

SMRTL: Right, That is correct.

DIAZ LAWYER: but if we find ourselves in a hearing like this and we request a document package, from that package we will see the concentration values that were found in the specimen.

SMRTL: muffled but appears to say yes.

SO YOU HEARD THIS...AND YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE **** YOU JUST HEARD? YOU DUMMY. STOP OWNING YOURSELF. YOU ARE AN UTTER IDIOT.

his was your dumb story and now you are making fun of your story? TOO FUNNY!

I get it. You do not like the fact that my version of your story shows how dumb it sounds. In your dumb story, the MOTHER was both the DCO and USADA all rolled up into one. lol

Well, the truth of the matter is, the DCO only monitors and documents the events. DCO is not the one who approves as you made it sound!!! lol



DEFLECTOR, Still hating how I killed your story by putting some common sense in it!




DEFLECTOR, Still hating how I killed your story by putting some common sense in it!



You are playing word games. DEFLECTOR, You know what the head of the WADA TUE Committee was stating.



It went right over your head or you DEFLECTING! I showed you a while back WADA reviewing the issue/limitations with their process. NADO, Athletes, LABs, .....

In Floyd's case it's obvious. USADA issuing RETRO TUEs too easily. NO INVESTIGATIONS .....



Nope. WADA acknowledges that they do NOT have the resources to check all cases at their level and need the NADO's to be totally independant.

So in fact it's YOU that has been making excuses for Floyd/USADA

1) You cannot even acknowledge Floyd's excuses are BS
2) That USADA is not being totally independent.
3) Given all the evidence that we have, the IV, the delays, vital signs, that they investigated others who declared,..... Head of WADA sees it too. Red flags!!! Floyd should have been investigated. So STOP DEFLECTING!

All you need to do is admit not defend when it does NOT add up!



WADA acknowledges that they do NOT have the resources to check all cases at their level and need the NADO's to be totally independent.

So in fact it's YOU that has been making excuses for Floyd/USADA.

What I said and WADA TUE guy said are similar. You just cannot handle the truth!





DELFECTOR You keep on alluding to its not possible and that Floyd passed tests. SO I'm providing you with FACTs that it does not matter that Floyd passed other tests.
Floyd had su****ious results in the past. IV scandal. Several delays. Got a RETRO TUE in which even head of the WADA TUE Committee is calling it what it is .... It stinks, Red flag!

LMAO. This is all you got? Really? You didn't answer. Can you pinpoint what USADA did wrong? Did they provide all information to WADA? They are required to. So what do you have.

NOTHING. SO SHUT THE **** UP!

Urine: You try to go 4-5 hours without urinating and drinking like Floyd was drinking. The water will go right thru you! The amount of urine that Floyd had to give was not much. We are not talking about liters.


Here it shows that Floyd is BS excuse that he cannot urinate 60-90ml when these subjects urinate 8 to 10+ times more in less time ..... lol ... We believe you Floyd, NOT!

SUBJECT F
Time 59.5 to 61.5 to 63.5
THCCOOH 10.3 to 2.7 to 7.2
Creatinine 54 to 17 to 64
Volume 250 to 212 to 195

SUBJECT G
Time 20.5 to 23.0 to 24.0
THCCOOH 223.2 to 27.1 to 13.7
Creatinine 184 to 39 to 23
Volume 320 to 195 to 260

SUBJECT H
Time 6.0 to 9.5
THCCOOH 234.2 to 59.6
Creatinine 174 to 45
Volume 116 to 390




And? FLoyd had them wait!

And what happened on May 1st, 2015? How the heck was Floyd not able to produce a bit of urine after all those hours?

There was no intense workout! Floyd drank adequately. You still cannot answer that can you? Look at those subjects above. Its not that hard especially when Floyd was seen drinking from a large container! Floyd should have been ready after an hour to fill up several urine samples!

I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO TELL ME WHEN HE GAVE THE PARTIAL SAMPLE. DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION OR NOT? LMAOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

DEFLECTION CITY is all I get from you. Hiding behind USADA. You know it does NOT add up so you hide your head in a hole! lol

Where was USADA's investigation to find out the TRUTH not Floyd's BS excuses?

But in other cases, USADA investigated! lol! WADA says it stinks .... USADA got paid too well to investigate!



More DEFLECTIONS instead of saying, man ADP02 was right AGAIN and Travestyny Deflected again! lol




So Lucy was Floyd's doctor? Nope, Floyd thanks Dr Alez Ariza! TRY AGAIN!

Sorry but you are stuck. You know what the head of the WADA TUE Committee was stating. He said what YOU just posted. It makes no sense. Floyd should NOT have been given a RETRO TUE for a banned method!!!!

LMAOOOOO. YOU DUCKED MY QUESTION ABOUT PLASTICIZERS. TELL ME....WHY DID THEY GO THE TUE ROUTE AGAIN? DID YOU ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONGGGGGGG ABOUT PLASTICIZERS???? LMAOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!


DUDE YOU LOST. GO SUCK MANNY'S DlCK!

[travestyny]

did you read?

Confirmation test is a more rigorous test. Its not necessary when the screening test results is negative! So they got the concentration result on their initial test.

you absolute moron. The confirmation test confirms the exact amount of the metabolite, you idiot.

Jesus christ. Do you have a ****ing brain????

YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF THE WORD SCREENING!!!!

THEY SCREEN FOR THE FULL MENU OF DRUGS ON THE WADA LIST. IF THEY FIND ANYTHING, THEY DO THE SCREENING FOR THE SPECIFIC METABOLITE AMOUNT.

HE STATED THAT THEY DIDN'T ADD THE CONFIRMATION ANALYSIS ON THE REPORT. HE DID NOT STATE THAT A CONFIRMATION WASN'T DONE. HOW THE **** WAS IT PROVIDED AT THE TRIAL IF IT WASN'T DONE, MORON?

YOU'RE AN IMBECILE.

[travestyny]

NSAC: "Dr Eichner, when you do the GCMS review and an athlete sample does not test above the (threshold) limit do you then get a numerical indication of what it may be even though it may
be below the limit established by WADA"

LOOK WHO IS AT IT AGAIN. DUDE. STOP GIVING FALSE QUOTATIONS. GET IT THE **** RIGHT!

She does NOT ask do you GET a numerical indication. She says, "Is there any kind of numerical indication of what it may be." You are purposely trying to make it seem like she asked if they get the numerical indication. Obviously they got it or how would they know if it was above the threshold, moron?

SMRTL: No because its a threshold substance if it does not meet that threshold, there is no point to do a confirmation analysis and reported it as negative. j

LMAOO. ANOTHER FALSE QUOTATION. YOU ****ING PIECE OF SHlT.

HE SAYS, "THERE WILL BE NO POINT TO DO A CONFIRMATION ANALYSIS ON THERE." MEANING ON THE ****ING REPORT YOU FALSE QUOTE GIVING BASTARD. HE WAS ASKED IF THERE WAS AN INDICATION OF THE AMOUNT ON THE REPORT, HE SAID NO. THAT'S IT.

STOP BODYING YOURSELF, CLOWN. ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONGGGGGGGGGG! LMAOOOOO!

HOW ****** DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO HAVE QUOTED THE GUY WHO TOLD YOU HOW IT WORKS, YET YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND IT????

Daniel Eichner, a Ph.D. who is the executive director of SMRTL said there is a lack of understanding of how testing procedures work.
"If anything is detected during the initial SCREEN, that triggers MORE WORK."

"If we see anything that could look remotely like a prohibited substance, we then go back to that urine sample in the A bottle and then we do a CONFIRMATION process,"

Eichner said. "We look specifically for that compound of the parent drug or the metabolite."

1. Did they find something that looks like a prohibited substance? Yes.
2. Did they go back and specifically confirm the amount of marijuana metabolite? Yes.


SAY IT, BlTCH. SAY YOU ARE WRONGGGGG!!!! LMAOOOO. THEN GO JUMP OFF A CLIFF. YOU'RE DONE. THE LIST OF SHlT YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT IS GROWING TO AN ASTRONOMICAL AMOUNT. JUST **** OFF!

[ADP02]

you absolute moron. The confirmation test confirms the exact amount of the metabolite, you idiot.

Jesus christ. Do you have a ****ing brain????

YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF THE WORD SCREENING!!!!

THEY SCREEN FOR THE FULL MENU OF DRUGS ON THE WADA LIST. IF THEY FIND ANYTHING, THEY DO THE SCREENING FOR THE SPECIFIC METABOLITE AMOUNT.

HE STATED THAT THEY DIDN'T ADD THE CONFIRMATION ANALYSIS ON THE REPORT. HE DID NOT STATE THAT A CONFIRMATION WASN'T DONE. HOW THE **** WAS IT PROVIDED AT THE TRIAL IF IT WASN'T DONE, MORON?

YOU'RE AN IMBECILE.

You are the idioto.

SMRLT clearly said they do not on negative tests!!!


You are all confused. What they did was get the quantitative value on the initially screened sample not the confirmation sample, which there was none!!!!


SMRTL: No because its a threshold substance if it does not meet that threshold, there is no point to do a confirmation analysis and report it as negative.

[travestyny]

You are the idioto.

SMRLT clearly said they do not on negative tests!!!


You are all confused. What they did was get the quantitative value on the initially screened sample not the confirmation sample, which there was none!!!!


SMRTL: No because its a threshold substance if it does not meet that threshold, there is no point to do a confirmation analysis and report it as negative.

LMAOOOOOOO. IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT, YOU ARE DONE, FOOLIO. LMAOOOOOOOO!!!!


PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THIS MEANS, ******:


Daniel Eichner, a Ph.D. who is the executive director of SMRTL said there is a lack of understanding of how testing procedures work.
"If anything is detected during the initial SCREEN, that triggers MORE WORK."

"If we see anything that could look remotely like a prohibited substance, we then go back to that urine sample in the A bottle and then we do a CONFIRMATION process,"

Eichner said. "We look specifically for that compound of the parent drug or the metabolite."

EXPLAIN. BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA. OWNEEEDDDDD!!!

[ADP02]

What do you call this? Deflecting? Dude, it's a trial.

Is it really your argument that all expert witnesses should be thrown out of every trial???

And what the hell are you talking about with the lawyer shlt? What the **** does that have to do with this guy being a anti-doping expert? Who gave you information that he found the lawyer? Are you on drugs?

Damn, man. GO away. You are ridiculous.

No, you are not that dumb. That is why you need to deflect again and again!


1) Listen to the testimony

2) Is the testimony pass the BS test or was it just a response to defend the client? It didn't pass the BS test. Why?
a) He used unreliable numbers (time frame and substance levels). So right there, his testimony becomes useless.
b) He does NOT request the B sample be tested. Only explanation is that Diaz told him not to retest.
c) in his example, he testified that he never came by such a scenario. Yet he uses no scientific data to back up his statement in which he never encountered before!!!

2 experts that are on the defendant's side can only take you so far. Then you need to rely on facts. No facts while the other team has a positive result.

TEST #2 vs TEST #3 are different so TEST #2 is wrong. What kind of a defense is that? TEST #2 came back positive buddy, on 2 counts. Screening and confirmed by GCMS .... try again!!!

How many experts do you have? I didn't think so. Go away, dude. THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE EXPERT IN THIS FIELD THAT AGREES WITH YOU. NOT ONE! DON'T YOU FEEL ******??? YOU SHOULD!

Did SMRTL say that there way is better than QUEST and QUEST got it wrong? QUEST say that? So 2 experts didn't back up Diaz's ....they agreed that one can have different results on different urine sample. That is what happened!

Or maybe I missed it? If not, do you not feel ****** that out of 3 experts only Diaz's expert agrees with Diaz's defense stance? Even him though agrees that QUEST vs SMRTL results can vary. lol

****** IS THIS: You still deflecting on this: You can get the B Sample tested but Diaz's team didn't. You have no leg to stand on and they knew it. Consequently, no test. If they even felt they had a shot, they would have gone for it even AFTER THE HEARING, DING DING DING!!!! They had no faith in Diaz. Why? All 3 tests had levels of THC but of course, more dilute had less.

You are left with deflecting again, sorry!

SO YOU HEARD THIS...AND YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE **** YOU JUST HEARD? YOU DUMMY. STOP OWNING YOURSELF. YOU ARE AN UTTER IDIOT.

DEFLECTION CITY!!!! lol

GCMS can be used in different "modes". SMRTL said if over the threshold, as an example, they would be testing it more rigourously to confirm the screening result. You are just confused. Not the first time.

The guy even said that there was no point to since it was below the threshold.

You are mixing up getting a quatitative value of the screened urine sample vs confirmation test that would be done on a completely different urine sample!!!


But I get it. When you are wrong you deflect and call names in frustration of your own faults! I know you by now!

Like I said before, I'm getting notifications on other users stating the same about you ... DEFLECTOR!

LMAO. This is all you got? Really? You didn't answer. Can you pinpoint what USADA did wrong? Did they provide all information to WADA? They are required to. So what do you have.

NOTHING. SO SHUT THE **** UP!

Did they investigate? NOPE! You know why. If they did, Floyd's doctor's note would have been useless!

The head of the WADA TUE Committee is even telling you this!!!!!!!!!!

I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO TELL ME WHEN HE GAVE THE PARTIAL SAMPLE. DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION OR NOT? LMAOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

DELFECTOR STRIKES AGAIN!!!! HILLAROUS


Here is an example of notifications that I get. It's over DEFLECTOR. Everyone is realizing this!!! Stop it for your own good!

"Please finish that clown off.

It's hilarious watching the deflector flip flop on every reply"

LMAOOOOO. YOU DUCKED MY QUESTION ABOUT PLASTICIZERS. TELL ME....WHY DID THEY GO THE TUE ROUTE AGAIN? DID YOU ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONGGGGGGG ABOUT PLASTICIZERS???? LMAOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!


DUDE YOU LOST. GO SUCK MANNY'S DlCK!

Unlike YOU, I do not duck anything!!!

Floyd calls up someone to get him an IV coKKTail and knows what the IV bags are made of?

Floyd knows for sure that the LABs would not catch what he was doing?

DCO would document it all buddy ..... oh wait, I already said all this but YOU DELFECTED AGAIN!!!

Lastly, USADA has been going back a few years now to test samples again with advancements in technology. Floyd was going to risk all that?

When asked the question. Did USADA say that we cannot catch those who try to use an IV? Nope!

[travestyny]

No, you are not that dumb. That is why you need to deflect again and again!


1) Listen to the testimony

2) Is the testimony pass the BS test or was it just a response to defend the client? It didn't pass the BS test. Why?
a) He used unreliable numbers (time frame and substance levels). So right there, his testimony becomes useless.
b) He does NOT request the B sample be tested. Only explanation is that Diaz told him not to retest.
c) in his example, he testified that he never came by such a scenario. Yet he uses no scientific data to back up his statement in which he never encountered before!!!

2 experts that are on the defendant's side can only take you so far. Then you need to rely on facts. No facts while the other team has a positive result.

TEST #2 vs TEST #3 are different so TEST #2 is wrong. What kind of a defense is that? TEST #2 came back positive buddy, on 2 counts. Screening and confirmed by GCMS .... try again!!!




Did SMRTL say that there way is better than QUEST and QUEST got it wrong? QUEST say that? So 2 experts didn't back up Diaz's ....they agreed that one can have different results on different urine sample. That is what happened!

Or maybe I missed it? If not, do you not feel ****** that out of 3 experts only Diaz's expert agrees with Diaz's defense stance? Even him though agrees that QUEST vs SMRTL results can vary. lol

****** IS THIS: You still deflecting on this: You can get the B Sample tested but Diaz's team didn't. You have no leg to stand on and they knew it. Consequently, no test. If they even felt they had a shot, they would have gone for it even AFTER THE HEARING, DING DING DING!!!! They had no faith in Diaz. Why? All 3 tests had levels of THC but of course, more dilute had less.

You are left with deflecting again, sorry!



DEFLECTION CITY!!!! lol

GCMS can be used in different "modes". SMRTL said if over the threshold, as an example, they would be testing it more rigourously to confirm the screening result. You are just confused. Not the first time.

The guy even said that there was no point to since it was below the threshold.

You are mixing up getting a quatitative value of the screened urine sample vs confirmation test that would be done on a completely different urine sample!!!


But I get it. When you are wrong you deflect and call names in frustration of your own faults! I know you by now!

Like I said before, I'm getting notifications on other users stating the same about you ... DEFLECTOR!



Did they investigate? NOPE! You know why. If they did, Floyd's doctor's note would have been useless!

The head of the WADA TUE Committee is even telling you this!!!!!!!!!!




DELFECTOR STRIKES AGAIN!!!! HILLAROUS


Here is an example of notifications that I get. It's over DEFLECTOR. Everyone is realizing this!!! Stop it for your own good!

"Please finish that clown off.

It's hilarious watching the deflector flip flop on every reply"





Unlike YOU, I do not duck anything!!!

Floyd calls up someone to get him an IV coKKTail and knows what the IV bags are made of?

Floyd knows for sure that the LABs would not catch what he was doing?

DCO would document it all buddy ..... oh wait, I already said all this but YOU DELFECTED AGAIN!!!

Lastly, USADA has been going back a few years now to test samples again with advancements in technology. Floyd was going to risk all that?

When asked the question. Did USADA say that we cannot catch those who try to use an IV? Nope!

LMAOOOO


SO NOW, DO YOU ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE PLASTICIZER TEST?

DO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT WADA LABS NOT CONFIRMING THE MARIJUANA METABOLITE FOR DIAZ???



LMAOOOOO. IT'S BEEN FUN, CHUMP! LMAOOOO.

R.I.P.

[ADP02]

LMAOOOOOOO. IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT, YOU ARE DONE, FOOLIO. LMAOOOOOOOO!!!!


PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THIS MEANS, ******:


Daniel Eichner, a Ph.D. who is the executive director of SMRTL said there is a lack of understanding of how testing procedures work.
"If anything is detected during the initial SCREEN, that triggers MORE WORK."

"If we see anything that could look remotely like a prohibited substance, we then go back to that urine sample in the A bottle and then we do a CONFIRMATION process,"

Eichner said. "We look specifically for that compound of the parent drug or the metabolite."

EXPLAIN. BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA. OWNEEEDDDDD!!!

Sorry, my bad .... I thought you couldn't be that dumb. I WAS WRONG!!!


For Diaz its different since its a threshold substance! Diaz can have a substance but if below a certain level its like saying that its ACCEPTABLE LEVELS, so its a negative result and therefore no confirmation test is required ....

but SMRTL explains it here and maybe you will get it if I post it a 3rd time!!!


SMRTL: No because its a threshold substance if it does not meet that threshold, there is no point to do a confirmation analysis and report it as negative.

[ADP02]

LMAOOOO


SO NOW, DO YOU ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE PLASTICIZER TEST?

DO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT WADA LABS NOT CONFIRMING THE MARIJUANA METABOLITE FOR DIAZ???



LMAOOOOO. IT'S BEEN FUN, CHUMP! LMAOOOO.

R.I.P.

The odds were good ......

DEFLECTED AGAIN!!!!

[Ray*]

Boxrec........