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

[ADP02]

Come on, man. They had to go to arbitration over the 14 day cut off. And like a poster below you said, even Roach admit that it was their fault. And what was the only hold up???? Blood testing.

You actually believe he was affected 2 days later by giving blood? Yet you go off on Mayweather because his manager said, "And remember, he's giving blood, he's giving urine." That's literally all the guy said, and you are trying to make it seem like he's saying these are the main reasons for his dehydration. Just stop already.

Manny was trying to make 130 and said he was right on and couldn't rehydrate after giving the blood and it affected him ..... So it was not as you stated just a question of blood. Manny was already dehydrated and trying to make weight and right on 130. He then came up to close to 140 fight night.

So 2 days beforehand cannot affect, given Manny's circumstances but you then believe Floyd who did not give blood for 10 days and it was < 1 tbsp. of blood and admitted to making weight EASILY?

You Floyd fans are too funny!

Remember that for 5+ years it was Floyd and his fans that were not believing Manny .... but on May 1st, what happened?

No DEFLECTING. Answer the question straight. Do you believe Floyd when you cannot even believe Manny?


.

[kevin-novice]

Thought it was khan not horn???

[travestyny]

I responded to your questions. YOU ARE WRONG and told you why!!! So you saying "******, moron,..." does not make you right. It makes you look like a fool because you are wrong!

Look bud. Its as clear as it was with the other discussions. You just do not want to hear that you are wrong.


This should clear it up ..... even for YOU!

Diaz lawyer: You mentioned you do not do the immunoassay screening for the metabolites. You go straight to the GC/MS test?
SMRTL: That is correct.
Diaz lawyer: Is that a 150 confirmation cutoff of the THC metabolite
SMRTL: .... Marijuana has a prohibited threshold of 150 ng/ml. So that would be the screening cutoff as well.

What did Dr Eichner say? 150 ng/ml would be the screening cutoff as well!!! How can that be Travestyny? You said that SMRTL's screening cannot do that .....

I told you ...... YOU ARE WRONG!!!

LMAO. The screening cut off for the confirmation you moron. The cut off for the screening test is 50ng/ml (for Quest). SMRTL never ever mentioned a screening test. He is talking about screening for drugs. I told you before you are confusing what they mean by screening.

You are an idiot. Are you ever going to answer my questions. And will you accept the challenge or not?

[ADP02]

LMAO. The screening cut off for the confirmation you moron. The cut off for the screening test is 50ng/ml.

You are an idiot. Are you ever going to answer my questions. And will you accept the challenge or not?

You do not stop with the BS .... too funny!


Diaz lawyer: You mentioned you do not do the immunoassay screening for the metabolites. You go straight to the GC/MS test?
SMRTL: That is correct.
Diaz lawyer: Is that a 150 confirmation cutoff of the THC metabolite?
SMRTL: Marijuana is prohibited threshold of 150 ng/ml. So that would be the screening cutoff as well.



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 report it as negative.

DIAZ LAWYER: just so its clear in respect to concentration analyisis, 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.



Of course Travestyny will come back and DEFLECT and say none of that was said!



.

[travestyny]

you do not stop with the bs .... Too funny!


diaz lawyer: you mentioned you do not do the immunoassay screening for the metabolites. You go straight to the gc/ms test?
smrtl: that is correct.
diaz lawyer: is that a 150 confirmation cutoff of the thc metabolite?
smrtl: marijuana is prohibited threshold of 150 ng/ml. so that would be the screening cutoff as well.

lmaooooo. So what you are saying is that the lawyer asked him a question about the confirmation test.....

And he answered about a screening test...?????

Do you see why you are a moron????

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 report it as negative.

can you confirm whether he said "there is no point to do a confirmation analysis on there.

Did he say "on there"??? Yes or no?

diaz lawyer: just so its clear in respect to concentration analyisis, 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.

ding. This is the part that ends you, idiot. You're just too ****** to realize it.

so will you accept the challenge or not? I'm waiting for your answer...and the answer to my 6 questions!

[travestyny]

You do not stop with the BS .... too funny!


Diaz lawyer: You mentioned you do not do the immunoassay screening for the metabolites. You go straight to the GC/MS test?
SMRTL: That is correct.
Diaz lawyer: Is that a 150 confirmation cutoff of the THC metabolite?
SMRTL: Marijuana is prohibited threshold of 150 ng/ml. So that would be the screening cutoff as well.



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 report it as negative.

DIAZ LAWYER: just so its clear in respect to concentration analyisis, 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.



Of course Travestyny will come back and DEFLECT and say none of that was said!



.

SCREEN (DEF.1): test (a person or substance) for the presence or absence of a disease or contaminant: outpatients were screened for cervical cancer.

SCREEN (DEF.2): evaluate or analyze (something) for its suitability for a particular purpose or application.


A SCREENING TEST IS TO CHECK THE SUITABILITY OF A SAMPLE FOR CONFIRMATION TESTING, WHICH WOULD BE SCREENED FOR INDIVIDUAL COMPOUNDS, YOU IMBECILE.

THIS CLEARLY MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THE LAWYER ASKED ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION TEST CUT-OFF. THE ANSWER WAS ABOUT...WAIT FOR IT....THE MU****IN CONFIRMATION TEST CUT-OFF YOU MORON!

JESUS CHRIST YOU ARE AN IDIOT. DO YOU ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE? YES OR NO?

[ADP02]

LMAO. The screening cut off for the confirmation you moron. The cut off for the screening test is 50ng/ml (for Quest). SMRTL never ever mentioned a screening test. He is talking about screening for drugs. I told you before you are confusing what they mean by screening.

You are an idiot. Are you ever going to answer my questions. And will you accept the challenge or not?

You do not stop with the BS .... too funny!


Diaz lawyer: You mentioned you do not do the immunoassay screening for the metabolites. You go straight to the GC/MS test?
SMRTL: That is correct.
Diaz lawyer: Is that a 150 confirmation cutoff of the THC metabolite?
SMRTL: Marijuana is prohibited threshold of 150 ng/ml. So that would be the screening cutoff as well.



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 report it as negative.

DIAZ LAWYER: just so its clear in respect to concentration analyisis, 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.



Of course Travestyny will come back and DEFLECT and say none of that was said!



.

lmaooooo. So what you are saying is that the lawyer asked him a question about the confirmation test.....

And he answered about a screening test...?????

Do you see why you are a moron????



can you confirm whether he said "there is no point to do a confirmation analysis on there.

Did he say "on there"??? Yes or no?



ding. This is the part that ends you, idiot. You're just too ****** to realize it.

so will you accept the challenge or not? I'm waiting for your answer...and the answer to my 6 questions!

Sorry bud. Just to Confirm my initial findings, I just checked.


SMRTL says " ...... screening cutoff as well"



EDIT: So you are saying that QUESTS's screening test has a cutoff of 50? I do not remember but then why do you not think that a GC/MS can do that for a screening test ... Have a cutoff of 150 ... which SMRTL clearly states?



.

[travestyny]

Sorry bud. Just to Confirm my initial findings, I just checked.


SMRTL says " ...... screening cutoff as well"

He clearly says WADA sets the cut-off at 150, so this would be OUR SCREENING CUT-OFF AS WELL.

He is saying the confirmation cutoff that they set is the same as WADA's. This is clear because if he "deflects" to the screening test, he isn't answering the question, is he?

EDIT: So you are saying that QUESTS's screening test has a cutoff of 50? I do not remember but then why do you not think that a GC/MS can do that for a screening test ... Have a cutoff of 150 ... which SMRTL clearly states?
.

Sure. I'll explain this to you again. The screen does not check for individual metabolites. It is possible that it would also include similar substances. This is why confirmation testing is needed.

For the Immunoassay, that test is subject to all types of false findings. GC/MS is stricter, but the screen does not check for a singular metabolite. It checks for all cannabinoids. I've shown you this specifically. So that's why it would need to find the specific amount of metabolite.

Understand?

[ADP02]

He clearly says WADA sets the cut-off at 150, so this would be OUR SCREENING CUT-OFF AS WELL.

He is saying the confirmation cutoff that they set is the same as WADA's. This is clear because if he "deflects" to the screening test, he isn't answering the question, is he?




Sure. I'll explain this to you again. The screen does not check for individual metabolites. It is possible that it would also include similar substances. This is why confirmation testing is needed.

For the Immunoassay, that test is subject to all types of false findings. GC/MS is stricter, but the screen does not check for a singular metabolite. It checks for all cannabinoids. I've shown you this specifically. So that's why it would need to find the specific amount of metabolite.

Understand?

Sorry bud .... stop lying to yourself.

He is clearly saying that the cutoff for both the confirmation and screening tests is 150. This is clear because he says "screening test as well"


You missed my point. If one can find out from a screening by QUEST that its positive at a given threshold then why can't SMRTL come back with a numerical number? You said that the number was from a confirmation test because a screening test cannot give numbers. I said it can and is from a screening test .....

So if QUEST can say its below or above a threshold then with GCMS it certainly can do that too!!!! DING DING DING!!!

What you are mixed up about is this. SMRTL's screening result came back negative ..... so there is no point to do a confirmation test. They said it!!! Its clear .....

You are sounding like Bill Clinton trying to get away with what he meant by a word that he said but all along, he knew that he was guilty.

[travestyny]

Sorry bud .... stop lying to yourself.

He is clearly saying that the cutoff for both the confirmation and screening tests is 150. This is clear because he says "screening test as well"

So are you arguing that he never answered the question about the confirmation? This is idiotic. The "AS WELL" is clearly stating that they use the same amount that WADA uses.

WADA SETS IT TO 150, SO WE USE 150 AS WELL.

This is not rocket science!

AND STOP GIVING FALSE QUOTATIONS. HE DOES NOT SAY SCREENING TEST!!!! JESUS CHRIST, DUDE. YOU ARE BEING A COWARD!

You missed my point. If one can find out from a screening by QUEST that its positive at a given threshold then why can't SMRTL come back with a numerical number? You said that the number was from a confirmation test because a screening test cannot give numbers. I said it can and is from a screening test .....

So if QUEST can say its below or above a threshold then with GCMS it certainly can do that too!!!! DING DING DING!!!

What you are mixed up about is this. SMRTL's screening result came back negative ..... so there is no point to do a confirmation test. They said it!!! Its clear .....

You are sounding like Bill Clinton trying to get away with what he meant by a word that he said but all along, he knew that he was guilty.

Wow. Why won't you do what I ask.

Go back to the video. Does he say there is no need to do a confirmation analysis? Or does he say there is no need to do a confirmation analysis ON THERE.

This is a simple question. Yet you won't answer.


And no, YOU are missing a point. The screening for SMRTL or QUEST won't confirm the amount of marijuana metabolite because the amount the the machine finds, whether immunoassay or GC/MS, would include all similar compounds found. It would NOT show ONLY the carboxy-thc metabolite.



The goal of this article is to provide an inside view of how WADA-accredited laboratories identify athletes that use prohibited substances....

screening methods are designed to detect entire classes of compounds and are not optimized for individual compounds.

https://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/articles/2014/january/sports-drug

This is specifically about WADA's screening. What do you think about this?