Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

lolololololol

Are you dumb?

It's a fresh court.

All it is to prove your point. Pick a side. And try to defend it.

Have you been in a court?

You can use all your factual evidence as you wish it to defend your point. There is no initial point. You have your cards he has his. It's up to you guys how you use it. It's about defending your point. Judges will decide who has a stronger point. That's how easy it is. Don't complicate. This is a fresh court. Draw your position. There are different ways of using an argument. Past is past. New court. Defend your side with facts.

It's time to dance.

Now for clarity. What is your position Travesty. Define it in a paragraph. I will let ADP02 look at it visa-vis, if everyone is okay with the premise. It's time to play.

Go read your post again, think about what an appeals court does, and log out for being a complete utter moron! ITS A REMATCH YOU COMPLETE IDIOT. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS??? Lmaooooo!!!!

[Spoon23]

Go read your post again, think about what an appeals court does, and log out for being a complete utter moron! ITS A REMATCH YOU COMPLETE IDIOT. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS??? Lmaooooo!!!!

Is that pussay I'm hearing??

lol No wonder you biatchn' out. You are not confident with your position??

Biatchin out?

Like I said define your position.

hahahaha!!

ADP02 has challenged you. This is a fresh court. A Different court. It's about defending your position.

It is not connected with the past. This is not an appeal you dumbass. This is a fresh court with unbiased judges that are not Fl0mos. You spooked? You better be hahaha!!

Just for the record you can dispute his arguments from his past quotes. That you can use, but like I said it's the Judges will be the one to give weight to your defence, if it helps your cause.


It's time!!

You said your ready. Now define your position.

This is ADP02 thread. He has challenged you and you have agreed.


Put up or shut up biatch!!

[travestyny]

Is that pussay I'm hearing??

lol No wonder you biatchn' out. You are not confident with your position??

Biatchin out?

Like I said define your position.

hahahaha!!

ADP02 has challenged you. This is a fresh court. A Different court. It's about defending your position.

It is not connected with the past. This is not an appeal you dumbass. This is a fresh court with unbiased judges that are not Fl0mos. You spooked? You better be hahaha!!

Just for the record you can dispute his arguments from his past quotes. That you can use, but like I said it's the Judges will be the one to give weight to your defence, if it helps your cause.


It's time!!

You said your ready. Now define your position.

This is ADP02 thread. He has challenged you and you have agreed.


Put up or shut up biatch!!

Are you slow. I agreed. I’m waiting for your boy to bltch out.

But don’t try to hide him, yea. If the scope is based on the initial statements like HE claimed, then how can you just throw them away unless you are admitting that your initial statement was smashed?


By the way, WILL YOU ALSO ACCEPT THE PERMANENT BAN?.

YOU WANT TO BE INVOLVED, THERE YOU GO.

BOTH OF YOU AGAINST ME. PERMANENT BAN. ALL POINTS. YOU DOWN OR WILL YOU BlTCH OUT?

NOW IM WAITING FOR 2 ******* TO SAY THEY ACCEPT. YOU BETTER NOT DECLINE BlTCH!

[ADP02]

Don't forget the most important part that you agreed on Travesty.



In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used.[/B]

Any scope outside the topic is inadmissible if the NEW JUDGES deem it to. And if the "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that ties the athlete was using EPO. Then it is relevant and very much admissable to court.


Which subtopics TIES with the use of EPO. We will add this to the premise as supporting documents. So it will be clearer for the judges that it is part of it. Basically anything correlated to cheating that is linked to the question Does the EPO technical document refer to threshold criteria? Will be included in the debate.

As long as it is tied to EPO topics, meaning it is derived from the history of how EPO is developed or is correlated to other sub topics in relation to EPO. It will be included as supporting documents to your argument and is definitely admissible.


Anything to add ADP02?

Let me know. I'll make the thread header for the premise of your debate.

lolololololol

Are you dumb?

It's a fresh court.

All it is to prove your point. Pick a side. And try to defend it.

Have you been in a court?

You can use all your factual evidence as you wish it to defend your point. There is no initial point. You have your cards he has his. It's up to you guys how you use it. It's about defending your point. Judges will decide who has a stronger point. That's how easy it is. Don't complicate. This is a fresh court. Draw your position. There are different ways of using an argument. Past is past. New court. Defend your side with facts.

It's time to dance.

Now for clarity. What is your position Travesty. Define it in a paragraph. I will let ADP02 look at it visa-vis, if everyone is okay with the premise. It's time to play.

You idiot, you don’t even realize that what you are quoting about additional evidence is from the document that your boy says was out of scope.

But of course I have no problem with additional evidence as long as it’s used to back up the scope and the initial statements.

Let’s do it!

So does it appear that Travestyny is OK with the SCOPE and exclusions that were AGREED?

"Can or does EPO testing have threshold type criteria?"

Exclusions: Only 1. Scope is not about whether EPO is a threshold substance.

Also,

T/E RATIO Screening test - I had even provided to you multiple times including where you AGREED this point.

Are you OK with that point too?


Initial statements, I had a "NOTE" to state that there are more tests and procedures concerning how EPO is tested than what I have stated thus far. I will discuss that too once we start this debate.

Are you OK with that too?


You provided your statement that you found no talk of a "threshold" for EPO testing in WADA documentS.

Are you OK with that too?


You stated that you looked at EPO technical documents and anything and everything mentioned was in scope and game?

Are you OK with that too?




.

[travestyny]

So does it appear that Travestyny is OK with the SCOPE and exclusions that were AGREED?

"Can or does EPO testing have threshold type criteria?"

Exclusions: Only 1. Scope is not about whether EPO is a threshold substance.

Also,

T/E RATIO Screening test - I had even provided to you multiple times including where you AGREED this point.

Are you OK with that point too?


Initial statements, I had a "NOTE" to state that there are more tests and procedures concerning how EPO is tested than what I have stated thus far. I will discuss that too once we start this debate.

Are you OK with that too?


You provided your statement that you found no talk of a "threshold" for EPO testing in WADA documentS.

Are you OK with that too?


You stated that you looked at EPO technical documents and anything and everything mentioned was in scope and game?

Are you OK with that too?




.

WHY ARE YOU ***** FOOTIN AROUND?

I'm ABSOLUTELY ok with the scope of the first debate. If we have any conflict with the scope, THEN LIKE YOUR PARTNER SAID, we will present our evidence to the judges and they will decide WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SCOPE AND WHO IS LYING.


Now ARE YOU IN OR NOT? YOU AND Spoon23. Being that it's two of you against me, MAYBE THAT WILL HELP YOU GROW SOME BALLS.


ARE YOU IN OR NOT?

1. The judge hears our evidence on what the scope was!

2. Initial statements are retained. Don't give me any shlt about how it shouldn't be, because that means you are backing off of your initial statement, which even you claim the scope originated from.

3. Permanent ban!

4. All Points!

5. PAY YOUR POINTS DUE FROM THE LAST DEBATE. Don't give me that shlt about that being a roadblock because this is for all points anyway, and I don't want you WELCHING ON ME TWICE.



DO YOU ACCEPT OR NOT???????? FVVCKING ACCEPT AND LET'S GET IT OVER WITH!

[ADP02]

So does it appear that Travestyny is OK with the SCOPE and exclusions that were AGREED?

"Can or does EPO testing have threshold type criteria?"

Exclusions: Only 1. Scope is not about whether EPO is a threshold substance.

Also,

T/E RATIO Screening test - I had even provided to you multiple times including where you AGREED this point.

Are you OK with that point too?


Initial statements, I had a "NOTE" to state that there are more tests and procedures concerning how EPO is tested than what I have stated thus far. I will discuss that too once we start this debate.

Are you OK with that too?


You provided your statement that you found no talk of a "threshold" for EPO testing in WADA documentS.

Are you OK with that too?


You stated that you looked at EPO technical documents and anything and everything mentioned was in scope and game?

Are you OK with that too?




.

WHY ARE YOU ***** FOOTIN AROUND?

I'm ABSOLUTELY ok with the scope of the first debate. If we have any conflict with the scope, THEN LIKE YOUR PARTNER SAID, we will present our evidence to the judges and they will decide WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SCOPE AND WHO IS LYING.


Now ARE YOU IN OR NOT? YOU AND Spoon23. Being that it's two of you against me, MAYBE THAT WILL HELP YOU GROW SOME BALLS.


ARE YOU IN OR NOT?

1. The judge hears our evidence on what the scope was!

2. Initial statements are retained. Don't give me any shlt about how it shouldn't be, because that means you are backing off of your initial statement, which even you claim the scope originated from.

3. Permanent ban!

4. All Points!

5. PAY YOUR POINTS DUE FROM THE LAST DEBATE. Don't give me that shlt about that being a roadblock because this is for all points anyway, and I don't want you WELCHING ON ME TWICE.



DO YOU ACCEPT OR NOT???????? FVVCKING ACCEPT AND LET'S GET IT OVER WITH!

Are you saying lets have another debate JUST LIKE THE FIRST ONE WHERE WE SPEND 50% of the time discussing what is the debate about????




NO!!!


It may be fun for you to move the goal posts but ...…..
That was the problem the first time!!!! Who wants more of that?????????? THAT IS TOO VAGUE!!!


AGAIN:


IT IS FUNNY HOW you are OK with proceeding with all of this but with the CHALLENGE as per this thread, I am still waiting on YOU!!! and we BOTH know that it is CLEAR.



DIFFERENCE:

CHALLENGE #1: You still do not want to acknowledge the SCOPE and EXCLUSIONs that we BOTH AGREED too!


CHALLENGE #2: The SCOPE IS AS CLEAR AS DAY!!!



So what you are saying is, ADP02, ACCEPT 2 CHALLENGES made by Travestyny on pretty much the same thing (if the judges go with what Travestyny cries about as being the scope)

BUT



Travestyny will DUCK ALL CHALLENGES!!!!



.

[travestyny]

DO YOU ACCEPT OR NOT???????? FVVCKING ACCEPT AND LET'S GET IT OVER WITH!

NO!!!

REST IN PEACE, BlTCH! YO, Spoon23, BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME, BlTCH!!!!!!


Thank your boy ADP02 for being smart enough to bow down. The both of you were about to catch permanent bans.

PAY THE POINTS YOU OWE, YOU DUCKING, LYING, COWARDLY, BET WELCHING BlTCH!!!!!!

4-0!!!!!!

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=740888

....but ADP02 STILL LIKE....

[ADP02]

Are you saying lets have another debate JUST LIKE THE FIRST ONE WHERE WE SPEND 50% of the time discussing what is the debate about????




NO!!!


It may be fun for you to move the goal posts but ...…..
That was the problem the first time!!!! Who wants more of that?????????? THAT IS TOO VAGUE!!!


AGAIN:


IT IS FUNNY HOW you are OK with proceeding with all of this but with the CHALLENGE as per this thread, I am still waiting on YOU!!! and we BOTH know that it is CLEAR.



DIFFERENCE:

CHALLENGE #1: You still do not want to acknowledge the SCOPE and EXCLUSIONs that we BOTH AGREED too!


CHALLENGE #2: The SCOPE IS AS CLEAR AS DAY!!!



So what you are saying is, ADP02, ACCEPT 2 CHALLENGES made by Travestyny on pretty much the same thing (if the judges go with what Travestyny cries about as being the scope)

BUT



Travestyny will DUCK ALL CHALLENGES!!!!



.

REST IN PEACE, BlTCH! YO, Spoon23, BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME, BlTCH!!!!!!


Thank your boy ADP02 for being smart enough to bow down. The both of you were about to catch permanent bans.

PAY THE POINTS YOU OWE, YOU DUCKING, LYING, COWARDLY, BET WELCHING BlTCH!!!!!!

4-0!!!!!!

....but ADP02 STILL LIKE....

I said NO to a VAGUE CHALLENGE . You know, just like you didn't want this CURRENT CHALLENGE to be VAGUE!!!

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!




There are 2 CHALLENGES.

SCOPE has been stated in BOTH CHALLENGES.


YOUR RESPONSE IS A DEFLECTION!!!!


ARE YOU OK WITH THE 2 CHALLENGES

BASED ON THE SCOPE???



Your response?


A DEFLECTION!!!!




Here is you wanting the CURRENT CHALLENGE to be CLEAR.

Travestyny
Sure. now clarify your statements. The labs were accredited by whom in that case? Is this about WADA or some other organization.

When you get the balls to let me know, I'll be waiting, but seems you're ready to tuck tail now!

Travestyny

You can't expect me to accept some vague statement that you trumped up to try to get one over

.

Travestyny
Dude, your deflection failed. This is the last time I'm going to ask you to clarify this statement.

Travestyny
If you don't answer, I'm not playing your trumped up butthurt game that you thought was going to catch me. I'm not stupid, son. You aren't made for this. Trying to be sneaky really doesn't work when you have the intelligence of a bag of dust, and I can see you coming 4 miles away.

Ok, I get it, ADP. Here is your revised scope:

Can Anyone at Any Lab test for EPO or Anything Anyway They Want to Test for it at Anytime in the Past?


That was brilliant! Next time try posting after your balls descend. Your desperation got the best of you.

If you decide you want to tighten this up, let me know.

I have some information regarding WADA testing that you might want to check out, you hear

Travestyny
IT'S TIME YOU ANSWER UP, YOU LYING PIECE OF SHlT. THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO GET ME TO AGREE TO SOME VAGUE BULLSHlT

Travestyny
YOUR VAGUE CHALLENGE. DUDE. YOU AREN'T FOOLING ANYONE.

Travestyny


VAUGE AS FVVCK.

Travestyny
But stop being so fvvcking vague about your topic.

Travestyny
You could have just said: Is the BAP test inherently a threshold test instead of that vague bullshlt you are trying to run.

Dude, can you stop with the vague ass bullshlt.

Travestyny
Stop with the vague bullshlt.

HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO POST YOUR VAGUE BULLSHlT


ARE YOU FVVCKING SLOW????? I WAS IN HERE TRYING TO WORK WITH YOUR ASS ON TIGHTENING UP YOUR STATEMENT. YOU REFUSED TO PUT THE BAP IN THE STATEMENT. YOU REFUSED TO PUT THE COURT CASE IN THE STATEMENT. YOU BEEN REFUSING EVERYTHING. I'VE TOLD YOU OVER AND OVER TO TIGHTEN UP YOUR TOPIC. YOU DECLINED.

Travestyny
ALL OF THEM SPECIFIC. TO THE POINT. YOU DECLINED EVERY ONE. NOW, PLEASE TELL ME WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THESE TOPICS. I'LL WAIT.

SOMETHING ABOUT THESE STATEMENTS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE!!!!


THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE ON YOUR 'GOTCHA GAME' BULLSHlT, BUT I'M NOT FALLING FOR IT. I'M NOT FALLING FOR YOU TRYING TO SQUIRM OUT OF ANYTHING ANYMORE. I'M NOT FALLING FOR YOUR LIES. I'M NOT LETTING YOU DEFLECT LIKE YOU DEFLECTED IN THE FIRST DEBATE (ADMIT IT!!!!!!!!)

So I worked with YOU. I made it CLEAR!!!

ADP02
NOTHING IS SET until it is SUPER DUPER CLEAR and WE BOTH AGREE CLEARLY …. I do not want another Kangaroo Court.

BUT at least I compromised and tried to work with you and make it clear

ADP02
"STOP THE DUCKING EXCUSES!!!!! I can see them a mile away!!!!


Here we go, lets work on this and see what we come up with.

Travestyny
Sure. We can discuss this....

OK so ADP02 makes the SCOPE and EXCLUSIONS CLEAR ....... but I, Travestyny, have 20+ roadblocks coming your way. LOL





.

[Spoon23]

so does it appear that travestyny is ok with the scope and exclusions that were agreed?


travesty are you okay with this??


yes or no

"can or does epo testing have threshold type criteria?"

exclusions: only 1. Scope is not about whether epo is a threshold substance.

Also,

t/e ratio screening test - i had even provided to you multiple times including where you agreed this point.

are you ok with that point too?

yes or no


initial statements, i had a "note" to state that there are more tests and procedures concerning how epo is tested than what i have stated thus far. I will discuss that too once we start this debate.

are you ok with that too?

yes or no



you provided your statement that you found no talk of a "threshold" for epo testing in wada documents.

are you ok with that too?

yes or no



you stated that you looked at epo technical documents and anything and everything mentioned was in scope and game?

are you ok with that too?


yes or no




.

If you agree to all this Travesty.

Then there is no more reason to delay this any longer, unless you want to flake off again. It's game time!! Put up or shut up biatch!

Say Yes to agree with this terms. Then we are ready for a debate. And will get this show on the road.

[travestyny]

[SIZE="4"]If you agree to all this Travesty.

I agreed to what YOU said was fair.


ADP said no.


SO NOW THE QUESTION IS, WILL YOU ACCEPT THE TERMS THAT YOU MENTIONED. YOU ARE WELCOME TO TAKE ADP's place.

WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE. WILL YOU PVSSY OUT?


1. Judges will settle what was the scope.

2. Initial statements not to be backed away from.

3. Use any additional information that you want.

4. Permanent ban

5. All points.


YOU BETTER NOT PVSSY OUT, Spoon23. THESE WERE, AFTER ALL, YOUR CONDITIONS. ARE YOU IN OR NOT!


ARE YOU IN. SIMPLE YES OR NO? WAITING.....