Pac/Floyd investigation, documented punches (disputed rounds) blow by blow

[ADP02]

Dude, you're writing too much. I'll go back and review what you've written, but I only asked one question.

Didn't Pacquiaio decline a 50/50 split because he needed a 24 day window for drug testing.

I only asked one question, and you're telling me that other posters were hypocrites. I didn't ask you about other posters, fool.


--edit--

Reviewed. So it was dehydration. Great. Do you have a point?

Floyd didn't want to fight that version of Manny. That's all.



and Floyd is a drug cheat .....ILLEGAL BANNED IV!!!


.
.

[travestyny]

Not sure why you hesitate and keep bringing up 2014 when we are discussing a case that is around 2004.

I'm ONLY talking about the BAP test that was discussed back then. The LABs had primarily that test but they were making improvements to the criteria as the years went along. Is this enough for you to STOP DEFLECTING? WOW!!!!

DUDE. ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

You're saying 80% represents the threshold, correct???

[travestyny]

Floyd didn't want to fight that version of Manny. That's all.



and Floyd is a drug cheat .....ILLEGAL BANNED IV!!!


.
.

Yea, so scared that he offered 50/50 split, 14 day cut-off, and signed the contract.

Isn't that right?

[ADP02]

Yea, so scared that he offered 50/50 split, 14 day cut-off, and signed the contract.

Isn't that right?

Manny then says OK to 14 days, 7 days, 0 days. Floyd agreed?
Floyd says, No, No, No .... even preferred to take some time off!



2012 - Floyd says lets do it. Oh, so no more roadblocks? Another roadblock is wanting to give Manny a flat fee.

2015 - After Floyd states Manny is no longer the same fighter, Floyd agrees to a deal and Manny gets more than he was offered in 2012!


.

[travestyny]

Manny then says OK to 14 days, 7 days, 0 days. Floyd agreed?
Floyd says, No, No, No .... even preferred to take some time off!



2012 - Floyd says lets do it. Oh, so no more roadblocks? Another roadblock is wanting to give Manny a flat fee.

2015 - After Floyd states Manny is no longer the same fighter, Floyd agrees to a deal and Manny gets more than he was offered in 2012!


.

False.

After Pacquiao insisted on 24 days, Mayweather said he will only accept up to the fight. So no need to mention 14 days...7 days..

But good try.

Once he and Arum stopped ducking, the fight was on.

[ADP02]

DUDE. ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

You're saying 80% represents the threshold, correct???

I told you this already. We are waiting for you to respond not me!!!


The LABs had their own threshold tests since the rules were NOT harmonized between the different sports federations. Some LABs had the threshold test for 80% and some at 85%.

YES THAT IS A THRESHOLD type test!

Again, since there were studies to improve the EPO testing, they found out that previous values were too conservative and that the chance for a false positive was lower than they initially thought. So with that said, they were OK with having the threshold even below 80% at one point.

But when the LABs are testing with a threshold of 80% then it is as it's said. A threshold type test. The other variable is the variable of false positive which is the uncertainty .... but they had their studies to back up their threshold tests and previous CAS cases as well.



Hey DEFLECTOR, I answered it AGAIN but I have been waiting for YOU to answer this from the start and I am still waiting!!!


.

[ADP02]

False.

After Pacquiao insisted on 24 days, Mayweather said he will only accept up to the fight. So no need to mention 14 days...7 days..

But good try.

Once he and Arum stopped ducking, the fight was on.

False?

So the way you look at things is from Floyd's side only? WTF!!!

Like I said, this was a negotiation. Manny moved toward Floyd's side not further away. Floyd on the other hand kept on moving the goal-posts every time until 2015!!!!

If Floyd wanted it, he could have accepted when Manny said 7 days or 0 days but he waited it out.


and it's not like it really mattered. Floyd was the one who used the ILLEGAL BANNED IV!!!

.

.

[travestyny]

I am still waiting!!!
.

Thank you. Wait no more.

Not a threshold test?


Labs had it at 80% and some 85% but as Dr Catlin points out, even below 80% can be used due to further studies that showed that the risk of false positive is low.

The BAP criteria has absolutely nothing to do with our debate, but since you keep bringing it up and pretending that it's relevant, I'm down to discuss it. Unfortunately, you are going to be unhappy with what you learn.

You said over and over that in the court case, both sides (The appellant--USADA, and the respondent--Bergman(athlete)) kept referring to the BAP as a threshold. You are somewhat correct. What you failed to acknowledge is that the CAS stated that the athlete's contention was false, and that the BAP does not represent a threshold. Does that mean that the CAS was also saying that USADA was also incorrect about the BAP not being a threshold. Well clearly, both sides can't say the same exact thing, as you mention, yet one side be correct and the other be incorrect. So either the CAS is saying that USADA was also incorrect, or USADA didn't make that contention. Now pay attention.


Here is what USADA submitted, which does not confirm the BAP having a threshold.

2.2.1 APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS
Section 2.2.1.4:
It was submitted that the risk of a false positive at a BAP of 80% was actually 1 in 500,000. Therefore, the threshold for the BAP criterion, if any, can and should be reduced.

Notice the red text. If any. So is there a threshold or not?

The athlete argued that there definitely is, as you stated.

V. The decision
5.1 The Doping Offense
5.1.4 Criteria for a positive test
5.1.4.3:

In opposition, the Respondent argues that only the 80% BAP criterion has been adopted and is in regular use in WADA accredited laboratories and therefore, is reliable to establish the presence of rEPO. It is further submitted that the threshold of 80% must be present to apply the only criterion accepted and recognized by the accredited laboratories.

So the athlete says that threshold (80%) must be present. Above, USADA said that the threshold, IF ANY, can be lower.

So what is the final decision. Is there a threshold for the BAP or not?????

The court says THERE IS NO NUMERICAL LIMIT. THE 80% LIMIT DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST. THUS, THERE IS NO THRESHOLD.

V. The decision
5.1 The Doping Offense
5.1.4 Criteria for a positive test
5.1.4.4:

However, the Respondent cannot point to scientific or laboratory requirements that an 80% BAP criterion is required under the UCI Anti-doping Regulations or that the accredited laboratories required such a criterion to interpret their results. The Respondent does point to the Evaluation Report but that report has not been accepted by WADA itself. The UCI Antidoping Regulations do not refer to the BAP criterion or an established limit of 80%. The rules provide that the presence of rEPO can be proven by any means.

A numeric limit does not exist.

The Panel in Hamhurger stated at p. 19 that a numeric limit below which a test is declared negative is desirable but not mandatory.

This is all confirmed because the entire case is about the athlete's BAP being 79.5% and 79.4%, yet they confirm that he is guilty. Thus, there was NO THRESHOLD.

You stated yourself that the WADA expert, as it said in the report, can make the criteria lower. How much lower??? What was the threshold if it could be lower? Well the answer is...THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD. THE 80% REQUIREMENT WAS NEVER REALLY A REQUIREMENT. IT DIDN'T EXIST, AS IT STATES CLEARLY ABOVE.

Which is why the case said this:

V. The decision
5.1 The Doping Offense
5.1.4 Criteria for a positive test
5.1.4.2:


The reality is that the criterion for EPO is not a measurement over the threshold that must occur to take account of the human body's production. The fact is that the BAP and the other interpretative criteria are used to declare not a threshold of human body production but rather an image from the electropherogram as indicating the presence of non-human BPO. Therefore, in the case of rEPO, there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance rather there are criteria by which it can be said that what the image from this test procedure represents is rEPO. The argument of the Respondent is one of comparing apples to oranges when there is no comparison. rEPO is not produced by the body and must be administered exogenously. The various interpretative criteria are applied to the image to make the judgement as to whether the Lab test result and its accompanying image is revealing endogenous or exogenous EPO.

The entire court case destroys the BAP being referred to as a threshold!!! Of course, this was all irrelevant because the BAP does not even exist in the WADA TD2014EPO document, but you refuse to acknowledge that because you simply see the word threshold throw around and realize this is your only chance. But you're not stupid enough to challenge me over it again because you know your contention would be destroyed.

And finally, the proof that really seals your deal:

2) The resulting data is validated against specific threshold criteria, when artificial EPO, in relation to naturally occurring EPO, exceeds threshold limits.

Above, you are saying that artificial EPO is revealed when it goes above the threshold.

When I was looking for the link to the court case, I see that you doubled down on that:

In this case, to indicate whether there is EPO drug when it exceeds or just human EPO if it does not exceed!

Here you clearly state there is artificial EPO when it exceeds a threshold, and natural EPO when it does not exceed the threshold.

That is in DIRECT CONFLICT with what the court said:

there is no threshold above which it can be said there is non-human production of the substance

Face the facts, dude, and give up.

And yes, this is about WADA Accredited Labs (which is why I put that in blue above) and it specifically mentions WADA's new rules that came after the BAP, which you were harping on. The statement about no threshold specifically states the BAP and the OTHER CRITERIA, being the band location criteria, and WADA Criteria!

Court case: http://freepdfhosting.com/649b8f7117.pdf

It's over--Unless you want that rematch.

[travestyny]

False?

So the way you look at things is from Floyd's side only? WTF!!!

Like I said, this was a negotiation. Manny moved toward Floyd's side not further away. Floyd on the other hand kept on moving the goal-posts every time until 2015!!!!

False. After the first negotiation, it was full testing.

If Floyd wanted it, he could have accepted when Manny said 7 days or 0 days but he waited it out.

24 days was ridiculous. After he refused 14 days, it was full testing. Your boy dropped the ball.

and it's not like it really mattered. Floyd was the one who used the ILLEGAL BANNED IV!!!

.

It wasn't illegal due to a TUE being granted. And we know you already failed with your "proof." He need not have been losing tons of weight. The commission doesn't diagnose dehydration well if at all. Give up.

It's over.

[THE FACT KING]

Get over it People.. Pacquiao lost......