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

[Elroy The Great]

Summary:
For 5+ years Floyd and his fans said this:
"NO WAY! Giving <1 tbsp of blood 5 or 6 times will not affect Manny's training/fight.


May 1st, 2015:
Giving < 1 tbsp of blood contributed to me, Floyd, being so drained that I needed an IV, which is a banned method!

Pssst ..... Floyd fans, do you agree with Floyd's BS?

wake me when he loses his 0.

[travestyny]

Summary:
For 5+ years Floyd and his fans said this:
"NO WAY! Giving <1 tbsp of blood 5 or 6 times will not affect Manny's training/fight.


May 1st, 2015:
Giving < 1 tbsp of blood contributed to me, Floyd, being so drained that I needed an IV, which is a banned method!

Pssst ..... Floyd fans, do you agree with Floyd's BS?

So let me get this straight:

One guy says giving <1 tbsp of blood is the MAIN REASON that I won't fight you.

Another guy says giving <1tbsp of blood is a contributing factor to why I was dehydrated.


And you have a problem with the second guy??????

Do you realize how stupid you are?

[travestyny]

Make it simpleR ...

aliquot "a portion of a larger whole, especially a sample taken for chemical analysis or other treatment"


SCREENING takes an aliquot. If the SCREENING results finds a positive result on any substances, those then require a confirmation. Another aliquot is used for that test.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that it is a separate sample because they are taking a portion of urine out of one sample? LMAO. Your reading comprehension is low. It is the A sample, idiot. That's the only sample that is being discussed.

If the SCREENING comes back negative then there is no point in doing a confirmation! Even SMRTL is telling you that!!! Yet, you are out on left field!

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. "


What they did is get the concentration levels on the aliquot used during the initial screening! This can be achieved when one uses a GC/MS. GC/MS would contain all the substances found for the test and the information found for each substance can be used to calculate the concentration levels.

LMAO. Let me ask your ass some simple questions. Try to keep up.

1. This refers specifically to GC/MS screening for WADA prohibited samples. According to what this says, would WADA be screening for entire classes of cannabinoids, or for a specific metabolite? What does this mean:

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

My answer: This clearly states that entire CLASSES of compounds are looked for. Not one specific metabolite. THE SCREEN WOULD BE FOR CANNABINOIDS...THE CONFIRMATION FOR A SPECIFIC METABOLITE. JUST LIKE EICHNER HIMSELF SAID.

"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."

Never said anything about threshold substances. You got all of that from your misunderstanding of the trial because you have poor comprehension skills. So..is the screen for entire classes of compounds or one specific one?

Your answer:

2. Did the SMRTL litigation package give the quantification for marijuana metabolites, or one specific metabolite?

My answer: One specific metabolite, which makes it clear that this was the result of a confirmation test.

Your answer:

3. If after marijuana compounds are found and a confirmation analysis is done that proves to be below the threshold, would the amount of marijuana found be reported out?

My answer: No

Your answer?:

4. Why would Eichner say at the end of his testimony that "THE MASS SPECTROMETRY DATA THAT WE DO FOR THE CONFIRMATION SHOULD DEFINITELY BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF OTHER REGULATED PROGRAMS LIKE QUEST"?

Let me help you out:


My Answer: He's telling the court that both did confirmation testing and the results should be consistent.

Your Answer:

5. Did Eichner say there is no point to do a confirmation analysis? Or did he say there would be no point to do a confirmation analysis ON THERE.

Again, let me help you out:



My Answer: He clearly states there is no reason to do a confirmation analysis ON THERE, meaning on the report that was initially given, which makes sense. There is no reason to report the value that was found if it doesn't go above the threshold.

Your answer:

6. What does a confirmation analysis tell?

My Answer: The final amount of metabolite that was found in the sample.

Your answer:

Don't duck it. Let's watch you trip all over your answers and embarrass yourself yet again.

[ADP02]

How many times can you get this wrong idiot. No point in doing a confirmation analysis ON THERE. Stop giving false quotations.

Also, it clearly states that the screening does not check for individual compounds. But you still can't understand.
How the **** did WADA give the amount of the individual compound if a confirmation wasn't done, moron?

Eichner told you how it works, but you still can't understand.

You finally ready to step up? Let's make a thread or thunderdome about it. Ready? I bet you bltch out because you know you are wrong you false quotation giving bastard.

I told you that GC/MS can do different types of tests. The screening was not specific, as I pointed out to you a long time ago, but still the test can capture enough information to deduce the concentration levels. As SMRTL said, during their confirmation process, a more rigorous test is done BUT its not required when the screening comes back negative ......

I like this. You finally admitted that SMRTLs SCREENING test was not rigorous and specific, as I kept on telling you!!! SMRTLs SCREENING test was not as good as QUESTs SCREENING followed by the confirmation test which as you finally are agreeing to, was specifically tested for marijuana and the tests was much more rigorous than the screening process alone. CHECKMATE!!!


THINK!!!

QUEST gave you 2 results. SCREENING was positive and CONFIRMATION was positive. SMRTL only came back with one result. NEGATIVE!


KABOOOOOOOOM!!!!

[ADP02]

So let me get this straight. You are saying that it is a separate sample because they are taking a portion of urine out of one sample? LMAO. Your reading comprehension is low. It is the A sample, idiot. That's the only sample that is being discussed.



LMAO. Let me ask your ass some simple questions. Try to keep up.

1. This refers specifically to GC/MS screening for WADA prohibited samples. According to what this says, would WADA be screening for entire classes of cannabinoids, or for a specific metabolite? What does this mean:

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

My answer: This clearly states that entire CLASSES of compounds are looked for. Not one specific metabolite. THE SCREEN WOULD BE FOR CANNABINOIDS...THE CONFIRMATION FOR A SPECIFIC METABOLITE. JUST LIKE EICHNER HIMSELF SAID.



Never said anything about threshold substances. You got all of that from your misunderstanding of the trial because you have poor comprehension skills. So..is the screen for entire classes of compounds or one specific one?

Your answer:

2. Did the SMRTL litigation package give the quantification for marijuana metabolites, or one specific metabolite?

My answer: One specific metabolite, which makes it clear that this was the result of a confirmation test.

Your answer:

3. If after marijuana compounds are found and a confirmation analysis is done that proves to be below the threshold, would the amount of marijuana found be reported out?

My answer: No

Your answer?:

4. Why would Eichner say at the end of his testimony that "THE MASS SPECTROMETRY DATA THAT WE DO FOR THE CONFIRMATION SHOULD DEFINITELY BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF OTHER REGULATED PROGRAMS LIKE QUEST"?

Let me help you out:


My Answer: He's telling the court that both did confirmation testing and the results should be consistent.

Your Answer:

5. Did Eichner say there is no point to do a confirmation analysis? Or did he say there would be no point to do a confirmation analysis ON THERE.

Again, let me help you out:



My Answer: He clearly states there is no reason to do a confirmation analysis ON THERE, meaning on the report that was initially given, which makes sense. There is no reason to report the value that was found if it doesn't go above the threshold.

Your answer:

6. What does a confirmation analysis tell?

My Answer: The final amount of metabolite that was found in the sample.

Your answer:

Don't duck it. Let's watch you trip all over your answers and embarrass yourself yet again.

Man, you are too funny!

Most people would have gotten what I simplified for you BUT you cannot?

Aliquot was explained to you. Its a portion of the urine sample .... from sample A!!! DING DING DING!!!


I told you that GC/MS can do different types of tests. The screening was not specific, as I pointed out to you a long time ago, but still the test can capture enough information to deduce the concentration levels. As SMRTL said, during their confirmation process, a more rigorous test is done BUT its not required when the screening comes back negative ......

I like this.
You finally admitted that SMRTLs SCREENING test was not rigorous and specific, as I kept on telling you!!! SMRTLs SCREENING test was not as good as QUESTs SCREENING followed by the confirmation test which as you finally are agreeing to, was specifically tested for marijuana and the tests was much more rigorous than the screening process alone. CHECKMATE!!!


THINK!!!

QUEST gave you 2 results. SCREENING was positive and CONFIRMATION was positive. SMRTL only came back with one result. NEGATIVE!


KABOOOOOOOOM!!!!

[ADP02]

wake me when he loses his 0.

USADA is the one who decides on if Floyd should have been investigated. They investigated others who even were nice enough to declare their IV use.

Floyd? Nope, USADA was paid too well over the years. It would have been a huge slap in the face to Floyd. It would have been like chopping off the one who fed them for all those years and counting.

[Elroy The Great]

USADA is the one who decides on if Floyd should have been investigated. They investigated others who even were nice enough to declare their IV use.

Floyd? Nope, USADA was paid too well over the years. It would have been a huge slap in the face to Floyd. It would have been like chopping off the one who fed them for all those years and counting.

i didnt say wake me when you have a story to tell....

[ADP02]

Summary:
For 5+ years Floyd and his fans said this:
"NO WAY! Giving <1 tbsp of blood 5 or 6 times will not affect Manny's training/fight.


May 1st, 2015:
Giving < 1 tbsp of blood contributed to me, Floyd, being so drained that I needed an IV, which is a banned method!

Pssst ..... Floyd fans, do you agree with Floyd's BS?

So let me get this straight:

One guy says giving <1 tbsp of blood is the MAIN REASON that I won't fight you.

Another guy says giving <1tbsp of blood is a contributing factor to why I was dehydrated.


And you have a problem with the second guy??????

Do you realize how stupid you are?

The only problem that I have is with your DEFLECTION to the question!


The first guy NEVER went thru the process of giving blood 5-6 or possibly more times. SO HE HAD A CONCERN!!! Going into a huge fight with a concern where he thought it would put him at a disadvantage. Not that he thought that he would be requiring an IV which was a banned method. Only Floyd can get away with that!

The CONCERN came from an incident just prior to the Morales fight where he gave blood. In that case, he felt that it affected him when he factored in that he was already dehydrating himself to make weight.

So if you read below, it was NOT the only reason for Manny. It was a combination of things and guess what? He didn't have the red carpet IV treatment that Floyd had!!! Manny took nothing banned, while Floyd took a banned method. YET, you are saying what you are saying?


Floyd and his fans said that Manny's excuse was BS for 5 years. Now they are not saying that about Floyd. That is stupid and hypocritical!!! Are you?

Do you think that giving urine contributed to his severe dehydration?

Do you think that giving just <1 tbsp. 10 days before contributed to his severe dehydration?

If you do a bit of exercise the day before, just to stay sharp, that contributed to his severe dehydration?

To the point that he had to use a banned method?


Respond to the above questions. DO not DEFLECT AGAIN!!!

Pssst ..... Floyd fans, do you agree with Floyd's BS?



Manny Pacquiao:"So I went back to my training until the fight, then I was already reducing my intake. The next day, it’s the weigh-in, it was 2 days before the fight. I didn’t eat, I didn’t drink water because my weight was right on. Now, all of a sudden, the commission called asking for my blood for the ‘medical’. "
"And you know, after they took blood from me. I felt dizzy, the back of my head started hurting. The doctor said to drink a lot of water, but I couldn’t drink water, I couldn’t eat, so I just lied down and had it massaged.”

Dong Puno: “So, by fight time, you really felt your body weakened?”

Manny Pacquiao: “Yeah, I really felt it. When I was hitting Morales with my punches. I said to myself that if this is the only power I have, I won’t be able to knock Morales down.”

Dong Puno: “You know, Morales said that after the fight, He said that he didn’t feel any power from your punches.”

Manny Pacquiao: “That’s much better because he doesn’t know how much power I have yet.”

Dong Puno: “Haha, so next time, you’ll make him feel it.”

[ADP02]

i didnt say wake me when you have a story to tell....

Oh sorry, .... I will let you sleep!

[travestyny]

I told you that GC/MS can do different types of tests. The screening was not specific, as I pointed out to you a long time ago, but still the test can capture enough information to deduce the concentration levels. As SMRTL said, during their confirmation process, a more rigorous test is done BUT its not required when the screening comes back negative ......

I like this. You finally admitted that SMRTLs SCREENING test was not rigorous and specific, as I kept on telling you!!! SMRTLs SCREENING test was not as good as QUESTs SCREENING followed by the confirmation test which as you finally are agreeing to, was specifically tested for marijuana and the tests was much more rigorous than the screening process alone. CHECKMATE!!!


THINK!!!

QUEST gave you 2 results. SCREENING was positive and CONFIRMATION was positive. SMRTL only came back with one result. NEGATIVE!


KABOOOOOOOOM!!!!

WRONGGGGG.

LMAO.

Did you just write that coming back with the final amount of marijuana metabolite is not specific??? LMAOOOO.

Dude, why are you ducking my questions. Waiting for your reply. You scared to answer?

Talk about checkmate... why did Eichner say the confirmation should be consistent with Quest.

Waitinggggg... lmao. I'm gonna keep beating the shlt out of you until you learn, chump. ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. STOP DUCKING!!!