Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[ADP02]

There is no challenge that I've ducked

SEE, you will say anything.


LIAR and CHEATER!!!

You have no integrity. You will say anything and everything. Twist the words whatever....

[travestyny]

WOW!!!!

When was that, today? Yesterday? NOPE!!!!




BUSTED!!!!

So you accepted a rematch? When did that happen? How many times have you declined a rematch? You're full of shlt.



Tell you what. I'll drop all of the other requirements except one. You have to give me the points that you owe from losing the first debate. You agreed that only the judges decision matter, so you owe me those points. You pay the points and then we do the rematch and we make the scope as specific as possible so no one can attempt to change it. Agreed?



Topic: WADA labs target test for EPO circa May 2nd, 2015 by using threshold criteria.


Agree?


what do you think is going to be different? Use your brain, son.

[ADP02]

So you accepted a rematch? When did that happen? How many times have you declined a rematch? You're full of shlt.



Tell you what. I'll drop all of the other requirements except one. You have to give me the points that you owe from losing the first debate. You agreed that only the judges decision matter, so you owe me those points. You pay the points and then we do the rematch and we make the scope as specific as possible so no one can attempt to change it. Agreed?



Topic: WADA labs target test for EPO circa May 2nd, 2015 by using threshold criteria.


Agree?


what do you think is going to be different? Use your brain, son.

Nice try.


Well, there were no limits agreed to last time so why should there be this time?


You said, WADA never had a threshold type test for EPO testing. No thresholds, ratios, non of that. It isn't even about the intensity of the bands. You continued and said not the presumptive nor the confirmation.


I brought up that there were tests where there was threshold type tests such as HT, BAP and so on. You said that was before WADA.


So OK, lets make it about WADA. Any testing methodologies that WADA accepts related to EPO.


Screening: Often is by way of ABP blood tests to verify of suspicious samples.

Presumptive: Several blood and urine tests can be used.


Confirmation: Blood and urine tests using different testing methodologies. One is called direct testing while the other is an indirect methodology.
The indirect methodology threshold results can provide strong evidence of EPO abuse and so can direct testing. They both have their advantages.


There can be several criteria to verify the detection of EPO abuse. Not all tests are threshold type tests. The thing is that you are saying that EPO cannot have threshold type tests while I said yes they can




You OK with the this CHALLENGE?


It is basically the same as it was 1.5 years ago.

[travestyny]

Nice try.


Well, there were no limits agreed to last time so why should there be this time?

No limits? Very simple. Explain this:

WHILE OUT OF SCOPE, this specific criteria had an "and/OR" in which the panel was describing. In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used.

Is this your quotation?


Let's watch you lie and squirm about. When you realize that you have no way out, and realize that you have been BUSTED for lying, I hope you feel like a fool and decide to pay your debt. Right?

[ADP02]

No limits? Very simple. Explain this:





Is this your quotation?


Let's watch you lie and squirm about. When you realize that you have no way out, and realize that you have been BUSTED for lying, I hope you feel like a fool and decide to pay your debt. Right?

You do this "Got you Games" every time.

Go check the other quotes where I state that you reminded me that the BAP test was also used by WADA.

2010 vs 2002!!!

2010 is clearly WADA

2002 - WADA existed since 1999 but you did include 2010 BAP test, right?


.

[travestyny]

You do this "Got you Games" every time.

Go check the other quotes where I state that you reminded me that the BAP test was also used by WADA.

2010 vs 2002!!!

2010 is clearly WADA

2002 - WADA existed since 1999 but you did include 2010 BAP test, right?


.

This is not a time for deflecting, ADP. Did you or did you not say this in the debate?

WHILE OUT OF SCOPE, this specific criteria had an "and/OR" in which the panel was describing. In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used.

It's not a gotcha game. It's showing what we both believed the scope to be about, which you suddenly seem to be trying to squirm out of for some reason. Answer the question. Is that your quotation?

And in that quotation, you are referring to the 2010 document. So squirming attempt #1 is a failure. You want to try squirm #2?

Is that your quotation stating that the 2009 document was out of scope????


Let me give you a hint: This is the point that you should admit that you are trying to cheat. Oh...and this is also the point that you should admit that you were the rightful loser.

[ADP02]

This is not a time for deflecting, ADP. Did you or did you not say this in the debate?




It's not a gotcha game. It's showing what we both believed the scope to be about, which you suddenly seem to be trying to squirm out of for some reason. Answer the question. Is that your quotation?

And in that quotation, you are referring to the 2010 document. So squirming attempt #1 is a failure. You want to try squirm #2?

Is that your quotation stating that the 2009 document was out of scope????


Let me give you a hint: This is the point that you should admit that you are trying to cheat. Oh...and this is also the point that you should admit that you were the rightful loser.

You are being VAGUE!

Can you post the link? Maybe I can remember it all.

Even the part where I said that you reminded me about 2010.

Or are your words or those posts not good enough for you?


Speaking about YOUR WORDs. You did say everything that I stated, right?

There were no agreed to limits. If you say that there was, I need to see the post and link to that at the start of the debate. NOT AFTER THAT POINT. AFTER, you tried to twist it all up and make it a Kangaroo court.

pathetic!

[travestyny]

You are being VAGUE!

Can you post the link? Maybe I can remember it all.

Even the part where I said that you reminded me about 2010.

Or are your words or those posts not good enough for you?


Speaking about YOUR WORDs. You did say everything that I stated, right?

There were no agreed to limits. If you say that there was, I need to see the post and link to that at the start of the debate. NOT AFTER THAT POINT. AFTER, you tried to twist it all up and make it a Kangaroo court.

pathetic!

Post what link? What are you talking about? All I asked is if that is your quotation or not stating that the 2009 document is out of scope?


Is it your quotation or not? There is no reason to deflect. It's a simple question.


Are your words not good enough for YOU. That's the question.


IS THIS YOUR QUOTATION OR NOT????

WHILE OUT OF SCOPE, this specific criteria had an "and/OR" in which the panel was describing. In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used.

Look at you squirming. What's wrong? Do you wish you could go back and change what you wrote? Someone trying to backtrack, huh? I wonder why?


Why can't you admit you got caught trying to cheat

[ADP02]

You are being VAGUE!

Can you post the link? Maybe I can remember it all.

Even the part where I said that you reminded me about 2010.

Or are your words or those posts not good enough for you?


Speaking about YOUR WORDs. You did say everything that I stated, right?

There were no agreed to limits. If you say that there was, I need to see the post and link to that at the start of the debate. NOT AFTER THAT POINT. AFTER, you tried to twist it all up and make it a Kangaroo court.

pathetic!

Post what link? What are you talking about? All I asked is if that is your quotation or not stating that the 2009 document is out of scope?


Is it your quotation or not? There is no reason to deflect. It's a simple question.


Are your words not good enough for YOU. That's the question.


IS THIS YOUR QUOTATION OR NOT????




Look at you squirming. What's wrong? Do you wish you could go back and change what you wrote? Someone trying to backtrack, huh? I wonder why?


Why can't you admit you got caught trying to cheat

You provided the post, right? Show me the link? Is that so hard for you to do?


Also find the other links that I told you to find.

[travestyny]

You provided the link, right? Show me the link? Is that so hard for you to do?


Also find the other links that I told you to find.

The link to what? The link to the court case or the link to the quotations?


As you wish. Here is the link to the quotation where you said it TWICE!!!!:

2) WHILE OUT OF SCOPE, this specific criteria had an "and/OR" in which the panel was describing. In that if there were "additional evidence" that can be used to show evidence that the athlete was using EPO, it can be used. Here is specifically what was stated by the panel:

"In the context of the “Additional Evidence”, Section 3.2.5 of TD2009EPO mentions the SDSPAGE Method as a method which “can” be used “complementarily” to the IEF-DB Method
for the purpose of “helping” to confirm the exogenous or endogenous origin of the finding."


3) WHILE OUT OF SCOPE, as I mentioned in point 2 above, the additional evidence would come from SDSPAGE Method in which ALSO has a threshold criteria test related to the calculated MOLECULAR MASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So to say, while irrelevant, it would not make a difference!!!!!

Click the arrow in the quotation to go see for yourself. So did you say that, or did I doctor your post?


And here is the link to the court case, if that's what you mean:

https://arbitrationlaw.com/sites/def...IS%20Award.pdf



So again, is that your quotation or not? I'm waiting.