Can non-threshold susbtances have threshold type tests

[travestyny]

You can present those facts again to the new judges, but is not accepted as truths. Only the new judges will decide if it is.

New Judges will look at facts presented in a new light. Previous banana court doesn't count.

Yo SPOON. I THOUGHT YOU SAID THE NEW JUDGES SHOULD LOOK AT THE FACTS PRESENTED IN A NEW LIGHT. THAT'S ALL I WANT.


ASK YOUR BOY WHY HE IS AFRAID OF WHAT YOU SAID. LMAOOOOOOOO!


ASK HIM WHY HE THINKS OUT OF SCOPE MEANS IN SCOPE...FROM HIS OWN MOUTH

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.

AND FINALLY,


EXPLAIN YOURSELF WHY YOU SAID MAYWEATHER WON. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Don't count on it bruh. Floyd will rather keep his fluke win which he barely won against an injured torn rotator, Pac, what more with a 2 armed Pac with a right hook pop. Floyd won't risk losing this time, he already did a Houdini with all that running and hugging.. He knows another one will be a tall order. He should just retire for good.

[ADP02]

Yo SPOON. I THOUGHT YOU SAID THE NEW JUDGES SHOULD LOOK AT THE FACTS PRESENTED IN A NEW LIGHT. THAT'S ALL I WANT.


ASK YOUR BOY WHY HE IS AFRAID OF WHAT YOU SAID. LMAOOOOOOOO!


ASK HIM WHY HE THINKS OUT OF SCOPE MEANS IN SCOPE...FROM HIS OWN MOUTH




AND FINALLY,


EXPLAIN YOURSELF WHY YOU SAID MAYWEATHER WON. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



[/CENTER]

So tell us all AGAIN why you chose a document that still didn't come into effect and a case from 2003?

You attempted to tell us with a BS lie by saying it was similar.

You twisted my posts that actually said that they are all similar. So YOU are OK with that they are all similar? Since you LIED in this thread in that you agreed that they are all similar?
CONFUSING? More so because you actually LIED. READ BELOW MR LIAR & CHEAT!!!!









example: You used as evidence to get a vote or 2 something from 2003!!!!! The EPO document that you references wasn't even in effect yet!!!!

You came up with a BS excuse that it is similar so you used it. REALLY?

I do not believe that Mr BS!

1) I also said that those WADA documents are ALL similar.
Since you are agreeing, you must agree with the FULL context of my statements!!! Right?


2) Do you remember Mr BS what you said about the WADA 2004 EPO document?

Travestyny

FIRST OF ALL, NO...THEY AREN'T SIMILAR. YOU HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE 2004 DOCUMENT FOR WHAT WAS BEING DONE IN 2006, AND THAT DID NOT INCLUDE SAR-PAGE OR SDS-PAGE.

So LIAR, what were you saying?



So when you post next time, let us know if you are in agreement with my post or NOT, DEFLECTOR and CHEATER!!!




The WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE"


Come on DUCKER!!!!!



.

[travestyny]

so tell us all again why you chose a document that still didn't come into effect and a case from 2003?

you attempted to tell us with a bs lie by saying it was similar.

You twisted my posts that actually said that they are all similar. So you are ok with that they are all similar? Since you lied in this thread in that you agreed that they are all similar?
Confusing? More so because you actually lied. Read below mr liar & cheat!!!!









example: you used as evidence to get a vote or 2 something from 2003!!!!! The epo document that you references wasn't even in effect yet!!!!

You came up with a bs excuse that it is similar so you used it. Really?

I do not believe that mr bs!

1) i also said that those wada documents are all similar.
since you are agreeing, you must agree with the full context of my statements!!! right?


2) do you remember mr bs what you said about the wada 2004 epo document?









so liar, what were you saying?



so when you post next time, let us know if you are in agreement with my post or not, deflector and cheater!!!




the willy wanker challenge"


come on ducker!!!!!



.

i already accepted. Let's do the rematch. I explained to you about the court case but you want to pretend you don't understand.


So let's let the judges sort it out. Deal. Let's go pvssy boy. I'm ready for you to catch that permanent ban.


just say you accept. Ready?????

[travestyny]

you twisted my posts that actually said that they are all similar.

omg. Another lie. I twisted your words to say they are similar. Bahahahahahaha.


Oh my god you are going to get roastedddddddd!!!!! Please accept

if you look at that document from 2004 its similar to the recent one of 2014. At least in what i will bring up. They both bring up isolectric focusing (ief).

1 - "In the basic area there must be at least 3 acceptable, consecutive bands assigned as 1, 2, 3 or 4 ...."
2 - "The 2 most intense bands either measured by densitometry or assessed visually in the basic area must be consecutive and the most intense band must be 1, 2 or 3"
3 - "The 2 most intense bands in the basic area must be MORE INTENSE than any other band in the endogenous area"

the above indicate thresholds that must be met ....... I will try to explain ....

HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE TO SAY I TWISTED YOUR WORDS WHEN YOUR OWN DAMN QUOTE SAYS THE IEF METHOD AND MY QUOTE STATES A FACT THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE SDS/SAR PAGE. THE CRITERIA THAT YOU SAID WERE THRESHOLDS ARE THERE YOU IMBECILE. I SWEAR YOU GET DUMBER THE LONGER THIS GOES ON. I'M REALLY FVVCKING UP YOUR HEAD, AREN'T I????

AND THERE IS MORE WHERE THIS CAME FROM. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

[travestyny]

ADP during the debate that he was so confident in his initial statement that he was done after it and felt i did nothing to counter it:

i was basically done after my initial posts and do not believe that you said anything to counter me on this subject

BUT MORE RECENTLY, ADP SAYING THAT THE INITIAL STATEMENTS REALLY DIDN'T MEAN MUCH AND WEREN'T REALLY HIS OWN...JUST REWORDED!!!!

If I remember correctly those statements were reworded by Billeau2 ..... when I saw your statements being totally in conflict with our discussion that we agreed on, I said, the initial statements really do not mean much.

SO WAS YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT SO STRONG THAT YOU THOUGHT IT WOULD WIN YOU THE DAY.....OR WAS IT REALLY JUST SOME STATEMENTS THAT WERE RE-WORDED BY BILLEAU THAT REALLY DIDN'T MEAN MUCH????


YOU ARE GETTING THE LIVING SHlT KICKED OUT OF YOU FOR BEING A LYING, SLIMY LITTLE BlTCH. LOG OUT, F@GGOT. LMAOOOOOOOO!!!!

[travestyny]

So tell us all AGAIN why you chose a document that still didn't come into effect and a case from 2003?

You attempted to tell us with a BS lie by saying it was similar.

You twisted my posts that actually said that they are all similar. So YOU are OK with that they are all similar? Since you LIED in this thread in that you agreed that they are all similar?
CONFUSING? More so because you actually LIED. READ BELOW MR LIAR & CHEAT!!!!









example: You used as evidence to get a vote or 2 something from 2003!!!!! The EPO document that you references wasn't even in effect yet!!!!

You came up with a BS excuse that it is similar so you used it. REALLY?

I do not believe that Mr BS!

1) I also said that those WADA documents are ALL similar.
Since you are agreeing, you must agree with the FULL context of my statements!!! Right?


2) Do you remember Mr BS what you said about the WADA 2004 EPO document?









So LIAR, what were you saying?



So when you post next time, let us know if you are in agreement with my post or NOT, DEFLECTOR and CHEATER!!!




The WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE"


Come on DUCKER!!!!!



.

WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT THE CRITERIA THAT YOU SAID WERE THRESHOLDS, SON. YOUR DESPERATION ISN'T GOING TO GET YOU ANYWHERE. YOU ARE JUST EMBARRASSING YOURSELF!!!!!!


CRITERIA THAT YOU SAID WERE THERSHOLDS:


2004:
-the 2 most intense bands either measured by densitometry or assessed visually in the basic area must be consecutive and the most intense band must be 1, 2 or 3.

- the two most intense bands in the basic area must be more intense than any other band in the endogenous area either measured by densitometry or assessed visually.

2014: The 2 most intense bands measured by densitometry shall be in the basic area.

At least one band in the “acidic area” must be more intense than the last band of the endogenous area (e.g. band ε in Fig. 1).


PLEASE SAY YOU DIDN'T TRY TO SAY THAT THESE WERE THRESHOLD CRITERIA. I DARE YOU!!!!! LMAOOOOOOOO!

[travestyny]

So tell us all AGAIN why you chose a document that still didn't come into effect and a case from 2003?

You attempted to tell us with a BS lie by saying it was similar.

You twisted my posts that actually said that they are all similar. So YOU are OK with that they are all similar? Since you LIED in this thread in that you agreed that they are all similar?
CONFUSING? More so because you actually LIED. READ BELOW MR LIAR & CHEAT!!!!









example: You used as evidence to get a vote or 2 something from 2003!!!!! The EPO document that you references wasn't even in effect yet!!!!

You came up with a BS excuse that it is similar so you used it. REALLY?

I do not believe that Mr BS!

1) I also said that those WADA documents are ALL similar.
Since you are agreeing, you must agree with the FULL context of my statements!!! Right?


2) Do you remember Mr BS what you said about the WADA 2004 EPO document?









So LIAR, what were you saying?



So when you post next time, let us know if you are in agreement with my post or NOT, DEFLECTOR and CHEATER!!!




The WILLY WANKER CHALLENGE"


Come on DUCKER!!!!!



.

COME ON BlTCH. WHAT'S TAKING YOU SO LONG. JUST ACCEPT. REMATCH AND THE JUDGES WILL SETTLE WHAT THE SCOPE WAS.

HERE YOU GO WITH ANOTHER ROAD MAP FOR HOW TO FIND THE SCOPE. SHOULD MAKE IT QUITE EASY FOR THE JUDGES. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

1) Billeau2 stated right after your posted to avoid each other until we provide our statements again.

2) We posted our statements

3) We discussed our possible disagreements.

4) Billeau2 and Zaroku understood that after we made our statements that we were at that point in time establishing what was the scope and anything that we are disagreeing with.

5) You asked me questions and told you that what you are discussing was out of scope and I told you the scope that we agreed on.

6) YOU didn't object and later you said that you were OK and can start the discussion.

GOING TO BE PRETTY HARD FOR YOU TO ARUGE THAT YOUR SCOPE CAME BEFORE THIS POINT, YOU LYING SCUMBAG. ACCEPT THE REMATCH FOR A PERMANENT BAN ALREADY. THE FVVCK IS TAKING YOU SO LONG. YOU'RE MY BlTCH AND I'M GOING TO DRAG YOUR ASS ALL AROUND BY YOUR CHOKE CHAIN. AGREE, BlTCH. STOP STALLING! I TAUGHT YOU A LESSON LAST TIME AND YOU HAD TO TAKE A MONTH LONG BREAK. THIS TIME I'M GOING TO TEACH YOUR DUMB ASS A PERMANENT LESSON! YOU SAID ABOVE THAT I COULDN'T TOUCH YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT. WELL LET'S SEE HOW TRUE THAT IS THIS TIME AROUND, HUH?

[travestyny]

2. INITIAL STATEMENTS FROM THE FIRST DEBATE ARE TO BE UPHELD AND NOT BACKED AWAY FROM, AS PER THE ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS FROM BILLEAU.


WTF is this??

Yo, Spoon. Bring your ass in here and help your boy out. Seems the bltch ran away yet again.


Speaking of initial statements, please explain to me why in April 2017 ADP02 was saying his initial statement was rock solid and impenetrable:

i was basically done after my initial posts and do not believe that you said anything to counter me on this subject

But in July 2018, he was saying his initial statement was Billeau's fault and he immediately thought of it as meaningless!!!!

If I remember correctly those statements were reworded by Billeau2 ..... when I saw your statements being totally in conflict with our discussion that we agreed on, I said, the initial statements really do not mean much.

[travestyny]

This f@ggot ADP came back, made one post, and ran away again. Unbelievable.


Now this is REALLY my last post in this thread until you accept the challenge.

1. I caught you in A SHlT TON OF LIES that you can't recover from. You should be ashamed of yourself. I feel sorry for you. How the fuvck can someone who claims to be a grown man be such a little bltch. I sincerely feel sorry for your kids that they have such a hoe azz bltch for a father. All that shlt i blatantly caught you in. You know it and I know it. From you saying the BAP is out of scope but then trying to say it's in scope, to you lying about the scope, to you saying your initial statement was so strong to it magically turning weak. THAT'S WHY YOU REFUSE THE PERMANENT BAN REMATCH AND YOU WILL NEVER ACCEPT BECAUSE YOU'RE A PVSSY BlTCH.

2. This whole thread here was a deflection. First of all, you made some vague ass topic that you thought I'd be stupid enough to fall for, but I surprised your dumb ass when I realized that it was really just about the same dumb shlt you were saying at the end of our original debate about the BAP. Then you began squirming and wanting me to let my foot off of your throat, because you realize I have one foot right on your pencil neck, and the other one on your vagina. YOU REALIZE WHAT I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU SINCE THE DEBATE. A. THE COURT SAYS THE BAP IS IN FACT NOT A THRESHOLD. B. THE BAP IS NOT IN THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT. That's 2 ways that I own your punk ass, so you thought you could get me to let off of one of them and go through another 90 page debate. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BlTCH. Either accept the rematch and try to argue anything you want about the BAP, or go down as my 4-0 losing BlTCH.

3. PAY YOUR FVVCKING DEBT. I OWN YOUR SOUL AND I WAS HAPPY THAT I KICKED YOUR ASS AROUND THIS THREAD YOU DISPICABLE MISERABLE LYING BlTCH.


IN CONCLUSION, I DECAPITATED YOU A YEAR AGO AND I'LL PUT YOU SIX FEET UNDER PERMANENTLY IF YOU EVER AGREE TO A REMATCH, BUT YOU'RE TOO MUCH OF A PVSS. SO STAY IN YOUR LANE BlTCH. REMEMBER THAT 4-0 WHOOPIN FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE BlTCH.

OH...AND ONE MORE TIME ABOUT YOUR DEFLECTION.

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.

YOU DUMB BlTCH. YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO RECOVER FROM THAT 4-0 ASSWHOOPIN. NEVER! I'M GOING TO CLOWN YOU EVERY TIME I SEE YOU AROUND THIS SITE.

TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTE, BlTCH. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


oh...and one more thing just to make it clear that you got decapitated:

The threshold test result indicates that there is synthetic EPO if it exceeds the threshold. If less, the indication is that there is only human EPO.

Here is the court's statement.

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

4-0!!!!!!

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

STAY IN HERE AND CRY....BUT I BET YOU WON'T ACCEPT THAT PERMANENT BAN. I DOUBLE DARE YOU, YOU MISERABLE CRYING CVNT. CHOKE ON IT AND DIE!!!!!

SO LONG BlTCH. WHEN YOU FIND YOUR BALLS, I'LL BE AROUND TO RAM THEN DOWN YOUR THROAT!!!!!


DON'T SEND ME A MESSAGE AGAIN UNLESS IT SAYS "I ACCEPT" OR "I'M SORRY, MASTER TRAVESTY. HERE ARE THE POINTS I OWE!" YOU'RE FOREVER MY BlTCH YOU 4-0 BET WELCHING F@GGOT. I'LL BE AROUND TO CLOWN YOU IN EVERY THREAD YOU GO TO JUST LIKE I PROMISED. OH, AND MY SIG WILL BE PERMANENTLY CHANGED TO YOU ASKING FOR A DRAW. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

R.I.P.

[Spoon23]

Yo SPOON. I THOUGHT YOU SAID THE NEW JUDGES SHOULD LOOK AT THE FACTS PRESENTED IN A NEW LIGHT. THAT'S ALL I WANT.


ASK YOUR BOY WHY HE IS AFRAID OF WHAT YOU SAID. LMAOOOOOOOO!


ASK HIM WHY HE THINKS OUT OF SCOPE MEANS IN SCOPE...FROM HIS OWN MOUTH




AND FINALLY,


EXPLAIN YOURSELF WHY YOU SAID MAYWEATHER WON. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ASK HIM WHY HE THINKS OUT OF SCOPE MEANS IN SCOPE...FROM HIS OWN MOUTH


If it's out of scope then it is inadmissible duh?? So get to the program Travesty and agree to the scope so we can get this going. Stop wiggling out like a biatch. It's pretty simple. Stick to the scope.