Evidence of Jones' Guilt

[kflo]

Great. So we agree to dispense with the argument of "no short term metabolites" and limit our discussion to the three long term metabolites added to screening in 2013? (along with "trace amounts" and "inter-individual variability" which I will statistically deal with later once I've got a grasp of neural networks)

Yes, three long term metabolites were added to screening in 2013 but like I said before the majority of the new AAF's were attributed to m3.

In fact I can't find a single arbitration agreement that mentions other metabolites.

Dylan Scott doesn't count. If you look closely you will see that there was a typo in the documentation. Although the documentation said m4 what they really meant was m3.

An excerpt from Dylan Scott's arbitration agreement

Now let's take a look at the chemical names of the metabolites mentioned in Rodchenkov's paper.

They key difference between m3 and m4 is the "en" vs "dien" at the end.

Edit: and the "methyl" vs. "hydroxymethyl" in the middle.

To me it would seem misguided to fixate on the lack of the two other long term metabolites when cases involving those metabolites are so sparse to the point of not being able to find any. I'm sure they exist but they are exceedingly hard to find.

ALL of the cases you’re referencing were small traces of m3. They were challenged by the athlete. Did you ever think that maybe they weren’t caught during a doping scheme? You are wondering why other metabolites aren’t present as if they are just undetectable. We KNOW this isn’t true. M3 is NOT the only detectable substance from a dhcmt doping scheme. We know this factually. You keep trying to present a case that its somehow not true….athletes caught doping with dhcmt will have other markers besides m3. Those markers will indicate ingestion within some reasonable time frame from the test date. From what we know the m3 metabolite is the LONG detection metabolite. Not the others. But they ARE detectable.

The other paper had dhcmt findings go from 1 to 61 then back down to 7……

Let me ask you - based on what you know about tbol doping schemes, and usada random testing, and the detection window, what is your hypothesis about what tbol doping schemes athletes are using to try to avoid detection? Do you have one? Do you think there are educated athletes who look at tbol and think that’s a good steroid to improve performance and avoid detection under usada?

 

[gaffbyknees2]

How is this 104 pages? Lol Jones is clearly a roid cheat but so we're most of the roster anyway. Who cares. Move on.

 

[fzoid4454]

I agree with the possibilities you pose but it goes back to him not being a cheater in the first place. You and Kflo are asking for leniency for a known cheater. This is similar to arguing prison food quality for a guy on death row...

No, I'm not asking for leniency. Am I asking that he get back pay for time on suspension? Am I asking that his NCs be turned back into victory? He was punished for his offense.

Since you want to make the criminal justice analogy, you are aware of the concept of DOUBLE JEOPARDY, right? I'm not arguing for better prison food for someone on death row. You're arguing for someone to be re-tried, convicted and punished for the same crime that they just got done serving their sentence and parole for, which you can't do.

You know what else you don't do in a criminal court? You can't claim that the fact that they did something before is proof of guilt on a subsequent offense. You actually have to offer proof of that subsequent offense.

Probably, not an analogy you should have made.

Pointing out that you can't invent a second offense that you can't prove, in order to punish him more for the first offense is hardly a plea for leniency. That's about fundamental fairness for EVERYONE.

I'm saying you don't get to go back and, after the fact, decide that you're going to punish him a second time. That's not about being nice to a known cheater, it's about having a fundamentally objective and consistent method of oversight.

 

[kflo]

Kflo, jon jones is a fucking cheater, through and through. There is nothing that you can do, no stats or data that you can show, no "what ifs" that you can present that will change this fact. Brother, stop it...get some help.

He is not even worth all of this but the point is that he CHEATED so he put himself in this position to be doubted until he tests clean. What are you looking for from this crackhead a "but I didn't cheat this time, I swear"? You will never know if he is telling the truth. If you doubt him, he will poke you in the fucking eyes and while you are writhing on the ground in pain, he will knee you in the fucking head and then jump in his car, find your pregnant wife and try to run over her. He's a piece of shit, brother, let it go, man!

c'mon bro. none of that addresses anything i actually post about. like i said, if you want to brand him a cheater and a scumbag and a piece of shit i really don't care. do it. feel free.

but that doesn't address at all anything i am saying about the facts of his case or the cases of others around m3. again, it's not just jones but the careers of other athletes as well. you want to just let it go because jones is a cheater and you hate him. that doesn't mean that people get to make up their own "facts" and spout bullshit and falsehoods, which @acannxr and @Captain Herb and others have been doing all over this thread due to willful ignorance or just an agenda.

i get that it's an unpopular position because they hate jones and because they made up their minds well before we had better information.

 

[fzoid4454]

I think he is too. Have for awhile

Except he's in the testing pool, and has regularly been tested. And "regularly" is an understatement.

So, that particular conspiracy theory kind of falls apart pretty quickly. And what is he in "arbitration" for? Is he challenging their findings of "non-offense"?

 

[fzoid4454]

Great. So we agree to dispense with the argument of "no short term metabolites" and limit our discussion to the three long term metabolites added to screening in 2013? (along with "trace amounts" and "inter-individual variability" which I will statistically deal with later once I've got a grasp of neural networks)

Yes, three long term metabolites were added to screening in 2013 but like I said before the majority of the new AAF's were attributed to m3.

In fact I can't find a single arbitration agreement that mentions other metabolites.

Dylan Scott doesn't count. If you look closely you will see that there was a typo in the documentation. Although the documentation said m4 what they really meant was m3.

An excerpt from Dylan Scott's arbitration agreement

Now let's take a look at the chemical names of the metabolites mentioned in Rodchenkov's paper.

They key difference between m3 and m4 is the "en" vs "dien" at the end.

Edit: and the "methyl and hydroxymethyl" vs. just "hydroxymethyl" in the middle.

To me it would seem misguided to fixate on the lack of the two other long term metabolites when cases involving those metabolites are so sparse to the point of not being able to find any. I'm sure they exist but they are exceedingly hard to find.

The issue at hand, if we're limiting our discussion to the long-term metabolites, is that the M3 metabolite is so long-term, and with no actual endpoint for when it is completely out of your system, that they are concluding that, alone, it's useless if you are trying to pinpoint any kind of timeframe for the offense. So if the person was not under UFC/USADA jurisdiction at any time within the past few years, or they already had an offense litigated, there's no way that the M3, alone, can pinpoint an offense.

 

[fzoid4454]

There's no evidence that the failed tests in 2018 and 2019 were the result of his 2017 ingestion..

So what? What has to be proven is that the 2018 and 2019 were the result of subsequent ingestion, and they can't prove that, because you also can't prove that it ISN'T from the 2017 ingestion.

You need affirmative proof. The accused doesn't have to prove the negative case. No matter how much you hate him.

 

[Captain Herb]

Lol. Nice dick tuck.

You don’t understand what his question means?

how many times did he test negative in a row after his July 28th 2017 positive?
​

Lol…….

Dick tuck? Ok, I see what you're into not that there's anything wrong with it.

As far as Jones, he tested positive on July 28, 2017 and then again more than a year later in August of 2018. There were negative tests and no positive tests during that period yet he claims that the second failure actually arose from the same origin as the first (tainted dick pills). Those are the facts. If you have contrary information provide it, but I'm sure you'll just continue to scream liar like someone who lost an argument. It's extremely ironic that you call everyone a liar except Jon Jones.

 

[kflo]

Dick tuck? Ok, I see what you're into not that there's anything wrong with it.

As far as Jones, he tested positive on July 28, 2017 and then again more than a year later in August of 2018. There were negative tests and no positive tests during that period yet he claims that the second failure actually arose from the same origin as the first (tainted dick pills). Those are the facts. If you have contrary information provide it, but I'm sure you'll just continue to scream liar like someone who lost an argument. It's extremely ironic that you call everyone a liar except Jon Jones.

how many times did he test negative in a row after his July 28th 2017 positive?

 

[UsernameLOL]

ALL of the cases you’re referencing were small traces of m3. They were challenged by the athlete.

Like I said, I'll deal with the "trace amounts" argument later (along with inter-individual variability).

Did you ever think that maybe they weren’t caught during a doping scheme?

It's possible they were caught after they discontinued doping. Totally possible. But we know that DHCMT use was rampant from 2008 - 2012 before the new long term metabolite tests were rolled out. If you can find some re-test (from 2008 - 2012) arbitration agreements that mention metabolites other than m3 I would really like to see them. That would support your statement "athletes caught doping with dhcmt will have other markers besides m3". I would think that if someone tested positive for multiple metabolites then the arbitration agreement would mention it.

You are wondering why other metabolites aren’t present as if they are just undetectable. We KNOW this isn’t true. M3 is NOT the only detectable substance from a dhcmt doping scheme. We know this factually. You keep trying to present a case that its somehow not true….athletes caught doping with dhcmt will have other markers besides m3. Those markers will indicate ingestion within some reasonable time frame from the test date. From what we know the m3 metabolite is the LONG detection metabolite. Not the others. But they ARE detectable.

Of course m3 is not the only detectable metabolite. We have the other 2 long term metabolites but cases involving them from the retests are almost impossible to come by so I have to disagree with "athletes caught doping will have other markers besides m3. Those markers will indicate ingestion within some reasonable time frame from the test date". Clearly less detectable and not just because of detection window; I contend if shorter LTM were reasonably detectable then we'd see many more instances of them from random retests of a large athlete population but that isn't the case.

The other paper had dhcmt findings go from 1 to 61 then back down to 7……

I'm glad you brought this up. This strongly suggests that m3 would not be detectable after 2-3 years if athletes were doping in 2012, got caught in 2013 for long term metabolites , then didn't get caught in 2014. Inter-individual variability accounted for.

Let me ask you - based on what you know about tbol doping schemes, and usada random testing, and the detection window, what is your hypothesis about what tbol doping schemes athletes are using to try to avoid detection? Do you have one? Do you think there are educated athletes who look at tbol and think that’s a good steroid to improve performance and avoid detection under usada?

Is this question in regards to UFC athletes? My hypothesis is that shorter term LTMs are nearly impossible to find. After all retests of a large swath of athletes under WADA from an era where dhcmt use was rampant scarcely turned up short term LTMs (can't find any arbitration agreements dealing with them).

As for trace amounts I'll deal with that shortly with a "first pass approach" (not controlling for bias and variance) of the turinabol m3 excretion data in the OP.

Previously I extrapolated a single dose and then applied Cowan's model. Now I will apply Cowan's model first without extrapolating.

 

[Captain Herb]

The issue at hand, if we're limiting our discussion to the long-term metabolites, is that the M3 metabolite is so long-term, and with no actual endpoint for when it is completely out of your system, that they are concluding that, alone, it's useless if you are trying to pinpoint any kind of timeframe for the offense. So if the person was not under UFC/USADA jurisdiction at any time within the past few years, or they already had an offense litigated, there's no way that the M3, alone, can pinpoint an offense.

Actually there is a way. The presence of M3 shows that the athlete doped (unless they can prove it was a tainted supplement or something) and that the PED metabolites are still in their system so therefore, they are ineligible for competition. (In the UFC)

If an athlete is dumb enough to dope with Tbol, that's their problem. They should also keep in mind that better tests will be developed for other compounds, so they are never safe from future testing. UFC/USADA needs a no-tolerance policy against PEDs if they want to get them out of the sport. They have done the opposite, going as far as changing multiple rules just for Jon Jones and giving him every benefit of the doubt to the point of absurdity.

 

[kflo]

There's no evidence that the failed tests in 2018 and 2019 were the result of his 2017 ingestion.

lol. wtf does this even mean? what is the evidence it was from a new ingestion?

 

[kflo]

So what? What has to be proven is that the 2018 and 2019 were the result of subsequent ingestion, and they can't prove that, because you also can't prove that it ISN'T from the 2017 ingestion.

You need affirmative proof. The accused doesn't have to prove the negative case. No matter how much you hate him.

he's a hack.....

 

[UsernameLOL]

The issue at hand, if we're limiting our discussion to the long-term metabolites, is that the M3 metabolite is so long-term, and with no actual endpoint for when it is completely out of your system, that they are concluding that, alone, it's useless if you are trying to pinpoint any kind of timeframe for the offense. So if the person was not under UFC/USADA jurisdiction at any time within the past few years, or they already had an offense litigated, there's no way that the M3, alone, can pinpoint an offense.

You bring up a good point. However despite not having controlled multiple dose multiple subject experiments a range for the detection window and general pattern can still be inferred through numerical methods of interpolation/extrapolation/time series analysis and statistical analysis. I will shortly apply Professor Cowan's model of repeated doses. This time applying the model to an un-extrapolated single dose.

Something to consider

Before 2013 there were no tests for long term metabolites so it's safe to say that people were doping in 2012 got caught in 2013 and largely abandoned DHCMT in 2014. To me this suggests that the detection window of DHCMT metabolite m3 is not more than 2-3 years.

 

[eighterumg5]

Except he's in the testing pool, and has regularly been tested. And "regularly" is an understatement.

So, that particular conspiracy theory kind of falls apart pretty quickly. And what is he in "arbitration" for? Is he challenging their findings of "non-offense"?

I never said it was a strong theory. And this whole "move" to HW is fishy as fuck.

 

[acannxr]

And what is he in "arbitration" for? Is he challenging their findings of "non-offense"?

It's possible that Jones failed for a new substance and is delaying arbitration much in the same way that he did in 2017-2018; that's the theory, though I personally don't subscribe to it (yet at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if it happened).

 

[fzoid4454]

Actually there is a way. The presence of M3 shows that the athlete doped (unless they can prove it was a tainted supplement or something) and that the PED metabolites are still in their system so therefore, they are ineligible for competition. (In the UFC)

If an athlete is dumb enough to dope with Tbol, that's their problem. They should also keep in mind that better tests will be developed for other compounds, so they are never safe from future testing. UFC/USADA needs a no-tolerance policy against PEDs if they want to get them out of the sport. They have done the opposite, going as far as changing multiple rules just for Jon Jones and giving him every benefit of the doubt to the point of absurdity.

It shows that they doped, but we're still chasing our tails on this. The punishment or sanction for a single doping incident is not a lifetime ban. The presence of the M3 does NOT show evidence that they have subsequently doped.

We keep doing this song and dance. Your standard is now a lifetime ban for any single instance of doping. Fair enough. But that's not what the rules are. Then any subsequent test result is really irrelevant, isn't it?

 

[fzoid4454]

You bring up a good point. However despite not having controlled multiple dose multiple subject experiments a range for the detection window and general pattern can still be inferred through numerical methods of interpolation/extrapolation/time series analysis and statistical analysis. I will shortly apply Professor Cowan's model of repeated doses. This time applying the model to an un-extrapolated single dose.

Something to consider

Before 2013 there were no tests for long term metabolites so it's safe to say that people were doping in 2012 got caught in 2013 and largely abandoned DHCMT in 2014. To me this suggests that the detection window of DHCMT metabolite m3 is not more than 2-3 years.

It may suggest that to you, but you're also ignoring that the ability to accurately detect minute concentrations has vastly improved after 2014. You can't infer anything comparing apples to oranges.

A good way to actually test that is to do a long term study, but what they've found when they went out to several months is that it wasn't going down, AT ALL, at the tail end of the timeframe that they were studying. "To me this suggests" that the M3 does not break down, nor does the body have any mechanism to purge what residual amounts are there.

 

[fzoid4454]

I never said it was a strong theory. And this whole "move" to HW is fishy as fuck.

Fishy..... how?

He was fighting people who were nobodies, except that they got to fight him, and Dana was using lack of PPV sales for expected (by the fans) non-competitive fights as a bargaining tool to not pay him GOAT rates.

He's chasing bigger names, matchups, fan interest and PPV money. Nothing fishy about that. And how does it accomplish anything, in terms of dodging PED detection, if he's in the testing pool the whole time?

 

[eighterumg5]

Fishy..... how?

He was fighting people who were nobodies, except that they got to fight him, and Dana was using lack of PPV sales for expected (by the fans) non-competitive fights as a bargaining tool to not pay him GOAT rates.

He's chasing bigger names, matchups, fan interest and PPV money. Nothing fishy about that. And how does it accomplish anything, in terms of dodging PED detection, if he's in the testing pool the whole time?

Sorry man but I'm not the only one who thinks something is up with Jon. You have some good points but after a decade of honeydicking us, I just dont believe him anymore. Nothing wrong with my opinion or yours