Evidence of Jones' Guilt

It is possible that testing is currently beating masking, until masking catches back up.
It is also possible, since more and more of the science is backing it up, that the "pulsing" thing is legit, and trace amounts of M3 metabolites might not be the best standard for suspending athletes.

We'll get is figured out, eventually, I'm sure. But right now, by the current rules, and what is known and can be proven, I don't see how one can legitimately levy additional punishment for Jones without it being singling him out, arbitrarily.
 
Jones got a 4 year suspension reduced to 15 months, retroactively, and wasn't tested by USADA during most of that retroactive suspension, all because he snitched (yet who or what Jones snitched on was never made public); to put this in perspective, Jones' punishment was more lenient than what an athletic commission would've given him.
You may not like what they gave out, but the fact is that he was sanctioned for that offense, so they don't get to hit him with additional sanctions for that same offense. You have to be in the testing pool at least six full months before you have a fight. When he came back, he was, and he was tested often before the Gustafsson fight.
 
Na, I'm saying why can't you say he tested negative for a year--or didn't test positive--if you prefer?
You’re playing dumb now?

You can’t answer the question?

Remember this lie you told yet refuse to answer a direct question?
Why would he test negative, repeatedly, for a year before the M3 decided to start pulsing? That makes no sense and does not fit in with what people are calling pulsing.
 
You’re playing dumb now?

You can’t answer the question?

Remember this lie you told yet refuse to answer a direct question?
Why would he test negative, repeatedly, for a year before the M3 decided to start pulsing? That makes no sense and does not fit in with what people are calling pulsing.
What lie? I've already taken your word for the test dates and results in 2017. He was tested 5 times in the last half of 2017 and you said he passed all but one (July 28). OK, I'll accept that. Then we know he finally tested positive in August of 2018 and then began his infamous pulsing. That's a span of a year between positive tests. Are we on the same page?
 
What lie? I've already taken your word for the test dates and results in 2017. He was tested 5 times in the last half of 2017 and you said he passed all but one. OK, I'll accept that. Then we know he finally tested positive in August of 2018 and then began his infamous pulsing. Are we on the same page?
You still refuse to answer a simple question?

I’ll ask you again, slowly so you can follow…….how many times did he test negative in a row after his July 28th 2017 positive? C’mon genius…..you can do it……..
When you do, you’ll see how this:
Why would he test negative, repeatedly, for a year before the M3 decided to start pulsing? That makes no sense and does not fit in with what people are calling pulsing.
Was a lie…..

Which is why you probably won’t.
 
You still refuse to answer a simple question?

I’ll ask you again, slowly so you can follow…….how many times did he test negative in a row after his July 28th 2017 positive? C’mon genius…..you can do it……..
When you do, you’ll see how this:
Why would he test negative, repeatedly, for a year before the M3 decided to start pulsing? That makes no sense and does not fit in with what people are calling pulsing.
Was a lie…..

Which is why you probably won’t.
You're off your rocker lol. I have no idea what you're trying to prove. You said he tested positive for 1 out of the five tests he had in the last half of 2017. That's fine with me, I'm not going to dispute that. So what are you getting at?
 
You're off your rocker lol. I have no idea what you're trying to prove. You said he tested positive for 1 out of the five tests he had in the last half of 2017. That's fine with me, I'm not going to dispute that. So what are you getting at?
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…….
 
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…….
This is what I know kflo:

4 tests Q3 2017. 1 positive on July 28 (according to you, the others were negative)
1 test Q4 2017. (according to you, this test was negative)

That's all the info I have bud.
 
so they don't get to hit him with additional sanctions for that same offense.
There's no evidence that the failed tests in 2018 and 2019 were the result of his 2017 ingestion.

Study suggests the M3 metabolite doesn't remain in one's system past 250-300 days, meanwhile Jones was testing positive 543 days after his allegedly single time ingestion
And see above.

You have to be in the testing pool at least six full months before you have a fight. When he came back, he was, and he was tested often before the Gustafsson fight.
When fighters accept a suspension, they're still tested throughout that suspension, in fact it's required. When Jones received a retroactive suspension, he wasn't tested for the majority of that timeframe (and not because he left the testing pool, but because USADA just decided not to test him). Furthermore, not only was Jones only tested for five months prior to the Gustafsson rematch, he failed five tests in that span of time.
 
It is also possible, since more and more of the science is backing it up, that the "pulsing" thing is legit, and trace amounts of M3 metabolites might not be the best standard for suspending athletes.

We'll get is figured out, eventually, I'm sure. But right now, by the current rules, and what is known and can be proven, I don't see how one can legitimately levy additional punishment for Jones without it being singling him out, arbitrarily.
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...
 
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...
You know that’s not the case. It’s only about whether jones cheated after the dc fight.

And cmon @The Schmoop ……I thought we were buds now!
 
Last edited:
There's no evidence that the failed tests in 2018 and 2019 were the result of his 2017 ingestion.


And see above.


When fighters accept a suspension, they're still tested throughout that suspension, in fact it's required. When Jones received a retroactive suspension, he wasn't tested for the majority of that timeframe (and not because he left the testing pool, but because USADA just decided not to test him). Furthermore, not only was Jones only tested for five months prior to the Gustafsson rematch, he failed five tests in that span of time.
This idiot keeps repeating the lie in his op that there’s a study saying m3 doesn’t stay beyond 250-300 days. Which started at 50 days…..
 
This is what I know kflo:

4 tests Q3 2017. 1 positive on July 28 (according to you, the others were negative)
1 test Q4 2017. (according to you, this test was negative)

That's all the info I have bud.
If that’s all the info you had you would be pretty dumb to say:
Why would he test negative, repeatedly, for a year before the M3 decided to start pulsing?
Since you have nothing to support that statement. Yet you ran with it and drew conclusions from it. Pretty foolish don’t you think?
 
i'm not reading all 100 pages of this. can someone tell me if anyone suspects if jones is currently under USADA arbitration right now in august 2021?

i think he is. there's no reason for his inactivity otherwise
I think he is too. Have for awhile
 
I wouldn't be surprised if he's been delaying arbitration, but I still think it's more likely that he was actually planning on moving up to heavyweight...until Ngannou dominated Miocic, then he used money as a scapegoat to back out.
That's a good point too
 
You know that’s not the case. It’s only about whether jones cheated after the dc fight.

And cmon @The Schmoop ……I thought we were buds now!
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!
 
jon jones is a fucking cheater, through and through
giphy.gif
 
again, you continue to act as if only 1 new metabolite was introduced in 2013......

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

CJe5RBx.jpg


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

xzAgwwt.jpg


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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top