Evidence of Jones' Guilt

[kflo]

Dude, what is wrong with you? I thought you understood that multiple tests can be given on a single day. Unless you know the dates of the tests, the total number is meaningless. You're just taking the total number and dividing it by 12 like a 5th grader. I also provided you with an article that definitively states that VADA was only contracted for THREE to SIX (3 to 6) MONTHS. This is exactly what I was recalling in the previous post when I said the extra testing was not for the full year, but only a matter of a few months.

It’s not typical at all for multiple tests to be done on the same day. Only when they do blood and urine on the same day which is very rare.

It’s amazing that you can know that he was tested 42 times, know he was tested almost 30 times in the first half and over a dozen in the second, but for you, you don’t have enough information so you’ll continue to act as if it is meaningless and he obviously had large windows of time to do cycles of steroids and avoid detection.

And lol at 6 months being a “few”. he was tested 25 times in 2020 as well just by usada. But yeah, that’s not “extra” testing for old herb. But you don’t know the exact dates……

You know nothing about how this works but seem to want to pretend you do just to keep up your indignation.

 

[kflo]

To those who are contending that lack of short term metabolites found in urine are indicative of non re-ingestion I'd like to direct you to this excerpt from this anti-doping conference document

https://www.dshs-koeln.de/fileadmin.../PDF/Long-term_Vortrag_Orlando_mit_Folien.pdf (page 4/38)

In 2012 they had one finding of DHCMT (not counting retests)

In 2013 when the test for long term metabolites was implemented they had 61

That should speak volumes about how much harder it is to inherently detect short term metabolites.

Rodchenkov warned that retests for 2008 and 2012 would spell disaster and that is exactly what happened.


Edit: I'd imagine these statistics pertain to a certain subset because they don't match up with executive summaries I've found. I'll elaborate on the executive summaries I've found

it's also not an accurate representation. rodchenkov introduced 6 new "long term" metabolites, not just m3. those metabolites each have different detection windows, with m3 being the longest. when they talk of "short term metabolites" it includes the shorter "long term" metabolites also introduced by rodchenkov in 2013.

 

[UsernameLOL]

it's also not an accurate representation. rodchenkov introduced 6 new "long term" metabolites, not just m3. those metabolites each have different detection windows, with m3 being the longest. when they talk of "short term metabolites" it includes the shorter "long term" metabolites also introduced by rodchenkov in 2013.

I’m not following.

Are you saying those 61 positives could be comprised of various metabolites besides m3?


It specifically mentions the m3 metabolite excretion study and then mentions adding “this metabolite (m3)” to the screening process resulted in 61 positive tests (as opposed to 1 the year prior).

I think it’s pretty fair to chalk up to the plethora of new positives to the inclusion of m3 (and not short term metabolites or other long term metabolites) in the screening process.

I think it is quite a reach to say a “significant” portion of those 61 findings could be due to shorter term metabolites or long term metabolites besides m3 given the wording (page 4/38).

To re-iterate they are referring to the inclusion of m3 in addition to previously known short term metabolites.

 

[kflo]

I’m not following.

Are you saying those 61 positives could be comprised of various metabolites besides m3?


It specifically mentions the m3 metabolite excretion study and then mentions adding “this metabolite (m3)” to the screening process resulted in 61 positive tests (as opposed to 1 the year prior).

I think it’s pretty fair to chalk up to the plethora of new positives to the inclusion of m3 (and not short term metabolites or other long term metabolites) in the screening process.

I think it is quite a reach to say a “significant” portion of those 61 findings could be due to shorter term metabolites or long term metabolites besides m3 given the wording (page 4/38).

To re-iterate they are referring to the inclusion of m3 in addition to previously known short term metabolites.

i'm saying they weren't testing for any of those metabolites in 2012. so saying those metabolites were hard to detect before 2013 is a meaningless statement since they weren't tested for.

in 2013 they didn't need to differentiate between athletes that tested positive for m3 vs m3+m1 or any other combination. if they tested positive it was a violation and if they tested positive it's almost certain it included m3.

 

[fzoid4454]

I don't know if they do or not but it seems, as a practical matter, unlikely that they would test for hundreds--if not thousands of prohibited compounds on every sample for every athlete.

That's because you don't seem to understand how the testing works. It's not like they use an indicator chemical for each and every type of banned substance, and if samples 2 and 18 turn red, then he's using Turinabol and a masking agent.

Running a tiny sample through the testing machinery and having software analyze the data spikes allows them to test of dozens or more substances with any kind of test, so if they use a couple kinds of test, they're testing for pretty much the broad range of substances.

It would make less sense and be more work to customize the analytical software to run different tests, as opposed to using the same, more comprehensive analysis.

This more efficient process is made possible through the development of a rapid on-site screening technology called coated blade-spray mass spectrometry that can detect more than 100 drugs using just one drop of blood or a few microlitres of urine on a coated sample strip at the parts per billion level. That's like detecting a sugar cube dissolved in an Olympic sized swimming pool.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180208131712.htm

 

[UsernameLOL]

i'm saying they weren't testing for any of those metabolites in 2012. so saying those metabolites were hard to detect before 2013 is a meaningless statement since they weren't tested for.

in 2013 they didn't need to differentiate between athletes that tested positive for m3 vs m3+m1 or any other combination. if they tested positive it was a violation and if they tested positive it's almost certain it included m3.

I still don’t understand your objection. Obviously it was impossible to test for m3 before the test for it was introduced.

Testing for m3 (in addition to shorter term metabolites) resulted in a plethora (61) of findings in 2012 as opposed to only 1 in 2011.

We can safely say that m3 is easier to detect than short term metabolites (for whatever reason be it that it lasts longer or has a more distinct mass spec signal).

it seems like you are saying a sizable portion of those 61 findings could be m3+m1 or exclusively m1. That’s not likely in my opinion. If you add one factor and that changes the results considerably it’s an indication that added factor is the culprit (not a guarantee but a strong indication).

 

[fzoid4454]

If USADA tested for every prohibited substance they wouldn't have had to re-test Dillashaw's old samples for EPO.

Adding new and better tests to broaden the range of substances tested for, or more accurately tested for, as technology improves is not the same as choosing to test for some, sometime and others, other times.

They test the same for everyone, with every test. Going back and testing an old sample would be for a test done at a time when they didn't have the tests available for that substance.

 

[kflo]

I still don’t understand your objection. Obviously it was impossible to test for m3 before the test for it was introduced.

Testing for m3 (in addition to shorter term metabolites) resulted in a plethora (61) of findings in 2012 as opposed to only 1 in 2011.

We can safely say that m3 is easier to detect than short term metabolites (for whatever reason be it that it lasts longer or has a more distinct mass spec signal).

it seems like you are saying a sizable portion of those 61 findings could be m3+m1 or exclusively m1. That’s not likely in my opinion. If you add one factor and that changes the results considerably it’s an indication that added factor is the culprit (not a guarantee but a strong indication).

It was impossible to test for any of the rodchenkov metabolites before 2013. I’m saying that if m3 wasn’t detectable in 2013 but the other rodchenkov metabolites were, you still would have had an increase from 2012 due to the ability to test for the other metabolites beginning in 2013. Is this clear?

 

[kflo]

Adding new and better tests to broaden the range of substances tested for, or more accurately tested for, as technology improves is not the same as choosing to test for some, sometime and others, other times.

They test the same for everyone, with every test. Going back and testing an old sample would be for a test done at a time when they didn't have the tests available for that substance.

EPO is a separate category. He knows this….it’s not a urine test….it’s tested for separately.

 

[acannxr]

Adding new and better tests to broaden the range of substances tested for, or more accurately tested for, as technology improves is not the same as choosing to test for some, sometime and others, other times.

They test the same for everyone, with every test. Going back and testing an old sample would be for a test done at a time when they didn't have the tests available for that substance.

"USADA does not test every single sample for EPO, because EPO occurs naturally in the body and the testing is more complex and time-consuming than regular analysis, per USADA’s website."
https://www.mmafighting.com/2019/4/...-into-t-j-dillashaws-drug-test-sample-history

DANA WHITE ‘SHOCKED’ THAT USADA DOESN’T TEST FOR EPO EVERY SINGLE TIME
https://www.mmaweekly.com/dana-white-shocked-that-usada-doesnt-test-for-epo-every-single-time

USADA not testing for EPO in every sample has nothing to do with "improved technology"; with the number of samples USADA takes from the UFC, administering an EPO test on every single one of them would be too expensive and time consuming.

That's because you don't seem to understand how the testing works.

This clearly applies to you.

 

[kflo]

"USADA does not test every single sample for EPO, because EPO occurs naturally in the body and the testing is more complex and time-consuming than regular analysis, per USADA’s website."
https://www.mmafighting.com/2019/4/...-into-t-j-dillashaws-drug-test-sample-history

DANA WHITE ‘SHOCKED’ THAT USADA DOESN’T TEST FOR EPO EVERY SINGLE TIME
https://www.mmaweekly.com/dana-white-shocked-that-usada-doesnt-test-for-epo-every-single-time

USADA not testing for EPO in every sample has nothing to do with "improved technology"; with the number of samples USADA takes from the UFC, administering an EPO test on every single one of them would be too expensive and time consuming.


This clearly applies to you.

Which you know is meaningless in the context of this thread……

 

[Gimp Mask]

everyone is juiced

/endthread

 

[fzoid4454]

"USADA does not test every single sample for EPO, because EPO occurs naturally in the body and the testing is more complex and time-consuming than regular analysis, per USADA’s website."
https://www.mmafighting.com/2019/4/...-into-t-j-dillashaws-drug-test-sample-history

DANA WHITE ‘SHOCKED’ THAT USADA DOESN’T TEST FOR EPO EVERY SINGLE TIME
https://www.mmaweekly.com/dana-white-shocked-that-usada-doesnt-test-for-epo-every-single-time

USADA not testing for EPO in every sample has nothing to do with "improved technology"; with the number of samples USADA takes from the UFC, administering an EPO test on every single one of them would be too expensive and time consuming.


This clearly applies to you.

Which has what to do with Jon Jones and Turinabol, exactly?

 

[fzoid4454]

"USADA does not test every single sample for EPO, because EPO occurs naturally in the body and the testing is more complex and time-consuming than regular analysis, per USADA’s website."
https://www.mmafighting.com/2019/4/...-into-t-j-dillashaws-drug-test-sample-history

DANA WHITE ‘SHOCKED’ THAT USADA DOESN’T TEST FOR EPO EVERY SINGLE TIME
https://www.mmaweekly.com/dana-white-shocked-that-usada-doesnt-test-for-epo-every-single-time

USADA not testing for EPO in every sample has nothing to do with "improved technology"; with the number of samples USADA takes from the UFC, administering an EPO test on every single one of them would be too expensive and time consuming.

Of course it does. There used to be no tests for EPO (why so many in cycling were using it). Now it's an expensive and cumbersome process to test of it, which would indicate that the testing methods haven't been improved and refined enough, so they have to be selective about that.

And when they have an improved test that isn't more expensive and cumbersome, aka "IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY," then it will a standard, regular test along with all the others.

And, still, this has nothing to do with any claims that Jones not popping for Turinabol is because USADA arbitrarily decides what to test for and not. The "random" for random testing is about the scheduling of when and who gets tested, not what they test for.

 

[fzoid4454]

Forget his likeability, he cheated so it was his decision that may have "screwed him" long term. Let me ask, if M3's are showing up, could they still be helping? You don't know so we can't say for sure. Obviously, the easiest thing is to never cheat in the first place.

No. Trace elements of a substance that has been broken down to a by product, and then that by product has been broken down to another, and then that one has been broken down to yet another by product is not offering any PED benefit. The metabolites are indications of a PED substance, they are not, themselves, the PED substance.

So, what remains is that he has already been punished for the vague, unspecified "you clearly used it SOMETIME" offense. While you may feel it's fine to punish someone for life for a single offense, that's not how the rules and parameters are set up. You get sanctioned, and then you've paid the price. So, if you have a long-term metabolite that simply doesn't break down, and can stay in the system for indeterminate periods of time, the fact that we can now detect those substances and much finer levels than ever before (aka "picograms/ml") doesn't mean, ITSELF, that he's used again.

That's what needs to be proven. If they find out that, no, the current understanding is wrong, and ALL of the M3 metabolite is gone from the body after 15 months, then we can reassess. If he pops for other metabolites, then the deniability, plausible or implausible, that it was from the original incident that he was already punished for, goes out the window. But, as it is, having trace amounts of the M3 show up, absent any other kind of indicator, is not a "failed test" or indication of new use, and can't and should not be sanctioned, without first changing the rules of this particular game.

 

[acannxr]

There used to be no tests for EPO (why so many in cycling were using it).

Irrelevant since we're talking about USADA under the context of the UFC's drug testing program and they've had EPO tests since the program was introduced.

so they have to be selective about that.

In other words, they don't test every sample for EPO (and numerous other substances).

And when they have an improved test that isn't more expensive and cumbersome, aka "IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY," then it will a standard, regular test along with all the others.

But retroactively testing samples for EPO isn't due to "improved technology", it's because those samples were never tested for EPO in the first place.

And, still, this has nothing to do with any claims that Jones not popping for Turinabol is because USADA arbitrarily decides what to test for and not. The "random" for random testing is about the scheduling of when and who gets tested, not what they test for.

Because you said that everyone has to be held by the same standard otherwise it sets precedent for appeals, but not only is that impossible, it's evident by the example I cited (i.e. USADA not testing for every prohibited substance with each sample, such as EPO).

 

[UsernameLOL]

It was impossible to test for any of the rodchenkov metabolites before 2013. I’m saying that if m3 wasn’t detectable in 2013 but the other rodchenkov metabolites were, you still would have had an increase from 2012 due to the ability to test for the other metabolites beginning in 2013. Is this clear?

Are you saying that it is possible that the spike in new positive findings may be due to m3 AND other novel metabolites found by Rodchenkov?

 

[kflo]

Are you saying that it is possible that the spike in new positive findings may be due to m3 AND other novel metabolites found by Rodchenkov?

there was a big spike in 2013 with the introduction of testing for a bunch of new metabolites associated with dhcmt substances. you can't conclude from that fact that the ONLY metabolite detectable in the 2013 samples was m3. do you get it now?

 

[fzoid4454]

But retroactively testing samples for EPO isn't due to "improved technology", it's because those samples were never tested for EPO in the first place.

It is and it isn't. They don't currently test every sample because of the cost and cumbersome nature of doing so. The high cost and cumbersome nature is BECAUSE THE TESTING TECHNOLOGY HAS NOT ADVANCED TO THE LEVEL OF OTHER TESTING.

They tested Dillashaw, initially, because of a profile or "passport" THAT EVERY FIGHTER MAINTAINS showed indications that further testing might be warranted. In other words, Dillashaw was flagged UNDER THE SAME STANDARDS AS EVERYONE ELSE.

Having failed the tests, this meant that testing of past samples was warranted, AS IT WOULD BE FOR ANYONE ELSE.

So, yes, they are applying the EXACT SAME PROTOCOLS AND TESTING STANDARDS FOR EPO FOR EVERY FIGHTER.

 

[fzoid4454]

Irrelevant since we're talking about USADA under the context of the UFC's drug testing program and they've had EPO tests since the program was introduced.


In other words, they don't test every sample for EPO (and numerous other substances).


But retroactively testing samples for EPO isn't due to "improved technology", it's because those samples were never tested for EPO in the first place.


Because you said that everyone has to be held by the same standard otherwise it sets precedent for appeals, but not only is that impossible, it's evident by the example I cited (i.e. USADA not testing for every prohibited substance with each sample, such as EPO).

And everyone is held to the same standard. People only get tested when they meet a certain criteria based upon a regularly monitored blood profile. The past testing only happens if there is a current failed test, and then they want to see if a more severe punishment is warranted for longer term cheating beyond the initial failed case.

This is all the exact same criteria, actions and follow-up, for any given fighter. So, yes, there is a single, uniform standard being followed.