A lot of people are getting cleared by USADA recently.... Jon Jones next?

[dim_]

your opinions and assumptions about how easy it is to pull one over on USADA are fairly widespread. Chael does a pretty good job of debunking them here..

I'd never heard of tamoxifen before and it looks like a breast cancer med. What is it supposed to help, performancewise?

its not that.

its that all four batches of the pills tested by usada contained the two substances Jones tested positive for (clomid and letrozole) as well as tamoxifen

but strangely none of jones urine samples contained tamoxifen which one would expect had he taken those tablets..

 

[Joseph_McBride]

Imagine if DC got on Jon's turinibol/Clomiphene diet with a little TRTitor on the side.

 

[Alpha_T83]

its not that.

its that all four batches of the pills tested by usada contained the two substances Jones tested positive for (clomid and letrozole) as well as tamoxifen

but strangely none of jones urine samples contained tamoxifen which one would expect had he taken those tablets..

Yup. Jones is dirty AF.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

its not that.

its that all four batches of the pills tested by usada contained the two substances Jones tested positive for (clomid and letrozole) as well as tamoxifen

but strangely none of jones urine samples contained tamoxifen which one would expect had he taken those tablets..

curious of your thoughts on this https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/11...suspension-peds-clomiphene-letrozole-steroids

What is tamoxifen, and did Jones test positive for it, since it was in those pills?

Tamoxifen didn’t show up in Jones’ drug test, but it did show up in the tested “tadalafil” pills. This discrepancy was explained by the arbitration panel as being plausible because of the evidently poor quality control on the pills.

The four samples varied widely in their contents. Clomiphene varied from 10mcg to 430mcg - a difference of 4,300%. Letrozole varied from 37mcg to 170mcg - a difference of over 400%, and tamoxifen varied from 120mcg to 360mcg - a difference of over 300%. As a result the panel concluded it made sense for Jones to have taken an individual pill with too little tamoxifen to be detected by the drug test.
​

 

[Gambit MMA]

because usada is corrupt and they're clearing people because its starting to cost the ufc money. the org has no dignity. they literally didnt test lesnar for 200 because they knew he would pop and gave him an exemption from testing and then just busted him after all the $$$$$$ came in.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

because usada is corrupt and they're clearing people because its starting to cost the ufc money. the org has no dignity. they literally didnt test lesnar for 200 because they knew he would pop and gave him an exemption from testing and then just busted him after all the $$$$$$ came in.

your frustration is misguided. it was Zuffa that a) wrote into the Zuffa/USADA contract that they could provide an exception to some fighters, and b) Zuffa who provided the exemption.

see 5.7.3 of this contract.

@dimspace knows more than me i'm sure, but i believe that USADA has many different testing programs across many different sports. for example, they allow TUE's to some non-competitive bicyclists (e.g. if they're old men who are technically professional but aren't making it a career). source.

it has created a new exemption for masters and amateur athletes who are prescribed banned drugs. Called a Recreational Competitor Therapeutic Use Exemption, it allows masters and amateur athletes to compete in low-level competitions while taking banned substances. An athlete must prove to USADA that he or she is unlikely to actually win one of these amateur races, in addition to proving a medical need for an illicit chemical.​

 

[radiored]

your frustration is misguided. it was Zuffa that a) wrote into the Zuffa/USADA contract that they could provide an exception to some fighters, and b) Zuffa who provided the exemption.

see 5.7.3 of this contract.

This still doesn't show USADA in good light, that they are willing to sign this and go along with it. UFC using USADA to have a clean image but adding in the contract they can manipulate this at will.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

This still doesn't show USADA in good light, that they are willing to sign this and go along with it. UFC using USADA to have a clean image but adding in the contract they can manipulate this at will.

well, "at will" is a bit broad. it is only for returning fighters.

i added more comments in my prior post. i'm not necessarily disagreeing with your main point however; i am just adding some color and context. cheers.

 

[dim_]

curious of your thoughts on this https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/11...suspension-peds-clomiphene-letrozole-steroids

What is tamoxifen, and did Jones test positive for it, since it was in those pills?

Tamoxifen didn’t show up in Jones’ drug test, but it did show up in the tested “tadalafil” pills. This discrepancy was explained by the arbitration panel as being plausible because of the evidently poor quality control on the pills.

The four samples varied widely in their contents. Clomiphene varied from 10mcg to 430mcg - a difference of 4,300%. Letrozole varied from 37mcg to 170mcg - a difference of over 400%, and tamoxifen varied from 120mcg to 360mcg - a difference of over 300%. As a result the panel concluded it made sense for Jones to have taken an individual pill with too little tamoxifen to be detected by the drug test.
​

arbitration panels tend to depend on absolutes and doubt holds a lot of weight.

Could USADA prove that the particular tablet Jones took contained Tamoxifen?... No

Is it possible that Jones somehow found a tablet that had little or no Tamoxifen in it?... yes

So on that basis, there was enough doubt because of the variance in levels of tamoxifen in each tablet, that however unlikely, it was possible that Jones pill contained little or none, and hence why his samples contained no tamoxifen..






We on the other hand arent bound by absolutes...

Did all four tablets tested contained tamoxifen? yes

Therefore is it likely that Jones tablet would have contained tamoxifen? Yes

Therefore, is it likely that because of the fact that Jones samples didnt contain tamoxifen that he didnt take the pills he claimed to? yes

Can we prove it? No.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

arbitration panels tend to depend on absolutes and doubt holds a lot of weight.

Could USADA prove that the particular tablet Jones took contained Tamoxifen?... No

Is it possible that Jones somehow found a tablet that had little or no Tamoxifen in it?... yes

So on that basis, there was enough doubt because of the variance in levels of tamoxifen in each tablet, that however unlikely, it was possible that Jones pill contained little or none, and hence why his samples contained no tamoxifen..






We on the other hand arent bound by absolutes...

Did all four tablets tested contained tamoxifen? yes

Therefore is it likely that Jones tablet would have contained tamoxifen? Yes

Therefore, is it likely that because of the fact that Jones samples didnt contain tamoxifen that he didnt take the pills he claimed to? yes

Can we prove it? No.

that's fair and critical thinking. and i think anyone who claims you're a Zuffa/USADA shill (and a lot of folks seem to) should read this post of yours

 

[dim_]

because usada is corrupt and they're clearing people because its starting to cost the ufc money. the org has no dignity. they literally didnt test lesnar for 200 because they knew he would pop and gave him an exemption from testing and then just busted him after all the $$$$$$ came in.

they didnt treat Lesnar any differently to how they treat any other Athlete joining the UFC

The fact that Lesnar was in the UFC donkeys years ago shouldnt have had any bearing (especially when you consider he left years before the USADA program was even a thing). It is totally right that he should have been treated exactly the same as any other athlete joining the UFC.

to make Lesnar sit out six months of testing prior to fighting, but letting a new signing walk in and do one month of testing before fighting would have been "manifestly unfair" and is most certainly a grounds for a waiver or reduction of the four month (as it was then) return to pool period.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we did not know then what we know now (and people who say they did did so without any actual hard evidence)

To treat Lesnar the same way as a fighter newly signed to the UFC was 100% the correct and fair thing to do.

He was not exempted from testing, he was tested heavily prior to the fight. And his positive test was not deliberately held back or delayed, in fact his positive sample was processed considerably quicker than is the average..

 

[dim_]

that's fair and critical thinking. and i think anyone who claims you're a Zuffa/USADA shill (and a lot of folks seem to) should read this post of yours

its like Barnett. He was able to demonstrate to the panel that he did due diligence before taking his supplement and he fully researched and kept meticulous records.

It was 100% the right decision based on that to clear him (or just give him a warning)

Do I believe him? Do I think he totally pulled a fast one on the panel.. hes intelligent, well spoken, considered, hes the sort of person who could spin a yarn very convincingly. Yes.. I think he pulled the wool over their eyes big
time..

but you cant ban someone based on a gut feeling or a hunch

 

[MrCoffee]

Call me out on it, but if he gets cleared, I will stop watching anything UFC.

 

[William Huggins]

Then we know usada is worthless

2 failed tests . questionable results in the past and :

ladies and gentlemen i reest my case

So what........JJ found my old "Insanity" DVD................and mixed it up with the chick with plastic containers for food portion control..........you guys are sooooo out to get him..........I bet this is all a big Sherdog conspiracy, by that evil DC.........

 

[Local Plata]

"Cleared". And yes, Jones is next.

 

[Pacemaker Joe]

your frustration is misguided. it was Zuffa that a) wrote into the Zuffa/USADA contract that they could provide an exception to some fighters, and b) Zuffa who provided the exemption.

see 5.7.3 of this contract.

@dimspace knows more than me i'm sure, but i believe that USADA has many different testing programs across many different sports. for example, they allow TUE's to some non-competitive bicyclists (e.g. if they're old men who are technically professional but aren't making it a career). source.

it has created a new exemption for masters and amateur athletes who are prescribed banned drugs. Called a Recreational Competitor Therapeutic Use Exemption, it allows masters and amateur athletes to compete in low-level competitions while taking banned substances. An athlete must prove to USADA that he or she is unlikely to actually win one of these amateur races, in addition to proving a medical need for an illicit chemical.​

This has changed since 200, in part due to Brock. Other parts were changed because of Angela Hill getting fucked out of a fight when she came back from Invicta. Virtually all of 5.7 was re-written, your link is the current version. It used to essentially be a clone of the WADC 5.7 with some minor variations (UFC got the call on exemptions rather than USADA), now it varies from it significantly due to the nature of the UFC's business - people will be coming and going from the testing pool all the time, for a variety of reasons.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/defa.../wada_anti-doping_code_2018_english_final.pdf

But yes, it was the UFC that granted the exemption, not USADA. Brock is now covered by 5.7.5, and the UFC can't exempt him from it.
You can say that they may not follow the policy, but if you assume they follow it (which might be a big ask), then no, he's not getting any sort of exemption again. Add in that doing so would open up a huge pile of worms for them - technically, they did everything by the book last time when he fought Hunt. They still ended up in court with him, with a shit ton of bad press. It'd be 1000x worse if they did it again and couldn't show that they'd even tried acting in good faith.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

This has changed since 200, in part due to Brock. Other parts were changed because of Angela Hill getting fucked out of a fight when she came back from Invicta. Virtually all of 5.7 was re-written, your link is the current version. It used to essentially be a clone of the WADC 5.7 with some minor variations (UFC got the call on exemptions rather than USADA), now it varies from it significantly due to the nature of the UFC's business - people will be coming and going from the testing pool all the time, for a variety of reasons.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/defa.../wada_anti-doping_code_2018_english_final.pdf

But yes, it was the UFC that granted the exemption, not USADA. Brock is now covered by 5.7.5, and the UFC can't exempt him from it.
You can say that they may not follow the policy, but if you assume they follow it (which might be a big ask), then no, he's not getting any sort of exemption again. Add in that doing so would open up a huge pile of worms for them - technically, they did everything by the book last time when he fought Hunt. They still ended up in court with him, with a shit ton of bad press. It'd be 1000x worse if they did it again and couldn't show that they'd even tried acting in good faith.

gottcha. thanks for the clarification on the history of this thing. and i agree with your conclusions.