UFC-USADA loophole could be letting chosen athletes avoid testing in secret

[dim_]

WELL NOW WE KNOW WHATS MUCH MORE OF AN ADVANTAGE THAN PEDS:
WHEN ONLY SOME PEOPLE CAN GET AWAY WITH PEDS.

whats ironic to me is that while I'm all in favor of a loophole,

if its significant Dimspace must be going outta his mind-

on 1 hand to be so infatuated with PEDs that you volunteer to tidy up records and keep fresh soap out,
but on the other hand be aware yer part of a corrupt agency conspiring- theoretically much worse than a lone wolf PED user-

it must be like being a journalist with a passion for writing,
and the only job in town is with TMZ.

here's media way back in August citing my tweets regarding Ronda and the testing pool.

http://link.crwd.fr/1Ug9#http://met...rowdfire&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

so no.. im not out of my mind. Ive said all along that Ronda wasnt being tested and was likely out of the pool

the issue being raised is that should she return UFC could grant a waiver

 

[Eater of Souls]

one huge flaw in the way you look at things.

You are correlating the fact that 50% of athletes admit to doping with the fact that only 1-2% of samples are positive and from that getting a 4% success rate.

but thats not correct

it would be correct if 50% of the samples analysed (ie. all the samples from the athletes admitting to doping) contained prohibited substances.

But we dont know that is the case

What if only 2% of the samples actual contain banned substances because the athletes cycled off prior to being tested. In that circumstance the anti doping agencies have a 100% hit rate of detecting prohibited substances.

(of course thats not the case as we know for instance from the turinabol situation)

but you cant simply correlate 50% of athletes dope, only 2% of samples positive and link the two. because thats assuming that 50% of all samples contain prohibited substances.

No, that is why a meta-analysis is being done. That being said, we can also assume that more athletes use than will admit it, even with a double-blind longitudinal study. At this point all I can do is take the numbers I have at face value, because that is all I have. If I go by personal experience, the percentage of athletes using is much closer to 100, so it stands to reason that a greater percentage of samples would be of athletes using, but I cannot properly support that (good thing, as it would make USADA/WADA look even worse.)

So given the numbers we do have . . . .

Well, it looks pretty bad.

 

[dim_]

No, that is why a meta-analysis is being done. That being said, we can also assume that more athletes use than will admit it, even with a double-blind longitudinal study. At this point all I can do is take the numbers I have at face value, because that is all I have. If I go by personal experience, the percentage of athletes using is much closer to 100, so it stands to reason that a greater percentage of samples would be of athletes using, but I cannot properly support that (good thing, as it would make USADA/WADA look even worse.)

So given the numbers we do have . . . .

Well, it looks pretty bad.

Yes the percentage in a lot of sports is probably 90+

But that doesn't mean 90% of samples contain prohibited substances

So percentage of samples positive is a pointless correlation

 

[Eater of Souls]

Yes the percentage in a lot of sports is probably 90+

But that doesn't mean 90% of samples contain prohibited substances

So percentage of samples positive is a pointless correlation

Again, I can only use the numbers that I have. Hence the mata-analysis that is coming. The first version will not be published, but the second will be. There are a few longitudinal studies that can give us a decent starting point. Going to have the in-house wizard work the ANOVA.

 

[juanM3]

Matchmaking to an extent decides who holds the belt as styles make fights. The UFC will want their biggest draws as champions. This loophole is just another advantage to help keep their biggest draws at the top.

I don't buy that. They pulled Jones (and therefore the biggest fight) a few days before 200. They caught Brock. Now Anderson again. Those are some of their biggest stars outside of Ronda and Conor.

 

[KORMAN]

missed the point of the entire article in a big way.

Firstly, the only person this applies to is Ronda. Every other ranked athlete has been tested just fine throughout the whole of 2017

Secondly, its not saying that people are being allowed to not be tested. It is perfectly acceptable and within the wada code for an athlete to retire from competition (retire means not compete, not retire in the reached 65 stopped completely sense) and withdraw from the testing pool. there is no issue with that.

as long as they do 6 months in the pool on their return prior to competing

the issue is the UFC have the right to grant a waiver to that 6 month period. thats all. and as yet it hasnt even happened. so no, nothing you said in your post is terribly accurate. youve missed the point big time.

Ok, appreciate you clearing it up for me then. So basically, Rondas the only one that benefited from the waiver?

The way I read it, and the tone I'm which the author wrote it, read more like, Ronda for sure got a waiver from the UFC, and it's safe to assume a bunch of other fighters have as well, seeing that they don't have to disclose any of the info on who got one, when they got one, etc.

So assumed there was a handful of fighters that got one, and we'll never know, because per the bylaws of WADA/USADA/whatever, they don't have to devulge that info, and neither does the UFC.

And also, they won't devulge that info. If you don't mind, can you go a little deeper. I'm assuming I read that completely wrong then?

 

[lifelessheap]

I don't care what anyone says about clean living, or hard work and dedication (YEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH). In my opinion, Floyd is the most obvious user who will never be caught in all of sports.

Floyd and Serena Williams are both PED GOATS.

Serena built a panic room to hide from drug testers and fucking used it. Literally locked herself in a panic room when a tester came a knocking. lmao

 

[lifelessheap]

If the UFC had their way Jon Jones and Bork would never test positive. Anderson would never test positive. Those tests cost them hundreds of millions of lost revenue.

Come on people.

 

[dim_]

So it boils down to a potential issue that thus far hasn't been utilized. The only exemption given was to Brock, back when the RTP period 4 months (now it's 6) and he popped anyway.

So question for you - If an exemption is given does the UFC have to announce it? Would we know for certain each and every time an exemption is given?

I ask because what would bother me is if we don't know, and how easy it would be to abuse the system without anyone knowing. Obviously in cases like Rousey where the untested stretch is real long we'll be aware (because of some guy calling himself @dimspace keeping accurate detailed records). However, more troubling would be what could happen:

A fighter could "retire" immediately after a fight (undisclosed to the public) and then go on a 6 week steroid/PED cycle. Once their cycle is done that reenter the pool (also undisclosed) and sign for their next fight. Since the untested time period isn't super long (say 2 months or less) it'd be real hard to notice. If Rousey suddenly restarted getting tested, we'd be able to say "OK she's re-entered the testing pool" because with the length of time without her being tested it's blatantly obvious she was out of the pool. However if the out of the pool timeframe is shortened it would make it very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to know they were ever out of the pool.

At the very minimum, all exemptions need to be disclosed. But even better, is that all exemptions are disclosed along with any time someone (re)enters the testing pool. We don't necessarily need to know when some leaves the pool (though for transparency we should) but we do need to know when they reenter the pool.

And in an ideal world, there would not be an exemption. The potential for harm with the exemption is too great, and it's usefulness to little, to warrant it even being an option. It wouldn't be much of a burden to have fighters required to be in the testing pool for 6 months prior to a fight. As-is almost all fights are signed 3+ months out so making the 6 months mandatory, with zero exemptions, wouldn't be a hardship of note.

in scenario one. where an athlete leaves the testing pool and retires from active competition (again, using the phrase retire purely as not competing, not totally quit the sport), and they take extended leave then I will pick up on it, like I did with Ronda, like I did with Manuwa and theres been a handful of others. One of the graphics I publish every week is a chart showing which ranked athletes have gone the longest without being tested, so that sort of behaviour gets picked up on.

In scenario two where they "retire" for a short period of time, 6-8 weeks say, this is a situation where if the UFC tried to give an exemption USADA would pull rank and object to it. Just because the rules say UFC can grant an exemption doesnt mean that USADA cant give Jeff Novitzky a bunch of grief, and Jeff because of who he is and because he has a reputation to maintain would go do Dana and co and say, nah, this isnt happening. They have to do 6 months.

I dont think scenario two is going to be an issue to be honest. Jeff is straight enough that he wouldnt let it happen.

But scenario one where, and lets be honest, we are only talking about Ronda here, and this is the SECOND time its happened, then she has to do the six months and if UFC grant an exemption there rightly will be hell up.



last time she went 7-8 months without being tested, got tested almost 4 months to the day before the Nunes fight which looked very much like she had just returned to the pool and came back ripped as fuck. I literally had people texting me who were at the weigh-ins asking me when she was last tested.

 

[dim_]

3. Rousey appears to have been out of the testing pool after the Holm loss. The UFC didn't give her an exemption, but they also never disclosed that she wasn't tested for 7+ months and when testing did restart for her, it was almost exactly 4 months prior to the Nunez bout. Whether that was done as a way to facilitate Rousey using questionable substances, or was done to allow her uninterrupted down time (i.e. vacation with no risk of being bothered by sample collectors) we don't know. IMO she physically looked poor in the Holm fight (she looked to have less muscle mass and be more flabby than in her fights prior to USADA - IMO because once USADA started her normal routine had to be changed) whereas she looked better physically in the Nunes fight (less flabby, slightly lower bodyfat therefore slightly more muscle mass than when she fought Holm - though still not as good as pre-USADA), though her striking and head movement still sucked, she physically looked better. Now Rousey once again isn't being tested, with no public disclosure of why, even though Dana vocally claims otherwise. I doubt Rousey even returns to mma, but if she were to I'm sure she'll get a exemption even though there's absolutely no way she should be allowed to.

This is the bigger issue for me and the bigger question that needs asking.

IF, and I say IF she has left the testing pool, then she is playing the system. Why is she playing the system, because she wants to chill and sit at home with Travis without hassles, or something more nefarious.

If Rousey is playing the system that it raises huge questions about her.

(and i know she says crap like shes been under usada since she was a teen but she was tested like 1-2 times a year as a Judoka.. think her max samples to USADA was 4 on an olympic year)

 

[dim_]

Ok, appreciate you clearing it up for me then. So basically, Rondas the only one that benefited from the waiver?

The way I read it, and the tone I'm which the author wrote it, read more like, Ronda for sure got a waiver from the UFC, and it's safe to assume a bunch of other fighters have as well, seeing that they don't have to disclose any of the info on who got one, when they got one, etc.

So assumed there was a handful of fighters that got one, and we'll never know, because per the bylaws of WADA/USADA/whatever, they don't have to devulge that info, and neither does the UFC.

And also, they won't devulge that info. If you don't mind, can you go a little deeper. I'm assuming I read that completely wrong then?

No, theres not even any evidence that Ronda has had a waiver. Iain makes that clear.

but, she hasnt been tested for 11 months, so its very possible that she has left the testing pool

But usada refuse to confirm or deny if someone has left the testing pool (thats issue 1)

and IF she was to return having left the pool she would have to spend 6 months in it before competing, but she could be given a waiver. but the people who give that waiver are the UFC and not USADA (that issues 2)


And no, the only fighter that has received a waiver is Lesnar. There are several fighters (Meek, Angela Hill, GSP, Andrea Lee etc) that have been made to sit in the testing pool before being allowed to compete



The issue is, if Ronda has left the pool, then on her return UFC could waive the 6 month RTP requirement.