it didn't for grant dawson either. his case was dismissed. things evolve.
Daniel Eicher isn't even a real scientist
- Thread starter Alpha_T83
- Start date
EdmundsEmptyBankAccount
Pulsing expert from Pulsylvania
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2018
- Messages
- 1,826
- Reaction score
- 0
Jesus...Well, people probably had a lot of belief in what Novitsky said... Before he told everyone that he’s an accountant and not an expert.
Then he talked about old people flushing their meds down the toilet so Jon tested positive for turinabol metabolites.
That or someone opened a can of roids and the airborne roid dust tainted Jon’s body!
lol at cheque drops. that theory was from 2017 - he's still stupid enough to use substances known to be tainted with long duration steroids.
you realize this thread was a giant fail with a made up premise, right?
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2016
- Messages
- 12,391
- Reaction score
- 11,656
That wasn't mine. I agreed it was a possibility but I also said I didn't know enough about which steroid stacks athletes would micro-dose.
The doping field evolves so quickly to keep ahead of anti-doping. Steroid stacks people used 2-3 years ago would be obsolete today.
EdmundsEmptyBankAccount
Pulsing expert from Pulsylvania
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2018
- Messages
- 1,826
- Reaction score
- 0
Except that Jones didnt "pass the test." He failed the test, but they did some crazy science gymnastics with some barely peer reviewed BS study and called it all good. Doesnt mean he didnt pop 3 times in the last 8 months
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2016
- Messages
- 12,391
- Reaction score
- 11,656
Just replying to you again to highlight how YOU were uninformed in YOUR post.
Eichner is only listed as the lead (corresponding) author on one of his researchgate papers, in a trash tier 2.5 impact factor journal.
You naively assumed that the last listed author is the lead, which is not always true.
Eichner has ZERO first/corresponding author papers in impact factor 5+ journals, and therefore cannot be called a scientist.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 28,830
- Reaction score
- 33,722
They really just haven't looked into it (while high).
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Messages
- 5,004
- Reaction score
- 3,507
I heard he don't even have a license.
clean fighters dont get susoended for 27 months.
a clean fighter doesnt ned a loop hole to not get suspended for 45 months.
a clean fighter doesnt fail a dec 6th test and force the ufc to fuck all the fighters on the card moving it to another state.
those are the facts.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2018
- Messages
- 2,600
- Reaction score
- 188
Whether or not this guy has any peer reviewed publications, anyone in the biz knows SMRTL is a joke lab PR front.
I worked with them on behalf of a former employer and they were the definition of a shit show. Not sure if anyone in that building has a real PhD, not just this fuck.
Jones is innocent you fucking goof, we studied the data
clean fighters dont get suspended for 27 months.
a clean fighter doesnt ned a loop hole to not get suspended for 45 months.
a clean fighter doesnt fail a dec 6th test and force the ufc to fuck all the fighters on the card moving it to another state.
those are the facts.
EdmundsEmptyBankAccount
Pulsing expert from Pulsylvania
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2018
- Messages
- 1,826
- Reaction score
- 0
gonna add this one to my list of things that I copy-paste to @kflo and friends, nice one!
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2014
- Messages
- 29,639
- Reaction score
- 3,504
I never claimed that at all.
So your new strategy is to flat out lie about and misrepresent what I said, and then have the audacity to call me out on it..
interesting.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2014
- Messages
- 29,639
- Reaction score
- 3,504
I never claimed at any point he was the lead author on them
the fact you even quote me and then claim im saying something totally different to what is clearly quoted is laughable
and as I stated, you and I both know that papers are very rarely sole author.
you claimed he had no peer-reviewed papers published, you quickly got proven to be totally wrong so you are desperately backtracking saying that either they dont count because the publishing body doesnt match your high expecations, or because he wasnt lead author.
you are making a bit of an idiot of yourself, even by sherdog standards.
to bad so many people dont understand the facts and only listen to jon crying that im the real victim.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 1,594
- Reaction score
- 588
At the end of the day there is no long term excretory data on turinabol m3 metabolite that says it can be excreted 18 months later. Which begs the question how did Eichner conclude “it’s most likely from ingestion back in July 2017”? Expert opinions should be bounded by what has been established/is theoretically reasonable.
1) 18 month long excretion of m3 metabolite has not been empirically established
2) Grigory Rodchenkov - the originator of the test put the detection window at 12 months maximum.
3) Of course you will hear explanations such as “Jon Jones is an exception because he sheds adipose tissue that normal users would not in the course of cutting for a competition and this adipose tissue could hold long term metabolites of turinabol”
That explanation to me seems Ad-Hoc. Of course it is possible but it’s a little bit too convenient.
Even if you defend Jones you must at the very least be suspicious of the fact that Eichner’s conclusion runs counter to Rodchenkov’s. Rodchenkov after all developed his test for the sake of testing athletes who do cut weight (just like Jon Jones). Surely any conclusion Rodchenkov makes would be within the context of testing athletes. And a maximum estimated detection window would account for complicating factors such as cutting weight. After all the test was made for athletes.
1) 18 month long excretion of m3 metabolite has not been empirically established
2) Grigory Rodchenkov - the originator of the test put the detection window at 12 months maximum.
3) Of course you will hear explanations such as “Jon Jones is an exception because he sheds adipose tissue that normal users would not in the course of cutting for a competition and this adipose tissue could hold long term metabolites of turinabol”
That explanation to me seems Ad-Hoc. Of course it is possible but it’s a little bit too convenient.
Even if you defend Jones you must at the very least be suspicious of the fact that Eichner’s conclusion runs counter to Rodchenkov’s. Rodchenkov after all developed his test for the sake of testing athletes who do cut weight (just like Jon Jones). Surely any conclusion Rodchenkov makes would be within the context of testing athletes. And a maximum estimated detection window would account for complicating factors such as cutting weight. After all the test was made for athletes.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
- Messages
- 9,221
- Reaction score
- 6,428
Duh, they made the whole thing up short-notice to cover for Jon and keep the fight on cause they needed a big PPV buyrate to close out the year strong. Everything about it will unravel over time, but its too late, casuals already either bought the Pulsing nonsense or are too blinded by science to apply common sense and see Jon has been microdosing this whole time.
USADA = 100% bought by the UFC and they have a deal now just not to pop big money draws anymore, think about the fact that Jon popped 3x earlier in the year and they were prepared to SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG AND TELL NOBODY IF NSAC SAID YES. We only knew about this in the first place because they were forced to move the venue and admit why, if NSAC said yes we'd never know he popped 4 times last year. Think about that, so how many other drug tests are being swept under the rug for other money draws?
USADA = 100% bought by the UFC and they have a deal now just not to pop big money draws anymore, think about the fact that Jon popped 3x earlier in the year and they were prepared to SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG AND TELL NOBODY IF NSAC SAID YES. We only knew about this in the first place because they were forced to move the venue and admit why, if NSAC said yes we'd never know he popped 4 times last year. Think about that, so how many other drug tests are being swept under the rug for other money draws?
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 1,594
- Reaction score
- 588
This man has a point. If they are willing to withhold information about positive tests then what is to stop them from contriving excuses for positive tests?
