Evidence of Jones' Guilt

[OverhandRightKayo]

It's not his logic. He agreed with me and saw where the question was leading, he's just disingenuous and would rather have his account deleted than having to agree.

Thanks for the correction. "By his delusion" would've been better.

 

[kflo]

Only in your disingenuous mind.

it's a fact.

 

[kflo]

It's not his logic. He agreed with me and saw where the question was leading, he's just disingenuous and would rather have his account deleted than having to agree.

where is it leading? i already proved that context matters. a district attorney treats things different than a friend. and details matter too. circumstances matter.

 

[Cracked_Rib]

it's a fact.

Again, only in your disingenuous mind.

But this is a fact: Jon Jones is a cheater.

 

[Cracked_Rib]

where is it leading? i already proved that context matters. a district attorney treats things different than a friend. and details matter too. circumstances matter.

Yes, and answering a simple question apparently doesn't matter. lmao

 

[OverhandRightKayo]

Again, only in your disingenuous mind.

But this is a fact: Jon Jones is a cheater.

Don't forget.

PED + coke.

 

[TrueFightFan]

it's all in the arbitration and addressed.

But it wasn't addressed.... only on Sherdog did anyone raise the flag in regards to the third banned substances he didn't test positive for. It may have been mentioned but not investigated. Also, the arbitrator was hired as a go between for jones, not as a judge an jury. USADA and the UFC both found jones guilty and the arbitrator essentially "worked a deal".

 

[kflo]

But it wasn't addressed.... only on Sherdog did anyone raise the flag in regards to the third banned substances he didn't test positive for. It may have been mentioned but not investigated. Also, the arbitrator was hired as a go between for jones, not as a judge an jury. USADA and the UFC both found jones guilty and the arbitrator essentially "worked a deal".

its addressed in the agreement.

the arbitration was like any arbitration.

 

[kflo]

Yes, and answering a simple question apparently doesn't matter. lmao

you gave no details in your question. or given any insight as to why it matters. i already addressed how it actually applies in this specific instance. not some generic scenario with zero details.

 

[Cracked_Rib]

you gave no details in your question. or given any insight as to why it matters. i already addressed how it actually applies in this specific instance. not some generic scenario with zero details.

And yet you couldn't even answer that one simple question without any complicated details, you disingenuous shill.

 

[kflo]

And yet you couldn't even answer that one simple question without any complicated details, you disingenuous shill.

you're being a disrespectful douchebag. fuck off. your question was fuckin stupid, and you're ducking answering a direct question related to a stupid point you tried to pass off as achievable.

i gave you enough answers related to your question. you refuse to answer my question that shows how stupid your position is.

again, how can you prove innocence? you won't answer of course.

 

[Captain Herb]

Your idea of testing clean for 6 months for metabolites that can linger for years solves nothing.

We don’t know enough about m3 yet to have much of an idea. He’s only ever had traces of the long term metabolite. Again, this isn’t just about jones. You have similar stories from other athletes. I get that they all have reason to lie. But they also all have reason NOT to use tbol or similar substances for performance enhancement while they are being randomly drug tested.

So fine, suspend them for the first sign of use. But to continually keep them on the sidelines when they have no incentive to use that substance, no sign of using again, no performance enhancement from the metabolites just seems vindictive.

So you think Jones must have doped when he knew he was not subject to random testing? when would that have been? His suspension after the hit and run?

 

[kflo]

So you think Jones must have doped when he knew he was not subject to random testing? when would that have been? His suspension after the hit and run?

I said I have no idea.

 

[Cracked_Rib]

you're being a disrespectful douchebag. fuck off. your question was fuckin stupid, and you're ducking answering a direct question related to a stupid point you tried to pass off as achievable.

i gave you enough answers related to your question. you refuse to answer my question that shows how stupid your position is.

again, how can you prove innocence? you won't answer of course.

So here you are throwing a hissy fit again.

I told you I'll answer everything and anything when you respond to my simple, straightforward question. But for two pages you're ducking it like some career politician with if's and but's and some weird district attorney and criminal law scenarios while at the same time lying to yourself and the forums that you actually did answer it. Well, you didn't. As if anybody is actually dumb enough to agree with you just because you stupidly repeat it over and over again. lol

 

[kflo]

So here you are throwing a hissy fit again.

I told you I'll answer everything and anything when you respond to my simple, straightforward question. But for two pages you're ducking it like some career politician with if's and but's and some weird district attorney and criminal law scenarios while at the same time lying to yourself and the forums that you actually did answer it. Well, you didn't. As if anybody is actually dumb enough to agree with you just because you stupidly repeat it over and over again. lol

"Would you personally give somebody the benefit of the doubt that cheated you twice already?"

Answer: I guess depends on lots of other factors and circumstances.

Would I personally give someone the benefit of the doubt if they cheated at cards 2x 20 years ago and we have played weekly for the last 20 years? Yeah, probably.

Would I personally give someone the benefit of the doubt if they were my gf and she cheated on me twice within the last year and she didn’t come home last night and didn’t answer her phone? Yeah, probably not.

 

[fzoid4454]

The crime analogy is actually a better one than I imagined....
If you find blood on jones' hands after a murder (failed test) and convict him, then later another murder occurs (failed test) and he has a drop of blood under his fingernails, he probably did it.

You are arguing that he "may not have cheated again" but the fact is that, even with all of the new science and testing methods, we don't know. So you take it for what it is....he got caught again.

WTF? How often do you have two murders where they can't tell if the blood under the fingers might have been from the first and not the second one? Or that they'd claim that was the case?

That's a big-time fail, gotta say.

 

[Cracked_Rib]

"Would you personally give somebody the benefit of the doubt that cheated you twice already?"

Answer: I guess depends on lots of other factors and circumstances.

Would I personally give someone the benefit of the doubt if they cheated at cards 2x 20 years ago and we have played weekly for the last 20 years? Yeah, probably.

Would I personally give someone the benefit of the doubt if they were my gf and she cheated on me twice within the last year and she didn’t come home last night and didn’t answer her phone? Yeah, probably not.

Again with the scenarios. You got some serious issues, buddeh.

But since you have give me such I dodgy answer I'll just do the same:
"how would one go about proving that metabolites in their urine were not from new ingestion?"

That depends on lots of other factors and circumstances. Duh!

In Jons case it's impossible to prove, since he did re-ingest.
In other cases you just gotta hope there's enough research on the substance you took. If there's not, fund it yourself or retire. I don't give a damn.

 

[kflo]

Again with the scenarios. You got some serious issues, buddeh.

But since you have give me such I dodgy answer I'll just do the same:
"how would one go about proving that metabolites in their urine were not from new ingestion?"

That depends on lots of other factors and circumstances. Duh!

In Jons case it's impossible to prove, since he did re-ingest.

Lol. Pathetic.

I showed how the answer to your stupid question can be different depending on how it’s interpreted.

Lol at you saying you’d answer and then coming back with that. Lol.

tell me, how can one prove innocence here. You’re free to make up any scenario you want.

 

[fzoid4454]

You don't think that secreting into the urine is a mechanism to purge residual amounts?

A few trillionths of a gram excreted per piss? That would be an interesting exercise in math/statistics, to see if that would purge the system over months, or if it would take years or more.

 

[Cracked_Rib]

I showed how the answer to your stupid question can be different depending on how it’s interpreted.

I have answered your dumb question just as well, you're just not intelligent enough to realize it. If you have any others feel free to ask.

tell me, how can one prove innocence here. You’re free to make up any scenario you want.

If you're guilty you can't prove your innocence. Use your brain, lol.
If you're not guilty you better hope there's enough scientific data and solid research to exonerate you (that's how you can prove your innocence). If there's not you're fucked, but since you've cheated at least twice before to even reach that point I don't believe that's unfair.