No he doesn't, not for the original failure, which is what I was referring to when I said that.
I never said he had an alibi for his first m3 flag.
. I'm still learning
Okay, this is where you fall on your face, because this is well documented (that it stays in the system at a level it straddles the detection not detectable threshold), and has now been similarly documented with other chlorinated PEDs.
.05% is not a lot! I take it that there's no accurate way to take the average amount in urine over time and figure backwards to the original dose?
I mean, let's be clear. Pulsing is just a theory that could explain why someone could test negative and then positive again but it's not the only theory, in fact it's not even the most likely theory. The only ones who know if they doped again are the athletes themselves and they have no reason to tell the truth if that's the case. The only argument against re-ingestion that I've seen here is a general deduction that no-one would be dumb enough to do it again so therefore Athlete X didn't do it again (so therefore he must be pulsing). I think you can see several problems with this line of reasoning especially when applied to Jon Jones who IS dumb enough to make the same mistake over and over. Somewhere in this thread I listed like 10 very plausible reasons why Jon Jones may have re-ingested Tbol after already getting caught. And let's not forget that he had ample time to do it as he was not tested for more than 8 months in late 2017 and the first half of 2018. (According to kflo, just one urine test in over a year)
Kflo, you make some good points and you make some questionable points but where you really lose fellow Shedoggers is when you just flat out ignore or deny facts that make jon jones look bad. In this instance, you just say "look at the arbitration" knowing FULL WELL that it didn't properly address the issue that I mentioned. It's almost as if you are just arguing on jones' behalf as opposed to debating the facts. Some facts leave "loopholes" for jones but most of them show him to be the cheater that he has been exposed as. If you want to say that there is a little doubt as to whether he cheated again, fine, but to say that he DEFINITELY DIDN'T CHEAT is low, especially for you, brother.
I don't often commit murders but when I do, I use jon jones.... (the most interesting man in the world)
you know i never said that.
Where do you get this masking agent idea from?
You are correct, brother, clomiphene is to offset steroid use but the pill was the built in excuse.
You are fitting to a single observation set. It’s not only inter-individual, it’s variability for the same individual from a different observation set. It’s variability from potential multiple dosages. There’s variability from behavioral choices during the observation period.@kflo @fzoid4454
If you recall from the paper
Here's our original data (single subject, single dose of 20mg)
Because it is "highly unlikely that excretion follows first order kinetics" I moved on to what I thought was the next logical step:
If the excretion curve(for instance the bateman curve) is not the solution to a second order linear and homogeneous differential equation then it might be the solution to a third order linear homogenous differential equation.
Here's a brief review I wrote of basic differential equations
Here's the actual formula I get
After following this process
https://i.stack.imgur.com/jPW4J.gif
from this stackexchange post https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/3515710/revisions
My results are displayed graphically for a max of about 290 days for a single dose of 20mg oral turinabol (no inter-individual variation accounted for)
I must say it is a good fit that makes good theoretical sense. If a "first order elimination" doesn't work move up to a "second order elimination" (i.e. a third order differential equation solution for regression). Good fit. Semi-theoretically informed. About 290 days.
I have yet to apply the relevant method to the data in order to repeat for multiple doses. I will do that next!
