Evidence of Jones' Guilt

OverhandRightKayo said:
However, generally, @Clippy is right. It's safe to say that who you root for is indicative of the state of your conscience.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It's not to safe to say that at all, especially not as a generalization.

Generally, it's much safer to say that who you root for is indicative of where you live.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
Of course its nonsense. Generally, you can divine little about the state of a man's conscience by which sports figure he favors, or by which music he likes, or by which sculptures he appreciates, or by any of that.
Click to expand...
Excluding shills/self-projectors then.
 
@kflo I don't know if this is right but it's more reasonable. I solved most of this by hand and programmed it. There could be MANY places where I messed up.

I did the following:

1) Took the curve for the single dose.

2) Reverse engineered a differential equation that it would satisfy (specifically a non-homogeneous linear third order differential equation with a constant as the non-homogeneous term)

3) Added a series of shifted delta functions to the right hand side (i.e. the non-homogeneous term)

4) Resolved the differential equation with the new appended non-homogeneous term, with laplace transforms and whatnot.

Got the following. Again many places where I could have messed up so I'll have to trudge through it again. That said my results are more reasonable in the sense that we have substantially longer detection windows and smaller amounts.

I could figure out how to solve numerically but that could get troublesome with delta functions and whatnot.

IzWTTHb.jpg


The delta functions are supposed to represent new doses.

@kflo why you leaving me hanging brah? I also noticed that now some people think I’M A PAID SHILL.

Shit I wish I was. You know how baller it would be to be paid big bucks to save athletes from suspensions? Far fetched but it would be awesome.
 
Last edited:
UsernameLOL said:
@kflo I don't know if this is right but it's more reasonable. I solved most of this by hand and programmed it. There could be MANY places where I messed up.

I did the following:

1) Took the curve for the single dose.

2) Reverse engineered a differential equation that it would satisfy (specifically a non-homogeneous linear third order differential equation with a constant as the non-homogeneous term)

3) Added a series of shifted delta functions to the right hand side (i.e. the non-homogeneous term)

4) Resolved the differential equation with the new appended non-homogeneous term, with laplace transforms and whatnot.

Got the following. Again many places where I could have messed up so I'll have to trudge through it again. That said my results are more reasonable in the sense that we have substantially longer detection windows and smaller amounts.

I could figure out how to solve numerically but that could get troublesome with delta functions and whatnot.

IzWTTHb.jpg


The delta functions are supposed to represent new doses.

@kflo why you leaving me hanging brah? I also noticed that now some people think I’M A PAID SHILL.

Shit I wish I was. You know how baller it would be to be paid big bucks to save athletes from suspensions? Far fetched but it would be awesome.
Click to expand...
I was in transit bro!

It looks reasonable but again just suffers from insufficient data.

while I’d love to retire from posting on sherdog luckily my day job pays well. Keep at it and maybe you’ll be that sherdog baller. :)

note I’m sure at least one shertard will take that literally….lol.

that said your graph would make cycling tbol essentially a plea to get caught.
 
Last edited:
kflo said:
I was in transit bro!

It looks reasonable but again just suffers from insufficient data.

while I’d love to retire from posting on sherdog luckily my day job pays well. Keep at it and maybe you’ll be that sherdog baller. :)

note I’m sure at least one shertard will take that literally….lol.

that said your graph would make cycling tbol essentially a plea to get caught.
Click to expand...

Yeah it does suffer from generalizability as it only pertains to one subject. BUT if I did it right it makes Jones not being guilty of re-ingestion totally plausible.

Recall my single dose data was nearly perfectly fit by a solution to a third order linear differential non-homogeneous equation. This seems like a natural leap of intuition given that the recent paper said the typical bateman curve wouldn't suffice....I just added one term to it. I haven't run any cross validation holdouts but this regression from a cursory look it seems to control for bias and variance well (i.e. fairly accommodating to potentially unseen data)

For multiple doses I did that whole delta function laplace transform song and dance. A very common practice it seems, I've seen it in many textbooks applied to simpler examples. I think for this single subject it is pretty reliable (Again if I did it right there is many places I could have messed up doing it by hand).
 
We are only on page 114 of posts? We need to finish up submission of evidence by page 115 so that we can solve it on page 116.
 
@kflo I redid it and here are my results (I actually fucked up on a minus sign somewhere but I can't find it, so I just negated the result). Smaller curve single dose, Bigger curve 30 doses of 20mg. It is plausible that up to the Anthony Smith fight that he didn't re-ingest.........but I seriously question why he or anyone else should be allowed to test underneath 100 pg/ml into perpetuity.

fm9kG2I.jpg
 
@kflo I fucked up again and it's not as easy as multiplying the result by negative 1 to fix it. Discard my last post please. Although I do think it's starting to become more reasonable.

I hope something useful comes out of it.
 
@Clippy

I've figured it out. The shills here are talking like nerds and arguing with "each other" when they are actually on the same side and just trying to misdirect the people from the facts TS has posted in OP.

Ain't gonna work, shills.
 
OverhandRightKayo said:
I've figured it out. The shills here are talking like nerds and arguing with "each other" when they are actually on the same side and just trying to misdirect the people from the facts TS has posted in OP.

Ain't gonna work, shills.
Click to expand...
Let the adults talk little boy. You and your little friends have no capacity to follow the discussion so better to just stay silent.
 
kflo said:
Let the adults talk little boy. You and your little friends have no capacity to follow the discussion so better to just stay silent.
Click to expand...
Keep trying to divert people from the truth and facts posted in OP.

Ain't gonna work, shill.
 
09EqcGn.jpg


@kflo @Captain Herb @acannxr

Do we have a limit of detection? I'm now inclined to believe Jones re-ingested. I recall (maybe incorrectly) he tested positive for more picograms many hundreds of days later.

Also "trace amounts" is meaningless it would appear.

I can post all my work with laplace transforms and regression later. But it would take a lot of time to type up.

I think my work now is more correct than it has ever been. Still a lot of room for error. I need to find a way to find a solution numerically instead of merely finding an analytic solution by hand and graphing it.
 
UsernameLOL said:
09EqcGn.jpg


@kflo @Captain Herb @acannxr

Do we have a limit of detection? I'm now inclined to believe Jones re-ingested. I recall (maybe incorrectly) he tested positive for more picograms many hundreds of days later.

Also "trace amounts" is meaningless it would appear.

I can post all my work with laplace transforms and regression later. But it would take a lot of time to type up.

I think my work now is more correct than it has ever been. Still a lot of room for error. I need to find a way to find a solution numerically instead of merely finding an analytic solution by hand and graphing it.
Click to expand...
Cmon. How is it you are coming with conclusions based on the work you’ve done? You know your confidence interval is in years.

and lol at asking @Captain Herb or @acannxr

And I really doubt your graph for the multiple doses. It likely won’t converge so quickly and then diverge.
 
Last edited:
kflo said:
Cmon. How is it you are coming with conclusions based on the work you’ve done? You know your confidence interval is in years.

and lol at asking @Captain Herb or @acannxr

And I really doubt your graph for the multiple doses. It likely won’t converge so quickly and then diverge.
Click to expand...
Lol watch kflo get real nicey nice when the model seems to supports Jones' innocence and then all pissy again when it doesn't

<BronTroll1>
 
Captain Herb said:
Lol watch kflo get real nicey nice when the model seems to supports Jones' innocence and then all pissy again when it doesn't

<BronTroll1>
Click to expand...
You have literally no idea what you’re even looking at. His model doesn’t support a conclusion one way or another. I’m not pissy at all. I’ll continue to give feedback. The limitation is the available data. Not that you care. Lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,308
Messages
58,275,566
Members
175,990
Latest member
gorakk

Share this page

Back
Top