Evidence of Jones' Guilt

[UsernameLOL]

Can you provide a benchmark pg value on the multiple doses, say every 30 days or whatever is relevant?

I will but first I need to redo my solution using integration methods of solving ODEs. I seek a solution that is stable (I.e. doesn’t change radically with step size and limiting parameter)

I trust my results but I want to make sure it’s beyond scrutiny.

 

[felmmando]

Cormier had suspicious T/E ratios as well as soon as Cormier results were brought to attention they dismissed both Jons and Cormiers lol.

Baloney. If you just looked at both their T/E ratios for that fight, you would think Cormier was the much younger fighter.

 

[OverhandRightKayo]

Add the domestic abuse to this PED user's resume.

@Natural Order

 

[Clippy]

It's pretty sad that people still need evidence at this point

 

[Gunther12345]

It's pretty sad that people still need evidence at this point

I know right, and people hate on DC... I don't understand it at all.

 

[OverhandRightKayo]

He says he's God's mess....


@Clippy

@SKITZADACTYL

 

[acannxr]

I will but first I need to redo my solution using integration methods of solving ODEs. I seek a solution that is stable (I.e. doesn’t change radically with step size and limiting parameter)

I trust my results but I want to make sure it’s beyond scrutiny.

Any luck yet?

 

[UsernameLOL]

Any luck yet?

No need.

At the very least we know that Jon Jones samples contained typical amounts of long term metabolites. Yes they are "trace" but every other positive sample is also in the "trace" range, so "trace amounts" is a meaningless platitude.

http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/resource_centre/pdf/English/831_SDRCC_16-0246.pdf

Just to re-iterate

long term metabolite m4 has never been found at more than 200 pg/ml. And 40 pg/ml is typical.

@kflo
@Captain Herb

 

[kflo]

No need.

At the very least we know that Jon Jones samples contained typical amounts of long term metabolites. Yes they are "trace" but every other positive sample is also in the "trace" range, so "trace amounts" is a meaningless platitude.

http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/resource_centre/pdf/English/831_SDRCC_16-0246.pdf

Just to re-iterate

long term metabolite m4 has never been found at more than 200 pg/ml. And 40 pg/ml is typical.

@kflo
@Captain Herb

again, we went over this and it's not true. the guy from the olympics who got his samples retested was over 300 (from memory).

what's "typical" for someone under random usada testing isn't what was typical before. maybe there's a reason for that........

and you know factually the single subject study started above 100 on a small single dose.

 

[UsernameLOL]

again, we went over this and it's not true. the guy from the olympics who got his samples retested was over 300 (from memory).

what's "typical" for someone under random usada testing isn't what was typical before. maybe there's a reason for that........

Artur (Whatever the fuck his name was)

again, we went over this and it's not true. the guy from the olympics who got his samples retested was over 300 (from memory).

what's "typical" for someone under random usada testing isn't what was typical before. maybe there's a reason for that........

and you know factually the single subject study started above 100 on a small single dose.

We haven’t been over this before. Never have we talked about statistics from routine doping samples, we have only speculated on what they might be based on what little information we could gather from various arbitration agreements.

It was not over 300, it was estimated (not properly calculated) at 200-300 (quite a large variance don’t you think?) (how much confidence does that inspire? Being off by 50%)

random USADA testing is no different than random WADA testing as far as I know. After all USADA is a part of WADA. Please be clear with your implications instead of being vague, then leaving it to the interpretation of the reader, and then criticizing their interpretation.

and “the fact that the single subject started at above 100” does not at all refute the following

- 40 pg/ml was average amongst routine samples

- 120 pg/ml was the highest (you must realize that it was only above 100 for a very short period of time in that controlled study)

 

[Captain Herb]

No need.

At the very least we know that Jon Jones samples contained typical amounts of long term metabolites. Yes they are "trace" but every other positive sample is also in the "trace" range, so "trace amounts" is a meaningless platitude.

http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/resource_centre/pdf/English/831_SDRCC_16-0246.pdf

Just to re-iterate

long term metabolite m4 has never been found at more than 200 pg/ml. And 40 pg/ml is typical.

@kflo
@Captain Herb

Assuming these guys are legit, it backs up everything you have been saying.

 

[UsernameLOL]

Assuming these guys are legit, it backs up everything you have been saying.

how anyone can put any confidence in the “trace amounts” argument without having statistical context is absolutely fucking beyond me.

You can say any number is big or small depending on what you compare it to.

If you compare it to literally nothing, it means absolutely nothing. (UFC strategy)

 

[kflo]

Artur (Whatever the fuck his name was)


We haven’t been over this before. Never have we talked about statistics from routine doping samples, we have only speculated on what they might be based on what little information we could gather from various arbitration agreements.

It was not over 300, it was estimated (not properly calculated) at 200-300 (quite a large variance don’t you think?) (how much confidence does that inspire? Being off by 50%)

random USADA testing is no different than random WADA testing as far as I know. After all USADA is a part of WADA. Please be clear with your implications instead of being vague, then leaving it to the interpretation of the reader, and then criticizing their interpretation.

and “the fact that the single subject started at above 100” does not at all refute the following

- 40 pg/ml was average amongst routine samples

- 120 pg/ml was the highest (you must realize that it was only above 100 for a very short period of time)

Again, you are ignoring the possibility that once they are in a random wada / usada testing system they are highly unlikely to be using dhcmt steroids. As some of them have mentioned, it’s the last thing they should be taking.

The one example where he wasn’t in a testing regime that could catch low levels of m3 he measures multiples higher than any recent cases. (And I said it was from memory)

Again, that 120 pg/ml was from ONE dose. Taken once. In low dose. That in itself does nothing. It has zero performance enhancing benefits to take one small dose of tbol.

Do you think these guys getting caught with 40 pg/ml of m3 metabolites are being caught cycling tbol? Again, WHY do you think all the flagged samples are low levels?

 

[kflo]

I actually agree.

I have to do more analysis but at he very least the 100 pg/ml threshold is ridiculous; you can do a 30 day cycle of 20mg a day and test below 100 pg/ml for the vast majority of the cycle.

Where did you get that???

 

[acannxr]

random USADA testing is no different than random WADA testing as far as I know. After all USADA is a part of WADA.

USADA isn't part of WADA, the former is a drug testing agency while the latter just sets parameters. Furthermore, the UFC's USADA program is less stringent than say the Olympics.

 

[HHJ]

Guilty

 

[HHJ]

Check his past lives for more roiding

Nail em up I say

Nail some sense into em.

 

[UsernameLOL]

USADA isn't part of WADA, the former is a drug testing agency while the latter just sets parameters. Furthermore, the UFC's USADA program is less stringent than say the Olympics.

fair enough, the fact remains that aggregate statistics do not reveal that < 100 pg/ml is “low” in any sense. In fact they are pretty typical. Now @kflo contends this is because statistics are skewed towards a large proportion of inadvertent users……..I just….I can’t field this nonsense anymore. He can believe whatever he wants. I’m done.

 

[kflo]

fair enough, the fact remains that aggregate statistics do not reveal that < 100 pg/ml is “low” in any sense. In fact they are pretty typical. Now @kflo contends this is because statistics are skewed towards a large proportion of inadvertent users……..I just….I can’t field this nonsense anymore. He can believe whatever he wants. I’m done.

all of the sudden you are done? smh.

i didn't call them inadvertent users. i asked you specific questions and now you're taking your ball and going home?

 

[Clippy]

Don't post much here anymore - honestly not even up to date with the latest Jon Jones fuckery

do ppl STILL support this guy lol