Isn’t it ironic how GSP only competed once under usada?

[grimballer]

It's called proof on a balance of probability.

The sharp decline in performance and appearance occurred after the introduction of 3rd party testing.

Then there's the refusal for any 3rd party testing in his bout vs GSP.

Where as GSP pushed for 3rd party testing, volunteered for it before it was even adopted by the UFC, never failed a test, and performed just as good if not better under USADA on his return.

You mean he refused to be tested by gsp n instead proposed nsac random testing that gsp accepted at 1st, but then refused later on?

 

[Perrichet]

For someone who was always such an advocate for stricter drug testing. You’d think he would’ve been itching to compete the minute usada came around in 2015.

Instead, it took him another 2 years to get his training and diet/supplementing ready to compete under a level playing field.

What’s ironic is Anderson saying this

 

[JRubin]

You mean he refused to be tested by gsp n instead proposed nsac random testing that gsp accepted at 1st, but then refused later on?

GSP never refused it. He accepted it, it was Hendricks that refused that aswell ya goof

 

[Levi_]

GSP has a message for his haters:

 

[L0ki]

Yeah it’s called facing better competition

Not the usual natural lw n one dimensional average ww

Every person he fought was the number 1 contender or the Champion and he did that for years several years en route to retirement.

You would have to be a complete hater to question the level of competition he faced.

 

[grimballer]

Every person he fought was the number 1 contender or the Champion and he did that for years several years en route to retirement.

You would have to be a complete hater to question the level of competition he faced.

Most of them were on hot streaks n got exposed when facing better competition.

If you look at their record post gsp they were all sub .500 fighters.

Now I know gsp nuthugger talking points n

“Gsp broke their spirit n they were never the same”

But that’s a nonsense excuse. Good fighters don’t become sub .500 just cause of one loss .

If you look at Anderson, fedor n jones opponents, they didn’t become sub .500 fighters after facing them.

It’s mostly the case for gsp opponents

N if you look carefully at gsp opposition you notice the pattern of one dimensional fighters

It’s either strikers with no tdd or wrestlers with limited striking. He also faced bunch of natural lw.

The 1st guy he faced that was somewhat more well rounded (compared to others) beat him up so bad that he made him “take some time off from the sport”

 

[L0ki]

Most of them were on hot streaks n got exposed when facing better competition.

If you look at their record post gsp they were all sub .500 fighters.

Now I know gsp nuthugger talking points n

“Gsp broke their spirit n they were never the same”

But that’s a nonsense excuse. Good fighters don’t become sub .500 just cause of one loss .

If you look at Anderson, fedor n jones opponents, they didn’t become sub .500 fighters after facing them.

It’s mostly the case for gsp opponents

N if you look carefully at gsp opposition you notice the pattern of one dimensional fighters

It’s either strikers with no tdd or wrestlers with limited striking. He also faced bunch of natural lw.

The 1st guy he faced that was somewhat more well rounded (compared to others) beat him up so bad that he made him “take some time off from the sport”

You don't go by how they did after GSP.

It's what they did leading up to fight GSP, and they were all legit number 1 contenders or Champions.

What they do post Georges isn't as relevant as what they did pre-Georges.

 

[grimballer]

You don't go by how they did after GSP.

It's what they did leading up to fight GSP, and they were all legit number 1 contenders or Champions.

What they do post Georges isn't as relevant as what they did pre-Georges.

Of course you do otherwise Brett Rogers n Zulu would be great wins for fedor

Both were undefeated n looked unstoppable.

I guess losing to fedor “messed up their confidence”, right?

 

[L0ki]

Of course you do otherwise Brett Rogers n Zulu would be great wins for fedor

Both were undefeated n looked unstoppable.

I guess losing to fedor “messed up their confidence”, right?

Brett Rogers and Zulu aren't comparable.

GSP fought and beat everyone that was a number 1 contender and Champion.

Zulu had zero big wins and Rogers had 1.

The fighters that Georges fought had proven time and time again that they were the most dangerous in the division.

 

[grimballer]

Brett Rogers and Zulu aren't comparable.

GSP fought and beat everyone that was a number 1 contender and Champion.

Zulu had zero big wins and Rogers had 1.

The fighters that Georges fought had proven time and time again that they were the most dangerous in the division.

Not really

Who did dan hardy beat? Mike swick n Marcus Davis?

What about Alves?

Old man Hughes n short notice koscheck?

What about kos?

Paul Daley n ww rumble?

N the list goes on

They get 2 decent wins, then get exposed by gsp n then become sub .500 fighters


You can’t compare that to opponents Silva, Jones or fedor faced who were good before n after losing to them

 

[L0ki]

Not really

Who did dan hardy beat? Mike swick n Marcus Davis?

What about Alves?

Old man Hughes n short notice koscheck?

What about kos?

Paul Daley n ww rumble?

N the list goes on

They get 2 decent wins, then get exposed by gsp n then become sub .500 fighters


You can’t compare that to opponents Silva, Jones or fedor faced who were good before n after losing to them

Again, you're putting too much focus on what happens after.

At the time that they fight is the only thing that matters.

You're looking solely through a lens of hind sight.

 

[The Hash Slinging Slasher]

Anyone who retired or declined anywhere near the USADA era is a cheater, right?

 

[grimballer]

Again, you're putting too much focus on what happens after.

At the time that they fight is the only thing that matters.

You're looking solely through a lens of hind sight.

You’re putting too little focus on what happen after

If you wanna make a good assessment you gather as much info as you can.

Analyzing something after it happens gives you a bigger picture n helps you see things that you might have missed before.

Beating 27 year old big nog in 2003 who was 19-1 at the time (only loss by sd) n on a 13 fight win streak before n went 9-1 in his next 10 after (losing to the same guy again)

is not the same as

Beating 32 year old big nog in 2008 who was 31-4 at that time n 7-1 in his last 8 (loss being a sd) n then went 3-5 in his next 8.


Same with Matt Hughes

Beating 30 year old Matt Hughes in 2004 who was 35-3 at the time n on a 13 fight win streak before n 6 fight win streak after

Is not the same as

Beating 33 year old Matt Hughes in 2006 who was 41-4 at that time n on a 6 fight win streak before n 4-4 after.

 

[DagOban**]

anyone with a brain would have already suspected gsp of being on something LONG ago. i mean come on lol.

There is unfortunately no hard data backing up your statement and years of testing that backs up GSP being on nothing but a strict training regimen.

Never underestimate denial.