and he's never had a random test within those 20 days. somehow knew he wouldn't i guess. because popping once for anything else would make new ingestion clear. so even when he passed on the 7th and then failed on the 28th he must have just missed it! some russian roulette shit. i've never ignored this, it's part of the reason there's doubt about reingestion genius.
Jones can't keep this belt till he passes 3 months of VADA testing!
- Thread starter Cooliox
- Start date
In my opinion he did and that’s actually irrelevant here, since he already served a suspension for it. And it’s not “from” trace amounts of turinabol, it’s continuing to show trace amounts of long term metabolites.
What’s your theory as to why he’s showing trace amounts of m3 and never any evidence of anything else changing or flagging in his system? Why is he so fuckin stupid that he’s taking a ped that he knows will flag for a long time, but smart enough to never flag for anything else that would prove recent ingestion?
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2013
- Messages
- 29,188
- Reaction score
- 8,420
Yup, sure seemed to have missed your education
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,266
- Reaction score
- 3
7th-28th is more then 20 days, silly goose!
timed it perfect! fuckin wizard.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,266
- Reaction score
- 3
I've already shown you studies regarding this, you just choose to ignore them because they don't fit your narrative
studies that the author has noted to be irrelevant??? wtf??? what studies that haven't been proven irrelevant are you referring to???I've already shown you studies regarding this, you just choose to ignore them because they don't fit your narrative
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,266
- Reaction score
- 3
Where did the author say the study is invalid? Oh wait, he didn't, that's just your bullshit rhetoric.
For arguments sake, let's say the detection window is 6 months or more. (I'm not agreeing, as you seemed to be incapable of understanding that before). But let's say the studies are ALL wrong and you're right. How in the fuck do you go from "6 months or more" to 17 months lmfao it's not 12-15 months, in which 17 isn't quite a leap. But 6-17?? C'mon now buddy, don't be such a gullible fuck.
Serious question, how much is Jon paying you because you're ALL OVER the forum sucking him off lmao no matter what ANYONE posts, you have some half assed "defense" while completely ignoring any and all facts that point to Jon's guilt.
wtf is wrong with you. there's zero studies that says 6 months. 9 months. 12 months.
again, noone is posting ANYTHING that is disputing the words from the actual experts on the topic. the only explanation is derp they must be paid off. not a single expert has come out against this, just shertards. but you the genius scientist knows they are making it all up. the entire industry is in cahoots against the genius shertards who are vested in the narrative jones is a perpetual turinabol junkie.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,266
- Reaction score
- 3
I've posted TWO studies<45><45>
You just claim the author invalidated them, but I JUST asked for proof of that, and you have none
why would the author reference 6 months or more if he believed his study result which was much shorter? why wouldn't a new test that greatly extended the detection window NOT invalidate the prior study results?I've posted TWO studies<45><45>
You just claim the author invalidated them, but I JUST asked for proof of that, and you have none
don't forget usada, retired usada director of science, smrtl, csac and soon to be vada.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,266
- Reaction score
- 3
Maybe because it's an appendix, silly. Show me where the author of the study said it was invalid. Go on, I'll wait. As a matter of fact, show me where ANYONE claims the study to be invalid.
What new test? What was the old testing method and what's the new one? How is the new one better? Where's a source detailing testing methods USADA uses? Please explain, Mr. USADA scientist.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 1,594
- Reaction score
- 588
Let's take a look at what Dr. Larry Bowers said
“In conclusion, I cannot determine with any certainty when, at what dose, or what chlorinated anabolic steroid was ingested that gave rise to the July, 2017 result,” Bowers wrote. “Based on the data provided, I conclude that no DHCMT exposure occurred between August, 2018 and December, 2018. I cannot exclude the possibility that the December 9, 2018 result arose from an exposure before July, 2017.”
Could it be that Jones' ingested Turinabol between January 2018 and June 2018? Keep in mind that he was not tested in the first two quarters of 2018.
https://ufc.usada.org/testing/results/athlete-test-history/
You can verify that right here. Search by quarter, year, and athlete name.
of course, he had no idea if he would be tested, and again, would be the only fool to fail for turinabol since the new testing methods became available. and he'd be the fool to fail twice.
i'm not in the he definitively didn't ingest new turinabol, but i'm not in the likely camp either. it's a rare stupidity to get caught with turinabol these days, no less twice and only for traces of m3. mind you, his testing samples are all odd patterns of entering and exiting his system, and always only of m3 and never any other evidence of changes.
At this point why anyone would expect VADA or CSAC to do anything.
He popped like 4 different times all with different levels lol this shit is academic, VADA ain’t testing anyone, you won’t ever hear another thing about his failures either.
The only reason we found anything out this time is the NSAC refused to liscense him, Dana and USADA would have squashed it if they could have, you can tell that by the propaganda they put out to misinform the public on his failures.
He popped like 4 different times all with different levels lol this shit is academic, VADA ain’t testing anyone, you won’t ever hear another thing about his failures either.
The only reason we found anything out this time is the NSAC refused to liscense him, Dana and USADA would have squashed it if they could have, you can tell that by the propaganda they put out to misinform the public on his failures.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 1,594
- Reaction score
- 588
Your entire argument is predicated on people acting rationally. You simply cannot assume that.
one of the leading theories has to include not entirely intentionally throwing their career away (with again no other signs). the opposing view is that he completely intentionally self sabotaged but did so while not completely giving away all the signs.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 1,594
- Reaction score
- 588
You could use the same argument for any steroid user : “why would they throw away their career knowing that they will be tested and that testing has become more advanced and frequent?”.......they figure the benefits of using steroids outweighs the chances of getting caught. And they aren’t always right.
As for your “irregular patterns of passing and failing consecutive tests”.... Most people caught with steroids failed one or two tests and passed surrounding tests.
