Why would every other person also be the victim? You are talking about the fact that it must be an dirty camp/organization. I was pointing out that IF one individual was the victim of cross-contamination, it wouldn't be surprising if training partners in the same camp would also, since they share any number of techniques, nutritional habit, supplements. I was pointing out that additional positives from the same camp would not be proof that it was not something unintentional, as you were hypothesizing. Not sure how you would extrapolate that to everyone else on the planet.
..... and?
It means that if I weigh ten pounds, and the scale shows that I lost 40/100ths of an ounce, the fact that "40" is a traditionally substantial number means nothing, because that "40" is also a ".4" in this context.
If the scale measures to within +/- .1 lbs, then my claiming that I gained or lost .4 ounces is not supported by the data, because it's less than the margin of error for the measuring instrument.
So, by the way you look at it, if one week it looks like I lost .4 oz. from my baseline, and then next week it looks like I gained 1.4 oz, you'd claim that I back-slid from my goal of losing weight, when, in fact, none of the measurements show any weight loss or gain from the starting point. All of these levels detected in Jones were below the threshold for what has been considered a "positive" test result. That's why they were reported as abnormal or adverse findings, and not him failing the test. Since there is no legitimate use for the steroid, in the first case, it didn't matter that it was below the threshold. However, subsequently, they feel they can't prove subsequent ingestion.
Did you actually need that explained to you?
Ayotte does not say that metabolites can't be stored in fat. She says the facts in this case do not support that possibility for this person's claim. How would a metabolite be stored in the body, if not in the fat? If it's water soluble, that gets flushed out, though maybe at those minute levels, it's not about whether it's stored or not.
If you have any links to how the M3 metabolite stays in the body for months, if you don't think years is possible, I'd like to see that. Does it just circulate in the blood, never being flushed out, and never being metabolized? Or does is get into the fatty tissues, which is why THC, for example, is detectable over a longer timeframe.
She didn't say that none of this is possible, she said that the literature cited by this particular athlete did not support his claim. Is there other literature that does support that claim? Don't know, because you haven't referenced what literature this person used. In any case, your claim that Ayotte is making a broader statement doesn't seem to be supported by the language you posted/cited.
It should be further noted they they specifically talk about how this athlete's result was not in conjunction with any kind of weight cut, dehydration, or even strenuous exercise, so none of the circumstances surrounding his positive test align with his offered defense.
Those are all the hypothesized mechanisms for the release that were given. If you want to say there isn't a body of proof out there, that's fair. If you want to say there is a body of proof that has rejected those possibilities, that would not be accureate.
If you want to say that a cited case with zero similar factors is an equivalent case by which we can proxy-assess the Jones claims, I'm not seeing that, at all. All of the factors being cited as possibilities to explain the fluctuations are not present in this case.
Most of what Dr Ayotte said was specific to the claims and evidence specific to this case.
"Why would every other person also be the victim? You are talking about the fact that it must be an dirty camp/organization. I was pointing out that IF one individual was the victim of cross-contamination, it wouldn't be surprising if training partners in the same camp would also, since they share any number of techniques, nutritional habit, supplements.[\b] I was pointing out that additional positives from the same camp would not be proof that it was not something unintentional, as you were hypothesizing. Not sure how you would extrapolate that to everyone else on the planet."
Because their positive samples were comparable to Jones'. If you afford Jones' this leniency you must afford it to everyone else. I actually agree with the bolded remark but I don't believe Jones' positive tests were the result of contamination because it was ruled not to be the case in both the Mir and Dolidze cases. For some reason they were lenient with Jones.
"It means that if I weigh ten pounds, and the scale shows that I lost 40/100ths of an ounce, the fact that "40" is a traditionally substantial number means nothing, because that "40" is also a ".4" in this context.
If the scale measures to within +/- .1 lbs, then my claiming that I gained or lost .4 ounces is not supported by the data, because it's less than the margin of error for the measuring instrument.
So, by the way you look at it, if one week it looks like I lost .4 oz. from my baseline, and then next week it looks like I gained 1.4 oz, you'd claim that I back-slid from my goal of losing weight, when, in fact, none of the measurements show any weight loss or gain from the starting point. All of these levels detected in Jones were below the threshold for what has been considered a "positive" test result. That's why they were reported as abnormal or adverse findings, and not him failing the test. Since there is no legitimate use for the steroid, in the first case, it didn't matter that it was below the threshold. However, subsequently, they feel they can't prove subsequent ingestion.
Did you actually need that explained to you?"
I think you are presuming a lot about the margin of errors associated with measuring levels of m3 metabolites.
0.4 ounces is not less than 1.6 ounces (which is .1 pounds). Am I reading your post right or did I make a mistake?
Are you suggesting that WADA would report findings without taking into account margin of error? The video below seems to indicate the LOD is 5 pg/ml.........I guess that can be taken to mean the margin of error; it makes sense that if you can't detect below 5 pg/ml then your sample measurements have -/+ 5 pg/ml uncertainty.
I don't know which threshold you are talking about. Is it the MRPL of 2000 pg/ml? Do you know off hand if the so-called "sample matrix" indicates that this MRPL applies to just the parent drug or it's metabolites. From the video below it seems that the MRPL does apply to the metabolites.
If you're talking about the MRPL .........Dr. Christiane Ayotte strongly disagrees with it given the data on positives for m3 metabolites in the video below.
"Ayotte does not say that metabolites can't be stored in fat. She says the facts in this case do not support that possibility for this person's claim. How would a metabolite be stored in the body, if not in the fat? If it's water soluble, that gets flushed out, though maybe at those minute levels, it's not about whether it's stored or not."
I wasn't saying that fat sequestering is impossible. I'm saying it does not explain the positive test results.
"If you have any links to how the M3 metabolite stays in the body for months, if you don't think years is possible, I'd like to see that. Does it just circulate in the blood, never being flushed out, and never being metabolized? Or does is get into the fatty tissues, which is why THC, for example, is detectable over a longer timeframe."
I've already shown you this. Dr. Christianne Ayotte makes a general statement (second bullet point). How is this not pertinent to the Jones case when it is a general statement? I guess me and you disagree on whether or not it is a general statement.
"She didn't say that none of this is possible, she said that the literature cited by this particular athlete did not support his claim. Is there other literature that does support that claim? Don't know, because you haven't referenced what literature this person used. In any case, your claim that Ayotte is making a broader statement doesn't seem to be supported by the language you posted/cited."
I wish the arbitration document for Dylan Scott actually referenced specific papers instead of merely saying "literature cited by such and such". Anyway found this excerpt and I should have posted it before. My apologies.
1) The study cited by the defense pertains to obese people
2) Dylan Scott did not undergo significant weight loss
2) Neither Dylan Scott nor Jon Jones are fat
3) Apparently DHCMT (and it's metabolites?) don't accumulate in fat (That actually sounds hard to believe perhaps there are some nuances I am missing)
"Those are all the hypothesized mechanisms for the release that were given. If you want to say there isn't a body of proof out there, that's fair. If you want to say there is a body of proof that has rejected those possibilities, that would not be accurate. "
Suffice it to say, if something is not substantiated it should be rejected.
"If you want to say that a cited case with zero similar factors is an equivalent case by which we can proxy-assess the Jones claims, I'm not seeing that, at all. All of the factors being cited as possibilities to explain the fluctuations are not present in this case."
Undoubtedly the majority of what Dr. Ayotte says will be specific to the Dylan Scott case but she made some pretty broad statements in my opinion
"In, sum even the repeated administration of an effective dose, of a 40 mg a day for 30 days, is unlikely to lead to the presence of M4 metabolites in a urine sample collected nine months later. The administration of an unknown amount over a longer period in 2014/2015 leading to the presence of the m4 metabolite 22 months and more later is still less likely"
"DHCMT is not a persistant chlorinated pollutant resistant to biodegradation that accumulates in fat deposits"
If I interpreted that last quote right..............then it pretty much blows the pulsing hypothesis out of the water. Granted there might be other mechanisms for pulsing but I haven't heard of any proposed by Jones and Co.
Also: I'm not trying to butter you up or anything but If at any point I came across as adversarial, accusatory, or presumptuous in our discourse then I apologize. Or If I misconstrued your arguments.
