Little known fact; a THIRD fighter from Jackson Wink tested positive for turinabol metabolites

Discussion in 'UFC Discussion' started by UsernameLOL, Dec 6, 2019.

  1. UsernameLOL

    UsernameLOL Green Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    1,022
    Likes Received:
    2,094
    Post 48 in this thread and I quote


    What about the negative tests? Are they supposed to be indicative of pulsing from previous ingestion as opposed to re-ingestion?

    They aren't to me. You presumably contend that this is an example of pulsing from previous ingestion. I wouldn't and you may ask why.......because Dr. Christiane Ayotte seems to disagree with that notion.

    Dylan Scott tested positive for m4 metabolite of turinabol (or some other chlorinated steroid) and the prosecution (Dr. Christiane Ayotte) brought up the results from an excretory study on m3 (not m4) to make conclusions on m4. So it's safe to say that her conclusions apply to m3 as well.

    https://fis.dshs-koeln.de/portal/files/3422830/Sch_nzer_Long_term_metabolites_8.28.17.pdf (Slide 29/37 I believe)

    Her conclusions

    [​IMG]

    It's been more than 22 months since Jones tested positive.

    But you may argue "that study is from a single dose administered and if a proper course of steroids was administered the detection window might be longer and the amounts excreted in urine would be more"

    She disagrees.
    [​IMG]

    At this point you're probably thinking "UsernameLOL you still haven't addressed the negative tests" . Yes I did, If Dr. Christiane Ayotte used a paper on m3 to make a conclusion about m4 it's safe to say that her conclusion applies to m3 as well; testing positive 22 months and more later is still less likely" (It's been 22 plus months for Jones)............regardless of negatives. She makes a categorical statement "22 months and more is still less likely".

    At some point in the video I posted she says "Athlete's try to beat drug tests"......I interpret that as negative tests have to be taken with a grain of salt. I don't think I'm reaching with that one. If I am say so but address the rest of the post.

    Just for reference here's the Dylan Scott arbitration report: https://www.doping.nl/media/kb/6065/CAS 2018_A_5768 Dyland Scott vs ITF (S).pdf
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2019
  2. conscience

    conscience Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    411
    Location:
    Sofia
    Some insider guy sprinkling the food of fighters. Hope Jones and USADA catch that horrible person
     
  3. agibmxmma

    agibmxmma Ex Pro Fighter. Omerta, Live Aloha!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    5,931
    Likes Received:
    3,882
    Location:
    Frisco 415
    Little known fact.. a Wrestling Coach at Jackson/Wink was fired from Coaching at a school because he was encouraging student athletes to take not just any PED, but Turinobol specifically.
     
    UsernameLOL likes this.
  4. UsernameLOL

    UsernameLOL Green Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    1,022
    Likes Received:
    2,094
    Holy fuck....source?

    You gotta make a thread about this.....you gotta.


    Edit: Found it

     
    Randlewand and agibmxmma like this.
  5. agibmxmma

    agibmxmma Ex Pro Fighter. Omerta, Live Aloha!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    5,931
    Likes Received:
    3,882
    Location:
    Frisco 415
    Good find brotha. Yeah, if i comment, i tend to use fact, that way there is validity to what I say.
     
    Randlewand and UsernameLOL like this.
  6. UsernameLOL

    UsernameLOL Green Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    1,022
    Likes Received:
    2,094
    I'm gonna watch it and see if he mentions turinabol.......but thank you for bringing it to my attention. I think you'll enjoy posts 76 and 81 in this thread.
     
    agibmxmma likes this.
  7. Watcha gunna doo

    Watcha gunna doo Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    1,863
    Dunno where usma trains but hes def on simething
     
    UsernameLOL likes this.
  8. UsernameLOL

    UsernameLOL Green Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    1,022
    Likes Received:
    2,094
    @fzoid4454 I didn't address one part of your post "Why isn't he testing positive for parent drugs and shorter term metabolites" probably because their detection windows are short.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Randlewand

    Randlewand Green Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    2,244
    Jones' brother popped for the same drug as well.
     
  10. ThePatriot

    ThePatriot Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    6,793
    Likes Received:
    4,361
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Jacksons needs to hire abdelaziz to hide their roids
     
  11. fzoid4454

    fzoid4454 Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,404
    Likes Received:
    1,537
    And I once again, that doesn't dispute what I posted. I wasn't proposing that this was the case, I was just pointing out that one of the many explanations was just as plausible as yours, and not ruled out in any way by what you were posting. Your choice as the "true" explanation is the result of arbitrary bias, not any kind of elimination of alternatives.

    And, you still haven't addressed the most obvious explanation, not that more is "pulsing" - but that you have a pretty level trace amount in the system. When you're talking <100 parts per trillion, you're talking about even a mild fluctuation within the margins of error. The fact that this is a long-term metabolite tells us that it probably resides in the fatty tissues. In a weight cut you'd see more released, and you'd also see a fighter who has less body fluids since they cut water weight. The results you are talking about are all CONCENTRATIONS, picograms/mililiter. Less water and dehydrated subjects, by definition, will show higher concentrations when they are dehydrated, even when there is no more of the actual substance.

    If the experts at the drug labs say that kind of fluctuation is meaningless - the amounts being found are not significant, and the amounts that they spike to are not significant, so almost nothing times four is still almost nothing. Your armchair analysis trumps the expertise of the people who are tasked with catching sports PED cheats, why, exactly?
     
  12. UsernameLOL

    UsernameLOL Green Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    1,022
    Likes Received:
    2,094
    What other alternative explanation? That they shared common tainted supplements? If that's the case then virtually every other person who has tested positive for m3 is also the victim of tainted supplements.........a bit of a stretch. Jones averaged 41.75 pg/ml over four positive tests. The average of all tests from 2015 to 2017 being 40 pg/ml.

    Ah the "trace amounts" arguments......pretty banal to be honest.

    And these "mild fluctuations within the margin of error" mean what?

    As for your fat sequestering hypothesis. Dr. Christiane Ayotte Disagrees

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I do agree that samples should be normalized against specific gravity. But that could explain away his negatives; his negatives are false negatives.

    It's not my armchair analysis......It's Dr. Christiane Ayotte's. Who has a far more decorated research track record than Daniel Eichner.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2019
    Randlewand likes this.
  13. fzoid4454

    fzoid4454 Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,404
    Likes Received:
    1,537
    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.
     
  14. Usssssyyyy

    Usssssyyyy Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2016
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    DC is an obvious cheater, his reaction when Jones popped was fishy AF... you’d expect the dude to go on a huge rant if he was himself clean. I’m not naive though, all these guys are on shit. The bad guys, the good guys, all of em.
     
  15. UsernameLOL

    UsernameLOL Green Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    1,022
    Likes Received:
    2,094

    "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.

     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.