The Jon Jones conspiracy is Sherdogs FlatEarth

[ortizgnp]

Well, that is it for me on Sherdog for today. I can't handle much more stupidity.
Find me the evidence that a chemical with a half-life of 16 hours is somehow in your urine for 2 years without re-ingestion.

 

[gunlok]

Well, that is it for me on Sherdog for today. I can't handle much more stupidity.
Find me the evidence that a chemical with a half-life of 16 hours is somehow in your urine for 2 years without re-ingestion.
I went looking and magically could not find a damn thing, except one paper from a russian-government sponsored agency that was released as part of an attempt to un-ban their athletes after it was discovered that they had all been given steroids leading up to the olympics. I believe science and so far not one single person has been able to provide me with even one peer-reviewed research paper that agrees with your shit.

We still don't know much on how body works

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Well no
The point is the meaning of the sentence would stay the same

I think you're confused. Talk to someone else.

Go to the beach, watch a boat sail away from you. It disappears from your view bottom first and the last thing you see is the top of it.
The earth is round. It's not exactly a tricky one and there are no logical hoops to just through just some simple observation at the beach. Flat earthers are just morons who can't be arsed to go to the beach.

With Jones the failed drug tests say he's guilty but the people who did those tests say he's ok to compete so do you accept what they say all of the time or just some of the time?

Banning Jones until he's not pissing metabolites of banned substances would be the easiest option but if USADA say it's ok I guess you have to go with their recommendation as you went with it to ban him in the first (and second) case.

The logical hoops i was referring to are the ones you'd have to jump through to make a case for the Earth's flatness.

The horizon disappears, ergo, the Earth is not flat. Simple.

Jones has metabolites in his system, whose only origin can be PED use. Ergo, Jones is a PED user.
The interpretation of the experts is not that he could not possibly be using PEDs now, but rather that the presence of the metabolites is not, in and of itself, evidence of that.

Do not assume what i did or did not go along with.
I have never felt that Jones was adequately punished, and this whole picogram saga convinces me of nothing other than that, yes, the use of certain PEDs should result in a lifetime ban, if for no reason other than the uncertainty that they cast on the whole testing process and the legitimacy of the competition.

 

[Threetrees]

I think you're confused. Talk to someone else.

Lmfao, how lazy;

 

[jeremyemilio]

Exact same logic



If you believe the experts it's an appeal to authority

The government, private industry and experts are conspiring to hid the truth at the risk of their credibility

Why?

Because money bro, look into it

VADA, CSAC, NSAC when they lisence bones next month, USADA, the UFC, former WADA scientists Rogan?

They've all come together to cover up for a guy who isnt the biggest draw in the sport and is the third worst athlete in his own family

Look into it

I'm not a flat earther, and I don't feel I have enough knowledge at all to begin to guess what is happening with JBJ.

However, I do think you did leave out at least 3 fairly important pieces of information from your analysis:

1.

The published science on oral Turinabol states that the M3 metabolite of oral Turinabol can be detected in someone’s system for 40 to 50 days

This is a fact. Whatever the "expert Scientists" are saying beyond this is guesswork. Expert Scientists have all sorts of conflicting opinions and theories on all sorts of things. If you think that there aren't other expert scientists who think that JBJ's results prove that he has been using, you're very naive.

That's why there are peer reviewed scientific journals in the first place. And even the findings of THESE get challenged... as the one above is being challenged now... but those challenges are virtually meaningless until a new study has been published because, as you suggest, anyone can claim the earth is flat. The trick is to prove it... in a peer reviewed journal.

2.

Jones was facing a four-year ban as a repeat offender, but that was reduced to 18 months when Jones provided “substantial assistance,” or cooperation in an undisclosed, separate case.

So let's not pretend that "money" is the only possible motivation for giving Jones a pass. They've already given Jones a pass, openly, for reasons other than monetary. And we have no clue what those reasons are or just how "substantial" the "assistance" was. (Or, for that matter, what information Jones is privy to concerning USADA and other players, and just how important it is for those involved to keep this information under wraps... which, again, we know for a FACT genuinely IS important to them, hence the "undisclosed" nature of the case.)

3.

The suspension was reduced again to 15 months when arbitrator Richard McLaren determined that Jones did not likely ingest a prohibited substance intentionally.

This was from the first time around. When he was actually penalized. So let's not pretend that, whatever the motive, the "scientists" involved are somehow above a little bit of fuckery to paint Jones in a favourable light and give him some leeway. How in hell do they know whether or not he ingested intentionally? Since when did they, and we, start just giving guys the benifit of the doubt on their bullshit excuses for popping?

I'm old enough to remember Ben Johnson drinking from a water bottle with a "yellow gooey substance" in it that Carl Lewis had access to. So you'll forgive me if I don't think it's the ones who are suspicious who are the "flat earthers" in this scenario.

Source: https://www.mmafighting.com/2019/1/...-found-in-jon-jones-ufc-232-vada-test-results

 

[VinceArch]

The 'Jon Jones is innocent' shtick is Sherdog's holocaust denial.

 

[Threetrees]

I'm not a flat earther, and I don't feel I have enough knowledge at all to begin to guess what is happening with JBJ.

However, I do think you did leave out at least 3 fairly important pieces of information from your analysis:

1.


This is a fact. Whatever the "expert Scientists" are saying beyond this is guesswork. Expert Scientists have all sorts of conflicting opinions and theories on all sorts of things. If you think that there aren't other expert scientists who think that JBJ's results prove that he has been using, you're very naive.

That's why there are peer reviewed scientific journals in the first place. And even the findings of THESE get challenged... as the one above is being challenged now... but those challenges are virtually meaningless until a new study has been published because, as you suggest, anyone can claim the earth is flat. The trick is to prove it... in a peer reviewed journal.

2.


So let's not pretend that "money" is the only possible motivation for giving Jones a pass. They've already given Jones a pass, openly, for reasons other than monetary. And we have no clue what those reasons are or just how "substantial" the "assistance" was. (Or, for that matter, what information Jones is privy to concerning USADA and other players, and just how important it is for those involved to keep this information under wraps... which, again, we know for a FACT genuinely IS important to them, hence the "undisclosed" nature of the case.)

3.


This was from the first time around. When he was actually penalized. So let's not pretend that, whatever the motive, the "scientists" involved are somehow above a little bit of fuckery to paint Jones in a favourable light and give him some leeway. How in hell do they know whether or not he ingested intentionally? Since when did they, and we, start just giving guys the benifit of the doubt on their bullshit excuses for popping?

I'm old enough to remember Ben Johnson drinking from a water bottle with a "yellow gooey substance" in it that Carl Lewis had access to. So you'll forgive me if I don't think it's the ones who are suspicious who are the "flat earthers" in this scenario.

Wow an actual good post.
I’d be clearly strawmanning if I was to call you a flat earther, so the argument of the thread is not supposed to apply to you because this level of nuance of thought doesn’t reflect the majority opinion.

I’m glad to talk about this more,
But briefly
1. The “established” science is shaky at best. While its factual that there its true there is one (maybe two?) published peer reviewed articles on Oral T-Bol half lives, neither one is a long term analysis of excretion rates in competitive athletes. There is much to be desired in terms of drawing conclusions from what has been published, and further the actual statistical power of the study I read (or both studies I’ve read, can’t remember) is completely lacking. The one I’m recalling has been cited, and its one dude doing the research on himself.

2. This is where people seem to take what could be a reasonable claim “Perhaps USADA has a stake in making sure Jones continues cooperating” and make unreasonable leaps “USADA has thrown away its credibility to let a cheater continue to cheat”. I’m not saying you’re making the second argument, for clarity. But while its not unreasonable to make the first argument, its equally likely that USADA (through Novitsky’s) explanation that this second failure, because of the lack of hard data on T-bol, amounts to what is in practical terms double jeoporady seems, to me at least, to be reasonable as well. We know he was cited for T-bol use, suspended, given 3 months shy of the full sentence and then given further reduction for cooperation this does not imply shadiness of USADA because their written policy states since cooperation can be used for reduction. Granting the previous sentence, no one has made a salient argument as to why its unreasonable to think that due to lack of convincing information USADA’s argument that they basically can’t cite him twice for the same ingestion is flawed.

3. Being suspicious of the characters involved in the scenario is one thing. Being suspicion of the claims themselves is another. From what I can tell, even if its just tangentially, many of the claims that USADA has made make some sort of sense. You have to argue again the claims they make, as you have done so so respect. What most have done is conflate two things A) them not trusting the people based on gut reactions and B) them not trusting the claims. And they attempt to argue both points at once resulting in a cheap argument that again amounts to conspiracy theory logic. Not you though.

 

[Paulsp]

The earth is round, global warning is real, and jones is innocent

 

[jeremyemilio]

Is there evidence they are all lying for Jon Jones?

The peer reviewed evidence states that the Earth is round.
The peer reviewed evidence states that the Metabolite that keeps showing up in Jones's system stays in your system for 40-50 days.

Some people, who have done no peer reviewed science or any sort of repeatable, double blind, experimentation to back it up, but have some theories based on some anecdotal shit evidence they've batted around suggest that the Earth is actually flat.
Some people, who have done no peer reviewed science or any sort of repeatable, double blind, experimentation to back it up, but have some theories based on some anecdotal shit evidence they've batted around suggest that Jones is actually clean.

Lying doesn't really come into it.

 

[LugWrenchBjj]

Exact same logic



If you believe the experts it's an appeal to authority

The government, private industry and experts are conspiring to hid the truth at the risk of their credibility

Why?

Because money bro, look into it

VADA, CSAC, NSAC when they lisence bones next month, USADA, the UFC, former WADA scientists Rogan?

They've all come together to cover up for a guy who isnt the biggest draw in the sport and is the third worst athlete in his own family

Look into it

Phinki wants his gimmick back

 

[Threetrees]

Phinki wants his gimmick back

Never heard of her

 

[ninjion]

It all comes down to whether you are judging Jones on the balance of probabilities or whether you are judging him on the principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems that they are doing the latter.


Obviously, when we look at the situation as a whole, it looks like Jon Jones cheated. This is most likely what happened and I'd bet my money that he did. However, he and his team have created stories that cast doubt on that (dick pill, tainted supplements, and residual metabolites) and this has caused the organizations to rethink his guilt. So unfortunately, even though it's like 95% likely that he cheated, there's enough doubt that they have to let him off the hook. It's OJ all over again, but at least Jon didn't kill anyone.

 

[Blayt7hh]

Well, its clystal clear Jon Jones at some point took steroids, weather he knew it or not, they were found in his system multiple times... Scientists found it themselves...

Yeah there isn’t any real debate to be had if he did it twice or not. He got caught on a common post cycle drug and he got caught with Turinabol. He didn’t even have a “contaminated supplement” scape goat like he keeps claiming. As far as the experts go, @Threetrees here isn’t telling the whole story to make his analogy. A few experts have claimed that it doesn’t mean he’s taken it again. Most seem to not understand what is happening with this new testing method.

Of course the fact remains they have crushed other fighters in similar situations they are letting Jones get away with. Frank Mir should honestly try to sue them for lost wages

 

[Threetrees]

Yeah there isn’t any real debate to be had if he did it twice or not. He got caught on a common post cycle drug and he got caught with Turinabol. He didn’t even have a “contaminated supplement” scape goat like he keeps claiming. As far as the experts go, @Threetrees here isn’t telling the whole story to make his analogy. A few experts have claimed that it doesn’t mean he’s taken it again. Most seem to not understand what is happening with this new testing method.

Of course the fact remains they have crushed other fighters in similar situations they are letting Jones get away with. Frank Mir should honestly try to sue them for lost wages

The analogy is a poor one, it's made for hyperbole to illustrate a point.
But it's not about scientific consensus it's about logic.

And how could Frank Mir sue them, the situations are different

 

[jeremyemilio]

Wow an actual good post.
I’d be clearly strawmanning if I was to call you a flat earther, so the argument of the thread is not supposed to apply to you because this level of nuance of thought doesn’t reflect the majority opinion.

I’m glad to talk about this more,
But briefly
1. The “established” science is shaky at best. While its factual that there its true there is one (maybe two?) published peer reviewed articles on Oral T-Bol half lives, neither one is a long term analysis of excretion rates in competitive athletes. There is much to be desired in terms of drawing conclusions from what has been published, and further the actual statistical power of the study I read (or both studies I’ve read, can’t remember) is completely lacking. The one I’m recalling has been cited, and its one dude doing the research on himself.

2. This is where people seem to take what could be a reasonable claim “Perhaps USADA has a stake in making sure Jones continues cooperating” and make unreasonable leaps “USADA has thrown away its credibility to let a cheater continue to cheat”. I’m not saying you’re making the second argument, for clarity. But while its not unreasonable to make the first argument, its equally likely that USADA (through Novitsky’s) explanation that this second failure, because of the lack of hard data on T-bol, amounts to what is in practical terms double jeoporady seems, to me at least, to be reasonable as well. We know he was cited for T-bol use, suspended, given 3 months shy of the full sentence and then given further reduction for cooperation this does not imply shadiness of USADA because their written policy states since cooperation can be used for reduction. Granting the previous sentence, no one has made a salient argument as to why its unreasonable to think that due to lack of convincing information USADA’s argument that they basically can’t cite him twice for the same ingestion is flawed.

3. Being suspicious of the characters involved in the scenario is one thing. Being suspicion of the claims themselves is another. From what I can tell, even if its just tangentially, many of the claims that USADA has made make some sort of sense. You have to argue again the claims they make, as you have done so so respect. What most have done is conflate two things A) them not trusting the people based on gut reactions and B) them not trusting the claims. And they attempt to argue both points at once resulting in a cheap argument that again amounts to conspiracy theory logic. Not you though.

Again, figuring out what actually is the truth in this situation is way above my pay grade, but as it's a worthwhile discussion, here are my responses to your responses:

1. It's clear that the research is thin on the subject at hand. But that's also why the whole "expert scientists" thing falls so "flat," if you'll excuse the pun. They're all just hypothesizing. There's no good evidence that what they think MAY be happening with Jones right now is what is actually likely to be the case. Their assertions are based on the fact that they needed to make a call, and they don't feel they have a good understanding of exactly what is happening based on the developing research, and so they made the call on the side that favoured Jones. They could just have easily made the call in the other direction, and no one would have batted an eye. Which brings us to...

2. USADA did, indeed, let Jones fight at risk to their reputation. This happened. The question that remains is WHY did it happen. So either:

a. They let him fight for moral reasons (because they thought he was likely innocent) despite the damage it would do / has done to their reputation. Or:
b. They let him fight for some other reason (that we don't really know) despite the damage it would do / has done to their reputation.

In either scenario, though, they did not have to let him fight but they DID let him fight, and they did take a hit to their reputation because of that. Which makes it a strange argument to make that they wouldn't risk their reputation to let him fight.

3. I don't disagree with this point. I'd just add the nuance that the less you trust the person making claims, the more concrete evidence you would like to see for the claims being made. There isn't very much or very strong concrete evidence, here.

 

[kflo]

The peer reviewed evidence states that the Earth is round.
The peer reviewed evidence states that the Metabolite that keeps showing up in Jones's system stays in your system for 40-50 days.

Some people, who have done no peer reviewed science or any sort of repeatable, double blind, experimentation to back it up, but have some theories based on some anecdotal shit evidence they've batted around suggest that the Earth is actually flat.
Some people, who have done no peer reviewed science or any sort of repeatable, double blind, experimentation to back it up, but have some theories based on some anecdotal shit evidence they've batted around suggest that Jones is actually clean.

Lying doesn't really come into it.

“Excretion data regarding the m3 metabolite is extremely limited and there is no peer reviewed scientific literature firmly establishing urinary excretion patterns or interindividual variability for the m3 metabolite”.

They are evaluating all of the facts and circumstances in forming their positions.

The evidence is what is forming their positions for their statements.

 

[Threetrees]

Again, figuring out what actually is the truth in this situation is way above my pay grade, but as it's a worthwhile discussion, here are my responses to your responses:

1. It's clear that the research is thin on the subject at hand. But that's also why the whole "expert scientists" thing falls so "flat," if you'll excuse the pun. They're all just hypothesizing. There's no good evidence that what they think MAY be happening with Jones right now is what is actually likely to be the case. Their assertions are based on the fact that they needed to make a call, and they don't feel they have a good understanding of exactly what is happening based on the developing research, and so they made the call on the side that favoured Jones. They could just have easily made the call in the other direction, and no one would have batted an eye. Which brings us to...

2. USADA did, indeed, let Jones fight at risk to their reputation. This happened. The question that remains is WHY did it happen. So either:

a. They let him fight for moral reasons (because they thought he was likely innocent) despite the damage it would do / has done to their reputation. Or:
b. They let him fight for some other reason (that we don't really know) despite the damage it would do / has done to their reputation.

In either scenario, though, they did not have to let him fight but they DID let him fight, and they did take a hit to their reputation because of that. Which makes it a strange argument to make that they wouldn't risk their reputation to let him fight.

3. I don't disagree with this point. I'd just add the nuance that the less you trust the person making claims, the more concrete evidence you would like to see for the claims being made. There isn't very much or very strong concrete evidence, here.

1. You’re making a good point, and here’s the slippery slope of my position - I’m claiming they’re hypothesizing based on more information, data (and obviously expertise) that I or you or anyone else has. Which I acknowledge can come off as me saying “well the experts say it so it must be so”, but I’m almost making the argument that based on the situation at hand based on what I know I don’t find their position to be unreasonable at all.
But I think its important for me to note here, that I’m not claiming they are correct or Jones didn’t roid, or he couldn’t have reingested between DC and Gus fights. What I am saying is that I don’t find the evidence particularly convincing in either direction (ie. neither stance is unreasonable), however the way USADA leaned based on the rule set to me sees like the most fair way to handle the situation. People can disagree, and I expect some people to given the same information. My only beef is people stating that they know for a fact that the situation is one way or another.

2. So I actually made this point before the Rogan/Novitsky podcast. I think actually had the same two reasons.
I think post that podcast and reading more on the situation I came up with a third option c. They let him fight because legally he could either A. Sue for wages lost or B. Return to arbitration and get no suspension anyway because of the lack of data on T-Bol. Because again, he can’t be cited for the same event twice. In other words I think USADA just declined to suspend him because the burden of proof would be on them to prove he ingested the second time, and we know from their report of his actual suspension that the arbitration panel didn’t even write in their written decision that they knew that he intentional ingested the first time.

3. That’s fair

 

[IASP]

So the same guy who lied commission and received 15 month suspension for his second failed test now has tested hot an additional 8 times and they’re pretended its from that same test that “honest Jon” said was a tainted supp? So now supps are so tainted that roids stay in the system for 2 years now? And the commission was able to initially determine that the roids were unintentional (remember that shit?) and now these subsequent fails are linked to the original without being able to provide the necessary evidence to conclude that its, in fact, from that same initial steroid?

So..........that doesn’t bother you?

Then you can look even further back and see this the had the t/e levels that would fail a test with current rules about 5 years ago. You can see Jon go from a skinny lanky fighter to a completely filled out powerlifting specimen that coincided with him getting caught for steroids and his brother also getting caught for the same steroid (both taking the same tainted supp??). Oh...and then there’s first hand accounts of Jon hiding from usada under a mat for a day to avoid testing hot. Oh and then you have the typical symptoms of roid bumps on his upper abdominal? Oh and then you have college roommate who said he roided and would regularly roid rage while playing video games? Oh and then you have a handful of his gym mates who test positive for the same drug?

Fuck! It’s so hard being honest Jon!

 

[jeremyemilio]

1. You’re making a good point, and here’s the slippery slope of my position - I’m claiming they’re hypothesizing based on more information, data (and obviously expertise) that I or you or anyone else has. Which I acknowledge can come off as me saying “well the experts say it so it must be so”, but I’m almost making the argument that based on the situation at hand based on what I know I don’t find their position to be unreasonable at all.
But I think its important for me to note here, that I’m not claiming they are correct or Jones didn’t roid, or he couldn’t have reingested between DC and Gus fights. What I am saying is that I don’t find the evidence particularly convincing in either direction (ie. neither stance is unreasonable), however the way USADA leaned based on the rule set to me sees like the most fair way to handle the situation. People can disagree, and I expect some people to given the same information. My only beef is people stating that they know for a fact that the situation is one way or another.

2. So I actually made this point before the Rogan/Novitsky podcast. I think actually had the same two reasons.
I think post that podcast and reading more on the situation I came up with a third option c. They let him fight because legally he could either A. Sue for wages lost or B. Return to arbitration and get no suspension anyway because of the lack of data on T-Bol. Because again, he can’t be cited for the same event twice. In other words I think USADA just declined to suspend him because the burden of proof would be on them to prove he ingested the second time, and we know from their report of his actual suspension that the arbitration panel didn’t even write in their written decision that they knew that he intentional ingested the first time.

3. That’s fair

1. I think we're on the same page, here.

2. I've considered option C as well, but I've more or less dismissed it because I can't for the life of me understand why, if this was their reasoning for letting him fight, they wouldn't just say so. I guess you could argue that they don't want to let the cat out of the bag that they are not confident in what their tests actually mean and are afraid of being sued, but I think what they've actually done makes them as much a target of court action as this would have.

3. Thank you.

 

[Threetrees]

2. I've considered option C as well, but I've more or less dismissed it because I can't for the life of me understand why, if this was their reasoning for letting him fight, they wouldn't just say so. I guess you could argue that they don't want to let the cat out of the bag that they are not confident in what their tests actually mean and are afraid of being sued, but I think what they've actually done makes them as much a target of court action as this would have.

To be fair has USADA actually made any statement on this actual case? Besides that original twitter post?
Novitsky speaks for the UFC and he’s really the only one I remember who has said anything