Maybe he means the USADA Athlete handbook.
Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs)
Doping, as defined by the Code, is the occurrence of one or more of the following anti- doping rule violations (ADRV):
• Presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample
No need to look further down the list when you burn on the first one
Thats from the summary of terms at the end.
Thats just explaining what an ADRV is.. Yes, an ADRV is when an athlete has an AAF, but that does not mean that all AAF's are ADRV's..
An ADRV is when an athlete has provided samples with the presence of prohibited substances or markers, that does not mean that all instances where athletes have provided samples with the presence of prohibited substances or markers are ADRV's. For example, there are countless cases where the sample contained traces of clenbuterol, but the athlete was not charged with an ADRV.
Good job on finding the summary of terms, but you havnt really understood what it is explaining.
as far as rules go there are two types of "positive" test (a positive test in itself isnt really a thing)
there are
ATF - Atypical Findings
AAF - Adverse Analytical Finding
An AAF is what would be considered a "positive test". That is the presence of a substance has been detected in levels that are unequivocally the result of administration of a prohibited substance, or makers unequivocally indicate the administration of a prohibited substance
An ATF is a finding that is unusual or "atypical" but on its own isnt the basis for an athlete being charged with a violation. It generally means further investigation is needed, or further testing required. (A good example of an atf would be a t/e ratio of 5:1 - in intself not a violation - or an aaf - but points to more testing being required)
Jones' samples were arguably ATF and not AAF
However, thats largely irrelevant because Jones has already been charged and served a suspension for the original turinabol administration. You cannot continue to suspend a fighter for the same ingestion UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE ITS A FRESH INGESTION
Just as a burgler may be put in prison for 2 years for a crime where he went into a property and stole a tv, you cannot then, on his release re-imprison him because you learn that at that crime he not only stole a tv but also a radio. Hes already been punished for the crime.
USADA do not have the evidence to prove its a fresh ingestion.
