Media USADA tests under 100 picograms per ML

Phisher said:
I'm sure that you have a number of medical sources available to back up this assertion.
Click to expand...

I do not have any sources to back my statement but PEDs is PEDs. It’s wrong to be using them as a professional athlete while there are laws to this sport. If the law says do not use illegal substances, it’s simple - do not use them. It’s as simple as “As citizens, do not rob a bank.” Just don’t rob a bank. It’s the same as do not use illegal substances when competing in this sport.
 
GrantB13 said:
I think there can be. Some people are natural born fighters. Some people are really good at picking up skills, learning technique, making reads, etc. I’m sure some cognitive substances can help with that stuff but I just don’t see why a truly skilled fighter HAS to be on PEDs to make it to an elite level. There’s a lot of X factors in MMA that I don’t think requires illegal supplements. If we were talking pure strength competitions then you’d have to be on something since no natural human can lift weights at the numbers professional strongmen do. But when you see two fighters striking and one gets the clear advantage nothing screams PEDs to me in those respects because there’s so many factors in play. I’m sure many people will say “they get more active gym time from recovery” and things along those lines though.
Click to expand...

Im not clowning you friend, but I think your being hopeful contrary to evidence.

Do you think if guys were taking roids when there was no money at stake, and now they can make lucrative careers out of it, they'd suddenly stop?
 
icemun said:
This is the difference, its recreational.

Ive boxed. I stand nothing to gain from taking roids for something recreational.

Were talking about pro athletes, who could have millions at stake.
Click to expand...

I want to fight professionally...

It may not become a career that depends how it goes...

Just cuz large money is at stake doesnt mean you have to cheat... We all make choices..
 
I have to think the bottom limits have to be variable to the metabolites being tested, not just < 100 across the board, at least from my experience working with drug tests and labs
 
TimeToTrain said:
I do not have any sources to back my statement
Click to expand...

Of course not.

FYI If they were letting people compete with performance enhancing amounts of PEDs in their system, they'd be open to litigation.

but PEDs is PEDs. It’s wrong to be using them as a professional athlete while there are laws to this sport. If the law says do not use illegal substances, it’s simple - do not use them. It’s as simple as “As citizens, do not rob a bank.” Just don’t rob a bank. It’s the same as do not use illegal substances when competing in this sport.
Click to expand...


It's actually not that simple. Not in the slightest.

It's possible to piss hot for banned substances or metabolites associated with banned substances due to environmental, supplement or food contamination.

If you're going to have a strict liability regime, then acceptances have to be made for small amounts that are not performance enhacing.
 
Killer Kadoogan said:
how do those small amounts even get into the system in the first place? do you honestly not think it's not from larger amounts? come on dude...
Click to expand...

How is a drug test able to detect such small amounts with perfect accuracy and make a definitive conclusion as to the source of that tiny amount of what their perfect test was looking for with complete absence of any other small amounts of other things that should be there too that would corroborate that conclusion?
 
icemun said:
Im not clowning you friend, but I think your being hopeful contrary to evidence.

Do you think if guys were taking roids when there was no money at stake, and now they can make lucrative careers out of it, they'd suddenly stop?
Click to expand...
There's probably more chance of them not having a history of them than it is that they would stop unless they got spooked by enhanced testing. Especially as a champ their career could be over after failing a test depending on the circumstances and where they sit with the UFC.
 
GrantB13 said:
There's probably more chance of them not having a history of them than it is that they would stop unless they got spooked by enhanced testing. Especially as a champ their career could be over after failing a test depending on the circumstances and where they sit with the UFC.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell you man.
Im assuming you've never been around sports.
Like Ken Shamrock said, you have to be pretty naive to not know whats going on.
 
Phisher said:
Of course not.

FYI If they were letting people compete with performance enhancing amounts of PEDs in their system, they'd be open to litigation.




It's actually not that simple. Not in the slightest.

It's possible to piss hot for banned substances or metabolites associated with banned substances due to environmental, supplement or food contamination.

If you're going to have a strict liability regime, then acceptances have to be made for small amounts that are not performance enhacing.
Click to expand...

Toxicology reports would say otherwise. These are state of the art labs that is able to detect thousands of different types of chemicals out there, and are able to determine where the source of the metabolites are a common source from. There are common denominators for contaminated substances found among poultry and other food categories.
 
Killer Kadoogan said:
how do those small amounts even get into the system in the first place? do you honestly not think it's not from larger amounts? come on dude...
Click to expand...
That’s a different point than the one you made.
 
Cartiac said:
How is a drug test able to detect such small amounts with perfect accuracy and make a definitive conclusion as to the source of that tiny amount of what their perfect test was looking for with complete absence of any other small amounts of other things that should be there too that would corroborate that conclusion?
Click to expand...
i know what you're saying, but that's just like, your opinion man. what other chemicals should be there? whats the rundown?
 
TimeToTrain said:
Toxicology reports would say otherwise. These are state of the art labs that is able to detect thousands of different types of chemicals out there, and are able to determine where the source of the metabolites are a common source from. There are common denominators for contaminated substances found among poultry and other food categories.
Click to expand...


Bro, you just told me that you haven't done any reading on this topic at all, but now you're certain about how detailed the lab results are?

They can't tell with certainty the source of every aberrant substance in urine or blood work, which is why they were forced to raise the thresholds.

A bunch of people proved the previous standards wrong in arbitration.
 
Killer Kadoogan said:
this is a separate post and question entirely. i can have more than one thought. or can i?
Click to expand...
? You responded to someone questioning the basis for your prior statement that it was still performance enhancing. Your answer was a completely different point?
 
kflo said:
? You responded to someone questioning the basis for your prior statement that it was still performance enhancing. Your answer was a completely different point?
Click to expand...
my response was just another question to consider.
 
kflo said:
The experts paid “massive money” are salaried employees for a non profit whose pay is public. You can look it up. The rules allow for “assistance” to reduce sentence and he was suspended 18 months.

and jones was obviously not their most successful cash cow back then.
Click to expand...

Assistance in what exactly? Pretty vague, eh? What is it you think he did for them in order to get a reduced sentence? And most importantly, why don't you think that's public knowledge? Probably because whatever it was amounted to absolutely nothing and it was just an excuse to lessen Jon's punishment and make him eligible to compete sooner so as not to hurt the UFC's hand which feeds them (even if the UFC doesn't pay them directly, this "partnership" provides a ton of work and job security for USADA for the foreseeable future)

By most successful cash cow, I don't mean that he's the biggest draw. That's obviously Conor followed by Brock and maybe Ronda. Jones is on the tier below them, I'd say. But of their cash cows (and anyone else, really), he's had the most successful fighting career. And more than anyone else, it's that career success that drives his drawing power (unlike Conor whose celebrity transcends the sport).

It is bad, bad, bad business for the UFC if Jon's career success or legitimacy is tarnished or called into question at all. Jeff Novitsky is a talking head to make sure that doesn't happen, and the UFC's relationship with USADA makes it apparent that USADA assists in controlling the damage.
 
nonoob said:
Along the fantasy story line of " UFC is an honest, legitimate sport "
Click to expand...

Even if UFC is not a legitimate and honest brand with USADA, it's still less worse than elsewhere.

If USADA is still bad, that means it's much worse elsewhere, so it doesn't change anything : USADA > anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,264,004
Messages
57,260,296
Members
175,605
Latest member
HIAFC95

Share this page

Back
Top