What did Jones mean when he said a pinch of salt in a swimming pool?

So he admitted that he cheated but only a tiny amount or he cheated and only a little trace was found? So he basically is saying I cheated but it wasn’t significant! What is this BS? Imagine Lance Armstrong saying I only blood doped just a little so can I keep my gold? Or a killer saying I only used a bebe gun to kill am I still a killer? Can someone please explain this BS excuse?
<6><{Joewithit}><{hughesimpress}>

You're not actually this stupid, are you? I pinch of salt in a swimming pool has zero effect on the salinity of that kind of volume of water.

Similarly, a near zero concentration of a PED substance is an indication of trace contamination that has no actual PED effect. The point of taking PED is to get PED effects.

If I get pulled over and take a blood alcohol test that shows .000000001% BAC, when legal intoxication is .08%, I would make the case that I'm not intoxicated. And I would be right.

This is not me saying he didn't cheat, or that you should believe his claims. This is me saying you are stupid for not understanding that very basic point of argument.
 
that's bullshit. the russians switched to tren because they figured out tbol metabolites had a long detection window.......

well,. they switched to Tren because the person doping them was the person who designed the test for turinabol and he knew the test was about to be ratified.

The plan was to catch all of Russia's eastern block rivals who had copied their method, and it worked. After the M3 test came out shit tons of Latvians, Estonians, and various other former Soviet Block athletes tested positive.

The trouble is, it didn't occur to Rodchenkov that WADA would instruct everyone to go back and test samples from 4-8 years prior :D

But the initial wave of M3 positives was almost exclusively former Soviet nations allowing Russia to clean up in competitions.
 
you're acknowledging tbol is detectable for a long time yet are insisting it's a good option for mma and works as a cocktail because the russians used it.......without noting the russians switched away from it when they figured out its detection window.

novitzky has zero impact on jones "sliding". he is a ufc mouthpiece. he doesn't sentence athletes.

No. What I'm saying is that Tbol has long detection windows unless you use the cocktail trick. Then only trace amounts of the long term metabolite remains, which can be further masked. For the 2016 Olympics one of the state doping agents came out and revealed the cocktail trick and then came up with the new testing that can detect the small traces of the long term metabolites left from the cocktail. Now they're using Tren because of the risk of the small traces of Tbol metabolites being detected, and the scandal from the 2012 Olympics making it too risky to use from bad publicity. Even then Jon thought it was a viable option, but he obviously played way too close to the fire. Do you need further clarification? The reason why there were only traces of long term metabolites that were detected is that the cocktail flushes out all of the short and medium term metabolites and leaves only small traces of the long term metabolites.
 
If I get pulled over and take a blood alcohol test that shows .000000001% BAC, when legal intoxication is .08%, I would make the case that I'm not intoxicated. And I would be right.

but the amount present at any one time does not determine how much was originally administered and whether that does was performance enhancing.

Using your example, you could argue you are not currently intoxicated, but that does not prove you were not intoxicated at some point.

Your blood alcohol could be 0.00000001 because you had tiramisu for lunch. Equally, that 0.00000001 could be because 5 nights ago you went out and got so utterly bladdered you could barely walk and ended up falling asleep in a ditch.

the presence of a substance at 50pg/ml could be the result of a tiny microdose in a contaminated supplement that morning, equally, it could be the result of a therapeutic dose a week earlier.
 
and the Russians did switch once the Olympic committee found the testing for the Tbol metabolites, but then they switched back to Tbol once the cocktail trick was invented and used it extensively during the 2012 Olympics.

it wasnt the olympic committee

the person who designed the test for m3 was Grigory Rodchenkov

The person who was doping russian athletes was Grigory Rodchenkov

They switched because the plan was to catch all of Russia's rivals who had started using the same cocktail. So the Russians switched to Tren, then released the test, then caught all of their rivals who were still using DHCMT (Turinabol)

Russia had been using the cocktail method since 2008 all the way through to 2012 when they replaced the tbol with tren. They never switched back to DHCMT
 
it wasnt the olympic committee

the person who designed the test for m3 was Grigory Rodchenkov

The person who was doping russian athletes was Grigory Rodchenkov

They switched because the plan was to catch all of Russia's rivals who had started using the same cocktail. So the Russians switched to Tren, then released the test, then caught all of their rivals who were still using DHCMT (Turinabol)

Russia had been using the cocktail method since 2008 all the way through to 2012 when they replaced the tbol with tren. They never switched back to DHCMT

Yeah I edited that part right away. I couldn't remember his name, but in previous post I mentioned he snitched on the Russian doping methods. Thank you for the additional details, its been a while since I remembered that information.
 
You’re an idiot, why was it in his system? He gained an advantage from training and even though it was a small amount, he was still reaping the high testosterone benefits that come with it, your test doesn’t all of a sudden go back to normal as soon as it’s out of your system.
Why are you calling me an idiot? This Is exactly what they were trying to say of what TS asked.

I never implied it's what I believe
 
well,. they switched to Tren because the person doping them was the person who designed the test for turinabol and he knew the test was about to be ratified.

The plan was to catch all of Russia's eastern block rivals who had copied their method, and it worked. After the M3 test came out shit tons of Latvians, Estonians, and various other former Soviet Block athletes tested positive.

The trouble is, it didn't occur to Rodchenkov that WADA would instruct everyone to go back and test samples from 4-8 years prior :D

But the initial wave of M3 positives was almost exclusively former Soviet nations allowing Russia to clean up in competitions.
agreed.

but again, the other guy was implying that the cocktail can beat the tests and can be timed.....
 
No. What I'm saying is that Tbol has long detection windows unless you use the cocktail trick. Then only trace amounts of the long term metabolite remains, which can be further masked. For the 2016 Olympics one of the state doping agents came out and revealed the cocktail trick and then came up with the new testing that can detect the small traces of the long term metabolites left from the cocktail. Now they're using Tren because of the risk of the small traces of Tbol metabolites being detected, and the scandal from the 2012 Olympics making it too risky to use from bad publicity. Even then Jon thought it was a viable option, but he obviously played way too close to the fire. Do you need further clarification? The reason why there were only traces of long term metabolites that were detected is that the cocktail flushes out all of the short and medium term metabolites and leaves only small traces of the long term metabolites.
what's the detection window with the "cocktail trick", and how can the long term metabolites be "further masked"?
 
but the amount present at any one time does not determine how much was originally administered and whether that does was performance enhancing.

Using your example, you could argue you are not currently intoxicated, but that does not prove you were not intoxicated at some point.

Your blood alcohol could be 0.00000001 because you had tiramisu for lunch. Equally, that 0.00000001 could be because 5 nights ago you went out and got so utterly bladdered you could barely walk and ended up falling asleep in a ditch.

the presence of a substance at 50pg/ml could be the result of a tiny microdose in a contaminated supplement that morning, equally, it could be the result of a therapeutic dose a week earlier.

I guess you missed the part where I said I wasn't backing his claims or that anyone should believe them. OP was questioning what a "pinch of salt in a swimming pool" meant as a defense.

But, okay, let's play this stupid game, again -

If I was constantly tested and there was never any indication during that time of higher levels of BAC, then yes, that microscopic reading below the level of error would, indeed indicate that I was never intoxicated over that period of time.

Jones, before testing positive for these minuscule amounts of the long-term secondary metabolite had been periodically tested, with no positives for the primary substance, or shorter-term primary metabolites at any point leading up to that, or even that secondary metabolite, including just days and weeks before.

If it was an indication of a higher dose, previously, his tests between then and the "adverse indication" would have shown positives for the substance, indications of the primary metabolites, or indications of the metabolite he tested for, in higher concentrations.

So, no. It's not like he wasn't tested at all before and then this popped when he finally was. This showed up when he was tested regularly leading up to the fight, and just days before, all with negative results, and it didn't show up the day after. That's not an indication of a bigger dose gradually getting worked out of his system.
 
If your body is 70 percent water and you weigh 230 lb, then thats around 160 lbs of water. If you inject steroids in say a 1 mL injection, wouldnt that be similar to a salt in the swmming pool ratio lol
 
I guess you missed the part where I said I wasn't backing his claims or that anyone should believe them. OP was questioning what a "pinch of salt in a swimming pool" meant as a defense.

But, okay, let's play this stupid game, again -

If I was constantly tested and there was never any indication during that time of higher levels of BAC, then yes, that microscopic reading below the level of error would, indeed indicate that I was never intoxicated over that period of time.

Jones, before testing positive for these minuscule amounts of the long-term secondary metabolite had been periodically tested, with no positives for the primary substance, or shorter-term primary metabolites at any point leading up to that, including just days and weeks before.

If it was an indication of a higher dose, previously, his tests between then and the "adverse indication" would have shown positives for the substance, indications of the primary metabolites, or indications of the metabolite he tested for, in higher concentrations.

So, no. It's not like he wasn't tested at all before and then this popped when he finally was. This showed up when he was tested regularly leading up to the fight, and just days before, all with negative results, and it didn't show up the day after. That's not an indication of a bigger dose gradually getting worked out of his system.

oh i dont disagree, that is where the presence of short term metabolites comes into play

I was just putting out that your alcohol analogy simply didnt work in this situation (At least not without a constant series of tests showing your alcohol levels over time)
 
agreed.

but again, the other guy was implying that the cocktail can beat the tests and can be timed.....

In Jon's tests he passed prior tests in the same camp before he tested positive for the metabolites. How is that possible with long term metabolites? He must have messed up the masking somehow. Unless the USADA testing is faulty and only gives false positives a certain percentages of the time. I don't see how tests PRIOR to his positive in the same camp wouldn't show up and would obviously show more metabolites.
 
he's referring to picograms

Picogram (pg) is a derived metric measurement unit of mass. The picogram is equal to one trillionth of a gram (10-12g)

...or equal to one particulant of salt in DC's Popeyes meal.
 
In Jon's tests he passed prior tests in the same camp before he tested positive for the metabolites. How is that possible with long term metabolites? He must have messed up the masking somehow. Unless the USADA testing is faulty and only gives false positives a certain percentages of the time. I don't see how tests PRIOR to his positive in the same camp wouldn't show up and would obviously show more metabolites.
Even when he was being tested 30 times over 6 months he was flagging for traces of long term metabolites amongst clean tests. It’s not necessarily“ faulty testing” or even false positives. It can be fluctuations in urinary excretion patterns in very small measures.
 
Ok so you admit that you can get false negatives in test from just urine fluctuations. What makes you think masking is impossible or that Jon was microdosing and heavily hydrating to beat Urine tests? Not saying that's valid, but I'm curious to know what makes you think this is impossible.
 
Ok so you admit that you can get false negatives in test from just urine fluctuations. What makes you think masking is impossible or that Jon was microdosing and heavily hydrating to beat Urine tests? Not saying that's valid, but I'm curious to know what makes you think this is impossible.
experts in the field (vada science director) never heard of microdosing tbol. it's generally effective in large doses over long periods of time. and detectable for a long time (even for a single dose).

what is the masking agent that would also have to be undetectable?

and false negative isn't really the appropriate term for undetectable levels of a metabolite.
 
oh i dont disagree, that is where the presence of short term metabolites comes into play

I was just putting out that your alcohol analogy simply didnt work in this situation (At least not without a constant series of tests showing your alcohol levels over time)
Of course it does, because the ONLY thing being questioned was the "pinch of salt" comparison, and OP ignoring the fact that trace amounts of PED are not, in fact, actual PED.
 
Ah VADA. The agency GSP wanted to use instead of USADA when he fought Hendricks. There's some real credibility there. How would I know what masking agent Jon must be using? You're trying to imply that all the prior tests (Jon is one of the most heavily tested fighters on the roster) before his positive tests were from urine fluctuations. That seems way more ridiculous to me. Considering Jon's previous history of drug tests, criminal charges, and stories of him hiding under the octagon for hours to avoid USADA, you think its more likely he's clean than dirty? If you look at his estrogen and testosterone levels in testing reports you'd have to assume his endocrinology system is shot. He's probably unable to do proper post cycle therapy with all the drug tests he's receiving either. So unless you think he's able to function at a world class level with the test levels of a 90 year old man he's still obviously on something. This positive test is what evidence we have, and I'm just going by deductive reasoning. Do you really think all those false negatives were from Urine fluctuations? That's a lot of tests USADA is messing up.

I'm not hating on Jones. 99% of world class athletes are drugged up. That 1% being in some niche sport where you don't need the advantages. But you seem to be thinking Jon is innocent. Is that your position?
 
In Jon's tests he passed prior tests in the same camp before he tested positive for the metabolites. How is that possible with long term metabolites? He must have messed up the masking somehow. Unless the USADA testing is faulty and only gives false positives a certain percentages of the time. I don't see how tests PRIOR to his positive in the same camp wouldn't show up and would obviously show more metabolites.

If a residual amount stays in your system, and the tests look at CONCENTRATIONS of a substance, then you're going to get a higher concentration, enough to read, when you are dehydrated from cutting water weight, which is when these test results showed up, both times.
 
Back
Top