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

[OrwellianNightmare]

If you have reference to testing methods that are better now, please list them instead of putting up terrible analogies.

By the way Jon passed 10 tests PRIOR to his competition, including during weight cut, but then failed the test post fight after he was fully hydrated. Literally all you post is nonsense. You keep going off about common sense, but honestly you sound like a complete idiot.

 

[fzoid4454]

the situation is worse than you think.

TBol can be taken without PCT.

What are the chances that someone who gets flagged for PCT drugs also gets flagged for a drug that can be taken without PCT about a year later?

So, if taking one is completely unrelated to taking the other..... why would the odds for getting flagged for one be impacted in any way by whether or not they were flagged for the other? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[UsernameLOL]

So, if taking one is completely unrelated to taking the other..... why would the odds for getting flagged for one be impacted in any way by whether or not they were flagged for the other? That doesn't make any sense.

Hypothetically speaking if I was taking steroids and I got flagged for PCT drugs the next steroid I take would be one I could take without PCT.

 

[kflo]

If you have reference to testing methods that are better now, please list them instead of putting up terrible analogies.

By the way Jon passed 10 tests PRIOR to his competition, including during weight cut, but then failed the test post fight after he was fully hydrated. Literally all you post is nonsense. You keep going off about common sense, but honestly you sound like a complete idiot.

again you’re misinformed and then calling others names. He flagged the day before his fight.

 

[kflo]

Hypothetically speaking if I was taking steroids and I got flagged for PCT drugs the next steroid I take would be one I could take without PCT.

One with a long detection window preferably.

 

[OrwellianNightmare]

Ok I got that detail wrong. But he tested after the weigh ins when he was hydrated. The point still stands. How did he pass the 10 tests leading up to the weight cut when he was losing fat and water, but then pass after hydrating? Still doesn't make sense by your logic. I just want to ask you this question: Do you think Jon Jones is clean?

 

[Captain Herb]

did you not read where i said "others pay usada"?

the fact is the individual arbitrators get paid directly by MGSS, not directly by any party. again, the arbitrators themselves are not paid by jones and have no interest to satisfy jones.

but of course conspiracy herb will throw out the conspiracy just because....

Sure, so at this point your argument is "The arbitrators are not actually paid by Jon Jones because he handed the money to USADA who then handed the money to the arbitrators. Even if that were true, it's a meaningless distinction and a very week argument. But let's just take this one step further.

Suppose you were an arbitration firm who landed a contract with USADA, or any other large client. Your income is not solely dependent on USADA sanctioning athletes, it's dependent on USADA sanctioning athletes who have enough money to hire you to fight USADA to get their suspension reduced.

Now, no client--wealthy or not--is going to pay for arbitration if the arbitrators do not consistently and reliably provide a value for doing so. Jon Jones is not going to hire them if they have a record of always siding with USADA. Therefore, the arbitrators have a very vested interest in cutting the defendant a deal. Which is what happened with Jones twice. They split the difference, threw him a bone, and walked away with the money. This is how shit is done in the real world and everyone understands it except people like you. No offense, but it's time to become a little less naive. It's not a crackpot theory to believe Jon Jones did PEDs on multiple occasions, it's a crackpot theory to think that he didn't.

 

[TheFakeMacoy]

I think he was saying that he pees in the pool.

 

[UsernameLOL]

One with a long detection window preferably.

please name drugs with shorter detection windows that don’t require PCT.

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

Jones is one of the least likable people in all of sports. The dudes personality is worse than most serial killers.

 

[mjfan23]

Khabib fans now have nothing left but to try and discredit Jones cause jones called out your boy for being undeserving of getting ranked over him.

when you get over the bones hurdle wait till you run into the Fedor fans who will eat you guys alive for being a Manlet and never taking on bigger, larger opponents.

 

[kflo]

Sure, so at this point your argument is "The arbitrators are not actually paid by Jon Jones because he handed the money to USADA who then handed the money to the arbitrators. Even if that were true, it's a meaningless distinction and a very week argument. But let's just take this one step further.

Suppose you were an arbitration firm who landed a contract with USADA, or any other large client. Your income is not solely dependent on USADA sanctioning athletes, it's dependent on USADA sanctioning athletes who have enough money to hire you to fight USADA to get their suspension reduced.

again, you are out of your depth.

13.5 Arbitrators shall be compensated at an hourly rate of $325, as set by MGSS. Arbitrator fees and expenses for a single Arbitrator shall be paid by UFC. If USADA elects to proceed with a panel of three Arbitrators, then UFC shall pay the fees and expenses of all Arbitrators. If the Applicant elects to proceed with a panel of three Arbitrators, the fees and expenses of all three Arbitrators shall be split equally between the parties.​

Now, no client--wealthy or not--is going to pay for arbitration if the arbitrators do not consistently and reliably provide a value for doing so. Jon Jones is not going to hire them if they have a record of always siding with USADA. Therefore, the arbitrators have a very vested interest in cutting the defendant a deal. Which is what happened with Jones twice. They split the difference, threw him a bone, and walked away with the money. This is how shit is done in the real world and everyone understands it except people like you. No offense, but it's time to become a little less naive. It's not a crackpot theory to believe Jon Jones did PEDs on multiple occasions, it's a crackpot theory to think that he didn't.

the applicant files for arbitration. in most cases, the ufc pays for it. the arbitrators themselves are paid by their firm.

they have had 8 arbitration rulings since inception of usada in the ufc. there have been 104 sanctions.
of the 8 rulings, 1 was a sentence reduction of 3 months (jones), and one was a finding of no fault (barnett). all others upheld the sentence. mgss arbitrators don't seem like good businessmen. or maybe they actually do their job.

again, you simply dismiss as impossible what others explicitly determined was likely.

and again, you like to rewrite facts and want everything tidy and neat into black and white good and evil. you've determined you know, and have never even taken single stock of the possibility you were wrong.

 

[kflo]

please name drugs with shorter detection windows that don’t require PCT.

do you have a link that confirms tbol doesn't require pct? i've seen where the recommendation is pct.

but again, why would one be less likely to be detected cycling tbol?

 

[Captain Herb]

again, you are out of your depth.

13.5 Arbitrators shall be compensated at an hourly rate of $325, as set by MGSS. Arbitrator fees and expenses for a single Arbitrator shall be paid by UFC. If USADA elects to proceed with a panel of three Arbitrators, then UFC shall pay the fees and expenses of all Arbitrators. If the Applicant elects to proceed with a panel of three Arbitrators, the fees and expenses of all three Arbitrators shall be split equally between the parties.​

the applicant files for arbitration. in most cases, the ufc pays for it. the arbitrators themselves are paid by their firm.

they have had 8 arbitration rulings since inception of usada in the ufc. there have been 104 sanctions.
of the 8 rulings, 1 was a sentence reduction of 3 months (jones), and one was a finding of no fault (barnett). all others upheld the sentence. mgss arbitrators don't seem like good businessmen. or maybe they actually do their job.

again, you simply dismiss as impossible what others explicitly determined was likely.

and again, you like to rewrite facts and want everything tidy and neat into black and white good and evil. you've determined you know, and have never even taken single stock of the possibility you were wrong.

Why are you posting reference material that confirms what I have already stated and refutes what you have claimed? The arbitrators are paid either by the UFC or The UFC and the aplicant depending on who wants to proceed with whatever sized panel. Never by USADA.

What are the stats for this arbitration firm over the total of their work with USADA, outside the UFC?

 

[UsernameLOL]

do you have a link that confirms tbol doesn't require pct? i've seen where the recommendation is pct.

but again, why would one be less likely to be detected cycling tbol?

Just to be clear (not back tracking). PCT is recommended for all steroids to counter act suppression and androgenic/estrogenic effects. But Turinabol is known for not having strong androgenic/estrogenic effects. I should rephrase my statement it's less dangerous to take turinabol without PCT than it is other drugs.

https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/4-Chlorodehydromethyltestosterone

"Because of the 4-chloro alteration, Oral Turinabol can't interact with the aromatase enzyme, so estrogenic side effects aren't really a concern. "


https://www.sharonhospital.com/turinabol-tbol-review/

"Most users who prefer not to use Dianabol because of its extreme aromatization and high risk of androgenic side effects can consider Turinabol instead, because it does not aromatize. Nor does it carry a very strong androgenic rating."


https://www.steroidal.com/steroid-profiles/turinabol/

In general, athletes and bodybuilders can expect steady and quality lean mass gains with no risk of any bloating, gyno, or any other estrogenic effects.

 

[fzoid4454]

If you have reference to testing methods that are better now, please list them instead of putting up terrible analogies.

By the way Jon passed 10 tests PRIOR to his competition, including during weight cut, but then failed the test post fight after he was fully hydrated. Literally all you post is nonsense. You keep going off about common sense, but honestly you sound like a complete idiot.

"By the way," fuck off, you are wrong, as ususal. Don't you ever get tired of not having the basic facts correct? -

Although Jon Jones passed a post-fight blood screening post-UFC 214 on July 29th, he failed a urine test that was administered on July 28th before the fight. It is to be noted that, blood tests by USADA do not test for Turinabol, but the urine tests do. Jones was flagged for the same substances and hence he passed the post-fight drug test but was unable to pass the urine test before the fight.

July 28 = weight cut day, for the terminally dense.

https://www.essentiallysports.com/ufc-the-story-of-the-jon-jones-steroid-controversy/

And, obviously, for the second result, it was before the fight, since they changed the venue from Las Vegas to California and had the fight.

Okay, the analogies aren't terrible, because they fit your stupidity perfectly. And since I'm digging up scientific journals and translating them for you, you can fuck off, again, now that I've offered the verification of your ignorance on this.

So, - please list a reference to testing methods being better now than a decade ago - which is an inherently obtuse position to stake out, but here it is

Background reference, from the National Institutes of Health. This is the paper you have been referring to

Abstract
The biotransformation of dehydrochloromethyltestosterone (DHCMT, {DHCMT=Turinabol.... my notation, not NIH} 4-chloro-17β-hydroxy,17α-methylandrosta-1,4-dien-3-one) in man was studied with the aim to discover long-term metabolites valuable for the antidoping analysis. Having applied a high performance liquid chromatography for the fractionation of urinary extract obtained from the pool of several DHCMT positive urines, about 50 metabolites were found. Most of these metabolites were included in the GC-MS/MS screening method, which was subsequently applied to analyze the post-administration and routine doping control samples. As a result of this study, 6 new long-term metabolites were identified tentatively characterized using GC-MS and GC-MS/MS as 4-chloro-17α-methyl-5β-androstan-3α,16,17β-triol (M1), 4-chloro-18-nor-17β-hydroxymethyl,17α-methyl-5β-androsta-1,13-dien-3α-ol (M2), 4-chloro-18-nor-17β-hydroxymethyl,17α-methyl-5β-androst-13-en-3α-ol (M3), its epimer 4-chloro-18-nor-17α-hydroxymethyl,17β-methyl-5β-androst-13-en-3α-ol, 4-chloro-18-nor-17β-hydroxymethyl,17α-methylandrosta-4,13-dien-3α-ol (M4) and its epimer 4-chloro-18-nor-17α-hydroxymethyl,17β-methylandrosta-4,13-dien-3α-ol. The most long-term metabolite M3 was shown to be superior in the majority of cases to the other known DHCMT metabolites, such as 4-chloro-18-nor-17β-hydroxymethyl,17α-methylandrosta-1,4,13-trien-3-one and 4-chloro-3α,6β,17β-trihydroxy-17α-methyl-5β-androst-1-en-16-one.

We've identified the terminology for Turniabol, and the M3 metabolite, first identified in this paper, in 2011.

A 2015 paper published on using a newer technique to test for DHCMT -

Abstract
Oral-Turinabol, dehydrochloromethyltestosterone (DHCMT), is a synthetic anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS) prohibited in sports by the World Anti-Doping Agency. We used accurate-mass measurements by liquid chromatography coupled to a quadrupole time-of-flight (LC/MS Q-TOF) system to investigate DHCMT metabolites.....

...... According to our bibliographic search, no previous studies on the detection of Oral-Turinabol consumption by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry have been reported...

.... Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is the common method of choice for the detection of Oral-Turinabol administration.

So, new methods of testing for the metabolites, in 2015, which would be AFTER 2011.

https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/applications/5991-6019EN.pdf

Here's a state of the science symposium called "RECENT ADVANCES IN DOPING ANALYSIS", April 2018, which is less than a year after Jones got popped, which would qualify as "recent."

Page 29

We presented results at the 2015 MDI Workshop demonstrating the improved capacity of the Agilent 7010 high efficience sources (HES) to detect at levels previously unatainable by the 7000 series systems

NOTE: same systems manufacturer as in the paper, above, previous demonstration of IMPROVED CAPACITY dated the same time as the above paper. However, it is a different technology than in the paper, so, from the same company, we now count at least TWO technological advancements.

Typical GC/MS source designs introduce and electron beam perpendicular to the resulting ion beam......

..... a few years ago, a new high efficiency source (HES) model was introduced by Agilent (7010 source design) which orients the electron beam to be coaxial to the ion beam, minimizing the loss of ion density within the source. These sources were tested for both qualitative and quantitaive analysis in urinary matrices. Results are discussed here.

So, we have the "common method of choice" that is used for DHCMT, being discussed here, with improvements to that method. AS YOU REQUESTED.

A new GC-MS/MS7010 system was installed for system suitability testing at the Montreal Anti-Doping lab in August 2015.....

... Figure 1 compares signals generated in the acquisition window of DHCMT long term metabolite (4-chloro-18-nor-17β-hydroxymethyl-17α-methyl-5a-androst-13-en-3α-ol) for 2 samples injected first on a 7000C system and a second on a 7010 system. On the 7000C system, the two samples generated small signals that were not clearly distinguishable from baseline noise...

TRANSLATION: In testing the two samples against a baseline/control of infant urine sample, the pre-2015 system did not detect the M3 metabolite in either sample tested, and the two samples one which had very low concentrations of M3 and one which did not, showed up the same in the tests.

... but reanalysis on an HES system clearly establishes the presence of the DHCMT metabolite in sample 2, and its absence from sample 1. Thanks to these new sources, the laboratory has been able to report a number of AAFs at concentrations reaching as low as 10pg/ml, levels previously unachievable by the 7000 series systems.

..... the increased specificity of the 7010 sources allow a clear differntiation from a low concentration positive sample (<50 pg/ml) from a negative sample.

https://www.dshs-koeln.de/fileadmin...ecent_Advances_in_Doping_Analysis_26_2018.pdf

So, yeah, biochemical analytical technology has improved with the passage of years, just like it has for every kind of advanced technology out there. That you demanded proof of this is absurd, but there it is, specifically as it applies to the M3 metabolite for Turinabol.

So, again, fuck off. I'm done with you and your stupidity, and I'm not doing any more research to prove what should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

 

[kflo]

Just to be clear (not back tracking). PCT is recommended for all steroids to counter act suppression and androgenic/estrogenic effects. But Turinabol is known for not having strong androgenic/estrogenic effects. I should rephrase my statement it's less dangerous to take turinabol without PCT than it is other drugs.

https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/4-Chlorodehydromethyltestosterone

"Because of the 4-chloro alteration, Oral Turinabol can't interact with the aromatase enzyme, so estrogenic side effects aren't really a concern. "


https://www.sharonhospital.com/turinabol-tbol-review/

"Most users who prefer not to use Dianabol because of its extreme aromatization and high risk of androgenic side effects can consider Turinabol instead, because it does not aromatize. Nor does it carry a very strong androgenic rating."


https://www.steroidal.com/steroid-profiles/turinabol/

In general, athletes and bodybuilders can expect steady and quality lean mass gains with no risk of any bloating, gyno, or any other estrogenic effects.

but you agree it IS dangerous to cycle tbol without any PCT?

 

[kflo]

Why are you posting reference material that confirms what I have already stated and refutes what you have claimed? The arbitrators are paid either by the UFC or The UFC and the aplicant depending on who wants to proceed with whatever sized panel. Never by USADA.

Again, the check goes from the ufc to usada. Usada pays mgss who pay the arbitrators. The athlete doesn’t need to pay. Or care how much it costs. And he is the one who brings the case. Not the ufc. Again, the athlete has no say in whether they use mgss.

What are the stats for this arbitration firm over the total of their work with USADA, outside the UFC?

Lol.....

Why? Do you think they publish their stats to market athletes to bring cases to them?

And do you think they found in Barnett’s favor not because of the facts but to promote their business to future clients?? And why do you think Barnett brought his case despite no prior cases having a reduced sentence at the time?

 

[UsernameLOL]

but you agree it IS dangerous to cycle tbol without any PCT?

Yes. Less dangerous than anything else though.

 

[Captain Herb]

Again, the check goes from the ufc to usada. Usada pays mgss who pay the arbitrators. The athlete doesn’t need to pay. Or care how much it costs. And he is the one who brings the case. Not the ufc. Again, the athlete has no say in whether they use mgss.


Lol.....

Why? Do you think they publish their stats to market athletes to bring cases to them?

And do you think they found in Barnett’s favor not because of the facts but to promote their business to future clients?? And why do you think Barnett brought his case despite no prior cases having a reduced sentence at the time?

Again, wrong. Why do you keep saying USADA pays the arbitrators? They don't. Even if the check passes through them, so what? And you have produced absolutely zero evidence that it does in anyway.

I like how you sneaked out of the question of where the Tbol failures originated from. There's a lot of people who want to know, so why don't you inform us?