DarthSkywalker
š¦Your Most Aggro Pal (he/him)
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2004
- Messages
- 133,335
- Reaction score
- 81,223
- Points
- 203
Cheers I think I understand I read up a little on it more, I don't get why everything isn't just uniformal, wasn't that the purpose of USADA handling these tests? As outside of the various athletic commissions tests being nowhere near as strict, they all differ & have different policies/thresholds in regards to drug testing & acceptable levels of certain substances.
According to that, Jones hasn't failed a test but his most recent tests have shown the presence of a long-term metabolite from whatever was in his system prior & he'll get no performance-enhancing benefits from what remains, which I gather is the reason why the fight is allowed to go ahead. The amount is apparently so small, it would have been literally impossible for him to have retaken something during the window of his tests & have it show up so small & also not test positive for the short-term metabolite. I'll let the scientists do the science, if they say someones passed or failed a test, I'll take them at their word.. I'd trust USADA more than I'd trust some of the athletic commissions drug testing programmes.
What I don't get, if this is the case, if it's so small & he's getting no performance enhancing benefits, why even mention it at all?
You really shouldn't. AC's might be incompetent, but USADA literally works for the UFC here and the UFC can decide to ignore their findings. They had to announce it because he tested positive for a banned substance, in an amount similar to what got him and others suspended and he wasn't going to get a license to fight in Nevada because of it. So they had to move the event, and when people asked, they were going to have to admit it. This is why they are trying to "explain" it away from the start. The issue is, it is looking more and more like they are making an excuse.
Here is Frank Mir talking about this situation:
Frank Mir
In the spring of 2016, when USADA representatives sat in my Las Vegas kitchen and told me that the turinabol metabolite that they said I tested positive for could only have been ingested within a window of the past several months, I vehemently proclaimed my innocence. Having never failed any drug test throughout my career, I asked if we could go back further in the past to test any supplements that I couldāve taken, but they claimed that was both impossible and unnecessary. They were firm on their assertion that there was only a recent period of several months that would warrant any consideration. Now, little more than two years later, Jon Jones has tested positive for the same trace of the same banned substance, and USADA is taking the position that this same low level is in fact not a new ingestion, but something that could be the result of a residual āpulsingā effect that could potentially stay in his system āforeverā. Further, they are now claiming that this phenomenon is something that they are seeing in other cases as well.
This latest shift in USADAās position would seem to suggest one of two possibilitiesā¦Either they are a) offering special dispensation to Jon Jones or b) they are second guessing and subsequently ārevisingā the presentation of their own science. Either scenario leaves myself and a number of other fighters whose careers have been similarly damaged by past testing claims to wonder what this says about USADAās consistency and their testsā reliability. Sadly, my accusation came at a time when the UFCās partnership with USADA had not yet been subjected to the kind of doubt that now seems to further cloud it with each new instance of convoluted circumstances.
So what has changed exactly? More over, we know Jones tested positive. The amount is insignificant, as anything they'd test for would be diluted, as Jones would be trying to hide it. Which is exactly why this whole thing comes off very shady.

