CSAC on Jones’ positive test: ‘There’s no evidence of re-administration’

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
What puzzles me about this is, there’s only been one scientific study (to my knowledge) on Turanibol, and it was done by a guy in Germany. No peer review, etc. So how can they be so sure of their opinion, that they basically give Jones a free pass? Going to be really interesting to see how this plays out on many fronts. How will future opponents choose to react if he pops again? If others pop for T-bol, how are they treated? If they’re disciplined, do they use Jones’ case to argue or sue?
I finally bothered to look it up. It turns out there's actually quite a bit of study on Turinabol out there. It's been pretty extensively studied under its more scientific name of dehydrochloromethyltestosterone. Here are a few recent or trending studies: Dehydrochloromethyltestosterone - Semantic Scholar

You kind of need to be in biochem or pharmacology I guess to really understand them, but the findings are pretty straightforward. The most recent study, which you see at the top is from a scientist in Norway and her co-authors (Forsdahl et al, 2018) and it was indeed peer reviewed with findings sent to WADA for the M3 metabolite detection. I'm not sure if there's someone else that's being referred to in the talk of a German scientist, but this researcher's work was in an refereed journal. Her work builds on the prior work of Sobolevsky and Rodchenkov (2012), both of whom are Russian. Sobolevsky is at UCLA, but Rodchenkov was the former head of anti-doping in Russia who helped sponsor Russia's state sponsored doping program. You may remember him if you saw the documentary Icarus. Even despite that shady connection, it was Sobolevsky and Rodchenkov who classified the metabolites present after Tbol use and discovered that the M3 metabolite lasted longer in urine. Their finding was also in a peer reviewed journal, though it's not without its weirdness as they used a volunteer who basically popped a tbol pill in front of them.

What all of these folks seem to concur on is that detection window for the M3 metabolite of t-bol is 40-50 days under chromatographic analysis of urine. The other metabolites are generally detectable up to 22 days post-administration. The only distinction being Sobolevsky and Rodchenkov used liquid chromatography and Forsdahl et al used gas chromatography and liquid chromatography.

Assuming USADA labs follow WADA protocols, these are the methods they use. One thing one of the studies notes is that it's difficult to know where someone will fall in 40-50 day window and varies based on their metabolism. But something I don't see in any of them is a mention that the M3 metabolite could still be detectable a year out. In fact, what they researchers say is that one of the upsides to turinabol is that it's pretty quickly eliminated from the system as compared to other steroids. The M3 detection methods seem to be the only reason it can be caught at all, usually within a couple months, but not for 17 months.

But here's where the communication of this story gets interesting. Firstly, there's the use of the term "33 picograms" when tests for turinabol wouldn't likely report results using that kind of volumetric other than to indicate how much urine was tested. The mass isn't relevant as it's mostly an up or down test. Really the picograms must refer to how much of his urine it was detected in, but it doesn't make much sense.

Now we have Andy Foster's strange, rambling explanation of why Jones was not punished, posted above. He says, very specifically, "There's no evidence of readministration," as the reason for Jones not facing repercussions. In this case, "readminstration" implies actually taking the drug, but grants that the drug may be there in his system. So in this case, he doesn't break from the lab's finding that the drug was in Jones system. Then he says something very specific. He says "there's no way to prove readministration between July and, I believe it was August, of 2018."

What's significant about this is that it places Jones' eligibility to fight in a very different position. In a conversation with John Thomson, Foster supposedly told him that the CSAC had a sort of unofficial policy about suspensions not exceeding a year if a fighter was licensed for a year. USADA issued that suspension and gave him 15 months. But since Jones already had a license in California, in their eyes, a fighter's license can't be held up longer than a year. This means, to California, Jones was eligible to fight in July, a year from his suspension. But they didn't collect any samples on him in July or August because of course he wasn't fighting and plans for him to fight were in Nevada. So with this subtle shift, Foster is able to say 1) California didn't detect any signs of him using Tbol when he became eligible to us. 2) The tests from after July where Jones showed Tbol in his system for were not under our purview. 3) He passed our test 4) We can't prove he did drugs in July and early August (1st? 15th? 30th?). Jones started showing tbol

Later Foster says "The facts presented, based on scientific evidence, don't support the claims that Jon Jones is currently doping or has recently doped. It doesn't support that." This is one of many claims to scientific evidence. But basically in California's eyes, in mid July when Jones' contract was up again, he didn't pop any Tbol in his mouth, according to evidence. 50 days from July, i.e. September 15, the M3 would be gone. Jones' postive tests were between August and early September. Afterward, he's not positive again until December.

Novitsky's statement is even more obfuscatory:

“Science-wise, it does make some sense,” Novitzky said. “Once again, there was no parent compound and none of the short- or medium-term metabolites, which tend to stick around for three or weeks. So this is even more indicative that for whatever reason this long-term metabolite is just hanging around in these tissues and they get expressed when you’re going through weight loss.”

He mixes together just enough of the actual accurate terminology with speculative broscience and nonessential information to say it makes sense when it absolutely doesn't. He goes on to cite another case that he says was very similar, Contender series alum Grant Dawson who had his suspension overturned because it was found that he ingested the substance prior to entering the USADA testing window. This is where Foster's timing of when the science says Jones took the drug again becomes instructive. When do his test results start to be relevant in California's eyes? Also, what methods are being used in each of the different tests? Did VADA do anything USADA didn't when sending Jones' results to California? And was Foster's question to scientists "can this drug have only been present in the event of oral readministration?" No scientist could give an affirmative yes to that question. Was his question "could this test have come back positive and the others come back negative?" No scientist could much besides it's unclear, but unlikely."

This is why it's important to know who the mysterious "scientists" are that both Foster and the UFC have cited. Foster at least dropped a hint when he said the person who was his expert witness in busting Jones previously corroborated the finding that there was no evidence of readministration. Anyone who read the court papers know who that is? FrankieNYC @FrankieNYC ErikMagraken @ErikMagraken
 

FrankieNYC

"My balls was hot!"
Aug 13, 2017
3,959
6,760
I finally bothered to look it up. It turns out there's actually quite a bit of study on Turinabol out there. It's been pretty extensively studied under its more scientific name of dehydrochloromethyltestosterone. Here are a few recent or trending studies: Dehydrochloromethyltestosterone - Semantic Scholar

You kind of need to be in biochem or pharmacology I guess to really understand them, but the findings are pretty straightforward. The most recent study, which you see at the top is from a scientist in Norway and her co-authors (Forsdahl et al, 2018) and it was indeed peer reviewed with findings sent to WADA for the M3 metabolite detection. I'm not sure if there's someone else that's being referred to in the talk of a German scientist, but this researcher's work was in an refereed journal. Her work builds on the prior work of Sobolevsky and Rodchenkov (2012), both of whom are Russian. Sobolevsky is at UCLA, but Rodchenkov was the former head of anti-doping in Russia who helped sponsor Russia's state sponsored doping program. You may remember him if you saw the documentary Icarus. Even despite that shady connection, it was Sobolevsky and Rodchenkov who classified the metabolites present after Tbol use and discovered that the M3 metabolite lasted longer in urine. Their finding was also in a peer reviewed journal, though it's not without its weirdness as they used a volunteer who basically popped a tbol pill in front of them.

What all of these folks seem to concur on is that detection window for the M3 metabolite of t-bol is 40-50 days under chromatographic analysis of urine. The other metabolites are generally detectable up to 22 days post-administration. The only distinction being Sobolevsky and Rodchenkov used liquid chromatography and Forsdahl et al used gas chromatography and liquid chromatography.

Assuming USADA labs follow WADA protocols, these are the methods they use. One thing one of the studies notes is that it's difficult to know where someone will fall in 40-50 day window and varies based on their metabolism. But something I don't see in any of them is a mention that the M3 metabolite could still be detectable a year out. In fact, what they researchers say is that one of the upsides to turinabol is that it's pretty quickly eliminated from the system as compared to other steroids. The M3 detection methods seem to be the only reason it can be caught at all, usually within a couple months, but not for 17 months.

But here's where the communication of this story gets interesting. Firstly, there's the use of the term "33 picograms" when tests for turinabol wouldn't likely report results using that kind of volumetric other than to indicate how much urine was tested. The mass isn't relevant as it's mostly an up or down test. Really the picograms must refer to how much of his urine it was detected in, but it doesn't make much sense.

Now we have Andy Foster's strange, rambling explanation of why Jones was not punished, posted above. He says, very specifically, "There's no evidence of readministration," as the reason for Jones not facing repercussions. In this case, "readminstration" implies actually taking the drug, but grants that the drug may be there in his system. So in this case, he doesn't break from the lab's finding that the drug was in Jones system. Then he says something very specific. He says "there's no way to prove readministration between July and, I believe it was August, of 2018."

What's significant about this is that it places Jones' eligibility to fight in a very different position. In a conversation with John Thomson, Foster supposedly told him that the CSAC had a sort of unofficial policy about suspensions not exceeding a year if a fighter was licensed for a year. USADA issued that suspension and gave him 15 months. But since Jones already had a license in California, in their eyes, a fighter's license can't be held up longer than a year. This means, to California, Jones was eligible to fight in July, a year from his suspension. But they didn't collect any samples on him in July or August because of course he wasn't fighting and plans for him to fight were in Nevada. So with this subtle shift, Foster is able to say 1) California didn't detect any signs of him using Tbol when he became eligible to us. 2) The tests from after July where Jones showed Tbol in his system for were not under our purview. 3) He passed our test 4) We can't prove he did drugs in July and early August (1st? 15th? 30th?). Jones started showing tbol

Later Foster says "The facts presented, based on scientific evidence, don't support the claims that Jon Jones is currently doping or has recently doped. It doesn't support that." This is one of many claims to scientific evidence. But basically in California's eyes, in mid July when Jones' contract was up again, he didn't pop any Tbol in his mouth, according to evidence. 50 days from July, i.e. September 15, the M3 would be gone. Jones' postive tests were between August and early September. Afterward, he's not positive again until December.

Novitsky's statement is even more obfuscatory:

“Science-wise, it does make some sense,” Novitzky said. “Once again, there was no parent compound and none of the short- or medium-term metabolites, which tend to stick around for three or weeks. So this is even more indicative that for whatever reason this long-term metabolite is just hanging around in these tissues and they get expressed when you’re going through weight loss.”

He mixes together just enough of the actual accurate terminology with speculative broscience and nonessential information to say it makes sense when it absolutely doesn't. He goes on to cite another case that he says was very similar, Contender series alum Grant Dawson who had his suspension overturned because it was found that he ingested the substance prior to entering the USADA testing window. This is where Foster's timing of when the science says Jones took the drug again becomes instructive. When do his test results start to be relevant in California's eyes? Also, what methods are being used in each of the different tests? Did VADA do anything USADA didn't when sending Jones' results to California? And was Foster's question to scientists "can this drug have only been present in the event of oral readministration?" No scientist could give an affirmative yes to that question. Was his question "could this test have come back positive and the others come back negative?" No scientist could much besides it's unclear, but unlikely."

This is why it's important to know who the mysterious "scientists" are that both Foster and the UFC have cited. Foster at least dropped a hint when he said the person who was his expert witness in busting Jones previously corroborated the finding that there was no evidence of readministration. Anyone who read the court papers know who that is? FrankieNYC @FrankieNYC ErikMagraken @ErikMagraken

Hey man
Not my wheelhouse

Dim @Dim is the man on these things
 

Dim

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2017
173
373
I finally bothered to look it up. It turns out there's actually quite a bit of study on Turinabol out there. It's been pretty extensively studied under its more scientific name of dehydrochloromethyltestosterone. Here are a few recent or trending studies: Dehydrochloromethyltestosterone - Semantic Scholar

You kind of need to be in biochem or pharmacology I guess to really understand them, but the findings are pretty straightforward. The most recent study, which you see at the top is from a scientist in Norway and her co-authors (Forsdahl et al, 2018) and it was indeed peer reviewed with findings sent to WADA for the M3 metabolite detection. I'm not sure if there's someone else that's being referred to in the talk of a German scientist, but this researcher's work was in an refereed journal. Her work builds on the prior work of Sobolevsky and Rodchenkov (2012), both of whom are Russian. Sobolevsky is at UCLA, but Rodchenkov was the former head of anti-doping in Russia who helped sponsor Russia's state sponsored doping program. You may remember him if you saw the documentary Icarus. Even despite that shady connection, it was Sobolevsky and Rodchenkov who classified the metabolites present after Tbol use and discovered that the M3 metabolite lasted longer in urine. Their finding was also in a peer reviewed journal, though it's not without its weirdness as they used a volunteer who basically popped a tbol pill in front of them.

What all of these folks seem to concur on is that detection window for the M3 metabolite of t-bol is 40-50 days under chromatographic analysis of urine. The other metabolites are generally detectable up to 22 days post-administration. The only distinction being Sobolevsky and Rodchenkov used liquid chromatography and Forsdahl et al used gas chromatography and liquid chromatography.

Assuming USADA labs follow WADA protocols, these are the methods they use. One thing one of the studies notes is that it's difficult to know where someone will fall in 40-50 day window and varies based on their metabolism. But something I don't see in any of them is a mention that the M3 metabolite could still be detectable a year out. In fact, what they researchers say is that one of the upsides to turinabol is that it's pretty quickly eliminated from the system as compared to other steroids. The M3 detection methods seem to be the only reason it can be caught at all, usually within a couple months, but not for 17 months.

But here's where the communication of this story gets interesting. Firstly, there's the use of the term "33 picograms" when tests for turinabol wouldn't likely report results using that kind of volumetric other than to indicate how much urine was tested. The mass isn't relevant as it's mostly an up or down test. Really the picograms must refer to how much of his urine it was detected in, but it doesn't make much sense.

Now we have Andy Foster's strange, rambling explanation of why Jones was not punished, posted above. He says, very specifically, "There's no evidence of readministration," as the reason for Jones not facing repercussions. In this case, "readminstration" implies actually taking the drug, but grants that the drug may be there in his system. So in this case, he doesn't break from the lab's finding that the drug was in Jones system. Then he says something very specific. He says "there's no way to prove readministration between July and, I believe it was August, of 2018."

What's significant about this is that it places Jones' eligibility to fight in a very different position. In a conversation with John Thomson, Foster supposedly told him that the CSAC had a sort of unofficial policy about suspensions not exceeding a year if a fighter was licensed for a year. USADA issued that suspension and gave him 15 months. But since Jones already had a license in California, in their eyes, a fighter's license can't be held up longer than a year. This means, to California, Jones was eligible to fight in July, a year from his suspension. But they didn't collect any samples on him in July or August because of course he wasn't fighting and plans for him to fight were in Nevada. So with this subtle shift, Foster is able to say 1) California didn't detect any signs of him using Tbol when he became eligible to us. 2) The tests from after July where Jones showed Tbol in his system for were not under our purview. 3) He passed our test 4) We can't prove he did drugs in July and early August (1st? 15th? 30th?). Jones started showing tbol

Later Foster says "The facts presented, based on scientific evidence, don't support the claims that Jon Jones is currently doping or has recently doped. It doesn't support that." This is one of many claims to scientific evidence. But basically in California's eyes, in mid July when Jones' contract was up again, he didn't pop any Tbol in his mouth, according to evidence. 50 days from July, i.e. September 15, the M3 would be gone. Jones' postive tests were between August and early September. Afterward, he's not positive again until December.

Novitsky's statement is even more obfuscatory:

“Science-wise, it does make some sense,” Novitzky said. “Once again, there was no parent compound and none of the short- or medium-term metabolites, which tend to stick around for three or weeks. So this is even more indicative that for whatever reason this long-term metabolite is just hanging around in these tissues and they get expressed when you’re going through weight loss.”

He mixes together just enough of the actual accurate terminology with speculative broscience and nonessential information to say it makes sense when it absolutely doesn't. He goes on to cite another case that he says was very similar, Contender series alum Grant Dawson who had his suspension overturned because it was found that he ingested the substance prior to entering the USADA testing window. This is where Foster's timing of when the science says Jones took the drug again becomes instructive. When do his test results start to be relevant in California's eyes? Also, what methods are being used in each of the different tests? Did VADA do anything USADA didn't when sending Jones' results to California? And was Foster's question to scientists "can this drug have only been present in the event of oral readministration?" No scientist could give an affirmative yes to that question. Was his question "could this test have come back positive and the others come back negative?" No scientist could much besides it's unclear, but unlikely."

This is why it's important to know who the mysterious "scientists" are that both Foster and the UFC have cited. Foster at least dropped a hint when he said the person who was his expert witness in busting Jones previously corroborated the finding that there was no evidence of readministration. Anyone who read the court papers know who that is? FrankieNYC @FrankieNYC ErikMagraken @ErikMagraken

Sobolovsky/Rodchenkov - this was the original paper identifying the various metabolites, this is the method that led to the current Wada test which used gas chromatography (They did use LS for a few things but the detection method uses solely GC now)

Kopylov - but this paper is very dodgy in that it was commissions by the Russians specifically to argue against Rodchenkov's paper to try and clear the russian athletes of doping in the IOC and CAS hearings

There was a third study from, god, Barcelona lab from memory that used Liquid chromatography to try and establish it LC could be used to detect the various metabolites.

Then theres the Forsdahl study but ive not read that
 

Dim

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2017
173
373
fwiw, Eichner admitted today there could have been a re-administration between October 2017 and August 2018

Something that everyone knew but Eichner and co liked to pretend wasnt possible
 

ECC170

Monster's 11,ATM 2,Parlay Challenge,Hero GP Champ
Pro Fighter
Jan 23, 2015
14,376
23,677
the problem is we all don't know what's facts and what isn't... all these studies have bias and motives with powerful ppl behind it all...I say make all substances legal everywhere and let ppl do what they want..we wil never stop ppl from taking drugs and PEDs why keep swimming up river and ice skating up hill as a society? I don't support roids or heroine but it's not going anywhere..I would rather focus on improving things we can control and quit fighting a battle that will never end.
 

La Paix

Fuck this place
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
38,273
64,597
the problem is we all don't know what's facts and what isn't... all these studies have bias and motives with powerful ppl behind it all...I say make all substances legal everywhere and let ppl do what they want..we wil never stop ppl from taking drugs and PEDs why keep swimming up river and ice skating up hill as a society? I don't support roids or heroine but it's not going anywhere..I would rather focus on improving things we can control and quit fighting a battle that will never end.
How rampant is the juice in orgs like you fought in?
 

FrankieNYC

"My balls was hot!"
Aug 13, 2017
3,959
6,760
the problem is we all don't know what's facts and what isn't... all these studies have bias and motives with powerful ppl behind it all...I say make all substances legal everywhere and let ppl do what they want..we wil never stop ppl from taking drugs and PEDs why keep swimming up river and ice skating up hill as a society? I don't support roids or heroine but it's not going anywhere..I would rather focus on improving things we can control and quit fighting a battle that will never end.
I think what might be more "fair" is to make the PED thresholds higher
If they are over-doing it, then fine/suspend
 

Rambo John J

Eats things that would make a Billy Goat Puke
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
71,542
71,466
I think what might be more "fair" is to make the PED thresholds higher
If they are over-doing it, then fine/suspend
anything that allows a threshold
opens up the door to loopholes AKA pico grahms


everybody uses(or has the option to use) or nothing in system...really the only 2 ways to go IMO
 

FrankieNYC

"My balls was hot!"
Aug 13, 2017
3,959
6,760
anything that allows a threshold
opens up the door to loopholes AKA pico grahms


everybody uses(or has the option to use) or nothing in system...really the only 2 ways to go IMO
I see that

But you can drink without legally being drunk
Something similar works IMO

The picgram thing is so insane that is doesn't warrant all this BS
 

Rambo John J

Eats things that would make a Billy Goat Puke
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
71,542
71,466
I see that

But you can drink without legally being drunk
Something similar works IMO

The picgram thing is so insane that is doesn't warrant all this BS
Seems like it would be difficult to gauge "drinking without drunk" with all the different substances, intake methods, and undetectable aspects of PED use.

I just know it is or isn't in you...I thought that was what the tests were about

moving events last second is unacceptable IMO...fans deserve better
 
Last edited:

FrankieNYC

"My balls was hot!"
Aug 13, 2017
3,959
6,760
Seems like it would be difficult to gauge "drinking without drunk" with all the different substances, intake methods, and undetectable aspects of PED use.

I just know it is or isn't in you...I thought that was what the tests were about

moving events last second is unacceptable IMO...fans deserve better
Its a clusterfuck

WWE has levels they test PED's & recreational drug use (pot) for.

They came to a level that they (WWE & Doctors) felt put performers at risk as far as their health.

The WWE Wellness Policy is more about performers becoming addicted to scripts & it has saved lives thankfully.
So I was thinking more along those lines

I understand someone saying "ban everything & everyone", but as altruistic as that is, its sadly tough
 
Last edited:

ECC170

Monster's 11,ATM 2,Parlay Challenge,Hero GP Champ
Pro Fighter
Jan 23, 2015
14,376
23,677
How rampant is the juice in orgs like you fought in?
honestly i'm there had to be guys juicing on cards that I fought on...I fought a lot in over a dozen orgs that I can't even recall them all...Elite Xc and KOTC def had ppl juicing in them I'm sure...I never wanted that bullshit for many reasons..I wanted to be the reason ppl needed roids... anybody that knows me all will tell you I'm one of the most naturally strong ppl they ever met... and that's not boasting it's just what anybody that's ever rolled with me said..I also was weight room strong as well from wrestling training...I took it as a compliment when ppl questioned if I was juicing because in my heart I knew I never would and knew I must be doing something right..Juice is garbage and it's only temporary happiness that turns to long term bullshit! it's not worth your health let alone looking over your shoulder 24/7 for the dick in a cup police...

Plus if you're truly gifted you are doing yourself a disservice by fkn with fate...I won't touch a weight for years and still be able to throw up some respectable weight.. you know why? Because everything I've ever gained I worked for and it's real.. there's no supplemental crutch I've had to use to obtain that! look at Arnold.. he's been looking flabby and sick for years..I may not be the most tone health nut but I tell you this let a mfer jump on me and see if i'm still "strong"...I never seen any of my team mates juice either.. being poor don't lend itself to designer P.E.Ds either..
 

Dim

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2017
173
373
I think what might be more "fair" is to make the PED thresholds higher
If they are over-doing it, then fine/suspend
but its not just about punishing cheats etc its also about protecting the health of the athletes.


lets say they said for substance x you could have 200ng/ml in your urine

what would happen

Athletes would take a tiny amount of 100 different substances




instead of taking a single substance and risking getting caught, they would just take a little bit of everything they could lay their hands on which would have a cumulative effect the same as taking a ton of one substance
 

Rambo John J

Eats things that would make a Billy Goat Puke
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
71,542
71,466
but its not just about punishing cheats etc its also about protecting the health of the athletes.


lets say they said for substance x you could have 200ng/ml in your urine

what would happen

Athletes would take a tiny amount of 100 different substances




instead of taking a single substance and risking getting caught, they would just take a little bit of everything they could lay their hands on which would have a cumulative effect the same as taking a ton of one substance
no to mention the ahead of the testing designer stuff...that will always be a possibility