Saint Preux accepts three-month ban from USADA

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

Wild

TMMAC's Most Handsome Admin
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
60,497
108,470


UFC light heavyweight Ovince Saint Preux has accepted a three month ban from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) for testing positive for banned substances. The suspension is backdated to October 25th, 2019 meaning Saint Preux has completed the suspension and is currently cleared to compete.

In a news release from USADA it was revealed that a urine sample from Saint Preux, “tested positive for ostarine and di-hydroxy-LGD-4033, a metabolite of LGD-4033, as well GW1516 sulfone and GW1516 sulfoxide, which are metabolites of GW1516 (also known as GW-501516)”. The out-of-competition test was administered on November 1st,…


UFC’s Ovince Saint Preux accepts backdated three-month suspension from USADA
 

Inside Job

Sapere Aude
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
45,766
50,343
Sure
I totally believe everything USADA is laying down.

Now we hear about suspensions after they are "served"...hilarious

Sups he turned in didn't contain the PED...but it is "tainted supps" again
 

Jehannum

TMMAC's Most Handsome Artist
Jan 26, 2016
11,839
13,039
Sure
I totally believe everything USADA is laying down.

Now we hear about suspensions after they are "served"...hilarious

Sups he turned in didn't contain the PED...but it is "tainted supps" again
what's the problem with hearing about it after? do you need to count down the days personally?
 

jason73

get a job hippy
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
50,796
98,019
What is a 3 month suspension? Did he rat a bunch of people out or something?
 

Malakas

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2020
174
331
I feel like they set the precedent for being more lenient on these guys with the Jones situation. If that guy was on tainted sups, and they couldn't say from where , how can they claim someone else intentionally took a prohibited substance ?

USADA seems to just be making the PED issue more complicated . Fuck 'em.
 

Saloth Sar

Let's take a little trip to the countryside
Dec 1, 2015
6,001
10,133
Sure
I totally believe everything USADA is laying down.

Now we hear about suspensions after they are "served"...hilarious

Sups he turned in didn't contain the PED...but it is "tainted supps" again
The good news is that we are reverting back to what anti-doping was always meant to be - a smokescreen to give the illusion of clean sport to appease sponsors and soccer moms, while protecting and helping elite athletes and their sporting organisations, and preying on the weak and expendable to maintain the illusion. And I'm not being sarcastic. It looks look like the UFC's leverage over USADA might make it better than it has ever been, with even no-name fighters benefiting from it.

WADA and USADA are inherently corrupt, predatory enterprises. But better we go back to a time where we accept the odd Tom Lawlors of the world being thrown under a bus than have the sport's best fighters sitting on the sidelines. And if we've moved into a period where they are not even bothering to punish the Tom Lawlors either, all the better.

Let's embrace the supplements defence and keep the show rolling.
 

Inside Job

Sapere Aude
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
45,766
50,343
The good news is that we are reverting back to what anti-doping was always meant to be - a smokescreen to give the illusion of clean sport to appease sponsors and soccer moms, while protecting and helping elite athletes and their sporting organisations, and preying on the weak and expendable to maintain the illusion. And I'm not being sarcastic. It looks look like the UFC's leverage over USADA might make it better than it has ever been, with even no-name fighters benefiting from it.

WADA and USADA are inherently corrupt, predatory enterprises. But better we go back to a time where we accept the odd Tom Lawlors of the world being thrown under a bus than have the sport's best fighters sitting on the sidelines. And if we've moved into a period where they are not even bothering to punish the Tom Lawlors either, all the better.

Let's embrace the supplements defence and keep the show rolling.
some guys don't wanna have any test, "tainted"or not stain their careers...so they fight clean/cleaner..playing field still uneven
 

Saloth Sar

Let's take a little trip to the countryside
Dec 1, 2015
6,001
10,133
some guys don't wanna have any test, "tainted"or not stain their careers...so they fight clean/cleaner..playing field still uneven
There are basically five options we have for a system.

1. A testing regime that is infallible, based on objective scientific reasoning with perfect testing methods and run by incorruptible people.
2. A deliberately incompetent smokescreen testing regime that essentially allows all athletes to dope, which hurts clean athletes but also doesn't rig the system in favor of powerful athletes.
3. A fair regime run by competent people based on flawed science, that allows powerful athletes an advantage over other athletes due to enhanced access to new drugs, the ability to hire people to help them dope and the ability to defend themselves. Still hurts clean athletes.
4. A corrupt smokescreen regime based on bad science that deliberately protects the powerful and punishes the weak to maintain the system.
5. Free for all drugs.

Option 1 is an impossibility, as is option 5 in this climate and obviously you wouldn't want option 4, even if that's what we often get. So we're left with the unenviable choice of options 2 or 3. Option 2 hurts clean athletes but arguably does less overall damage to fair sport than option 3, because it creates less of a doping access divide. There's no such thing as a level playing field, so we have to pick our poison.
 

Inside Job

Sapere Aude
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
45,766
50,343
There are basically five options we have for a system.

1. A testing regime that is infallible, based on objective scientific reasoning with perfect testing methods and run by incorruptible people.
2. A deliberately incompetent smokescreen testing regime that essentially allows all athletes to dope, which hurts clean athletes but also doesn't rig the system in favor of powerful athletes.
3. A fair regime run by competent people based on flawed science, that allows powerful athletes an advantage over other athletes due to enhanced access to new drugs, the ability to hire people to help them dope and the ability to defend themselves. Still hurts clean athletes.
4. A corrupt smokescreen regime based on bad science that deliberately protects the powerful and punishes the weak to maintain the system.
5. Free for all drugs.

Option 1 is an impossibility, as is option 5 in this climate and obviously you wouldn't want option 4, even if that's what we often get. So we're left with the unenviable choice of options 2 or 3. Option 2 hurts clean athletes but arguably does less overall damage to fair sport than option 3, because it creates less of a doping access divide. There's no such thing as a level playing field, so we have to pick our poison.
5 is the only one with level playing field