That's exactly why its bullshit. Every lab tests for different levels, different chemicals, and use different chemicals to test the samples. So its not a perfect science. They need to set the failure levels at twice the natural body occurance, and if a masking agent is found, further testing gets done. Period. End of story.God testing lately has been a real shit show. Even if fighters turn out to be innocent, their reputation is destroyed.
1) Independent testing isn't happening yet. This was the commissionI don't like independent testing and I damn sure don't like having all these wacked out levels and masking agents that these different labs test for. It makes failing a test too simple. All levels should be tested at double the natural level and masking agents should only be flagged and not considered a failed test. Maybe have the presence of a masking agent roll into a blood test, rather than a piss test.
What are they now?They need to set the failure levels at twice the natural body occurance
What does this mean? If they find a masking agent, you want them to make sure by testing the B sample? The same test? Different kind of test?and if a masking agent is found, further testing gets done
Right. But why different labs? Different labs have different methods and different levels, etc.1) Independent testing isn't happening yet. This was the commission
I think he was reportedly popped for an anabolic. But there's always a catch. He may have failed for a certain anabolic based on the masking agent found, and it is reported as failing for that particular anabolic.2) Did Anderson pop for a masking agent? I didn't think so but I honestly don't remember.
I'm not singling out just the masking agents, but you can get a failed test for PEDs simply because there was a masking agent in your system. You didn't fail for any PEDs just a chemical used to hide the use of PEDs. Which, if you read up on it, can be lots and lots of different chemicals that can be found in lots and lots of supplements. These guys do go through lots of trouble to make sure their supplements are free of PEDs, but they don't necessarily have the concerns or knowledge of the masking agents.3) But either way, he popped for a few things and the article doesn't mention specifically which substance/s are in question. Why are you singling out masking agents?
Many tests are done at anything over 5-10% of the naturally occurring chemical in the average human body. Which is all fine and stuff, but a highly tuned athlete that takes supplements and diets to increase the maximum performance of his body will very likely have elevated levels of some of these hormones. Most PEDs that raise those levels in the body raise them to 2-5 times the naturally occurring levels. Also, it covers the accidental supplement from the beginning of training camp that had a trace amount of a banned substance in it. Its not like the fighter was actively taking the PED, but it could be in his system and push him/her slightly over the allowable limit.What are they now?
My first thought is that if a masking agent is found in the urine sample, but no PED then the sample is flagged. The B sample is then tested. If the masking agent is also found in the B sample and no PED, then the fighter is temporarily suspended until a blood test is completed to prove that there was not PED use and it was being covered up by the masking agent.What does this mean? If they find a masking agent, you want them to make sure by testing the B sample? The same test? Different kind of test?
I would think that different labs is a good thing. If 1 fucks up, at least you have the chance to prove your innocence. Otherwise Anderson and Nick might have no case at all right now. They would just be SOL. So if anything, it's probably good for them that it was sent to 2 labsRight. But why different labs? Different labs have different methods and different levels, etc
You can definitely fail a test for a masking agent, because it's prohibited (for good reason), and people will probably assume that you were hiding something, but they don't say "Fighter X tested positive for PED." They announce what it was. If it was a masking agent, then everyone will know it was a masking agent.I think he was reportedly popped for an anabolic. But there's always a catch. He may have failed for a certain anabolic based on the masking agent found, and it is reported as failing for that particular anabolic.
I'm not singling out just the masking agents, but you can get a failed test for PEDs simply because there was a masking agent in your system. You didn't fail for any PEDs just a chemical used to hide the use of PEDs. Which, if you read up on it, can be lots and lots of different chemicals that can be found in lots and lots of supplements. These guys do go through lots of trouble to make sure their supplements are free of PEDs, but they don't necessarily have the concerns or knowledge of the masking agents.
No offense Sandy, but it's clear that you're just generalizing and don't actually know what you're talking about here. This is precisely why I asked you when you said like a fact that everything should be 2x normal levels. That is a silly thing to say because different substances are taken in different amounts and are metabolized in different ways and have different half lives in the body etc. etc. There's so many variables that you are simply unaware of, which is fine, but the least you could do is say stuff like "imo" and "I think" and "maybe" and what not.Many tests are done at anything over 5-10% of the naturally occurring chemical in the average human body
Look, these tests can take weeks/months to get back. I know the piss goes a lot quicker, but there's no time to be saying "if this test fails, we'll test him again later to make sure." That would not fly. It wouldn't work. Too many people would get away with cheating. It would become a loophole.My first thought is that if a masking agent is found in the urine sample, but no PED then the sample is flagged. The B sample is then tested. If the masking agent is also found in the B sample and no PED, then the fighter is temporarily suspended until a blood test is completed to prove that there was not PED use and it was being covered up by the masking agent.
I don't think any athlete should be suspended blindly for the presence of masking agents being that masking agents are relatively simple and or wide ranging and just adds more shit to the list of what athletes can / cannot take.
I said "many" tests. I know for a fact that, when it concerns hormones like testosterone and related hormones, the failure levels are literally single digit percentage increases over natural occurring levels. To which, if you're taking an anabolic on a regular basis, you'd be nearly 3x the normal amount in some of the hormones the body produces.No offense Sandy, but it's clear that you're just generalizing and don't actually know what you're talking about here. This is precisely why I asked you when you said like a fact that everything should be 2x normal levels. That is a silly thing to say because different substances are taken in different amounts and are metabolized in different ways and have different half lives in the body etc. etc. There's so many variables that you are simply unaware of, which is fine, but the least you could do is say stuff like "imo" and "I think" and "maybe" and what not.
You have a little bit of knowledge and you act like a fucking scientist who can determine the levels. I'm not saying I know any more than you do, but I am saying that I know you don't know enough to be saying that shit like it's fact.
Why? Have you considered that? Are you claiming it's a giant fuck up, or do you actually have no idea the reasoning behind individual levels?I said "many" tests. I know for a fact that, when it concerns hormones like testosterone and related hormones, the failure levels are literally single digit percentage increases over natural occurring levels.
So then they should only try to catch the people taking it on a regular basis non stop? People trying to cycle off and beat tests (like every-fucking-body does) shouldn't be punished for being only a little above? Where to draw the line then? "Double normal levels?"To which, if you're taking an anabolic on a regular basis, you'd be nearly 3x the normal amount in some of the hormones the body produces.
Well I'm glad that you can provide some insight, but you should also recognize that there's waaaay more that you haven't read up on. Shit's not quite as simple as you make it out to be.I'm not a fucking scientist, but I have read up on a lot of this shit.
If that's true, then of course not. It comes down to making a convincing case. But the problem is that everyone lies when it comes time to face the music. No one wants to get fined and suspended and be labeled a cheater, and lying/denying is the only way to potentially save face and get out of it. If there's a believable lie out there, why the hell would anyone choose the truth? I know I wouldn't. So it's a tough spot.However, I also don't agree with a slightly elevated level of nandorone in your body costing you 9-12 months of your career, especially if it came from some supplement that didn't list it on the ingredients.
I do know that most levels are set at a small percentage point above the natural occurring levels. I was told this by Dr. John Ferguson who is/was responsible for Xtreme Couture's Fitness/Nutrition and also worked with a few NFL temas as their drug guy.And I wasn't talking about your "many" claim, I was talking about "all levels should be tested at double normal levels." I asked you what they were now because I knew you don't have any kind of basis to be making a claim like that.
Tru. But shit doesn't have to be nearly as complicated as you make it out to be.Well I'm glad that you can provide some insight, but you should also recognize that there's waaaay more that you haven't read up on. Shit's not quite as simple as you make it out to be.
We already agree that many of these guys cheat or are skirting the rules. I'd rather catch the abusers and leave them without an excuse than to have guys like Anderson, Sherk, and others lose their careers over what may be an accidental supplement, or the result of a bad mixing, or tainted supplement they didn't know about.If that's true, then of course not. It comes down to making a convincing case. But the problem is that everyone lies when it comes time to face the music. No one wants to get fined and suspended and be labeled a cheater, and lying/denying is the only way to potentially save face and get out of it. If there's a believable lie out there, why the hell would anyone choose the truth? I know I wouldn't. So it's a tough spot.
Imagine being a commissioner. Do you show leniency to everyone with an excuse and open the door for cheaters to exploit? Or do you accept that the cheaters and the innocent alike are all going to say they didn't do it and take a 'no tolerance' approach that could actually discourage future cheaters.
It's good that you know that. But a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Again, I'm asking you WHY. Do you know why they set the levels to the levels that they're set? If not, how can you demand change? Do you know of the history of the changes? Do you know what levels they tried before? Do you know why they adjusted/tweaked it? Do you know how long it took them to settle on what they've got? Do you recognize how little information you have?do know that most levels are set at a small percentage point above the natural occurring levels. I was told this by Dr. John Ferguson who is/was responsible for Xtreme Couture's Fitness/Nutrition and also worked with a few NFL temas as their drug guy.
Dude, shit is much MORE complicated than I'm making it out to be. I promise you this. That's the entire reason I'm giving you a hard time right now.Tru. But shit doesn't have to be nearly as complicated as you make it out to be.
No shit!! That would obviously be ideal, but again, shit is not that simple. I'm sorry but if you really think that "testing at twice the normal levels," or any other kind of quick fix like that is actually going to solve these problems then you're a fucking moron. I don't know how else to say it. I tried to say it nice but it didn't stick so now I'm saying it mean. You seem to like it rough anyhow.I'd rather catch the abusers and leave them without an excuse than to have guys like Anderson, Sherk, and others lose their careers over what may be an accidental supplement
You're asking me if I know why they set the pass/fail levels at slightly higher percentage than what the average human body has in it already?It's good that you know that. But a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Again, I'm asking you WHY. Do you know why they set the levels to the levels that they're set? If not, how can you demand change? Do you know of the history of the changes? Do you know what levels they tried before? Do you know why they adjusted/tweaked it? Do you know how long it took them to settle on what they've got? Do you recognize how little information you have?
You are going at this all kinds of backwards. How many times has it been proven that an athlete (and I'm talking about all athletes, not just fighters) has taken a tainted supplement, or a medication, or something else that had been doctor prescribed but had a trace element of a banned substance in it was popped for being slightly over the allowable levels and lost millions of dollars because of it? This happens all the time in sports. Then there's the coke heads and pot heads that seemingly get away with it all the time. Honest guys trying to do it the right way are getting nailed while actual abusers aren't.No shit!! That would obviously be ideal, but again, shit is not that simple. I'm sorry but if you really think that "testing at twice the normal levels," or any other kind of quick fix like that is actually going to solve these problems then you're a fucking moron. I don't know how else to say it. I tried to say it nice but it didn't stick so now I'm saying it mean. You seem to like it rough anyhow
I'm not as wrong as you are dense.If 12.2 ng of dumbassitol is normal, then why is 12.6 the cutoff? Are you saying they pick a random number a few decimal/percent points higher? You think that's the entirety of the effort involved in determining what the cut offs should be? You don't think there was any math/statistics involved specifically meant to encompass the vast majority of the normal/athlete population?
All you've done is tell me me I'm wrong. But you haven't proven to me that I'm not.You're so wrong. How do you manage that? You should consider being less wrong.
Xience had to settle several cases because it was proven that they had unlisted banned substances in their supplements.And "how many times has it been proven?" None. I think literally none. (edit - maybe Sherk. Like 1 guy 10 years ago? Maybe). You don't know how many of those guys were lying. They could have all been guilty. They could have been innocent too, but it's wrong to assume that just because they had a decent story and continue to stick with it. Like I said, no one wants to go down as a cheater.
Haven't attempted to argue this. This has been the case for year, and will continue to be the case for years.And again, the levels gradually go down after you stop/cycle off. Just because someone tests slightly above, doesn't mean they are innocent. You don't have to test at the levels of someone actively currently abusing to be guilty of trying to enter the ring with an unfair advantage and cycling off before the test. People used to do that all the time.
Of course it is. In the case of a baseball player, PEDs might be the difference between batting .272, 18 HR, 68 RBI and batting .284, 26 HR, 84 RBI. Maybe not that big a numbers shift, except in salary. Those numbers could mean the difference of $2-4M in annual salary. I'd say hat if I was in that position, I'd be doing PEDs too. Personally, I don't so much care about how the athlete becomes great. I don't buy PPVs or cable channels to watch lab geeks sample urine. I watch those athletes punch, kick, throw, run etc. And I want to see them do it at exceptional levels. How they got there really isn't my concern.If anything, the crazy amount of positive tests as soon as they started random blood testing should tell you just how likely it was that these guys were cheating back when the tests were easily beatable. I think it was like 40% if I remember correctly. 40% of the athletes they tested got busted as soon as random out of competition testing started. That shit was rampant.
Some random geek? Lol. You really are clueless. These type of things are not decided willy-nilly. There is a wealth of information/data/statistics out there, and there is often consensus among professionals on what RANGE is considered normal/acceptable. With a little math, you can determine what the averages are for certain populations, what the standard deviation is, and what would constitute a statistically significant difference.12.6 is the cutoff, because that's a level that some random geek at some random lab somewhere determined is the point at which that particular enzyme/chemical/hormone cannot appear naturally inside the average human body
Lol, let's not forget ourselves, Sandy. You're the one being ridiculous, and I'm the one calling you out and asking where you're getting this nonsense from. So far I've heard "I've been reading shit," "second hand info from a doctor," and "random geek picks random number."Please be my guest and prove that they aren't.
wow, that sounds like a long, less crude, version of exactly what I just said.Some random geek? Lol. You really are clueless. These type of things are not decided willy-nilly. There is a wealth of information/data/statistics out there, and there is often consensus among professionals on what RANGE is considered normal/acceptable. With a little math, you can determine what the averages are for certain populations, what the standard deviation is, and what would constitute a statistically significant difference.
Here you go. This doesn't get to your beating up my comment about double the normal limits. But in the case of Nadrolone (Sherk & Silva), you might find the following excerts revealing:All you've done is show that you know OF some cut offs, and demanded a retardedly generalized "double the normal limits." But you've done nothing to demonstrate that you understand anything else ABOUT them or that you're even remotely qualified to offer suggestions.
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1359&context=sportslawFurther controversy surrounding nandrolone has arisen around a particular study that has found that nandrolone metabolites may be produced even
without the ingestion of nandrolone. Professor Ron Maughan at Aberdeen University found that athletes using allowed dietary supplements that did
not include nandrolone as an ingredient produced higher concentrations of Nandrolone metabolites in their urine when combined with vigorous exercise, stress, and dehydration. Thus, it was shown that nandrolone metabolites could be produced without the ingestion of nandrolone.
No I told you to justify very specific things. Like 5 times I asked. But you overlook the parts that don't suite you. Instead you start backing up other shit and act like it's all the same. You're reaching.So wait.....you tell me to back up my claims and/or share how I know these things. I tell you, and I still haven't done it?
Don't act like you're cool, Sniggles. You suck on a similar scale, just in slightly different ways.
Let him fight.Anderson Silva's UFC 183 drug tests, taken two minutes apart, yield completely different results
http://www.mmamania.com/2015/6/26/8...-ufc-183-drug-test-postive-negative-nick-diaz