Anderson Silva: I’m tired of listening to lies and false accusations

Initial_ZEN

Active Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
God testing lately has been a real shit show. Even if fighters turn out to be innocent, their reputation is destroyed.
 

SandyWH

CHAOS KREATOR
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Location
الأرض هي الوطن
God testing lately has been a real shit show. Even if fighters turn out to be innocent, their reputation is destroyed.
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.

There are entire careers, legacies, and future earning potentials tied into the results of these tests. There shouldn't be any doubt on the results.
 

ILJO

Member
Site Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Location
The Streets!
I 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.
1) Independent testing isn't happening yet. This was the commission
2) Did Anderson pop for a masking agent? I didn't think so but I honestly don't remember.
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?
[DOUBLEPOST=1434732598,1434732545][/DOUBLEPOST]
They need to set the failure levels at twice the natural body occurance
What are they now?
[DOUBLEPOST=1434732804][/DOUBLEPOST]
and if a masking agent is found, further testing gets done
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?
 

SandyWH

CHAOS KREATOR
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Location
الأرض هي الوطن
1) Independent testing isn't happening yet. This was the commission
Right. But why different labs? Different labs have different methods and different levels, etc.
2) Did Anderson pop for a masking agent? I didn't think so but I honestly don't remember.
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.
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?
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.
What are they now?
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 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?
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.

Look at it this was.....you drug test for a job. You smoked weed 45 days ago, and it should be out of your system. But you do the whole vinegar and water trick anyway. Now you've failed a test because of the presence of vinegar in your system, and not weed
 

Sniggles

ex nihilo
Joined
May 4, 2010
Anderson Silva becomes 3rd Black House MMA fighter since 2014 to test positive for drostanolone

By now you've almost certainly heard the big story that ex-UFC middleweight champion Anderson Silva has tested positive for multiple banned substances, most notably drostanolone, an anabolic steroid. It has completely overshadowed the same-day announcement of Nick Diaz's own drug test failure for marijuana (again) and will certainly be the top topic in the MMA world for at least the rest of this week.

This is certainly not a good look for Silva's camp, Black House MMA, which has now developed a brief but unsettling history of drug testing issues. Dating back to the middle of 2014, this marks the 3rd different Black House fighter to test positive specifically for drostanolone. On July 30th, UFC middleweight Kevin Casey popped for the steroid following his UFC 175win over Bubba Bush in Las Vegas. Just three weeks later, featherweight prospect Brian Ortega was busted for the same substance by California officials after he defeated Mike de la Torre at UFC on Fox 12 in San Jose. Their wins were both flipped to no contests, with Casey suspended for a year and Ortega nine months.

Stretching it even further back to 2012, Rafael Cavalcante tested positive for stanozolol (also an anabolic steroid) in his final Strikeforce fight before joining the UFC. That makes it four different steroid-related drug test failures from the same camp within the past three years.

It could just be pure coincidence -- when considering the two Brazilians train in Rio de Janeiro while Casey and Ortega are based in the California gym -- over a relatively short period of time, or a very troubling trend from one of MMA's premier camps. Either way, questions will surely be raised about Black House now that its biggest name has been caught using the same steroid as two others less than a year apart.

--------

Anderson also tested positive for methyltestosterone. I have seen nothing of masking agents being detected.

 
Last edited:

ILJO

Member
Site Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Location
The Streets!
Right. But why different labs? Different labs have different methods and different levels, etc
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 labs

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.
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.

Many tests are done at anything over 5-10% of the naturally occurring chemical in the average human body
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.

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.
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.

I understand your point about masking agents not actually being PED's, but they are prohibited for a reason. They mask the PED's, as you mentioned, so it IS a big deal imo. I agree that they should always test the B sample after any positive test, including masking agents. And I agree that they shouldn't be treated as harshly as PED's because it is possible to accidentally ingest some supplement you didn't know of.

BUT, it's the fighter's responsibility 100% to know what's going in his body. Ignorance is no excuse, and they still need to be punished to show everyone else that they can't get away with trying to mask PED's. Because how the fuck should the commission know if it was accidental or not? Everyone that's ever popped uses that supplement excuse. It's not their job to read minds and be lie detectors. It's the fighters job to not be stupid enough to accidentally take masking agents.
 

Sniggles

ex nihilo
Joined
May 4, 2010
So... is Anderson's legacy still tarnished if this B sample is negative? Or is it forever in shambles?
 

SandyWH

CHAOS KREATOR
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Location
الأرض هي الوطن
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.
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.

I'm not a fucking scientist, but I have read up on a lot of this shit. I'm not claiming to know more than anyone else. I am 100% anti-PED abuse. 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.

If you want a fucking science paper, I'll work one up for you.
 

Cat--Smasher

Putting the stamp on kids
Staff member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Location
Canada
Cung Le, Anderson Silva, Nick Diaz... been a rough year for inconsistent drug test results.
 

ILJO

Member
Site Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Location
The Streets!
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.
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?

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.

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.
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?"

I'm not a fucking scientist, but I have read up on a lot of this shit.
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.

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.
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.
 

SandyWH

CHAOS KREATOR
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Location
الأرض هي الوطن
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.
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.

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.
Tru. But shit doesn't have to be nearly as complicated as you make it out to be.

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.
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.

Its one thing to have trace amounts of anything. Its another thing to walk into the cage roided to the gills, or like on a shit ton of pain killers.
 

ILJO

Member
Site Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Location
The Streets!
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.
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?

Tru. But shit doesn't have to be nearly as complicated as you make it out to be.
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.

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
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.
 

SandyWH

CHAOS KREATOR
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Location
الأرض هي الوطن
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'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?
I don't think it needs much more explanation than that right there. But I can make it dumb for you.
retard example - Average human has an estimated 12.2 nanograms of Dumbassitol naturally occurring in the body. Pass/Fail level set at 12.8 nanograms of Dumbassitol. ILJO has 42.6 nanograms of Dumbassitol in his system at any given point in the day.

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
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.

A fail is a fail. But many / some / a few (however you need me to word it to your liking) levels are set too low and end up failing athletes when if that particular athlete had actually been abusing that drug the levels in their system would be significantly higher. See the Sean Sherk failed test reports that were not disputed by the commission, but the suspension still stood.
 

ILJO

Member
Site Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Location
The Streets!
Everything you just said is based on assumptions and guesses and nonsense.

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?

You're so wrong. How do you manage that? You should consider being less wrong.

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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

SandyWH

CHAOS KREATOR
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Location
الأرض هي الوطن
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?
I'm not as wrong as you are dense.
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.
Now, NOT ALL LEVELS, are set like this. But many are, especially the naturally occurring hormones. Please be my guest and prove that they aren't.

You're so wrong. How do you manage that? You should consider being less wrong.
All you've done is tell me me I'm wrong. But you haven't proven to me that I'm not.

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.
Xience had to settle several cases because it was proven that they had unlisted banned substances in their supplements.
Here's a story listing lots of tainted supplement companies - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-executives-criminal-records-spiked/4114451/
Tennis player - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/s...suspension-after-tainted-pills-are-found.html
Swimmer - http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.co...s-release-advocare-disputes-findings-updated/

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.
Haven't attempted to argue this. This has been the case for year, and will continue to be the case for years.

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.
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.
 

ILJO

Member
Site Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Location
The Streets!
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
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.

Please be my guest and prove that they aren't.
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."

The only claim I've made is that there's more of a method to it than the nonsense you've been spewing. I've been asking you for hours how you're so sure of the cutoffs that you're demanding and what you know about the nature of the current levels to be able to make those kind of claims. 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.
[DOUBLEPOST=1434756478,1434755986][/DOUBLEPOST]I'm done. I hope for your sake that you're arguing for the sake of arguing, because your last few posts were doodoo.
 

SandyWH

CHAOS KREATOR
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Location
الأرض هي الوطن
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?
So 1st hand knowledge coming from a first hand source, one that we've interviewed for this very website, is not a credible source?
3 links to three articles backing my statements that there are plenty of cases of tainted supplements, and I'm still talking out of my ass?

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.
wow, that sounds like a long, less crude, version of exactly what I just said.

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.
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:
Further 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.
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1359&context=sportslaw

Please continue to regard my knowledge of this subject as doodoo. I'm quite sure that I've at least attempted to support my points, whereas your best support has been "you're dumb"
 

ILJO

Member
Site Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Location
The Streets!
What do your sources have to do with what I'm saying? What does it have to do with what I was calling you out for?

You're just citing random shit and arguing against yourself at this point. Did I ever say that there weren't supplements that could make you piss hot? No, I specifically fucking said that already. So why are you citing tennis and swimming and tainted supplements? How does that relate to where we are in the discussion?

And why are you linking me to the WADA drug testing standards (which I looked up nandrolone - and saw that they were perfectly aware that it can be produce endogenously, not that it matters)? Why are you saying these things to me? It changes nothing that I said. It proves nothing that we are arguing about.

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?
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.

You're trying to sound credible by listing every random source you have, but you haven't been able to answer very simple questions that would show your credibility. And that's because you're not credible. You don't know the answers. And that's fine, just stop pretending like you know enough to be claiming the shit that you're claiming about changing cut offs and standards. I don't know enough either. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, so I don't know why you're so goddamn intent on arguing your way into credibility you don't deserve.

You're just acting like you're informed enough to make important and complicated decisions. But you're not. It's so fucking obvious that you lack the specific education/training. I can't tell if you truly don't recognize that, or you're just being stubborn and don't want to lose an argument. But either way, you need to accept it and move on.
 
Last edited:

Spoon

There is no Spoon
MMA Pick 'Ems World Champion
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Location
CNY
Same shit happened with Diaz too. Two said he was under the limit allowed, and one said he tested positive for over the limit of metabolites. One positive and one negative were from after his fight. So both tested positive and negative after their fight. Something's not right here. But nevermind. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest profile posts

Stand aside to better men, or blaze a trail and become one.
The mind-killer fears reality
Mind-killer is the mind-killer
Reality is the mind-killer.
You know you're old when you are hyped that you got a breadmaker for your birthday. Thing is it makes cakes and jams too.

Forum statistics

Threads
42,178
Messages
1,092,237
Members
2,340
Latest member
toolfan14
Top Bottom