Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

Fight Kits, USADA, & Courtroom Chaos (Pat Lundvall is a Spiteful Witch Edition)


Elsalvajeloco

Recommended Posts

He's not a guy who's known for being totally honest about things, is he? He's kind of a Hogan on matters of truth. Either he's a massive liar, or he lives in a fantastical dreamworld where reality is whatever you think it should be, at that moment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AxB said:

He's not a guy who's known for being totally honest about things, is he? He's kind of a Hogan on matters of truth. Either he's a massive liar, or he lives in a fantastical dreamworld where reality is whatever you think it should be, at that moment.

Hogan is on his own planet when it comes to lying. I don't think anyone in MMA has built up to that level of lying and half-truths.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, AxB said:

Hulk Hogan is 62 years of age. Jon Jones is 28. He's got time.

Hogan made it past 45 years old as a pro wrestler. He might live another 62 years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Jones was trying to block Estrogen, whereas Brock was taking something that's used when cycling off Steroids to make your body start making it's own testosterone again. Which kind of implies he took a shitload of roids at some point, but timed it so they'd be out of his system by the time he'd be eligible for testing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Clomifene inhibits estrogen receptors in the hypothalamus, inhibiting negative feedback of estrogen ongonadotropin release, leading to up-regulation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis.[13] Zuclomifene, a more active isomer, stays bound for longer periods of time. Clomifene is not a steroid drug."

 

from wikipedia probably...its also an estrogen blocker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was that his first violation? Two years seems too stiff. Considering the way it's set up, with the punishment starting in May, there's no reason not to appeal. They can't make it worse, so might as well try.

Maybe one year for a first violation, two for a second, three for a third, then lower the boom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jstout said:

Was that his first violation? Two years seems too stiff. Considering the way it's set up, with the punishment starting in May, there's no reason not to appeal. They can't make it worse, so might as well try.

Maybe one year for a first violation, two for a second, three for a third, then lower the boom?

Yeah, that's his first offense. He probably didn't appeal it because he admitted to not doing the research on the product he was taking and accepted what was coming with that.

Plus, from what I've heard, the appeal process might be costly. If you don't have a clear path to get the sanction overturned, why go through it? Especially if we arrive at a result people already knew was going to happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, jstout said:

Was that his first violation? Two years seems too stiff. Considering the way it's set up, with the punishment starting in May, there's no reason not to appeal. They can't make it worse, so might as well try.

Maybe one year for a first violation, two for a second, three for a third, then lower the boom?

Logically speaking, I think they didn't do a year because to some fighters that isn't much of a punishment (some go eight months to a year between fights anyway, either by choice or  due to injury), and they couldn't modify a policy based on how often that fighter actually fights as that wouldn't be fair. If a fighter got a year ban for example they may just rest up/get minor surgery they had been putting off, etc.  and not be overly concerned. So to make sure they are actually punishing  fighters and in theory discouraging them from trying to cheat, it would have to be in the two year range. It would be like giving a starting pitcher in MLB a four game suspension when they only pitch every five days anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it is likely to happen, but I was thinking about it.

I believe it was Okamoto who tweeted that suspended fighters are still subject to testing. I was wondering if USADA would ever reduce sanctions for first time offenders based on passing drug tests while on suspensions, serving a mandatory period of the sanction (maybe 12-15 months), and entering into (and subsequently completing) an anti-doping education program. If you have another violation, that would go out the window and you have to deal with a separate sanction for that violation. Plus, you can do it based on the severity of what the athlete tested positive for, the frequency in which the athlete failed (if it was multiple failures in a 1-2 month window), and the athlete's reasoning/explanation behind the failure. I think the last one is important in that I think it would take some of the tainted supplement defenses out of the equation just because people would weigh using it and possibly coming off insincere resulting in 24 months off versus coming clean and only serving half of that. Then, we would see who is really full of shit and who isn't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...