MMATards. Jon Jones conspiracy?

Coke is not a banned substance, and Jones' image is not exactly squeaky clean. He's known to be quite the asshole and proved it in the lead up to the fight and in his words after the fight.

I don't see how it's possible to blackmail him over something like that.

He did coke
Got tested
UFC told him to come out honest after the fight and get into a rehab to make it right. That's my theory.

This^^^

I'm assuming Dana ripped him a new asshole.

The actual deal here is his T levels were the level of a 12 yr old girl and they simply released the positive drop for the coke as a smoke screen.

It's public knowledge that his levels were this low, and its also public knowledge that when you cycle off your T levels drop like a brick, due to the body's refusal to produce Testosterone once it is introduced in the blood stream non-organically.

Cormier is playing the good soldier right now because he has a very lucrative deal with Reebok and Fox Sports, as well as being in the top 10% paid fighters in the UFC.. and all that still might not keep him from blowing the entire work up.


It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out with the UFC's current debacle of a testing program which they have essentially abandoned.

I listened to Joe Rogan's show a few days ago and he was talking about it a bit. Apparently, and I'm taking his words at face value here, the program was dropped because of their inability to accurately implement it. This resulted in some false positives that ruined careers.

I think the UFC has a vested interest in maintaining a clean image but I'm not sure I see a conspiracy here.. Not from what I've seen after watching it for many years, and more importantly after watching and listening to Dana for many years.

I could be wrong.. who knows?

Tapout fag tards

To clarify...

Look at the fighters in Pride, before they were aquired. How many of the top guys were absolute muscle freaks.. completely ripped.

Look at the UFC..

How many of the top guys are ripped? Very few actually.. If any.

I'm not saying doping doesn't happen, but from what I've seen the UFC under Dana's control certainly frowns upon it.

I find it odd that the test was done randomly weeks prior to the event. I knew they tested directly after fights for performance enhancing drugs. It is my understanding he was clean for the fight. I think someone spilled what they knew before the fight, so they tested him. Who and why they said anything remains to be seen. Regardless, they let him fight anyways, probably with the stipulation he'd need to come clean after the fight.

What really strikes me as odd is...why is THC considered performance enhancing drug, therefore a totally banned substance, but cocaine is not so it is technically not a banned substance. How's that work? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather fight someone that just smoked a joint rather than someone that just did a couple lines. Maybe I am missing something here....

Stop and think about it for a minute and it will make more sense to you.

Weed.. the right strains.. increase focus immensely. Coke really doesn't do that. Yeah it gets the brain firing a bit faster but it hardly unlocks the two hemispheres.

I don't agree with it being a banned substance because it is a naturally growing plant.. But I also won't argue that it's ability to increase mental function isn't an advantage to a fighter, or any other athlete.

I will give you that, the intense focus, I can also see a person not caring about pain and they will push through when they normally wouldn't.

Cocaine may not give you the focus, but it would certainly affect a person's abilities and also allow a person to push harder than they normally would.

Regardless, it doesn't make sense that only one of them are on the banned substance list.

I also agree that THC shouldn't be outright banned substance for the very same reason you do.

However, for a level a playing field in sports I don't think either of them or many other substances should be allowed, in the ring or on the playing field/court.

One could argue to have no banned substances at all in sports and these issues would go away but, in my opinion, that will give an unfair advantage to those individuals that are willing to risk the inherent side effects of many of those substances, where those that prefer not to take that risk wouldn't have those advantages.

Then again, athletes already risk their bodies, so it isn't much of a stretch for them to take it to the next level and ensure they have all the advantages. So, perhaps those risks are just the cost of playing in the top tier of any sport and if you are unwilling to accept those risks you won't make it to the top of your sport.

There's no easy answer in this situation for me. It's definitely a gray area as far as I am concerned. On one hand I don't think a person should be forced to take substances, they don't want to, so they can be competitive, but on the other, I don't want to tell someone that can't do something with their body. That's their choice, not mine.