# Jones fails drug test enters rehab no BS



## Hazflo (Oct 17, 2007)

heres the link he failed a prefight drug test for cocaine

http://mmajunkie.com/2015/01/ufc-ch...-positive-for-cocaine-reportedly-enters-rehab


----------



## Bonnar426 (Jul 18, 2006)

Hazflo said:


> heres the link he failed a prefight drug test for cocaine
> 
> http://mmajunkie.com/2015/01/ufc-ch...-positive-for-cocaine-reportedly-enters-rehab


I never understood why people would ever want to touch that shit. Its a good time that will send you to an early grave.


----------



## Servatose (Apr 21, 2008)

I've been seeing rumors about this floating around. Is this confirmed yet, and if so how does that affect the match?


----------



## log (Jul 19, 2010)

here is the sad thing about this....both the commission AND the UFC knew that he flunked the test (he tested for traces of something that shows he used Cocaine) well before the fight. It isn't a banned substance though, so it won't affect the fight per say...but you let a dude fight knowing that he had a drug problem (he was tested in early December and the results came on December 23)

So weed is a performance enhancing drug and cocaine isn't? I don't use either, but I need to wrap my head around that for a second.

What do people think about the UFC knowing that he flunked the test, and not checking him into rehab right away, instead letting him fight then sending him into rehab?


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

Let me get this straight, marijuana is banned in MMA but not cocaine? It wouldn't affect him, unless he just did a blow before the fight though. At this point Jones has to ditch the _nice guy_ persona and just roll with it.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

Y'all know what Chuck Liddell and Jon Jones have in common besides the records?


----------



## The Best Around (Oct 18, 2011)

Sigh. Im a huge Bones fan but not a fan of the drinking/drugs. When I hung out with him before he had it made, he was a good guy. Im sure he still is, but all the money, fame, etc seems to be getting the best of him so far at his age. Hopefully he is able to straighten things out; it is very irresponsible of him considering all those that are depending on him.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

What a ******* hypocrite this guy is. Wow.
I can't believe he plays the holier than thou card


----------



## Freiermuth (Nov 19, 2006)

How is cocaine not banned by the UFC even if not banned by the athletic commission? Does not look good for the UFC in the long run when he popped before the fight and they let it go.

I know the UFC has a Fighter Conduct Policy now but its likely just to cover their butts when they want to punish a fighter they don't like.


----------



## tommydaone (Feb 19, 2010)

So is he going to be stripped of the belt or what? Unlikely.. if this was any lower tier fighter in the UFC there is no way in hell they would still be at the company. 

Jon Jones is a nasty piece of work


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

I remember Jones saying in an interview that he hopes that Daniel Cormier is sitting somewhere crying after the loss...


Karma's a bitch isn't it Johnny...


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

Well, that explains why he isn't as sharp as he used to be.
It's a shame that he's the one defeating himself and not someone's fists.


----------



## kao7ik (Jan 28, 2011)

new shirt BONES NOSE


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

I dont care to kick Bones when hes down. 

The bigger story is how he is allowed to fight and how ufc did all they could to keep this quiet on fight week.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

Official statements from DFW and JBJ:


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

This just in.....


Bones is taking this treatment program *"very seriously".*


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> I dont care to kick Bones when hes down.
> 
> The bigger story is how he is allowed to fight and how ufc did all they could to keep this quiet on fight week.


I wouldn't say he's down tbh. He's not an addict and doesn't need rehab (if he was in so deep, he wouldn't be able to go through fight camp and the fight itself) and the rehabilitation thing is more of a publicity event imo. He just got caught and would've likely continued had he not been caught. I may be wrong here though.


----------



## xxpillowxxjp (Aug 23, 2010)

what a pos.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Rauno said:


> jonnyg4508 said:
> 
> 
> > I dont care to kick Bones when hes down.
> ...


Down means caught. In limelight for drugs. Heat from fans. Possible mild problem between camps...

Never said he was an addict. Just like he isnt an alcoholic. He probably had like 3 beers when he drove up a tree.


----------



## Emericanaddict (Dec 31, 2006)

Looks like...
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
Bones Nose.

My job is done here.

*Feck someone beat me too it .


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)




----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

I hope he gets off it and puts everything back together. He is the greatest fighter in the world, I couldn't give a flying f*** if he has done some coke. He's a young guy, champion of the world, and he's made a lot of mistakes. People may think just because he is rich, talented and famous he should have the perfect personality too, thats not reality though, and none of us can really say to how we would be at that age with all that kind of stuff going on in our life that he would be dealing with. Its huge pressure, and some people crack under pressure like that and do stupid shit. 

As far as I can see in history, the people who have talent bordering on genius are usually flawed in character. The list of them is endless in all aspects of life from the great musicians, to the great footballers, boxers, politicians. With great talent often comes great personality defects and flaws. JJ obviously has some of these. 

Lets not bury a guy who has given some of the best fighting performances in the ring in the history of the sport. He has set new standards of brilliance that I am in awe of, and I for one hope this will merely be a 'bump' in the road for him.


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

jonnyg4508 said:


> He probably had like 3 beers when he drove up a tree.


Johnny you gotta be kidding me.... a guy that big, 3 beers wouldn't even effect him..


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

_RIVAL_ said:


> jonnyg4508 said:
> 
> 
> > He probably had like 3 beers when he drove up a tree.
> ...


Thats the point....

Im saying he is probably a lightweight when it comes to drinking....

(Over head, caught and tossed underhand back to you)


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

This seems like it's going to get blown way out of proportion. Judging by his performance Saturday night the man is nowhere near having a drug problem. He was probably in a social situation where it seemed like the thing to do. If you haven't been there, done that then you should get out more.

I could learn to not hate the real jones.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Ouch! Not smart, dude. Maybe this is his weight cutting secret.

[edit] low blow. hope he gets his act together.


----------



## HorsepoweR (Jun 1, 2007)

It's pretty silly that anyone can try to defend this guy, especially in this situation. This guy is a tool, can't defend that.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Rauno said:


> I wouldn't say he's down tbh. He's not an addict and doesn't need rehab (if he was in so deep, he wouldn't be able to go through fight camp and the fight itself) and the rehabilitation thing is more of a publicity event imo. He just got caught and would've likely continued had he not been caught. I may be wrong here though.



There are tons of functioning addicts and Ricco Rodriguez was UFC champ while also being a Cocaine addict. The fact is he knew he was being tested and either couldn't or wouldn't abstain so I would say he has a problem either way considering he chose to ignore the imminent consequences for the immediate high. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Reebok has to be so excited.

No wonder UFC quit on their random tests.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Servatose said:


> I've been seeing rumors about this floating around. Is this confirmed yet, and if so how does that affect the match?





> Because benzoylecgonine is not banned out of competition by the World Anti-Doping Agency, the NSAC could not halt Jones from fighting at UFC 182, which proved to be one of the biggest events in recent MMA history.


Its not banned, its doesn't effect it.



jonnyg4508 said:


> Thats the point....
> 
> Im saying he is probably a lightweight when it comes to drinking....
> 
> (Over head, caught and tossed underhand back to you)


How many days have YOU been up jonny?


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

Calminian said:


> Ouch! Not smart, dude. Maybe this is his weight cutting secret.
> 
> [edit] low blow. hope he gets his act together.


No kidding. I've only done speed once, but i lost like 5 pounds of water that night, mostly trough piss.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> Reebok has to be so excited.
> 
> No wonder UFC quit on their random tests.


The 'ol Nike management team must be having a good laugh :laugh:


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

*LINK* Some of the early twitter reactions from other MMA fighters. Riddle's is interesting:



> matthew riddle ✔ @riddletuf7
> Follow
> @ufc @danawhite you dumb bitches fire me for weed while you allow fighters to use hard drugs with zero consequences. #ufcistrash


----------



## munkie (Sep 28, 2009)

log said:


> here is the sad thing about this....both the commission AND the UFC knew that he flunked the test (he tested for traces of something that shows he used Cocaine) well before the fight. It isn't a banned substance though, so it won't affect the fight per say...but you let a dude fight knowing that he had a drug problem (he was tested in early December and the results came on December 23)
> 
> So weed is a performance enhancing drug and cocaine isn't? I don't use either, but I need to wrap my head around that for a second.
> 
> What do people think about the UFC knowing that he flunked the test, and not checking him into rehab right away, instead letting him fight then sending him into rehab?


For starters, the UFC isn't sending him to rehab. Bones is entering voluntarily. Performance enhancing isn't the only reason substances are banned. My guess is that the reason cocaine isn't banned is probably just because it slipped through the cracks. They probably banned other ingredients that are in the cut shit, but not purely coke.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Baking soda he got baking soda!


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

The substance that's not banned is benzoylecgonine. Coke is obviously banned.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

I could care less if he did a few lines, what is hilarious to me is that weed is deemed more dangerous and serious to test positive for. Isn't society just fabulous?


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Coke is a banned substance in the same regard as alcohol is, it's not banned OOC. 


Marijuana wile some will argue about it is a ped, at least it was when I was training. 

Its not going to help you to fight high IMO but it sure helped on the days I felt like I couldn't move. TRT will help with the recovery process allowing fighters to train harder longer and with less pain. TRT will actually speed up the healing process for muscle development.

Wile not as effective and it certainly wont help you heal, weed has the same effect of allowing you to train when you otherwise would be taking a brake and again obviously its a lesser degree of effectiveness.

Im speaking from my experience training, so take it or leave it but that's how I see it. 

Coke wont do anything positive for you that I can think of.


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

Rauno said:


> *LINK* Some of the early twitter reactions from other MMA fighters. Riddle's is interesting:


LMAO!! War Ben Askren!!! "John Jones kilo for kilo the best fighter on the planet"!


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

I'm amused to say the least.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

It was probably just to stay awake when he gets drunk so he doesn't crash his car into a tree.


----------



## Glothin (Jun 8, 2010)

Nick Diaz had a dang script for medicinal Marijuana. Didn't he get suspended? That crazy dude is one of the few pot actually helps.

This rich, successful loser that used coke needs to be suspended.


----------



## rallyman (Mar 15, 2010)

I think it will be very interesting to see what the UFC does (if any) in relation to this case.

regardless if it is banned or not by the commission I would be very surprised if the UFC didn't have a stance on hard drugs either in Code of Conduct or fighter contracts.

as a company that wants to be seen as "main stream" (I would think) they have to send a message and make an example of John.

my gut feel though is that he makes them to much money and nothing will happen but a slap on the wrist

end of the day I think this is pretty sad news. he has to realise that doing coke cant be good for him long term and this is a really bad image to portray to fans and young kids wanting to get into the sport. 

hypothetical now but wonder what would have happened if cormier had of won would they have used that as an excuse?


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

rallyman said:


> I think it will be very interesting to see what the UFC does (if any) in relation to this case.
> 
> regardless if it is banned or not by the commission I would be very surprised if the UFC didn't have a stance on hard drugs either in Code of Conduct or fighter contracts.
> 
> ...


Alcohol is just as dangerous as coke, should we expect fighters to be required to never drink because its bad for you?

Im sorry but I have a issue with people trying to tell other people they cant make their own decisions regardless of how poor those choices may be or seem.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

Good work alienating your entire fan base Dana White. Well done.


----------



## kc1983 (May 27, 2007)

It's incredible that marijuana is seen as a banned substance by the athletic commission but cocaine is not. Shocking actually. 

This is definitely not going to help his image. Not good for the UFC either considering how huge Jones is now and how big of a draw he is. I can't recall an incident where a famous UFC fighter got busted for coke and had to enter rehab. Is this a first??? I do think that this will pass and it will not hurt Jones' continued dominance. A bit of a stain on his legacy? Yes, most certainly. 




Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

The positive side of MMA fighters being underpaid.

Most don't make enough to make drug dealers rich.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

slapshot said:


> Coke is a banned substance in the same regard as alcohol is, it's not banned OOC.
> 
> 
> Marijuana wile some will argue about it is a ped, at least it was when I was training.
> ...


I smoke weed.

Ive done coke but only in my younger years and only a fee times. 

Seems to me coke would get you going for training or an extra run than w3ed would. 

I smoke good ass weed and it depends what sort of weed you are smoking. But to me it doesnt really make me want to run laps on a track at all. 

We must have different experiences.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Glothin said:


> Nick Diaz had a dang script for medicinal Marijuana. Didn't he get suspended? That crazy dude is one of the few pot actually helps.
> 
> This rich, successful loser that used coke needs to be suspended.



Chael sonnet had a script for everything he was on, not seeing the correlation. That I know of there is not fool proof test to tell you if somebody is high on marijuana or smoked it yesterday. ( besides offering them a snickers but those things are pretty irresistible even when sober). coke stays in your system for less time making in competition/ out of competition easier to regulate. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

DC opens up:



> "I am aware of Jon's test, and if there is anything to say it is this: there are a lot of people you impact, so please let's get it together. Good luck on your rehab!"


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/1/6...drug-test-failure-greg-howard-rumors-mma-news

This guy seems to think this isnt news. Says source closer to Jon said he couldnt believe it tpok so long for Jones to fail for coke...


----------



## rallyman (Mar 15, 2010)

slapshot said:


> Alcohol is just as dangerous as coke, should we expect fighters to be required to never drink because its bad for you?
> 
> Im sorry but I have a issue with people trying to tell other people they cant make their own decisions regardless of how poor those choices may be or seem.


Im not here to argue what is more bad or what choices people should or should not make so feel free to make what ever choice you like

you missed my point

Cocaine is an "illegal" substance(regardless of if you/we believe it should be or not) he willingly choose to use it and got caught. He isn't a school kid experimenting with things (as most of us have done) he is th LHW champ of the UFC that gets drug testing constantly and would know this would come out if he gets caught.

alcohol although can be very damaging is not illegal and not on question here

I really hope he gets all the help he requires as he was starting to win me over as a fan after the last fight and it would be a shame for this path to effect his career.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

I bet Nike regrets not sponsoring him now they could have had a gem of an ad like this...


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Bonnar426 said:


> I never understood why people would ever want to touch that shit. Its a good time that will send you to an early grave.


If you're an addict maybe. If you have the type of personality that can limit it to infrequent use it's not all that dangerous, and there are plenty of people like that out there. It used to be regularly prescribed medically (and as far as I know still is in a topical form that is harder to abuse) until doctors realized that a lot of people had problems limiting their use.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Do these tests just show everything?

I thought they sort of had to test for things they wanted to test for.

Why would they test for this if it doesnt matter out of competition?


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Jones did another stupid thing. Shocker. Point is, how come pot smokers and referee shovers have being banned and a vacuum cleaner gets just a "congrats, we are proud you are going to rehab"?


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

I think honestly we all know where this is heading


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

rallyman said:


> Im not here to argue what is more bad or what choices people should or should not make so feel free to make what ever choice you like
> 
> you missed my point
> 
> ...


Now the athletic commission should enforce laws?

The PED list is or should be reserved for you know PED's. Its not their job to enforce laws or make moral judgments.

The fact that is illegal really is irrelevant. Should they start fining fighters for speeding tickets too?



jonnyg4508 said:


> Why would they test for this if it doesnt matter out of competition?


Thats what I thought too, odd.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

slapshot said:


> Now the athletic commission should enforce laws?
> 
> The PED list is or should be reserved for you know PED's. Its not their job to enforce laws or make moral judgments.
> 
> The fact that is illegal really is irrelevant. Should they start fining fighters for speeding tickets too?


Don't know about the Commissions, but the UFC have punished fighters for expressing their opinions over homosexuals in their social accounts and banned athletes for domestic disputes that were settled before the justice and between the parts, so that makes tham hypocrites at least for they were sticking their noses in people personal business outside the cage while doing zero in this case.


----------



## Glothin (Jun 8, 2010)

Testing positive after the fight doesn't mean a drug was influencing a fighter during the fight. If jones smoked weed on 12/3, he could likely test positive for it on 1/3.

If he smoked crack, shot up crack, snorted coke, or shot up a speedball of crack and legal pain pills (and he probably, justifiably is prescribed opiates for pain sometime, so the opiate part would be legal) on 12/30 or New Year's Eve and then he could probably pass a pee test on fight night. Again, I'm not accusing him of abusing drugs or legal medicine. It's called medicine for a reason. 

The fact of the matter is that one of UFC's biggest stars--if not the biggest-- has

(1) got arrested for driving drunk and wrecking (thank God he didn't kill anyone)

(2) was the first guy to ever cause an event to be cancelled because his opponent was hurt and he refused to fight a can from a lower weight class he was sure to beat

(3) threatened to murder someone on TV

(4) failed a drug test a month before a title fight for using some form of cocaine/crack

And the UFC pays him at least $500,000 and says it is proud of him. 

Wow, Dana. Just wow.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Glothin said:


> Testing positive after the fight doesn't mean a drug was influencing a fighter during the fight. If jones smoked weed on 12/3, he could likely test positive for it on 1/3.
> 
> If he smoked crack, shot up crack, snorted coke, or shot up a speedball of crack and legal pain pills (and he probably, justifiably is prescribed opiates for pain sometime, so the opiate part would be legal) on 12/30 or New Year's Eve and then he could probably pass a pee test on fight night. Again, I'm not accusing him of abusing drugs or legal medicine. It's called medicine for a reason.
> 
> ...


He tested positive before the fight, way before.

The results came back before Christmas, you know crack is just coke right? you cant shoot up crack lol.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

slapshot said:


> Wile not as effective and it certainly wont help you heal, weed has the same effect of allowing you to train when you otherwise would be taking a brake and again obviously its a lesser degree of effectiveness.
> 
> Im speaking from my experience training, so take it or leave it but that's how I see it.
> 
> Coke wont do anything positive for you that I can think of.


In my experience coke is a huge performance enhancer. I used to do coke when I worked in a warehouse and I could work non stop at an extremely fast pace for hours on end when i was ripped. I could certainly see it being used in training to give energy, although the after effects might be crappy as hell and detrimental.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

I'm just baffled as to why so many are surprised that the UFCs biggest PPV draw received no punishment for any of his dumbass mistakes. When has the UFC showed integrity, like ever?


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

Im just annoyed this may delay the inevitable of gus taking the belt. Jon can go through all the coke he wants good for him, I just hate ******* dick sucking hypocritical dana patting him on the back for this whole fiasco. Meanwhile a little weed or anything else is treated like sin by him.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

UFC_OWNS said:


> Im just annoyed this may delay the inevitable of gus taking the belt. Jon can go through all the coke he wants good for him, I just hate ******* dick sucking hypocritical dana patting him on the back for this whole fiasco. Meanwhile a little weed or anything else is treated like sin by him.


That's just it, had it been a lesser known fighter, he would be gone. The irony is Jones said he used to rat on drug doers in school now he is everything he used to rat on.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

Rygu said:


> I'm just baffled as who so many are surprised that the UFCs biggest PPV draw received no punishment for any of his dumbass mistakes. When has the UFC showed integrity, like ever?


Good question let me think......






umm.....

shit. Thales Leites got a title shot even though he shouldn't have? I don't know.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Jones - Drunk driving, doing coke, cancelling an entire UFC event, mocks his fans on a consistent basis, no punishment.

Miguel Torres - makes a single **** joke on twitter, fired from the company. 

Haha, it's so ridiculous that it's actually funny, like you can't even make this kind of thing up. Anywho, chalk another one up for Mr. Bones.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

slapshot said:


> Alcohol is just as dangerous as coke, should we expect fighters to be required to never drink because its bad for you?
> 
> Im sorry but I have a issue with people trying to tell other people they cant make their own decisions regardless of how poor those choices may be or seem.


Um no it isn't, and pretty much every scientific body and government in the world disagrees with your opinion. Billions of people over the world drink alcohol in moderation without a single health effect or violent streaks, it's excess that's the problem. 

Cocaine is a synthetic concentrated version of the active substances in coca so there's no such thing as moderation. The moment you do a single line you're in egocentric violent top-of-the-world nutjob mode and the moment you come down you're a depressed, tired wreck. There is no middle ground. 

Every single person I know who's done coke more than a handful of times has ended up beating their wives or girlfriends badly / getting into bloody fights all the time / stealing / blowing all their savings etc., and I know dozens including my closest uncle and one of my best friends. I also know literally hundreds of people who drink alcohol socially without any such behaviors and I'm sure you do too. Sure these same things CAN happen if you're a raging alcoholic, but it's the frequency that separates the two. 

This is bad for Jon. I feel bad for his family and hope he comes out of it, but at this point it's hard to feel bad for him personally.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

http://alanaalamia.blogspot.ca/2011/11/jon-jones-does-coke.html



> Saturday, November 26, 2011
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

PHEW! I was thinking this thread was about to say he's on HGH or some shit. While he should defo be facing some pretty serious punishment soon enough, maybe like 250k of his win bonus being removed or something, failing a coke test works like failing a weed test imo.

Stupid shit from Jones. I know he's been in UFC since he was young and this all blew up fairly quick, but he always struck me that he was smart enough to avoid shite like this.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

log said:


> So weed is a performance enhancing drug and cocaine isn't? I don't use either, but I need to wrap my head around that for a second.


Weed and benzoylecgonine are categorized exactly the same by the WDA. Both are BANNED during competition (meaning fight day, you cant have them in your system) but are not banned out side of competition (it CAN be in your system up to the day of weigh in)



Rauno said:


> Let me get this straight, marijuana is banned in MMA but not cocaine?


Nope, they are BOTH BANNED in competition, neither are banned outside of it!



Rygu said:


> I could care less if he did a few lines, what is hilarious to me is that weed is deemed more dangerous and serious to test positive for.


Its not at all, it is considered EXACTLY the same by the rule book of the NSAC and the WDA.



Glothin said:


> Nick Diaz had a dang script for medicinal Marijuana. Didn't he get suspended?


Doesnt matter if you have a prescription or not. Any drug that is banned during competition, is simply not allowed. I mean, many people have a prescription for oxy, doesnt mean you are allowed to be on it during a fight!



kc1983 said:


> It's incredible that marijuana is seen as a banned substance by the athletic commission but cocaine is not. Shocking actually.


Be less shocked, cocaine IS banned, just not outside of competition.


----------



## Atilak (Nov 24, 2009)

This hypocrite athletic commision and UFC... This is not even funny.

I have done both and if you ask me. Cocaine is way more PED than marihuana. In terms of performance when ON, you are more focus, more motivated, energetic. Yes when you are OFF, down are hard. But definitely can enhance performance.
I really dont understand logic behind these regulations, laws. Give me a break.


If he was tested and wasnt on cocaine day of the fight. I understand that fight was allowed. But they knew it month before fight, they should do something about it.


----------



## MK. (Dec 16, 2012)

Poor Jason High and others, UFC and their crappy double standards.

I bet JONES/Conor can publicly **** somebody and the UFC will still stand behind them.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

This does not alter my opinion on Jones at all. I hope he embraces his 'heel' persona. This bust will make him bigger, no doubt about it.

However, How can you possibly get popped for Coke with no consequences, yet weed carries a 6 month ban. The double standards of this whole thing stinks.

P.S - Bet Dana is coked off his box 90% of the time as well.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Killz said:


> P.S - Bet Dana is coked off his box 90% of the time as well.


Lol probably right about this. 

Its no surprise to me that DW is looking after Jones. The UFC is about making money. If a lower level fighter that doesn't make them money makes a mistake, its good business to cut him. He will end up costing the organisation money. But John Jones will make just a much money for the company, coke or no coke, maybe even more and this outweighs potential damage to the organisation. 

This coke habit of Jones probably explains why he is such a prick sometimes. Someone should make a montage video of when he's been high and when he's been on a comedown

Very classy response from DC to this news, respect for that.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

Yeah, I was no fan of DC prior to this fight but honestly, the way he carried himself after the loss and especially his response about Jones habit. Takes a big man to talk like that. Definitely be rooting for him in his future fights.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

John doesn't need rehab.


----------



## Swp (Jan 2, 2010)

Ahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha

This is hilarious ... how can people see this as a small setback and they are proud of Jones and feel sorry for him and shit ... I just started to like Jones , but this is UN****INGACCETABLE ...
A JUNKIE AS A CHAMPION HAHAHAHAH.... way to go ...
Jeezus ... SHAME ******* SHAME ...
They should give the Title to DC ffs 

"I like to apologize to my family kids coaches ufc and the fans" jajajajajajahahaha I've heard this so many times doesnt mean shit now ... )


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)




----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

He's just trolling everyone. Someone hacked into his nose.



jonnyg4508 said:


> The bigger story is how he is allowed to fight and how ufc did all they could to keep this quiet on fight week.


This times a million. Not to mention all the other fighters who have been fired/suspended/etc. over much less.

The only bigger joke than DW/the UFC is its LHW "champ".


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> John doesn't need rehab.


Joey Diaz is one intense motherff.


----------



## T.Bone (Oct 15, 2008)

Liddellianenko said:


> Um no it isn't, and pretty much every scientific body and government in the world disagrees with your opinion. Billions of people over the world drink alcohol in moderation without a single health effect or violent streaks, it's excess that's the problem.
> 
> Cocaine is a synthetic concentrated version of the active substances in coca so there's no such thing as moderation. The moment you do a single line you're in egocentric violent top-of-the-world nutjob mode and the moment you come down you're a depressed, tired wreck. There is no middle ground.
> 
> ...


Wow. So much wrong with this post. I know many, many ppl that have taken coke in moderation, including myself, more than a handful of times and have never blown all thier money / hit their partners / stolen from anybody, whereas I've seen too many alcohol related incidents to even mention. 

And there's the key word *moderation*. Now I'm sorry that every-one you've ever known to do coke has gone off the rails but I'm afraid that just isn't the case with every-one.

Of course if you do too much coke you're probably gonna go a bit mental but the same can defintiely be said of alcohol and I would say it's way more prevailent and much more of a problem.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

T.Bone said:


> Wow. So much wrong with this post. I know many, many ppl that have taken coke in moderation, including myself, more than a handful of times and have never blown all thier money / hit their partners / stolen from anybody, whereas I've seen too many alcohol related incidents to even mention.
> 
> And there's the key word *moderation*. Now I'm sorry that every-one you've ever known to do coke has gone off the rails but I'm afraid that just isn't the case with every-one.
> 
> Of course if you do too much coke you're probably gonna go a bit mental but the same can defintiely be said of alcohol and I would say it's way more prevailent and much more of a problem.


Coke is way more addictive then alcohol.


----------



## T.Bone (Oct 15, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> Coke is way more addictive then alcohol.


I know. I never said it wasn't. But to make it sound as if every person who tries it ends up addicted/a criminal is extremely short sighted.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

T.Bone said:


> I know. I never said it wasn't. But to make it sound as if every person who tries it ends up addicted/a criminal is extremely short sighted.


Well yeah I'd agree with that. Thats why I wouldn't be trying to crucify Jones for this mistake. If you took any of the people that would crucify him for it and put them in a room with 3 curvaceous brazilian women, a few bottles of champagne, chances are they might get a little more curious to the merits of marching powder, while not turning into a criminal at the same time!


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)




----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

T.Bone said:


> Wow. So much wrong with this post. I know many, many ppl that have taken coke in moderation, including myself, more than a handful of times and have never blown all thier money / hit their partners / stolen from anybody, whereas I've seen too many alcohol related incidents to even mention.
> 
> And there's the key word *moderation*. Now I'm sorry that every-one you've ever known to do coke has gone off the rails but I'm afraid that just isn't the case with every-one.
> 
> Of course if you do too much coke you're probably gonna go a bit mental but the same can defintiely be said of alcohol and I would say it's way more prevailent and much more of a problem.


"Coke in moderation" is an oxymoron, same as most other addictive synthetic hard drugs. I've heard it many times from those same people I've seen go off the rocker later on. 

Here's a little discussion by users on the topic. 

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/662934-Tips-for-using-cocaine-in-moderation



> I don't think there are any ways to moderate cocaine usage asides from not buying any.





> ^^ The harsh truth.





> lol right... "moderate" and "cocaine" in the same sentence...





> If you're looking for first hand posts about people who have successfully "moderated" their cocaine usage for any long period of time, you're going to be pretty disappointed





> cocaine is a pretty destructive drug. I feel like no matter how well I moderate I still end up in a bad place from it.





> The problem is that that "moderate" amount is going to keep growing with each buy.





> the problem is that the dopamine pathway reinforcement is so powerful that its impossible to control for 99% of people..


As you can see, pretty much the UNANIMOUS opinion by users is that there is no way to "moderate" the use of cocaine over time, it is a mousetrap that will inevitably break your willpower barriers due to it's dopamine pathway reinforcement. You are deluding yourself if you think you can moderate it over any significant period of time, your limits will mean nothing to you. 

Don't just feel sorry for the sods I knew, they're all doing better now and they've got their lives and families back from the brink. I've had to sit down and help them through a lot, so I just don't want to see others going through it, as I've felt their pain. I'd advise you to instead objectively look at how great your moderation is actually going and open yourself up to the possibility that you might be pretending to swim nonchalantly in quicksand, just because the quicksand makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

Of course the thread above and numerous internet discussions are only anecdotal and not scientific proof, but that lies in pretty much every single major scientific study confirming the addictive and potentially dangerous behavioral associations of cocaine and every single world govt. except for two making it illegal, including progressive countries like the Netherlands.

I'm not trying to stand on a pedestal and judge people, it's not that I've never tried a synthetic drug in my life, but please don't try to delude yourself about the nature of what you're playing with. If you've done it a few times and never gone back, that's the only time it could be considered non-destructive, but most of the times people will go back, and it will get worse.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

The internet is a cruel place.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Holy shit.

A few unorganized thoughts...

How is weed banned but not cocaine and similar substances? [edit: read up on it, it's not banned _outside_ of competition]

Dana is proud of Jones for going to rehab. :laugh:

I hope they come to their senses and strip him of the title. The guy needs to slow down obviously. Beating a coke addiction is not like quitting cigarettes, he's not just going to be functional in the short term. It'll take weeks or even months and substitute medication for the withdrawal symptoms to be bearable and he won't be able to train or fight. To be very honest if this turns out to be true there is a serious chance we might never see him back in the octagon.


----------



## T.Bone (Oct 15, 2008)

Liddellianenko said:


> "Coke in moderation" is an oxymoron, same as any other synthetic hard drug. I've heard it many times from those same people I've seen go off the rocker later on.
> 
> Here's a little discussion by users on the topic.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you're saying coke is an unforgivably addictive drug, it's scientifcally proven and inarguable but my main point was that not every-one who tries coke falls into the categories you laid out i.e, criminals and wife beaters or even addcited.

If you keep doing coke yeah, you're probably addicted to it already, but by no means does one line or even a few mean you *are* addicted, or will be addicted. Another differenciating factor between each person who's ever done coke is their personalities, not every-one has the restraint or self control to say no and some ppl have extremly obsessive tendancies which can obviously make the route to addiction much easier. 

I'm not disagreeing with you I just don't think it's as black and white as you make out. Again, anecdotal I know, but I know many ppl that take coke in moderation and are not addicted.

Edit: I should add that I do know ppl that have had problems with the stuff but the same can be said with weed, booze and prescription meds.


----------



## Hiro (Mar 9, 2010)

Jon Jones, what a total muppet.


----------



## Stun Gun (Oct 24, 2012)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> Holy shit.
> 
> A few unorganized thoughts...
> 
> ...


Yeah I hope they take the title too, mainly because he will be out for awhile if it is a serious addiction. Ian McCall was out for awhile during his recovery


----------



## The Best Around (Oct 18, 2011)

Lol @ you guys suggesting they strip him of the title. He obviously party's too hard and is making some really friggin stupid life decisions. But despite that he keeps on winning. And as if the UFC really cares anyway. Itll be swept under the carpet in due time.


----------



## 420atalon (Sep 13, 2008)

Way to go Jones you moron...

Gus is going to mop the floor with him in the rematch, Jones is falling apart.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Why the hell would you take the title from the best in the world over unrelated shit.. 

The title belongs on the best fighter at the weight.... why would anyone want it on someone else?


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

T.Bone said:


> I agree with what you're saying coke is an unforgivably addictive drug, it's scientifcally proven and inarguable but my main point was that not every-one who tries coke falls into the categories you laid out i.e, criminals and wife beaters or even addcited.
> 
> If you keep doing coke yeah, you're probably addicted to it already, but by no means does one line or even a few mean you *are* addicted, or will be addicted. Another differenciating factor between each person who's ever done coke is their personalities, not every-one has the restraint or self control to say no and some ppl have extremly obsessive tendancies which can obviously make the route to addiction much easier.
> 
> ...


Yeah as I edited before you posted, my point wasn't to demonise everyone who's tried coke once as a wife-beater/lowlife/criminal, hence the "more than a handful of times" in my original post. 

But apart from the addiction, it can definitely lower the inhibition barrier a lot more than alcohol can without effectively disabling the individual. I mean to take the kind of reckless behavior I've seen guys on coke do, usually a person drunk enough and reckless enough is too out of his senses to be as much danger to others (other than behind a car wheel). 

The problem with coke is that it removes inhibitions and increases the ego trip 10x as much as alcohol, without reducing the physical ability to cause harm, if anything it increases it.


----------



## King Daisuke (Mar 25, 2013)




----------



## King Daisuke (Mar 25, 2013)

But seriously, how does this not fall under the UFC Fighter Conduct Policy? People get fired for tweets and Jones gets a warm hug for using cocaine? For ****'s sake! Strip him of the title and suspend him for (at least) 9 months now!


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

King Daisuke said:


> But seriously, how does this not fall under the UFC Fighter Conduct Policy? People get fired for tweets and Jones gets a warm hug for using cocaine? For ****'s sake! Strip him of the title and suspend him for (at least) 9 months now!


MONEY Brah


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

Atilak said:


> This hypocrite athletic commision and UFC... This is not even funny.
> 
> I have done both and if you ask me. Cocaine is way more PED than marihuana....I really dont understand logic behind these regulations, laws. Give me a break.


Cocaine is banned exactly the same way weed is. It is not banned outside of competition. Jones tested positive for benzoylecgonine a month before the fight, no rule against it. If that was in his system night of the fight, it would have been a problem.



Killz said:


> However, How can you possibly get popped for Coke with no consequences, yet weed carries a 6 month ban. The double standards of this whole thing stinks.


Weed and cocaine have exactly the same rule!


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

DanTheJu said:


> Cocaine is banned exactly the same way weed is. It is not banned outside of competition. Jones tested positive for benzoylecgonine a month before the fight, no rule against it. If that was in his system night of the fight, it would have been a problem.


But if he been caught in a random test before the fight and still they won't do anything because he was clean at fight night, what is the purpose of a ramdom test anyway?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> But if he been caught in a random test before the fight and still they won't do anything because he was clean at fight night, what is the purpose of a ramdom test anyway?


The tests are for HGH and steroids and what not. 

A large ass fine would obviously be great here but at the same time, people calling he should be stripped of the title are ridiculous.

Someone accurately said, Jones is just MMA's reluctant Mike Tyson.

What's also hilarious is that people are taking this like a serious addiction haha,


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> But if he been caught in a random test before the fight and still they won't do anything because he was clean at fight night, what is the purpose of a ramdom test anyway?


The purpose of random drug testing is to find drugs that are banned outside of competition. Mainly PEDs such as steroids and what not.

There are a lot of drugs that you are allowed to take when training that you are not allowed to have in your system the night of the fight. An example would be many Cold Meds or prescription pain killers (if you have a prescription, you can have them in your system outside of competition, but not the night of the fight). 

Weed and benzoylecgonine are not viewed as PEDs so they are not banned outside of competition.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> The tests are for HGH and steroids and what not.
> 
> A large ass fine would obviously be great here but at the same time, people calling he should be stripped of the title are ridiculous.
> 
> Someone accurately said, Jones is just MMA's reluctant Mike Tyson.


The NSAC CAN NOT fine him, he did not break any of their rules. The UFC could fine him, if there is something in the behavior agreement that bans cocaine. But I doubt that is going to happen.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

^^^^ Thanks. :thumbsup:


----------



## The Best Around (Oct 18, 2011)

King Daisuke said:


> But seriously, how does this not fall under the UFC Fighter Conduct Policy? People get fired for tweets and Jones gets a warm hug for using cocaine? For ****'s sake! Strip him of the title and suspend him for (at least) 9 months now!


When UFC fires people for things like tweets, there's another motive. Meaning like, they know that fighter brings in $0, but they can't just always be cutting in people that bring in $0 because they want to pretend that they have some integrity and competition. So they cut guys who bring in $0 when they find another reason to blame it on. In the case of a few guys like Okami and Fitch, they're good guys, so Dana has to come up with a BS reason. If you have leverage on someone, you can act however you want. Bones knows that, Brock knew that, etc. 

No point in people crying about this stuff. Life isn't always fair. It's not here. The fact that people are banned for weed and not cocaine is a whole other issue, though.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

The Best Around said:


> No point in people crying about this stuff. Life isn't always fair. It's not here. The fact that people are banned for weed and not cocaine is a whole other issue, though.


Show on instance of somebody being banned for weed in a random, out of competition drug test? There isn't one, it doesn't happen!


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

What I know is if Tony Montana can withstand gunshots on coke, I imagine how far Jones can push himself during a training camp making use of it. Maybe they should revise the list of things that should be banned before a fight as well.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DanTheJu said:


> The NSAC CAN NOT fine him, he did not break any of their rules. The UFC could fine him, if there is something in the behavior agreement that bans cocaine. But I doubt that is going to happen.


I meant UFC. Might make him shape up to get hit bad by them.

MMA-Sportsman, if that Tony Montana reference was legitimate, then I am afraid that it was *ridiculous*.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Joabbuac said:


> Why the hell would you take the title from the best in the world over unrelated shit..
> 
> The title belongs on the best fighter at the weight.... why would anyone want it on someone else?


Because having to train, having to make weight and having to fight isn't exactly recommended for a recovering coke addict.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> Because having to train, having to make weight and having to fight isn't exactly recommended for a recovering coke addict.


Unless all of this would be just a cover up rehab.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> Unless all of this would be just a cover up rehab.


If he fights again within 6 months we'll know if that was the case. He's young, he's rich, he's famous, he crashed his Bentley while under the influence of alcohol and now he's going into rehab for cocaine. I'm not saying he's definitely an addict but judging from what we know it's possible.


----------



## King Daisuke (Mar 25, 2013)

DonRifle said:


> MONEY Brah


yeah no shit.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> I'm not saying he's definitely an *addict* but judging from what we know it's possible.


Actually, now that you mentioned, if this is the case and in benefit of Jones, most of his known issues could be very well symptoms of this main overwhelming drug problem. I doubt people close to him wouldn't know about it, though.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

You guys taking his "addiction" seriously are worse than Dana.


----------



## SmackyBear (Feb 14, 2008)

rallyman said:


> I think it will be very interesting to see what the UFC does (if any) in relation to this case.
> 
> regardless if it is banned or not by the commission I would be very surprised if the UFC didn't have a stance on hard drugs either in Code of Conduct or fighter contracts.
> 
> ...


To be fair, they are doing what every other mainstream sport does when an athlete tests positive for a recreational drug. Making him enter a treatment program. For your first test failure for a recreational drug in MLB, NFL, or NBA (no clue about NHL) you aren't suspended at all. You just enter a monitored program. Though it's less strict than actual rehab.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> Because having to train, having to make weight and having to fight isn't exactly recommended for a recovering coke addict.



This is all unrelated to the fact nobody has taken his title... Who is actually gonna buy he fact another guy is wearing the belt? 

This "addict" seems to be doing just fine in the cage. 

The champion is champion until someone beats them, the title is not awarded to the biggest role model... it's for the guy who nobody can beat in the cage... 

Jones is an adult, bar him failing a medical it's nobodies place to say if it's not "recommended" that he fights.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Um no it isn't, and pretty much every scientific body and government in the world disagrees with your opinion. Billions of people over the world drink alcohol in moderation without a single health effect or violent streaks, it's excess that's the problem.
> 
> Cocaine is a synthetic concentrated version of the active substances in coca so there's no such thing as moderation. The moment you do a single line you're in egocentric violent top-of-the-world nutjob mode and the moment you come down you're a depressed, tired wreck. There is no middle ground.
> 
> ...


Umm yes it is, and im taking my opinion from research, Google is your friend..

Alcohol is the most widely used drug in the world which lends to my opinion its the most dangerous, it kills more people and is a part of more crimes than any other drug and thats a fact that is easily found.

Just look at JBJ did he wreck his car doing coke? nope he wrecked it drinking.. 

Thats not a statistic its an example.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

DanTheJu said:


> Show on instance of somebody being banned for weed in a random, out of competition drug test? There isn't one, it doesn't happen!


To be fair how the hell is it considered OOC when he's in camp for a fight? Had he popped for TRT it would not have been considered OOC...

Why even test for it then? If you dont have a policy for disciplining fighters for it? 

What a big ball of incompetence this "sport" is.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

slapshot said:


> Umm yes it is, and im taking my opinion from research, Google is your friend..
> 
> Alcohol is the most widely used drug in the world which lends to my opinion its the most dangerous, it kills more people and is a part of more crimes than any other drug and thats a fact that is easily found.
> 
> ...


For all we know he was on coke too! I know plenty of people who have been taking coke for years every weekend, or whatever class A they can't get hold of other then crack/heroin. They can't have an enjoyable weekend without it, but still get through their 9-5's somehow. I wouldn't be surprised if he's been on it for ages, just as much as it wouldn't surprise me if he had one loose moment at a party.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

Can't blame him, coke is pretty awesome. :mrgreen:
Disagree that you can't take it in moderation tho.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Leed said:


> Disagree that you can't take it in moderation tho.


I know... i am living proof of that, i take it every night in moderation.


----------



## SmackyBear (Feb 14, 2008)

slapshot said:


> To be fair how the hell is it considered OOC when he's in camp for a fight? Had he popped for TRT it would not have been considered OOC...
> 
> Why even test for it then? If you dont have a policy for disciplining fighters for it?
> 
> What a big ball of incompetence this "sport" is.


Anabolic agents are prohibited at all times, so in competition or out of competition makes no difference.

In competition is 12 hours before a contest until the end of the contest or the end of the sample collection process for that contest.

They shouldn't have tested for it using WADA guidelines.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

SmackyBear said:


> Anabolic agents are prohibited at all times, so in competition or out of competition makes no difference.
> 
> In competition is 12 hours before a contest until the end of the contest or the end of the sample collection process for that contest.
> 
> They shouldn't have tested for it using WADA guidelines.


Doesn't that give you pause?

It does me, it smells fishy or incompetent. Also he must have signed a waver er something because IDK how they get around hippa, my wife is a nurse and that law is a pain in the ass.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

slapshot said:


> Umm yes it is, and im taking my opinion from research, Google is your friend..
> 
> Alcohol is the most widely used drug in the world which lends to my opinion its the most dangerous, it kills more people and is a part of more crimes than any other drug and thats a fact that is easily found.
> 
> ...


Yes alcohol is more widely used, probably 10000% more (because of course cocaine is ILLEGAL), so it causes more problems and kills more people and causes more tragedies IN TOTAL. So obviously cocaine is more benign. Great logic. 

Cars cause more number of deaths in total worldwide than cyanide, so cyanide is safer than cars, lets give our kids little cyanide pills instead of strapping them to those deathtrap car seats. Remember kids be safe! 

Ever heard of PER CAPITA / PER USER statistics?

Not to mention most alcohol statistics count vehicular accidents after a drop of alcohol as deaths related to alcohol, but of course cocaine gets a free pass in such deaths because no one is equipped with a coke breathalyzer.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Beware of sarcasm. We wouldn't want this discussion to turn into one of these post for post wars.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Yes alcohol is more widely used, probably 10000% more (because of course cocaine is ILLEGAL), so it causes more problems and kills more people and causes more tragedies IN TOTAL. So obviously cocaine is more benign. Great logic.
> 
> Cars cause more number of deaths in total worldwide than cyanide, so cyanide is safer than cars, lets give our kids little cyanide pills instead of strapping them to those deathtrap car seats. Remember kids be safe!
> 
> Ever heard of PER CAPITA / PER USER statistics?


Drugs being illegal has never stopped anyone from using them thats why prohibition failed, your logic is flawed in many ways.

I sure have herd of Per capita my sister gets it every month.. do you have any PER CAPITA statistics to back your claim or are you just referencing it hoping it will?

Its more widely used because its socially acceptable, back when it was illegal it was just as socially acceptable as it is now and used almost just as much, per capita OC.

Alcohol destroys and or derails a lot of brain function other drugs dont and thats one reason why its more dangerous not to mention the effects it has on the body and the fact that the damage it causes is mostly irreversible. 

Just because its legal doesn't make it less of a health risk than other hard drugs. And in no way am I saying coke is good for you, it has its own side effects and some of them are just as likely to kill you.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

SmackyBear said:


> Anabolic agents are prohibited at all times, so in competition or out of competition makes no difference.
> 
> In competition is 12 hours before a contest until the end of the contest or the end of the sample collection process for that contest.
> 
> They shouldn't have tested for it using WADA guidelines.


Why did they test for it then anyways¿ Usually testing becomes more expensive the more substances the lab has to look for as different testing methods have to be used. Maybe they just have this testing package.

And why were the results made public when they didn't show any breaking of rules¿


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

slapshot said:


> Drugs being illegal has never stopped anyone from using them thats why prohibition failed, your logic is flawed in many ways.
> 
> I sure have herd of Per capita my sister gets it every month.. do you have any PER CAPITA statistics to back your claim or are you just referencing it hoping it will?
> 
> ...


Again all opinions and no sources to back them up.

Cocaine is still as widely used as when it was legal? Are you kidding me? When it was legal, HARD ADDICTIVE cocaine was was used in every day households for headaches, depression, asthma, tuberculosis and tooth drops for kids!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/07/22/social.history.cocaine/
http://mentalfloss.com/article/57988/11-unbelievable-moments-cocaines-early-medical-history 
http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/cocaine/a-short-history.html

I'll try to find more official statistics soon but got to do some work right now.

In 1912, 10 years before it was banned, there were 5000 cocaine related deaths in a year, in a population of just 90 million at the time. 

Today it's less than 100, in a population of 300 million:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-drug-overdoses-each-day-how-do-we-stop-that/

You don't seem to know your history at all, just opinion which you automatically assume is true, and then say "google it", confident that somehow some site somewhere probably backs it up.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Voiceless said:


> Why did they test for it then anyways¿ Usually testing becomes more expensive the more substances the lab has to look for as different testing methods have to be used. Maybe they just have this testing package.
> 
> And why were the results made public when they didn't show any breaking of rules¿


Specific tests are rare these days (which doesn't mean that non-specific methods are less accurate). My guess is they're using a gas chromatograph and it just came up as a result.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Again all opinions and no sources to back them up.
> 
> *Cocaine is still as widely used as when it was legal? *Are you kidding me? When it was legal, cocaine was was used in every day households for headaches and depression, and tooth drops for kids!
> 
> ...


I was talking about alcohol not coke...

Foundation for a drug free world? That doesn't sound bias at all. You are referencing news articles ROFL. Try actual studies by scientists. 

Again im not saying coke is good for you, Im saying alcohol is more or less just as bad.

I dont have any coke heads in my family but I do have a shit load of alcoholics.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

slapshot said:


> I was talking about alcohol not coke...
> 
> Foundation for a drug free world? That doesn't sound bias at all. You are referencing news articles ROFL. Try actual studies by scientists.
> 
> ...


Ah come on now, alcohol is as bad as coke? You can't possibly find a single piece of academic support for that on the planet.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Come on guys.... coke may be quicker but alcohol destroys your life and health just as completely if not more.

No research to cite just lots of experience and observation.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

The internet Memes of Cocaine Jones popping up everywhere have been hilarious.

I read coke has an affect on reducing pain receptors and giving you a ton of energy. Apparently, coke has been a popular cheat drug in boxing for generations. I'm not saying coke did or didn't help Jones win the fight, but DC looked like death coming into the 4th and Jones looked fresh out the sauna, just say'n.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

oldfan said:


> Come on guys.... coke may be quicker but alcohol destroys your life and health just as completely if not more....


What I want to know is how people come to believe such stupid things. No, alcohol does not destroy the lives of those who drink responsibly, and in many cases in makes life better. There are millions that use alcohol responsibly. I'm actually a non-drinker myself, but I would never promote such nonsense. Light moderate drinkers do just fine. There's even evidence of health benefits in moderate use. 

So what radical group are you quoting? I'm just curious. Are people really this gullible?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

oldfan said:


> Come on guys.... coke may be quicker but alcohol destroys your life and health just as completely if not more.
> 
> No research to cite just lots of experience and observation.


Theres no doubt alcohol can destroy lives. I had a multi millionaire uncle that ended up with a pacemaker drinking a bottle of whiskey a day in a council flat after gambling and drinking his fortune away. 
But at the same time, 99.9% of the Irish drink, and there is a small percentage of those who are alco's and go on to destroy their lives and those around them. 

Can you imagine society if 99.9% of people were doing coke every weekend? It would be a total catastrophe!


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

VolcomX311 said:


> The internet Memes of Cocaine Jones popping up everywhere have been hilarious.
> 
> I read coke has an affect on reducing pain receptors and giving you a ton of energy. Apparently, coke has been a popular cheat drug in boxing for generations. I'm not saying coke did or didn't help Jones win the fight, but DC looked like death coming into the 4th and Jones looked fresh out the sauna, just say'n.


If Jones was on coke during the fight, it would have showed up in the post fight drug test. That said, many believe Aaron Pryor used some kind of stimulant in his fight against Alexis Arguello back in the 80's (the famous black bottle). And endurance athletes use caffeine quite a bit in races. But I don't think Jones could have gotten away with it, especially getting busted prior. 

He may have used it to get up for a few workouts, though, and may have been a bit high during his confrontation with Cormier. The way he flipped out does now seem like something a guy on coke would do. 

In the long run, though, coke is going to be a detriment to him.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Calminian said:


> What I want to know is how people come to believe such stupid things. No, alcohol does not destroy the lives of those who drink responsibly, and in many cases in makes life better. There are millions that use alcohol responsibly. I'm actually a non-drinker myself, but I would never promote such nonsense. Light moderate drinkers do just fine. There's even evidence of health benefits in moderate use.
> 
> So what radical group are you quoting? I'm just curious. Are people really this gullible?


Cocaine does not destroy the lives of those using it. Its the abuse thats bad. Anybody that uses coke responsibly will have no issues with it. There have been times when its quite frankly saved my skin, when it comes to my work. Im talking very small doses. Maybe one 20th of what most coke freaks would put in a single line. Its a fantastic drug when used properly, but awful when abused. Just like Alcohol.

I can say with confidence that a small amount like that a day is certainly no worse for you then a glass of brandy.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Calminian said:


> You have totally utterly lost your mind. You have no clue what you're talking about and should stop commenting (something tells me you won't).
> 
> Seriously, Slapshop, SOS (stuck on stupid). My grandmother lived until she was 95 drinking a glass of brandy every evening. How do you think a dose of cocaine everyday would have affected her?
> 
> I don't know that I've heard a dumber comment on any forum in my life. :confused02: I'll have to think back.


You calling anyone stupid is laughable, I like how you ratchet the insult up as if youre someone who anyone should care about. 

I think if you did a big fat line of coke everyday it wouldn't matter, you cant get any more ignorant than you already are so please do and give some to your grandmother too, she deserves it for not smothering you at birth.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

slapshot said:


> I was talking about alcohol not coke...
> 
> Foundation for a drug free world? That doesn't sound bias at all. You are referencing news articles ROFL. Try actual studies by scientists.
> 
> ...


This is just not true. Cocaine can cause heart attacks... after even one use. Alcohol not so much.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Cocaine does not destroy the lives of those using it. .....


So sooj, would you be an example of this? Are you a responsible moderate coke user?


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

PheelGoodInc said:


> This is just not true. Cocaine can cause heart attacks... after even one use. Alcohol not so much.


Especially if you have an undiagnosed heart condition...basically a self administered death sentence. It can only take a little bit and the heart is done for.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

oldfan said:


> Come on guys.... coke may be quicker but alcohol destroys your life and health just as completely if not more.
> 
> No research to cite just lots of experience and observation.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Calminian said:


> So sooj, would you be an example of this? Are you a responsible moderate coke user?


Absolutely. I wouldn't be saying this shit otherwise. Ive been using coke for 25 years. Very small doses. For example, a gram can last me 3 weeks. Granted, 99% of coke users can hoover up that amount in 1 hour, which is terrible for you. But that's no different to necking half a bottle of Whiskey in an hour.

Point is, all drugs are pretty fecking cool when used properly. Alchohol. Opium. Cocaine. Weed. etc. The fundamental problem is abuse, which fecks you up regardless of the drug choice. I dont consider any of them worse then the others.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Cleaned up a few posts, if your post is missing you know why it is, PM me if you have issues.

Any news on if the UFC is going to punish him at all for doing coke and "hurting the UFC's image"? I mean, they fire people for telling jokes on twitter as they don't want their fighters, uh, telling jokes on twitter. So, doing coke is probably worse for the UFC's image, right? ...right?

Also:


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

I have never been a Jon Jones basher. I always felt his behavior was just from being that young getting lots of money and being that much of a bad ass. It's a recipe for disaster. Being cocky and duplicitous would be par for the coarse, and getting hooked on coke would definitely fit the scenario. Although if he were truly an addict could he have stayed clean for the fight? I guess it doesn't stay in the system that long, so maybe he could.

There has to be some kind of consequence. With the DUI, the brawl and now this, I think he has to be suspended, this has to violate some kind of conduct code. I also imagine Reebok can't be very happy with their new deal at this point. His deal was announced on Dec 16th and he had already failed the test for Cocaine on Dec. 4th and no one told them? Maybe they didn't have the results yet. That would seem like a good reason to drop it if they can show he knew and didn't disclose it.

So I think they should strip the belt, then when his suspension is over he comes back, provided he has stayed clean, and beats whoever has it and all goes on as it should.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Absolutely. I wouldn't be saying this shit otherwise. Ive been using coke for 25 years. Very small doses. For example, a gram can last me 3 weeks. Granted, 99% of coke users can hoover up that amount in 1 hour, which is terrible for you. But that's no different to necking half a bottle of Whiskey in an hour.
> 
> Point is, all drugs are pretty fecking cool when used properly. Alchohol. Opium. Cocaine. Weed. etc. The fundamental problem is abuse, which fecks you up regardless of the drug choice. I dont consider any of them worse then the others.


Sooj, all I can say is you have a bad habit and I guarantee you you're not getting by with it. It's frying your brain and will continue to do so until you stop, which is likely going to be very hard at this point. 

Now you say you're doing 1 gram in 3 weeks and I highly doubt this. Even if true, dude, you need to stop if you really care about your health, and the influence you have. 

It's your life though. I'm sure you'll do what you want and rationalize it.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Absolutely. I wouldn't be saying this shit otherwise. Ive been using coke for 25 years. Very small doses. For example, a gram can last me 3 weeks. Granted, 99% of coke users can hoover up that amount in 1 hour, which is terrible for you. But that's no different to necking half a bottle of Whiskey in an hour.
> 
> Point is, all drugs are pretty fecking cool when used properly. Alchohol. Opium. Cocaine. Weed. etc. The fundamental problem is abuse, which fecks you up regardless of the drug choice. I dont consider any of them worse then the others.


Would you admit that you are in the minority of people that would have the self restraint to be able to take it such small doses? Coke is some addictive shit, I would think a very small % of people would be able handle it in the way you have described


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> Would you admit that you are in the minority of people that would have the self restraint to be able to take it such small doses? Coke is some addictive shit, I would think a very small % of people would be able handle it in the way you have described


I would go a step further and say the vast majority cannot limit themselves to such a small amount.......the rest are lying.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

PheelGoodInc said:


> This is just not true. Cocaine can cause heart attacks... after even one use. Alcohol not so much.


Bullshit...

We had a teen die like a year ago from drinking too much and it was her first time drinking...

Coke wont explode your heart if your heart is normal given you dont use too much. But it is harder on the heart than Alcohol, let me ask you this, do you arrest more drunks than coke heads? 

That might be a little loaded depending on what kind of cop you are Obviously if your a narcotics officer then its not going to be a fair question but you get what Im saying.

My wife wouldn't even work in the detox ward at her hospital because the patient going through withdrawals are such a mess she doesn't want to have to listen to the screaming all night.

My neighbor is a drunk and he drinks at least three tall boys a day. When he runs out of it he goes bat shit and destroys his home, happened at least once a month for a wile. 

He cant remember a conversation so you end up taking about the same shit five minutes later, he cant hold a job so his wife works and supports his ass.

I did say more or less meaning its comparable not exactly the same. Regardless, if you look it up most crimes involve alcohol and thats a fact. The study's Im referencing look at the impact of the drug across the board.

More people are drunk when they go to jail than on any other substance. Its not because its more available either its because it suppresses the part of the brain that controls judgment. 
http://www.businessinsider.com/another-look-at-why-alcohol-may-be-more-dangerous-than-heroin-2014-9
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/01/us-drugs-alcohol-idUSTRE6A000O20101101
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/
http://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/feb/22/1
Ill look for the actual study from the british journal of science and post it later if I get around to it.


> Most people know that alcohol can cause problems. But how many realize that 10 percent of all deaths in the United States - including half of all homicides and at least one quarter of all suicides - are related to alcohol? The economic cost to the nation exceeds $100 billion a year. At least 13,000,000 Americans, *about one out of 10,* are alcoholic - the personal cost to them and their families is incalculable.http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/deadly-persuasion-7-myths-alcohol-advertisers-want-you-believe


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

slapshot said:


> ....I did say more or less meaning its comparable not exactly the same......


Backpedaling a little is start. Now just keep going to a full retraction and you may get some credibility back.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Calminian said:


> Sooj, all I can say is you have a bad habit and I guarantee you you're not getting by with it. It's frying your brain and will continue to do so until you stop, which is likely going to be very hard at this point.
> 
> Now you say you're doing 1 gram in 3 weeks and I highly doubt this. Even if true, dude, you need to stop if you really care about your health, and the influence you have.
> 
> It's your life though. I'm sure you'll do what you want and rationalize it.


Nonsense. Utter nonsense. What experience do you have with people using coke in a non-abusive way? You sound like my mother.



DonRifle said:


> Would you admit that you are in the minority of people that would have the self restraint to be able to take it such small doses? Coke is some addictive shit, I would think a very small % of people would be able handle it in the way you have described


Of course. I clearly stated that 99% of coke users are abusive with the stuff. That still doesnt mean we should label coke a devil drug.



Abuse is the problem. The drugs themselves all serve a purpose when used sensibly. That so many people abuse drugs heavily is a wider social issue. The drugs cant be blamed for that.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Nonsense. Utter nonsense. What experience do you have with people using coke in a non-abusive way? You sound like my mother.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tis a fair point you make. But at the same time a difficult argument to present to the majority/public given the rarity of people that could take it on a regular basis and not turn into clowns. I mean theres a reason its class A. If it were up to me alcohol and weed would be class C, and perfectly legal. Reasonably responsible people can take these regularly and not let if affect their life in a negative way. When it comes to the class A's I think the number of people with enough strength of mind to not let it get out of control if taken on a regular basis is vastly smaller. You would need to be a lot more then reasonably responsible in my opinion.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Nonsense. Utter nonsense. What experience do you have with people using coke in a non-abusive way? You sound like my mother.


I'm actually honored to sound like your mother. She sounds very intelligent and you should have listened to her. It's still not too late. 

Sooj, using it is where the abuse starts. It's a killer in society, and knowing that, if you really care, you quit just to remove yourself as a stumbling block to the 99% that are going to be ensnared. 



Soojooko said:


> Of course. I clearly stated that 99% of coke users are abusive with the stuff. That still doesnt mean we should label coke a devil drug.


Yes, that admission right there should tell you that it's much more addictive than alcohol and other drugs and clearly not the same.

And by saying that you totally refute what you said earlier. 



Soojooko said:


> Cocaine does not destroy the lives of those using it. Its the abuse thats bad. .......
> 
> ..... I dont consider any of them worse then the others......


How can you not consider a drug that ensnares 99% of its uses (by your own admission) to be no worse than drugs that only ensure a very small percentage?


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

Mike Tyson used cocaine and it made him a crazy "killer" in the ring.

So now it is proven, Jones do not follow the rules outside of the octagon (drugs) as well as inside the octagon (pokes)
I wonder what Jones uses in addition to cocaine, such a cheater... (once a cheater always a cheater)


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Gustafsson Fan said:


> Mike Tyson used cocaine and it made him a crazy "killer" in the ring.
> 
> So now it is proven, Jones do not follow the rules outside of the octagon (drugs) as well as inside the octagon (pokes)
> I wonder what Jones uses in addition to cocaine, such a cheater... (once a cheater always a cheater)


Yes, but what is your evidence he's using cocaine to enhance his game? Could he have just used it socially and got caught? 

I'm all for condemning cocaine use, but I think we're jumping to way too many conclusions. If he wanted an enhancement drug, there are much better choices.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Calminian said:


> I'm actually honored to sound like your mother. She sounds very intelligent and you should have listened to her. It's still not too late.
> 
> Sooj, using it is where the abuse starts. It's a killer in society, and knowing that, if you really care, you quit just to remove yourself as a stumbling block to the 99% that are going to be ensnared.
> 
> ...


You think after 25 years I'm still expected to turn into a coke fiend? Dont be silly.

The reason coke snares so many users is because of the type of buzz it provides. It lifts. Invigorates. Makes you feel top of the world. More so then a lot of other drugs. The question is, why do so may people feel so down and out to begin with that they chase coke so much? Its a social problem. Most people ( especially in the west ) have such a shitty life with very little joy. Even the rich seem to be constantly un-satisfied with life. For them, coke is the drug that gives them what they need... for a short while.

We need to be asking *why* people feel the need to fill their empty lives with narcotics. If coke didn't exist, you think these psychological and social problems would disappear? No. They would manifest in some other abusive way. Thats what we should be focusing on. Drug abuse is a symptom of a far wider issue. Removing drugs wont change a thing.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> You think after 25 years I'm still expected to turn into a coke fiend? Dont be silly.


I think if you've used coke for 25 years, you're a fiend by definition. 



Soojooko said:


> Most people ( especially in the west ) have such a shitty life with very little joy. Even the rich seem to be constantly un-satisfied with life. For them, coke is the drug that gives them what they need... for a short while.


And yet so many in the west can get by without it. Yet you can't. Does that mean your life is not worth living without coke? Just say'n.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Calminian said:


> I think if you've used coke for 25 years, you're a fiend by definition.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet so many in the west can get by without it. Yet you can't. Does that mean your life is not worth living without coke? Just say'n.


Dont talk nonsense. Thats like calling a dude who drinks a bottle of beer a few times a week for the last 20 years an alcoholic.

You don't seem to be grasping the point. Its clear you dont believe me, so im gonna just back away.


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

Calminian said:


> Yes, but what is your evidence he's using cocaine to enhance his game? Could he have just used it socially and got caught?
> 
> I'm all for condemning cocaine use, but I think we're jumping to way too many conclusions. If he wanted an enhancement drug, there are much better choices.


Dude, it is a psychological advantage when you can act cold and ruthless. You saw the weigh ins, Jones won that mental war against Cormier.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Dont talk nonsense. Thats like calling a dude who drinks a bottle of beer a few times a week for the last 20 years an alcoholic.


But you've already admitted that drinkers are many times less likely to abuse alcohol. You're basically saying that you're this freak of nature that can handle coke every day while the rest of the world can't. 

And of course I believe you. I believe everything your telling me. I just think your conclusions wrong.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Personally ive been able to use coke around 4-5 timss a year on a 1-2 day at a time basis and never develop a serious habit. This has gone on for the last ten years. It is easily possible Jones is also this type of user. Personally I never felt a strong urge to use it daily. Opiates on the other hand...

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

I've got a friend I've know for 30 years. He's always been able to handle coke with no problem. he can do a few lines and put the rest away (a trick I never mastered) he can leave it in his safe for days or weeks without touching it. He doesn't have a problem. Never did. I went with him once to take his wife and baby out of a crackhouse at gunpoint. I've been with him to the hospital twice when she OD'd and once when she had a massive heart attack at age 38. His baby is now 23 and in prison for burglary. But he doesn't have a problem. Never did. And he'll tell you that today. he's probably got an 8ball in his safe right now. Locked away from his wife because she's the one with the problem.

I'll say it again because it's true. Coke isn't more destructive than alcohol it's just faster.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

oldfan said:


> I've got a friend I've know for 30 years. He's always been able to handle coke with no problem. he can do a few lines and put the rest away (a trick I never mastered) he can leave it in his safe for days or weeks without touching it. He doesn't have a problem. Never did. I went with him once to take his wife and baby out of a crackhouse at gunpoint. I've been with him to the hospital twice when she OD'd and once when she had a massive heart attack at age 38. His baby is now 23 and in prison for burglary. But he doesn't have a problem. Never did. And he'll tell you that today. he's probably got an 8ball in his safe right now. Locked away from his wife because she's the one with the problem.
> 
> I'll say it again because it's true. Coke isn't more destructive than alcohol it's just faster.


Well at least we agree it's much more dangerous that drinking, and your story was heartbreaking. For even though this guy could handle it himself (ostensibly), it looks like he's destroyed everyone around him or at least left a door open for them to destroy themselves. 

That said, how are you gaging that it's not to be a problem for him? Does he agree with you? Why isn't he able to keep it away from his loved ones? If it's so easy to control, how did it become so pervasive and damaging to his family? 

It just seems that it ensnares virtually everyone in one way or another. Some may handle it better than others, but none go unpunished.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

The old "X isn't as bad as alcohol" debate.

Alcohol is MUCH worse because alcohol is available to everyone, and in addition is socially acceptable to use and abuse.


----------



## Freiermuth (Nov 19, 2006)

Seems like being a UFC Champ should be rewarding enough without having to do coke, especially at his young age where he shouldn't be bitter at life yet while he's still on top of the world!

I don't think coke a PED but I do think the UFC should have suspended him because its outrageous to get caught using coke before the biggest card of the year.

The UFC could setting itself up for some tough EO type cases if they want to enforce the UFC fighter conduct policy in the future.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Calminian said:


> Well at least we agree it's much more dangerous that drinking, and your story was heartbreaking. For even though this guy could handle it himself (ostensibly), it looks like he's destroyed everyone around him or at least left a door open for them to destroy themselves.
> 
> That said, *how are you gaging that it's not to be a problem for him? * Does he agree with you? Why isn't he able to keep it away from his loved ones? If it's so easy to control, how did it become so pervasive and damaging to his family?
> 
> It just seems that it ensnares virtually everyone in one way or another. Some may handle it better than others, but none go unpunished.


I say he doesn't have a problem sarcastically because he believes it. ...something to do with a river in Egypt?


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

oldfan said:


> I say he doesn't have a problem sarcastically because he believes it. ...something to do with a river in Egypt?


Ah, I see. Pretty sad I missed that, actually. Very well put.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

SmackyBear said:


> Anabolic agents are prohibited at all times, so in competition or out of competition makes no difference.
> 
> In competition is 12 hours before a contest until the end of the contest or the end of the sample collection process for that contest.
> 
> They shouldn't have tested for it using WADA guidelines.


http://www.sherdog.com/radio/Beatdown-Jon-Jones-Discussion-Javier-Vazquez-4087


----------



## Takedown123 (Dec 2, 2014)

Anyone else thinking mask? Big names in sports always get masked unless trainer/training partner tells people about it

Im massive Jones fan also


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Gustafsson Fan said:


> Mike Tyson used cocaine and it made him a crazy "killer" in the ring.
> 
> So now it is proven, Jones do not follow the rules outside of the octagon (drugs) as well as inside the octagon (pokes)
> I wonder what Jones uses in addition to cocaine, such a cheater... (once a cheater always a cheater)


It's not like your favorite fighter is a saint with his 15 months prison time.


----------



## SmackyBear (Feb 14, 2008)

slapshot said:


> Doesn't that give you pause?
> 
> It does me, it smells fishy or incompetent. Also he must have signed a waver er something because IDK how they get around hippa, my wife is a nurse and that law is a pain in the ass.


The incompetence of athletic commissions never ceases to amaze me. He likely waived any possible confidentiality when he applied for a fight license.

The NSAC has admitted they were wrong to test for drugs of abuse, but of course they don't yet know how it happened.

This is obviously a side-note, but this just shows why GSP was right to question the NSAC "enhanced" program. They make stupid mistakes and don't have systems in place to take care of them. VADA would have been a much better choice.



Voiceless said:


> Why did they test for it then anyways¿ Usually testing becomes more expensive the more substances the lab has to look for as different testing methods have to be used. Maybe they just have this testing package.
> 
> And why were the results made public when they didn't show any breaking of rules¿


Why test anyway? Because they're incompetent.

Why release the results? Public records request.



slapshot said:


> http://www.sherdog.com/radio/Beatdown-Jon-Jones-Discussion-Javier-Vazquez-4087


I'd listen, but don't have two hours to do so at the moment. Any particular part exceptionally interesting?


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

Ape City said:


> Personally ive been able to use coke around 4-5 timss a year on a 1-2 day at a time basis and never develop a serious habit. This has gone on for the last ten years. It is easily possible Jones is also this type of user. Personally I never felt a strong urge to use it daily. Opiates on the other hand...
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Apparently more than one test was positive for it.

Also I believe you'll only test positive for coke like a few days after use unless you are a regular user.

Bloody elbow just did a write up on Jones' hormone levels as well, which is quite interesting seeing as it's the same thing that got Overeem in so much trouble.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/1/7...petition-drug-tests-all-show-abnormal-hormone

For anyone interested in that.


----------



## SmackyBear (Feb 14, 2008)

Life B Ez said:


> Apparently more than one test was positive for it.
> 
> Also I believe you'll only test positive for coke like a few days after use unless you are a regular user.
> 
> ...


I'm amazed so many writers still are so ignorant of hormone levels and doping, but still feel the need to write about the technical aspects of it.



> His T:E levels of .35 .29 and .19 raise flags, but it is the actual levels of hormone detected which raise more questions.


Those "levels" of ".35 .29 and .19" only raise flage if he's been significantly higher in the past. By themselves, they raise no flags.



> On what appears to be his first test of December 4th, Jones testosterone levels measured at 59ng/dL. The normal range is 300ng/dL to 1100ng/dL. His epitestosterone levels measured at 170ng/dL. The normal range for epitestosterone is similar to that of testosterone.
> 
> On what appears to be his second test of that day, his testosterone levels had risen significantly to 180ng/dL, which is much closer to normal. His epitestosterone levels had also risen to 610ng/dL, which is perfectly normal.


This is a urine test, which mainly measures testosterone glucorinide, but he's comparing it to the standard reference range to serum levels of testosterone. I mean, I don't even know where to begin, or have an analogy about how pointless that is.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

SmackyBear said:


> The incompetence of athletic commissions never ceases to amaze me. He likely waived any possible confidentiality when he applied for a fight license.
> 
> The NSAC has admitted they were wrong to test for drugs of abuse, but of course they don't yet know how it happened.
> 
> ...


I really like TJ, it's just a good talk about the situation.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> The old "X isn't as bad as alcohol" debate.
> 
> Alcohol is MUCH worse because alcohol is available to everyone, and in addition is socially acceptable to use and abuse.


It's also terrible for your body. It's fairly hard to die from an overdose without contraindication issues but long-term regular abuse will damage every organ in your body and resulting complications are one of the leading causes of death in the states. As you mentioned, the societal pervasiveness and acceptance also means there are simply many more serious abusers than essentially any other drug (aside from nicotine).

Regarding other drugs: let's keep in mind that the people who don't get busted and don't let their lives spiral out of control simply don't get reported on, just like people who can go out for drinks on the weekend and have fun without ruining their existences.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

slapshot said:


> Bullshit...
> 
> We had a teen die like a year ago from drinking too much and it was her first time drinking...
> 
> ...


Most of your post is pointing towards the amount of alcoholics compared to cocaine addicts. Clearly alcohol will be more given it is legal and widely available to the general public. You could argue Cocaine is too, but most people don't want to commit a felony (most states).

Most first time alcohol drinkers will not die from alcohol poisoning. I've actually never even seen that. I have seen Cocaine OD's and heart attacks from novice users.

I also disagree most people who go to jail are drunk. I think about half or more of people who go to jail (especially for violent crimes) are on stimulants (meth, cocaine, ect). This could be an area thing, but it's what I've seen.


----------



## N1™ (Apr 8, 2007)

i read somewhere but i cant find it now that the substance in cocain that is illigal is the same substance that gets a hit when doing some sort of recovery steroid. If this is true, and i cant find the quote so dont put any money on it, then one could ask if its better to admit to cocain use


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

oldfan said:


> I've got a friend I've know for 30 years. He's always been able to handle coke with no problem. he can do a few lines and put the rest away (a trick I never mastered) he can leave it in his safe for days or weeks without touching it. He doesn't have a problem. Never did. I went with him once to take his wife and baby out of a crackhouse at gunpoint. I've been with him to the hospital twice when she OD'd and once when she had a massive heart attack at age 38. His baby is now 23 and in prison for burglary. But he doesn't have a problem. Never did. And he'll tell you that today. he's probably got an 8ball in his safe right now. Locked away from his wife because she's the one with the problem.
> 
> I'll say it again because it's true. Coke isn't more destructive than alcohol it's just faster.


Yup. Opiates take 1 year to ruin your life. Cocaine takes 1-2. Alcohol takes 20 years but it will still ruin your life.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

SmackyBear said:


> Life B Ez said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently more than one test was positive for it.
> ...


Well two doctors that MMAjunkie did an interview with said that levels that low should call for further testing. That levels that low can indicate dilution or the use of a masking agent.

I'd rather the guy not be juicing, but if he is I'd like to see further tests and it not just be ignored.


----------



## JASONJRF (Nov 3, 2009)

Bonnar426 said:


> I never understood why people would ever want to touch that shit. Its a good time that will send you to an early grave.


I did cocaine for a long time long being 8 months or so and I had basically unlimited amounts I would do an 8ball a day which is a lot stay up for 3 days at a time sometimes which is rare on coke. The thing is I just decieded to stop one day was sick of it. basically slept for a long day then that was it you don't get physically sick from stopping coke. You can get somewhat addicted and the lifestyle can be addicting. Coke Leaves your body very fast it also creates a metabolite so it would be very interesting to know if he got caught with the drug in his system or the metabolite. This would absolutely explain why it was easy for him to make weight this time and was talking about 185. 

Probably don't need full blown rehab for coke. But yea if he had the drug in his system post fight test 

He was definetly using during fight week and was probably using daily, and almost definetly on fight night he was probably high, I say that because it makes sense why he couldn't get comfortable in the locker room and went out to sign autographs for fans. In his head he probably wanted to get away from coaches and probably went and blew a rail in the bathroom then went into the audience signing autographs. This all makes perfect sense if you know coke well.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

HexRei said:


> It's also terrible for your body. It's fairly hard to die from an overdose without contraindication issues but long-term regular abuse will damage every organ in your body and resulting complications are one of the leading causes of death in the states. As you mentioned, the societal pervasiveness and acceptance also means there are simply many more serious abusers than essentially any other drug (aside from nicotine).
> 
> Regarding other drugs: let's keep in mind that the people who don't get busted and don't let their lives spiral out of control simply don't get reported on, just like people who can go out for drinks on the weekend and have fun without ruining their existences.


On that stand point, you'd have to include people dying from Es or the chances of your coke being cut with something potentially lethal.

If you want to go numbers of people who drink with no problems Vs number of people who take drugs with no problems, drink is MUCH better.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

SmackyBear said:


> This is a urine test, which mainly measures testosterone glucorinide, but he's comparing it to the standard reference range to serum levels of testosterone. I mean, I don't even know where to begin, or have an analogy about how pointless that is.


It's like asking someone for the time and he replies "It's 3AM in Indonesia".


----------



## SmackyBear (Feb 14, 2008)

Life B Ez said:


> Well two doctors that MMAjunkie did an interview with said that levels that low should call for further testing. That levels that low can indicate dilution or the use of a masking agent.
> 
> I'd rather the guy not be juicing, but if he is I'd like to see further tests and it not just be ignored.


They could. We'd know for sure if the NSAC keeps a longitudinal steroid profile on the athletes they test like other organizations do.

Then a highly unusual T:E ratio (from his average) would trigger an atypical passport finding (APF) and an APF would trigger a confirmation procedure, in this case a carbon isotope ratio test.

But the NSAC is terrible. So we don't yet know if his normal T:E ratio is in the range shown, or much higher.



Hammerlock2.0 said:


> It's like asking someone for the time and he replies "It's 3AM in Indonesia".


That's actually pretty good. For some reason I kept coming up with half of a gardening analogy, which is weird because I don't know anything about gardening, so I could never come up with a second half. I wonder what that says about me. Anyway, here's a +rep.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

slapshot said:


> You are referencing news articles ROFL. Try actual studies by scientists.


Ok but then



slapshot said:


> Bullshit...
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/another-look-at-why-alcohol-may-be-more-dangerous-than-heroin-2014-9
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/01/us-drugs-alcohol-idUSTRE6A000O20101101
> ...


ROFL you're referencing news articles, try actual studies by scientists. 

Oh wait there aren't any "scientific statistics" because Cocaine is ILLEGAL. Yay let's just go out and conduct an informal survey about who is using ILLEGAL drugs and get usage / harm statistics, I'm sure those honest drug users will just fess up and risk going to jail or being caught in a sting for the integrity of your mythical statistical collection on illegal drugs. Talk about ridiculous expectations.

The most you'll find is the occasional manipulative / partisan nonsense about Alcohol being more harmful "overall" because of it's wider availability. No shit, it's about availability, read my car deaths analogy again for perspective. It has zero bearing on how harmful cocaine would be IF it was just as easily available. Common sense on it's effects and addictiveness shows it would be an order of a magnitude higher than alcohol if the SAME NUMBER of people used each.

An example is the Nutt "study" quoted in every single pro-coke news article that compares such "overall" wide usage harm against tiny usage harm for hard drugs, what crock. Hmm a psychiatrist pushing drugs, no that can't be biased either. All your articles are essentially the same hogwash study comparing apples to oranges data, we don't need 4 separate links to the same thing.



slapshot said:


> I was talking about alcohol not coke...


Why?? You said prohibition doesn't work, then only limit your observation to another, far less addictive drug than the one in question. Cocaine was UBIQUITOUS before it was banned, read your history. It was in kids tooth drops, OTC cures, everywhere! Everyday folks were addicted and suffering from cravings and overdoses, instead of a handful of stars and hardcore partiers in seedy motel rooms. How has prohibition not worked in this case? You think Meth should be allowed to be marketed to little kids and grandmas for homework and knitting? 

Users always argue "freedom of choice" for these things but never realise how little "choice" people are actually given in their daily lives when something is legally marketable, and how much is actually controlled coercion through advertising, lobbying, prescriptions, behavior manipulation and societal trends. You really think people would listen to garbage like Justin Beiber, One direction and Miley Cyrus if it wasn't forced down their throat with billions in marketing? Horrible as these guys are, they don't kill people, so the coercion can be acceptable. Back in the days when it was legal, Hollywood stars used to endorse and trend cocaine in family movies. 

I'm not saying individual consumption should be criminialised, but you clearly have no idea what mass legalisation and marketing of such a heavily addictive and inhibition reducing substance would mean. 



> Again im not saying coke is good for you, Im saying alcohol is more or less just as bad.


And I'm saying that claim is obvious bullshit based on your OWN and every other self admitted user on this thread's common sense observation that *99%* of it's users will end up addicted with no willpower over it, as opposed to less than 5% with alcohol. Practically all of the people I know drink a beer now and then, and only a handful are alcoholics or have been in any harm or danger due to it in their lives whatsoever, yet as I mentioned, 100% of *regular* coke users I know got addicted and went overboard.

Yet you continue to argue based on wide availability of a less lethal substance and not grasping the concept of per-capita harm. 



slapshot said:


> I dont have any coke heads in my family but I do have a shit load of alcoholics.


Same availability thing. How many people in your family actually used coke regularly? Tell you what, to grasp the concept of per capita, give EVERY adult member of your family cocaine regularly, then compare the numbers (actually let's not, because I bear them no ill will). Until then, this is pointless.



oldfan said:


> I'll say it again because it's true. Coke isn't more destructive than alcohol it's just faster.


Where's the logic in that self-contradicting statement? If something kills you faster _that means it's more destructive_ by definition. 

If a nuclear fallout kills me in 1 hour due to radiation poisoning, and a McDonalds happy meal every day kills me in 10 years with a heart attack, isn't it obvious which one is more destructive? Would you rather take a walk through Chernobyl or hazard eating a happy meal with your kid?



Soojooko said:


> Absolutely. I wouldn't be saying this shit otherwise. Ive been using coke for 25 years. Very small doses. For example, a gram can last me 3 weeks. Granted, 99% of coke users can hoover up that amount in 1 hour, which is terrible for you. But that's no different to necking half a bottle of Whiskey in an hour.
> 
> Point is, all drugs are pretty fecking cool when used properly. Alchohol. Opium. Cocaine. Weed. etc. The fundamental problem is abuse, which fecks you up regardless of the drug choice. I dont consider any of them worse then the others.


You yourself state 99% of people wouldn't be able to control it or act responsibly with it, yet somehow we should legalise it for this mythical one percent that can supposedly use it in moderation and damn the remainder of the world to addiction, recklessness and death? Why? So the 1% can get their buzz? Where's the logic?

Seriously, with all these responses I feel like I'm arguing with habits and rationalisations, not logic i.e. wasting my time.


----------



## JASONJRF (Nov 3, 2009)

It's funny people are arguing if Coke is worse then alcohol and vice versa. Let me tell you guys some things about drugs that you may not know. First off there has been propaganda for years for a war on drugs in the US. That doesnt work and it's bullshit you should not put non violent drug users in prison for drugs you just shouldn't.

Next there are actually way way more casual users of drugs including Extasy, Acid. Alcohol, Mushrooms, Pot, and even Coke and Crack then there are addicts. There are a lot of people who go to the bar once a week or month or 3 months get drunk then at bar close grab a bag of coke go home with some friends get zooted then don't touch it again for another couple weeks/months/6 months. There is nothing wrong with that it's called moderation.

Alcohol getting drunk once or twice a month is not terrible. But if you start getting to the point of drinking a liter or gallon of vodka a day you cannot stop you are a full blown addict and if you stop cold turkey you will have seizures and probably die that is from alcohol.

Coke nothing wrong with doing a line or a gram of coke once in a great while especially if your too drunk because that shit sobers you up from blackout drunk to sober like you would not believe. But if you start doing a teen 1.75 to a ball 3.5 grams a day or more you have a bit of an issue you will drastically lose weight and look unhealthy and it's just not good.

So neither one is good or bad it's the person and how they use it this goes for all drugs.

There is a war on drugs. That is so ******* dumb it's unbelievable. Waging a war on something that can't think reason or give up which means the war will never end it's an excuse to keep people in prison. Waging a war on drugs when the worst drug dealers are Doctors prescribing OC's, Percocet, Vicoden, Roxycotin, Xanax, colonopin, sometimes together in amounts to people that would kill them if they had not been doing them for a long time. They overprescribe the shit out of them but they want a war on pot and other drugs when more people are killed by cigarettes and alcohol every year. ******* dumb.

SO people saying **** jones cause he did coke whatever, doing drugs does not make you a bad person in fact some of the nicest people I have met have been drug users. Some of the most nice down to earth kind people I know use drugs not addicts but recreation-ally. There is nothing wrong with it. What gives one adult the right to tell another something they enjoy and do in private is not ok? As long as you are not hurting anyone no one should judge or tell you what you are doing is bad or wrong.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

JASONJRF said:


> It's funny people are arguing if Coke is worse then alcohol and vice versa. Let me tell you guys some things about drugs that you may not know. First off there has been propaganda for years for a war on drugs in the US. That doesnt work and it's bullshit you should not put non violent drug users in prison for drugs you just shouldn't.
> 
> Next there are actually way way more casual users of drugs including Extasy, Acid. Alcohol, Mushrooms, Pot, and even Coke and Crack then there are addicts. There are a lot of people who go to the bar once a week or month or 3 months get drunk then at bar close grab a bag of coke go home with some friends get zooted then don't touch it again for another couple weeks/months/6 months. There is nothing wrong with that it's called moderation.
> 
> ...


No one that I can see in this thread is arguing for the war on drugs or criminalisation of individual consumption and possession of small quantities, which is what the war on drugs is. 

However there is a massive difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. People don't seem to grasp this difference. 

Decriminalisation means people wouldn't be thrown in jail for years for being found with an 8 ball. I support decriminalisation and think the war on drugs is stupid and more about a power grab. I also agree 100% with your sentiment on doctors being the biggest drugdealers, and pharma cos being the biggest drug cartels, but legalising the rest wouldn't make things better, it'd make it much worse. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Legalisation would mean you would see ads on TV selling heroin as a headache cure (again), free meth injections could be handed out at bars by chicks flaunting cleavage, you could have strawberry flavored cocaine with ads targeting 13 year olds but of course they would need "IDs" to get it from the corner gas station, so impossible to do right? 

That's what legalisation means. It's not that hard to imagine, every single one of these techniques is in use with tobacco and alcohol. Frankly I think it's ridiculous to think hard drugs being pushed so heavily would somehow have fewer effects than these milder and slower acting kiddie substances in comparison.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

Posting in the "Cocaine vs. Alcohol" thread.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

N1™;3090362 said:


> i read somewhere but i cant find it now that the substance in cocain that is illigal is the same substance that gets a hit when doing some sort of recovery steroid. If this is true, and i cant find the quote so dont put any money on it, then one could ask if its better to admit to cocain use


Thats the thing about coke. The media and the governments tell us over and over how cocaine is bad for you. But then you read the police reports regards large busts and its commonly reported that mainstream cocaine rarely has more then 10% actual cocaine. In some cases, theres no cocaine at all. Just a concoction of god knows what pharmaceuticals.

So, I ask... if Cocaine has no cocaine in it, then what exactly is bad for us? All the people in this thread that talk with such confidence that cocaine is bad - how do you know, considering the majority of what is consumed is other chemicals. Very bad chemicals I might add. Doing a gram of Novocaine every day will f*uck you up far quicker then a gram of pure coke. Same goes for just about every cutting agent they use.

Personally, I pay 3x the street price for some stuff from a dude ive known for a long time. He lets me have it before it gets cut. But even then, im probably only getting around 60% purity at best. I have my methods of cleaning out the rest of the shit. Whats left over is a million miles away - effect wise - from the shit that most people do. Its god damn lovely is what it is. Makes me want to hug everybody as opposed to kicking my dog.



Liddellianenko said:


> You yourself state 99% of people wouldn't be able to control it or act responsibly with it, yet somehow we should legalise it for this mythical one percent that can supposedly use it in moderation and damn the remainder of the world to addiction, recklessness and death? Why? So the 1% can get their buzz? Where's the logic?


My point was mainly that drug abuse is a social issue. If the world was a well balanced society ( dont laugh ) with absolutely good parenting, education and health, I don't believe they would have anywhere near the drug issues, even if it was all legally available. I think that substance abuse is a symptom of wider social issues. If we removed coke from the planet, these issues would still exist and manifest in other ways. So, targeting the drugs as the problem wont fix anything. In a nutshell, drugs are an escape mechanism. So why do so many people feel the need to escape from their lives consistently?

To be clear, im not saying im better then anybody else. My coke use might be sensible. But I suffer with weed and coffee. I cant seem to control those two, sadly.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

What gets me about this is that the UFC usually has a "no tolerance" approach to things that fighters do that could affect the UFC brand. Jones being a high profile UFC fighter muddies that stance somewhat, but i'd have thought the UFC would have taken a harder stance on this (whilst still supporting Jones).

Its not a huge deal in my eyes though. Wouldn't be surprised to see Gustaffson/Johnson made into an interim title fight. . .


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Soojooko said:


> My point was mainly that drug abuse is a social issue. If the world was a well balanced society ( dont laugh ) with absolutely good parenting, education and health, I don't believe they would have anywhere near the drug issues, even if it was all legally available. I think that substance abuse is a symptom of wider social issues. If we removed coke from the planet, these issues would still exist and manifest in other ways. So, targeting the drugs as the problem wont fix anything. In a nutshell, drugs are an escape mechanism. So why do so many people feel the need to escape from their lives consistently?
> 
> To be clear, im not saying im better then anybody else. My coke use might be sensible. But I suffer with weed and coffee. I cant seem to control those two, sadly.


Of course, agreed 100%. Drugs and substance abuse is an escape from real world problems, and the biggest addicts are the ones trying to make up for issues and sadness in their lives.

But the world will never be perfect. Well, not without some sort of cataclysmic spiritual apocalypse type thing with everything we know rebuilt from scratch. Other than that, the world is what it is. 

In a tragic, imperfect world, there will ALWAYS be misery and sadness, bad parenting and social imbalances, broken families and broken relationships, as there will always be avenues for happiness within these inequalities and problems. The solution is not to say, "well let's not fix these drugs that make a bad situation worse, lets make the world perfect instead!". Well good luck with that.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> Of course, agreed 100%. Drugs and substance abuse is an escape from real world problems, and the biggest addicts are the ones trying to make up for issues and sadness in their lives.
> 
> But the world will never be perfect. Well, not without some sort of cataclysmic spiritual apocalypse type thing with everything we know rebuilt from scratch. Other than that, the world is what it is.
> 
> In a tragic, imperfect world, there will ALWAYS be misery and sadness, bad parenting and social imbalances, broken families and broken relationships, as there will always be avenues for happiness within these inequalities and problems. The solution is not to say, "well let's not fix these drugs that make a bad situation worse, lets make the world perfect instead!". Well good luck with that.


Agreed. Its impossible to fix really. But what do we do? If we ban drugs, people will get high on something else. It'll be glue and gas canisters. We cant ban everything that gives people a buzz. Thats impossible too. So really, we're doomed.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Well Coke makes you're body produce less so how is this news or even worth talking about?



> Engorgement of the penis with blood is necessary for erection to occur and it is believed that cocaine may affect erection by lessening pelvic blood flow during arousal. *Cocaine affects sexual desire by inhibiting the release of LH (a hormone that stimulates the testicles to produce testosterone). **With lowered levels of testosterone*, both sexual desire and sperm production may decrease.http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-04-21/news/9304220220_1_cocaine-sexual-desire-sperm


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Soojooko said:


> Agreed. Its impossible to fix really. But what do we do? If we ban drugs, people will get high on something else. It'll be glue and gas canisters. We cant ban everything that gives people a buzz. Thats impossible too. So really, we're doomed.


Drugs already are banned, so the question isn't "if" we banned them. Well they're banned apart from medical prescriptions and such, which although I agree are overprescribed and totally for profit, it's still a better situation than just being able to buy meth from a gas station. 

The point is not to eliminate drug use, as you said that's an impossibility and people who really really want it will find ways to get it. That's why I said the war on drugs is stupid and more about power. 

The point is to keep people from being misled into thinking hard drugs are "normal" and being marketed as such which would exponentially multiply their acceptance and consequent addictions. This isn't hypothetical, this is history, these synthetic drugs were all once unregulated in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and pushed on everyone with major corporate marketing muscle. There is definitely a huge difference in a few guys huffing paint on their own and ads for heroin being shown during the superbowl and distributed freely during public events and parties.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Turning point is, as in the Sonnen case, *Jones was busted*, and only because of that, he comes forward with this "rehab need acknowledgement" and gets people praising him for his "honesty and bravery" in dealing with the cold facts of his life he didn't disclose by his free will in the first place.


----------



## JASONJRF (Nov 3, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> No one that I can see in this thread is arguing for the war on drugs or criminalisation of individual consumption and possession of small quantities, which is what the war on drugs is.
> 
> However there is a massive difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. People don't seem to grasp this difference.
> 
> ...


You're right no one is directly arguing for that. However when I see that someone tested positive for coke and actually he didn't test positive for coke I found out he tested positive for the Metabolite from doing it that your body makes. Anyway a lot of people were very negative at anyone that does drugs on here. Some were disgusted by the thought of someone doing drugs like that. That leeds me to believe someone who is that negative is super super anti drug. I don't want to debate it whatever. It just sucks that people believe all the bullshit propoganda that has been placed on drugs not all of them but Coke and crack especially has a bad rap. They were putting people in Prison for life for crack that would be like a 4th or 5th degree felony if it was coke. That is propoganda. Pot is another one. So it just sucks that I see a forum with so many young people on it that still perpetuate or believe the BS that they feed us about it. 

Im not pro drug I'm just pro people should be able to do what they want as long as there not hurting anyone

I won't comment on this again though other then about jones or testing as it is not the thread subject so sorry for derailing it if I did.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> Turning point is, as in the Sonnen case, *Jones was busted*, and only because of that, he comes forward with this "rehab need acknowledgement" and gets people praising him for his "honesty and bravery" in dealing with the cold facts of his life he didn't disclose by his free will in the first place.


This is another reason I think he has to be stripped of the title. He is only doing the right thing now that he really doesn't have a choice.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> Drugs already are banned, so the question isn't "if" we banned them. Well they're banned apart from medical prescriptions and such, which although I agree are overprescribed and totally for profit, it's still a better situation than just being able to buy meth from a gas station.
> 
> The point is not to eliminate drug use, as you said that's an impossibility and people who really really want it will find ways to get it. That's why I said the war on drugs is stupid and more about power.
> 
> The point is to keep people from being misled into thinking hard drugs are "normal" and being marketed as such which would exponentially multiply their acceptance and consequent addictions. This isn't hypothetical, this is history, these synthetic drugs were all once unregulated in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and pushed on everyone with major corporate marketing muscle. There is definitely a huge difference in a few guys huffing paint on their own and ads for heroin being shown during the superbowl and distributed freely during public events and parties.


To clarify, I agree that making people believe drugs are "normal" is not a good way to proceed. I think thats the case for all drugs. But each and every one of them have a context where they are very useful. I very rarely do coke in a social setting. I use it to aid me where it can, and it works a treat. They should be presented as medicinal. Controlled and used in the right circumstances. None of them are bad when not abused. That's the crux of my argument.

Ive seen opium used to calm a deeply distressed friend after a death in the family. I gave my missus a few specks of coke ( we are talking probably about 1/300th of a gram ) when she got into a situation where she was a 6 hour drive away from home and an emergency called her back at 3am. If she tried to drive without any help, it would have been dangerous for her. She got home comfortably and without any fatigue. She didnt do enough to feel buzzed. Simpy awake. Its in these situations where drugs are fabulous.

The blanket term "drugs are bad" is ignorant. Not aimed at you dude. But some of the other arguments in this thread are totally ignorant of the considerable benefits when used sensibly.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> No one that I can see in this thread is arguing for the war on drugs or criminalisation of individual consumption and possession of small quantities, which is what the war on drugs is.
> 
> However there is a massive difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. People don't seem to grasp this difference.
> 
> ...


There are actually laws specifically regulating how tobacco and alcohol can be marketed. When was the last time you saw a tobacco ad on TV? Most cities have laws against being drunk in the street and many states now outlaw smoking in public venues. No reason such laws could not be extended to currently scheduled drugs.

I think there would be a net benefit to grappling with these issues of limiting marketing and corraling use to certain locations and situations as opposed to our current policies of locking up and labeling a huge segment of our populace for any and all use.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

JASONJRF said:


> You're right no one is directly arguing for that. However when I see that someone tested positive for coke and actually he didn't test positive for coke I found out he tested positive for the Metabolite from doing it that your body makes. Anyway a lot of people were very negative at anyone that does drugs on here. Some were disgusted by the thought of someone doing drugs like that. That leeds me to believe someone who is that negative is super super anti drug. I don't want to debate it whatever. It just sucks that people believe all the bullshit propoganda that has been placed on drugs not all of them but Coke and crack especially has a bad rap. They were putting people in Prison for life for crack that would be like a 4th or 5th degree felony if it was coke. That is propoganda. Pot is another one. So it just sucks that I see a forum with so many young people on it that still perpetuate or believe the BS that they feed us about it.
> 
> Im not pro drug I'm just pro people should be able to do what they want as long as there not hurting anyone
> 
> I won't comment on this again though other then about jones or testing as it is not the thread subject so sorry for derailing it if I did.


My wife is a nurse and Im hear to tell you its not bullshit, drugs are bad ummm k.

Wile you do have to be careful of where your info comes from, there can be no debate over if they are good for you, they arn't and they all have risks. 

The only drug I can say is not a real serious health risk is Marijuana and even that has risks for some people and can cause cancer (as well as help fight specific types of cancer) anything you inhale thats hot burns silia, its still not as hard on the lungs as smoking cigarettes. 

All drugs should be decriminalized, every person should have the right to make their own choices to a point. 

Treatment and awareness should be the focus, not incarceration.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I'm still very much in shock at how the UFC quickly tried to paper over the situation. I guarantee that if this was an in competition positive test Jones would've been stripped of the title period. Now Jones is in rehab and there's controversy.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Soojooko said:


> To clarify, I agree that making people believe drugs are "normal" is not a good way to proceed. I think thats the case for all drugs. But each and every one of them have a context where they are very useful. I very rarely do coke in a social setting. I use it to aid me where it can, and it works a treat. They should be presented as medicinal. Controlled and used in the right circumstances. None of them are bad when not abused. That's the crux of my argument.
> 
> Ive seen opium used to calm a deeply distressed friend after a death in the family. I gave my missus a few specks of coke ( we are talking probably about 1/300th of a gram ) when she got into a situation where she was a 6 hour drive away from home and an emergency called her back at 3am. If she tried to drive without any help, it would have been dangerous for her. She got home comfortably and without any fatigue. She didnt do enough to feel buzzed. Simpy awake. Its in these situations where drugs are fabulous.
> 
> The blanket term "drugs are bad" is ignorant. Not aimed at you dude. But some of the other arguments in this thread are totally ignorant of the considerable benefits when used sensibly.


I sort of agree with your context, that's why notice I've been saying "synthetic drugs" the whole time. 

It's not the natural substances that are terrible, it's the concentrations and easy ability, heck almost guarantee, to ruin yourself on them that are. 

The limits you are imposing on yourself - tiny fractions of a gram etc., buying from a dealer with less dangerous adulteration, trying to filter further on your own with no real guarantee of success - what are you really trying to get in the end? Just what nature gave you! Essentially what you're looking for is a Coca leaf.



> Traditional medical uses of coca are foremost as a stimulant to overcome fatigue, hunger, and thirst. It is considered particularly effective against altitude sickness.





> The alkaloid content of coca leaves is low, between 0.25% and 0.77%. This means that chewing the leaves or drinking coca tea does not produce the intense high (euphoria, megalomania, depression) people experience with cocaine.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca

People have used pure poppy milk (what heroin, morphine and opium and synthesised from) for pain relief for millennia. You can never OD or create uncontrollable dependency on actual coca leaves, natural weed, shrooms, or pure homegrown tobacco. The rate at which your system digests and absorbs them, along with the enzymes contained in the original form, will guarantee that they serve the purpose without much of the harmful side we associate with "drugs". And yes, people in South America have used coca leaves for the type of purpose you mentioned with your wife for thousands of years without the risk of serious addiction that you're still running. Sure there is still some minor judgement needed with the natural substances, but they're not ticking time bombs like hard drugs are. 

It's what pharma does to these things to make them profitable that makes them "hard". You mention all the chemicals and adulterants in coke that make it terrible, have you ever had the chance to look at the hundreds of chemicals added to a simple cigarette? 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040350/



> Our findings indicated that more than 100 of 599 *documented cigarette additives* have pharmacological actions that camouflage the odor of environmental tobacco smoke emitted from cigarettes, enhance or maintain nicotine delivery, could *increase the addictiveness of cigarettes*, and *mask symptoms and illnesses associated with smoking behaviors*.


Those douches! The whole classification of pure natural substances as controlled "drugs" is alongside these big pharma monstrosities concentrated and adulterated for profit is what's ridiculous IMO. 

I don't believe in legalising and mass availability of hard pharmaceutical drugs the way people campaign for that on the basis of liberty. These things are traps specifically DESIGNED for profit and abuse, it takes an inhuman amount of willpower to use them like you say you are, and still the risks are there as you acknowledge.

In that same vein, I believe classification and banning of the natural substances with their legitimate uses alongside them is a travesty. It's a move to deceive people and create the artificial need for the monstrous for-profit synthetic versions in the first place.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> I sort of agree with your context, that's why notice I've been saying "synthetic drugs" the whole time.
> 
> It's not the natural substances that are terrible, it's the concentrations and easy ability, heck almost guarantee, to ruin yourself on them that are.
> 
> ...


Spot on. I'm always searching for the cleanest most natural goods. I only smoke organic weed. Wont touch any kind of pill unless I know 100% its contents = basically never. I certainly prefer mushrooms over LSD. Salvia over DMT. etc

I totally agree with the rest. The constant refining of drugs into super strong concoctions is not good. Plus, the powers that be will ban just about anything not-patentable. The moment they manage to synthesize anything, suddenly it'll be ok. They've been trying to synthesize THC for well over a decade and clearly cant do it.

I find that any drugs that dont mess with the sheep like materialist consumerist lifestyle tend to be left be. Alcohol being the main culprit. Nobody ever got pissed and talked of freedom and revolution. Weed is far more dangerous to the status quo.

But anyhoo... I do believe there is an agenda with drugs that has nothing do do with our health, even though its always presented as concern for us. Reality is that securing patents and profits is the actual driving force. Im totally with you there breh.


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)




----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

I agree with liddellianenko 1000%. The chemicals, synthetics and concentrates are what get you. Makes me wonder about dabs (concentrated cannabis). My friends do it daily and I think maybe it's a bad idea.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

And Wanderlei is banned for life for skipping a test while Jones gets zero scratch for this. Some said skipping a test is no joke, well, apparently using cocaine is lighter than that before the commission.


----------



## Hellboy (Mar 15, 2008)

_RIVAL_ said:


> I remember Jones saying in an interview that he hopes that Daniel Cormier is sitting somewhere crying after the loss...
> 
> 
> Karma's a bitch isn't it Johnny...


Cormier was sitting in a corner crying after the fight. 

Cormier also lost to a drugged up Jones with the T levels of a 6 year old boy.


----------



## amoosenamedhank (Sep 2, 2009)

Hellboy said:


> Cormier was sitting in a corner crying after the fight.
> 
> Cormier also lost to a drugged up Jones with the T levels of a 6 year old boy.


It will be interesting to see if synthetic T is in his system.. showing that he suppressed his T levels giving him the strange T/E ratio results. 

More than one expert has already chimed in saying levels that low should have raised as many flags as a high result.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Word is Jones isn't even in rehab, he's at his home.











But seriously, that is the rumor.


----------



## amoosenamedhank (Sep 2, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Word is Jones isn't even in rehab, he's at his home.


Well as someone else joked about earlier... he didn't go to rehab... he went to celebrity rehab. Which consists of showing up, getting a good night sleep and going home in the morning after a so-so breakfast.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

I also think this whole "rehab" is a cover up circus and UFC is protecting Jones ass because his supplier is Dana White Powder.


----------



## amoosenamedhank (Sep 2, 2009)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> I also think this whole "rehab" is a cover up circus and UFC is protecting Jones ass because his supplier is Dana White Powder.


I wouldn't be surprised if Jones did half those lines with Uncle Dana now that you mention it. :confused02:


----------



## Pillowhands (Mar 10, 2012)

I could not care less if DanaWhite and L Fertitta are doing coke and use PED, but I was expecting more from Jones.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

amoosenamedhank said:


> ...More than one expert has already chimed in saying levels that low should have raised as many flags as a high result.


Who are these experts. I keep missing this part of the story.


----------



## amoosenamedhank (Sep 2, 2009)

Calminian said:


> Who are these experts. I keep missing this part of the story.


I can't find the original article that I read that listed a couple of different Dr's but here is another article listing one of them from the original article. 

One of the experts recognized was Dr. Don Catlin former 25 year director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory.



> e Jon Jones drug testing situation is, among other things, a disaster. It's also not done unfolding, not by a long shot. Yet, already, there are some lessons that can be learned. This list is by no means definitive or complete, but here are ten that should be considered.
> 
> Star-divide
> 
> ...


Source


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

This is just abig mess that shows that things in MMA still are not all straightened out.


----------



## Takedown123 (Dec 2, 2014)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> And Wanderlei is banned for life for skipping a test while Jones gets zero scratch for this. Some said skipping a test is no joke, well, apparently using cocaine is lighter than that before the commission.


All about milking the cash cow


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

At this moment I would like to thank all my virtual friends in MMAF who were so kind to provide all sorts of tips on how to make "safe" use of "top quality" drugs and provide back my own modest advice: *Stop using drugs, folks*. Come kick my butt on these threads instead. :thumb02:


----------



## Mirage445 (Dec 20, 2006)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> At this moment I would like to thank all my virtual friends in MMAF who were so kind to provide all sorts of tips on how to make "safe" use of "top quality" drugs and provide back my own modest advice: *Stop using drugs, folks*. Come kick my butt on these threads instead. :thumb02:


I'll drink to that! :thumbsup:


:thumb02:


----------



## King Daisuke (Mar 25, 2013)

HexRei said:


> Word is Jones isn't even in rehab, he's at his home.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





amoosenamedhank said:


> Well as someone else joked about earlier... he didn't go to rehab... he went to celebrity rehab. Which consists of showing up, getting a good night sleep and going home in the morning after a so-so breakfast.


Like I said, that's how it goes. Celebrity rehab is some serious shit! :laugh:


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

Terror Kovenant said:


>


That is funny.

I can't even tell if Jon Jones should be punished for testing positive to something that isn't performance enhancing anymore.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Trix said:


> That is funny.
> 
> I can't even tell if Jon Jones should be punished for testing positive to something that isn't performance enhancing anymore.


Cocaine could have some performance enhancing qualities. I'm not sure its a net gain over-all but it reduces pain (less so if you're snorting it than applying it locally of course) and it changes your mental state. Anyone who's done it knows the power complex it endows.

At the very least, if they're going to kick guys out of the org for a positive marijuana result (which is a much milder drug), they should be taking a cocaine issue just as seriously.


----------



## suffersystem (Feb 4, 2007)

HexRei said:


> Cocaine could have some performance enhancing qualities. I'm not sure its a net gain over-all but it reduces pain (less so if you're snorting it than applying it locally of course) and it changes your mental state. Anyone who's done it knows the power complex it endows.
> 
> At the very least, if they're going to kick guys out of the org for a positive marijuana result (which is a much milder drug), they should be taking a cocaine issue just as seriously.


Did they not fail the tests post fight though? They already know the Diaz bros smoke it like a chimney out of competition, so how is this different? Should they ban the Diaz bros as well right now?


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

> _MELVIN GUILLARD TESTS POSITIVE FOR COCAINE SUSPENDED FOR 8 MONTHS BY NSAC_
> 
> May 9, 2007
> 
> ...


This says athletic commissions have leeway in handing out punishments. I guess they decided to go easy on Jones?


----------



## suffersystem (Feb 4, 2007)

Trix said:


> This says athletic commissions have leeway in handing out punishments. I guess they decided to go easy on Jones?
> 
> Cocaine can't be much of a performance enhancer if Melvin Guillard lost to Joe Stevenson using cocaine in the week leading up to the fight.


JBJ did not test positive in competition though. He tested positive on his Dec4th test, which is considered out of competition. There is nothing to punish him for, as far as the NCAS rules go.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

> Cocaine is universally banned in both professional and amateur sports primarily to protect the health of the athlete and the reputation of the sport. Regardless of the route of administration, most of the cocaine is metabolized to benzoylecgonine, which is readily detected in the urine. "Using a sophisticated technique called GC/MS, cocaine use can be detected up to five days after its use," according to Wadler. *"With long-term cocaine use, particularly in those who smoke large quantities of crack, the metabolite can be detected for as long as 22 days after the last cocaine use." *
> 
> http://espn.go.com/special/s/drugsandsports/coca.html


This ^ says cocaine can be detected 22 days after use for big time users.



suffersystem said:


> JBJ did not test positive in competition though. He tested positive on his Dec4th test, which is considered out of competition. There is nothing to punish him for, as far as the NCAS rules go.


I don't care if Jones isn't punished. Jones only fought once in 2014 and was out 9 months of the year. If they ban Jones 9 months for cocaine it'll be almost like him taking 2 years off. That would be bad for for everyone. 

Maybe this will encourage athletic commissions not to crackdown so hard on questionable offences, like testing positive for weed, and represents a step in the right direction?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Trix said:


> This ^ says cocaine can be detected 22 days after use for big time users.


It's clearly more about crack. It specifically says "particularly in those who smoke large quantities of crack". Crack is a much more pervasive form of cocaine because once freed from its salt base and in gas form it is absorbed more quickly and completely. This is also why it is such a greater problem endemically. No one is going to pop for powder cocaine 22 days after last use, half of it gets dribbled out mixed in with snot anyway with heavy users. But maybe Jones is smoking crack, I suppose.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

HexRei said:


> It's clearly more about crack. It specifically says "particularly in those who smoke large quantities of crack". Crack is a much more pervasive form of cocaine because once freed from its salt base and in gas form it is absorbed more quickly and completely. This is also why it is such a greater problem endemically. No one is going to pop for powder cocaine 22 days after last use, half of it gets dribbled out mixed in with snot anyway with heavy users. But maybe Jones is smoking crack, I suppose.


If I were a doctor.

I would fabricate a study telling people a new method was developed to detect cocaine 90 days after use. Everyone would believe it, because everyone blindly believes things doctor's and experts say without question.

It doesn't matter if cocaine can be detected 22 days after use. What matters is that people think it can be detected and adjust their behavior accordingly.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

The difference between Guillard and Jones is that Jones tested positive out of competition as opposed to Guillard who tested positive in competition.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Trix said:


> If I were a doctor.
> 
> I would fabricate a study telling people a new method was developed to detect cocaine 90 days after use. Everyone would believe it, because everyone blindly believes things doctor's and experts say without question.
> 
> It doesn't matter if cocaine can be detected 22 days after use. What matters is that people think it can be detected and adjust their behavior accordingly.


Well, one of the first rules of detecting bunk science is whether the claim goes straight to the media or public rather than through peer review, peer review being one of the most important mechanisms within the scientific process.

Usually if you can't find a publication in a few reputable journals and hopefully some other independent reviewers of methods and data, established experts that have done their best to find and point out any and all flaws, it means that the authors knew the claim or study couldn't hold up to such rigor and should be viewed with some skepticism. Most of what Dr Oz says, for example (and there have been independent unsolicited reviews of what he claims on his show and he got torn apart).

This is how we deal with it in the scientific community anyway... but of course not everyone is a scientist.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

This isn't bunk science though, this is a drug test done by a commission.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Well, one of the first rules of detecting bunk science is whether the claim goes straight to the media or public rather than through peer review, peer review being one of the most important mechanisms within the scientific process.
> 
> Usually if you can't find a publication in a few reputable journals and hopefully some other independent reviewers of methods and data, established experts that have done their best to find and point out any and all flaws, it means that the authors knew the claim or study couldn't hold up to such rigor and should be viewed with some skepticism. Most of what Dr Oz says, for example (and there have been independent unsolicited reviews of what he claims on his show and he got torn apart).
> 
> This is how we deal with it in the scientific community anyway... but of course not everyone is a scientist.


In some fields 90% of medical experiments can't be reproduced. Meaning as much as 90% of published science could be bs. No one notices. 

Like here: 47 out of 53 major research papers couldn't be replicated.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> This isn't bunk science though, this is a drug test done by a commission.


We were talking about an article Trix linked. It was a few posts up.



Trix said:


> In some fields 90% of medical experiments can't be reproduced. Meaning as much as 90% of published science could be bs. No one notices.
> 
> Like here: 47 out of 53 major research papers couldn't be replicated.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328


Problems in 47 papers? I hope you didn't spend a lot of time googling for that... my school has authors and co-authors on many more papers than that every year and I'm not even at a major research school. It's not surprising that a researcher was able to choose papers he thought were problematic and have trouble reproducing results. It's all part of the scientific process, which is why Nature (one of the oldest and most established journals) published his results. So others could then perform further investigation. This is literally the scientific process.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

HexRei said:


> We were talking about an article Trix linked. It was a few posts up.
> 
> 
> Problems in 47 papers? I hope you didn't spend a lot of time googling for that... my school has authors and co-authors on many more papers than that every year and I'm not even at a major research school. It's not surprising that a researcher was able to choose papers he thought were problematic and have trouble reproducing results. It's all part of the scientific process, which is why Nature (one of the oldest and most established journals) published his results. So others could then perform further investigation. This is literally the scientific process.


Well that one of the oldest and most established journals has had hundreds of retractions and faked/self/toady "peer reviewed" studies published as well, so it's not like the system is fool proof or as reliable as people claim it to be. Heck so many reputed journals allow scientists to recommend reviewers themselves! How is this in any shape or form a neutral review?

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/...m-how-authors-are-reviewing-their-own-papers/
http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400
http://www.vox.com/2014/12/7/734496...at-least-110-academic-papers-into-publication

And in general, so many so called peer reviewed studies are published in bogus journals:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/

I'm not attacking your point of view on the scientific process and peer reviews in general, but just pointing out that the simple label "peer reviewed" or even a reputed journal doesn't mean foolproof science anymore, it's always best to crosscheck or see if results have been reproduced, who is doing the funding/reviewing, conflicts of interest and so on. Scientific institutions can be as politicised as any other human institution.


----------



## Oax (Nov 23, 2014)

I don't know the first thing about cocaine except that I will not ever under any circumstances touch it. I've seen the affects it has had on people and how it has ruined their lives. No thanks.

Jon has to embrace the heel role now. He's going to be mercilessly vilified for the rest of his career. Event canceling, throwing punches at a press conference, DUI, and now cocaine? Good luck Jon. You're on your way to becoming the most hated figure in MMA history.

Also I can't believe Dana is just sweeping this under the rug. What a shady, corrupt individual he is. If the UFC had any credibility, it's gone now..


:thumbsdown:


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Sounds like you guys need a good scare..


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

Jon was in rehab for exactly one night.....hahahahahahahah


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

Life B Ez said:


> Jon was in rehab for exactly one night.....hahahahahahahah


Really? Didn't see any news sites reporting it after it all came out.


----------



## MK. (Dec 16, 2012)

Life B Ez said:


> Jon was in rehab for exactly one night.....hahahahahahahah


He is out already?



Oax said:


> I don't know the first thing about cocaine except that I will not ever under any circumstances touch it. I've seen the affects it has had on people and how it has ruined their lives. No thanks.
> 
> Jon has to embrace the heel role now. He's going to be mercilessly vilified for the rest of his career. Event canceling, throwing punches at a press conference, DUI, and now cocaine? Good luck Jon. Y*ou're on your way to becoming the most hated figure in MMA history.*
> 
> ...



He is the Shao Kahn of mma:



> Shao Kahn is even more fierce and intimidating than Shang Tsung was. Unlike him, Shao Kahn relies on brute strength, thus most of his attacks are melee oriented, but have long reach and can seriously damage the opponent if off guard. He mainly attacks with single punches and kicks along with a powered charge that comes out rather abruptly. Upon his defeat, he will scream "no" in terror as the backgrounds change before he petrifies, cracks, and explodes.


Hopefully this tool meets the same end.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I think people are actually going to start looking for someone to topple him. There are some people who could give Jones a run for his money. If Cormier pulled what he did someone else certainly could.


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 20, 2008)

kantowrestler said:


> *I think people are actually going to start looking for someone to topple him.* There are some people who could give Jones a run for his money. If Cormier pulled what he did someone else certainly could.


There have been tons of people waiting for this to happen for years. I'm one of them.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

kantowrestler said:


> I think people are actually going to start looking for someone to topple him. There are some people who could give Jones a run for his money. If Cormier pulled what he did someone else certainly could.


Who exactly? If people could pull what Cormier did....what did Cormier pull? One round? Sure he landed a couple of uppercuts but Cormier has KOed Bigfoot and is a massive LHW in terms of weight. He landed some huge shots and Jones wasn't really too phased by it. His entire game was to avoid getting outwrestled. Stick him in there with a guy that isn't even going to think about the takedown and his striking goes back to what it always has been.

He's beaten Gus, although fair enough there is a question mark there.

Rumble can KO anyone, and if he uppercuts Jones then the fights over.

Outside of those two, who can "give him a run for his money".


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

DC is the biggest threat to Jones, and he couldn't get the job done. Jones has improved a lot since the Gus fight, I expect him to beat Gus a lot easier this time around. Jones will hold that title for a long, long time.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

kantowrestler said:


> If Cormier pulled what he did someone else certainly could.


Yeah, the next random guy that combines Cormier's wrestling abilities and Gustafssons striking could certainly pull that.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

M.C said:


> DC is the biggest threat to Jones, and he couldn't get the job done. Jones has improved a lot since the Gus fight, I expect him to beat Gus a lot easier this time around. Jones will hold that title for a long, long time.


Oh please DC isn't even a top three threat to Jon Jones

3. 

Driving










2. 

5-0










1. 

His crazy eyed wife....er fiance 









Yeah that's going to end well "Gee honey I would marry you but I want you to have more of my children...and I still want to see where this cocaine thing takes...also I'm not sure I'm done chasing women.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I could see Gustafsson giving him a run for his money again. Also the reinvented Anthony Johnson is pretty scary as well. In other words the winner of that fight could give Jones a legitimate threat.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

John8204 said:


> M.C said:
> 
> 
> > DC is the biggest threat to Jones, and he couldn't get the job done. Jones has improved a lot since the Gus fight, I expect him to beat Gus a lot easier this time around. Jones will hold that title for a long, long time.
> ...


I laughed. Big christian true martial artist has a long time GF and children. Out drinking and driving with young girls doing blow.


----------

