CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 0:36
Setting the stage: Jon Jones’ 2017 positive and why Jeff’s week has been rough
Joe opens by framing the conversation as a standalone explainer for the renewed Jon Jones testing controversy. Jeff previews that the situation is complex, emotionally taxing, and rooted in ultra-trace lab science rather than a typical ‘caught cheating’ story.
- 0:36 – 1:24
July 2017 finding: Oral Turinabol (DHCMT) M3 long-term metabolite and unknown source
Jeff details the original July 2017 result: extremely small quantities of the M3 long-term metabolite of DHCMT (oral Turinabol). Despite arbitration, supplement testing, and interviews, the specific source was never identified.
- 1:24 – 4:45
Why the suspension wasn’t ‘light’: McLaren arbitration, intent, and performance benefit
Jeff explains how arbitrator Richard McLaren evaluated evidence and concluded the violation wasn’t intentional and couldn’t have enhanced performance. They discuss how that finding affected sanction length and how regulators interpreted the totality of evidence.
- 4:45 – 5:02
Negative-then-positive puzzle: metabolite timelines and the ‘pulsing’ theory emerges
Joe presses on how Jon could test negative, then positive at low levels shortly after. Jeff distinguishes short-, medium-, and long-term metabolites and introduces the key concept: the M3 metabolite can appear intermittently (‘pulsing’) without re-ingestion.
- 5:02 – 12:00
How oral Turinabol testing works: Rodchenkov study, detection windows, and data limits
They walk through Grigory Rodchenkov’s published study that identified many metabolites, including long-term M3. Jeff notes the parent drug clears quickly, while metabolites can persist—yet the scientific literature is limited because the drug is illegal for human trials.
- 12:00 – 22:24
How small is a picogram? Interpreting ultra-trace numbers and lab variability
Jeff explains just how minuscule picogram measurements are and warns against over-reading small numerical changes. He quotes expert Larry Bowers on estimation ranges and unknown variance at ultra-trace concentrations.
- 22:24 – 26:02
Weight cutting, adipose tissue, and chlorinated-drug ‘pulsing’: clomiphene study comparison
Joe explores whether weight cuts could trigger metabolite release. Jeff discusses adipose tissue as a plausible reservoir and cites a clomiphene study showing ‘pulsing’ excretion patterns, highlighting the shared chlorinated chemistry.
- 26:02 – 28:37
Microdosing clarified: endogenous vs exogenous drugs and biological passport logic
Jeff argues microdosing is typically used with endogenous substances (testosterone, EPO, HGH) to evade detection and biological passports. Oral Turinabol is exogenous and still yields metabolites, making microdosing a poor fit for this case.
- 28:37 – 35:08
Testing sensitivity arms race: when detection gets ‘too good’ and contamination becomes plausible
They discuss how anti-doping detection has advanced from nanograms to single-digit picograms, creating new fairness challenges. Jeff raises concerns about environmental contamination and why WADA is considering thresholds for ultra-low findings.
- 35:08 – 37:59
Why USADA called it ‘not a violation’: WADA double jeopardy clause and re-administration criteria
Jeff explains the policy basis for treating the new M3 appearance as residual rather than a fresh violation. The key is scientific support that there was no re-administration—supported by the absence of parent compound and short/medium metabolites.
- 37:59 – 48:59
Independent experts and credibility: SMRTL’s Daniel Eichner and USADA’s written conclusions
Jeff cites written statements from leading scientists, including SMRTL’s Dr. Daniel Eichner, stating there is ‘no evidence’ of re-administration. They address skepticism about UFC/USADA incentives and emphasize reputational risk for scientists making absolute claims.
- 48:59 – 1:01:13
Comparable cases and sanction differences: Frank Mir, Josh Barnett, contaminated supplements
They compare how similar issues were handled for other fighters and why outcomes differ. Jeff contrasts Jones’ arbitration defenses and mitigating factors with Mir’s choices and explains Barnett’s contaminated supplement ruling and strict liability rationale.
- 1:01:13 – 1:19:18
Nevada vs California: timeline of 2018 reemergence, expedited test, and why the fight moved
Jeff walks through how the August/September low-level reappearance was deemed residual, then a Dec. 9 test ‘pulsed’ higher close to the fight. Nevada wanted a public hearing for transparency but lacked time; California was already deeply familiar from prior hearings and accepted jurisdiction.
- 1:19:18 – 1:29:56
Prevention going forward: more testing, supplement ‘platinum standard,’ and approved lists
They shift to solutions: increased test volume as both deterrent and protection, plus a rigorous supplement certification framework. Jeff describes a multi-organization working group (including MLB and DoD) to define a gold/platinum standard and move toward approved supplement lists that can eliminate sanctions for verified contamination.
- 1:29:56 – 1:50:10
Closing: Joe’s appeal for nuance, then ‘Golden Snitch’ humor and sign-off
Joe summarizes the core claims—no evidence of microdosing, no short/medium metabolites, no performance benefit, and unprecedented sensitivity driving confusion. The conversation ends with a lighter segment about Jeff’s ‘Golden Snitch’ nickname, custom shirts, and final thanks.
