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.
- •Conversation goal: lay out the full timeline clearly for fans
- •Jeff hints at the professional fallout and scrutiny around the case
- •Immediate focus: Jon Jones’ initial failed test in July 2017
- 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.
- •Positive was for M3 metabolite of DHCMT (oral Turinabol)
- •Measured at ultra-trace picogram levels
- •No definitive source determined despite extensive review
- 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.
- •McLaren’s anti-doping credibility (Russian doping investigation background)
- •Arbitration conclusion: non-intentional ingestion
- •Finding of no performance-enhancing benefit from the detected metabolite
- 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.
- •July 7–8 negative tests followed by July 28 low-level positive
- •No short- or medium-term metabolites ever found in Jon’s samples
- •Theory: M3 may be stored in fat/adipose tissue and released intermittently
- 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.
- •Rodchenkov self-administration study identified long-term metabolites
- •Parent compound clears in about a week; metabolites can persist far longer
- •Only one major published study; hard to replicate due to legality/ethics
- 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.
- •Picogram analogy: a grain of salt split ~58 million times
- •Quantification at picograms is an estimate with meaningful error bars
- •Small shifts (e.g., 10–40 pg) don’t necessarily imply re-administration
- 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.
- •Extreme dehydration/rehydration in MMA lacks ethical study data
- •Adipose tissue around organs may release stored traces during fat loss
- •Clomiphene study shows intermittent positives over long periods
- 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.
- •Microdosing generally applies to substances naturally present in the body
- •Biological passport monitoring makes endogenous microdosing attractive
- •Exogenous oral Turinabol still produces detectable metabolite patterns
- 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.
- •Modern labs can detect orders of magnitude lower than before
- •Environmental sources (air/water contamination) become realistic at picograms
- •WADA discussing potential reporting thresholds (e.g., 50–100 pg)
- 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.
- •WADA Code 10.7.4.1: cannot sanction twice for same underlying event
- •Must establish no re-administration to treat as residual
- •No short/medium metabolites and no parent compound supports residual theory
- 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.
- •Eichner/SMRTL: definitive statement of no re-administration evidence
- •USADA letter: consistent with residual amounts pre–July 28, 2017 exposure
- •Argument: experts are conservative and risk careers by overstating certainty
- 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.
- •Frank Mir also had oral Turinabol metabolite; first-time sanction applied
- •Jones’ reduction: arbitration findings + substantial assistance (details undisclosed)
- •Barnett: contamination defense succeeded but still faced significant disruption
- 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.
- •2018 sequence: Aug 9 negative; Aug 29 (8 pg); Sep 18 (19 pg); then multiple negatives
- •Dec 9 expedited result: ~60–80 pg, triggering Nevada concern
- •Nevada wanted a hearing (optics/transparency) but timing/holidays prevented it
- •California had prior Jon hearings and was up to speed, so it licensed the bout
- 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.
- •UFC expanding testing ~30–40% (from ~2700 to ~4300–4400 tests)
- •Approved supplement lists could reduce contamination cases and disputes
- •MLB’s NSF-only clubhouse approach led to zero contaminated-supplement cases
- •Goal: publish standards in a scientific journal and implement in UFC program
- 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.
- •Recap: no re-administration evidence; no performance benefit at these levels
- •Joe argues armchair accusations ignore the complexity and expert consensus
- •Nevada hearing anticipated in Q1 for fuller public record
- •Nickname gag: ‘Golden Snitch’ shirts, Wikipedia/Siri jokes, and farewell
