BoxRec

I love the cute wording... WBC's "Clean Boxing Program" and "Adverse Result" ... What they're NOT saying is Povetkin failed any of his tests because he PASSED them all with FLYING COLORS.... He had a minute percentage of the allowable amout of Meldonium in his system for the most “adverse” test he took - and most of them were clear. The allowed concentration of Meldonium in ANY test that Povetkin took was any concentration under 1 microgram per milliliter. Povetkin had 70 nanograms per milliliter in his most adverse test - which simply means he was less hydrated than the other tests but that concentration is still very minute. If Povetkin’s had a 14 times higher concentration in his system (980 nanograms) he still would have passed the test – and the fight would normally go forward… It’s NOT going forward because of corruption and anger over American promoters being outbid by Russian promoters for the fight. I believe Wilder’s team, the brazen WBC, and other parties are going to see legal action to remedy this.

Kalan wrote:I love the cute wording... WBC's "Clean Boxing Program" and "Adverse Result" ... What they're NOT saying is Povetkin failed any of his tests because he PASSED them all with FLYING COLORS.... He had a minute percentage of the allowable amout of Meldonium in his system for the most “adverse” test he took - and most of them were clear. The allowed concentration of Meldonium in ANY test that Povetkin took was any concentration under 1 microgram per milliliter. Povetkin had 70 nanograms per milliliter in his most adverse test - which simply means he was less hydrated than the other tests but that concentration is still very minute. If Povetkin’s had a 14 times higher concentration in his system (980 nanograms) he still would have passed the test – and the fight would normally go forward… It’s NOT going forward because of corruption and anger over American promoters being outbid by Russian promoters for the fight. I believe Wilder’s team, the brazen WBC, and other parties are going to see legal action to remedy this.

AS THEY SHOULD BECAUSE POVETKIN TESTED POSTIVE FOR A BANNED SUBSTANCE / SHOULD ALSO GET 1 YR BAN /

OK Bill......

Yes, WBC is corrupt for not letting the multi-million-purse fight happen that could get them lots of sanctioning fee

Ryabinski doesn't have a problem with WBC's decision to grant Wilder a voluntary defense. Neither should you OP.

badkatt wrote:

Kalan wrote:I love the cute wording... WBC's "Clean Boxing Program" and "Adverse Result" ... What they're NOT saying is Povetkin failed any of his tests because he PASSED them all with FLYING COLORS.... He had a minute percentage of the allowable amout of Meldonium in his system for the most “adverse” test he took - and most of them were clear. The allowed concentration of Meldonium in ANY test that Povetkin took was any concentration under 1 microgram per milliliter. Povetkin had 70 nanograms per milliliter in his most adverse test - which simply means he was less hydrated than the other tests but that concentration is still very minute. If Povetkin’s had a 14 times higher concentration in his system (980 nanograms) he still would have passed the test – and the fight would normally go forward… It’s NOT going forward because of corruption and anger over American promoters being outbid by Russian promoters for the fight. I believe Wilder’s team, the brazen WBC, and other parties are going to see legal action to remedy this.

AS THEY SHOULD BECAUSE POVETKIN TESTED POSTIVE FOR A BANNED SUBSTANCE / SHOULD ALSO GET 1 YR BAN /

I like how Vargas (who has failed a test) wasn't banned for a year, the clear consistency of the WBC...

We don't have enough reliable information to blame WBC in this case. They do have double standards when it comes to Mexican fighters.

What Roy is ignoring is that Povetkin was also tested in early April and those tests showed no traces of meldonium. Which implies he took it again, after the initial tests and well after it was a banned substance.

jujigatame wrote:What Roy is ignoring is that Povetkin was also tested in early April and those tests showed no traces of meldonium. Which implies he took it again, after the initial tests and well after it was a banned substance.

No, it does not. Trace amounts are easily missed in testing.

What you are ignoring is what a nanogram is: one billionth of a gram.

Freedom2013 wrote:

jujigatame wrote:What Roy is ignoring is that Povetkin was also tested in early April and those tests showed no traces of meldonium. Which implies he took it again, after the initial tests and well after it was a banned substance.

No, it does not. Trace amounts are easily missed in testing.

What you are ignoring is what a nanogram is: one billionth of a gram.

That nanogram figure came from Ryabinksi. Still no word from WBC or VADA of the amount of meldonium PED in Pov.

Freedom2013 wrote:

jujigatame wrote:What Roy is ignoring is that Povetkin was also tested in early April and those tests showed no traces of meldonium. Which implies he took it again, after the initial tests and well after it was a banned substance.

No, it does not. Trace amounts are easily missed in testing.

What you are ignoring is what a nanogram is: one billionth of a gram.

I'm not ignoring anything. Do you have any actual information about the accuracy of these tests? Because just explaining what a nanogram is like I'm some kind of simpleton is not useful or instructive. If they established a limit of 1 microgram, then it stands to reason that they can measure nanograms with at least somewhat reliable accuracy.

jujigatame wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:

jujigatame wrote:What Roy is ignoring is that Povetkin was also tested in early April and those tests showed no traces of meldonium. Which implies he took it again, after the initial tests and well after it was a banned substance.

No, it does not. Trace amounts are easily missed in testing.

What you are ignoring is what a nanogram is: one billionth of a gram.

I'm not ignoring anything. Do you have any actual information about the accuracy of these tests? Because just explaining what a nanogram is like I'm some kind of simpleton is not useful or instructive. If they established a limit of 1 microgram, then it stands to reason that they can measure nanograms with at least somewhat reliable accuracy.

Povetkin's promoter has set the record straight on the amount. Nobody else is credible on it!

in the Immortal words of Saad


Until there is official results with am official amount this topic is worthless.
And anyone taking Povetkins camps word is foolish or stupid.

tiny_acres wrote:in the Immortal words of Saad


Until there is official results with am official amount this topic is worthless.
And anyone taking Povetkins camps word is foolish or stupid.

The moderators certainly got more lenient in my absence.

jujigatame wrote:I'm not ignoring anything. Do you have any actual information about the accuracy of these tests? Because just explaining what a nanogram is like I'm some kind of simpleton is not useful or instructive. If they established a limit of 1 microgram, then it stands to reason that they can measure nanograms with at least somewhat reliable accuracy.

Nanograms are easily missed in testing.

A microgram is one millionth of a gram. A nanogram is much smaller, one BILLIONTH of a gram.

1 microgram = 1,000 nanograms

jujigatame wrote: I'm not ignoring anything. Do you have any actual information about the accuracy of these tests? Because just explaining what a nanogram is like I'm some kind of simpleton is not useful or instructive. If they established a limit of 1 microgram, then it stands to reason that they can measure nanograms with at least somewhat reliable accuracy.

It's more than just the accuracy of tests that affect if it's detectability. The delivery mechanism (intramuscular (IM), subcutaneous (SC), microparticles, microcapsules etc) and how the drug is absorbed (fat soluble etc) and released by the body will all impact the detectability of the drug at a given time.

tiny_acres wrote:in the Immortal words of Saad


Until there is official results with am official amount this topic is worthless.
And anyone taking Povetkins camps word is foolish or stupid.

Why are you insulting Roy Jones? He's neither foolish nor stupid.

It's the "if it ain't American, it ain't right" crowd that are being nationalistic and ignorant.

ttornado wrote:It's more than just the accuracy of tests that affect if it's detectability. The delivery mechanism (intramuscular (IM), subcutaneous (SC), microparticles, microcapsules etc) and how the drug is absorbed (fat soluble etc) and released by the body will all impact the detectability of the drug at a given time.

Yes.

Freedom2013 wrote:

jujigatame wrote:I'm not ignoring anything. Do you have any actual information about the accuracy of these tests? Because just explaining what a nanogram is like I'm some kind of simpleton is not useful or instructive. If they established a limit of 1 microgram, then it stands to reason that they can measure nanograms with at least somewhat reliable accuracy.

Nanograms are easily missed in testing.

A microgram is one millionth of a gram. A nanogram is much smaller, one BILLIONTH of a gram.

1 microgram = 1,000 nanograms

You're repeating yourself, and not adding any relevant information. You obviously have no actual knowledge of the sensitivity of these tests, and are just repeating "nanograms are like, really small, bro" over and over again.

ttornado wrote:

jujigatame wrote: I'm not ignoring anything. Do you have any actual information about the accuracy of these tests? Because just explaining what a nanogram is like I'm some kind of simpleton is not useful or instructive. If they established a limit of 1 microgram, then it stands to reason that they can measure nanograms with at least somewhat reliable accuracy.

It's more than just the accuracy of tests that affect if it's detectability. The delivery mechanism (intramuscular (IM), subcutaneous (SC), microparticles, microcapsules etc) and how the drug is absorbed (fat soluble etc) and released by the body will all impact the detectability of the drug at a given time.

It seems highly doubtful the concentrations in the blood would go UP if the drug hasn't been taken for several months. The only way this makes sense is if the detected amount is within the margin of error, which we don't have any evidence to support.

jujigatame wrote:What Roy is ignoring is that Povetkin was also tested in early April and those tests showed no traces of meldonium. Which implies he took it again, after the initial tests and well after it was a banned substance.

If your well hydrated, and you have an extremely negligible trace of Meldonium, it won't show up at all... If you're NOT as well hydrated (this is why your piss is much deeper colors and much lighter colors at times) you may show a small fraction of an allowable trace. But Povetkin PASSED ALL his tests.

Again, are you speaking from any actual knowledge of the testing procedures? Or are you just speculating?

It's not like they can't detect hydration levels in blood and urine. If VADA operates with a modicum of scientific rigor, this would be accounted for.

Freedom2013 wrote:

jujigatame wrote:I'm not ignoring anything. Do you have any actual information about the accuracy of these tests? Because just explaining what a nanogram is like I'm some kind of simpleton is not useful or instructive. If they established a limit of 1 microgram, then it stands to reason that they can measure nanograms with at least somewhat reliable accuracy.

Nanograms are easily missed in testing.

A microgram is one millionth of a gram. A nanogram is much smaller, one BILLIONTH of a gram.

1 microgram = 1,000 nanograms

He was probably trying to micro dose and fucked it up, hence the previous negative results within the same month.